Wolverine247 Board

I completely realize that there are conflicting reports right now about whether or not Mickey Loomis was actually eavesdropping on the opposing coaching staff during games. My post isn't focusing on whether or not it actually happened, because I have no idea.

What I found somewhat ridiculous, though, was the way some of the folks on ESPN immediately defended the action (if true) as being no big deal. Trey Wingo mentioned that the Saints only went .500 at home during those years, so it obviously didn't help too much. But who's to say they wouldn't have gone .250 or even worse? And Bill Polian, and I believe Mark Schlereth (but it could have been someone else), both said that even if this did happen, it wouldn't have given the Saints a competitive advantage. Their reasoning was that no GM could understand the verbage of the opposing play calls in time to pass it along to the Saints coaches before the ball was snapped. First of all, that's completely incorrect. He may not know what the exact play is, but most legit GM's would be able to decipher if it's a run or a pass, which way the run is going, and what type of pass it is (bootleg, 3-step, 5-step, etc.).

Secondly, the communication wouldn't have been limited just to the play calls. It would have been every word the coaches said over the headsets for the entire game - who's injured, whether to fake a punt, whether to kick an onside kick, which Saints player they're trying to expose, plays that they want to run later in the game, adjustments they're making between series, etc.

I was honestly stunned that Polian and the rest of the crew blew it off like they did. Maybe they're close with Loomis, and are just trying to stick up for a friend, but then they shouldn't be doing the job they're doing. Anyone else as baffled by their commentary as I was?