PDA

View Full Version : So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar



Slick Pinkham
05-08-2008, 08:20 AM
To paraphrase Roger Goodell when on Mike & Mike recently,

Goodell:

If all Mr. Walsh has to offer are additional examples of sideline taping of coaching signals in games, then it is not significant. I reviewed 6 tapes in September, and also notes from earlier instances where the tapes were not in existence. I came to the full understanding that Coach Belichick has had the same interpretation of the rules during his entire coaching tenure. I took all of that into account, the fact that sideline taping of coaching signals for future analysis extends all the way back to the beginnings of his coaching career, when the harsh penalties were assessed."

It's over. Nobody will be re-punished for the same offense for which the largest punishment in NFL history was already handed down. The appropriate punishment was meted out.

bottom line on the past 4 months of spygate:

The Boston Herald and ESPN used unnamed sources, led everyone to believe it was Mr. Walsh, and apparently falsely alleged that the Patriots made a tape of the Rams Super Bowl walkthrough. The persons who need to be punished additionally are Tomase of the Herald and Fish of ESPN for making up a huge story days before the Super Bowl. Now Fish seems to be trying to cover his butt by spinning a non-story as a story. It will be interesting to see if Tomase does the same.

Robert Kraft probably will not pursue libel charges, since this story would only be kept alive by that action, but a part of me wishes he would, to curb future drive-by journalism

Basketball Fan
05-08-2008, 11:56 AM
Well what other ending could the NFL possibly afford here? Seriously it took this long for something to come out of this and this was it? One would think that if there was nothing there this would've been resolved as soon as it broke. I'm sure the NFL and Walsh had some sort of agreement about what can be released and can't... I find it hard to believe he did all this posturing for nothing I mean wouldn't Kraft sue him?


That being said regardless the NFL can't afford to have Spygate blow up because I don't believe the Patriots are alone in this regard I really don't. The lack of outrage from the rest of the league kind of tells me this. It would be in Goodell's and the NFL's best interest to not have this blow up.

Personally I could care less of the Patriots did this because I doubt they were alone I hated them long before this and I will hate them long after Spygate has very little to do with it.

BUT Goodell didn't do himself and the league any favors when he tried to destroy the evidence to begin with the coverup is always worse than the "crime"

Since86
05-08-2008, 12:19 PM
How do you read that first sentence as it being over?

It starts with the word "if." "If it's over," is what it says, it doesn't say, 'it's over.'


Goodell and Walsh haven't even met yet, so how do we know what he has? We don't. Goodell is only saying that if he has more evidence that he taped regular season games from the sidelines then no more punishment will be handed out.

Lord Helmet
05-08-2008, 12:29 PM
How do you read that first sentence as it being over?

It starts with the word "if." "If it's over," is what it says, it doesn't say, 'it's over.'


Goodell and Walsh haven't even met yet, so how do we know what he has? We don't. Goodell is only saying that if he has more evidence that he taped regular season games from the sidelines then no more punishment will be handed out.
Yeah, the title is mis-leading, from the title of this thread I thought the meeting had already taken place....

But it's actually like the 16th, isn't it?

Slick Pinkham
05-08-2008, 12:56 PM
How do you read that first sentence as it being over?

Words from the NFL certainly say it's over, and Walsh was required to turn over all evidence by yesterday.

league spokesman Greg Aiello saying: "This is consistent with what the Patriots had admitted they had been doing, consistent with what we already knew."

source: associated press

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jZ9SsuDwea096aqbVpWygv11KfeQD90HEBS80

SoupIsGood
05-08-2008, 01:00 PM
"... and against Pittsburgh in the 2002 AFC championship game."

God, Belichick is such a dick.

grace
05-08-2008, 01:55 PM
How do you read that first sentence as it being over?

Obviously he was wearing his Belichick spy glasses when he read it.

Slick Pinkham
05-08-2008, 03:20 PM
No, I am listening to the words of Roger Goodell on Mike and Mike a couple of weeks back, and more importantly the more recent words of Mr. Aiello. Grace, are you incapable of interpreting their own words?

The position was clearly staked out: If the "new evidence" from Mr. Walsh was found to be just more examples of sideline videotaping of signals, then it is not new at all, since punishment in September was based upon the understanding and the admission that this had gone on.

I find it incredibly convenient the stance I read above:

1) We are willing to believe evidence AGAINST the Patriots is grounds for more and more punishment

and at the same time

2) We believe that the absence of any new evidence would be (and now is) merely a reflection of a vast conspiracy by the NFL to save their product, that the Patriots are guility of everything that anyone might imagine (including global warming and the price of gas), and that Goodell is keeping us from learning this truth.

With those two beliefs, no matter what evidence is presented, we can comfortably adopt the exact same stance: the Patriots are guilty of everything, facts be damned.

Since86
05-08-2008, 03:55 PM
You're completely missing the point.

The statement doesn't say it's over. It say's is over IF Walsh doesn't have any new evidence.

It doesn't say that it's over, it says it's over IF....

Again, let me say that one more time. It doesn't say that it's over, it say's it's over IF Walsh doesn't have any new evidence.

Your title and your bottom line present it as completely over, and that's not what the statement says.

You read it as over, everyone recognizes that two letter word at the beginning.

Slick Pinkham
05-08-2008, 04:15 PM
maybe this can clarify things for you:

Sports Illustrated:

"There's no there there.''

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/don_banks/05/08/walsh.reaction/index.html?eref=T1


That's pretty much the whole ball game right there, isn't it? Walsh will have his long-awaited meeting with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell next Tuesday in New York, and maybe he'll flesh out some more details of the Patriots' espionage. But we now know that there's no big hammer headline to come. No suspension to be handed down...

"Thanks for coming, and drive home safely.'' To call it anticlimactic will register as understatement. And I can't say that I'd be able to blame the NFL or the Patriots if they're more than a bit chafed over the whole Walsh affair...

Walsh doesn't have anything that proves they were guilty of the smarmy charge that they taped their opponent's practice the day before New England's first Super Bowl win in 2002.

Any way you cut it, that accusation was at the heart of the Matt Walsh saga. And it didn't stick. It didn't stand up. It remains nothing more than an unsubstantiated report. A rumor.

Not surprisingly, we're all left to look back and wonder what all the fuss was about? In the end, there was no there there when it comes to the Patriots and their opponent's 2002 Super Bowl walkthrough. With that, Spygate finally seems to have at long last run its course. For Walsh, it will soon be time to head back to Hawaii and the golf course. His 15 minutes of fame lasted a lot closer to 15 weeks, but it's almost over.

Slick Pinkham
05-08-2008, 04:27 PM
The statement doesn't say it's over. It say's is over IF Walsh doesn't have any new evidence.

Fact 1: the evidence was required to be turned over by Walsh yesterday.

Fact 2: Walsh's attorney last night described in detail the nature of all of the evidence that his client had already sent to the NFL earlier in the day

Fact 3: based upon the information from the lawyer, last night, after hearing the summary from Walsh's lawyer, the NFL spokesman says that the evidence described is merely "consistent with what we already knew"

I guess technically Walsh's lawyer could be lying, the NFL could look at the tapes and see something there that apparently neither Walsh nor his lawyer understood or that Walsh did not tell his lawyer. In that case, it isn't over. Does this scenario seem likely to you?

Shade
05-09-2008, 12:53 AM
Meh, I called this several days ago. No big surprise to me.

Hopefully the loss of this year's first-rounder, coupled with the Super Bowl loss, will force Beli to eat some humble pie for a change. Lord knows he needs some.

duke dynamite
05-09-2008, 01:41 AM
I doubt this changes anything. The Pats have a rediculously easy schedule this year, and the attitude that they are untouchable now.

Welcome to Hell, I mean the NFL.

tdubb03
05-09-2008, 04:56 AM
ESPN ticker says the tapes will be released to the media on Tuesday.

Since86
05-09-2008, 12:16 PM
Fact 1: the evidence was required to be turned over by Walsh yesterday.

