Whitlock says the Patriots = Blue Devils

[CameronBornAndBred]

I'm not sure what he's implying, if it's a complement, or an insult, or both.



If you had to compare Bill Belichick’s Patriots to a basketball team, only the WASPy, boys-next-door Duke Blue Devils fit the description.

At first that sounds bad, but then he goes on to say Belichick chooses character over talent. Here is the article. (Which really has nothing to do with basketball, but that one line stood out.)
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/new-york-jets-rex-ryan-beat-new-england-patriots-bill-belichick-in-culture-war-011611

[OZZIE4DUKE]

I'm not sure what he's implying, if it's a complement, or an insult, or both.


At first that sounds bad, but then he goes on to say Belichick chooses character over talent. Here is the article. (Which really has nothing to do with basketball, but that one line stood out.)
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/new-york-jets-rex-ryan-beat-new-england-patriots-bill-belichick-in-culture-war-011611
It's a complement. I take it that way, anyway.

In winning three Super Bowls early in the new millennium and consistently fielding outstanding regular-season squads, Belichick perfected the art of choosing overall team character, locker-room chemistry and adherence to rules of media secrecy over loading up on individual talent.
Now I think we also have outstanding individual talent as well, but maybe we pass on some of the one and done's who don't possess the character qualities of a Kyrie Irving, although we've gone after a number of them very hard, even had a commitment from one of them before letting him go elsewhere when it became apparent he wouldn't be a good fit.

[DevilHorns]

Bill Belichick has 3 super bowl titles to his name, all of which have been tainted by 'Spygate' (interesting that he has not been able to replicate super bowl success since being caught, eh?). In an era where individual athletes are chastised for bending the rules, he has pretty much come away unscathed. Nobody ever talks about his cheating history, which is absurd to me. Obviously this is a comparison that I deeply dislike.

[theAlaskanBear]

Bill Belichick has 3 super bowl titles to his name, all of which have been tainted by 'Spygate' (interesting that he has not been able to replicate super bowl success since being caught, eh?). In an era where individual athletes are chastised for bending the rules, he has pretty much come away unscathed. Nobody ever talks about his cheating history, which is absurd to me. Obviously this is a comparison that I deeply dislike.

Especially with the Josh McDaniels nonsense. You kind of feel like it was a culture over there in New England, not just an isolated incident.

[moonpie23]

the cheating stops......so do the superbowls....

[taiw93]

Another glaring difference between Belichick and K is the atmosphere that they build. Coach K's Duke Teams have always been characterized by their warm, family-like atmospheres, whereas Belichick's Patriots teams have always come across as cold and corporate more than anything else. And while I don't know either man personally, it is rather apparent that Krzyzewski is a much nicer, friendlier, and more cordial man than Belichick, who seems like a bit of a jerk.

[_Gary]

the cheating stops......so do the superbowls....

What a crock. Now you are sounding like all the conspiracy people that say Duke only wins because they get all the calls. The Patriots didn't win any Super Bowls because of "cheating", which was blown way out of proportion by bitter people like Sen. Specter. And if New England's success was really all about that then explain to me how they've continued to excel, posting winning seasons each year since. I guess the rest of the league just laid down for them in the regular season this year, huh. :rolleyes:

[toooskies]

I was thinking just the same thing, but in another way, and more pertinent to this year's teams: the Patriots don't beat themselves very often, but they can be beaten by a team that plays a great game. They have a consistently high standard of play, but it isn't so high that it's unbeatable.

[WiJoe]

The Patriots didn't win any Super Bowls because of "cheating",

Look at your tag line, buster.
:cool::cool::cool::cool:

[wilson]

Jason Whitlock says a lot of things. The overwhelming majority of them are not worth listening to.

[Sgt. Dingleberry]

So, the Patriots' 3 Super Bowls are now irrelevant because the Jets beat them in an AFC semi-final game?

Yes, the Jets won the game, but "The Patriot's Way" has led to them dominating the league for the last 10 years. Where is the problem in that?

If the Jets go on a run of Patriotesque proportion over the next 10 years, then, Jason, we can have this discussion, but this is more than a little premature.

[loran16]

Jason Whitlock says a lot of things. The overwhelming majority of them are not worth listening to.

I'm with you on this one. I once had respect for Whitlock because he basically quit ESPN's Page 2 out of disgust at the tones of the new writers basically fitting stereotypes, but he's basically just a caricature at this point.....sort of like a shock jock who writes instead of talks.

Just ignore him.

[_Gary]

Look at your tag line, buster.

