FOX Sports is reporting Pats taped practice (1 Viewer)

[switz]

Sure it is overstating it. But you can't honestly tell me you don't think it's a distinct and definite advantage to know even some of the other team's defensive signals.

Here's a newsflash -- teams can change their signals. They do it all the time.

If you really believe it's that easy, you're crazy.Teams may change calls between seasons, but to do so in season is to ask for a lot of confusion. Do you know how big an NFL playbook is? Do you realize how big of an impact changing one call is?

And nevermind that EVEN IF they did so between games, to think that they could do so between halves is ludicrous. And what Belichick has often been praised for is his halftime adjustments. Perhaps those stolen signals helped a bit.

 

[Workhorse]

I get the feeling that Belichick would LOVE to blow the lid off of this whole Spygate thing and tell what he knows to the press and Specter. In terms of what he did, how long other teams were doing it, the hypocrisy of the league in punishing the Patriots while having a history of "nudge and wink" to other infractions like this (like the Dolphins a couple of years ago) - Belichick is a student of the game, and probably knows more about the history of the NFL than anybody. If he took Specter through the evolution of this type of activity over the years by many teams, I'd bet "Spygate" would probably go away.I think Goodell has put a gag order on Belichick not to divulge the league's dirty laundry. Just my opinion.

So we're to believe a coach classy enough to be throwing the ball into the endzone and going for 4th and shorts with less than 5 minutes left in the 4th quarter with his team up 3 TDs, should now be reimagined a proverbial paragon of virtue for the league? If he was indeed gagged, which I don't doubt in reference to perhaps his personal situation, I can't see Belichek forfeiting picks, team and personal money while other teams skated on this issue. You really need to make the "why" of this example more compelling, because right now, it's holding a much water a colander. Belichek, for all his faults, didn't cheat because he's a SOB. He cheated because he wanted an advantage and wanted to win. Do you honestly think that if other teams were winning by that means for which he was MASSIVELY fined, embarassed and penalized for, a first year commish is going to be able to silence him? He would not be leaking to the media like mad?

Not if Bob Kraft told him not to, for the sake of the league.Ask yourself this question: Why are teams like the Steelers coming out publicly saying essentially "the taping didn't matter" and "move on"?

 

[switz]

I get the feeling that Belichick would LOVE to blow the lid off of this whole Spygate thing and tell what he knows to the press and Specter. In terms of what he did, how long other teams were doing it, the hypocrisy of the league in punishing the Patriots while having a history of "nudge and wink" to other infractions like this (like the Dolphins a couple of years ago) - Belichick is a student of the game, and probably knows more about the history of the NFL than anybody. If he took Specter through the evolution of this type of activity over the years by many teams, I'd bet "Spygate" would probably go away.

I think Goodell has put a gag order on Belichick not to divulge the league's dirty laundry. Just my opinion.

Since when has Belichick cared what Goodell thought? :( IMO, if Belichick COULD blow the lid off this, he WOULD. The fact that he hasn't means that it's not being done by the other teams.

 

[{Syrus}]

I get the feeling that Belichick would LOVE to blow the lid off of this whole Spygate thing and tell what he knows to the press and Specter. In terms of what he did, how long other teams were doing it, the hypocrisy of the league in punishing the Patriots while having a history of "nudge and wink" to other infractions like this (like the Dolphins a couple of years ago) - Belichick is a student of the game, and probably knows more about the history of the NFL than anybody. If he took Specter through the evolution of this type of activity over the years by many teams, I'd bet "Spygate" would probably go away.I think Goodell has put a gag order on Belichick not to divulge the league's dirty laundry. Just my opinion.

So we're to believe a coach classy enough to be throwing the ball into the endzone and going for 4th and shorts with less than 5 minutes left in the 4th quarter with his team up 3 TDs, should now be reimagined a proverbial paragon of virtue for the league? If he was indeed gagged, which I don't doubt in reference to perhaps his personal situation, I can't see Belichek forfeiting picks, team and personal money while other teams skated on this issue. You really need to make the "why" of this example more compelling, because right now, it's holding a much water a colander. Belichek, for all his faults, didn't cheat because he's a SOB. He cheated because he wanted an advantage and wanted to win. Do you honestly think that if other teams were winning by that means for which he was MASSIVELY fined, embarassed and penalized for, a first year commish is going to be able to silence him? He would not be leaking to the media like mad?

Not if Bob Kraft told him not to, for the sake of the league.Ask yourself this question: Why are teams like the Steelers coming out publicly saying essentially "the taping didn't matter" and "move on"?

What player do you think NE would have drafted with that late 1st rounder? :(

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

Belichek flopped in Cleveland(after his inital tenure with Bill).

I guess everything is relative. Cleveland was 3-13 before BB took over as HC. He went on to post seasons with 6, 7, 7, and 11 wins before taking a huge step back at 5-11 his final season.He took over a team ranked dead last in points allowed (462) and in their 11-win, playoff season ranked #1 in fewest points allowed (204).If you want to call that a flop, so be it.

Good points. Additionally, Belichick's job in Cleveland was to run off key players on the roster including Kosar who had become locker room cancers. Because Belichick obviously lacks the political acumen of a Parcells, for example, he was an abject failure in that kind of situation. When he ran off Glenn and effectively ran off Bledsoe, there was some griping in New England, but this quickly faded away when NE started winning.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

Belichek flopped in Cleveland(after his inital tenure with Bill).

I guess everything is relative. Cleveland was 3-13 before BB took over as HC. He went on to post seasons with 6, 7, 7, and 11 wins before taking a huge step back at 5-11 his final season.He took over a team ranked dead last in points allowed (462) and in their 11-win, playoff season ranked #1 in fewest points allowed (204).If you want to call that a flop, so be it.

Your players quitting on you in your final 5-11 season is flopping. Belichek was the next big thing when he went there. I'd say a guy 9 games under .500 over 5 seasons is a flop, especially in contrast to the success he's had since.

 

[switz]

Belichek flopped in Cleveland(after his inital tenure with Bill).

I guess everything is relative. Cleveland was 3-13 before BB took over as HC. He went on to post seasons with 6, 7, 7, and 11 wins before taking a huge step back at 5-11 his final season.He took over a team ranked dead last in points allowed (462) and in their 11-win, playoff season ranked #1 in fewest points allowed (204).If you want to call that a flop, so be it.

I would say one winning season out of five is a flop... not sure what your definition of success is if you don't think it involves winning.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

I get the feeling that Belichick would LOVE to blow the lid off of this whole Spygate thing and tell what he knows to the press and Specter. In terms of what he did, how long other teams were doing it, the hypocrisy of the league in punishing the Patriots while having a history of "nudge and wink" to other infractions like this (like the Dolphins a couple of years ago) - Belichick is a student of the game, and probably knows more about the history of the NFL than anybody. If he took Specter through the evolution of this type of activity over the years by many teams, I'd bet "Spygate" would probably go away.I think Goodell has put a gag order on Belichick not to divulge the league's dirty laundry. Just my opinion.

So we're to believe a coach classy enough to be throwing the ball into the endzone and going for 4th and shorts with less than 5 minutes left in the 4th quarter with his team up 3 TDs, should now be reimagined a proverbial paragon of virtue for the league? If he was indeed gagged, which I don't doubt in reference to perhaps his personal situation, I can't see Belichek forfeiting picks, team and personal money while other teams skated on this issue. You really need to make the "why" of this example more compelling, because right now, it's holding a much water a colander. Belichek, for all his faults, didn't cheat because he's a SOB. He cheated because he wanted an advantage and wanted to win. Do you honestly think that if other teams were winning by that means for which he was MASSIVELY fined, embarassed and penalized for, a first year commish is going to be able to silence him? He would not be leaking to the media like mad?

Not if Bob Kraft told him not to, for the sake of the league.Ask yourself this question: Why are teams like the Steelers coming out publicly saying essentially "the taping didn't matter" and "move on"?