Fact 2: Walsh's attorney last night described in detail the nature of all of the evidence that his client had already sent to the NFL earlier in the day

Fact 3: based upon the information from the lawyer, last night, after hearing the summary from Walsh's lawyer, the NFL spokesman says that the evidence described is merely "consistent with what we already knew"

I guess technically Walsh's lawyer could be lying, the NFL could look at the tapes and see something there that apparently neither Walsh nor his lawyer understood or that Walsh did not tell his lawyer. In that case, it isn't over. Does this scenario seem likely to you?


How about you step back and quit trying to argue and actually look at what I was saying, it might help a bit.

I wasn't talking about the facts of the case. I was talking about the original statement you posted and what it actually said, and what you were trying to say it said.

Everyone, but you, read that tiny little word towards the beginning, which changed the whole way you interpreted it. I wasn't saying the report was wrong, never cited anything else, just that you were jumping to a conclusion that wasn't supported by the statement you posted.

Young
05-09-2008, 12:30 PM
Meh, I called this several days ago. No big surprise to me.

Hopefully the loss of this year's first-rounder, coupled with the Super Bowl loss, will force Beli to eat some humble pie for a change. Lord knows he needs some.

What sucks about them losing that first rounder is they still had the 49ers (I think it was) pick which they traded down for salary purposes.

That really sucks. Sure they lose the last pick in the first round but they still got to keep the 10th.

Gyron
05-09-2008, 12:53 PM
Guys, it's all semantics.

One way or another, its likely this thing is pretty much over unless walsh has something shocking to say when he meets with Goodell.

I'm all for the patriots getting punished further, but honestly, I'm also tired of hearing about it, so hopefully we're done with this soon one way or another.

Swingman
05-10-2008, 02:15 AM
Guys, it's all semantics.

One way or another, its likely this thing is pretty much over unless walsh has something shocking to say when he meets with Goodell.

I'm all for the patriots getting punished further, but honestly, I'm also tired of hearing about it, so hopefully we're done with this soon one way or another.

Any chance of the Patriots getting dismissed from the NFL? :dance:
or at least take away their rings and trophies :buddies:

idioteque
05-10-2008, 10:00 AM
The only reason the Pats have an easy schedule this year is that they are in a lame conference.

It's weird but I've never really gotten into all the Patriot-hate. I don't like Wes Welker at all, but I hated him when he was in Miami as well. BB has the personality of a rock, but his teams win and while Dungy is a great guy he has never came through in the playoffs consistently like BB. Pats fans stereotype Colts fans as being more obsessed with the Pats screwing up than the Colts doing well. To an extent I think that's true.

Sure, I want to beat the Patriots every time we play them. But I don't really hate the Patriots, I see them as a fellow really good team in the NFL. What I hope happens is that we can win the next two Super Bowls so that we have an argument in this "team of the decade" talk. But WE have to win the Super Bowls for this to happen, not the New York Giants.

Lord Helmet
05-10-2008, 04:31 PM
The only reason the Pats have an easy schedule this year is that they are in a lame conference.

It's weird but I've never really gotten into all the Patriot-hate. I don't like Wes Welker at all, but I hated him when he was in Miami as well. BB has the personality of a rock, but his teams win and while Dungy is a great guy he has never came through in the playoffs consistently like BB. Pats fans stereotype Colts fans as being more obsessed with the Pats screwing up than the Colts doing well. To an extent I think that's true.

Sure, I want to beat the Patriots every time we play them. But I don't really hate the Patriots, I see them as a fellow really good team in the NFL. What I hope happens is that we can win the next two Super Bowls so that we have an argument in this "team of the decade" talk. But WE have to win the Super Bowls for this to happen, not the New York Giants.
Well I think it's kind of probably both ways. Both teams fans are obsessed with each team, or at least a lot of fans are. The teams are part of the biggest rivalry going in the NFL, so it's expected. And when both teams are really, really good teams, it just adds more fuel to the fire, that is the rivalry.

The RATS boards used to be basically a second home for Patriot fans. I mean that place was packed with Patriot fans and Patriot trolls.

Sollozzo
05-10-2008, 04:50 PM
Well I think it's kind of probably both ways. Both teams fans are obsessed with each team, or at least a lot of fans are. The teams are part of the biggest rivalry going in the NFL, so it's expected. And when both teams are really, really good teams, it just adds more fuel to the fire, that is the rivalry.

The RATS boards used to be basically a second home for Patriot fans. I mean that place was packed with Patriot fans and Patriot trolls.


I gotta agree. I'm not going to deny that Colts fans are obsessed with the Pats, but let's not pretend that this doesn't work both ways. Anyone who visited the Star forum this past season can verify that the place was just flooded with Patriots fans-some trolls, some legitimate posters. They wouldn't be there if they weren't concerned with the Colts.

Personally, I am proud that an Indiana team is at front and center of one of the hottest rivalries in American Sports, one that shows no signs of slowing down anytime soon.

Moses
05-12-2008, 03:08 PM
Well I think it's kind of probably both ways. Both teams fans are obsessed with each team, or at least a lot of fans are. The teams are part of the biggest rivalry going in the NFL, so it's expected. And when both teams are really, really good teams, it just adds more fuel to the fire, that is the rivalry.

The RATS boards used to be basically a second home for Patriot fans. I mean that place was packed with Patriot fans and Patriot trolls.
I may be a minority, but I am a fan of the NFL first and the Patriots second. I would rather watch the Colts duke it out with SD/Jax then watch NE play a scrub team any day of the week. I don't really hate any team maybe with the exception of the Steelers. I do like the rivalry factor going on between the Colts and the Pats though. Fans of every team mark that game down as a can't miss game every season and probably have been doing so since 2003. I really think when people think back on this era of football, they wont remember any single team (unless the Pats win 2 more SBs this decade) rather they will remember a time of fierce competition between the Colts and Patriots. Every year, everyone expects one of those 2 teams to not only be in the SB but to win it as well. I'm sure some Pats fans will disagree, but this one thinks people will remember the Colts just as much as they do the Patriots. You've got to remember that every playoff game between the Pats and Colts this decade have been very tight games.

Sollozzo
05-12-2008, 03:46 PM
I may be a minority, but I am a fan of the NFL first and the Patriots second. I would rather watch the Colts duke it out with SD/Jax then watch NE play a scrub team any day of the week. I don't really hate any team maybe with the exception of the Steelers. I do like the rivalry factor going on between the Colts and the Pats though. Fans of every team mark that game down as a can't miss game every season and probably have been doing so since 2003. I really think when people think back on this era of football, they wont remember any single team (unless the Pats win 2 more SBs this decade) rather they will remember a time of fierce competition between the Colts and Patriots. Every year, everyone expects one of those 2 teams to not only be in the SB but to win it as well. I'm sure some Pats fans will disagree, but this one thinks people will remember the Colts just as much as they do the Patriots. You've got to remember that every playoff game between the Pats and Colts this decade have been very tight games.


I agree with this. If the Colts can win one more SB, then there's no question that they are basically equal with the Pats as far as being an icon of the decade.

travmil
05-13-2008, 12:28 PM
After seeing the tapes on ESPN today, there is no way even the staunchest Patriots fan could say that this didn't give them a competitive advantage. The tapes are full of endzone shots of what the defense formation looks like, and the down and distance situation. The Pats greatness during this era will forever be questioned, and there's really no defending what they did here. Goodell is on ESPN right now.

From what Goodell explained, the Rams tape rumor seems to stem from the fact that some of the Pats video department, including Walsh, were seen on the field during the Rams walkthrough. Walsh said no tape was made by him or anyone else to his knowledge. So THAT part is dead. There is no Rams SB tape.

2 new pieces of info from the Walsh meeting: Walsh said he had seen a tape, but did not have it, of a Pats player on IR who was practicing with the team, which is against the rules. He identified the player, but Goodell said they have dealt with similar situations before with a fine, and would not further punish the Pats if it turns out it's true.

Also, Walsh told him that players scalping their SB tickets was a widespread problem, but I would almost guarantee that goes on under the table, at least to a certain extent, with every team.

Slick Pinkham
05-13-2008, 01:15 PM
more facts

-Walsh confirmed that there was NEVER any in-game processing of tapes, and they were broken down and edited for storage, apparently for possible analysis just prior to when that opponent was played again.

