Ryan Tannehill

"The Guy wrote:

My position on it is very similar to cbrad’s above. I’m just using their performances in Super Bowls to support my position.

Just because it seems like the Patriots have experienced some kind of mythical level of success, doesn’t mean there is an equally “mythical” or conspiratorial explanation for it (cheating).

That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying:

When a team has been caught cheating numerous times achieves mythical feats, how can people assume cheating didn't play a part?

There's numerous reasons your SB defense, makes no sense. Like I said, there's ways to combat the cheating, plus also there's a lot more scrutiny, security and press during SBs that probably make it harder to cheat.

But again, why do they get the benefit of the doubt other than sports hero worship? They've shown time and again, they cheat and don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

"Pauly wrote:

I have crunched the numbers on the Pats win rates and there is no statistical evidence that the Pats are getting a benefit from cheating.

Their win % at home is consistent with what you would expect from their win% away. I don’t have the exact numbers with me now, but using some proxy number if a team wins 65% away then you expect them to win 75% at home, and that’s exactly what the Pats do.
There is no evidence that their bugging other teams and jamming of radios has any effect on their win%. The evidence would be a disproportionate win% at home, and that does not exist.

their win% against the rest of the AFCE is what you would expect given their records against the rest of the NFL.
There is no evidence that stealing signals and game plans helps their win%. If it did help then the evidence would be that thePats would have a disproportionate record against the Dolphins, Jets and Bills, and that evidence does not exist.

What the statistical evidence supports is
- The Pats don’t cheat
- The Pats cheat more than other teams, but it doesn’t help them.
- The Pats cheat, but because everyone else is cheating just as well as the Pats do it is a wash.
What it does NOT support is
- The Pats cheat and get a significant benefit from it.

There's a few problems with this.

1. The assumption that cheating works better at home.
2. The assumption they cheat every game.
3. The assumption that cheating should work equally well or even more efficiently against teams that play them more frequently.

These are all things that must be true for you analysis to be true.

"resnor wrote:

Because they love Brady.

That makes sense , fair enough.

"Fin D wrote:

That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying:

When a team has been caught cheating numerous times achieves mythical feats, how can people assume cheating didn't play a part?

Because their pattern of performance is inconsistent with having obtained additional ability from cheating.

There's numerous reasons your SB defense, makes no sense. Like I said, there's ways to combat the cheating, plus also there's a lot more scrutiny, security and press during SBs that probably make it harder to cheat.

So if it’s harder to cheat during a Super Bowl, how did they surmount a 28-3 deficit with a quarter and a half left, and a 28-12 deficit with nine minutes left in the Super Bowl? If they did that without cheating, then they have tremendous ability that renders cheating insignificant in their success.

If they did indeed cheat to win that Super Bowl, then how did they lose to a 14-point underdog in another Super Bowl, when a win would’ve made them only the second undefeated team in the league history?

Either the cheating is highly effective and a significant portion of their success, and it helps them win Super Bowls they have no business winning, or the cheating is relatively meaningless, and they are susceptible to losing Super Bowls to 14-point underdogs.

It can’t be both. It can’t be highly effective and meaningless.

You act like the other team doesn't matter. It's eerily similar to your stance on the QB, and how you seem to view their performance as completely unrelated to the rest of the team.

"The Guy wrote:

Because their pattern of performance is inconsistent with having obtained additional ability from cheating.

Based on what?

"The Guy wrote:

So if it’s harder to cheat during a Super Bowl, how did they surmount a 28-3 deficit with a quarter and a half left, and a 28-12 deficit with nine minutes left in the Super Bowl? If they did that without cheating, then they have tremendous ability that renders cheating insignificant in their success.

If they did indeed cheat to win that Super Bowl, then how did they lose to a 14-point underdog in another Super Bowl, when a win would’ve made them only the second undefeated team in the league history?

Either the cheating is highly effective and a significant portion of their success, and it helps them win Super Bowls they have no business winning, or the cheating is relatively meaningless, and they are susceptible to losing Super Bowls to 14-point underdogs.

It can’t be both. It can’t be highly effective and meaningless.

You are creating false benchmarks that don't have a basis in reality.

They can and have cheated in numerous ways. It does NOT make sense that:

- The ways they cheat are always the same effectiveness versus every opponent in any game.
- The ways they cheat are always the same effectiveness at every point in a given game.
- That Belichick would continually cheat (which he has for a fact) if it gave him no benefit.

"resnor wrote:

You act like the other team doesn't matter.

"Fin D wrote:

You are creating false benchmarks that don't have a basis in reality.

They can and have cheated in numerous ways. It does NOT make sense that:

- The ways they cheat are always the same effectiveness versus every opponent in any game.
- The ways they cheat are always the same effectiveness at every point in a given game.
- That Belichick would continually cheat (which he has for a fact) if it gave him no benefit.