If I had to take a blind stab at it, I would say its because the Rooneys are a classy family and part of the NFL old guard, and as part of that NFL old guard, are more protective of the league as a whole(like the Mara or Hunt families). Further hypothesizing, they may still be of the mindset that the league is family and you take care of family things inside the house and not on main street. Just a guess based on their past track record.

 

[Workhorse]

I get the feeling that Belichick would LOVE to blow the lid off of this whole Spygate thing and tell what he knows to the press and Specter. In terms of what he did, how long other teams were doing it, the hypocrisy of the league in punishing the Patriots while having a history of "nudge and wink" to other infractions like this (like the Dolphins a couple of years ago) - Belichick is a student of the game, and probably knows more about the history of the NFL than anybody. If he took Specter through the evolution of this type of activity over the years by many teams, I'd bet "Spygate" would probably go away.

I think Goodell has put a gag order on Belichick not to divulge the league's dirty laundry. Just my opinion.

Since when has Belichick cared what Goodell thought? IMO, if Belichick COULD blow the lid off this, he WOULD. The fact that he hasn't means that it's not being done by the other teams.

If Bob Kraft, who is one of the most powerful owners in the NFL, was told by Goodell to keep Belichick quiet?

 

[switz]

I get the feeling that Belichick would LOVE to blow the lid off of this whole Spygate thing and tell what he knows to the press and Specter. In terms of what he did, how long other teams were doing it, the hypocrisy of the league in punishing the Patriots while having a history of "nudge and wink" to other infractions like this (like the Dolphins a couple of years ago) - Belichick is a student of the game, and probably knows more about the history of the NFL than anybody. If he took Specter through the evolution of this type of activity over the years by many teams, I'd bet "Spygate" would probably go away.

I think Goodell has put a gag order on Belichick not to divulge the league's dirty laundry. Just my opinion.

Since when has Belichick cared what Goodell thought? IMO, if Belichick COULD blow the lid off this, he WOULD. The fact that he hasn't means that it's not being done by the other teams.

If Bob Kraft, who is one of the most powerful owners in the NFL, was told by Goodell to keep Belichick quiet?

Not likely IMO. Kraft, as one of the most powerful owners, has a lot of say in how long Goodell is even commissioner. If he felt the punishment was unjust, he'd speak up.

 

[Workhorse]

I get the feeling that Belichick would LOVE to blow the lid off of this whole Spygate thing and tell what he knows to the press and Specter. In terms of what he did, how long other teams were doing it, the hypocrisy of the league in punishing the Patriots while having a history of "nudge and wink" to other infractions like this (like the Dolphins a couple of years ago) - Belichick is a student of the game, and probably knows more about the history of the NFL than anybody. If he took Specter through the evolution of this type of activity over the years by many teams, I'd bet "Spygate" would probably go away.

I think Goodell has put a gag order on Belichick not to divulge the league's dirty laundry. Just my opinion.

Since when has Belichick cared what Goodell thought? IMO, if Belichick COULD blow the lid off this, he WOULD. The fact that he hasn't means that it's not being done by the other teams.

If Bob Kraft, who is one of the most powerful owners in the NFL, was told by Goodell to keep Belichick quiet?

Not likely IMO. Kraft, as one of the most powerful owners, has a lot of say in how long Goodell is even commissioner. If he felt the punishment was unjust, he'd speak up.

I'd say that both Bob Kraft and Dan Rooney, in their own ways, are potentially "taking one for the league" with regards to Spygate. If you're talking purely in terms of what's best for their respective teams? Kraft could have made more of a stink about the punishment and Rooney could have thrown the Patriots under the bus and pushed for more severe penalties. Yet neither of those things happened.Hey, it's ALL speculation, I know but there's a lot more to this story on all sides IMO.

 

[Filthy]

Couple of unintended funny posts here.

Bill Belichick has the goods and is WILLING to testify but Goddell is telling him to be quiet.

This guy's reply to ANYTHING related to improprieties is 'that's an NFL issue'.

Knowing what the defense is going to run can't be that useful and wouldn't affect the outcome of a game.

1 play can affect the outcome of a game. I'm guessing that missed Asante' Samuel interception, the Tyree catch or ol' genius Bill Belichick blitz call left Hobbs (5' 8") covering Burress (6' 4") in single coverage didn't affect the outcome of the game. Any of those plays don't happen and Pats have yet another tarnished trophy.

The quickest solution for the Patriots to get passed this scandal would be to fire Bill Belichick to restore integrity back to this organization. Probability of that happening is about the same as winning the lottery or 1 in 54,000,000.

 

[{Syrus}]

POSTED 8:39 a.m. EST, February 15, 2008

SPECTER PRESSES FORWARD, WITH SUPPORT

Surely, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell hoped that Wednesday's meeting with Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) was the last chapter in a book that Goodell can't wait to finish. For Specter, however, there still are many pages left.

Specter plans to press forward with his investigation of the manner in which the league handled the Spygate scandal. According to Mike Fish of ESPN.com, Specter claims that he has the support of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Specter said that Leahy is "prepared to have the committee pay for people who travel and investigate." While that's a far cry from a hearing like the Rocket-and-Pony show that unfolded this week before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, it's a step toward what ultimately could be a full-blown Congressional inquiry.

In our view, it's important for Specter to show that other Senators are on board with his efforts. As we argued on Thursday, Specter's solo act was at its ending point. Though there are questions that still need to be answered, the mission needs to take root with others in Congress before it can be taken seriously.

Fish also explains (and we can't recall ever seeing this before) that the materials surrendered by the Pats were destroyed in Foxborough by Jeff Pash and Ray Anderson.

Pash's role in this matter is critical, in our view. Pash, you see, is a Harvard-educated lawyer. He practiced for 13 years with Covington & Burling, the firm that still handles the league's work. And any practicing lawyer (even those who went to far less prestigious schools and work for far less prestigious firms) know that the prospect of destroying potential evidence is a serious matter.

Pash's involvement in the destruction of the the evidence surrendered by the Patriots tends to corroborate rumors (we repeat: rumors) that the materials turned over by Patriots coach Bill Belichick included evidence of cheating by other teams sufficiently widespread to give the league office concerns regarding the potential impact of the evidence on the network broadcasting contracts, which apparently contain language warranting that the on-field competition is real.

Again, that's only a rumor. But we believe that there had to be a very compelling reason for Pash to permit the information to be destroyed. A concern that the league couldn't keep the information out of the hands of the media isn't, in our view, anywhere close to the level that would prompt an officer of the court to disregard the kind of common sense that every lawyer acquires at some point during his or her career.

 

[Filthy]

POSTED 8:39 a.m. EST, February 15, 2008Pash's involvement in the destruction of the the evidence surrendered by the Patriots tends to corroborate rumors (we repeat: rumors) that the materials turned over by Patriots coach Bill Belichick included evidence of cheating by other teams sufficiently widespread to give the league office concerns regarding the potential impact of the evidence on the network broadcasting contracts, which apparently contain language warranting that the on-field competition is real.Again, that's only a rumor. But we believe that there had to be a very compelling reason for Pash to permit the information to be destroyed. A concern that the league couldn't keep the information out of the hands of the media isn't, in our view, anywhere close to the level that would prompt an officer of the court to disregard the kind of common sense that every lawyer acquires at some point during his or her career.

Yep, throw enough mud in and the waters get a nice brown color. Gimme a break.The evidence evidence was destroyed not because it show evidence of other teams cheating, but that the cheating opened a can of worms that would take years to clean up. Just the notes that showed they filmed the Steelers prior to the 2001 and 2004 AFC Championship games calls into question who should have won those games, who should have gone to the Superbowl and then you'd have to rewrite history. Not only would that take a Herculean effort but would probably cost millions in PR damage, lawsuits by fans and/or businesses, etc.... Evidence of other teams cheating? Puh-lease.