-Walsh had no knowledge about what coaches or other personnel might have ultimately reviewed the finalized tapes, or if they were always viewed at all.

-Walsh saved/stole the tapes so that he could verify that he had worked in video for the Patriots, and he also thought he might want to get involved in coaching so he also left with tapes of practices including coaching drills, tapes he later lost or discarded.

-Walsh was quizzed about a number of other allegations, like stealing radio signals, messing up opponent's electronics, taping practices, bugging locker rooms, recording players on the field, stealing playbooks, etc. Walsh confirmed that he had no knowledge that any of that was ever going on at any time.

the only minor news: one at least once incident a player on injured reserve practiced. On other occasions, players sold Super Bowl tickets for profit (every NFL playerr is given two tickets to the SB). Both of these types of offenses are usually handled with minor fines.

It is OFFICIALLY OVER.

Time to move on, nothing to see here, no asterisks, no added punishments, no invalidation of anything achieved on the field.

travmil
05-13-2008, 01:22 PM
Time to move on, nothing to see here, no asterisks, no added punishments, no invalidation of anything achieved on the field.

Maybe the NFL didn't do anything official as far as their records or asterisks, but from this time forward, nobody will talk about the Patriots during this era without also bringing up the fact that they cheated during it. I know you don't want to believe it, but it's true.

Moses
05-13-2008, 02:58 PM
Maybe the NFL didn't do anything official as far as their records or asterisks, but from this time forward, nobody will talk about the Patriots during this era without also bringing up the fact that they cheated during it. I know you don't want to believe it, but it's true.
For the next 4-5 years maybe, but as time goes on spygate will be forgotten..maybe with the exception of a few bitter Colts fans once their team goes back into obscurity. They will claim they should have had a dynasty in this decade..but those damn cheatin Pats blocked them!

Since86
05-13-2008, 03:04 PM
Yeah just like in 4-5 years no one will mention Barry Bonds and steroids together either.

travmil
05-13-2008, 03:12 PM
For the next 4-5 years maybe, but as time goes on spygate will be forgotten..maybe with the exception of a few bitter Colts fans once their team goes back into obscurity. They will claim they should have had a dynasty in this decade..but those damn cheatin Pats blocked them!

You're wrong. This will never be forgotten by Colts fans or any other NFL fans for that matter. The Tom Brady Pats will always be linked to the spygate cheating scandal. I know it's hard for you to believe, but it's true. Nobody will ever forget.

Gyron
05-13-2008, 03:14 PM
I think to Pat's fans, this will all be a distant memory. To all other NFL fans, it will forever make them wonder what the advantage may have been......

Moses
05-13-2008, 03:15 PM
You're wrong. This will never be forgotten by Colts fans or any other NFL fans for that matter. The Tom Brady Pats will always be linked to the spygate cheating scandal. I know it's hard for you to believe, but it's true. Nobody will ever forget.
I disagree. Especially once we win another SB.


I think to Pat's fans, this will all be a distant memory. To all other NFL fans, it will forever make them wonder what the advantage may have been......
We will know this in the next few years..although some of the evidence is already there. Post spygate, 18-1.

Gyron
05-13-2008, 03:17 PM
Post Spygate was a different team......You didn't have Moss before....

Moses
05-13-2008, 03:22 PM
Post Spygate was a different team......You didn't have Moss before....
Sure, but we did have a much better defense and a consistent running game. I think that's a fairly even trade off.

Slick Pinkham
05-13-2008, 05:43 PM
You're wrong. This will never be forgotten by Colts fans or any other NFL fans for that matter. The Tom Brady Pats will always be linked to the spygate cheating scandal. I know it's hard for you to believe, but it's true. Nobody will ever forget.

Are bigger cheaters similarly tainted?

When you think of John Elway do you think of Super Bowls won when he and Terrell Davis were given secret and illegal contract bonuses to circumvent the NFL salary cap and allow them to sign additional talent to strengthen their team?

Do you think less of the 90's Cowboys now that Jimmy Johnson says he tried all that taping signals stuff?

When you think of the Carolina Panthers from a few years back, is the first thing you think of the fact that so many of their players were busted for steroids?

The answers are no, no, and no

The only reason this would be any different is that those crimes were far greater than the coverage of the crimes, and in this case it is the opposite. There was endless coverage, for months, based solely upon multiple lies about...

-a SB walkthrough tape
-people decoding signals at halftime
-taping is the "tip of the iceberg" since there has to be other stuff like listening in on QB communication


It must be sad for you guys to see your fantasies shot down. BSPN is taking it hard too. It will be curious if the Patriots ever bury the hatchet with "the Worldwide Liars", assuming Fish/Schlereth/Hoge et. al. offer no retractions. It may be tough continuing to have access to 31/32 of the league.

Basketball Fan
05-13-2008, 06:44 PM
Are bigger cheaters similarly tainted?

When you think of John Elway do you think of Super Bowls won when he and Terrell Davis were given secret and illegal contract bonuses to circumvent the NFL salary cap and allow them to sign additional talent to strengthen their team?

Do you think less of the 90's Cowboys now that Jimmy Johnson says he tried all that taping signals stuff?

When you think of the Carolina Panthers from a few years back, is the first thing you think of the fact that so many of their players were busted for steroids?

The answers are no, no, and no

The only reason this would be any different is that those crimes were far greater than the coverage of the crimes, and in this case it is the opposite. There was endless coverage, for months, based solely upon multiple lies about...

-a SB walkthrough tape
-people decoding signals at halftime
-taping is the "tip of the iceberg" since there has to be other stuff like listening in on QB communication


It must be sad for you guys to see your fantasies shot down. BSPN is taking it hard too. It will be curious if the Patriots ever bury the hatchet with "the Worldwide Liars", assuming Fish/Schlereth/Hoge et. al. offer no retractions. It may be tough continuing to have access to 31/32 of the league.



Why would BSPN be taking it hard they're the ones who love the Patriots remember?


Putting that aside those aren't bigger than this not even close. The government didn't get involved in those instances of cheating but this one. That's why it will stand out not to mention Goodell destroying those tapes did more harm than good in the eyes of the public. If he had disclosed what was on those tapes back then instead of sweeping it under the rug folks would be more inclined to believe him. But he didn't and instead he made things look much worse.


It will never be forgotten by those NFL fans who believe there's something more to this. But in the grand scheme of things you're right the NFL will still keep going as if it never happened.

Slick Pinkham
05-13-2008, 07:00 PM
Why would BSPN be taking it hard

BSPN loves ratings.

In December and January they seized upon the opportunity to pump up the Patriots as an invincible force,

and then they found out greater ratings could be obtained by promoting fabricated stories, continually reminding us that Walsh had bombshells to tell, and insisting that spygate I was just the tip of the iceberg that was spygate II.

It wasn't the tip of the iceberg, it was a tiny icecube that melted at their feet and they look silly, I am told.

I say "I am told" since channel 206 on my direct TV remote, ESPN, has long ago been programmed to not exist on my TV lineup. They are dead to me.

Maybe I should do the same for their web site. Their level of journalism equals that of MTV or the dearly departed Weekly World News, the creator of "bat boy" and the living President Kennedy.

travmil
05-13-2008, 07:00 PM
Are bigger cheaters similarly tainted?

When you think of John Elway do you think of Super Bowls won when he and Terrell Davis were given secret and illegal contract bonuses to circumvent the NFL salary cap and allow them to sign additional talent to strengthen their team?

Do you think less of the 90's Cowboys now that Jimmy Johnson says he tried all that taping signals stuff?

When you think of the Carolina Panthers from a few years back, is the first thing you think of the fact that so many of their players were busted for steroids?

The answers are no, no, and no

The only reason this would be any different is that those crimes were far greater than the coverage of the crimes, and in this case it is the opposite. There was endless coverage, for months, based solely upon multiple lies about...