My point exactly. Their record since "Spygate" speaks for itself. Heck, they went 11-5 when Brady wasn't even in the lineup a couple of years ago. I guess the truth there is a little too inconvenient for some folks. It's often much easier to perpetuate a myth than dig for the truth. :cool:

[WVDUKEFAN]

As a Duke fan for over 20 years, I take offense to the comparison. Coach K, like him or not, has never done a single thing to bring any negativity to the university or the sport. He has won and lost with dignity. His players have always conducted themselves as gentlemen (outside of Laettner stepping on Timberlake, which Coach K. promptly addressed) on and off the court. We have a lot to be proud of as Duke fans. Not too many programs have gone as clean as we have over the years. LET'S GO DUKE!!!

[DevilHorns]

My point exactly. Their record since "Spygate" speaks for itself. Heck, they went 11-5 when Brady wasn't even in the lineup a couple of years ago. I guess the truth there is a little too inconvenient for some folks. It's often much easier to perpetuate a myth than dig for the truth. :cool:

Belichick is a great coach in the same way that Alex Rodriguez and Barry Bonds were great baseball players. Regardless of how many statistics and numbers you bring to the table, those superbowl wins deserve '*' next to them in the same way that these individual baseball players' stats do.

If Belichick was cheating in the superbowl against the NY Giants, do you think they win? I sure as hell do.

If Belichick was NOT cheating in his superbowl wins* (with wins of 32-29 against Carolina, 24-21 against Philly, and 20-17 against the Rams), does he win any superbowls AT ALL? Who knows... we all have our inclinations.

[dukelifer]

Waspy and boys-next-door? According to Wikipedia "The term (WASP) more generally refers to high status Americans of Western European descent (not necessarily British), but it typically excludes Catholics, Jews, Slavs, blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, and Asians."

Sort of excludes a lot of Duke players of last year's team and really how many boys living next door to you are 6' 11".

[CDu]

Waspy and boys-next-door? According to Wikipedia "The term (WASP) more generally refers to high status Americans of Western European descent (not necessarily British), but it typically excludes Catholics, Jews, Slavs, blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, and Asians."

Sort of excludes a lot of Duke players of last year's team and really how many boys living next door to you are 6' 11".

Technically, the term WASP is an acronym for white Anglo-Saxon protestant. So, by definition it excludes Catholics, Jews, blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, etc. But I suspect he was referring more to the image of the student body rather than the players. Although Duke's roster is often whiter than the average major conference roster, especially in recent years.

But I concur with others in this thread who say that Whitlock should generally be ignored. This article wasn't well thought out, nor well argued. Occasionally Whitlock has a good point. More often than not though, he just tries to say something controversial or inflammatory.

[Exiled_Devil]

Not reading the article, I can tell you that there are some similarities. Both teams have had a high level of success and both teams attract criticisms from non-fans. Spygate. Coach K's season out with his back. The criticisms are extremely significant to the non-fans, but the fans blow them off. Whether you think that is appropriate is based on your affiliation, typically.

In all seriousness, the Spygate scandal is as substantial as the Coach K throwing his losses to an assistant.

[Bluedog]

In all seriousness, the Spygate scandal is as substantial as the Coach K throwing his losses to an assistant.

Huh?

Blatant rules violations that potentially give your team a better chance of winning is the same as a school assigning certain wins/losses to a different coach? Duke's decision to gives Pete Gaudet the wins/losses did NOT give Duke any advantage whatsover to win. Even the most ardent critic would admit that. I guess the outside criticism is directed towards Coach K in that "bailed" on the team by faking an injury. But they still don't think the team cheated, just that Coach K is dishonorable or whatever.

Also, the Patriots rules violation actually has evidence while the Coach K faking an injury has no evidence or proof whatsoever. Apples and oranges.

Having said that, personally I think spygate was overblown and that the Patriots are a great organization and Belichick is an amazing coach. Whitlock wasn't equating spygate with a similar situation at Duke anyways...

[Indoor66]

Having said that, personally I think spygate was overblown and that the Patriots are a great organization and Belichick is an amazing coach.

I don't care how anyone varnishes it, it was cheating. For that it is not a great organization and he is not an amazing coach, only a serial cheater.

[moonpie23]

ok....since it's on now about the spygate thing...


how can you say it was OVERBLOWN? Roger MILHOUS goodell reviewed the evidence and handed down THE LARGEST FINE TO A COACH IN NFL HISTORY......for CHEATING!!!

then, he DESTROYED THE EVIDENCE......WHY? for what? there must have been some seriously damning evidence on those tapes...

come on y'all.......really? overblown? how about perhaps the worst sports scandal EVER being swept under the rug?

[DevilHorns]

In all seriousness, the Spygate scandal is as substantial as the Coach K throwing his losses to an assistant.

