Bills Wisely Choose Not to Poke the Bear

I guess the Bills have enough non-Spooky Mulder stuff to be concerned with that they aren't all that worried about the Patriots cheating this Sunday. Head coach Dick Jauron is "paranoid about the opposing teams stealing signals," but safety Donte Whitner says teammates aren't really talking about it:

"The Patriots are a good football team and whether they did use it or they didn't, you saw what they did Sunday night to a good Chargers football team. We're not worried about that. We're going to go out there and compete, play with effort and hope to come out with a win."

If nothing else, give Buffalo credit for learning a very valuable lesson from the Chargers. Namely, to paraphrase Hank Hill, they've decided not to "mess with the gorilla in the monkey cage."

Defensive end Chris Kelsay keeps it all in perspective:

"Regardless of what the situation, they play at a very high level and have for a long time. You take that (spying) away, they're still going to win a lot of those games. You have to give them credit because they've played well and they've shown it on the field."

I don't think anybody disagrees with that, but again, it raises the question: why, exactly, did the Patriots feel like they needed to cheat in the first place?

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

9-20-2007 @ 6:45PM

Richard said...

Ryan, please stop being redundant.

The question has been answered a thousand, thousand times. Why did they cheat? Because to Belichik, it probably didn't seem like a big deal. Did you even read the entirety of comments by Jauron?

Jauron himself said: "It's not an unfair advantage for a coach on the sideline to look across the field and say, 'Geez, he scratched his head and they blitzed. Let's see if they blitz the next time he scratches his head."

That's exactly what Belichik did. Except he did it with a camera instead of a pair of binoculars and a pencil. There isn't a substantive difference between those two methods. The rules don't allow the camera, but it's not as if the camera does something that you could not otherwise do.

I bet most people drive 5-10 miles over the speed limit most of the time. Did you really NEED to drive those 5-10 miles faster? No, probably not. But it sure is convenient. And most folks don't think it's a big deal. But it also happens to be illegal.

So when you get caught, you can't really argue the ticket. Same with Belichik. He thought no big deal, but the law is the law. So he gets ticketed for his infraction. End of story.

It's unbelievable that you're even allowed to blog here, Wilson. Deciphering signs is the most basic of sports, every sport, any sport. The only people who get outraged by the "revelation" of this, and who make some arbitrary distinction between a camera and a pair of binoculars, are people who are your regular onlookers. People who don't know a damn about sports.

Just like yourself.

9-20-2007 @ 6:48PM

ryan said...

Richard,

Ah, yes. Because if Belichick didn't think it was a big deal, he should be allowed to do it. I'll ask it again: if the Pats can beat the Chargers by 24 points without cheating, why, exactly, do they need to do it? Why not, as you say, just use pencil and paper?

But I agree with your last point: I really don't know a damn about sports.

9-20-2007 @ 8:05PM

Do you even bother to read the entirety of peoples' comments? Nowhere did I say Belichik should be allowed to break the rules. I made it quite clear that even if it wasn't a big deal, the rules are the rules. If you get caught, you have no room to complain about the penalty. I said that. It's there. Read it.

That said, I do think the rule is silly to begin with. You aren't allowed to use a camera to do something that you could otherwise do without a camera (albeit, less conveniently). If people really have a thing against deciphering signs, put radios in defensive helmets. But a rule that keeps you from taping defensive coaches, when you could just stare them down from across the field is plain silly.

Because it's easier? I thought I made it clear with my speeding analogy. You don't really need to ride above the speed limit, but you do it because it's more convenient. That's all. Same in this situation. There's no more "information" that can be gleaned through a camera than can be a pair of binoculars. But it sure is more convenient to record.

You really know how to put out a pointless question. You keep emphasizing the word "cheat", but to me, there's really nothing "more" that you can get out of it. Why keep doing it? Because it's easier. No one wakes up and expects to get pulled over for going 5 above limit. No one wakes up and expects to get smacked with heavy fines and a draft dock for deciphering signs either.

For anyone who actually watches sports, it's the most laughable story.

Why don't you try to tell me what you can actually glean from a camera that you can't with binoculars. I'd put money down that there isn't a thing you can come up with. Jauron doesn't think there is any either.

9-20-2007 @ 10:07PM

bill said...

Belichick broke the rules to try to give the Pats a competitive edge studying teams tendencies for future game planning. I'm sure there were times he picked something up, and times he didn't.
The great coaches do everything possible to best prepare their team for a game. Belichick went over the line and was rightfully punished.
The fact Wilson asks the pedestrian rhetorical question about why Belichick "cheated" means he doesn't get it. If he needs to ask that question why doesn't he then ask "Why do teams--especially good teams--try to steal the other team's signals?"
Obviously they don't need them, right?

Bill

9-21-2007 @ 10:39AM

joe wallace said...

Why did he cheat? He wanted to get an advantage, like everyone else who tries to steal signals does. He broke the rule and got punished for it. The case is closed, except for the Pats haters, who will continue to use this "sour grapes" excuse when they lose to the Pats. Makes you feel better.