Patriots Accused of Stealing Signals

by 6thround on Sep 10, 2007 7:29 PM EDT

CNN is reporting that the NFL is investigating the New England Patriots for videotaping the New York Jets staff making defensive signals during Sunday's game. The Patriots have previously been accused of stealing signals by the Detroit Lions and Green Bay Packers. John Tomase at the Boston Herald recaps the story and the previous charges in more detail. If the league finds the charges to be true, the Patriots could be lose one or multiple draft picks.

Although there is little public record re: the facts of the situation, the potential validity of the charges must be taken seriously. While the results of the investigation will ultimately determine if there is any fire for all of this smoke, we can still engage in some reasonable speculation both in favor of and against the charges.

If the Patriots have been previously accused of this, why would they continue to do it when the story was already out there? It's hard to imagine an organization as well-handled as the Patriots would do something this stupid, get caught, then do it again, get caught again, and then do it again against a team staffed by multiple former employees. Besides Mangini, Brian Dabol was on the Patriots staff last year (when the initial accusations were made by the Lions and Packers,) so the Jets had to have some suspicions. Unless the Pats staff has been infected by a severe case of hubris, this seems unlikely.
Who is the employee in question? The suspected employee has not been named, nor is it clear if the previous accusations were against the same employee. One remote possibility was that some overzealous person overstepped his bounds. I don't think this is very likely given the multiple instances, but given the number of people granted access to the field there is a chance that the Patriots staff was unaware that he was doing this in addition to his official duties.
How many instances are there? The Buffalo Bills are reviewing security tape looking for potential sign-stealing by the Patriots. Other teams are probably doing the same thing. Even if little hard evidence comes out of the investigation, enough accusations and circumstantial evidence could cause the league to level some sanction.
Why even bother with using a team official on the field? The technology of longer range viewing equipment would preclude the need to use someone on the field. Why would the Patriots be so conspicuous as to have someone on the field making hand signals to the coaches.

It is hard to guess the likelihood of these charges, but the potential fallout is very troubling. I find it hard to believe that the Patriots would feel the need to do this, and would then go about it so stupidly, but until we know more, the potential of losing draft picks (along with the public perception fallout) is a concern to the organization.

Poll

Do you think the Patriots steal signals?

Yes, and they're the only ones.

94 votes

Yes, but they're not the only ones.

114 votes

No, but probably some teams do.

15 votes

No, and probably no teams do.

7 votes

230 votes | Poll has closed

The views expressed in these FanPosts are not necessarily those of the writers or SBNation.

Tweet Comment 32 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

There's no there there

The Patriots allegedly stole signals during the Detroit and Green Bay games last year. Teams' opponents are set by the league through 2009. The Patriots don't play either the Lions or the Packers until at least 2010. The signals will be worthless by then (even if Matt Millen is still GM in Detroit). Why would you steal signals via videotape? What's the plan? Sell the tapes on eBay?

So what about stealing signals for use in the current game?

There's nothing you can get in the heat of the action with a video camera that you can't get with a pair of binoculars.

The allegations ludicrous and irrational. There is clearly no motive for videotaping signals of opponents you're not going to face for years, and there's no motive to videotape signals for use during the game in which they're taped.

But the Patriots-hating media doesn't much care about rationality. It's a great story. Anything to tarnish the greatest franchise of the 3rd millennium. Jealous fans of other teams are eager to jump aboard the anti-Patriots bandwagon. But there's no there there.

Any hater out there care to present a rational argument?

There's a lot of debate about what the penalty for the Patriots will be if the allegations are "proven" true. My question is: What is the penalty for the Lions, Packers and Jets if the accusations prove to be false?

Have something to say? Create a free account and step up to the Pulpit! (Please: No vulgarity. Thanks.)

by tommasse on Sep 10, 2007 9:00 PM EDT reply actions

Gamesmanship

My initial reaction was that this is a case of Mangini and the Jets playing their hand at a little gamesmanship by tweaking Bellichick and the Patriots. They knew about the other teams' grumblings, and took advantage of it. But, if it were just that, who was the guy with the camera? If it were just the Jets trying to get under the Pats' skin, they were lucky he was there. Of course, maybe they just overreacted when they saw a guy with a camera.
Stealing signals has been a part of football and pro sports since the game started, so it wouldn't surprise me in itself. I just find this accusation suspect because the few details we know seem to point to a really ham-handed effort if there was one at all. I'd be upset with the team if they did do this, but I'd be just as upset at the fact that they did it so stupidly.

by 6thround on Sep 10, 2007 9:15 PM EDT up reply actions

Lame

I think when this is all said and done, it will be viewed simply as a desperate, lame attempt to stop a runaway train that is going to destroy everything in its path.

