FOX Sports is reporting Pats taped practice (1 Viewer)

[massraider]

... The Patriots apparently gave the commissioner evidence that contradicts Walsh's claims.

Something sounds strange here. What has Walsh claimed? that he has evidence? so the Pats are producing "evidence" that Walsh has no evidence? Is it that Walsh claims he has tape of the Rams walkthrough? (which I'm not sure is what he is saying) - so that Pats gave the commissioner evidence that shows that Walsh does not have the tapes?

Does it seem strange to anyone else that the Pats, found guilty of cheating, are believed at their word that the produced tapes dating back only to 2006 represent the entire "video library"? In most cases where there is smoke there is fire...

I would think the only way they could provide evidence that contradict him is if they somehow produce proof that he wasn't there. No idea what that would be, maybe proof that he was elsewhere.I disagree with the notion that the Pats are somehow immune to any sort of punishment, because they were punished for the Jets thing. I am almost certain that when Goodell handed down his ruling, he left open the possibility for more sanctions, if the Pats had any more skeletons in their closet.

If there are tapes of the Rams practice, and Walsh has them, it's a very big deal.

 

[SteelerMurf]

... The Patriots apparently gave the commissioner evidence that contradicts Walsh's claims.

Something sounds strange here. What has Walsh claimed? that he has evidence? so the Pats are producing "evidence" that Walsh has no evidence? Is it that Walsh claims he has tape of the Rams walkthrough? (which I'm not sure is what he is saying) - so that Pats gave the commissioner evidence that shows that Walsh does not have the tapes?

Does it seem strange to anyone else that the Pats, found guilty of cheating, are believed at their word that the produced tapes dating back only to 2006 represent the entire "video library"? In most cases where there is smoke there is fire...

I would think the only way they could provide evidence that contradict him is if they somehow produce proof that he wasn't there. No idea what that would be, maybe proof that he was elsewhere.I disagree with the notion that the Pats are somehow immune to any sort of punishment, because they were punished for the Jets thing. I am almost certain that when Goodell handed down his ruling, he left open the possibility for more sanctions, if the Pats had any more skeletons in their closet.

If there are tapes of the Rams practice, and Walsh has them, it's a very big deal.

I would be willing to bet they would ban Bellicheck from the league. Cheating and then telling them trust me there are no other tapes and we didn't cheat before...then having them actually cheat at the superbowl....Goodell would have to throw him out of the league and I wouldn't doubt some kind of punishment like you see in the college ranks....no playoffsIf this Rams tape exists and Bellicheat is still in the NFL next year....well I think some fans will not take that sitting down (and some Senators too)

 

[Workhorse]

This thing appears to be DOA.Goodell was on the NFL Network with Adam Shefter today saying that not only did the NFL have no evidence to support Matt Walsh's alleged claims but that the league actually had "evidence to the contrary".I wonder what he meant by that.

He's got a big fat check stub and new confidentiality agreement signed by Walsh to keep his mouth shut, get rid of anything he has, and let this go away. Now that's evidence!!

Meanwhile, back in the realm of REALITY, apparently Michael Holley said that the Pats had given Goodell "information" about this allegation months ago when the rumor first hit the league office. The Patriots apparently gave the commissioner evidence that contradicts Walsh's claims. That's why both the Pats and Goodell have been denying this story from the start and they are telling the truth when they say they knew about this allegation a long time ago.

Holley stated on WEEI today that he has heard from multiple sources that this is a dead issue. He said that he checked in with different sides (i.e. Patriot sources and sources that have no reason to help the Patriots) and he was 100% sure that nothing more was going to come out. Holley is a guy who I have the utmost respect for and by no means is he a homer. He has zero issues taking shots at the home team when they earn it. I was very surprised by how adamant he was because quite frankly if anything does come out he will lose some credibility because he didn't leave the door open for something unknown and damaging to the Patriots to surface.

Not only is Holley ultra-wired in to the Pats organization, he's a Pulitzer Prize winner. He's got a lot of credibility.

I'm sure he's a good writer, and that he is ultra-wired in to the Pats. This much says that the Pats think it's a dead issue. But how credible can the other outside sources be if they are saying it's dead even though Goodell hasn't yet interviewed Walsh?