-a SB walkthrough tape
-people decoding signals at halftime
-taping is the "tip of the iceberg" since there has to be other stuff like listening in on QB communication


It must be sad for you guys to see your fantasies shot down. BSPN is taking it hard too. It will be curious if the Patriots ever bury the hatchet with "the Worldwide Liars", assuming Fish/Schlereth/Hoge et. al. offer no retractions. It may be tough continuing to have access to 31/32 of the league.

This has nothing to do with any of those other scandals you mentioned. What I'm saying, and it is completely true, is that in 5, 10, even 50 years, people will still remember the Tom Brady era Patriots at least as much for their cheating as they will for their Super Bowl wins. I know it's hard to accept, and you don't like it, and will say anything to try to distract us from it, but it's true. Spygate is over and so are my comments on it. It's not even worth it to try to talk about it anymore.

Moses
05-13-2008, 10:35 PM
Putting that aside those aren't bigger than this not even close. The government didn't get involved in those instances of cheating but this one. That's why it will stand out not to mention Goodell destroying those tapes did more harm than good in the eyes of the public. If he had disclosed what was on those tapes back then instead of sweeping it under the rug folks would be more inclined to believe him. But he didn't and instead he made things look much worse.


It will never be forgotten by those NFL fans who believe there's something more to this. But in the grand scheme of things you're right the NFL will still keep going as if it never happened.
Roids and cheating the salary cap are equally serious if not more serious than taping signals...if you think otherwise, you don't know a whole lot about the NFLs salary cap and how effective steroids can be. I'm also not sure how the government was involved. If you mean one senator (Arlen Specter) who wants to be on the front page of ESPN as much as possible. If you'll recall, this is not the first time he has tried to get involved with the NFL (See him trying to punish Eagles and NFL over handling of T.O.s contract). As for the tapes, Goodell may have made a mistake in destroying the first set, but the second set Walsh turned in were shown on ESPN. The tapes that Walsh turned in are similar to the tapes that Goodell destroyed back at the start of the year. If believing in theory conspiracies helps you sleep better at night, then more power to you..but it's pretty clear that all the Pats did was tape signals. Yes thats bad and it was cheating, but it was punished long ago and it is now proven that there is absolutely nothing more to it.


This has nothing to do with any of those other scandals you mentioned. What I'm saying, and it is completely true, is that in 5, 10, even 50 years, people will still remember the Tom Brady era Patriots at least as much for their cheating as they will for their Super Bowl wins. I know it's hard to accept, and you don't like it, and will say anything to try to distract us from it, but it's true. Spygate is over and so are my comments on it. It's not even worth it to try to talk about it anymore.
Stop stating this as a fact. This is clearly your opinion. Obviously as a Colts fan, you are always going to remember the cheating first followed by how good of a team they were. I think people will remember the Patriots much more for their dominance then for spygate. You will watch on NFL network or ESPN classic 5,10,15, 50 years from now some of the Patriots SB wins and there wont even be a mention of spygate..you just watch. I just hope the Pats win a couple more SBs just to put all the doubt to rest.

Basketball Fan
05-13-2008, 10:55 PM
Roids and cheating the salary cap are equally serious if not more serious than taping signals...if you think otherwise, you don't know a whole lot about the NFLs salary cap and how effective steroids can be. I'm also not sure how the government was involved. If you mean one senator (Arlen Specter) who wants to be on the front page of ESPN as much as possible. If you'll recall, this is not the first time he has tried to get involved with the NFL (See him trying to punish Eagles and NFL over handling of T.O.s contract). As for the tapes, Goodell may have made a mistake in destroying the first set, but the second set Walsh turned in were shown on ESPN. The tapes that Walsh turned in are similar to the tapes that Goodell destroyed back at the start of the year. If believing in theory conspiracies helps you sleep better at night, then more power to you..but it's pretty clear that all the Pats did was tape signals. Yes thats bad and it was cheating, but it was punished long ago and it is now proven that there is absolutely nothing more to it.



I never said that it wasn't as bad just that it won't be nearly as memorable to the public as Spygate was. Spygate will be memorable because it came during a season where it looked as if the Patriots were going to be undefeated. And the government did take a part in this. They didn't care about the salary cap at all they never have this Spygate situation affects what's on the field. Ergo a fradulent product could affect TV rights and etc.


I personally could care less if the Pats stole signals because I don't think they are alone in this and its a common practice in the NFL they were dumb enough to get caught.


I do however find it questionable that Goodell destroyed the tapes when he got them and didn't disclose what was on them back in September for that his credibility is going to be questioned and folks will believe the Patriots have preferential treatment because of it.


Now you need to accept that.

Kraft
05-13-2008, 11:32 PM
I do however find it questionable that Goodell destroyed the tapes when he got them and didn't disclose what was on them back in September for that his credibility is going to be questioned and folks will believe the Patriots have preferential treatment because of it.

This was the huge red flag for me. Why destroy them if there wasn't something to hide? Surely, the teams have changed their signals by now. Right? The Patriots weren't going to reacquire the tapes. What was there to gain by destroying the tapes before the public -- the people that buy the tickets -- got the full story?

To me, it didn't scream Patriot favoritism. The NFL will survive with or without the Patriots. I don't think Goodell would protect them. But he would protect the NFL. Was there something on those tapes that would've hurt the league's credibility? Or revenue?

Those tapes could've revealed something horrible about the Patriots. But it's more likely they could've damaged the league's reputation.

Moses
05-14-2008, 02:09 AM
In other news, The Boston Herald apologized for putting out a false story.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3395152

travmil
05-14-2008, 08:06 AM
Stop stating this as a fact. This is clearly your opinion. Obviously as a Colts fan, you are always going to remember the cheating first followed by how good of a team they were. I think people will remember the Patriots much more for their dominance then for spygate. You will watch on NFL network or ESPN classic 5,10,15, 50 years from now some of the Patriots SB wins and there wont even be a mention of spygate..you just watch. I just hope the Pats win a couple more SBs just to put all the doubt to rest.

It's my opinion that spygate will be remembered and forever associated with these Patriots, and it's yours that it won't. Why is it that you can have your opinion, but I can't have mine? We'll call it even and let time decide who is right.

Slick Pinkham
05-14-2008, 08:06 AM
the Herald's apology: sorry, our bad, we made it up... rewind 3 1/2 months, Spygate part II was just a fabrication.

The silly part is that the Herald was only the little mouse with a made-up story, who whispered it to the lion BSPN, who continually roared about the fake story, telling us spygate part I was

"the tip of the iceberg", that

Walsh "seems credible" and

"he must have something really important to reveal."

It was maddened hearing Sal Palontonio on Mike and Mike essentially lecturing the Herald for lacking journalistic integrity. Sure, they deserve the lecture, but not from ESPN.

Hello, McFly!!

The guys at ESPN swallowed it hook, line, and sinker and crammed it down our throats, especially Fish, Palontonio, and Schlereth.

They also have some explaining to do in the area of journalistic ethics, but they will probably just leave it up to the web site ombudsman to clean up their mess.

tdubb03
05-14-2008, 08:54 AM
I got a big kick out of the stink BSPN was giving the Boston Herald. The Herald was obviously wrong, or their source was, whatever. But Wingo acting all high and mighty when their network thrives on erroneous reports being passed off as fact was laughable.

Slick Pinkham
05-14-2008, 09:39 AM
a visual:

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/herald555.jpg

travmil
05-14-2008, 09:46 AM
Look at the stories and pictures they use. Is that paper the national Enquirer of the Boston sports world or something? You'd think by reading and looking at it that the Boston area doesn't have world class sports organizations in nearly every way. Boston has a lot to be proud of but not according to the Herald. The only positive thing on the whole page is the 10% off ad.

Moses
05-14-2008, 03:06 PM
It's my opinion that spygate will be remembered and forever associated with these Patriots, and it's yours that it won't. Why is it that you can have your opinion, but I can't have mine? We'll call it even and let time decide who is right.
I have no problem with your opinion, but you are outright calling us wrong and acting as though what you are saying is fact. I never said you couldn't have your opinion, but please add 'I believe' in front of some of the things you say so I don't feel like I am being called an idiot.

Slick Pinkham
05-14-2008, 03:20 PM
Of couse spygate will be associated with the Patriots. The question is whether it invalidates the dynasty.

I submit that the 17-1 record after the videotaping practices were halted suggests that the Patriots might manage to stay competitive a bit longer.

Last year does show, however, that winning championships is incredibly hard.

If somehow they win another or two, while facing the most scrutiny of any team in the history of sports, then even the haters will have to give them some credit.

If it is over and they never reach another Super Bowl, then the timing will help to invalidate their accomplishments, to an unfair extent in my opinion.

I just hope that the media is again ready to bombard Brady et. al. with questions about how the previous seasons just don't count and that there should be asterisks next to the past 7 seasons.
:devil:

Anger over such a stupid overreaction seems to be a terrific motivator, though it is amazing to expect them to continually keep up the total all-out focus -the one play at a time/ one series at a time/ one game at a time mentality. If they do, is is a testament to great coaching and to a level of psychological preparedness rarely (if ever) seen.

Moses
05-14-2008, 05:35 PM
Hmm..


Retired quarterback Jay Fielder says the Dolphins tried to steal signals from the Patriots when he played.
"There were times in games when we knew certain defensive calls from what we were able to gather during the game or our scouts’ eyesight," Fiedler revealed. He called knowing defensive signals "a huge advantage. If the quarterback knows what’s coming, he can dissect it at the line of scrimmage."

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/player_main.aspx?sport=NFL&hl=116261&id=1309

Slick Pinkham
05-14-2008, 07:07 PM
The Herald jerkwad writer Tomase promises to tell the full story tomorrow:

May 14th, 2008
An explanation is coming
Posted by John Tomase at 5:24 pm

Readers of this space have probably been asking themselves, “Where the hell is Tomase?” over the last couple of days and it’s a fair query. Right now I’m just landing from Washington and working on a story about Arlen Specter’s press conference regarding his interview with Matt Walsh.

While that is going to have me tied up for the rest of the night, I just wanted to make one thing clear ? I know I screwed up on the Rams taping story and I don’t intend to hide behind today’s apology or an editor’s note. In Friday’s Herald I will explain as clearly as I can where that story went wrong and begin the journey of restoring your trust in my reporting.

I cannot in good conscience demand accountability of the people I cover and then not provide it myself. So it’s coming on Friday. Just be patient.

John
-----

This is interesting. I hope he identifies his fake source. If your source lies, you have no reason to protect him, right?

http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/sports/patriots/

Since86
05-15-2008, 11:25 AM
Hmm..



http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/player_main.aspx?sport=NFL&hl=116261&id=1309

Hmmmm.....

It say's nothing about videotaping.

Hmmm.....

SoupIsGood
05-15-2008, 12:26 PM
I remember back when we were saying that this was all limited solely to the Jets game... eesh.

Moses
05-15-2008, 01:17 PM
Hmmmm.....

It say's nothing about videotaping.

Hmmm.....
I never said anything about video taping did I? :laugh: Glad you changed up your repertoire of trolling from :rolleyes: faces to 'Hmm..'

Stealing signals is stealing signals. It's alright though, I bet you are still upset that the report about the Pats taping the Rams walk through isn't true so I'll give you a break.

Since86
05-15-2008, 01:40 PM
I never said anything about video taping did I? :laugh: Glad you changed up your repertoire of trolling from :rolleyes: faces to 'Hmm..'

Stealing signals is stealing signals. It's alright though, I bet you are still upset that the report about the Pats taping the Rams walk through isn't true so I'll give you a break.

Stealing signals without the use of video equipment is not cheating. There is no scandal. It might be against the unwritten rules of conduct, but again, it's not cheating.

Read my stance about the walkthrough tape, before you make a statement about it, because it's completely off base.

I'm trolling? You post stories about stealing signals, in a way that isn't against the rules, and I'm trolling? I only went to 'hmm' because that's how you started off your post.

No, you didn't say anything about videotaping, but you were trying to make the connection that all teams do it, to make another excuse for BB getting caught cheating. When another team is found to be breaking the rules, then post it, but don't post something that's completely within the rules.

I've just had it with the constant justification by Pat fans. Whether it's a 'misintrepretation' or the excuse that everyone else is doing it. Again, you might as well be a Barry Bonds fan saying that him using steroids is legit and excuseable as well.

There is absolutely no point to your post, but yet I'm the troll.

Moses
05-15-2008, 02:20 PM
Stealing signals without the use of video equipment is not cheating. There is no scandal. It might be against the unwritten rules of conduct, but again, it's not cheating.

Read my stance about the walkthrough tape, before you make a statement about it, because it's completely off base.

I'm trolling? You post stories about stealing signals, in a way that isn't against the rules, and I'm trolling? I only went to 'hmm' because that's how you started off your post.

No, you didn't say anything about videotaping, but you were trying to make the connection that all teams do it, to make another excuse for BB getting caught cheating. When another team is found to be breaking the rules, then post it, but don't post something that's completely within the rules.

I've just had it with the constant justification by Pat fans. Whether it's a 'misintrepretation' or the excuse that everyone else is doing it. Again, you might as well be a Barry Bonds fan saying that him using steroids is legit and excuseable as well.

There is absolutely no point to your post, but yet I'm the troll.
No point to that post? I found it interesting and relevant to this thread. Stealing signals without using videotapes may not be against the official rules, but it is almost the EXACT same thing. It is completely relevant to this thread and to think otherwise is absolutely absurd. I wasn't trying to excuse what BB did because I acknowledged that was wrong back when it first happened. I just find it hilarious how quick you are to dismiss another team stealing signals without the use of videotapes. And do not put words in my mouth..I never once tried to justify what the Pats did by saying that other teams did it. I called you a troll because saying Hmmm...before and after what you said was unnecessary..you could have simply stated what was in between. Again, I never attempted to justify what BB did..it was cheating. I don't know how many more times you want me to say that.

With that said, I am done here. Spygate is over unless further evidence is put forth by Walsh or whoever else. If you don't think stealing signals without the use of a camera isn't almost the same thing as stealing them with a camera, then that is your own opinion. As always, we will agree to disagree. You wont change my mind and I know damn well I wont change yours.

Since86
05-15-2008, 02:33 PM
No, it's not my opinion. Stealing signals isn't against the rules. Using video equipment is. That's the difference.

I have not posted my personal opinion on the matter, I have posted what is and what isn't within the rules. Find a rule that say's stealing signals by any means is prohibited, then you have a point, until then you don't have squat.

I'm not debating the morality of the issue, I'm debating what's allowed by rules. I have no personal opinion on stealing signals in a completely legit manner. It might be the unclassy thing to do, but it's allowed.

It's not cheating because every team can do it, and not have to worry about punishment. It's not cheating if it's not against the rules, and therefore it's in no way shape or form the EXACT same thing.

Moses
05-15-2008, 02:48 PM
No, it's not my opinion. Stealing signals isn't against the rules. Using video equipment is. That's the difference.

I have not posted my personal opinion on the matter, I have posted what is and what isn't within the rules. Find a rule that say's stealing signals by any means is prohibited, then you have a point, until then you don't have squat.

I'm not debating the morality of the issue, I'm debating what's allowed by rules. I have no personal opinion on stealing signals in a completely legit manner. It might be the unclassy thing to do, but it's allowed.

It's not cheating because every team can do it, and not have to worry about punishment. It's not cheating if it's not against the rules, and therefore it's in no way shape or form the EXACT same thing.
This is the central point where our opinions differ. I respect your opinion but disagree. Do you not consider athletes who juiced before it was against the rules to be cheaters?

The only difference between the two is that one uses a camera while the other uses people. So videotaping vs sitting up in the team booth with binoculars watching the sideline for signals they recognize. It really is close to the same thing in my mind. I understand that one is not against the written rules, but it really ought to be if videotaping is. They are both using different means to get to the same end. Again, I understand it is allowed, but I am asking you for your opinion..should it really be allowed? This is a forum after all..we aren't here to talk specifically about the rules..we are here to speak our minds as well.

