Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 54

Thread: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

  1. #1
    Member Moses's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Athens, GA
    Posts
    3,565

    Default Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

    BOSTON - Patriots coach Bill Belichick broke his silence on New England’s twin taping controversies, denying he told anyone to tape the St. Louis Rams’ walkthrough before the 2002 Super Bowl and apologizing for all the attention generated by Spygate.

    Belichick also told the Boston Globe he “couldn’t pick Matt Walsh out of a lineup.” Walsh, a former Patriots employee, reportedly taped St. Louis’ walkthrough practice the day before the Patriots beat the Rams 20-17 in the championship.

    “In my entire coaching career, I’ve never seen another team’s practice film prior to playing that team,” Belichick said in a story posted on the Globe’s Web site Sunday night. “I have never authorized, or heard of, or even seen in any way, shape, or form any other team’s walkthrough. We don’t even film our own.”

    Patriots vice president of player personnel Scott Pioli also told the newspaper that part of the reason Walsh was fired in January 2003 was because he secretly recorded conversations between himself and Pioli.

    Michael Levy, Walsh’s attorney, said Pioli’s account was a “complete fabrication.”

    “This is a predictable and pathetic effort to smear Mr. Walsh’s character rather than confront the truth about the Patriots’ conduct,” Levy said in the Globe story.

    Levy has said his client is willing to turn over videotapes he made for the team if the NFL guarantees Walsh protection from lawsuits or other legal action.

    Commissioner Roger Goodell has said he offered Walsh a deal requiring him “to tell the truth and he has to return anything he took improperly” in return for indemnity, but Levy has said the deal doesn’t go far enough.

    Goodell fined Belichick $500,000, the Patriots $250,000 and took away a first-round draft choice after the Patriots were caught taping New York Jets’ coaches in last year’s season opener, a 38-14 New England victory.

    Belichick said he misinterpreted the rule, which he felt only prohibited taping that could be used during the same game.

    He also apologized for the controversy the taping caused.

    “I respect the integrity of the game and always have and always will,” he said in the Globe story. “I regret that any of this, or to whatever extent, it has in any way brought that into question or discussion or debate. The decision was made by the commissioner, the practice was immediately stopped, and we’re not doing it.

    “Just going back over the whole taping incident, if I contacted the league and asked them about the practice, I’m sure they would have told me — as they have done — that it is not permissible. Then I could have avoided all of this.

    “I take responsibility for it,” he said. “Even though I felt there was a gray area in the rule and I misinterpreted the rule, that was my mistake and we’ve been penalized for it. I apologize to everybody that is involved — the league, the other teams, the fans, our team, for the amount of conversation and dialogue that it’s caused.”

    The day before the Patriots’ 17-14 loss to the New York Giants in this year’s Super Bowl, the Boston Herald reported New England taped St. Louis’ walkthrough before the first of the Patriots’ three Super Bowl victories. In a walkthrough, teams practice plays at a slower pace than normal without pads or helmets.

    Patriots spokesman Stacey James did not return phone calls or an e-mail seeking comment Sunday night.
    http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/23216255/


    ESPN Article:
    http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3251081

    Boston Globe(Original article):
    http://www.boston.com/sports/footbal...oli_speak_out/

    I think Belichick actually talking about this is LONG overdue. If he had said this 5 months ago, I don't think it would have been as big as it currently is. Needless to say, I hope they sort everything out quickly so we can put this behind us once and for all.

  2. #2
    Fear my small avatar Gyron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    6,366

    Default Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

    Is this the first time we've heard this?


    "Levy has said his client is willing to turn over videotapes he made for the team if the NFL guarantees Walsh protection from lawsuits or other legal action."

    So now they are confirming that Walsh does have video tape evidence.

    I wouldn't return it if I were him either. I'd be calling Senator Spector and sending him copies of the tapes.

    And if Goodell wants to keep his name clean in all of this he better offer the same. Otherwise it stinks of a big cover-up.

    And I would also guess if Walsh was taping conversations with Pioli, Walsh must have thought there was something worthy of taping that may come in handy later that the Patriots wouldn't want the public to know. I bet those could be interesting tapes as well.

