Just because you aren't paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you

Back in September the Patriots were caught cheating by video taping the Jets defensive signals. The party line from the Patriots camp was that they misunderstood the rule. I think the rule read something like, under no circumstances can you film the other teams signals, but whatever.

They were caught, they were fined, they turned over the tapes, supposedly, and the league moved on. There was some discontent that the NFL did not disclose what was on the tapes. Specifically, did the Patriots video tape the Super Bowls?

A couple days before Super Bowl XLII, a former Patriots staffer comes forward and announces that he had been instructed to video tape the St. Louis Rams walk through prior to Super Bowl XXXVI. Naturally the Rams former QB starts touting how he was suspicious that something was up and all Patriots haters start shouting, 'I knew it!'

Here are my feelings on 'Spygate'.

What the Patriots did was wrong and rightfully throws into question all of their success. They broke the rules and I think they got off easy. I was expecting Belichick to get suspended for at least a game or two. They brought it on themselves and it is a shame that everything they worked for will now be under a cloud of suspicion.

That being said, I think the value of having such tapes is minimal. It is perfectly legal for a team to be in possession of the opponents signals. The rule is only that you cannot use video cameras to do it. So, it is not against the rules for them to have the information. What is against the rules is how they obtained it.

Think of it like stealing a candy bar. There is nothing wrong with having a candy bar in your possession. The problem is the fact that you stole to get it. If you had paid for it, then no one can complain. If the Patriots had a person with a pen and paper making notes of the signals, there would have been no violation. Do not confuse the legal information they had, with the illegal way they obtained it.

Also, no matter what information you have, you still have to execute. Tom Brady still has to throw the ball to just the right spot. David Patten has to run a perfect route and make sure he gets down in bounds. Adam Vinatieri still has to hit that 48 yard field goal. Knowing a defensive signal will not help J.R. Redmond wisely dive for the sideline to stop the clock.

Supposedly the Rams walk-through prior to Super Bowl XXXVI covered their red zone offense. Well, the Rams were only in the red zone twice and they scored a TD on one of those trips. And let's not forget that the Patriots only won by 3 points. Not exactly the blow you would expect if you had such a great unfair advantage.

And one final point. Just knowing what the opponent will do, is no guarantee that you can do anything about it. In Super Bowl XXXIX, the Patriots lined up for a play in Eagles territory late in the game. The Eagles defense could be heard yelling, "Screen. It's a screen.", prior to the snap. The Patriots snapped the ball and in fact ran a screen pass. The Eagles could not stop it and the Patriots picked up about 14 yards.

The Eagles knew the Patriots were going to run a screen and couldn't stop it. How did they know? They learned the Patriots signals--presumably using a legal method. Even armed with the information, they still couldn't stop it. Why? Because the players still have to execute.

So I do not dispute that the Patriots brought great dishonor upon themselves, but I do not believe for a minute that this violation contributed to any of their success.