Slick Pinkham
05-15-2008, 06:11 PM
This comment from Walsh in the NY Times interview pubished today seems to indicate the relatively low importance of the sideline videos:




It was the kind of situation that, being the third video guy, there wasn’t anything else I necessarily needed to shoot, especially for home games. So it was said, “Go ahead and shoot the signals.”


maybe these were his orders:

OK, Matt... that is your name right? Charlie there is shooting the "all-22 shot" of game tape, you know, from a distance to see everyone. Jimmy has the tight shots of our line blocking. What can you do? I guess you could go home and mow my yard.

Wait... if you really want to stay you can do sideline tapes and cheerleader cheesecake shots.

Natston
05-15-2008, 06:34 PM
I remember back when we were saying that this was all limited solely to the Jets game... eesh.

And there's no proof saying otherwise, you guys are just bitter Colt fans...

Slick Pinkham
05-16-2008, 08:44 AM
props for your new web site, guys!

http://www.tinfoilonmyhead.com/

Slick Pinkham
05-16-2008, 09:17 AM
You might as well be a Barry Bonds fan saying that him using steroids is legit and excuseable as well.

Backing someone taking substances specifically banned by the Federal government, whose distribution, possession, and use are all FELONIES, and lying about them under oath to a Federal Grand jury (another FELONY) and continuing to deny any responsibility at all for is own actions,

is somehow equivalent to believing that the last six words of the taping law might be misinterpreted to mean "don't use tape within a game to help you make adjustments?"

OK...
Hmmm...
:rolleyes:

The six words of the NFL taping law that were misinterpreted are BOLDED, to help you out:

"Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant, of any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping, or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game."

I realize there was a follow-up memo, and if you are interested in the exact language of all the laws, memo, etc. you can read them and see all the direct links here: http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showthread.php?t=82481

BB explained the misinterpretation. You can accept it or not, and many do not. Even most Patriots fans suspect that he knew that he was operating in the gray area, being in his mind within the letter of the law but certainly not within the spirit and the intent of the law.

Unlike you, apparently, I don't equate his "crime" to Barry Bonds knowingly committing actual felonies, never admitting his guilt, and lying about his criminal behavior under oath before a Federal Grand Jury.

As a violation, this is just a bit below the level of the general managers of the Bronchos and 49ers being busted for circumventing salary cap rules. You can guarantee there was absolutely no misinterpretation there, and there was a direct benefit: extra monies freed up to add players to a team that could not possibly be there otherwise.

Belichick deserved his harsh punishment back in September when he admitted to taping from 2000-2007, and everyone in the NFL seemed to accept his & Robert Kraft's more detailed apologies in the Spring 2008 NFL owners meeting. Now it is over and some people need to let it go and stop exaggerating the seriousness of his offense and pretending that taping defensive signals was at the very core of establishing a 7-year dynasty and he somehow "got off easy" after this long painful public humiliation.

Gyron
05-16-2008, 09:57 AM
Why do I keep opening this thread?

Here is what every conversation has said since it was announced:

Pats Fans: They didn't do it.
All other NFL Fans: Yes they did, they should burn in hell.
Pats Fans: Oh, well I guess they did it, but they don't deserve that big of a punishment because they misunderstood the rules, and besides we will own everyone without the tapes anyways...
All Other NFL Fans: BAN BILICHEAT!
Pats Fans: The punishment was excessive, but ok, we'll take it, I mean we have another 1st round draft pick anyway.
All other NFL Fans: THEY GOT AWAY WITH IT WITH A SLAP ON THE WRIST!
Pats Fans: HAHA, We Roolz u, 18-0, We SMASH Giantz...
(Story comes out)
Pats Fans: ITS ALL LIES! We've already been punished, drop it, we still Roolz alls u's.
All Other NFL fans: SEE WE TOLD YOU THEY WERE CHEATERS! BAN BILICHEAT!
Pats Fans: DAMN, GIANTS KIX ***! SUXXOR!
All other NFL fans: YES!!!! ROXXOR! GIANTS ROOLZ!
Skip ahead 3 months of Matt Walsh and Attorney not wanting to get steam rolled by NFL attorney's.....
Matt Walsh: I video taped Cheerleaders and Signals. Oh, and they cheated with IR list, etc.
Goodell: ROXXOR, I will not punish Pats for same stuffs.
ALL Other NFL fans: Pats still SUXXOR AND STILL CHEATERS! BAN BILICHEAT!
Pats Fans: See, we ROXXOR and we will ROOLZ YOU FOR ANOTHER DECADE, WE ARE THE MOST DOMINANT TEAM OF ALL TIME!
All other NFL Fans: YOU WILL ALWAYS BE CHEATERS!
Pats Fans: NO we won't.
All other NFL fans: YES You will!
Pats Fans: NO we won't.
All other NFL fans: YES You will!
Pats Fans: NO we won't.
All other NFL fans: YES You will!
Pats Fans: NO we won't.
All other NFL fans: YES You will!
Pats Fans: NO we won't.
All other NFL fans: YES You will!
Pats Fans: NO we won't.
All other NFL fans: YES You will!
Pats Fans: NO we won't.
All other NFL fans: YES You will!
Pats Fans: NO we won't.
All other NFL fans: YES You will!
Pats Fans: NO we won't.
All other NFL fans: YES You will!
Pats Fans: NO we won't.
All other NFL fans: YES You will!
Pats Fans: NO we won't.
All other NFL fans: YES You will!
Pats Fans: NO we won't.
All other NFL fans: YES You will!
Pats Fans: NO we won't.
All other NFL fans: YES You will!
Pats Fans: NO we won't.
All other NFL fans: YES You will!

Basketball Fan
05-16-2008, 11:44 AM
And there's no proof saying otherwise, you guys are just bitter Colt fans...




Yeah that's it we're bitter... I mean never mind there are tapes dating back to 2000 that clearly show the Patriots stealing other teams signals even though they claimed it was a one time thing.


I mean we're just making that up right cuz we're bitter? Sure... and denial is a river in Egypt.


And I really don't care about Spygate I would prefer it to just go away because I really doubt the Patriots are alone in this. Just dumb enough to get caught.

Since86
05-16-2008, 12:25 PM
This is the central point where our opinions differ. I respect your opinion but disagree. Do you not consider athletes who juiced before it was against the rules to be cheaters?

The only difference between the two is that one uses a camera while the other uses people. So videotaping vs sitting up in the team booth with binoculars watching the sideline for signals they recognize. It really is close to the same thing in my mind. I understand that one is not against the written rules, but it really ought to be if videotaping is. They are both using different means to get to the same end. Again, I understand it is allowed, but I am asking you for your opinion..should it really be allowed? This is a forum after all..we aren't here to talk specifically about the rules..we are here to speak our minds as well.

I'm stating the rules of what is and isn't allowed. If it's within the rules, it's fair game, as far as the league is concerned.

Whether you agree or disagree with the rules is a moot point.

To compare it back to Bonds, it would be like digging up a quote from another player who's talking about taking creatine. Steroids are banned, but creatine is allowed while both are performance enhancers.

As long as the league allows it then it's fair game. Once it's against the rule's then it's cheating.

As far as my personal opinion, I'm torn on the issue whether or not it should be allowed.

On one hand I think it's fine because it's open to human interpretation at that very instant. You can't rewind the tape and see it again, to make sure you got it perfectly right. It would also be impossible to regulate. I think that's the biggest reason why it's not against the rules, and I think that's exactly why they're putting mics in defensive players helmets now.

Which brings me to the other side.

I'm against it because I think sports should be pure. I think the best thing about sports is the chess match between teams, using instinct and experience to react to what is happening. When you know what's coming, you don't have to react as much because it's like running a play in practice. You know what defense their going to run before you snap the ball, you know exactly where the soft spots are to exploit.

I understand why it's not against the rules, but I would rather see it banned as well. But again, it really doesn't matter at this moment because it is within the rules. I may not like it, or agree with it, but teams have every opportunity to steal signals if they don't tape them.

Since86
05-16-2008, 12:37 PM
PT, there is no perfect comparison to the situation. Find me a better one and I'll use it, but for right now can you take the actual federal law side out of it. Right now we're talking about what is and isn't allowed by the league, not laws.

As far as the 'misinterpretation,' no one believes it but you. Since you want to dig up Walsh quotes, maybe you can find the one where he says that he knows BB knew exactly that it was against the rules because of the lengths they had to go to, to keep from getting caught.

If a team can kick the guys who are doing it out of the stadium, then you know you're not allowed to be doing what you're doing.

When that lame *** excuse came out, you actually said you didn't buy it.

Slick Pinkham
05-16-2008, 03:05 PM
PT, there is no perfect comparison to the situation. Find me a better one and I'll use it.

I already did-- the fines and draft picks taken from the Bronchos and 49ers for knowingly circumventing the salary cap and hiding millions in payroll to beef up their rosters and win NFL championships.

Both offenses are significantly worse than Belichick's, but it is as close as I can come. I also bet that without Google, nobody can name the 49ers and Brochos GMs who were punished (I can't either).

It seems to me that if you are trying Bill Belichick for crimes against humanity, then you must also hold them in a similar position.


Pats Fans: They didn't do it.

...they don't deserve that big of a punishment because they misunderstood the rules

The punishment was excessive

HAHA, We Roolz u, 18-0, We SMASH Giantz...

These are all statements that I have never made (Moses either) and in fact I don't know anyone who would agree with any one of those statements, ever.



ITS ALL LIES! We've already been punished, drop it

If by "all" you are referring to the Super Bowl week controversy swirling around an alleged Rams walk-through tape ("spygate II"), then that characterization of my opinion is entirely accurate. If by 'all" you are referring to sideline taping of hand signals, then you are wrong since that has never been denied.

The fact that "spygate II" is all lies has also been verified, by no less by the person who fabricated the story, John Tomase of the Boston Herald (some highlights of his article below):


I could not have been more wrong. I regret it, and that’s something I’m going to have to live with for the rest of my life. There was no tape made of the walkthrough...

On Feb. 2, I let you all down. Today I hope to begin the long road back...

(addendum)I must apologize to the Patriots in general and the Kraft family in particular. My story contributed to much of the heat the organization has taken over the last three months, and my hope is that the message of their exoneration eventually receives the same attention as the presumption of their guilt.

Secondly, I owe an apology to head coach Bill Belichick, his staff, and every player from that 2001 team and the two more Super Bowl champs since. They did not deserve to have their accomplishments falsely called into question, and I plan to apologize in person to as many of them as I can.

Thirdly, I owe an apology to Patriots fans, over 1,000 of whom have e-mailed since Feb. 2 to express their displeasure at the story’s timing and content. I recognize the pall that story cast over Super Bowl Sunday and it’s something I regret deeply.

Gyron
05-16-2008, 03:47 PM
Its funny, I make a joke, and purposely over exagerate the statements and you still find the need to argue the statements that were clearly in jest.....

I'm nominating you for most argumentative next year. You're arguing with a JOKE......

Slick Pinkham
05-16-2008, 05:04 PM
Sorry Gyron.

I could see it as serious if one were to presume as genuine some of the "Patriots fans" who used to post at the old Indy Star forum. I'm talking about multiple people who took just crazy over-the-top pro-Patriot stances, intended to get everyone riled up, and then logged in on their main Colts ID (same IP addy) to argue with what they themseleves had posted posing as a fake Patriots fan.

----
this is interesting though:

Jim Nance: this was a media feeding frenzy based upon a huge lie, and it may have been the X-factor that changed the outcome of the Super Bowl (aside: I'm not sure I'd go that far, frankly, but who knows?).

He then goes on the compare the irresponsible media to the same type of lie-fueled feeding frenzy seen in the Duke LaCrosse case.

http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80855f35

Slick Pinkham
05-16-2008, 08:43 PM
"I made a mistake," Belichick said. "I was wrong. I was wrong."

During Walsh's entire time with the team, Belichick said he operated under the belief that the NFL's bible - its constitution and bylaws - allowed taping as long as it wasn't used to aid a team during the playing of a game.

He says Walsh was instructed to shoot the game, including hand signals, in plain sight, wearing Patriots gear. And he provided the video to the league - and CBS News - as evidence.

"Why would Matt Walsh say he was told by his superiors to avoid detection, not wear Patriots clothing, and to lie about what he was shooting?" Keteyian asked Belichick.

"I never told anybody to do that," Belichick said. "All I can tell you is what the facts are. You look at the tape. You see him filming the game. You tell me how discreet it is."

There was no deception," Belichick said...

"I don't know what his agenda is, and again, he was fired for poor job performance," Belichick said. "There's not a lot of credibility. You know he's tried to make it seem like we're buddies and belong to the same book club and all that. And that's really a long, long stretch."

Belichick says Walsh was in no position to know.

"For him to talk about game-planning and strategy and play-calling and how he advised co-ordinators, is - it's embarrassing; it's absurd," Belichick said. "He didn't have any knowledge of football. He was our third video assistant."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/16/cbsnews_investigates/main4104058.shtml

Slick Pinkham
05-17-2008, 01:39 PM
CBS edited out a bombshell: the source of the walkthrough tape rumor was indeed Matt Walsh, according to Bill Belichick himself. Belichick confirmed that Walsh told others in the organization that he had made such a tape.

hers's thefull transcript, which includes this news, details about his interpretation of the rules, how Walsh on multiple occasions has been caught in telling "revised versions" of his story, and specifics on how, when, and why the tapes were used.

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/

The following is a transcript after listening to the full interview between Patriots Bill Belichick and Armen Keteyian of CBS during a 14-minute interview posted on CBS’ website:

What are your overall thoughts to Matt Walsh’s comments?
“I’m not really sure where to start. I think, first of all, go back to when he was here and was fired for poor job performance, and then for secretly audio-taping a conversation with his boss. More than one person has told me that he said, after Super Bowl XXXVI, that he had videotaped the Rams walkthrough practice. Now that story has changed. It seems like he has an agenda. I’m not really sure, I don’t know. Three-and-a-half months after that story was out, he could have said what he said last week [earlier]. But there was quite a bit – over 100 days had passed – so I’m not sure what the agenda is. He’s had a way of embellishing stories and that continues to be the case. I don’t know the answer to those questions.”

[B]What is your personal feeling about Matt Walsh right now?
“Well, that things seem to be shifting, things seem to be embellished, and he’s made some comments relative to me that I don’t how, or why, he’d come up with those. We didn’t really have much of a relationship at all when he was here. He was in the opposite end of the building, on a different floor. We very rarely saw or talked to each other. For him to represent how I felt, what I thought, or what I did, I don’t know where that would possibly come from. The fact that he has tried to make it seem like we were buddies and belonged to the same book club is really a long, long stretch.”

In a statement, this organization questioned “the truthfulness of many of Matt Walsh’s statements.” What do you think he’s lying about?
“He’s changed a lot of things he’s said. Whatever his testimony was to the league, most recently, that is kind of the latest version of it.”

Is there a specific example to what you think he’s lying about when he talks about how this organization was deceptive, and the way his taping was set up?
“That was never the case. He was in full Patriots gear. I can show you videos of him doing his job, during the game, shooting the shot that he shot in the end zone – the kickers, the tight [shot] on the quarterback, and at times [opposing teams’] signals. We weren’t trying to be discreet about it. Again, in all honesty, we felt like what we were doing was OK.”

[B]Walsh said it was arrogant of you to say you misinterpreted NFL rules, and that you said that this illegal taping was of little value – 1 out of a scale of 100 – and that his feeling was that it may very well be the reason you won three Super Bowls.
“First of all, I’ll start it back first – the reason you win football games is because of players. Players make plays on the field to win games, and that’s how you win them. They’re the ones that win games. But there are a lot of things that go into preparation for a game – it’s a mosaic. There are hundreds of things. In our case, sometimes signals are involved, sometimes they’re not.”

Let me go back to the specific thing that Walsh said. He said it was arrogant of you to say you misinterpreted NFL rules.
“My interpretation of the NFL rules came from the Constitution & Bylaws. I think it’s paragraph 14 there, the Constitution & Bylaws states, very clearly, that you can not use any type of videotaping device or anything like that, from the start of the game, to the conclusion of the game. That was never done. We never ever, ever used any of the videotaping in any way during the course of any game. That’s what I felt like I was in compliance with, and that’s what my basis for really everything that we’ve done in terms of competing in the National Football League.”