  3. #3
    Fear my small avatar Gyron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    6,366

    Default Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

    And you're right, its long overdue for Belichick to come out and talk about it.

    For his sake, he better hope that Walsh is full of crap and doesn't really have what he claims to have.

  4. #4
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    21,756

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

    I thought this was interesting seeing how we know it's a direct lie because a LEAGUE wide memo was sent out.



    I respect the integrity of the game and always have and always will, he said in the Globe story. I regret that any of this, or to whatever extent, it has in any way brought that into question or discussion or debate. The decision was made by the commissioner, the practice was immediately stopped, and were not doing it.

    Just going back over the whole taping incident, if I contacted the league and asked them about the practice, Im sure they would have told me as they have done that it is not permissible. Then I could have avoided all of this.
    The league contacted you buddy. The league contacted every team.

    Quit the freaking excuses and man-up. You illegally taped the opposing team to get an advantage and were caught multiple times by different teams. Teams knew you did it and decided not to turn you in. If they can remove your camera then obviously it was against the rules.

  5. #5
    Boom Baby'er ABADays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The Coliseum
    Posts
    6,248

    Default Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

    The USA Today story said he apologized. Sorry, I happened to miss that part.
    The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

    "Now, I have to go back to work on my draft preparation. And I worked on it until pretty late last night. But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: I did not videotape that team, St. Louis. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you."

  7. #7
    Member Moses's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Athens, GA
    Posts
    3,565

    Default Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

    Quote Originally Posted by ABADays View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The USA Today story said he apologized. Sorry, I happened to miss that part.
    Perhaps you should reread the article?

    "I apologize to everybody that is involved the league, the other teams, the fans, our team, for the amount of conversation and dialogue that its caused.

  8. #8
    Go Colts! Shade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Age
    36
    Posts
    44,862

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

    1) Why is Belichick just now speaking out on this?
    2) Why has Walsh not shown his evidence to the senator?
    3) Why do teams tape other teams if they have no intention of ever using the tapes?

  9. #9
    Go Colts! Shade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Age
    36
    Posts
    44,862

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

    Quote Originally Posted by btowncolt View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    "Now, I have to go back to work on my draft preparation. And I worked on it until pretty late last night. But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: I did not videotape that team, St. Louis. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you."
    Where the hell have YOU been?

  10. #10

    Default Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

    Quote Originally Posted by Shade View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Where the hell have YOU been?
    School. Killing mice. Sobbing occasionally.

  11. #11
    Member Moses's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Athens, GA
    Posts
    3,565

    Default Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

    Quote Originally Posted by Shade View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    1) Why is Belichick just now speaking out on this?
    2) Why has Walsh not shown his evidence to the senator?
    3) Why do teams tape other teams if they have no intention of ever using the tapes?
    My personal speculation:
    1) He said that he didn't want to get his focus off of winning football games..and that sounds like classic Belichick to me so I can at least give him that.

    2) Walsh hasn't shown the evidence because he either doesn't have it, or if he does, he is still awaiting legal protection because he knows he violated his contract by stealing property from the Pats. Not to mention, if what Pioli says is true regarding him recording personal conversations, I'm betting he could get into quite a bit of trouble.

    3) You've got me. Many ex-players, coaches, and even the Steelers organization have come out and said that the tapes have absolutely no bearing on the outcome of the game..but if they don't, then why did the Pats do it? My guess is that it gives a minor advantage in some instances..but sometimes it could cause more harm then good. The risk/reward ratio there isn't favorable for any team who is trying to steal signals which is why it annoys me that the Pats did it.

    That is all in regards to stealing signals. Taping a walk through is much more significant in my mind.

  12. #12
    Fear my small avatar Gyron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    6,366

    Default Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

    The one thing that realy bugs me is that if Goodell really wanted to get to the bottom of this and prove that the Pats did nothing, he wouldn't put all the conditions on Matt Walsh bringing the stuff in. If he truly wanted to get to the bottom of it, he would ensure nothing be held against Walsh bring the guy in and see what he's got. But instead he puts conditions on getting the evidence and essentially threatens the guy. Thats whats really fishy about the way Goodell is treating this.