Both of the above posts attribute variation in the Patriots’ performance to things other than cheating, which implicitly diminishes the significance of their cheating.

"The Guy wrote:

Both of the above posts attribute variation in the Patriots’ performance to things other than cheating, which implicitly diminishes the significance of their cheating.

No it doesn't.

You are creating numerous false benchmarks.

"The Guy wrote:

Both of the above posts attribute variation in the Patriots’ performance to things other than cheating, which implicitly diminishes the significance of their cheating.

You dont even have a baseline for their performance without cheating, so how can anything hope to measure its impact?

Any statistic that shows they are a winner could be severely impacted. It could also not be.

It's an unknown impact and because of that people will have their own take on it.

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

You dont even have a baseline for their performance without cheating, so how can anything hope to measure its impact?

Any statistic that shows they are a winner could be severely impacted. It could also not be.

It's an unknown impact and because of that people will have their own take on it.

If, as I have in this thread, I present to you a scenario regarding the Patriots’ performance, and you explain their performance by using variables other than cheating, then your response implicitly diminishes the significance of cheating and increases the significance of those other variables.

"The Guy wrote:

Both of the above posts attribute variation in the Patriots’ performance to things other than cheating, which implicitly diminishes the significance of their cheating.

That's an assinine statement. They still have to play the game, regardless of cheating, so the opponent can still overcome their cheating. You have literally no idea how much the cheating helps, so you default to it doesn't help. But that is a ludicrous conclusion, as it is completely ridiculous to believe that they would engage in cheating if it had no benefit. Your only other conclusion could be then that they don't cheat...except that they've already been proven to cheat.

I'll never understand why people contingency to give that team a pass.

"The Guy wrote:

If, as I have in this thread, I present to you a scenario regarding the Patriots’ performance, and you explain their performance by using variables other than cheating, then your response implicitly diminishes the significance of cheating and increases the significance of those other variables.

No.

"resnor wrote:

That's an assinine statement. They still have to play the game, regardless of cheating, so the opponent can still overcome their cheating. You have literally no idea how much the cheating helps, so you default to it doesn't help. But that is a ludicrous conclusion, as it is completely ridiculous to believe that they would engage in cheating if it had no benefit. Your only other conclusion could be then that they don't cheat...except that they've already been proven to cheat.

I'll never understand why people contingency to give that team a pass.

Again, when the team has accomplished the highest possible levels of play in the league in a way that can’t possibly be attributed to cheating, then it becomes obvious that cheating can’t possibly be highly significant in their performance.

It's been asked many times...but how many of you Patriots defenders would allow a buddy who's been shown to cheat at poker to continue to play with you? Especially if he won every Saturday night for 6 months?

"The Guy wrote:

Again, when the team has accomplished the highest possible levels of play in the league in a way that can’t possibly be attributed to cheating, then it becomes obvious that cheating can’t possibly be highly significant in their performance.

Again, you cannot say that. You have zero way of knowing how much the cheating helps. The FACT is that they've been caught cheating several times. If you're going to go without facts, the only conclusion you can reasonably come to is that the cheating helps, otherwise they wouldn't risk doing it. I don't give a damn what your stats tell you.

Something else to consider:

1) We don't see former players or former coaches come out and say the Pats are getting such an unfair advantage due to cheating that their past SB wins should come with an asterisk.

2) No one else seems to be able to replicate the alleged cheating that we don't know about, and the NFL is full of people who are competitive and want to win and would very likely copy it if they could (to assume otherwise ignores human nature).

So in addition to the lack of statistical evidence in win% that any cheating (including stuff we don't know about) is leading to something totally abnormal, you also have the lack of former insiders coming out and the inability of anyone to copy it. And while I don't expect the NFL to be honest about it, there's no reason for individual players and coaches (especially those out of the league now or coaches/players still in the league that are competing against the Pats) to not come forth. And people do come forth after the fact (e.g., Jerry Rice admitted to cheating after the fact.. and imagine the financial incentives from the media if you were such a whistleblower).

All that is pretty damning evidence for me that while the Pats may technically cheat in many ways it's not the reason they're dominant. Also, the sudden success Belichick had from 2001 when Brady started is something to consider. He couldn't build a dominant team in Cleveland and went 5-11 in 2000 with the Pats before Brady. I think the best explanation for the Pats success is that you have one of the greatest coaches ever combined with one of the greatest QB's, at least one that thrives within the Belichick system.

btw.. to give one example of how another coach reconciles Belichick's cheating and his success, Jimmy Johnson said "everyone does it" when asked about the Pats stealing signals, yet also came out and said "Belichick is the best ever".

"The Guy wrote:

If, as I have in this thread, I present to you a scenario regarding the Patriots’ performance, and you explain their performance by using variables other than cheating, then your response implicitly diminishes the significance of cheating and increases the significance of those other variables.