Wow. You're telling me that blatant cheating... where you could pick up on the other team's plays and tendencies... is not 'substantial' enough to help you plan and therefore execute plays against a marquee team? IF ANYTHING, Spygate has not been made 'substantial' enough. In an era where athletes in the Tour de France and in the MLB are completely humiliated (rightfully so, IMO) for breaking the rules to gain unfair advantages Spygate has been pushed under the rug. Anytime you hear the words 'Mark Maguire' you think steroids-influenced numbers. But for Belichick and the Patriots, 'Spygate' is an afterthought. To me it's similar to how NCAA commentators state that Calipari has been to 2 Final Fours and has x in a row 30-win seasons. It's simply not true. Bill Belichick has not won 3 superbowls. He has won 3* superbowls. Likewise, Calipari has been to 2* Final Fours. Cheating is always 'substantial' in terms of assessing anyone. And in this case, I really think the cheating was 'substantial' enough to influence outcomes.

Rant over.

[cspan37421]

Spygate. Coach K's season out with his back.

False equivalence! One is intentional wrongdoing.


In all seriousness, the Spygate scandal is as substantial as the Coach K throwing his losses to an assistant.

HIS losses? Who was coaching on the Duke bench during that 3-15 finish? You think cheating is as substantial as having the team's losses attributed to the person who was actually coaching them, as opposed to the person who nominally holds the office as coach? Really?

I beg to differ, to put it mildly.

[diveonthefloor]

I'm with you on this one. I once had respect for Whitlock because he basically quit ESPN's Page 2 out of disgust at the tones of the new writers basically fitting stereotypes, but he's basically just a caricature at this point.....sort of like a shock jock who writes instead of talks.

Just ignore him.

You are 100% right. I spent most of my early years in the KC area. It was sad to watch the evolution of Jason from a decent, interesting sportswriter into an axe-grinding, agenda pursuing shock-writer. He hasn't had consistently insightful columns for many years now. Best to ignore him.

[cspan37421]

I guess the outside criticism is directed towards Coach K in that "bailed" on the team by faking an injury.

Right ... and bailing on a 9-3 team that just had a road win against a good Illinois squad. Those outside critics must really think that Coach K had seer's powers to discern that disaster loomed on the horizon. That a 9-3 start was a harbinger of a losing season? [tell that to Mich St. this year]. What a joke.

To state the obvious, not only did K leave because he was in deep physical pain, but our disastrous slide was probably in large part because K was not there! He is that valuable to the team, easily. If you recall, several of of those 15 subsequent losses were by rather close margins. Those critics don't think Coach K's strategy & management are worth a few points per game? If not, the coaching does not matter at all. Put me out there, it wouldn't change the result.

I think "the kids these days" have a saying, "haters gonna hate". That's all that sniping is, move along, nothing to see here.

[Neals384]

Technically, the term WASP is an acronym for white Anglo-Saxon protestant. So, by definition it excludes Catholics, Jews, blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, etc. But I suspect he was referring more to the image of the student body rather than the players. Although Duke's roster is often whiter than the average major conference roster, especially in recent years.


Today is MLK day, and it would be good for Jason Whitlock to heed Martin Luther King's words and "judge people by the contect of their character rather than the color of their skin". I'm not sure what he meant by using the term WASPy, but it is a bit rude.

BTW, last time I checked, our leading scorer and also the injured freshman we are hoping will return to lead us to the promised land are not WASPy.

[SupaDave]

B/c I REFUSE to start another thread on Whitlock.

http://msn.foxsports.com/collegebasketball/story/whitlock-how-i-found-myself-rooting-for-duke-in-ncaa-tournament-032511

When did he develop this Duke obsession?

[NashvilleDevil]

B/c I REFUSE to start another thread on Whitlock.

http://msn.foxsports.com/collegebasketball/story/whitlock-how-i-found-myself-rooting-for-duke-in-ncaa-tournament-032511

When did he develop this Duke obsession?

He says in the column that he started rooting for Duke after Jalen Rose's and Jimmy King's comments in the Fab 5 doc and their appearances on espn after it aired.

[Poincaré]

FACT: The Patriots cheated.

NOT FACT: The Patriots definitely, 100%, would not have won any Super Bowls without cheating.

FACT: Probabilistically speaking, the Patriot's chances of winning Super Bowls would have increased with the cheating.

NOT FACT: Bill Belichick treats his team the same way that Coach K treats Duke players.

FACT: Belichick shares some of Coach K's positive characteristics.

NOT FACT: Duke players, as a group, can be summarized as being "WASPy" next-door types.

ULTIMATE FACT: Internal bickering about the New England Patriots distracts us from the common ground that we all share (or should share): Hating the Tar Holes. 9F, baby!

[DevilOfATime]

Who does Whitlock like? All of the articles I see is hatred of my beloved Indianapolis Colts and Duke. I see a lot of more other teams and players he goes after Who does he like? Or does he like just himself/

[SupaDave]

He says in the column that he started rooting for Duke after Jalen Rose's and Jimmy King's comments in the Fab 5 doc and their appearances on espn after it aired.

obsession and "like" are two different things...

[loldevilz]

I'm not sure what he's implying, if it's a complement, or an insult, or both.

If you had to compare Bill Belichick’s Patriots to a basketball team, only the WASPy, boys-next-door Duke Blue Devils fit the description.

At first that sounds bad, but then he goes on to say Belichick chooses character over talent. Here is the article. (Which really has nothing to do with basketball, but that one line stood out.)
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/new-york-jets-rex-ryan-beat-new-england-patriots-bill-belichick-in-culture-war-011611


Does Witlock even know what a WASP even is? Coach Mike Krzyzeskwi is not a WASP. His WASPy teams with guys like Jon Scheyer who is Jewish and Ryan Kelly who is Irish not to mention the innumerable number of African Americans. Coach K of course is being compared to Belichek who is a Mormon. Its almost laughable say a mormon guy is like a polish Catholic guy by being WASPy.

The media is such a joke.

[Atlanta Duke]

K and Duke have never been accused of any unethical conduct approaching Spygate, which pretty much blows up Whitlock's comparison.

Even if you limit the comparison to the results on the court/field the comparison still fails

So far Belichick had a great run from 2001-2004, a legendary flame out when arguably his best team in 2007 lost in the Super Bowl, and has not won a playoff game since the 2007 season.

A similar record for K and Duke would be if his career consisted the epic run from 1986 through 1994 with two championships, the loss to UConn in the 1999 championship game, and no real achievements since then. Of course K won it all again in 2001 and last year. Belichick and the Pats have no comparable achievements since their one hot run that ended some time ago.

As far as players, I get the Tom Brady/Teddy Bruschi = Laettner/Hurley/JJ white guys comparison. But where are the Duke players to compare to the thuggish Rodney Harrison and Randy Moss who have played for the Pats.

The comparison is a ludicrous throw away line by Whitlock. There is no comparison.

Go Steelers :)

[Nugget]

Whitlock makes I think a pretty reasonable point about one of the sources of Duke "hate" as being much more legitimate than simple envy of Duke's winning:

"I never hated Duke because its roster was too white or the players too privileged.

I disliked Duke because of the hype. The media assigned Duke basketball a level of nobility and integrity that I believe is undeserved. Duke basketball isn’t Harvard or Princeton basketball. The Blue Devils play in the ACC, a power conference that compromises its academic principles in pursuit of athletic achievement just like all the other power conferences. . . . .

It’s riskier and more difficult [working with "at risk" players like Calipari] than coaching Dell and Sonya Curry’s son. I’m not criticizing Coach K for his choice. I’m criticizing the media for pretending Coach K’s ethics and morality are superior to Calipari’s."


I think Whitlock has articulated well the source of much of the ill-will out there toward Duke -- it's not just that we've won, but that the overwhelming majority of media attention Duke has received over the last 25 years is of the "Duke wins the right way" variety, which is naturally resented by fans of other schools who think: "our guys are good guys too, how come Duke's are the ones that get all the praise and attention from Dickie V and the rest of the media"?

[uh_no]

I disliked Duke because of the hype. The media assigned Duke basketball a level of nobility and integrity that I believe is undeserved. Duke basketball isn’t Harvard or Princeton basketball. The Blue Devils play in the ACC, a power conference that compromises its academic principles in pursuit of athletic achievement just like all the other power conferences. . . . .

It’s riskier and more difficult [working with "at risk" players like Calipari] than coaching Dell and Sonya Curry’s son. I’m not criticizing Coach K for his choice. I’m criticizing the media for pretending Coach K’s ethics and morality are superior to Calipari’s."



Sense: this argument makes none.

He says he hates duke because people put them on a pedestal of integrity. His evidence for this is that the ACC compromises academics for athletics. Not only does he not provide any basis for this statement (he seems to insinuate that awarding athletic scholarships makes a school inherently compromise academics....) but he fails to show how duke's academic integrity must be in line with that of the rest of the league. He conveniently ignores the fact that duke athletes (including football and basketball) frequent academic all american and all ACC lists. He also fails to note how the football team has often had the highest graduation rate in D1 several times in the past decade, and how both the football and basketball teams are frequently among the best in the nation in graduation rate.

He then picks CALIPARI of all people to compare coach K's ethics. Did he miss the part when just about every player on calipari's 'final four' team at memphis had been convicted of something? If there is a high likelihood that a player cheated on the SAT's, didn't graduate high school or committed some other violation, how is it not more ethical to take a pass on that student like K does? In fact, it shows extreme amounts of ethics to pass on kids who lack values DESPITE the fact that they could provide a benefit on the court. In fact, the argument the guy makes seems to say that K regularly recruiting people like Dell Curry's son (yes I know he wasn't recruited, but its a typecast) over possibly more talented academically un-inclined players is MORE ethical...

Since his argument seems to show K as more ethical than calipari and the rest of the apparently almost criminal ACC, it would make sense that news sources would pay attention to Duke as a bastion of integrity.

How could you not? especially when most of the top programs elsewhere have been slandered in scandal?

UK? nuff said
Uconn? had an elite 8 revoked and the obvious issues the past 2 years
KU? booster ticketing scandal
Indiana? sampson put them on probation

When you look at the fact that duke players have rarely come into issues during their tenure, or afterwards (not to mention K's pressure on graduating...), I don't know how one could NOT say Duke and K deserve every bit of praise they get.

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but this argument lacks any sort of logic it's incredible. The ETS should use this for the GRE essay portion where they ask test takers to critique an argument.

I can't even describe the horridness.

[Nugget]

While Calipari/Kentucky may be an inapt example, the data actually does tend to support, at least to a degree, the point Whitlock was trying to make.

Here's a sampling of the most recent NCAA Academic Progress Rate rankings (from 2010, covering the four years from the classes of 2005-2006 through 2008-2009):

Kansas 1000 (90th-100th percentile)
Michigan St. 1000 (90th-100th percentile)
Texas 1000 (90-100)
Butler 1000 (90-100)
North Carolina 995 (90-100)
N.C. State 990 (90-100)
Washington 990 (90-100)
Notre Dame 983 (80th-90th percentile)
Duke 980 (80-90)
Illinois 979 (80-90)
Boston College 978 (80-90)
Miami 970 (70th-80th percentile)
UCLA 968 (70-80)
California 967 (70-80)
Pittsburgh 962 (70-80)
Stanford 961 (70-80)
Wake Forest 959 (60th-70th percentile)
Michigan 956 (60-70)
Florida 956 (60-70)
Virginia 952 (60-70)
Kentucky 954 (60-70)
Clemson 946 (50th-60th percentile)
Florida St. 944 (50-60)
Arizona 944 (50-60)
Georgetown 937 (40th-50th percentile)
U. Conn 930 (30th-40th percentile)
Maryland 913 (20th-30th percentile)
Syracuse 912 (20-30)
Georgia Tech 908 (10-20th percentile).

Clearly, some of our ACC brethren, in particular Georgia Tech and Maryland, have some explaining to do.

But, to Whitlock's point -- if you are a player or fan at, say, Kansas, Michigan St., Texas, North Carolina, Illinois or even Pittsburgh (all of which have been Top 10-15 basketball programs over the past 10 years) it is surely understandable to resent the fact that their academic performance has been comparable to Duke's, yet the media hardly ever lavishes praise on your program for "doing it the right way" to anywhere near the degree that Duke is showered with such attention.

[uh_no]

While Calipari/Kentucky may be an inapt example, the data actually does tend to support, at least to a degree, the point Whitlock was trying to make.

Here's a sampling of the most recent NCAA Academic Progress Rate rankings (from 2010, covering the four years from the classes of 2005-2006 through 2008-2009):


The question is, what do those rankings entail? do they punish for players who leave early under good academic standing either for the draft or as a transfer? that could knock us down. I think, though, what distinguishes us from the others is the EXTREME amount of athletic success that we have had under K. You look at some of the other programs that have had this kind of success: UCLA? BIG questions about that programs 'cleanliness' under wooden, UK? Rupp was one of the dirtiest.

If someone can provide an institution of the academic quality with a basketball program that has had the enormity of success in basketball as had duke, I might better understand. I've been in classes with basketball players, they're not different from anyone else in the classroom. The academic rigor at duke exceeds that at almost every other school in the nation (heck, even UNC showed that you can pass classes without even knowing what classes you were taking!)

Duke gets credit for NEVER having an issue under coach K...none. If there ever was a violation, the praise they get would be gone. Coach K is historic in the basketball realm, and he deserves every bit of praise he gets for integrity....since many of the coaches that rival him have had issues (yeah I'm looking at you calhoun....)

And, I often see people talk about how clean boeheim is at syracuse, or izzo at MSU....but they don't have the success, so they don't get talked about as much...its no conspiracy, but what it boils down to is

coaches that run clean programs get praised for it
coaches that win get more press
therefore it can be reasoned that clean coaches who win get the most praise for running clean programs...

and thus, what whitlocks argument boils down to is hating us because we win (thus get more press, and thus get praised for being clean more often)

[snowdenscold]

But I suspect he was referring more to the image of the student body rather than the players.

Isn't our student body just a tad above 50% white? ( http://www.admissions.duke.edu/jump/applying/who_2013profile.html ) . And I'm assuming it's even lower for grad school.
I bet that's lower than a lot of the other schools we play against.

[uh_no]

Isn't our student body just a tad above 50% white? ( http://www.admissions.duke.edu/jump/applying/who_2013profile.html ) . And I'm assuming it's even lower for grad school.
I bet that's lower than a lot of the other schools we play against.

One need only set foot on the campus to realize how un waspy it is....of the white kids though, I would say a decent number are well off, and a good number of the rest try to appear as such

[Spret42]

Not a Patriots fan, not even close, I grew up in New England and root against all their teams except the Celtics, the Patriots didn't win because of cheating. That entire thing was blown vastly out of proportion.

They won because of the way they played. They won by understanding that in the modern NFL the first thing a team must be able to do is, "Never beat yourself." One could write a book on the genius of Bill Belichick, and one did, David Halberstam (he had a rep for getting it right.) Belichick isn't a warm and fuzzy guy, but he is the best coach of his generation. Remember, his success as a football coach goes all the way back to his time with the Giants. Joe Montana lost five playoff games in his career, three of them were to the Giants where he was knocked out of two of them, the coach of those defenses, Bill Belichick.

And the idea that Duke is warm and fuzzy and family might be true from inside the Duke family. From outside Duke looks just as cold and corporate as do the Patriots.

And the resentment Whitlock writes about was felt by a lot of people. Again, it came down to the feeling the K never took a risk on a kid that could actually burn him, or reached out to guys who weren't the safe kind. etc. Right or wrong, that was the feeling.

[TampaDuke]

It’s riskier and more difficult [working with "at risk" players like Calipari] than coaching Dell and Sonya Curry’s son. I’m not criticizing Coach K for his choice.


I guess Whitlock has forgotten about guys like Dockery and Carrawell. I'm sure there are many others.

[moonpie23]

the Patriots didn't win because of cheating. That entire thing was blown vastly out of proportion.

.

the largest fine EVER to a player or coach AND the commissioner destroying damaging evidence against the league says differently.....

this wasn't a "minor infraction"......this was, quite possibly, the greatest sports scandal of all time and Roger "milhous" Goodell made sure the REAL story will never be known.

[Spret42]

the largest fine EVER to a player or coach AND the commissioner destroying damaging evidence against the league says differently.....

this wasn't a "minor infraction"......this was, quite possibly, the greatest sports scandal of all time and Roger "milhous" Goodell made sure the REAL story will never be known.


He wiped it under the rug because everyone in the NFL was doing it and he knew it.

Belichick taping signals was the equivalent of $500 handshakes in college football.

My main point with regard to Belichick is that he didn't win exclusively because of cheating. Go back and research the playoff games that teams he has been intimately involved in have played and won going back to mid 1980's and especially starting with 15-13 in the 1990 NFC Title game. The Giants/Bills Super Bowl was a virtual carbon copy of the Patriots/Rams Super Bowl.

The guys father was the lead scout for the Naval Academy, he grew up breaking down film. He has coached with everyone from Marchibroda to Parcells. He is a human encyclopedia of football tactics and strategy. Yes, he secretly filmed and cheated. It has been been going on since football started. There is a reason teams started printing and encoding playbooks with specific serial numbers on them. There is a reason they print up dummy playbooks. The history of the league is full of unsavory and borderline unsportsmanlike tactics. Holding Belichick exclusively to the fire for it and saying his record has no weight because of it is just silly.

Again. I root against the Patriots.

We know now the "shot heard round the world" was almost fiction. So sorry, but Belichick's taping wasn't ever going to be the "greatest sports scandal of all time." Not even close.

[Atlanta Duke]

He wiped it under the rug because everyone in the NFL was doing it and he knew it.

Who else? A link to your source for "everyone" doing it also would be appreciated.


My main point with regard to Belichick is that he didn't win exclusively because of cheating.

Agreed - he primarily wins because he has Tom Brady - he got fired in Cleveland when he had Vinnie Testaverde as his QB and missed the playoffs when Brady was injured in 2008. Like most coaches Belichick is a much better coach when he has better players

[Spret42]

Who else? A link to your source for "everyone" doing it also would be appreciated.



Agreed - he primarily wins because he has Tom Brady - he got fired in Cleveland when he had Vinnie Testaverde as his QB and missed the playoffs when Brady was injured in 2008. Like most coaches Belichick is a much better coach when he has better players

This took me...about 15 seconds to find. http://slumz.boxden.com/f16/truth-about-videotaping-nfl-1088981/ Cheating and stealing signals is part of the NFL. Yes the Patriots took it too far and broke a very specific rule. But the simple fact is that you can't say they won because they had signals. The history of league is riddled with teams who had the other teams signals.

And your characterization of his time in Cleveland is too short sighted to address. He coached for Art Modell who was more concerned with other things than allowing him to put together a team with the kinds of players he needed to implement a system that had helped him to 2 Super Bowl wins already as a coordinator.

Without Brady he went 11-5 with a quarterback who hadn't started since high school. He missed the playoff with a record that in league history made the playoffs almost, if i remember correctly, 90% of the time.

Yes, every coach at the professional level has needed great players. So there are no great coaches? Auerbach - actually a bum without Bill Russell. Casey Stengel - purely a product of Mickey Mantle. Scotty Bowman - a loser who never wins a thing without Mario Lemiuex, Steve Yzerman or Ken Dryden. Most every time a professional player who was part of a dynasty with a coach talks about the "culture" that coach created. The culture at the professional level is the thing.

[Duke: A Dynasty]

Who else? A link to your source for "everyone" doing it also would be appreciated.



Agreed - he primarily wins because he has Tom Brady - he got fired in Cleveland when he had Vinnie Testaverde as his QB and missed the playoffs when Brady was injured in 2008. Like most coaches Belichick is a much better coach when he has better players

Well of course that is the case for every coach. It is easier to win with better talent combined well with role players. But factor in the other things he has done and it shows how great of a coach he really is.

- I do not consider the "spy gate" scandal a big deal at all anyway. I remember when it happened and it was all anyone talked about and most analysists agreed most if not every team does it but has not gotten caught and it does not give much of an advantage anyway. An NFL team will not play the same team twice unless its a division opponent or its the playoffs. So now that that has been said rarely does an NFL team run the same play twice in a game and maybe no more than 4 times a season with hundreds of plays to choose from so how would knowing a few plays out of hundreds from your opponent help you when you have 30 seconds to recognize it in the first place.

[bluebear]

the largest fine EVER to a player or coach AND the commissioner destroying damaging evidence against the league says differently.....

this wasn't a "minor infraction"......this was, quite possibly, the greatest sports scandal of all time and Roger "milhous" Goodell made sure the REAL story will never be known.

Uh..greatest scandal of all time? A bit of hyperbole, don't you think..I've yet to hear someone provide a persuasive argument for how the tapes actually helped the Pats win a single game...

[Duke: A Dynasty]

This took me...about 15 seconds to find. http://slumz.boxden.com/f16/truth-about-videotaping-nfl-1088981/ Cheating and stealing signals is part of the NFL.

And your characterization of his time in Cleveland is too short sighted to address. He coached for Art Modell who was more concerned with other things than allowing him to put together a team with the kinds of players he needed to implement a system that had helped him to 2 Super Bowl wins already as a coordinator.

Without Brady he went 11-5 with a quarterback who hadn't started since high school. He missed the playoff with a record that in league history made the playoffs almost, if i remember correctly, 90% of the time.

Yes, every coach at the professional level has needed great players. So there are no great coaches? Auerbach - actually a bum without Bill Russell. Casey Stengel - purely a product of Mickey Mantle. Scotty Bowman - a loser who never wins a thing without Mario Lemiuex, Steve Yzerman or Ken Dryden.

Cmon now.

Thank you my point exactly! Would also like to point out that he upset many people when he let go one of the best defensive players on the team when he got there (Lawyer Milloy?) and that turned out to be a good move. He also chose to throw in an unproven late round draft pick in at qb when an injury occured to the starter and the nstuck with him (Tom Brady). Do not remember which year it was but he got his wr (name escapes me at the moment) to play wr, special teams, and defense on his way to a superbowl. Bill also somehow seems to get good value on his draft picks and seemingly always rips off other teams in trades for players or picks (remember Randy Moss, Wes Welker, Deon Branch, Richard Seymore, loads of draft picks, Cory Dillion). The man makes good smart moves and gets the best out of his players (see Danny Woodhead).

[Spret42]

Do not remember which year it was but he got his wr (name escapes me at the moment) to play wr, special teams, and defense on his way to a superbowl.

Troy Brown.

[moonpie23]

Belichick taping signals was the equivalent of $500 handshakes in college football.


more like $500 THOUSAND


Belichick's taping wasn't ever going to be the "greatest sports scandal of all time." Not even close.


guess we'll never know ......goodell made sure of that.......had to be SOMETHING that was pretty bad......no reason to destroy not-so-bad evidence..

[bluebear]

more like $500 THOUSAND




guess we'll never know ......goodell made sure of that.......had to be SOMETHING that was pretty bad......no reason to destroy not-so-bad evidence..

Are you sure they destroyed them..I believe they are actually stored in a wooden box in a secret military hangar in the desert.

[Spret42]

Are you sure they destroyed them..I believe they are actually stored in a wooden box in a secret military hangar in the desert.

They are stored away, but it isn't a wooden box in a hangar. It is in a steel and titanium reinforced trunk, inside a concrete bunker buried deep within a mountain. The tapes are actually indestructible and you see, if revealed to the world, the light of the football gods will melt all our faces off.

[moonpie23]

or the light of Vegas having to overturn 3 superbowl outcomes. (they don't, but, you see what i mean)

what do you think would have happened to goodell if it HAD been revealed that the pats cheated in all three SB's? and had the wins retracted?

[Waynne]

The hating of Coach Belichick and the Patriots by some posters on this board reminds me of the hating of Coach K and Duke by posters on other boards. Yes, Belichick cheated and paid the price but it was not even close to the worst sports scandal of all times or the crime against humanity some here make it out to be.

No, Coach K has never cheated to my knowledge, and that is one of the many reasons he is considered one of the greatest coaches of all time. Coach Belichick also is considered by most to be a great coach, and to repeat ad nauseam that he won 3 Super Bowls because he "cheated" is utter nonsense. That claim is akin to the claim that Coach K won 4 national championships because he "gets all the calls."

There are a lot more similarities between Duke basketball and the Patriots ( and the San Antonio Spurs IMO) than some would like to admit. I take Whitlock's comparison as a compliment.

[uh_no]

No, Coach K has never cheated to my knowledge, and that is one of the many reasons he is considered one of the greatest coaches of all time.

Coach K does commercials and plays the refs though!!!!!!!

agree 100%

[moonpie23]

The hating of Coach Belichick and the Patriots by some posters on this board reminds me of the hating of Coach K and Duke by posters on other boards. Yes, Belichick cheated and paid the price but it was not even close to the worst sports scandal of all times or the crime against humanity some here make it out to be.

No, Coach K has never cheated to my knowledge, and that is one of the many reasons he is considered one of the greatest coaches of all time. Coach Belichick also is considered by most to be a great coach, and to repeat ad nauseam that he won 3 Super Bowls because he "cheated" is utter nonsense. That claim is akin to the claim that Coach K won 4 national championships because he "gets all the calls."

There are a lot more similarities between Duke basketball and the Patriots ( and the San Antonio Spurs IMO) than some would like to admit. I take Whitlock's comparison as a compliment.


"utter nonsense" doesn't get you a half a mil fine. Coach K has never been accused of "cheating" nor handed the largest fine FOR cheating to a coach in his "league"....

belichick was.....there are HUGE differences and hardly any similarities between the two...

you will never convince me that there WASN'T something totally damaging to the league AND Belicheat on those tapes and and we will never know whether is was the "worst sports" scandal because roger goodell made sure of it...

[COYS]

you will never convince me that there WASN'T something totally damaging to the league AND Belicheat on those tapes and and we will never know whether is was the "worst sports" scandal because roger goodell made sure of it...

I'll preface this by saying that I completely agree with everything you say, Moonpie, except, even if it is proven that those tapes show proof that the Pats cheated during every single game both playoff and regular season the entire time Belichik was the coach, it wouldn't be bigger than baseball's greatest scandals. The '51 New York Giants admitted to stealing all signs from the Brooklyn Dodgers using a complex system involving telescopes and electric buzzers. Pete Rose, Steroids, MLB owners freezing out black players pre-Jackie Robinson, the Black Sox (whose "strange" performance in the world series was preceded by two earlier "strange" performances that were never explained), cocaine use in the 80's, etc. Some of these are probably a bit smaller than the Pats scandal, but altogether I think that baseball probably holds 5 of the top 10 spots for scandals in American sports.

[bluebear]

"utter nonsense" doesn't get you a half a mil fine. Coach K has never been accused of "cheating" nor handed the largest fine FOR cheating to a coach in his "league"....

belichick was.....there are HUGE differences and hardly any similarities between the two...

you will never convince me that there WASN'T something totally damaging to the league AND Belicheat on those tapes and and we will never know whether is was the "worst sports" scandal because roger goodell made sure of it...

So enlighten us? What could have been on the tapes beyond what we already know...we know BB taped opposing teams signals and we also know that other teams have done the same..so again, what is the big mystery?

[moonpie23]

So enlighten us? What could have been on the tapes beyond what we already know...we know BB taped opposing teams signals and we also know that other teams have done the same..so again, what is the big mystery?

there are a multitude of "what could have" been on the tapes, but the very fact that Goodell was compelled to destroy them is so damning that it must have been league threatening.

if it was just the taping of the signals, why the need to destroy that? just lock them away in your "belecheat better not do this again" safe....

no, he destroyed the evidence, and then handed down the LARGEST FINE IN LEAGUE HISTORY to a coach for cheating.


Are you just not feeling the gravity of the actions?