I'd venture to guess that the Pats have some pretty compelling evidence to suggest that Walsh wasn't even present in New Orleans that day. Just a guess.As for the "only 6 tapes" argument, the Patriots turned over notes from more than 6 games, which suggests that once they videotaped games and made their game notes, they just taped over the old games. The Commish has suggested that their notes go back further than those 6 games (but it was difficult to determine what parts of those notes came from just video) so it doesn't appear that they'd have any reason to hold back tapes if they had them. Seems pretty plausible to me.

 

[AB in DC]

Does it seem strange to anyone else that the Pats, found guilty of cheating, are believed at their word that the produced tapes dating back only to 2006 represent the entire "video library"? In most cases where there is smoke there is fire...

Makes perfect sense if the in-game videotaping rule changed in 2006. If you go back to the old threads from September, there was pretty strong indication that the specific rule was first put in place that year.Videotaping a walkthrough would be a completely different offense, of course.

 

[AB in DC]

As for the "only 6 tapes" argument, the Patriots turned over notes from more than 6 games, which suggests that once they videotaped games and made their game notes, they just taped over the old games. The Commish has suggested that their notes go back further than those 6 games (but it was difficult to determine what parts of those notes came from just video) so it doesn't appear that they'd have any reason to hold back tapes if they had them. Seems pretty plausible to me.

I agree. What people seem to forget is that teams can change their signals from year to year, even game to game. If you know a team you taped has changed its signals, there's no reason to hang on that tape.

 

[AB in DC]

If this Rams tape exists and Bellicheat is still in the NFL next year....well I think some fans will not take that sitting down (and some Senators too)

I agree, but with one caveat -- there needs to be some evidence that the Pats actually had the tape in their possession. If Walsh hands over a tape he bought from someone unconnected to the Pats, years after the fact, that would be a different story.

 

[phthalatemagic]

If this is true, we need to see some permanent bannings from the NFL for this sort of crap. What have we been watching the last ten years? WWF?

 

[Workhorse]

If this is true, we need to see some permanent bannings from the NFL for this sort of crap. What have we been watching the last ten years? WWF?

If it's true, I'd have no problem with anything the league wants to hand down and I'd also suggest that Kraft would probably fire Belichick.However, from everything I've seen and read, I really don't think there's anything at all to this story.

 

[GregR_2]

Am I wrong in my understanding of events that the NFL heard rumors this guy taped the walk through, received evidence from the Pats that he didn't, but never actually talked to the guy himself to see what his version of it was?

Just having a hard time envisioning what kind of "evidence" could be so ironclad that you wouldn't at the very least interview a guy involved in a rumor of cheating involving a Super Bowl. What kind of inept investigation was this? If you really were investigating to find out the extent of any violations, you'd at least interview the guy at the heart of the story, right? If he's full of BS then you have done your homework and can definitively say he's full of BS.

 

[bostonfred]

Am I wrong in my understanding of events that the NFL heard rumors this guy taped the walk through, received evidence from the Pats that he didn't, but never actually talked to the guy himself to see what his version of it was?

Just having a hard time envisioning what kind of "evidence" could be so ironclad that you wouldn't at the very least interview a guy involved in a rumor of cheating involving a Super Bowl. What kind of inept investigation was this? If you really were investigating to find out the extent of any violations, you'd at least interview the guy at the heart of the story, right? If he's full of BS then you have done your homework and can definitively say he's full of BS.

Walsh has said in the past that he wouldn't talk to anyone unless they guaranteed they'd pay for any legal fees resulting from whatever he said. That guarantee may have been the sticking point.

 

[TankRizzo]

If this is true, we need to see some permanent bannings from the NFL for this sort of crap. What have we been watching the last ten years? WWF?

If it's true, I'd have no problem with anything the league wants to hand down and I'd also suggest that Kraft would probably fire Belichick.However, from everything I've seen and read, I really don't think there's anything at all to this story.

If this is true, the NFL is going to do everything in their power to sweep it under the rug and pretend like it didn't exist.

 

[AB in DC]

Am I wrong in my understanding of events that the NFL heard rumors this guy taped the walk through, received evidence from the Pats that he didn't, but never actually talked to the guy himself to see what his version of it was?

Just having a hard time envisioning what kind of "evidence" could be so ironclad that you wouldn't at the very least interview a guy involved in a rumor of cheating involving a Super Bowl. What kind of inept investigation was this? If you really were investigating to find out the extent of any violations, you'd at least interview the guy at the heart of the story, right? If he's full of BS then you have done your homework and can definitively say he's full of BS.

I'm sure there are lots of rumors circulating out there. Should the NFL central office investigate every single rumor it hears, regardless of whether there is anything behind them?If so, maybe I should call the NFL and tell them I heard Bill Polian broke into the Patriots locker room last year and stole their playbook...

 

[AB in DC]

If this is true, the NFL is going to do everything in their power to sweep it under the rug and pretend like it didn't exist.

I love this logic. If we hear that it's true, that's proof that Belichick cheated in 2002. If we hear that it isn't true, it's proof that NFL just swept it under the rug and Belichick still cheated in 2002.

 

[switz]

If this Rams tape exists and Bellicheat is still in the NFL next year....well I think some fans will not take that sitting down (and some Senators too)

I agree, but with one caveat -- there needs to be some evidence that the Pats actually had the tape in their possession. If Walsh hands over a tape he bought from someone unconnected to the Pats, years after the fact, that would be a different story.

Walsh was the guy doing the taping...

 

[AB in DC]

If this Rams tape exists and Bellicheat is still in the NFL next year....well I think some fans will not take that sitting down (and some Senators too)

I agree, but with one caveat -- there needs to be some evidence that the Pats actually had the tape in their possession. If Walsh hands over a tape he bought from someone unconnected to the Pats, years after the fact, that would be a different story.

Walsh was the guy doing the taping...

 

[switz]

If this Rams tape exists and Bellicheat is still in the NFL next year....well I think some fans will not take that sitting down (and some Senators too)

I agree, but with one caveat -- there needs to be some evidence that the Pats actually had the tape in their possession. If Walsh hands over a tape he bought from someone unconnected to the Pats, years after the fact, that would be a different story.

Walsh was the guy doing the taping...

Former Patriots video assistant hints at team's spying history

In his words, he was Matt Estrella before Matt Estrella, a reference to the Patriots video assistant caught filming the Jets' defensive signals by league officials last September at halftime of a game against New York -- the violation that birthed "Spygate" and led, in part, to some of the heftiest penalties in league history.

 

[GregR_2]

Am I wrong in my understanding of events that the NFL heard rumors this guy taped the walk through, received evidence from the Pats that he didn't, but never actually talked to the guy himself to see what his version of it was?

Just having a hard time envisioning what kind of "evidence" could be so ironclad that you wouldn't at the very least interview a guy involved in a rumor of cheating involving a Super Bowl. What kind of inept investigation was this? If you really were investigating to find out the extent of any violations, you'd at least interview the guy at the heart of the story, right? If he's full of BS then you have done your homework and can definitively say he's full of BS.

I'm sure there are lots of rumors circulating out there. Should the NFL central office investigate every single rumor it hears, regardless of whether there is anything behind them?If so, maybe I should call the NFL and tell them I heard Bill Polian broke into the Patriots locker room last year and stole their playbook...

I don't think whether the NFL should investigate every single rumor it hears is the issue right now. I think what whether the NFL should have investigated this rumor is the issue.What do you think? Given the situation with the Pats being investigated for videotaping, do you think a rumor that a former Pats video cameraman employee allegedly having taped another team's private walk-through for a Super Bowl is something serious enough they should take the time to at least look into?

Wouldn't interviewing such employees responsible for videotaping to see what extent it went on and whether it was by the rules be an obviously necessary part of the investigation of the other Spygate issues? So if interviewing this guy would be a prudent part of an investigation in the first place, why wouldn't they do so and also clear this matter up.

This is all not to mention that the NFL apparently did take enough notice of it to look over evidence they say the Pats gave that they didn't videotape the Super Bowl. I just don't know what someone could provide that would prove an event didn't happen.

 

[TankRizzo]

If this is true, the NFL is going to do everything in their power to sweep it under the rug and pretend like it didn't exist.

I love this logic. If we hear that it's true, that's proof that Belichick cheated in 2002. If we hear that it isn't true, it's proof that NFL just swept it under the rug and Belichick still cheated in 2002.

this would be a huge black eye for the NFL, why wouldn't they want to make it go away ASAP?

 

[GregR_2]

Am I wrong in my understanding of events that the NFL heard rumors this guy taped the walk through, received evidence from the Pats that he didn't, but never actually talked to the guy himself to see what his version of it was?

Just having a hard time envisioning what kind of "evidence" could be so ironclad that you wouldn't at the very least interview a guy involved in a rumor of cheating involving a Super Bowl. What kind of inept investigation was this? If you really were investigating to find out the extent of any violations, you'd at least interview the guy at the heart of the story, right? If he's full of BS then you have done your homework and can definitively say he's full of BS.

Walsh has said in the past that he wouldn't talk to anyone unless they guaranteed they'd pay for any legal fees resulting from whatever he said. That guarantee may have been the sticking point.

I know he wasn't talking to the press. Does that mean the league actually approached him though? I don't think I've actually seen anyone report that was the case which is why I'm asking.It just all seems strange to me. I'd think if you have a guy with intimate knowledge of such a situation, and the NFL did contact him and he expressed a concern he's going to get sued if he tells what he knows and so wants protection, if I were the NFL I'd start to wonder just what it is he's got to say that makes him fear the Patriots suing him. I'd think that would come across as a lead worth investigating. If the NFL really wanted to find out what went on anyway, which I'm not sure I can say is the case with how odd all this looks.

 

[PhD]

As for the "only 6 tapes" argument, the Patriots turned over notes from more than 6 games, which suggests that once they videotaped games and made their game notes, they just taped over the old games. The Commish has suggested that their notes go back further than those 6 games (but it was difficult to determine what parts of those notes came from just video) so it doesn't appear that they'd have any reason to hold back tapes if they had them. Seems pretty plausible to me.

I agree. What people seem to forget is that teams can change their signals from year to year, even game to game. If you know a team you taped has changed its signals, there's no reason to hang on that tape.

... unless of course you are a historical buff and insanely obessional in collecting whatever you can get your hands on to help you predict your opponent's play calling. In this case, what is the benefit of taping over them? the price of a video tape?

 

[Kit Fisto]

I just don't know what someone could provide that would prove an event didn't happen.

You're right, you don't know. Nobody does. So why don't we all give our speculations and conspiracy theories a rest until we get word from the NFL?

 

[Kit Fisto]

...if I were the NFL I'd start to wonder just what it is he's got to say that makes him fear the Patriots suing him. I'd think that would come across as a lead worth investigating. If the NFL really wanted to find out what went on anyway, which I'm not sure I can say is the case with how odd all this looks.

Ummm... slander?If he's got the goods on the Pats, the Patriots have no recourse to sue (unless he signed a confidentiality agreement).If he's got nothing on the Pats and is just talking out his ###, yeah he's gonna get sued.I think the guys in the NFL offices have got this covered without any help from message board conspiracies theorists.

 

[{Syrus}]

...if I were the NFL I'd start to wonder just what it is he's got to say that makes him fear the Patriots suing him. I'd think that would come across as a lead worth investigating. If the NFL really wanted to find out what went on anyway, which I'm not sure I can say is the case with how odd all this looks.

Ummm... slander?If he's got the goods on the Pats, the Patriots have no recourse to sue (unless he signed a confidentiality agreement).If he's got nothing on the Pats and is just talking out his ###, yeah he's gonna get sued.I think the guys in the NFL offices have got this covered without help from message board conspiracies theorists.

He did sign a confidentiality agreement with the pats, that's why he is hesitant to speak, but clearly he wouldn't mind being subpoenaed so he could speak freely.

 

[Joseph]

...if I were the NFL I'd start to wonder just what it is he's got to say that makes him fear the Patriots suing him. I'd think that would come across as a lead worth investigating. If the NFL really wanted to find out what went on anyway, which I'm not sure I can say is the case with how odd all this looks.

Ummm... slander?If he's got the goods on the Pats, the Patriots have no recourse to sue (unless he signed a confidentiality agreement).If he's got nothing on the Pats and is just talking out his ###, yeah he's gonna get sued.I think the guys in the NFL offices have got this covered without any help from message board conspiracies theorists.

If I understand correctly, his fear of legal action is because:1. He did sign a confidentiality agreement2. The "evidence" in question may be considered the property of the patriots, making him subject to some type of theft charge.

 

[AB in DC]

If this Rams tape exists and Bellicheat is still in the NFL next year....well I think some fans will not take that sitting down (and some Senators too)

I agree, but with one caveat -- there needs to be some evidence that the Pats actually had the tape in their possession. If Walsh hands over a tape he bought from someone unconnected to the Pats, years after the fact, that would be a different story.

Walsh was the guy doing the taping...

Former Patriots video assistant hints at team's spying history

In his words, he was Matt Estrella before Matt Estrella, a reference to the Patriots video assistant caught filming the Jets' defensive signals by league officials last September at halftime of a game against New York -- the violation that birthed "Spygate" and led, in part, to some of the heftiest penalties in league history.

Reading comprehension down? Nowhere in the article does it say that Walsh made any tape of the Rams.

 

[Statorama]

As for the "only 6 tapes" argument, the Patriots turned over notes from more than 6 games, which suggests that once they videotaped games and made their game notes, they just taped over the old games. The Commish has suggested that their notes go back further than those 6 games (but it was difficult to determine what parts of those notes came from just video) so it doesn't appear that they'd have any reason to hold back tapes if they had them. Seems pretty plausible to me.

I agree. What people seem to forget is that teams can change their signals from year to year, even game to game. If you know a team you taped has changed its signals, there's no reason to hang on that tape.

... unless of course you are a historical buff and insanely obessional in collecting whatever you can get your hands on to help you predict your opponent's play calling. In this case, what is the benefit of taping over them? the price of a video tape?

Exactly...this isn't some guy in his mothers basement taping episodes of Threes Company. I think the Patriots have enough resources to buy more video tape.

 

[JAA]

Just having a hard time envisioning what kind of "evidence" could be so ironclad that you wouldn't at the very least interview a guy involved in a rumor of cheating involving a Super Bowl. What kind of inept investigation was this? If you really were investigating to find out the extent of any violations, you'd at least interview the guy at the heart of the story, right? If he's full of BS then you have done your homework and can definitively say he's full of BS.

This is exactly what happens when you have a league and a cheating team trying to sweep things under the rug.

 

[OC Zed]

Third-hand gossip from Dan Le Batard talking about Doug Flutie's "amazement" of being tipped the defensive plays through his helmet...

i've heard second hand about doug flutie being amazed when he got there that the plays were being piped into his helmet warning brady what was coming.....we've tried to talk to flutie on our radio show about it but he hangs up on my producer.....

Yes, this is third-hand information, but why wouldn't the league seek out former players in investigating this? Doug Flutie should have as much insight as anyone on this outside Belicheck, Adams and their video guys. And there shouldn't be any issues with the NFLPA since Flutie is retired.(Sorry if the link is a honda.)

 

[switz]

If this Rams tape exists and Bellicheat is still in the NFL next year....well I think some fans will not take that sitting down (and some Senators too)

I agree, but with one caveat -- there needs to be some evidence that the Pats actually had the tape in their possession. If Walsh hands over a tape he bought from someone unconnected to the Pats, years after the fact, that would be a different story.

Walsh was the guy doing the taping...

Former Patriots video assistant hints at team's spying history

In his words, he was Matt Estrella before Matt Estrella, a reference to the Patriots video assistant caught filming the Jets' defensive signals by league officials last September at halftime of a game against New York -- the violation that birthed "Spygate" and led, in part, to some of the heftiest penalties in league history.

Reading comprehension down? Nowhere in the article does it say that Walsh made any tape of the Rams.

haha.... No it says that he was the videotaping assistant at that time, hence, IF there was a tape, he wouldn't need to buy it, which was your contention....Who knows if he actually had a tape, but he WAS the one doing taping at that time, so if there was one, he woud've been the one taping.

So my question then... was your question rhetorical?

 

[AB in DC]

Who knows if he actually had a tape, but he WAS the one doing taping at that time, so if there was one, he woud've been the one taping.

So no one else in all of New Orleans owns a video camera?

 

[David Yudkin]

Let's say that there is a tape of the Rams pre-SB walk through. Just because there is a tape does not prove that . . .

A) It came from anyone from NE

B) Anyone involved with the team taped it

C) Anyone from the team asked for it

D) That it was ever in the possession of NE

E) That it ever was even viewed by anyone from the Pats

Even if Walsh were the one that taped it, who is to say that he didn't tape it on his own and then tried on his own to give it to the Pats?

I'm not saying one way or another that the Pats did or did not do anything, only that there could still be a million questions as to what the tape might or might not reveal (if there was such a tape).

 

[hitmenssharpshooters]

Was Walsh employed by the Pats?

Does the video appear to be legit?

What are the rules about press/opposing teams/etc being there during a walk through?

Would **** Vermeil deny/admit to taping his own walk through?

These are the questions I have and would like answered.

 

[hitmenssharpshooters]

Was Walsh employed by the Pats? YES

Does the video appear to be legit? YES

What are the rules about press/opposing teams/etc being there during a walk through? NO ONE EXCEPT TEAM OFFICIALS/EMPLOYEES/PLAYERS

Would **** Vermeil deny/admit to taping his own walk through? DENY

GUILTY!BB will never admit to it.

 

[{Syrus}]

The Pats run is OVER. A crushing and demoralizing SuperBowl loss and a black-eye in Spygate that just won't go away. They only have themselves to blame.

 

[Workhorse]

Third-hand gossip from Dan Le Batard talking about Doug Flutie's "amazement" of being tipped the defensive plays through his helmet...

i've heard second hand about doug flutie being amazed when he got there that the plays were being piped into his helmet warning brady what was coming.....we've tried to talk to flutie on our radio show about it but he hangs up on my producer.....

Yes, this is third-hand information, but why wouldn't the league seek out former players in investigating this? Doug Flutie should have as much insight as anyone on this outside Belicheck, Adams and their video guys. And there shouldn't be any issues with the NFLPA since Flutie is retired.(Sorry if the link is a honda.)

It may not be a honda but it's totally irrelevant. Stealing another team's signals and telling your QB what play is coming on it's own isn't against the rules. Flutie probably had zero idea how that information was obtained, so "investigating" that would be pointless.

 

[Steeler]

Was Walsh employed by the Pats? YES

Does the video appear to be legit? YES

What are the rules about press/opposing teams/etc being there during a walk through? NO ONE EXCEPT TEAM OFFICIALS/EMPLOYEES/PLAYERS

Would **** Vermeil deny/admit to taping his own walk through?

GUILTY!BB will never admit to it.

Fixed

 

[Koya]

Let's say that there is a tape of the Rams pre-SB walk through. Just because there is a tape does not prove that . . .A) It came from anyone from NEB) Anyone involved with the team taped itC) Anyone from the team asked for itD) That it was ever in the possession of NEE) That it ever was even viewed by anyone from the PatsEven if Walsh were the one that taped it, who is to say that he didn't tape it on his own and then tried on his own to give it to the Pats?I'm not saying one way or another that the Pats did or did not do anything, only that there could still be a million questions as to what the tape might or might not reveal (if there was such a tape).

Playing devil's advocate, it is possible that a tape could have been of the same type/same series or something identifiable that would pretty much assure us that it was from NE, and taken at the same time as say other tapes they have, ordered etc.If you have a former employee and the tapes can be verified as NE from that time you can't yet prove anything but there begins to be a lot of fire. The toughest part is E) by far imo. Though if someone like a Flutie or another person very very close to this situation felt a need to come clean you would have word and the tapes in conjunction with each other.

 

[OC Zed]

Third-hand gossip from Dan Le Batard talking about Doug Flutie's "amazement" of being tipped the defensive plays through his helmet...

i've heard second hand about doug flutie being amazed when he got there that the plays were being piped into his helmet warning brady what was coming.....we've tried to talk to flutie on our radio show about it but he hangs up on my producer.....

Yes, this is third-hand information, but why wouldn't the league seek out former players in investigating this? Doug Flutie should have as much insight as anyone on this outside Belicheck, Adams and their video guys. And there shouldn't be any issues with the NFLPA since Flutie is retired.(Sorry if the link is a honda.)