 

[{Syrus}]

POSTED 8:39 a.m. EST, February 15, 2008Pash's involvement in the destruction of the the evidence surrendered by the Patriots tends to corroborate rumors (we repeat: rumors) that the materials turned over by Patriots coach Bill Belichick included evidence of cheating by other teams sufficiently widespread to give the league office concerns regarding the potential impact of the evidence on the network broadcasting contracts, which apparently contain language warranting that the on-field competition is real.Again, that's only a rumor. But we believe that there had to be a very compelling reason for Pash to permit the information to be destroyed. A concern that the league couldn't keep the information out of the hands of the media isn't, in our view, anywhere close to the level that would prompt an officer of the court to disregard the kind of common sense that every lawyer acquires at some point during his or her career.

Yep, throw enough mud in and the waters get a nice brown color. Gimme a break.The evidence evidence was destroyed not because it show evidence of other teams cheating, but that the cheating opened a can of worms that would take years to clean up. Just the notes that showed they filmed the Steelers prior to the 2001 and 2004 AFC Championship games calls into question who should have won those games, who should have gone to the Superbowl and then you'd have to rewrite history. Not only would that take a Herculean effort but would probably cost millions in PR damage, lawsuits by fans and/or businesses, etc.... Evidence of other teams cheating? Puh-lease.

Oh I agree with you. The blame is solely on the Patriots and their cheating. I'm smiling because Specter is picking up congressional support (the chair of the senate judiciary committee) for his investigation. The Pats will be fully exposed, just a matter of time.

 

[Kit Fisto]

"Take this, haters... Now that that don't kill me, can only make me stronger." - Kanyé West

All I needed to know about how Pats fans feel about their coach and team was made abundantly evident to me when they introduced Belichick before the Chargers game Week 2. It was probably the loudest and longest ovation I've ever heard at a Patriots game. And that includes every AFC Championship game, each time they unravelled a new SuperBowl banner, and the day Bruschi returned from his stroke. I got chills.

So don't all you little internet message board boys worry your pretty little heads about how we're feeling up here in NE. We're doing just fine, thanks!

 

[Filthy]

POSTED 8:39 a.m. EST, February 15, 2008Pash's involvement in the destruction of the the evidence surrendered by the Patriots tends to corroborate rumors (we repeat: rumors) that the materials turned over by Patriots coach Bill Belichick included evidence of cheating by other teams sufficiently widespread to give the league office concerns regarding the potential impact of the evidence on the network broadcasting contracts, which apparently contain language warranting that the on-field competition is real.Again, that's only a rumor. But we believe that there had to be a very compelling reason for Pash to permit the information to be destroyed. A concern that the league couldn't keep the information out of the hands of the media isn't, in our view, anywhere close to the level that would prompt an officer of the court to disregard the kind of common sense that every lawyer acquires at some point during his or her career.

Yep, throw enough mud in and the waters get a nice brown color. Gimme a break.The evidence evidence was destroyed not because it show evidence of other teams cheating, but that the cheating opened a can of worms that would take years to clean up. Just the notes that showed they filmed the Steelers prior to the 2001 and 2004 AFC Championship games calls into question who should have won those games, who should have gone to the Superbowl and then you'd have to rewrite history. Not only would that take a Herculean effort but would probably cost millions in PR damage, lawsuits by fans and/or businesses, etc.... Evidence of other teams cheating? Puh-lease.

Oh I agree with you. The blame is solely on the Patriots and their cheating. I'm smiling because Specter is picking up congressional support (the chair of the senate judiciary committee) for his investigation. The Pats will be fully exposed, just a matter of time.

Yeah, my comments weren't directed at you but at the insanity that these so called journalists are going to assist in making this go away.Reminds me of when Clinton got busted for cheating. Remember the line that 'oral sex wasn't cheating'? A friend of mine said that and I asked him if he walked in on his wife servicing the poolboy what would he do? He stopped being my friend shortly thereafter.

 

[Filthy]

"Take this, haters... Now that that don't kill me, can only make me stronger." - Kanyé West

All I needed to know about how Pats fans feel about their coach and team was made abundantly evident to me when they introduced Belichick before the Chargers game Week 2. It was probably the loudest and longest ovation I've ever heard at a Patriots game. And that includes every AFC Championship game, each time they unravelled a new SuperBowl banner, and the day Bruschi returned from his stroke. I got chills.

So don't all you little internet message board boys worry your pretty little heads about how we're feeling up here in NE. We're doing just fine, thanks!

Since that game we've learned that Bill Belichick has been ILLEGALLY taping since at least 2000 (prior to the Pats SB wins) and possibly back into the 1990's. That being said, you guys probably feel the way a prostitute does after her first trick. Enough soap, water and listerine will wash away most everything. Good luck with that.

 

[David Yudkin]

Belichek flopped in Cleveland(after his inital tenure with Bill).

I guess everything is relative. Cleveland was 3-13 before BB took over as HC. He went on to post seasons with 6, 7, 7, and 11 wins before taking a huge step back at 5-11 his final season.He took over a team ranked dead last in points allowed (462) and in their 11-win, playoff season ranked #1 in fewest points allowed (204).If you want to call that a flop, so be it.

I would say one winning season out of five is a flop... not sure what your definition of success is if you don't think it involves winning.

Coaches that inherited a 3 win (or worse team) that won 11 games within 4 seasons with the same head coachan Reeves ATLTed Marchibroda BALChuck Knox BUFMarv Leavy BUFJohn Fox CARMarvin Lewis CINBill Belichick CLEJimmy Johnson DALJim Mora INDChuck Fairbanks NEBill Parcells NEBill Parcells NYJAndy Reid PHIChuck Noll PITBill Walsh SFJohn Robinson RAMSLooks like a decent list to be on.

 

[{Syrus}]

"Take this, haters... Now that that don't kill me, can only make me stronger." - Kanyé West

All I needed to know about how Pats fans feel about their coach and team was made abundantly evident to me when they introduced Belichick before the Chargers game Week 2. It was probably the loudest and longest ovation I've ever heard at a Patriots game. And that includes every AFC Championship game, each time they unravelled a new SuperBowl banner, and the day Bruschi returned from his stroke. I got chills.

So don't all you little internet message board boys worry your pretty little heads about how we're feeling up here in NE. We're doing just fine, thanks!

Doing fine with a nice pretty SuperBowl trouncing and major cheating scandal. Your welcome.

 

[switz]

Belichek flopped in Cleveland(after his inital tenure with Bill).

I guess everything is relative. Cleveland was 3-13 before BB took over as HC. He went on to post seasons with 6, 7, 7, and 11 wins before taking a huge step back at 5-11 his final season.He took over a team ranked dead last in points allowed (462) and in their 11-win, playoff season ranked #1 in fewest points allowed (204).If you want to call that a flop, so be it.

I would say one winning season out of five is a flop... not sure what your definition of success is if you don't think it involves winning.

Coaches that inherited a 3 win (or worse team) that won 11 games within 4 seasons with the same head coachan Reeves ATLTed Marchibroda BALChuck Knox BUFMarv Leavy BUFJohn Fox CARMarvin Lewis CINBill Belichick CLEJimmy Johnson DALJim Mora INDChuck Fairbanks NEBill Parcells NEBill Parcells NYJAndy Reid PHIChuck Noll PITBill Walsh SFJohn Robinson RAMSLooks like a decent list to be on.

How were their OTHER seasons? Did they regress to only 5 wins after their 11 win season?

 

[Road Warriors]

POSTED 8:39 a.m. EST, February 15, 2008

SPECTER PRESSES FORWARD, WITH SUPPORT

Surely, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell hoped that Wednesday's meeting with Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) was the last chapter in a book that Goodell can't wait to finish. For Specter, however, there still are many pages left.