No it doesnt. This isnt physics, these are human beings.

Again, if someone said the Patriots are incapable of winning without cheating, youd be 100% correct.

However, you dont think if a team is already great or borderline great an additional push doesnt help at all?

"resnor wrote:

Again, you cannot say that. You have zero way of knowing how much the cheating helps. The FACT is that they've been caught cheating several times. If you're going to go without facts, the only conclusion you can reasonably come to is that the cheating helps, otherwise they wouldn't risk doing it. I don't give a damn what your stats tell you.

We're talking not about whether it happens and whether it helps, but how much it helps.

The fact that cheating is entirely inconsistent with the Patriots' performances in the Super Bowls against the Falcons and Giants should tell you its relative importance in their performance. A team that can flip a "cheating switch" and win a Super Bowl after being down 28-3 midway through the third quarter doesn't also lose a Super Bowl to a 14-point underdog.

If the "cheating switch" is that powerful, they flip it whenever they want and win at will, and the 14-point underdog gets crushed. If if isn't that powerful, then what is? What explains their performance against the Falcons? Must be things other than cheating, and now you know just how strong a team they really are aside from cheating.

btw.. if we're talking about Pats' SB wins, I'd say that the defining moment for 2 of them was a terrible call on the part of the opposing coach. Remember Seattle NOT running the ball (with Marshawn Lynch of all guys) on the 1 yard line with a timeout left to run another play, the result being an INT? Remember Atlanta NOT running the ball on 2nd and 11 to run out the clock and kick a FG, the result being a sack that led to the greatest comeback ever in SB history?

That's not Belichick cheating right there, that's the opposing coach blowing it.

With the Giants SB's it's kind of the opposite IMO. The defining moment in one of them was clearly David Tyree's helmet catch which is one of the greatest catches in NFL history (at worst top 3 IMO) while in the other it was arguably Mario Manningham's sideline catch which is highlight reel level for any team's season. So with the Giants SB's you're looking at some highly improbable plays being made by the opposition regardless of whether NE was cheating or not.

Just saying that the focus on these SB's should be either on specific decisions made by the opposing coach or on incredible plays being made at crucial times by opposing players and not on any possible cheating by Belichick.

"cbrad wrote:

Something else to consider:

1) We don't see former players or former coaches come out and say the Pats are getting such an unfair advantage due to cheating that their past SB wins should come with an asterisk.

2) No one else seems to be able to replicate the alleged cheating that we don't know about, and the NFL is full of people who are competitive and want to win and would very likely copy it if they could (to assume otherwise ignores human nature).

So in addition to the lack of statistical evidence in win% that any cheating (including stuff we don't know about) is leading to something totally abnormal, you also have the lack of former insiders coming out and the inability of anyone to copy it. And while I don't expect the NFL to be honest about it, there's no reason for individual players and coaches (especially those out of the league now or coaches/players still in the league that are competing against the Pats) to not come forth. And people do come forth after the fact (e.g., Jerry Rice admitted to cheating after the fact.. and imagine the financial incentives from the media if you were such a whistleblower).

All that is pretty damning evidence for me that while the Pats may technically cheat in many ways it's not the reason they're dominant. Also, the sudden success Belichick had from 2001 when Brady started is something to consider. He couldn't build a dominant team in Cleveland and went 5-11 in 2000 with the Pats before Brady. I think the best explanation for the Pats success is that you have one of the greatest coaches ever combined with one of the greatest QB's, at least one that thrives within the Belichick system.

btw.. to give one example of how another coach reconciles Belichick's cheating and his success, Jimmy Johnson said "everyone does it" when asked about the Pats stealing signals, yet also came out and said "Belichick is the best ever".

1. Patently false. That is literally how they got in trouble with SpyGate. Its highly likely at that point Belichick and Adams, changed the way they cheat so that only they know. Or, the implied answer is, Belichick was cheating and it worked, then he got caught, and said, ok screw all this cheating let's just be the greatest ever instead.

2. There was a substance a hairdresser made in the 80's called Starlite that was fire proof, didn't conduct heat, and was cheap. Its recipe died with the inventor and no one can reproduce it to this day.

"Fin D wrote:

1. Patently false. That is literally how they got in trouble with SpyGate.

What I said is true. Mangini, a former Pats assistant and then Jets coach, reported the fact the Pats were illegally taping (the taping itself wasn't illegal, just the location). HOWEVER.. Mangini also said "I didn't think it was any kind of significant advantage". Don't forget the part where I said former coaches/players aren't saying the Pats cheating is a major reason for the Pats dominance.

"Fin D wrote:

2. There was a substance a hairdresser made in the 80's called Starlite that was fire proof, didn't conduct heat, and was cheap. Its recipe died with the inventor and no one can reproduce it to this day.