It may not be a honda but it's totally irrelevant. Stealing another team's signals and telling your QB what play is coming on it's own isn't against the rules. Flutie probably had zero idea how that information was obtained, so "investigating" that would be pointless.

No, telling your QB what plays are coming is not against the rules... it's HOW they are able to tell the QB what plays are coming is the issue. Flutie was a veteran QB on that team for a full season. You think he had ZERO knowledge of what was going on even though he was amazed at the level of detailed information that the QBs were receiving? You don't even think that's worth investigating with a few questions? That's really sweeping things under the rug.

 

[jonessed]

Third-hand gossip from Dan Le Batard talking about Doug Flutie's "amazement" of being tipped the defensive plays through his helmet...

i've heard second hand about doug flutie being amazed when he got there that the plays were being piped into his helmet warning brady what was coming.....we've tried to talk to flutie on our radio show about it but he hangs up on my producer.....

Yes, this is third-hand information, but why wouldn't the league seek out former players in investigating this? Doug Flutie should have as much insight as anyone on this outside Belicheck, Adams and their video guys. And there shouldn't be any issues with the NFLPA since Flutie is retired.(Sorry if the link is a honda.)

It may not be a honda but it's totally irrelevant. Stealing another team's signals and telling your QB what play is coming on it's own isn't against the rules. Flutie probably had zero idea how that information was obtained, so "investigating" that would be pointless.

How would they know what plays were coming before they exited the huddle?

 

[ImTheScientist]

Pats = Cheats & Poor losers

 

[Shrek]

The patriots didn't destroy the tapes. The NFL did. I imagine that Goodell regrets that now. On the other hand I saw some of the confiscated tape on tv several times after the fact. There wasn't anything earth shaking about it. Closeup of the coaches signalling, wobbly shift up to the scoreboard, rinse and repeat. Up, down, up, down. Meh.

Oh btw, Don Shula admitted to having done precisely the same thing.

If this were happening to any other team, it wouldn't be such a big deal.

I disagree about the bolded statement. However, due to NE's success, you can bet that more casual observers are taking notice.I think the big picture is being missed here. Goodell had an agenda to establish himself as a no-nonsense sheriff. Check. That's done. But I think all the press has gone to his head, and he's forgotten something. We all answer to someone. Players answer to coaches and teams. Teams answer to the league and the Commissioner. And the Commissioner answers to the fans, the owners, and believe it or not, Congress.

Goodell's attitude has been consistent in one regard. He now sees himself as the final say in all league issues. He figured that if the tapes were destroyed in a way that was to his satisfaction, then that was good enough. The problem is that he has an obligation to others to prove that he destroyed them. That may not sit well with him. I expect he will take a little bit of an ###-chewing over this . And he will probably display a little more humility when dealing with issues of this magnitude in the future.

 

[{Syrus}]

The patriots didn't destroy the tapes. The NFL did. I imagine that Goodell regrets that now. On the other hand I saw some of the confiscated tape on tv several times after the fact. There wasn't anything earth shaking about it. Closeup of the coaches signalling, wobbly shift up to the scoreboard, rinse and repeat. Up, down, up, down. Meh.

Oh btw, Don Shula admitted to having done precisely the same thing.

If this were happening to any other team, it wouldn't be such a big deal.

I disagree about the bolded statement. However, due to NE's success, you can bet that more casual observers are taking notice.I think the big picture is being missed here. Goodell had an agenda to establish himself as a no-nonsense sheriff. Check. That's done. But I think all the press has gone to his head, and he's forgotten something. We all answer to someone. Players answer to coaches and teams. Teams answer to the league and the Commissioner. And the Commissioner answers to the fans, the owners, and believe it or not, Congress.

Goodell's attitude has been consistent in one regard. He now sees himself as the final say in all league issues. He figured that if the tapes were destroyed in a way that was to his satisfaction, then that was good enough. The problem is that he has an obligation to others to prove that he destroyed them. That may not sit well with him. I expect he will take a little bit of an ###-chewing over this . And he will probably display a little more humility when dealing with issues of this magnitude in the future.