Specter plans to press forward with his investigation of the manner in which the league handled the Spygate scandal. According to Mike Fish of ESPN.com, Specter claims that he has the support of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Specter said that Leahy is "prepared to have the committee pay for people who travel and investigate." While that's a far cry from a hearing like the Rocket-and-Pony show that unfolded this week before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, it's a step toward what ultimately could be a full-blown Congressional inquiry.

In our view, it's important for Specter to show that other Senators are on board with his efforts. As we argued on Thursday, Specter's solo act was at its ending point. Though there are questions that still need to be answered, the mission needs to take root with others in Congress before it can be taken seriously.

Fish also explains (and we can't recall ever seeing this before) that the materials surrendered by the Pats were destroyed in Foxborough by Jeff Pash and Ray Anderson.

Pash's role in this matter is critical, in our view. Pash, you see, is a Harvard-educated lawyer. He practiced for 13 years with Covington & Burling, the firm that still handles the league's work. And any practicing lawyer (even those who went to far less prestigious schools and work for far less prestigious firms) know that the prospect of destroying potential evidence is a serious matter.

Pash's involvement in the destruction of the the evidence surrendered by the Patriots tends to corroborate rumors (we repeat: rumors) that the materials turned over by Patriots coach Bill Belichick included evidence of cheating by other teams sufficiently widespread to give the league office concerns regarding the potential impact of the evidence on the network broadcasting contracts, which apparently contain language warranting that the on-field competition is real.

Again, that's only a rumor. But we believe that there had to be a very compelling reason for Pash to permit the information to be destroyed. A concern that the league couldn't keep the information out of the hands of the media isn't, in our view, anywhere close to the level that would prompt an officer of the court to disregard the kind of common sense that every lawyer acquires at some point during his or her career.

Specter, to this point, has been doing this on his own. Not as a member of the Senate, not as a member of the Judiciary committee, but as citizen Arlen Specter ( albeit with much greater access than Joe citizen ) I am curiously waiting to see what Specter does next. If he has any legs to this effort, he'll be convening some Congressional investigation and moving forward. I would think the US Senate would be able to afford Matt Walsh appropriate protections to allow him to speak.

If he's grandstanding, trying to apply public pressure on the NFL for some other objective ( say, a favorable deal for Comcast to carry NFL Network, for instance ), I'd expect to see him holding press conferences, going on sports talk radio, and basically being a public embarrassment to the NFL.

The bolded statement above is pretty carefully crafted, IMO. The head of the Senate Judiciary committee supports Specter's efforts, according to Specter. They are "prepared to pay for people who travel and investigate." What it doesn't say is that this has become a matter that the US Senate Judiciary committee ( or any other official government body ) is investigating.

Until that happens, this still looks like posturing from the respected Senator from Penn.

 

[phthalatemagic]

"Take this, haters... Now that that don't kill me, can only make me stronger." - Kanyé West

All I needed to know about how Pats fans feel about their coach and team was made abundantly evident to me when they introduced Belichick before the Chargers game Week 2. It was probably the loudest and longest ovation I've ever heard at a Patriots game. And that includes every AFC Championship game, each time they unravelled a new SuperBowl banner, and the day Bruschi returned from his stroke. I got chills.

So don't all you little internet message board boys worry your pretty little heads about how we're feeling up here in NE. We're doing just fine, thanks!

Some quote Winston Churchill or Theodore Roosevelt. Some quote Socrates or Albert Einstein. You choose to quote Kanye West.

Patsfans...

 

[Filthy]

"Take this, haters... Now that that don't kill me, can only make me stronger." - Kanyé West

All I needed to know about how Pats fans feel about their coach and team was made abundantly evident to me when they introduced Belichick before the Chargers game Week 2. It was probably the loudest and longest ovation I've ever heard at a Patriots game. And that includes every AFC Championship game, each time they unravelled a new SuperBowl banner, and the day Bruschi returned from his stroke. I got chills.

So don't all you little internet message board boys worry your pretty little heads about how we're feeling up here in NE. We're doing just fine, thanks!

Some quote Winston Churchill or Theodore Roosevelt. Some quote Socrates or Albert Einstein. You choose to quote Kanye West.

Patsfans...

LMAO. Nice catch.My personal favorite; 'I ain't saying she's a gold diggah'

 

[bryan215]

Belichek flopped in Cleveland(after his inital tenure with Bill).

I guess everything is relative. Cleveland was 3-13 before BB took over as HC. He went on to post seasons with 6, 7, 7, and 11 wins before taking a huge step back at 5-11 his final season.He took over a team ranked dead last in points allowed (462) and in their 11-win, playoff season ranked #1 in fewest points allowed (204).If you want to call that a flop, so be it.

I would say one winning season out of five is a flop... not sure what your definition of success is if you don't think it involves winning.

Coaches that inherited a 3 win (or worse team) that won 11 games within 4 seasons with the same head coachan Reeves ATLTed Marchibroda BALChuck Knox BUFMarv Leavy BUFJohn Fox CARMarvin Lewis CINBill Belichick CLEJimmy Johnson DAL----admitted to doing the same type of cheating as BBJim Mora INDChuck Fairbanks NEBill Parcells NE-----Probably was the one who taught BB about how to do this type of stuffBill Parcells NYJAndy Reid PHIChuck Noll PITBill Walsh SFJohn Robinson RAMSLooks like a decent list to be on.

It would be funny if Goddell panicked and decided to make a example out of BB and suspended him for a year etc. I'm sure if that happened BB would be more than willing to break the "code" among coaches and spill the beans about how much shady and "illegal" #### goes on in the NFL.

 

[PhD]

"Take this, haters... Now that that don't kill me, can only make me stronger." - Kanyé West

All I needed to know about how Pats fans feel about their coach and team was made abundantly evident to me when they introduced Belichick before the Chargers game Week 2. It was probably the loudest and longest ovation I've ever heard at a Patriots game. And that includes every AFC Championship game, each time they unravelled a new SuperBowl banner, and the day Bruschi returned from his stroke. I got chills.

So don't all you little internet message board boys worry your pretty little heads about how we're feeling up here in NE. We're doing just fine, thanks!

I admire the cheers at that point. Forget about spygate for a minute and sticking with wins and losses: the guy was just plain dominant as a coach. But, he couldn't sustain it and choked when it mattered most at the end. You could argue (and it has been argued) that the Pats lost the superbowl because of his poor choices in the game. Oh, you'll cheer for him next year too. But it will be the same way you will cheer for that guy who falls just before crossing the finish line in the Boston Marathon... whether or not he cut corners on the way there won't matter...

 

[Akkum]

"Take this, haters... Now that that don't kill me, can only make me stronger." - Kanyé West

All I needed to know about how Pats fans feel about their coach and team was made abundantly evident to me when they introduced Belichick before the Chargers game Week 2. It was probably the loudest and longest ovation I've ever heard at a Patriots game. And that includes every AFC Championship game, each time they unravelled a new SuperBowl banner, and the day Bruschi returned from his stroke. I got chills.

So don't all you little internet message board boys worry your pretty little heads about how we're feeling up here in NE. We're doing just fine, thanks!

I admire the cheers at that point. Forget about spygate for a minute and sticking with wins and losses: the guy was just plain dominant as a coach. But, he couldn't sustain it and choked when it mattered most at the end. You could argue (and it has been argued) that the Pats lost the superbowl because of his poor choices in the game. Oh, you'll cheer for him next year too. But it will be the same way you will cheer for that guy who falls just before crossing the finish line in the Boston Marathon... whether or not he cut corners on the way there won't matter...

If everything being said about Belichek and the Patriots is true...I have to move him out of my greatest coach list... not because he is supposedly a cheater... but because he isn't smart enough to know how to "cheat".

IF (notice a big if) I was ever a coach in a game where I knew the other teams plays, I wouldn't wait until the last drive of the game to win the game... I would have the game comfortably in control early in the 3rd quarter. During the 4th quarter I would never be in a situation where I could lose the game.

 

[duece2626]

NFL | Spygate spawns another lawsuit

Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:40:41 -0800

SportingNews.com reports former St. Louis Rams S Willie Gary has joined a lawsuit against the New England Patriots Friday, Feb. 15, seeking refunds for 2002 Super Bowl tickets, according to The Cincinnati Enquirer. Gary, a group of two Kentucky lawyers and a Cincinnati ticket broker are charging that the Patriots cheated in the 2002 Super Bowl, so all 72,922 people who attended the game should get their money back. Gary is also asking for each member of the Rams Super Bowl team to receive $25,000, the difference between the bonuses paid to members of the winning team and the losing team.

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

Sure it is overstating it. But you can't honestly tell me you don't think it's a distinct and definite advantage to know even some of the other team's defensive signals.

Here's a newsflash -- teams can change their signals. They do it all the time.

If you really believe it's that easy, you're crazy.Teams may change calls between seasons, but to do so in season is to ask for a lot of confusion. Do you know how big an NFL playbook is? Do you realize how big of an impact changing one call is?

And nevermind that EVEN IF they did so between games, to think that they could do so between halves is ludicrous. And what Belichick has often been praised for is his halftime adjustments. Perhaps those stolen signals helped a bit.

I don't condone what BB did, but for cryin out loud, how hard is it to have 2 or more coaches signaling in plays and only the defense knows which are the real signals and which aren't? This could easily be changed series to series.I have heard (don't have a link) that Parcells is quoted as saying it is much to do about nothing and potentially stolen signals can easily be circumvented by tactics such as those above or simply by giving the def captain a wrist band similar to the ones most qbs use where all the plays are numbered 1-whatever. Not only could you change the numbers on a weekly basis, but you could easily do it at halftime or series to series if you so desired.

I am sure there are other ways to nullify stolen signals and since stealing signals has been going on since the dawn of football you have to believe that most teams would utilize such rudimentary counter tactics like the 2 I just listed.

 

[{Syrus}]

Sure it is overstating it. But you can't honestly tell me you don't think it's a distinct and definite advantage to know even some of the other team's defensive signals.

Here's a newsflash -- teams can change their signals. They do it all the time.

If you really believe it's that easy, you're crazy.Teams may change calls between seasons, but to do so in season is to ask for a lot of confusion. Do you know how big an NFL playbook is? Do you realize how big of an impact changing one call is?

And nevermind that EVEN IF they did so between games, to think that they could do so between halves is ludicrous. And what Belichick has often been praised for is his halftime adjustments. Perhaps those stolen signals helped a bit.

I don't condone what BB did, but for cryin out loud, how hard is it to have 2 or more coaches signaling in plays and only the defense knows which are the real signals and which aren't? This could easily be changed series to series.I have heard (don't have a link) that Parcells is quoted as saying it is much to do about nothing and potentially stolen signals can easily be circumvented by tactics such as those above or simply by giving the def captain a wrist band similar to the ones most qbs use where all the plays are numbered 1-whatever. Not only could you change the numbers on a weekly basis, but you could easily do it at halftime or series to series if you so desired.

I am sure there are other ways to nullify stolen signals and since stealing signals has been going on since the dawn of football you have to believe that most teams would utilize such rudimentary counter tactics like the 2 I just listed.

Do you walk into someone's open home and steal their plasma TV? If no, why not? After all, its their fault for leaving the door open.

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

Sure it is overstating it. But you can't honestly tell me you don't think it's a distinct and definite advantage to know even some of the other team's defensive signals.

Here's a newsflash -- teams can change their signals. They do it all the time.

If you really believe it's that easy, you're crazy.Teams may change calls between seasons, but to do so in season is to ask for a lot of confusion. Do you know how big an NFL playbook is? Do you realize how big of an impact changing one call is?

And nevermind that EVEN IF they did so between games, to think that they could do so between halves is ludicrous. And what Belichick has often been praised for is his halftime adjustments. Perhaps those stolen signals helped a bit.

I don't condone what BB did, but for cryin out loud, how hard is it to have 2 or more coaches signaling in plays and only the defense knows which are the real signals and which aren't? This could easily be changed series to series.I have heard (don't have a link) that Parcells is quoted as saying it is much to do about nothing and potentially stolen signals can easily be circumvented by tactics such as those above or simply by giving the def captain a wrist band similar to the ones most qbs use where all the plays are numbered 1-whatever. Not only could you change the numbers on a weekly basis, but you could easily do it at halftime or series to series if you so desired.

I am sure there are other ways to nullify stolen signals and since stealing signals has been going on since the dawn of football you have to believe that most teams would utilize such rudimentary counter tactics like the 2 I just listed.

Do you walk into someone's open home and steal their plasma TV? If no, why not? After all, its their fault for leaving the door open.

Go back and read the post I was responding to and read my reply; pay particular attention to my first statement and the relevant points I made. If you still feel you have something to contribute then go ahead and make another attempt.

 

[switz]

Sure it is overstating it. But you can't honestly tell me you don't think it's a distinct and definite advantage to know even some of the other team's defensive signals.

Here's a newsflash -- teams can change their signals. They do it all the time.

If you really believe it's that easy, you're crazy.Teams may change calls between seasons, but to do so in season is to ask for a lot of confusion. Do you know how big an NFL playbook is? Do you realize how big of an impact changing one call is?

And nevermind that EVEN IF they did so between games, to think that they could do so between halves is ludicrous. And what Belichick has often been praised for is his halftime adjustments. Perhaps those stolen signals helped a bit.

I don't condone what BB did, but for cryin out loud, how hard is it to have 2 or more coaches signaling in plays and only the defense knows which are the real signals and which aren't? This could easily be changed series to series.I have heard (don't have a link) that Parcells is quoted as saying it is much to do about nothing and potentially stolen signals can easily be circumvented by tactics such as those above or simply by giving the def captain a wrist band similar to the ones most qbs use where all the plays are numbered 1-whatever. Not only could you change the numbers on a weekly basis, but you could easily do it at halftime or series to series if you so desired.

I am sure there are other ways to nullify stolen signals and since stealing signals has been going on since the dawn of football you have to believe that most teams would utilize such rudimentary counter tactics like the 2 I just listed.

Do you walk into someone's open home and steal their plasma TV? If no, why not? After all, its their fault for leaving the door open.

Go back and read the post I was responding to and read my reply; pay particular attention to my first statement and the relevant points I made. If you still feel you have something to contribute then go ahead and make another attempt.

In response to your first assertion - I can't recall EVER seeing two different coaches on the SL sending in signals. And in fact, even if they did, it would be pretty apparent which one was legit when you matched their play with the signal. Teams fall into tendencies too easily. If you think they would alternate who was sending in the real calls each time I think you are overestimating the ability of the defensive players to try to remember who to look at on any given play. Seriously.As for your second point about the wrist band... name just one time you've EVER seen that in the pros. It just doesn't happen.

You still are underestimating the complexity of play books in the NFL.

 

[switz]

Here's a new article.

Walsh Lawyer: Protect My Client

By DAVE GOLDBERG – 1 hour ago

NEW YORK (AP) — The lawyer for former New England Patriots employee Matt Walsh 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.

Attorney Michael Levy said that to date, the NFL's initial proposals are not sufficient protection for Walsh, who is said to have taped the St. Louis Rams' walkthrough practice the day before they played the Patriots in the 2002 Super Bowl. The Patriots won. 20-17.

"The NFL's proposal is not full indemnification," Levy told The Associated Press Friday in a telephone interview from his office at the Washington law firm of McKee Nelson.

"It is highly conditional and still leaves Mr. Walsh vulnerable. I have asked the NFL to provide Mr. Walsh with the necessary legal protections so that he can come forward with the truth without fear of retaliation and litigation. To best serve the interest of the public and everyone involved, I am hopeful that the NFL will do so promptly."

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has said he's offered Walsh a deal whereby "he has to tell the truth and he has to return anything he took improperly" in return for indemnity.

"No one wants to talk to Matt Walsh more than we do," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said Friday.

"But his demand to be released from all responsibility even if his comments are not truthful is unprecedented and unreasonable. The NFL and the Patriots have assured Mr. Walsh's lawyer that there will be no adverse consequences for his client if Mr. Walsh truthfully shares what he knows. Why does he need any more protection than that?"

Walsh, now a golf pro in Maui, did video work for the Patriots when they won the first of their three Super Bowl after the 2001 season.

Goodell said Walsh was not interviewed as part of the NFL's investigation into "Spygate," which involved the NFL confiscating tapes from a Patriots employee who recorded the New York Jets' defensive signals from the sideline during the opening game of the 2007 season.

As a result of that investigation, New England coach Bill Belichick was fined $500,000 and the team was fined $250,000 and forfeited its 2008 first-round draft choice.

Six confiscated tapes and other documents pertaining to the Patriots' taping were subsequently destroyed by the league. Goodell has defended the destruction of the tapes.

Levy, who is continuing to negotiate with the NFL on Walsh's behalf, also objected to NFL security's investigation of his client.

"Sending a former FBI agent to investigate his professional and personal life has not left Mr. Walsh feeling confident that the National Football League simply wants to encourage him to come forward with whatever information he has," Levy said.

Goodell met this week with Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter and disclosed for the first time that the taping may have gone back to 2000, when Belichick first became coach of the Patriots. The commissioner said Belichick told him in their meeting last September that he believed the taping was legal. "We agreed to disagree," the commissioner said.

Specter, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary committee, said after the meeting that he would continue to investigate the taping episodes. He has said he also would like to speak with Walsh.

Goodell said he could reopen the investigation.

"If there is new information that is credible, new material that could be credible that would help us, yes, we'll look at it," he said.

But Eric Holder, a partner in Covington & Burling, the NFL's outside law firm, suggested the NFL might remain reluctant to meet Walsh's current terms.

"No responsible investigator would offer blanket immunity to a potential witness without a commitment that the witness will be truthful," Holder said. "Any witness who refuses to make that commitment doesn't deserve immunity."

NFL Football Writer Barry Wilner contributed to this report.

It sounds more and more like a coverup by the NFL to me... If this goes to the Senate level, do they suggest the NFL was trying to "tamper" with a witness?

 

[{Syrus}]

It sounds more and more like a coverup by the NFL to me... If this goes to the Senate level, do they suggest the NFL was trying to "tamper" with a witness?

The picture being painted by Goodell and the NFL is getting uglier by the day. Just ban Bellicheck already, something that should have already been done.

 

[Road Warriors]

Here's a new article.

Walsh Lawyer: Protect My Client

By DAVE GOLDBERG – 1 hour ago

NEW YORK (AP) — The lawyer for former New England Patriots employee Matt Walsh 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.

Attorney Michael Levy said that to date, the NFL's initial proposals are not sufficient protection for Walsh, who is said to have taped the St. Louis Rams' walkthrough practice the day before they played the Patriots in the 2002 Super Bowl. The Patriots won. 20-17.

"The NFL's proposal is not full indemnification," Levy told The Associated Press Friday in a telephone interview from his office at the Washington law firm of McKee Nelson.

"It is highly conditional and still leaves Mr. Walsh vulnerable. I have asked the NFL to provide Mr. Walsh with the necessary legal protections so that he can come forward with the truth without fear of retaliation and litigation. To best serve the interest of the public and everyone involved, I am hopeful that the NFL will do so promptly."

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has said he's offered Walsh a deal whereby "he has to tell the truth and he has to return anything he took improperly" in return for indemnity.

"No one wants to talk to Matt Walsh more than we do," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said Friday.

"But his demand to be released from all responsibility even if his comments are not truthful is unprecedented and unreasonable. The NFL and the Patriots have assured Mr. Walsh's lawyer that there will be no adverse consequences for his client if Mr. Walsh truthfully shares what he knows. Why does he need any more protection than that?"

Walsh, now a golf pro in Maui, did video work for the Patriots when they won the first of their three Super Bowl after the 2001 season.

Goodell said Walsh was not interviewed as part of the NFL's investigation into "Spygate," which involved the NFL confiscating tapes from a Patriots employee who recorded the New York Jets' defensive signals from the sideline during the opening game of the 2007 season.

As a result of that investigation, New England coach Bill Belichick was fined $500,000 and the team was fined $250,000 and forfeited its 2008 first-round draft choice.

Six confiscated tapes and other documents pertaining to the Patriots' taping were subsequently destroyed by the league. Goodell has defended the destruction of the tapes.

Levy, who is continuing to negotiate with the NFL on Walsh's behalf, also objected to NFL security's investigation of his client.

"Sending a former FBI agent to investigate his professional and personal life has not left Mr. Walsh feeling confident that the National Football League simply wants to encourage him to come forward with whatever information he has," Levy said.

Goodell met this week with Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter and disclosed for the first time that the taping may have gone back to 2000, when Belichick first became coach of the Patriots. The commissioner said Belichick told him in their meeting last September that he believed the taping was legal. "We agreed to disagree," the commissioner said.

Specter, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary committee, said after the meeting that he would continue to investigate the taping episodes. He has said he also would like to speak with Walsh.

Goodell said he could reopen the investigation.

"If there is new information that is credible, new material that could be credible that would help us, yes, we'll look at it," he said.

But Eric Holder, a partner in Covington & Burling, the NFL's outside law firm, suggested the NFL might remain reluctant to meet Walsh's current terms.

"No responsible investigator would offer blanket immunity to a potential witness without a commitment that the witness will be truthful," Holder said. "Any witness who refuses to make that commitment doesn't deserve immunity."

NFL Football Writer Barry Wilner contributed to this report.

It sounds more and more like a coverup by the NFL to me... If this goes to the Senate level, do they suggest the NFL was trying to "tamper" with a witness?

An offer of indemnity on the condition of truth, and its not good enough? What exactly does Walsh want here? Full immunity and the ability to lie without repercussion? Not sounding like the most credible of witnesses, IMO. If he's got the goods and can tell the truth, where's the risk from his point?

 

[AB in DC]

An offer of indemnity on the condition of truth, and its not good enough? What exactly does Walsh want here? Full immunity and the ability to lie without repercussion?

The most complete immunity agreements I've ever seen never offer protection against perjured testimony.

Any lawyer here who can say otherwise? If not, it sounds like Walsh is trying to squirm out of this without ever going on record.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

An offer of indemnity on the condition of truth, and its not good enough? What exactly does Walsh want here? Full immunity and the ability to lie without repercussion?

The most complete immunity agreements I've ever seen never offer protection against perjured testimony.

Any lawyer here who can say otherwise? If not, it sounds like Walsh is trying to squirm out of this without ever going on record.

The Patriots are not a division of the NFL, they are a separate corporation thats part of the league. So even though the League may give him immunity or indemnification, if he signed confidentiality or non-disclosures with the Pats and he violates them to furnish these materials, he may still be in breach of those agreements and thus subject to civil penalty from them. Any non-disclousure or confidentiality I've ever signed contained rather harsh and straightforward language spelling out exactly the sort of finanical hit you'll take for being in breach. My guess would be, thats what he's trying to establish protection from before he basically goes out and violates it by showing these tapes. My best guess at least. I think if he has the goods, he'd LOVE to get this out there, he's obviously got the vibe of a spurned lover right now, but if he wants to line his pockets with a book deal, he's got to deliver the visuals. If he truly didn't want this out there or he wanted to step aside from testifying, I don't see what would keep him from saying "I was wrong/lying" etc?

If no one is able to iron this out, if his penalty for violating the agreement was between 1 and 5 million(somewhat standard, I've signed some that range up to 10 million and some that are open ended for vaguely imagined "damages"), but I've got to think it would be worth 4 million bucks to lets say the Versus Network to get the exclusive scoop on this and just agree to cover whatever damages come his way.

 

[kingmalaki]

Why are some arguing that the cheating didn't make that much of an impact, or that everyone else is doing it? How does that validate cheating. Cheating is wrong period. If everyone else is doing it and you get busted....well your bad....

If I steal a bag of candy from Walmart they have the right to punish me no matter how cheap the candy was. It doesn't matter if 10 other folks stole and got away with it...if I do it and get caught I may have to pay the consequences.

Cheating is cheating period........

 

[SteelerMurf]

Why are some arguing that the cheating didn't make that much of an impact, or that everyone else is doing it? How does that validate cheating. Cheating is wrong period. If everyone else is doing it and you get busted....well your bad....If I steal a bag of candy from Walmart they have the right to punish me no matter how cheap the candy was. It doesn't matter if 10 other folks stole and got away with it...if I do it and get caught I may have to pay the consequences.Cheating is cheating period........

exactly, besides right now only the Pats have ever been proven to have cheated.And, don't tell me it didn't help, he spent 7 years taping it had to have helped a lot. Actually since he continued to tape even though the league gave him one last warning is pretty much all the proof you need that Bellicheat got a HUGE advantage...otherwise why risk it?

 

[Road Warriors]

Why are some arguing that the cheating didn't make that much of an impact, or that everyone else is doing it? How does that validate cheating. Cheating is wrong period. If everyone else is doing it and you get busted....well your bad....If I steal a bag of candy from Walmart they have the right to punish me no matter how cheap the candy was. It doesn't matter if 10 other folks stole and got away with it...if I do it and get caught I may have to pay the consequences.Cheating is cheating period........

Fair enough. But this violation isn't stealing, assault or murder. I'd liken it to jaywalking. You are allowed to cross the street, but you if you choose not to cross in the crosswalk, you've violated a law. I really like the analogy, because jaywalking is rarely enforced, everyone brushes it aside as no big deal. But occasionally, you may find an enforcment officer that sees the infraction and issues the ticket. The Patriots violation was the method in which the collected the information. As Goodell has stated, when looking through the notes collected by the Patriots, that he couldn't tell if the information was obtained legally or not. If it is possible that these detailed notes of other coaches can be obtained legally, then the information was not the violation... just the method of collecting it.Think of it this way, a cop tells you to stop crossing the street out of the crosswalk. You then cross the street out of the crosswalk right in front of him. What's going to happen?

 

[SteelerMurf]

Why are some arguing that the cheating didn't make that much of an impact, or that everyone else is doing it? How does that validate cheating. Cheating is wrong period. If everyone else is doing it and you get busted....well your bad....If I steal a bag of candy from Walmart they have the right to punish me no matter how cheap the candy was. It doesn't matter if 10 other folks stole and got away with it...if I do it and get caught I may have to pay the consequences.Cheating is cheating period........

Fair enough. But this violation isn't stealing, assault or murder. I'd liken it to jaywalking. You are allowed to cross the street, but you if you choose not to cross in the crosswalk, you've violated a law. I really like the analogy, because jaywalking is rarely enforced, everyone brushes it aside as no big deal. But occasionally, you may find an enforcment officer that sees the infraction and issues the ticket. The Patriots violation was the method in which the collected the information. As Goodell has stated, when looking through the notes collected by the Patriots, that he couldn't tell if the information was obtained legally or not. If it is possible that these detailed notes of other coaches can be obtained legally, then the information was not the violation... just the method of collecting it.Think of it this way, a cop tells you to stop crossing the street out of the crosswalk. You then cross the street out of the crosswalk right in front of him. What's going to happen?

do you get dizzy with all this spinning

 

[Road Warriors]

Why are some arguing that the cheating didn't make that much of an impact, or that everyone else is doing it? How does that validate cheating. Cheating is wrong period. If everyone else is doing it and you get busted....well your bad....If I steal a bag of candy from Walmart they have the right to punish me no matter how cheap the candy was. It doesn't matter if 10 other folks stole and got away with it...if I do it and get caught I may have to pay the consequences.Cheating is cheating period........

Fair enough. But this violation isn't stealing, assault or murder. I'd liken it to jaywalking. You are allowed to cross the street, but you if you choose not to cross in the crosswalk, you've violated a law. I really like the analogy, because jaywalking is rarely enforced, everyone brushes it aside as no big deal. But occasionally, you may find an enforcment officer that sees the infraction and issues the ticket. The Patriots violation was the method in which the collected the information. As Goodell has stated, when looking through the notes collected by the Patriots, that he couldn't tell if the information was obtained legally or not. If it is possible that these detailed notes of other coaches can be obtained legally, then the information was not the violation... just the method of collecting it.Think of it this way, a cop tells you to stop crossing the street out of the crosswalk. You then cross the street out of the crosswalk right in front of him. What's going to happen?

do you get dizzy with all this spinning

Nope, its called perspective. You should try to get some.

 

[SteelerMurf]

Why are some arguing that the cheating didn't make that much of an impact, or that everyone else is doing it? How does that validate cheating. Cheating is wrong period. If everyone else is doing it and you get busted....well your bad....If I steal a bag of candy from Walmart they have the right to punish me no matter how cheap the candy was. It doesn't matter if 10 other folks stole and got away with it...if I do it and get caught I may have to pay the consequences.Cheating is cheating period........

Fair enough. But this violation isn't stealing, assault or murder. I'd liken it to jaywalking. You are allowed to cross the street, but you if you choose not to cross in the crosswalk, you've violated a law. I really like the analogy, because jaywalking is rarely enforced, everyone brushes it aside as no big deal. But occasionally, you may find an enforcment officer that sees the infraction and issues the ticket. The Patriots violation was the method in which the collected the information. As Goodell has stated, when looking through the notes collected by the Patriots, that he couldn't tell if the information was obtained legally or not. If it is possible that these detailed notes of other coaches can be obtained legally, then the information was not the violation... just the method of collecting it.Think of it this way, a cop tells you to stop crossing the street out of the crosswalk. You then cross the street out of the crosswalk right in front of him. What's going to happen?

do you get dizzy with all this spinning

Nope, its called perspective. You should try to get some.

The excuses for the Pats have progressed and progressed1. We only cheated for a 1/4 of the Pats game and you have no proof otherwiselater2. We only cheated in 2006 and 2007 all the superbowl wins are squeeky cleanlater3. We may have taped the Rams practice, but Vermiel doesn't care so why should youlater4. We may have cheated from 2000 to 2007 but it really didn't help them later5. We may have cheated, but just on a small technicality So what is the line Patriot fans will tow when Matt Walsh blows this entire thing to an entirely new level with his group of tapes?If I was a Pats fan, I wouldn't want to keep this conversation going with (a) the everyone's doing it (without proof) and (b) it didn't help them anyway (which clearly shown to be a false statement since Bellicheat has been doing it for 7 years and even couldn't stop doing it once he was specifically warned not to).The timeline of Pats excuses is hillarious...with each new cheat discovery a new excuse to poo poo it away gets weaker and weaker and more desperate.....again I ask what will we hear from Pats fans when Walsh talks and shows his tapes?

 

[Road Warriors]

Why are some arguing that the cheating didn't make that much of an impact, or that everyone else is doing it? How does that validate cheating. Cheating is wrong period. If everyone else is doing it and you get busted....well your bad....If I steal a bag of candy from Walmart they have the right to punish me no matter how cheap the candy was. It doesn't matter if 10 other folks stole and got away with it...if I do it and get caught I may have to pay the consequences.Cheating is cheating period........

