Did "Cheating" Produce the Patriots' Championships?

The haters will not go away. From 2001 to 2007, the Patriots were the dominant team in the American Football Conference. They won Super Bowls in 2001, 2003 and 2004, then lost the Super Bowl in 2007 following a perfect 16-0 season. During the time they were winning Super Bowls, they did so against the odds, or at least getting there against the odds. Reporters repeatedly predicted, "The Raiders will beat them; the Steelers will beat them; the Colts will beat them; the Steelers will beat them," and repeatedly the Patriots beat their supposedly overwhelming opponents.

At the beginning of the 2007 season, fans of the teams frustrated by the emergence of the Patriots got what they wanted. In the opening game of the season, a cameraman in the employ of the Patriots was stopped as he went to the Pats' locker room. He had, in that game, been videotaping the Jets' defensive coaches as they signaled in the play.

The "Cheating" and the Sanctions

The league had restricted videotaping for years; teams' primary source of video was supposed to be NFL Films, making tapes generally available to the teams and the media after games. These tapes showed the plays as they were run, not coaches' signals.

The language was somewhat ambiguous for many years, and many, perhaps most, teams were making their own tapes in which they would get opposing teams' signals from the sideline. At least one team, the Cowboys, had been doing it but discontinued it not because of moral scruples but because they decided it was not useful. Just before the 2007 season, however, commissioner Roger Goodell sent an email to all teams in which he specified that such taping was improper.

The Patriots' cameraman made no effort to hide his activity; he did it right from the Patriots' side line. After the seizure of the tape, Bill Belichick insisted that the Patriots had believed that they had conformed to the league's rule. While it would appear that the email was fairly clear, it would seem that if the Patriots had some consciousness of guilt, they would have had their cameraman make the tape from Row XX with a zoom lens and had a water boy or the like go to Row XX and pick the tape up from the cameraman. The Patriots' conduct, taping openly and having the cameraman heading for the locker room with the tape, suggests that they thought that they were able to defend the taping.

Goodell reviewed the tape and ruled that it was a violation of league rules. On the other hand, he also ruled that the taping did not appear to have affected the game's outcome. Somehow a copy of the tape was pirated and shown on Fox Sports. Reporters for ESPN and the New York Post began screaming that the Patriots' championships were "tainted" and that the championship trophies and rings should be forfeited, with asterisks after the Super Bowl scores. The back-page banner on the Post was "BELICHEAT."

Goodell then demanded that the Patriots surrender to him all tapes in their possession. The Patriots had been making such tapes at least since Belichick became their head coach. They duly turned over all the tapes to Goodell. Following a review, Goodell ruled that none of the championships appeared to have been affected by the taping. To the great frustration of Steelers, Eagles, Rams, Panthers and Colts fans, he did not set aside or mark with an asterisk any of the Patriots' championships, nor did he disqualify the Patriots from participating in post-season play that year.

He did impose sanctions, imposing record fines on Belichick personally and on the Patriots as a club, and depriving the Patriots of one of their two first-round picks in the 2008 draft. The haters felt vindicated by the finding of a violation, but were enraged that the Patriots were not taken out of the way of their teams for a championship.

The Championship teams

The "cheating" involved defensive signals. If it affected the outcome of games, the championship teams would have been stronger offensively than the teams after the discovery of the "cheating". Tom Brady's offensive performance would have been stronger in those years than without the benefit of the tapes.

The strength of the championship teams, however, was not their offense. They were only slightly above-average offensive squads. As Peyton Manning fans used to remind us again and again until "cheating" gave them a new avenue of attack for smack-talking, the Patriots won because of a powerhouse defense led by Willie McGinest, Mike Vrabel, Tedy Bruschi, Richard Seymour, Rodney Harrison, etc..

Did Tom Brady's Performance Decline Without the Tapes?

The "cheating" would have no impact on the Patriots defense, as opposing offensive signals are called in from the sideline to the opposing quarterback. Rather, it would be reflected in offensive performance.

The place where the difference would have been seen most starkly would have been in the passing statistics of Tom Brady. For the information on the tapes to be used in an improper way, someone would have to be calling in to him the signals observed, and Brady would be rolling up unusually high numbers.

So what were Brady's numbers? When was he most effective as a quarterback? Let's compare his numbers in the championship seasons, the last season before the tapes were seized, and the seasons since then.

Year Comp Pct TD Pct Int Pct Rating
2001 63.9 4.4 2.9 86.5
2003 60.2 4.4 2.3 85.9
2004 60.8 5.9 3.0 92.6
2006 61.8 4.7 2.3 87.9
2007 68.9 8.7 1.4 117.2
2009 65.3 4.7 2.2 95.4

His two highest completion percentages, his two lowest interception percentages and his two highest ratings are since he no longer has whatever benefit might be conferred on him through the taping. The interception percentage is particularly significant, because it would presumably be of particular benefit in avoiding interception traps, where the presumptive read off what the defense was doing might fool a QB but the signal called in from the sideline might alert him. He has not had that signal--yet he is throwing fewer interceptions than when he did have it.

Similarly, the increased completion percentage shows that he is more aware, not less, of the gaps in coverage that defenses offer him. The TD percentage in 2007 was off the charts.

This year, he lacks the credible third and fourth wide receiver threats of past years--there is no David Givens, David Patten, Donte Stallworth or Jabar Gaffney around this year. He is nonetheless able to complete passes more regularly than in those years when he presumably had the assistance of the tapes.

His rating and his yards passing per game for the two seasons without the tapes are higher than before the hullabaloo at the beginning of the 2007 season. His adjusted yards per pass attempt have been higher each year since then than before.

So where the effect of "cheating" ought to be most apparent, it is not.

Did "Cheating" Promote the Running Game?

Perhaps knowing the defensive signals might have enabled Brady to spot weaknesses in rush defense that would help his backs exploit the defense for better yardage? Here are the rushing figures before and after the taping; again, what are presented are the three championship years, the season before the tape seizure and the seasons since then. 2008 is also included; without Brady, one would think that defenses would zero in more on the rushing game, and given also that the injuries to the running backs last year were so severe, average carry would be expected to be negatively impacted.

Rushing per game Average carry Rushing TD
2001 112.1 3.8 15
2003 100.4 3.4 9
2004 133.4 4.1 15
2006 123.1 3.9 20
2007 115.6 4.1 17
2008 142.4 4.4 21
2009 118.5 4.1 15*

* after 13 games

Plainly the Patriots' rushing offense has not suffered without the tapes. They have matched or bettered the average carry of the best tape-era rushing attack every year since then. Their yards per game have been comparable to the championship era. There is no explanation that the Pats have better backs now than they had then; the pre-taping numbers include, in 2004 and 2006, Corey Dillon, probably the best back the Patriots have had since the heyday of Jim Nance in the 1960's. But to lay that particular question to rest, there is a constant we can examine: Kevin Faulk.

Faulk was there in all those earlier seasons; he remains with them today. He is now in his 30's, an age at which runners' performance usually declines. How do his results now compare to the years when the Patriots had the tapes?

YPG YPC TD
2001 11.3 4.1 1
2003 42.5 3.6 0
2004 23.2 4.7 2
2006 8.2 4.9 1
2007 16.6 4.3 0
2008 33.8 6.1 3
2009 22.1 5.2 2*

* after 13 games

Same guy, Kevin Faulk. In 2003 and last year there were a couple of games in which he started, so the yards per game are up slightly those two years. Except for those two years, he has been primarily a long-yardage and third-down back who runs a lot of draw plays. But what stands out is that, at an age when most runners are making their retirement plans, his average carry has improved, last year to an absolutely ridiculous level. The one runner who's a before and after constant runs much better now than when the Pats were taping signals.

What--he runs better if he isn't "cheating"? To borrow a phrase from my least favorite politician, we're dealing with a very inconvenient truth.

Conclusion

So the Patriots pass better without tapes. They run better without tapes. They went from 12-4 with the tapes to 16-0 without. In 2008, without Brady, with Laurence Maroney and Sammy Morris each missing large parts of the season, with the defense having lost Asante Samuel, Eugene Wilson and Randall Gay before the season and losing Rodney Harrison, Terrence Wheatley, Tedy Bruschi, Adalius Thomas, Ty Warren and Richard Seymour for extended periods during it, they still finished 11-5.

In other words, not only does the evidence not support the contention that the team won its championships because of "cheating", it excludes it. The argument is exposed as the rant of people who hate the Patriots, one that lacks the slightest justification beyond the simple feeling of the fans of certain teams that the Patriots shouldn't beat their beloved teams--they must be "cheating". They're the eternal little boy who runs home, "WAHHHHH, MOMMY, BILLY AND TOMMY ARE CHEATING!"

In the words of the man who inflicted probably the most embarrassing loss the Patriots ever suffered, Mike Ditka, "Spygate" wouldn't even be a story if the Patriots weren't so good. It's all about envying them their success.

Envy and slander don't make you or your team look better. Cheer for your team. If you must, cheer when the Patriots lose. But put this one away. It's simply not true or even defensible.

I am giving the proponents of this garbage the benefit of the doubt even now. I am trusting that they are not simply do this to get Patriots fans angry. If that's the case, they deserve only two things--to be despised and to be ignored.