Sorry Jets fans, but nothing is stopping this train. You'll have to do better than that.

I certainly agree with you. There should be repercussions for the accusers when this is resolved. LAME

by smteri42 on Sep 11, 2007 10:17 AM EDT up reply actions

Hyperbole does not win an argument

And inflating events to detract from a rival only reflects on your inability to debate. If you want to take hearsay as evidence, go ahead and believe as gospel all of the unnamed sources willing to say how serious this is. I'm sure rival team officials are being completely unbiased when they go off the record to the media. The very fact that you feel the need to describe the Patriots as a "laughingstock" only underscores how desperate you are to try to bring them down a peg. I would have thought that Colts fans would feel better about themselves and their team after the recent Super Bowl win. Apparently not. There is no doubt that this situation is bothersome to me as a Patriots fan, but no matter how much you want it to, this does not make their leadership "pathetic". As for your other examples: 1.) the Harrison suspensions was sad and well-deserved, but a mistake by an individual, not an organization. 2.) the "waiver-wire" collusion was nothing of the sort. There is no rule against what Bellichick did, in fact many teams do it. The fact that the Minnesota coach was unaware of this practice reflects on him only. 3.) Ted Johnson's situation is sad, and speaks to the horrors of post-concussion effects. He did accuse Bellichick of trying to pressure him into playing, but he later retracted those comments. He has on-going psychological issues, and trying to twist them into an accusation against a rival team is a mistake in the least, and down-right poor taste if intentional.

by 6thround on Sep 11, 2007 9:54 PM EDT up reply actions

No Excuses

Before responding to this, I'd ask that you point out any excuse that I made for the Patriots organization or player. I think you could call what I wrote about Ted Johnson an excuse for him, but you won't read me making excuses for the organization or other players, so stop pretending that I am. I think that the majority of the instances of your "pattern" are merely instances of you inflating an event, thus your premise that the abundance of data points constitutes behavior and overall intent is null. But since you refuse to believe that any bad press about the Patriots might just be mud-slinging or media-hype, it is obvious that you are not trying to debate. Have fun yelling at the wall.

by 6thround on Sep 12, 2007 12:22 PM EDT up reply actions

Enough is enough

Putting someone else's words in my mouth does not mean I am making excuses. Are you that obtuse? At no point did I say that since everyone else is spying, that this incident means nothing. This is what I meant when I wrote that it is obvious that you have no intent to debate. I'm not going to continue with this until you cut that out. I'll be happy to talk about this in a reasoned manner, but when you do things like that, there really is no point in going any further.

by 6thround on Sep 12, 2007 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions

Next time try footnotes

Go back and read my original quote:You quoted me as saying:"there's a chance that the Patriots staff was unaware that he was doing this..." How is that excusing their behavior? At the time of that quote, and with the publicly available knowledge, it was entirely possible that they did not know anything about it. My post clearly states that it was speculation, yet somehow I'm excusing their behavior. If they knew then they deserve what punishment they get. Speculation is not making excuses. Get a dictionary. "Other teams are probably doing the same thing." Yet in the original post it clearly refers to the point that other teams are probably also going back and reviewing their security tapes, like the Bills, looking for instances of cheating by the Patriots, and is not an excuse for any Patriots misbehavior. That's a nice try at selective quoting, but it is transparently dishonest. You won't get an apology from me. Again you selectively quote me. Let's quote the whole thing: "He has on-going psychological issues, and trying to twist them into an accusation against a rival team is a mistake in the least, and down-right poor taste if intentional." If you intentionally twisted his story against the Pats, then it was in poor-taste and you deserve to be called out for it. If it was a mistake, then no harm no foul. There is no point in further debate. Go ahead and selectively and dishonestly quote me. I won't bother responding anymore.