Manufacturing techniques are hard to copy. The Chinese can steal a design for a jet engine or stealth fighter but manufacturing the materials to the specifications required can't easily be copied, which is why they're still way behind (and will be for quite some time). That however has nothing to do with stealing opposing signals. The tech and expertise is for sale is you want to use it.

Oh, and the formula for Starlite is apparently owned by the company Thermalite so it can be reproduced.

"cbrad wrote:

What I said is true. Mangini, a former Pats assistant and then Jets coach, reported the fact the Pats were illegally taping (the taping itself wasn't illegal, just the location). HOWEVER.. Mangini also said "I didn't think it was any kind of significant advantage". Don't forget the part where I said former coaches/players aren't saying the Pats cheating is a major reason for the Pats dominance.

Yeah, he told the league because he didn't think it gave them an advantage.......

"cbrad wrote:

Manufacturing techniques are hard to copy. The Chinese can steal a design for a jet engine or stealth fighter but manufacturing the materials to the specifications required can't easily be copied, which is why they're still way behind (and will be for quite some time). That however has nothing to do with stealing opposing signals. The tech and expertise is for sale is you want to use it.

Oh, and the formula for Starlite is apparently owned by the company Thermalite so it can be reproduced.

I didn't know that about Starlite, but it did take awhile.

And again, its weird you're sticking to just stealing signals. But regardless, you ignored the point about did belichick just decide to stop cheating and instead be the greatest ever?

"Fin D wrote:

Yeah, he told the league because he didn't think it gave them an advantage.......

The taping itself isn't illegal, just the location, AND many other coaches were doing it (just not in a technically illegal location) which makes Mangini's comments quite understandable. Remember we're talking about "significant" advantage.

"Fin D wrote:

And again, its weird you're sticking to just stealing signals. But regardless, you ignored the point about did belichick just decide to stop cheating and instead be the greatest ever?

That part of your post (about what Belichick and Adams decided to do afterwards) was pure speculation so I didn't respond. Look.. there's no question the guy has been caught cheating. There's also no doubt in my mind that he continues to try and find every tiny advantage possible, some of which might be technically cheating and some of which might not be. I'm willing to accept that.

The only issue for me is the effect of the cheating. There's just no evidence from the statistics on win% to what former coaches/players say to the inability of anyone else to copy what Belichick has done (this isn't materials engineering) that suggests the effect on win% is great. I can accept it probably does affect win% to some degree however, just that it's not the main reason(s) for the Pats success.

While we're at it, there IS one piece of statistical evidence for an abnormality with the Pats but in the years I've looked into this it's so far the ONLY one: the abnormally low fumbling rates from 2007 (this is independent of spygate in terms of the timing) for outdoor teams. But that's not affecting win% that much, estimated at least. So for me it's all about the magnitude of the effect and I simply need more "hard" evidence of that magnitude, not whether Belichick cheats or is prone to cheating.

"cbrad wrote:

The taping itself isn't illegal, just the location, AND many other coaches were doing it (just not in a technically illegal location) which makes Mangini's comments quite understandable. Remember we're talking about "significant" advantage.

That part of your post (about what Belichick and Adams decided to do afterwards) was pure speculation so I didn't respond. Look.. there's no question the guy has been caught cheating. There's also no doubt in my mind that he continues to try to find every tiny advantage possible, some of which might be technically cheating and some of which might not be. I'm willing to accept that.

The only issue for me is the effect of the cheating. There's just no evidence from the statistics on win% to what former coaches/players say to the inability of anyone else to copy what Belichick has done (this isn't materials engineering) that suggests the effect on win% is great. I can accept it probably does affect win% to some degree however, just that it's not the main reason(s) for the Pats success.

While we're at it, there IS one piece of statistical evidence for an abnormality with the Pats but in the years I've looked into this it's so far the ONLY one: the abnormally low fumbling rates from 2007 (this is independent of spygate in terms of the timing) for outdoor teams. But that's not affecting win% that much, estimated at least. So for me it's all about the magnitude of the effect and I simply need more "hard" evidence of that magnitude, not whether Belichick either cheats or is prone to cheating.

So he's a moron. Cause only a moron would continue to cheat if it gave no benefit. I guess it is habitual for him then?

"Fin D wrote:

So he's a moron. Cause only a moron would continue to cheat if it gave no benefit. I guess it is habitual for him then?

Like I said earlier there are highly competitive people who just by their nature try to refine every tiny aspect of what they do to give them even the slightest advantage. Whether that's smart or not depends on the cost of doing so. Obviously one cost is getting caught if it's is technically illegal, while another cost is time/resources expended.

I can't comment on the cost/benefit analysis too much but so far the league hasn't put an asterisk next to their SB wins. If that however changes (like Lance Armstrong) then clearly what Belichick did is stupid. But right now it does look like it's working for them.