I have a copy of those Constitution & Bylaws. It’s article 9, 14b, 14. It ends with “during the playing of a game”. So that’s what you base your defense on – that the taping was legal under NFL bylaws and constitution as long as you were not using it during the playing of a game?
“It was never used during the playing of a game. Never. Now, subsequently, there was a memo that Ray Anderson sent out at the beginning of the 2006 season, and that was an error on my part. I take full accountability for that. At that point, I feel like I should have gone to the league. I made a mistake. I should have gone to the league and said ‘Look, are we OK doing this, even though we’re not using it within the game?’ I didn’t do that. We continued to do what we had done previously, at times. It wasn’t every game, but it was a significant number, and did it based on the Constitution – and feeling that as long as we weren’t using it during the game that it was OK.”

When you say it was a significant number – from September of ’06 to when you were finally caught in September of ’07 – how many games?
“I don’t know. Probably more than half, I would say.”

That September of 2006 memo states “videotaping of any kind, including but limited to taping of an opponent’s offensive or defensive signals is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches’ booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club members during the game.” That seems pretty crystal clear to any kind of misinterpretation.
“Yeah. Again, during the game.”

It says “during the game”. But it does not say “during the playing of a game.” Different.
“Right. Clearly it was a mistake.”

Some people would say that mistake is just flat out cheating.
“Again, I go back to the Constitution & Bylaws. That overrode it. I interpreted it incorrectly. I was wrong and we were penalized for it.”

Heavy penalized in your mind? Unfairly penalized in your mind?
“It doesn’t really make any difference. It wasn’t my penalty. It was the commissioner’s decision. Whatever it was, that’s what it was.”

Others have argued that you chose to gamble, to risk breaking the rules, and got caught – and that it wasn’t a misinterpretation of any kind.
“I can’t control what other people think out there. I’m telling you what happened, and that’s what happened. I think if that was our intent then we would have done it in a more discreet way. We were open about it. We had instances where opposing coaches actually turned and waved at the camera. They saw it. There were other teams that we felt like were doing it. Again, look, in preparation for a game, the signals that a coach gives out there, everybody can see. We’ve had coaches in the press box take notes of those signals. We videotaped them. It wasn’t anything that wasn’t visible or wasn’t available. We did it in a way that was more convenient and in a way that we could study a little better. But those signals are available to anybody that wants to see them.”

Can I go back to Matt Walsh and his departure? Do you feel what he is saying, in any way, is payback for being fired by this organization?
“You’d have to talk to him about that. I don’t know what his…”

You have to have an opinion.
“Again, I had very little contact with Matt. I didn’t know him personally. As I said, I don’t know if I could recognize him, and I don’t think I could have prior to his recent publicity. So what his agenda is, what his reasons are and so forth, that’s something you’d have to ask him.”

Can you clarify what happened with those tapes once they went to Ernie Adams?
“Yeah, absolutely. He looked at them and it was, again, a mosaic. It was compiled, it was put in together with a lot of other information about what the team did, and our preparation for the game. But I met with the quarterbacks twice a week. When Charlie [Weis] was the offensive coordinator, Josh [McDaniels] was the offensive coordinator, [Tom] Brady – there were not quarterback/Ernie Adams/Bill Belichick/offensive coordinator meetings where we sat down and looked at signals and made up game-plans based on that. That didn’t happen. It didn’t happen. Ernie looked at them. At times there was some information that came out of it, he used it. That’s how it was done. It was one part of a very broad – hundreds of things that are put into preparation and game-planning. So there was no ‘OK, we’re going to sit down here on this day and have this meeting, and there are the signals, and here are the plays we’re going to run and all that’. That never happened.”

So there was no calculated, deliberate system put in place to take advantage of this illegal taping?
“No, because you can’t take advantage of signals. You don’t know whether they are ever going to be available or not. They can change them. They can use wristbands. They can have somebody stand in front of the person that is signaling them. We signal all the time. We’re always protective of our signals. We change them on a regular basis. We have people screen the signal-caller and we use wristbands. We protect them, just like a third-base coach does. I think most teams in the league do that.”

Some might argue that in a game of inches – putting that type of information, where you can decode signals, come up with specific plays to use in real-time during a game, is pure gold in the NFL, and could be the difference between winning and losing.
“Again, you can get those same signals by sitting up in the press box and writing down what the signal is, and what the play was, and doing it that way. Those signals are available to anybody who wants to see them.”

Then why do it from the sidelines?
“It was a more convenient way to study them. It wasn’t any information that isn’t available to anybody else. Anybody can sit up in the press box and watch a coach give signals.”

But they don’t have them on tape, where they can go back and analyze them and they can decode them. Writing them down on a piece of paper…
“We’re not talking about DNA. You’ve seen the signals on the sideline. You can sit there and watch them. We’ve done it without tape. We’ve done it, and every team takes an advance scout, or they have people that look at the other teams’ signals. Sometimes you can get them, sometimes they change them. Signaling defenses and personnel, and all that, that is part of football. And everybody is available to see those signals. It’s not like the other team, or the other sideline, or the press box or anybody else -- that they’re not visible. They’re available to 70,000 fans.”

If they weren’t of such great value to you and this organization, then why would Matt Walsh say that he was told by this superiors to avoid detection, to not wear Patriots clothing on the sidelines, and to lie if he was asked about what he was shooting?
“I don’t know of anybody that would have told him that. I never told anybody to tell him that. I don’t think his superiors told him to do that.”

You don’t think, or you don’t know, whether [video director] Jimmy Dee, his superior, told him that?
“He was never instructed to do that. Jimmy said that he never did that. But you can see the tapes of Matt filming the games. You can see him in the end-zone camera, shooting them. He’s as open as you can be. He’s standing there behind the camera in full Patriots gear, shooting the tapes. You can make a judgment on that, Armen. You can see him standing there in the end zone shooting it. It’s not anything discreet.”

Since I’m here, is there anything else you’d like to say about this to put this to rest, so to speak?
“Yeah, two things. I think that the players and the assistant coaches have no involvement in this whatsoever. For them to be dragged in or questioned at all on it is totally out of the scope and the realm of what this is about. I think our players and our assistant coaches work hard and they prepare hard, and they go out and do their best to win. That’s why I respect them. That’s why they’ve done as well as they have. On a going-forward basis, I think what we’ve taken from this as an organization is that we have learned from the problems we had in the fall. We’ve looked at really every single area of our operation. We’ve tried to tighten it down. We’ve tightened down our accountability. We’ve streamlined some things. We are certainly taking the extra step in every situation that we can, to make sure we are in full, complete compliance with everything we have to do, at every level. And believe me, there are a lot of things that we need to be. There is a very broad spectrum of things that you need to be in compliance with in the National Football League. Commissioner Goodell has instituted kind of an integrity and [reporting requirement] of doing it, and we’ve gone well beyond that to try to make sure we’re doing things in the right way, and I think that has been a positive step for our organization. There is more communication, there is better understanding, and we’re making sure everything is done in a totally proper and consistent way with what the league expects to be done. I think that has strengthened our organization and certainly Robert and Jonathan Kraft have gone a long way to not only supporting me and the football team, but also making sure that going forward, we’re in complete compliance with everything we need to be doing.”

Sollozzo
05-17-2008, 01:57 PM
Can you tell me why we should believe anything Bill Belichick says? I mean, Roger Goodell himself doesn't believe Belichick's explanation for the events.

Belichick acknowledged that he violated NFL rules prohibiting filming opponents signals but insisted there was no intent to hide what he was doing.

"I made a mistake," he said in the interview. "I was wrong. I was wrong."

That rationale has already been rejected by NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, who fined the coach $500,000 and docked the Patriots $250,000 and its first-round draft pick.

"I didn't accept Bill Belichick's explanation for what happened," Goodell said Tuesday, "and I still don't to this day."

http://sportsline.com/nfl/story/10829490