    The conspriacy theroist in me says Goodell knows something that he doesn't want out to the public and is doing his damnedest to discredit walsh before he ever ponies up the evidence.

  13. #13

    Default Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

    Quote Originally Posted by Gyron View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The one thing that really bugs me is that if Goodell really wanted to get to the bottom of this and prove that the Pats did nothing, he wouldn't put all the conditions on Matt Walsh bringing the stuff in.
    According to the NFL, the main condition that Walsh won't accept is that his immunity is dropped if he is proven to be lying.

    Don't expect that to be resolved, if it is the issue. Telling the truth should be the ONE thing you MUST do to get any protection.

    I have a feeling that the REAL hang-up, unspoken by either side, is that the NFL wants clauses in the agreement that preclude him from making a living off of this and keeping it in the news for years: No books, no further interviews on Sixty Minutes, no ESPN movie, no Larry King Live, no mini-series, basically no dollars flowing into the pockets of Mr. Walsh.

    Mr. Walsh is presumably strongly in favor of dollars streaming into his pockets.

  14. #14
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    21,756

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

    Quote Originally Posted by Moses View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    3) You've got me. Many ex-players, coaches, and even the Steelers organization have come out and said that the tapes have absolutely no bearing on the outcome of the game..but if they don't, then why did the Pats do it? My guess is that it gives a minor advantage in some instances..but sometimes it could cause more harm then good. The risk/reward ratio there isn't favorable for any team who is trying to steal signals which is why it annoys me that the Pats did it.

    That is all in regards to stealing signals. Taping a walk through is much more significant in my mind.
    If it doesn't help, then why do it? Then why have a rule in place not allowing you to do it?

    Common sense is a wonderful thing.

    It makes a lot more sense that a team would benefit from taping the other teams signals, if they were willing to do it knowing it was against league rules.

  15. #15

    Default Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

    I think the fact that the Patriots were doing this so openly, with a guy standing on the sidelines holding some huge 20-year-old camera, is telling.

    They were fully aware that the other team would usually KNOW that they were being taped. The purpose would be to annoy and distract the other team, to force them to change their signals more often than they normally would anyway (even in-game), wasting time and possibly resulting in miscommunication.

    Why do it, for such a small gain? They didn't think the NFL would enforce a rule it had never enforced before, that they considered minor, that they has seen other coaches use against them, a rule that the coach (stupidly) misinterpreted anyway, a coach who also ignored the 2006 memo clarifying the rule.

    Besides the annoyance/make them waste time/make them make a mistake angle,

    Since everybody changes their signals game-to-game anyway, the chance of linking a signal to a particular play and having the signal be UNCHANGED in a later game seems remote.

    So if "stealing play calls" is out, there are still other types of information you could find out, tendencies such as:

    1) do they send in play calls late, in response to offensive personnel/ formation, or early?

    2) do they always call in different plays in response to something the offense does, like having a player going in motion?

  16. #16
    The New Gold Swagger travmil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New Pal
    Posts
    7,399
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

    pacertom, If I ever need a lawyer because I've done something stupid and indefensible, remind me to call YOU!

  17. #17
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    21,756

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

    So now the excuse is they illegally taped the other team to annoy them?

    How annoying is it to have security walk over to them and kick them off the sidelines? It isn't. You stop it as soon as he's located which would take all of 5mins real time.

    Now you're saying they did it openly after MONTHS of trying to tell us that they only did it one time and that was the Jets game this year?

    Teams don't change play signals from game to game. You know how confusing that would be?

    Playbooks are literally hundreds of pages long. They have hundreds of plays in them that are supposed to be known by each player. They have to identify which play from which signal.

  18. #18
    Member Doug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,632

    Default Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

    Quote Originally Posted by Moses View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    "I apologize to everybody that is involved the league, the other teams, the fans, our team, for the amount of conversation and dialogue that its caused.
    So, he apologized that everybody is making a big fuss over it?

    That's not much of an apology, is it?