Fair enough. But this violation isn't stealing, assault or murder. I'd liken it to jaywalking. You are allowed to cross the street, but you if you choose not to cross in the crosswalk, you've violated a law. I really like the analogy, because jaywalking is rarely enforced, everyone brushes it aside as no big deal. But occasionally, you may find an enforcment officer that sees the infraction and issues the ticket. The Patriots violation was the method in which the collected the information. As Goodell has stated, when looking through the notes collected by the Patriots, that he couldn't tell if the information was obtained legally or not. If it is possible that these detailed notes of other coaches can be obtained legally, then the information was not the violation... just the method of collecting it.Think of it this way, a cop tells you to stop crossing the street out of the crosswalk. You then cross the street out of the crosswalk right in front of him. What's going to happen?

do you get dizzy with all this spinning

Nope, its called perspective. You should try to get some.

The excuses for the Pats have progressed and progressed1. We only cheated for a 1/4 of the Pats game and you have no proof otherwiselater2. We only cheated in 2006 and 2007 all the superbowl wins are squeeky cleanlater3. We may have taped the Rams practice, but Vermiel doesn't care so why should you4. We may have cheated from 2000 to 2007 but it really didn't help them 5. We may have cheated, but just on a small technicality So what is the line Patriot fans will tow when Matt Walsh blows this entire thing to an entirely new level with his group of tapes?If I was a Pats fan, I wouldn't want to keep this conversation going with (a) the everyone's doing it (without proof) and (b) it didn't help them anyway (which clearly shown to be a false statement since Bellicheat has been doing it for 7 years and even couldn't stop doing it once he was specifically warned not to).The timeline of Pats excuses is hillarious...with each new cheat discovery a new excuse to poo poo it away gets weaker and weaker and more desperate.....again I ask what will we hear from Pats fans when Walsh talks and shows his tapes?

Nice timeline. I've had the same perspective of this from day 1. The violation was for camera location. If they did it one or since 2000, its the same infraction. The NFL was far less than forthcoming with this info, which is why so many are outraged here. Stating the tapes only went back to 2006, when now we learn that the Pats had been taping since 2000, was disingenuous of the NFL front office and I feel is probably one of the biggest PR blunders to date.Have you read the rule that was violated? Does it ever state plainly "Taping of opposing coaches is illegal" with no additional conditions? Call it spin if you want, but please read the rule violated and the memo that reinforced it. My comments only relate to the taping of coaches & signals. If the Matt Walsh story comes out & is true ( which so many of you have locked onto as Gospel Truth ) I will be on your side of that argument. That is a different beast, IMO. Now, Walsh has been offered indemnity, under the condition "telling the truth" but he feels that doesn't provide him the necessary protections. I guess he wants to be allowed to lie about what he knows or has and not be held accountable. There is something more to that story, and I'm not sure how it'll play out.

 

[SteelerMurf]

My comments only relate to the taping of coaches & signals. If the Matt Walsh story comes out & is true ( which so many of you have locked onto as Gospel Truth ) I will be on your side of that argument. That is a different beast, IMO. Now, Walsh has been offered indemnity, under the condition "telling the truth" but he feels that doesn't provide him the necessary protections. I guess he wants to be allowed to lie about what he knows or has and not be held accountable. There is something more to that story, and I'm not sure how it'll play out.

The reason so many people think Walsh is a true story is:1) Patriots were caught illegally videotaping opponents2) Walsh was a video guy for the Pats3) Walsh is going to hand over the tapes once the lawyers finish all the stipulations as I think Walsh probably can't talk about the inner workings of his past employer without legal consequences Pretty clear cut...he has tapes now what is on them is the question. But he isn't going to come forward like this if he didn't have the tapes. That's pretty much a point to agree on don't you think?What could get the Pats in serious hot water is that they said the disclosed everything. If Walsh has something new...it's a huge problem for the organization as it will show they covered up, hid or destroyed evidence.

 

[Road Warriors]

The reason so many people think Walsh is a true story is:1) Patriots were caught illegally videotaping opponents2) Walsh was a video guy for the Pats3) Walsh is going to hand over the tapes once the lawyers finish all the stipulations as I think Walsh probably can't talk about the inner workings of his past employer without legal consequences Pretty clear cut...he has tapes now what is on them is the question. But he isn't going to come forward like this if he didn't have the tapes. That's pretty much a point to agree on don't you think?What could get the Pats in serious hot water is that they said the disclosed everything. If Walsh has something new...it's a huge problem for the organization as it will show they covered up, hid or destroyed evidence.

The question is what stipulation needs to be worked out beyond telling the truth. If he is the star witness with the goods, why is telling the truth a condition that is not acceptable?I would think that he wouldn't come forward without having something, but then again, I would have thought Roger Clemens would have backed off his "I didn't do it" statements before he perjured himself in front of Congress. Sometimes you get the story ahead of where you want it to be. I'm waiting for this to play out. I will believe when he comes forward and produces something. Then I'll draw my conclusions from the facts as we know them, rather than speculation.

 

[fatness]

The question is what stipulation needs to be worked out beyond telling the truth. If he is the star witness with the goods, why is telling the truth a condition that is not acceptable?

From the article, that condition is acceptable to him. Dave Goldberg's article for Associated Press

"Under our proposal, Mr. Walsh is only protected if he in good faith is truthful. And he will be," Levy told The Associated Press on Friday in a telephone interview from his office at the Washington law firm of McKee Nelson.

The question is what protection is Walsh asking for through his lawyer that the NFL will not provide:

"The NFL's proposal is not full indemnification. It is highly conditional and still leaves Mr. Walsh vulnerable. I have asked the NFL to provide Mr. Walsh with the necessary legal protections so that he can come forward with the truth without fear of retaliation and litigation. To best serve the interest of the public and everyone involved, I am hopeful that the NFL will do so promptly."

Then there's the second issue of the NFL wanting all his tapes turned over. I assume that means they'll be destroyed. I'm not sure if Walsh (or the public or Congress) wants that to happen.

 

[remote controller]

Two things are crystal clear, other than the blatant cheating by BB.

1. Goodell botched this bad, and will likely lose his job over it. His image and the image of the league he fronts is damaged.

2. There is no separating Spygate from what the Pats have accomplished under BB. The two will be linked forever, and neither mentioned separately.

I predict Goodell takes the fall for all of this, and BB escapes to arrogantly cheat some more. The best thing that Kraft could do is to remove BB from this franchise and begin the rebuliding process of his team and it's image.

 

[Road Warriors]

The question is what stipulation needs to be worked out beyond telling the truth. If he is the star witness with the goods, why is telling the truth a condition that is not acceptable?

From the article, that condition is acceptable to him. Dave Goldberg's article for Associated Press

"Under our proposal, Mr. Walsh is only protected if he in good faith is truthful. And he will be," Levy told The Associated Press on Friday in a telephone interview from his office at the Washington law firm of McKee Nelson.

The question is what protection is Walsh asking for through his lawyer that the NFL will not provide:

"The NFL's proposal is not full indemnification. It is highly conditional and still leaves Mr. Walsh vulnerable. I have asked the NFL to provide Mr. Walsh with the necessary legal protections so that he can come forward with the truth without fear of retaliation and litigation. To best serve the interest of the public and everyone involved, I am hopeful that the NFL will do so promptly."

Then there's the second issue of the NFL wanting all his tapes turned over. I assume that means they'll be destroyed. I'm not sure if Walsh (or the public or Congress) wants that to happen.

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has said he's offered Walsh a deal whereby "he has to tell the truth and he has to return anything he took improperly" in return for indemnity.

This is the NFL offer, as reported. What does Mr. Walsh need beyond what has been offered? The lawyer calling this "highly conditional" is curious. Again, if you have the goods and the truth, why is this not an acceptable offer?

 

[remote controller]

The question is what protection is Walsh asking for through his lawyer that the NFL will not provide:

The answer to this is Goodell trying to save his own rear end.