Yes, but I thought he put some things into perspective. For example...
"The story polarized any discussion surrounding New England, particularly as it became clear that the 2007 Patriots were a special football team on the field. If you're unfortunate enough to find yourself reading a discussion about literally anything to do with the Patriots on social media, you'll encounter the same debate. The Patriots are either totally innocent of all charges and subject to a massive conspiracy in an attempt to prevent them from Doing Their Jobs or a totally fraudulent franchise that would have been relegated to the Arena League years ago if it weren't for Belichick's unique ability to cheat his way to multiple championships.
Neither side has much of a point; as always, the truth likely lies somewhere in the middle. In terms of on-field impact, it's hard to argue Spygate wasn't horribly overblown. It's exceedingly unlikely that the Patriots were the only team stealing signals. As recently as this year, Tony Dungy talked about how the Colts and other teams from his past stole the other team's defensive signals, albeit without recording them on videotape."
"Less logical were the arguments from fans and NFL executives at the time, most notably 1972 Dolphins coach Don Shula, that the Patriots' 2007 season was tainted or aided by the taping. That doesn't make any sense. The Patriots certainly weren't taping any sidelines after the Jets reported them in Week 1, given that every single one of their opponents would have been looking out toward the sideline for anything untoward. They never had a chance to use the signals they taped from the Jets. And while they might very well have had tapes from years past before they were submitted to Roger Goodell and subsequently destroyed, every single team playing the Patriots from Week 2 on that season would have changed its signals to avoid any possibility that New England would have a competitive edge. Anything less would have been suicidally lazy."
"Spygate was overblown in a similar way to the subsequent Deflategate scandal several years later, with Tom Brady likely expressing a preference for deflated footballs in a similar vein to Aaron Rodgers' preference for inflated footballs. The most meaningful case of the Patriots' stretching the rules was the eligible receiver trick they ran out as part of their playoff comeback victory over the Baltimore Ravens, but that wasn't actually illegal. (It was unfair to the Ravens, but that was the officiating crew's fault for not giving them appropriate time to substitute.)"
So I think he made the point that Spygate, while breaking the rules, sure, just wasn't remotely as big a deal as people made it out to be.
"The story polarized any discussion surrounding New England, particularly as it became clear that the 2007 Patriots were a special football team on the field. If you're unfortunate enough to find yourself reading a discussion about literally anything to do with the Patriots on social media, you'll encounter the same debate. The Patriots are either totally innocent of all charges and subject to a massive conspiracy in an attempt to prevent them from Doing Their Jobs or a totally fraudulent franchise that would have been relegated to the Arena League years ago if it weren't for Belichick's unique ability to cheat his way to multiple championships.
Neither side has much of a point; as always, the truth likely lies somewhere in the middle. In terms of on-field impact, it's hard to argue Spygate wasn't horribly overblown. It's exceedingly unlikely that the Patriots were the only team stealing signals. As recently as this year, Tony Dungy talked about how the Colts and other teams from his past stole the other team's defensive signals, albeit without recording them on videotape."
"Less logical were the arguments from fans and NFL executives at the time, most notably 1972 Dolphins coach Don Shula, that the Patriots' 2007 season was tainted or aided by the taping. That doesn't make any sense. The Patriots certainly weren't taping any sidelines after the Jets reported them in Week 1, given that every single one of their opponents would have been looking out toward the sideline for anything untoward. They never had a chance to use the signals they taped from the Jets. And while they might very well have had tapes from years past before they were submitted to Roger Goodell and subsequently destroyed, every single team playing the Patriots from Week 2 on that season would have changed its signals to avoid any possibility that New England would have a competitive edge. Anything less would have been suicidally lazy."
"Spygate was overblown in a similar way to the subsequent Deflategate scandal several years later, with Tom Brady likely expressing a preference for deflated footballs in a similar vein to Aaron Rodgers' preference for inflated footballs. The most meaningful case of the Patriots' stretching the rules was the eligible receiver trick they ran out as part of their playoff comeback victory over the Baltimore Ravens, but that wasn't actually illegal. (It was unfair to the Ravens, but that was the officiating crew's fault for not giving them appropriate time to substitute.)"
So I think he made the point that Spygate, while breaking the rules, sure, just wasn't remotely as big a deal as people made it out to be.