    That's like telling your wife "I'm sorry you're so annoying" to make up after a fight.

    Or telling the Judge, "Yes, Your Honor, I am very sorry about this, very sorry I got caught."

    I'm not saying he should apologize for something he (claims) he didn't do. But lets not confuse the above statement with some statement of remorse.

    He continues to hold the line of "I felt there was a gray area in the rule and I misinterpreted the rule".

    What he was doing was wrong, and IMO he absolutely knew that. He's not stupid. And continuing to pretend that WE are isn't helping.
    You're caught up in the Internet / you think it's such a great asset / but you're wrong, wrong, wrong
    All that fiber optic gear / still cannot take away the fear / like an island song

    - Jimmy Buffett

  19. #19
    The New Gold Swagger travmil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New Pal
    Posts
    7,399
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    What he was doing was wrong, and IMO he absolutely knew that. He's not stupid. And continuing to pretend that WE are isn't helping.
    And for me, that's the rub. Pats fans act like Belicheat is some super genius, and then expect us to believe that he didn't know that rule, or that they didn't understand the specific memo that the NFL had sent regarding this very subject in the same breath.

  20. #20
    Go Colts! Shade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Age
    36
    Posts
    44,862

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

    Quote Originally Posted by pacertom View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think the fact that the Patriots were doing this so openly, with a guy standing on the sidelines holding some huge 20-year-old camera, is telling.
    Yes. It tells us that one of the most openly arrogant people on the planet is...well...openly arrogant.

    He assumed that because prior teams didn't turn him in, the Jets wouldn't either. He was wrong.

  21. #21

    Default Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

    Quote Originally Posted by Since86 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    So now the excuse is they illegally taped the other team to annoy them?.
    I'm not making an EXCUSE.

    For the 1000th time: It was incredibly stupid and wrong for him to do it, and he deserved getting the largest punishment ever handed out by the NFL. It is completely inexcusable.

    How in the world can that be deemed an excuse? It is instead a possible EXPLANATION for the idiotic thing that he did. (my explanation-- I don't claim to speak for anyone else).

    I was pointing out that this was not done secretly, so the was no "spying" in "spygate". Opposing coaches being taped "waved at the camera" and the still photos of the guy on the sidelines in the Jets game show him carrying this big huge videocam about 10 times larger then anything you see on the shelves at Best Buy. They weren't trying to not be noticed, they seemed to want the other team to notice.

    Why do you call a timeout to ice the opposing kicker? It's a head game. It rarely works, if you look at the statistics, but if it reduces the chance of a made kick from 70% to 68%, then it's worth the shot. It's also like waving your arms in front of the free throw shooter in basketball. Yes, I realize these 2 examples are LEGAL behaviors. The illegality of the act makes it so STUPID and unforgivable, and, yes, INEXCUSABLE.

    It think Belichick was playing a head game with the other coach, but screwed up because he didn't understand the rule or thought the rule was never enforced.

    For the 1001st time: It was incredibly stupid and wrong for him to do it, and he deserved getting the largest punishment ever handed out by the NFL. It is completely inexcusable.

  22. #22
    Go Colts! Shade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Age
    36
    Posts
    44,862

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

    Quote Originally Posted by pacertom View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm not making an EXCUSE.

    For the 1000th time: It was incredibly stupid and wrong for him to do it, and he deserved getting the largest punishment ever handed out by the NFL. It is completely inexcusable.

    How in the world can that be deemed an excuse? It is instead a possible EXPLANATION for the idiotic thing that he did. (my explanation-- I don't claim to speak for anyone else).

    I was pointing out that this was not done secretly, so the was no "spying" in "spygate". Opposing coaches being taped "waved at the camera" and the still photos of the guy on the sidelines in the Jets game show him carrying this big huge videocam about 10 times larger then anything you see on the shelves at Best Buy. They weren't trying to not be noticed, they seemed to want the other team to notice.

