Sure, what you say is a possible scenario, but then again the Pats thought it important enough to risk being caught so maybe you have it wrong. I don't think the Pats are so dumb as to risk it without knowing they get something out of it and the anecdotes coming out of players and coaches sure makes it sound like they did. Then again, those are just anecdotes so who knows.

It doesn't need to be for that play, but if it is one just a little later in the quarter you have plenty of time for your scenario. 15 scripted plays and then you start using the data you've gathered. I'd love to know, but we probably never will.

You're right, I don't care much about baseball. However that has no bearing on my "make it legal" argument. The same applies here, make the videotaping legal and from that point on it is fine. Same for steroids. The problem is this is an organization level conscious, systematic violation of the rules. The Pats should be more closely scrutinized from here on out in addition to their fines.

Where do they keep coming up with those multiple first rounders anyway? Must be using videotape that no-on else has.

I believe they're called trades, Sarcasm Lad.

Pats won the 1st meeting against the Jets last year, lost the second. That videotape really helps, alot.

A big part of the reason the Jets beat them last year was because they came out with a scheme of exotic blitzes and three sets of signals, 2 fake and 1 real. That took a HUGE amount of time and effort and risked lots of confusion on game day. In other words, it wasn't a level playing field 'cause the Pats didn't need to do all that. Videotape isn't infalliable, but it does provide an unfair advantage.

Now, does anyone know the defensive signals for when the Patriots come out in a 3-tight end set at midfield?

Sure, the opposing coaches do. Look fanboy I know you hate for anything to cast aspersions on your beloved team, but they aren't miracle workers and they brought this on themselves. Hell the tape let them just barely beat lots of teams and still lose to others, but don't think that means it didn't help. Think of it as how radar detectors used to work. Most of the time it helped you gain an advantage over the cops, but it didn't always.

What gives us orthe governmeent the right to tell banks what to do? It is called "The Public Good". In addition, these banks all use FDIC, that is the public underwriting their accounts. Either of those give the public the right to regulate them.

Favre

Put a real team around him and I'll still take Favre. As he is today.

Air Lusitania is unlikely to be sunk by a U Boat. In the unlikely event that it is, it won't be used as a propaganda pretext to get us into a war. After all, now we just make stuff up for that.

And, just by the way, what was Brady doing running laterally to try to make a tackle -- an incredibly dangerous play for an inexperienced defender -- in a 24-0 game?

Obviously he just isn't that good a QB without the cheating.

This is what the 7 second delay is for. This is why every talk show in the US has a "Bleep" or Mute button. You obliterate the one word and continue. The only reason they cut was because they objected to more than the one word.

Mostly because they are a propaganda station first and an entertainment station second.

With the Cardinals on their heels and a chance to go ahead by a touchdown, what did Seahawks coach Mike Holmgren do?

Kicked a field goal. He's an NFL coach

You're right King, taking a chance especially so deep in your opponant's territory isn't even that big a risk. And NFL coaches are very averse to risk, except for one thing.

a fourth-and-1 from the Cardinals 16 in the third quarter. Shaun Alexander had run it in for a touchdown.

So they do show guts on occasion. Just this past weekend over 1/2 the teams went for it at least once on 4th down, almost every game saw at least one attempt. The Bucs went for it 4 times, making it twice. The Redskins went for it 3 times, making it twice and the Steelers went for it 3 times though they never converted. Heck, there were 30 attempts on 4th down just in the 16 games this last weekend.

I don't know how many more times they could have tried instead of punting, but I don't have time to really go over it all and find out when it would have been a horrible idea to do so, like 4th and 20 on your own 10 when up by 14.

That's weird, the box score on the NFL site makes it look like they did. Going to the Play by Play shows the opposite though. Is that a typo on their part or am I reading the box scores wrong?

Pittsburgh Steelers (2-0-0)

TOTAL FIRST DOWNS 24

By Rushing 11

By Passing 12

By Penalty 1

THIRD DOWN EFFICIENCY 5/13 - 38%

FOURTH DOWN EFFICIENCY 0/3 - 0%

If it is wrong here, it is wrong on all of them. I remembered the Eagles trying a few times last night, but the box score says the Redskins did. I wasn't paying all that much attention to the game.

That's the weird thing, I'm getting them directly from the NFL.COM site. They just debuted a "new look", maybe the code behind it is screwed up.