by 6thround on Sep 13, 2007 9:01 AM EDT up reply actions

Clearly this road should have been less travelled

Aww. Take my toys and go home? That hurts. Really, it does. Your main argument seems to be that any time I offer a rebuttal to any of your points I am making excuses for their behavior. My argument is that if the specific behavior did not happen (e.g. Ted Johnson,) is still unknown (e.g., at the time of post, and to some extent still, the details of the taping incident,) or is in itself not bad behavior (e.g. Brad Childress whining to the press about,) then how can I be making excuses? That is why we are not getting anywhere. I took exception to your comment because I would not make an excuse for something that is clearly bad behavior, yet if I don't see every particular detail which you choose to cite in the same light as you, then somehow I am making excuses for the team. Instead of arguing the merits, or lack thereof, of each particular data point, you have tried to say that I am being an apologist for even trying to rebut them. That's a neat trick. Making a small mistake of mis-reading a quote (and kudos for owning up to it,) does not reflect on your overall point. But, when you accuse me of being an apologist just for disagreeing with the merits of the foundation upon which your argument is built, then where can the debate possibly go from there?

by 6thround on Sep 13, 2007 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions

No .. You're wrong

Ted Johnson wasn't "forced" to play. That a gross misrepresentation of that incident(s), which (as 6thround pointed out) Johnson later recanted. So it is a non-issue.

Brad Childress made an unfounded accusation. What he believes (or at least, what you say he believes) about the incident is immaterial. Accusations do not make a thing true. No one else, including the league, said Belichick did anything wrong. I don't think I've read the word "collusion" anywhere but blogs, so even the piling-on national media doesn't buy that load.

Yet you insist on including these events as evidence to support your own false accusations about a "pattern of bad behavior." The only pattern has been your practice of twisting the facts of actual events as a foundation of your agenda.

Have something to say? Create a free account and step up to the Pulpit! (Please: No vulgarity. Thanks.)

by tommasse on Sep 13, 2007 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions

Right

So we should accept all your unsubstantiated allegation and opinion as a biased Patriots hater. I see your point clearly now.

Have something to say? Create a free account and step up to the Pulpit! (Please: No vulgarity. Thanks.)

by tommasse on Sep 13, 2007 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions

You don't read anything written here

I said that I haven't read the word "collusion" in anything but blogs. You ignore that and say it's been extensively reported. So, again, as the accuser, the burden of proof is on you.

As far as Johnson, that's been well-documented here and elsewhere that Johnson retracted his statement, and nowhere -- ever -- did he say he was "forced" to play.

What we're looking for here is E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E. If you have it. Present it. If you don't .. well, you don't.

Have something to say? Create a free account and step up to the Pulpit! (Please: No vulgarity. Thanks.)

by tommasse on Sep 13, 2007 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions

Why not allow comms in defensive helmets?

Bill Belichick answered that today:

You don't know who's going to be on the field. How many are you going to have? It's a lot easier with the quarterback position. Every team has a quarterback. It's a lot different on defense. It's not necessarily one guy.

So much for your "pattern of bad behavior."

Have something to say? Create a free account and step up to the Pulpit! (Please: No vulgarity. Thanks.)

by tommasse on Sep 13, 2007 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions

This was your point

YOU are the one who said the Patriots arguing against communications in helmets was "evidence" of their "pattern of bad behavior." I am presenting a logical argument for why the Patriots voted against it and, thus, why it doesn't fit into your contrived pattern.

I never said, nor implied, that Belichick's statement means they haven't engaged in bad behavior. Man, you really are clueless. Try to read what's actually said and not just make stuff up as you go along.

Have something to say? Create a free account and step up to the Pulpit! (Please: No vulgarity. Thanks.)

by tommasse on Sep 13, 2007 10:41 PM EDT up reply actions

It means

that in addition to the other parts of your argument we've already proven impotent, this is more supporting evidence that your "pattern of bad behavior" argument holds no water. You have the signal stealing and Harrison taking HGH. That's it. Hardly a "pattern."

Have something to say? Create a free account and step up to the Pulpit! (Please: No vulgarity. Thanks.)

by tommasse on Sep 13, 2007 11:15 PM EDT up reply actions

I'm done with you

I will no longer debate with you this or any other topic. You never have any facts; you constantly make broad, sweeping, false statements; and you add nothing but derision to discussions here.