    Why do you call a timeout to ice the opposing kicker? It's a head game. It rarely works, if you look at the statistics, but if it reduces the chance of a made kick from 70% to 68%, then it's worth the shot. It's also like waving your arms in front of the free throw shooter in basketball. Yes, I realize these 2 examples are LEGAL behaviors. The illegality of the act makes it so STUPID and unforgivable, and, yes, INEXCUSABLE.

    It think Belichick was playing a head game with the other coach, but screwed up because he didn't understand the rule or thought the rule was never enforced.

    For the 1001st time: It was incredibly stupid and wrong for him to do it, and he deserved getting the largest punishment ever handed out by the NFL. It is completely inexcusable.
    I like your posts a lot more when I just read the bold print.

    j/k

  23. #23
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    21,756

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

    It's not a head game when you can take away the other team's timeouts before you get to a icing spot or if you can kick out anyone sitting behind the backboard.

    All you have to do is get security and boot them off the sidelines. WOW what a head game.

    It wasn't done openly, they hid the fact that they were doing it which is the reason you DENIED it happened more than once til you were blue in the face.

    It wasn't done in public or the public would have known. GB and MIA had heard they were doing it from other teams so they had the camera man kicked out.

    That's like saying a runner on second base steals the catchers signals to play headgames with the pitcher. No it's not.

    When you know the signals, you know what's coming and you can adjust for it. Plus they documented how long it took teams to get in the signals to get an advantage that way too.

    Like it's already been pointed out. He didn't apologize for doing it, he apologized for getting caught.

    Your excusing his behavior by giving fifteen other reasons for doing it instead of just saying he was blantantly cheating. If you would like me to substitute the word 'condoning' in for 'excusing' I can, but it's the same difference.

  24. #24

    Default Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

    Quote Originally Posted by Since86 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    He didn't apologize for doing it, he apologized for getting caught.
    I've never seen anybody else spin his remark that way. I can see it, once you lift it out of context, but in was in the flow of a conversation where he

    -accepted full responsibility for not knowing the rule
    -explained what his (mis)interpretation if the rule was
    -expressed regret that he had not gotten clarification on the rule
    -expressed regret to have done something that people have interpreted to mean he doesn't respect the integrity of the game.

    By all accounts, Robert Kraft absolutely ripped into Bill Belichick behind closed doors back in September. He is on ZERO TOLERANCE. He is fully aware of how wrong he was.

    Yet he publicly expresses regret and people tear apart his words looking for sinister meanings.

    If he said that the sky was blue, I'm sure that some here would find a problem with that.

  25. #25
    Member Doug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,632

    Default Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

    Quote Originally Posted by pacertom View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    -accepted full responsibility for not knowing the rule
    -explained what his (mis)interpretation if the rule was
    That is what I think most people have the problem with the scenario, or at least what bothers me.

    I think he knew with 100% certainty that what he was doing was wrong. Maybe or maybe not wrong as far as the "letter of the law" went, but 100% wrong as far as the "intent of the law".

    I can't prove that he knew. He can't prove he didn't. Is it fair that a great season, and the past championships, are "tainted" without solid proof in the minds of many? Nope, not fair at all. But that's how things stand right now, and I'm not sure what will change it.
    You're caught up in the Internet / you think it's such a great asset / but you're wrong, wrong, wrong
    All that fiber optic gear / still cannot take away the fear / like an island song

    - Jimmy Buffett

Similar Threads

  1. APNewsNow: Lawsuit seeks compensation for Super Bowl loss
    By avoidingtheclowns in forum Indianapolis Colts
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-18-2008, 04:02 PM
  2. Simmons: The Super Bowl XLII mailbag
    By Shade in forum Indianapolis Colts
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-13-2008, 03:33 PM
  3. Bill Simmons-Page 2-'Free fallin' out into nothing'
    By Will Galen in forum Indianapolis Colts
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-08-2008, 09:09 AM
  4. Indy Tries For 2012 Super Bowl
    By obnoxiousmodesty in forum Indianapolis Colts
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-10-2007, 06:53 AM
  5. Yao vs. Yi likely to dwarf even Super Bowl ratings [ESPN]
    By RoboHicks in forum NBA Headlines (RSS Feeds)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-09-2007, 12:50 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •