Skip to content

Kraft called Belichick “a real schmuck” for Spygate

Bill Belichick, Robert Kraft AP

In discussing the Spygate scandal of 2007, Patriots owner Robert Kraft insisted his coach didn’t do anything “deliberately” wrong.

But that doesn’t mean he thought taping the Jets’ coaches was a good idea.

In a passage from his new book, “Coaching Confidential: Inside the Fraternity of NFL Coaches,” New York Daily News columnist Gary Myers revealed the Kraft had some choice words for Bill Belichick.

“Everybody has their idiosyncrasies, but if there is trust, that’s the key in business, in marriages,” Kraft said (via the Boston Globe). “You build a sense of trust so you go through rough times. Look what happened with this bogus thing with the Jets. I stood by him pretty darn good. That was rough.”

That “bogus thing” was secretly taping signals, for which Belichick was fined $500,000 and the team was fined $250,000 and lost a first-round draft pick.

“How much did this help us on a scale of 1 to 100?” Kraft asked Belichick.

“One,” Belichick replied.

“Then you’re a real schmuck,” Kraft said he told Belichick.

Kraft defended his coach, and said he never thought about firing him.

“He would take every edge he could get but he would never knowingly break the rules or cross the line,” Kraft said. “I know him. I’m not saying he was a choir boy.”

Schmuck or not, Kraft stood by him.

Permalink 50 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, New England Patriots, Rumor Mill
50 Responses to “Kraft called Belichick “a real schmuck” for Spygate”
  1. grogansheroes says: Nov 11, 2012 9:57 AM

    And you believe something Gary Myers writes?

  2. edwinmoses says: Nov 11, 2012 9:59 AM

    “He would take every edge he could get but he would never knowingly break the rules or cross the line”
    ———————————————————————————-
    do I even need to comment on the absurdity of this statement.

  3. nogoodell says: Nov 11, 2012 10:00 AM

    Kraft still standing by Romney?

  4. flaccounibrow says: Nov 11, 2012 10:00 AM

    I’d say it helped oh….say….3-3.5 points a game

  5. pftcensorssuck says: Nov 11, 2012 10:13 AM

    Kudos to Kraft for saying this to Belichick.

    Kudos to Belichick for admitting it didn’t help them very much.

  6. patriotsdefense says: Nov 11, 2012 10:24 AM

    @nogoodell

    Bob Kraft gave to Obama and was an Obama supporter. It was his son Jonathan, the former Bain Co. employee, who held the $75k-a-plate dinner for Mitt.

  7. radrntn says: Nov 11, 2012 10:30 AM

    1 to 100, a one…..sure we all believe that. just like we all believe he is a great coach when playing without a guy named tom brady

  8. cali49er707 says: Nov 11, 2012 10:41 AM

    Kraft dressing sucks!!

  9. bobhk says: Nov 11, 2012 10:43 AM

    He knowingly did break it since there was a memo about the very same thing that season. Probably benefitted more than 1 out of 100. If it wouldn’t he would not break the rules knowingly.

  10. horses721 says: Nov 11, 2012 10:53 AM

    The key witness against the Patriot’s was the guy they fired and took some tapes with him. Go back and look people, he said he was told to tape signals but didn’t turn in the tapes until after the game was over. How does that help win a game?

  11. dolphandan says: Nov 11, 2012 10:53 AM

    There will always be an asterisk next to their championships. They cheated, got caught and were bailed out by a dirty commissioner.

  12. dan7800 says: Nov 11, 2012 10:53 AM

    Why was Belichick not banned for life for this?

    After the Pats beat the tar out of Buffalo earlier this year, Kraft came out and started mocking the Bills fans blowing kisses.

    We started chanting “cheater” to him. He immediately got more angry and flustered.

  13. jagsfan1 says: Nov 11, 2012 10:56 AM

    An overrated schmuck if you ask me…

    Belichick has numerous times looked just as clueless and dumbfounded on the sidelines as every other coach out there…Adam V and defense won 2 of those 3 sb…totally lucked into Brady…and 8yrs w/o SB victory while losing 2x to same team in SB is not very “greatest of all time like”.

  14. westclaims says: Nov 11, 2012 10:57 AM

    Is it his usual practice, to give schmucks a $500,000.00 bonus after something like that?

  15. robataille says: Nov 11, 2012 10:58 AM

    Agreed.

  16. rams1999 says: Nov 11, 2012 11:03 AM

    A 1 on a scale if 1-100?? Sure. Of course he is gonna say that. These N.E teams will always b cheaters in my mind. They cheated for a whole decade. Those titles do not count. Stupid answer, a 1, then why would he risk filming then? Weakest coach who ever coached in NFL.

  17. flash1283 says: Nov 11, 2012 11:04 AM

    radrntn says:
    Nov 11, 2012 10:30 AM
    1 to 100, a one…..sure we all believe that. just like we all believe he is a great coach when playing without a guy named tom brady

    —-
    You gotta love it when the haters try to use this argument.

    Go look at any coach who is or was considered “great”,
    They ALL had a great QB or superior defense.

  18. vikesfansteve says: Nov 11, 2012 11:06 AM

    B.S. 1. Just look at the Steelers AFC Championship games and the fact that Brady knew the blitz was coming and the exact hot read receiver to gouge them. It was worth 3 Super Bowl wins.

    A 1. Guy still lying about it to this day!

  19. maddog111 says: Nov 11, 2012 11:08 AM

    pftcensorssuck says:
    Nov 11, 2012 10:13 AM
    Kudos to Kraft for saying this to Belichick.

    Kudos to Belichick for admitting it didn’t help them very much.
    ———————————————
    Kudos to Belichick for admitting it didn’t help much? What did you expect him to say, that they wouldn’t have won those three championships without it?

  20. unbreakable02215 says: Nov 11, 2012 11:14 AM

    If you aren’t smart enough to change your signals from week to week in the NFL then you deserve to have them stolen by any means imaginable.

    Oh, and when a guy gets told by your team to fall down on the ground like he’s injured and your team gets fined for it ? That’s cheating.

    But we won’t hear anyone discuss that now, will
    we……

  21. Obama's Ballsack says: Nov 11, 2012 11:17 AM

    jagsfan1 says:
    Nov 11, 2012 10:56 AM
    An overrated schmuck if you ask me…

    Belichick has numerous times looked just as clueless and dumbfounded on the sidelines as every other coach out there…Adam V and defense won 2 of those 3 sb…totally lucked into Brady…and 8yrs w/o SB victory while losing 2x to same team in SB is not very “greatest of all time like”.

    ————————————————

    You root for the Jags. Don’t get down on the Pats because your team is sad and pathetic.

  22. joewilliesshnoz says: Nov 11, 2012 11:19 AM

    It takes one, to know one !

  23. mrconnors says: Nov 11, 2012 11:20 AM

    The Steelers AFCCG’s? You mean the 2001 title game, where the Patriots did nothing on offense the whole game and won on two special teams touchdowns? Yeah, they sure “knew what was coming” when the Steelers attempted a FG and punted the ball.

    Brady didn’t even play a lot of that game. Bledsoe came in and threw for a whopping 10-21, 100 yards. Besides, the Patriots themselves had not played the Steelers since 1998, and Belichick himself had not faced them since 1996 as an assistant. There were no signals to be played.

    Same logic applies to the 2003 Panthers SB. The Patriots played the Panthers in 2001 when the Panthers were 1-15 with a different head coach and QB. Unless Seifert handed Fox his exact playbook with the exact same signals, spygate had nothing to do with the 2003 SB.

    I’ve heard the Patriots haven’t won “anything” without spygate. They did go 16-0, 14-2, and 13-3 and two super bowl appearances in three of the last five seasons, and another was with Matt Cassel at QB, we see how well he’s doing nowadays.

    If you want to say, well, they didn’t win it, how come the logic is only applied in SB’s? Are you saying they only used spygate for Super Bowls? It takes a lot more games to get there, and they’ve won plenty of them.

    I’ll tell you why they lost to the Giants. Their defense stunk and couldn’t get off the field, they didn’t fall on any of the 3 fumbles they forced, and Welker couldn’t hold on to that pass. Not because of these magic signals.

  24. lucky5936 says: Nov 11, 2012 11:21 AM

    I respect Kraft for being honest in his assessment of Belichick at the time. Even more so for standing by his coach despite his immoral decision.

  25. sschmiggles says: Nov 11, 2012 11:28 AM

    radrntn says:
    Nov 11, 2012 10:30 AM
    1 to 100, a one…..sure we all believe that. just like we all believe he is a great coach when playing without a guy named tom brady
    ________________________

    Yeah, we all know how little coaches change the game when they have a great QB. Just look at how good the Saints are without Sean Payton!

    It’s not like Belichick went 11-5 with a Matt Cassel-esque QB, or like he was the last head coach to win a playoff game in Cleveland or anything.

  26. firejc says: Nov 11, 2012 11:31 AM

    If it didn’t help, it wouldn’t have been done.

  27. dolphins1121 says: Nov 11, 2012 11:53 AM

    Nov 11, 2012 11:20 AM
    The Steelers AFCCG’s? You mean the 2001 title game, where the Patriots did nothing on offense the whole game and won on two special teams touchdowns? Yeah, they sure “knew what was coming” when the Steelers attempted a FG and punted the ball.

    Brady didn’t even play a lot of that game. Bledsoe came in and threw for a whopping 10-21, 100 yards. Besides, the Patriots themselves had not played the Steelers since 1998, and Belichick himself had not faced them since 1996 as an assistant. There were no signals to be played.

    Same logic applies to the 2003 Panthers SB. The Patriots played the Panthers in 2001 when the Panthers were 1-15 with a different head coach and QB. Unless Seifert handed Fox his exact playbook with the exact same signals, spygate had nothing to do with the 2003 SB.

    I’ve heard the Patriots haven’t won “anything” without spygate. They did go 16-0, 14-2, and 13-3 and two super bowl appearances in three of the last five seasons, and another was with Matt Cassel at QB, we see how well he’s doing nowadays.

    If you want to say, well, they didn’t win it, how come the logic is only applied in SB’s? Are you saying they only used spygate for Super Bowls? It takes a lot more games to get there, and they’ve won plenty of them.

    I’ll tell you why they lost to the Giants. Their defense stunk and couldn’t get off the field, they didn’t fall on any of the 3 fumbles they forced, and Welker couldn’t hold on to that pass. Not because of these magic signals.

    ———————————————

    I’m a Dolphins fan, and I approve this message.

  28. pftbad says: Nov 11, 2012 11:57 AM

    Secretly taping signals? What was secret about it? They were taping signals out in the open for the whole world to see. Why? Because it was an accepted and long standing practice.

    It was about camera location because we all know that this kind of taping is still legal to this day as long as it’s done from the stands, right?

  29. bigpap says: Nov 11, 2012 12:04 PM

    “That “bogus thing” was secretly taping signals”
    ——————————————————-

    Yes, because having guys stand on the sidelines with cameras fits the definition of secret. :/

    Pats did the crime, and they did the time. Lets all put spygate in the grave where it belongs. Except for the steeler fans that is. They are a whiny bunch.

  30. db105 says: Nov 11, 2012 12:06 PM

    I love the irrational and illogical comments by the simpleminded.

  31. japmen says: Nov 11, 2012 12:09 PM

    No matter how good the Pats teams have been since the scandal, they still can’t win any SBs. Call it off-base but they havent won since they stopped cheating. I believe it was all the edge they needed.

    How much of an edge was it? Ask the Rams who should have and would have won the game with the exact same type of edge.

  32. patriots123456 says: Nov 11, 2012 12:26 PM

    There isn’t a team out there who hasn’t had a player caught for steroids or other substance abuse problems.

    So guess what? They all have been caught cheating in one way or the other.

    Spygate took place in the first half of the first game that season. So they went 15 1/2 games after that and won them all.

    If they stunk no one would care. LOL

  33. dan7800 says: Nov 11, 2012 12:33 PM

    Eventually, more will emerge about this scandal that the NFL tried to cover up.

  34. rams1999 says: Nov 11, 2012 12:39 PM

    @Obama ballsack, love the name.

  35. 88ibis says: Nov 11, 2012 12:42 PM

    “How much did this help us on a scale of 1 to 100?” Kraft asked Belichick.

    “One,” Belichick replied.

    “Then you’re a real schmuck,” Kraft said he told Belichick.

    ——————————-

    So if Belichick had answered “40” or “82” what would Kraft had said? At what point does the scale tip so that kraft thought it was a smart move?

  36. hyzers says: Nov 11, 2012 12:42 PM

    Let me get this straight: Kraft asked Billy how much it helped the team. Billy replied “one.” Kraft replied “THEN you’re a schmuck.”

    I wonder if Kraft would have praised him if Billy admitted it helped them a lot more than a “one.”

  37. japmen says: Nov 11, 2012 12:44 PM

    No one ever said the Patriot teams were bad. But the really, really good ones didnt win but the ones where Brady wasnt quite as good, they won. If it wasn’t a big deal, it wouldn’t have come out and everyone would be openly doing it. Just because Bill is a good coach and Brady an amazing QB, doesn’t mean cheating is good all of a sudden.

    They cheated. They cheated for quite a while. They won 3 out of 4 in a four year period and none of them were a blowout. They havent won any since. It was a bad enough offense that they lost a pick and Goodell was too scared to make it public. It was an edge, and I dont care how good they have been since, they were cheaters during all of their super bowl runs. Asterisks indeed.

  38. bobhk says: Nov 11, 2012 12:52 PM

    Belichick is great but not as great as pats fans would like to believe. I’d be more inclined to put Brady higher on the greatness list than belichick.

  39. aljack88 says: Nov 11, 2012 12:53 PM

    flaccounibrow says:
    Nov 11, 2012 10:00 AM
    I’d say it helped oh….say….3-3.5 points a game

    ——————————————————–

    Show us the math.

  40. grogansheroes says: Nov 11, 2012 12:55 PM

    Funny how Rex Ryan gets credit for taking the Jets to 2 AFCC games, but Belichick gets no credit for going undefeated and losing in 2 Super Bowls.

  41. aljack88 says: Nov 11, 2012 12:56 PM

    japmen says:
    Nov 11, 2012 12:09 PM

    How much of an edge was it? Ask the Rams who should have and would have won the game with the exact same type of edge.

    ———————————————————

    and what edge did the Pats have over the Rams?

  42. fsf7 says: Nov 11, 2012 1:01 PM

    In Super Bowl XLII – the Giants figured out the Patriots OL calls. All one needs to do is watch the NFL Films recap of the Super Bowl and what the Giants players were saying on the sideline – and although Eli Manning won the MVP for that game, it was the Giants pass rush that won that game.

    The point: having foreknowledge of the opponents plays before they run them gives a distinct advantage. If it didn’t, Belichick wouldn’t have been doing it.

    Patriots fans love to point to how they couldn’t have used taped signals to beat Pittsburgh in the 2001 AFCCG – instead they needed fluke special teams plays – similar to the game vs. Oakland.

    However, they did have taped signals vs. the Rams from an earlier game they lost. And in 2004 the Steelers ended the Patriots winning streak in dominating fashion – but in the AFCCG that year they sure looked like a team that knew what the Steelers were doing before the play.

    The Pasterisks cheated, got caught, had it swept under the rug for the image of the league. There is no other explanation for how a team of mediocre talent and cast offs was able to win so frequently.

  43. aljack88 says: Nov 11, 2012 1:02 PM

    yea, the Pats were the only the ones to do this. The reason why all the sideline coaches today cover their mouths with clipboards, game sheets, etc, must be because of their bad breath. Everyone is paranoid of video Bill,, even college teams.

  44. 1historian says: Nov 11, 2012 4:48 PM

    The Pats got caught stealing other teams’ defensive signals.

    Big deal.

    The Pats were the first and only team to get caught stealing other teams’ defensive signals.

    Other teams don’t do it?

    I’ve got some ocean front land in Arizona.

  45. db105 says: Nov 11, 2012 4:51 PM

    Those of you that think video tapping gives a team an advantage should give credit to the people that can decode the signals and implement the data all within the same game. That’s very difficult to do given the amount of plays and the time in which to do it. I hate the Pats as much as most people but looking at this logically the Pats had little or no advantage unless they played the same team a second time.

  46. richwizl says: Nov 11, 2012 4:58 PM

    What the New England Patriots were finally able to do was to acquire great ownership, a great Head Coach and a really smart Quarterback who is the total package. With this great leadership came a rebirth of a franchise, resulting in putting a dominant football team on the field every single year for the past thirteen seasons. The Kraft, Belichik, Brady combination is a winning one and every team strives to be just like them, while their jealous fans whine and make up stories for their team’s own inefficiencies. The End.

  47. koenig61 says: Nov 11, 2012 5:06 PM

    I have no idea how much those tapes helped the pats. And unfortunately no one ever will know. Goodell made certain of that, when he burned the tapes. I can’t think of any instance in any court of law where evidence would be destroyed. It’s that very reason why people will always wonder.
    If there wasn’t anything very damaging to the patriots or their wins and losses on those tapes, then why destroy them. ?

  48. olvera32066 says: Nov 11, 2012 6:24 PM

    they cheated, led by the coach !!!! that’s why I can’t stand them !!
    that’s why karma and a doof like Eli have popped them in their fat mouths…..
    this league has a benevolence at times that’s astounding !!……….Sean Payton has an argument…….and his situation is dispicable !!

  49. goapher21 says: Nov 12, 2012 5:05 PM

    They have been to 2 super bowls since spygate. They may have lost but how many teams besides the giants can say they have had that kind of success? They haven’t won in years because they have been rebuilding their defense after losing bruski, Harrison, seymour, and many other valuable players. It’s hard to keep winning when you are always at the end of the first round. Spy gate may have helped but your team, coach and qb have to be pretty good to get to the super bowl 3 out of 4 years and 5 times in 11 years.

  50. sndflyers says: Jun 20, 2014 4:17 PM

    Without getting myself too immersed in the conjecture and insults, wouldn’t it be fair to say that if spy gate were true, that the Intake, decoding, translation, and application of said defensive signals would not have to come from the game they were playing at the present moment but rather the ability of a multi-billion dollar franchise to privately fly and move “spys” from one place to another rather easily. My point is: The information could have been collected prior to any game played thus taking the anomaly of how the information was collected and applied so rapidly out of the question.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!