By Max Gross

First and foremost, the Patriots broke a rule. The rule was clearly stated, and clearly violated, so a punishment is expected and deserved. However, many have taken issue with the "lax" punishment doled out by the league, and many more have started to play the game of "what if." I feel a responsibility to clarify some of these issues.

Among the top complaints about the punishment doled out to the Patriots is a comparison to the punishment received by Cowboys QB coach Wade Wilson for the use of HGH.

Look, this is comparing night and day; apples and oranges. The steroids policy is specific. Wilson was not only suspended for taking HGH, but for his means of acquiring it. While talk radio hacks love to discuss the innocent motivations for Wilson's HGH use (of course, taking him at his word and nothing else), the motivations are irrelevant. If coaches are allowed to acquire a banned substance that is very difficult to detect in tests, what is to stop him from distributing it to the team? For that reason, any acquisition of HGH must be treated within the steroid policy, and coaches should be held to the same, or similar, standards as the players. The room for abuse is simply too great to allow coaches to be in possession of banned substances.

Meanwhile, the loss of a QB coach, in-season, for a couple games is a very minimal penalty. Wilson can still review film from home, still call his co-workers and discuss the game, ect. The suspension of a coach really doesn't work the same way as the suspension of a player, and it is not as harsh a penalty.

And there-in lies the problem with calls for suspensions for Belichick. It is unenforceable. Belichick would certainly spend his down time reviewing film, calling his staff, assisting in game-planning from a distance, and doing much of the same sort of thing he does in-house right now. Besides, with the talent on the Patriots' current roster, a 4-game suspension would likely lead to the team going, at worst, 2-2 in that stretch and in the long run would serve absolutely no penalty whatsoever. The team would still be likely to make the playoffs and would still have their coach in the playoffs. A suspension of Belichick would literally be meaningless by the end of this season. To me, a suspension would serve as the ultimate wrist-slap.

Furthermore, many have complained that the fine is not steep enough, as a percentage of his salary. However, the league impose the league maximum fine. They literally could not have fined him any more. Besides, giving up more than 10% of your salary is generally a pretty good incentive to not repeat those actions.

Furthermore, what is with the down-playing of the loss of a first round pick? Does anyone realize how valuable a first round pick is? These things are not traded around like candy. These things are not bought and sold all that commonly. The fact that the Patriots already have an additional first round pick is irrelevant. They acquired that through fair means, and it does nothing to devalue the one that they will now lose.

Bear in mind that the finagling with the salary cap that was found to have violated the rules by the Broncos resulted in the loss of 3rd round picks. The loss of a first round pick is one of the harshest punishments available from the league against an organization. It has a long-lasting impact, unlike a brief suspension. It hurts the team, the coach, the owner... it impacts all levels of the organization.

Then there are those like NFL Network's Rod Woodson that feel that years of cheating should result in multiple years' picks being docked. However, while I am not naive enough to suspect that this is an isolated incident, the Patriots were caught merely once. They have only been proven guilty of one incident. I believe that Goodell logically and correctly upped the punishment befitting of a repeated violation, but without knowing the extent of the violations or the longevity of the banned practices, it is impossible to go with a more severe penalty than the one handed out.

The inevitable, but still irritating, byproduct of this mini-scandal is that teams who have endured close defeats at the hands of the Patriots will second-guess the victories--especially the important ones. Already, I have read accounts that their Super Bowls are tarnished or that their Championship games are tarnished.

However, given the complexity of actually implimenting the use of stolen signals, it seems to be universally agreed that the help would not come until the second half of individual games and that even then it would be difficult to gain a benefit on most plays. Often, defensive calls are made after the offensive calls and personnel groupings, and at the same time, the radio communication cuts off pretty early from the coach to the quarterback. So assuming this method was used for every game, it had an impact on a few plays per game in the second half.

While I don't mean to discount the importance on a game that just a few plays can have, bear in mind that during the Patriots' run of success, particularly in the second two Super Bowl runs, the teams were usually leading in the first half, as well.

Furthermore, keep in mind how this video-taping was accomplished. Generally, it required a security breach and/or uncredentialed photographers. Is it probable or likely to imagine that in the playoffs and especially in the Super Bowls beginning in 2001, when security was upped after September 11th, that the Patriots were able to acquire the necessary means for covert video-taping and corresponding radio signals?

Any signal stealing through illegal, video means would have had to have been acquired in advance, during the regular season. The 2001 Patriots did not play the Steelers or Raiders during the regular season (though they did play the Rams). And it should be noted that the Rams' offense was held to three points in the first half in that game. That is not the results of stealing defensive signals from the Rams.

The 2003 Patriots did not play the Panthers in the regular season, nor did the 2004 Patriots play the Philadelphia Eagles in the regular season. When, then, did the illegal means of stealing signals take place?

The fact of the matter is that the Patriots broke a rule in their attempts to acquire other teams' signals and therefore, they have been punished. But the extent to which they received a competitive advantage in their run of dominance is still unknown, and to the best of my logic, is not enough to discredit the accomplishments of the team. The extent to which this tarnishes their reputation, in my view, is minimal.

It will always be unknown how much playcalling relied on illegal and how much on legal means of subterfuge. There is an element of gamesmanship and signal stealing throughout the league, and the Patriots crossed a distinct line beyond that. However, it is just as likely that their success stems from talent, solid defense, and great execution.

Do you think, in no huddle, two-minute drills, Brady and Belichick had the time to decipher defensive signals and adjust? Or is that more an element of Tom Brady being cool under pressure? Do you think that Teddy Bruschi or Adam Vinatieri benefitted from stolen defensive play calls? Yet they were considered heroes and crucial elements of those teams.

The Patriots may not have been doing things entirely by the books, but there is no evidence that these practices began prior to 2006, even. If this was suspected earlier, why, then, weren't teams able to catch the Patriots in the act? How many coaches and assistants have left the team without word getting out? The Patriots got caught breaking a rule, but their championships do not deserve an asterick. Not based on the available information, or based on my best estimates of their crimes. As Belichick said: it's in the past, now let's all move on.