Have something to say? Create a free account and step up to the Pulpit! (Please: No vulgarity. Thanks.)

by tommasse on Sep 14, 2007 8:40 AM EDT up reply actions

LOL

Polian well respected? The guy is a hot headed bully who uses his position on the competition committee to rectify his own teams impotence.

When Bill Polian is you're role model, you are sadly lacking heroes.

by smteri42 on Sep 11, 2007 10:58 PM EDT up reply actions

Inane. That's a good word

No one ever questioned Polian's ability or the respect he's earned for doing his job. We've praised him in that respect many times. As usual, you choose to ignore those things.

However, there are plenty of stories and anecdotes of Polian threatening, abusing and even assaulting people:

... Polian, who pushed a Jets employee earlier this month because he felt New York was pumping sound into the Meadowlands. He was forced to apologize in writing to the employee.

See? That's what you call "evidence," something you never have.

But this is exactly the holier-than-thou attitude some Colts fans have. They refuse to look in the mirror.

Have something to say? Create a free account and step up to the Pulpit! (Please: No vulgarity. Thanks.)

by tommasse on Sep 13, 2007 11:03 PM EDT up reply actions

Another gross misrepresentation

This post is proof.

Fact: You have never provided a single shred of evidence that Ted Johnson was "forced" to play, as you allege.

Fact: You never provided a single source that said Belichick or anyone on the Patriots was involved in "collusion" in the Vikings allegations (later retracted).

Fact: You never formed an argument about communications in defensive players' helmets. You just said you don't believe Belichick -- which of course ignores the other 9 teams that voted against the proposal.

Fact: You never presented evidence such as "this and this and this." You merely repeated the baseless allegations you made before.

Fact: You have provided nothing else to support your "pattern of bad behavior" allegation.

Fact: You have never once posted here without making a direct or indirect derogatory comment about me, the community here, Patriots fans in general, or the New England Patriots organization. The derision directed at you is always and only in response. You reap what you sow.

Based on your diatribe above, I can only conclude you studied pre-law or political science, because your posts are all spin and no substance. You can say you provide all kinds of evidence; that doesn't make it true.

I agree with you on one point: It could have been a fruitful debate. Unfortunately, you were never interested in that.

"National opinion" is not evidence. And it's far from "truth."

By the way, I am a trained investigative reporter. So you got that wrong, too.

Have something to say? Create a free account and step up to the Pulpit! (Please: No vulgarity. Thanks.)

by tommasse on Sep 14, 2007 10:06 AM EDT up reply actions

No, you haven't

Yes, you quoted Chidress. A single, pretty vague quote. Hardly "evidence" of collusion. You provided nothing else -- nothing about Ted Johnson, nothing about in-helmet communications for defense. Saying you did doesn't make it true.

I'm not trying to cloud the issues. I'm trying to get you to provide substantiation. You haven't. You can't. Otherwise, you would.

And, as I've said before, and as is common practice anywhere in the world, the burden of proof is on you. You're making the accusations. It's not my lot to disprove them.

But I have. I provided documentation about Ted Johnson. Here's more. I provided an explanation and supporting facts regarding the defensive helmet communication. I cannot provide anything to disprove the collusion, because there's nothing to disprove.

Have something to say? Create a free account and step up to the Pulpit! (Please: No vulgarity. Thanks.)

by tommasse on Sep 14, 2007 11:28 AM EDT up reply actions

One source. Just one. Can't you do that?

You said Belichick engaged in collusion. Provide some kind of supporting evidence. One vague quote from Brad Childress isn't sufficient. A "terse conversation" (or a "tense" one) is not collusion.

Find someone who reported it as collusion or cite a league investigation. You say there are all these sports writers. Name one. Provide a link. You have not provided a single source other than Childress's wishy-washy-later-retracted statement. Do something other than point fingers and whine about it.

Otherwise, it's just you making a blatant false allegation that it was collusion. Heck, Childress never said it was collusion. There's no there there, and you can't use it to support your "pattern of bad behavior theory."

You don't need direct access to players coaches or anyone else. Just find someone legitimate who supports what you claim.

I can't make it any more plain and simple. I've challenged you a dozen times to find a source and you have yet to present one. You say you can't do better. If you can't, then your argument is empty. Stop bothering people.

Do this one thing (which you can't) and then I'll debate Ted Johnson with you, because you have all your facts screwed up there.