Roger Goodell came on like gang busters and beat up on Pac Man as he showed he was a no-nonsense kind of guy. Unfortunately, that ego of his has now created A LOT of nonsense for the NFL. There was no need to destroy the tapes, period (secure them almighty Sheriff Goodell). Especially before discussing and showing the matter to the rules committee for future reference and infractions. He acted like an out of control dictator on this one. I love it that he is now being put on the hotseat.

 

[TitusIII]

There's a level of dirt better left un-dug here. Pats got their punishment, best to move on.

Keeping this in-house is the shark move for the NFL...nothing good can come from this, teams will cheat till the end of time, and only the morons will get caught...I'm not saying this should be tolerated, but the PR hit from a scandal would turn many fans away...

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

There's a level of dirt better left un-dug here. Pats got their punishment, best to move on.

Keeping this in-house is the shark move for the NFL...nothing good can come from this, teams will cheat till the end of time, and only the morons will get caught...I'm not saying this should be tolerated, but the PR hit from a scandal would turn many fans away...

How about the PR from a coverup? In the end our atttention span is short and he knows it. I don't expect to ever get to thebottom of this matter. I do expect some egghead fans to take matters into their own hands, or to attempt to. I would be very surprised within the next year or two if we don't see some egghead fan discover how to intercept the Q.B. helmut audio and to broadcast it to the world before the play commences. What Belicheck can know today your average nerd can know as well.

 

[bradyfan]

Glad to see you're doing ok, BDK.

Doing great! Seeing the Patriots lose was even better than watching my favorite team win the SuperBowl!

Dallas already has 5. I am wholeheartedly happy that every Pat's fan is crushed right now.

You owe me $250.

 

[chris1969]

It has now been confirmed with video evidence that the NFL did not destroy the tapes because of the taping of the RAM's walk through, but because they reveal a very sophisticated computer system used by the Patriots that flew under the NFL's radar for years. Apparently it uses a very efficient artificial intelligence program that Kraft paid a hefty sum of money for, that can analyze the video tape and can make recommendations with very little human input. Although the NFL tapes have been destroyed, a video provided by a disgruntled employee has surfaced on the Internet that shows the system in use. The NFL destroyed tapes because if more teams discovered this software it could literally destroy the sanctity of the game.

The NFL has been flooding youtube with requests to stop posting the video all day, but every time they shut it down, it pops up somewhere else. The following link may not be good for very long, but a few of you can at least see the tape for yourself.

 

[redman]

Glad to see you're doing ok, BDK.

Doing great! Seeing the Patriots lose was even better than watching my favorite team win the SuperBowl!

:whoosh:

Dallas already has 5. I am wholeheartedly happy that every Pat's fan is crushed right now.

You owe me $250.

Good luck with that. BDK is here to make big statements, but he doesn't show if when they don't pan out.

 

[bbuster]

It has now been confirmed with video evidence that the NFL did not destroy the tapes because of the taping of the RAM's walk through, but because they reveal a very sophisticated computer system used by the Patriots that flew under the NFL's radar for years. Apparently it uses a very efficient artificial intelligence program that Kraft paid a hefty sum of money for, that can analyze the video tape and can make recommendations with very little human input. Although the NFL tapes have been destroyed, a video provided by a disgruntled employee has surfaced on the Internet that shows the system in use. The NFL destroyed tapes because if more teams discovered this software it could literally destroy the sanctity of the game.

The NFL has been flooding youtube with requests to stop posting the video all day, but every time they shut it down, it pops up somewhere else. The following link may not be good for very long, but a few of you can at least see the tape for yourself.

 

[TBIST]

See this is why you don't insert politics into a football thread.

Anyways since everyone is and it's cool to bash Bush I'll stick up for him... I think going into Iraq was one of the best moves ever regardless of the logic behind it (You know Hillary voted to go to war right? It wasn't "George Bush's War"... Idiots) because we're beating Al Quada like a rented mule and terrorism is the most important obstacle we're facing but unfortunately this country doesn't care since 9/11 was in 2001 and the longer we go without an attack the less importance it is to us. Anyways, like I was saying...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle3346386.ece

But back to this topic... Patriots are a bunch of cheats and I enjoyed watching the Gaints thrash them. Maybe the cameraman left the lid on the camera when they were "preparing" for the big game.

 

[fatness]

See this is why you don't insert politics into a football thread.

You should've stopped right there.