Have something to say? Create a free account and step up to the Pulpit! (Please: No vulgarity. Thanks.)

by tommasse on Sep 14, 2007 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions

Yes, you failed.

The basis of your argument is that Belichick colluded to get the player he wanted on his practice squad. You utterly and entirely failed to provide a shred of evidence. Why? Because there isn't any.

"Dishonesty" and "collusion" aren't even close. I'm glad after 20 posts you finally understood the absolute simplest of concepts. Are you implying no one else in the NFL is "dishonest." You can't possibly be that stupid.

The Paul Zimmerman link you provided talks only about the videotaping incident. Congratulations. Everyone knows that. That doesn't demonstrate the "pattern of bad behavior," for which you have provided no "evidence." Now that you figured out "dishonesty" vs. "collusion," maybe you can work on "evidence" vs. "opinion" and "conjecture." "Evidence" you never had.

Like I said about that guy at that other blog: You can overfill those burlap bags; doesn't mean anyone will buy it. No one intelligent, anyway.

Have something to say? Create a free account and step up to the Pulpit! (Please: No vulgarity. Thanks.)

by tommasse on Sep 14, 2007 6:21 PM EDT up reply actions

E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E

You still don't get it. Not surprising, though.

First, you still, after dozens of request, have yet to provide a single newspaper report that alleges collusion. Not one. Zero. Zilch. Nada. So many exist ("allegedly"), but you can't provide one. Hence, you have no argument.

As far as Zimmerman, that's not E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E. Zimmerman making unsubstantiated allegations is no different than you making them. I could make the same allegations about the Colts. Doesn't make them true.

The only argument I've made for you is that you have no idea what you're talking about. And, thanks, for the compliment. I pretty much nailed it.

Good luck selling your crap elsewhere.

Have something to say? Create a free account and step up to the Pulpit! (Please: No vulgarity. Thanks.)

by tommasse on Sep 14, 2007 7:40 PM EDT up reply actions

Intentionally ignoring his request

He specifically asked you to provide any evidence that the Bellichick-Childress phone call was collusion, and you link to an article re: signal stealing, and claim that he is being dense. That just about sums up your idea of debate.

by 6thround on Sep 14, 2007 6:27 PM EDT up reply actions

No, the MSNBC story didn't support it

You keep supplying columns. No news. And nothing that alleges collusion.

I really hope you're not pre-law, because you're going to have trouble paying bills. You could be a politician though.

We'll stick with the Kool-Aid, but you should probably knock off the vodka.

Have something to say? Create a free account and step up to the Pulpit! (Please: No vulgarity. Thanks.)

by tommasse on Sep 14, 2007 7:44 PM EDT up reply actions

Please provide any evidence of collusion

Please. Really, I'm actually hoping that you can. A link to Childress whining is not any evidence. Pointing to a coach grumbling about gamesmanship is not any evidence of collusion. Just paste a link to anything showing what Bellichick did to Childress is against league rules. Do that, or admit that this point does not support your argument, and I'll gladly continue to debate you.

by 6thround on Sep 14, 2007 7:50 PM EDT up reply actions

"Honest" and "debate"

That's funny.

I'm sorry, too. Sorry you couldn't construct an argument with anything but conjecture and innuendo. As you say, too bad. Best of luck snowing someone else.

Have something to say? Create a free account and step up to the Pulpit! (Please: No vulgarity. Thanks.)

by tommasse on Sep 14, 2007 8:44 PM EDT up reply actions

ESPN

...is saying that it's true and the Pats are gonna get shellacked for it. Maybe I've just drunk too much of the Pats' Koolaid but 1) I don't really believe that's what they're doing. 2) Puleeze... like Pittsburgh, and the Colts, and the Chargers and every other team who has a brain isn't doing it as well. It's just that Eric baby has a bee in his bonnet because he left the nest too soon and his 'mentor' isn't all huggy with him.

by DanieXJ on Sep 11, 2007 6:13 PM EDT reply actions

What is your favorite flavor?

I for one think that some people are doubtless hating on the Patriots, are unobjective, and will look at your team as guilty until proven innocent. Some of those people, I'm disappointed to say, are fellow Colts fans. Such bias is annoying at best.

You are allowed the natural partisanship for your team as much as others claim their right to believe the worst about you. We are all emotionally attached to our team, too often to a fault.

Having said that, your statement does expose your koolaid mustache. First, you don't believe the Pats are guilty of doing it. However, these other teams are all doing it, so we need to get a clue.

What are you saying? That the Patriots, though being the only team caught in this suspicious activity, and seemingly more than once at that, ARE THE ONLY TEAM NOT DOING IT? That appears to be your incredible deduction. Or do you feel that if it is wrong and they are the only ones doing it, they are not really doing it. However, if they are doing it, then so is everyone else, so it's not really wrong.

Since 2) every team who has a brain is doing it, but 1) you don't believe the Patriots are doing it, can we conclude that it is your opinion that the Patriots don't have a brain?

Perhaps koolaid is not the problem here.

by coltsfanawalt on Sep 12, 2007 12:04 AM EDT up reply actions

Why thank you...

...I've never actually had someone call me stupid on here. Everyone else has had someone insult their intelligence, I'm finally one of them... yay...... claps hands together I'm in the club, I'm in the club....

Okay, enough sarcasm for one day, man, all that sarcasm is making my eyes hurt...

As for my previous comment. I guess I should have labelled them 1) and A) or 1) and I) or something. I never said that I believed both statements 1) and 2) at the same time. Think of it this way... if 1) is true, if the Patriot employee did take a vid of whoever the hell is Mangini baby's Defensive signal caller, and I'm still waiting for the League to show me and everyone else their supposed evidence (does anyone think that the public will ever get to see the tape, I don't think we will). Then I also firmly believe that other teams in the league are doing it as well.

And you have to admit, there's a bit of piling on going as well... Come on. LT calling all the Pats cheaters, seriously... we beat their butts last year, they need to get over that, focus on this Sunday... and yet, they won't... and if they loose, how much you want to bet that they'll complain about some other supposed cheating... oy...

by DanieXJ on Sep 13, 2007 8:50 AM EDT up reply actions

Putting myself in your shoes...

...I would not want to believe this either. I would want it to be proven, as a man is innocent until proven guilty (except in the court of public opinion, unfortunately). You can't be faulted for this, unless you are saying that it has to be proven and shown to you as JoeFan for it to be true. Like you said, we will likely never get to see the tape, so our lack of personal insight is not the determining factor. I can't say the court is wrong everytime it convicts someone just because I didn't personally sit in the jury box. If this is investigated, found to be true, and disciplined by the commissioner, they must know something conclusively in order to act. Unless Goodell is part of the conspiracy against the Patriots. (That was sarcasm, sorry. I'll stop)

You are very right, there is alot of piling going on. That is frustrating, and it happens too often to people in prominent positions when they get accused. I don't have a good answer for all the liars and opportunistic people of the world.

I don't think you are stupid. My only issue with your posts is that if, God forbid, there is indeed foul play in your organization, then you will firmly conclude that everyone is doing it. It's understandable to struggle wih an indictment against your team. It's one thing to believe the best as long as you can. It's another thing to decide if you are guilty, then so is everyone else. It's a jump to go from purely believing the best about those you respect to cynically believing the whole world stinks. It looks like a desperate attempt to justify wrong actions, but I don't know you and cannot judge your motives. You are probably responding in shock; I'm sure I would be.

It would be great if it all proved to be a misunderstanding, and there would be no more dark shadows cast over an organization as wonderful as the NFL.

by coltsfanawalt on Sep 13, 2007 9:33 PM EDT up reply actions

Pretty well said

Ever think of running a Colts blog?

I think there is enough hearsay (not to mention outright admission) from former players, especially those in the media who have called the allegations (now officially ruled upon) rather inconsequential. From that I deduce that there are others guilty of the same "crime."

The Patriots are not the only team that has been accused of like actions. It may be that only the Patriots did it so openly employing these exact methods.

This information tends to get buried or ignored by those who simply can't resist taking their shots.

Have something to say? Create a free account and step up to the Pulpit! (Please: No vulgarity. Thanks.)

by tommasse on Sep 13, 2007 10:36 PM EDT up reply actions

Starting off by saying I'm a Colts Fan

but I'm not going to blast the Patriots for this. I believe that this is going on all around the league and possibly within the Colts organization, but that isn't relevant. What is relevant is that the Pats were caught, so they will be punished. If another team gets caught they deserve the same punishment.

by farris6659 on Sep 11, 2007 11:49 PM EDT reply actions