Lawsuit against Patriots*** $29,000,000 (1 Viewer)

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I don't care about an astericks. I don't expect Belichick or Pats fans to ever acknowledge wrong in the matter, nor to be humbled, it's just not in their nature. I don't want the titles given by default to the losers, nor do I care about damages. What has been done cannot be undone.

What I do want is the NFL to physically remove the Lombardi Trophies from N.E.'s possession. It offends me that they display the trophy named for the man who was all about integrity and building character. Take back the Lombardis!

 

[fatness]

From PFT, regarding the 2 different indemnity provisions:

In this case, a reasonable reading of the indemnity language exchanged by the parties could cause a reasonable person to believe that the NFL and/or the Patriots are prepared to label anything and everything Walsh says as untruthful, even if he genuinely and in good faith believes his statement. Indeed, the Pats already have denied flatly any cheating in conjunction with Super Bowl XXXVI. So if Walsh says that he videotaped the Rams' walk-through (and if he doesn't have the tape to back it up), his version would instantly be called "untruthful" by the entity whose interests would be most clearly affected if what Walsh says is true.In our view, "good faith" is the key. Walsh is willing to sacrifice indemnity upon a finding that any alleged untruthfulness was the product of bad faith on his part. In other words, he can be sued -- successfully -- if there's a finding that his statements to Senator Specter are made in bad faith. It's not full indemnity, and it exposes Walsh to litigation based on a contention that he's a disgruntled employee who stole sensitive materials in the hopes of later selling them to other teams, blackmailing the Patriots, and/or simply causing trouble when the opportunity to do so ever might arise.But he would be shielded from a pissing match over who's right and who's wrong, with the NFL and/or the Pats potentially taking the position that if Walsh is simply incorrect it necessarily means that he's lying, and thus exposed to liability for his words, or his past actions in retaining club property.

 

[Christo]

POSTED www.profootballtalk.com 3:24 p.m. EST, February 15, 2008

FORMER RAMS PLAYER SUES PATS

Not long after the Patriots were caught videotaping defensive coaching signals, a class action was filed on behalf of Jets season-ticket holders. (The current status of that action is unknown.)

Now, another class action has been filed against the Patriots based on published reports of cheating in connection with Super Bowl XXXVI. And one of the plaintiffs played for the Rams, whose final walk-through practice allegedly was taped secretly by the Patriots.

According to the Cincinnati Enquirer, former Rams player Willie Gary has joined with a Cincinnati ticket broker who attended the game to file suit against the Patriots in a New Orleans federal court. Super Bowl XXXVI was played at the Louisiana Superdome in February 2002.

The action seeks a full refund for all persons who attended the game. At $400 a pop and 72,922 pops, that's $29,168,800.

Also, the suit demands payment to all Rams players of the $25,000 difference between the winners' share and the losers' share, and of the value of a Super Bowl ring.

The lawsuit alleges that the Patriots engaged in fraud, racketeering, breach of contract, and violation of Louisiana’s unfair trade practices and consumer protection act.

At a minimum, the filing of this action means that, one way or another, former Patriots employee Matt Walsh's story will come out. He will be subject to subpoena via the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, and the subpoena will overcome the terms of any confidentiality agreement.

This is pretty cool... and far from a frivolous case as a lot of apologists would like to claim.If the accusations prove to be true, and given the Patriots' history of cheating that seems to be a good bet, it will be very interesting to see how far the fallout extends.

Really? Would you care to explain how taping a practice establishes claims for fraud, racketeering, breach of contract, and violation of Louisiana’s unfair trade practices and consumer protection act?

 

[JAA]

Anybody think any Eagles ex-players might file a lawsuit also

i am so in

 

[St. Louis Bob]

 

[PhD]

This is quickly spiraling out of control for the Patriots. Their tight-lipped, burn the tapes attitude is backfiring. What a disaster from "the model organization" of sports. NOT.

Guess you still don't have the facts straight either. The Pats did not destroy the tapes. The NFL league office did. Whether that was the right thing to do or not has nothing to do with the Pats.Honestly, I think it would have been better for everyone if they had kept the tapes so all of you could see how assinine all this is.

True. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the Pats still had their own copies of the evidence (and would continue to use them if they thought they could benefit in some way from them).

 

[PhD]

From PFT, regarding the 2 different indemnity provisions:

In this case, a reasonable reading of the indemnity language exchanged by the parties could cause a reasonable person to believe that the NFL and/or the Patriots are prepared to label anything and everything Walsh says as untruthful, even if he genuinely and in good faith believes his statement. Indeed, the Pats already have denied flatly any cheating in conjunction with Super Bowl XXXVI. So if Walsh says that he videotaped the Rams' walk-through (and if he doesn't have the tape to back it up), his version would instantly be called "untruthful" by the entity whose interests would be most clearly affected if what Walsh says is true.

In our view, "good faith" is the key. Walsh is willing to sacrifice indemnity upon a finding that any alleged untruthfulness was the product of bad faith on his part. In other words, he can be sued -- successfully -- if there's a finding that his statements to Senator Specter are made in bad faith. It's not full indemnity, and it exposes Walsh to litigation based on a contention that he's a disgruntled employee who stole sensitive materials in the hopes of later selling them to other teams, blackmailing the Patriots, and/or simply causing trouble when the opportunity to do so ever might arise.

But he would be shielded from a pissing match over who's right and who's wrong, with the NFL and/or the Pats potentially taking the position that if Walsh is simply incorrect it necessarily means that he's lying, and thus exposed to liability for his words, or his past actions in retaining club property.

However, this too is apparently relative and needs to be understood in the context with which it was said. According to Goodell, the Patriots denied any cheating, but in a different description of events he also noted that Belicheck did not find anything wrong with taping and using the tapes (and on that point they would "agree to disagree). By Belicheck's perspective, I suppose the Pats could have used such a tape in active gameplanning and still they would not think that would be cheating.

 

[Pat Patriot]

From PFT, regarding the 2 different indemnity provisions:

In this case, a reasonable reading of the indemnity language exchanged by the parties could cause a reasonable person to believe that the NFL and/or the Patriots are prepared to label anything and everything Walsh says as untruthful, even if he genuinely and in good faith believes his statement. Indeed, the Pats already have denied flatly any cheating in conjunction with Super Bowl XXXVI. So if Walsh says that he videotaped the Rams' walk-through (and if he doesn't have the tape to back it up), his version would instantly be called "untruthful" by the entity whose interests would be most clearly affected if what Walsh says is true.

In our view, "good faith" is the key. Walsh is willing to sacrifice indemnity upon a finding that any alleged untruthfulness was the product of bad faith on his part. In other words, he can be sued -- successfully -- if there's a finding that his statements to Senator Specter are made in bad faith. It's not full indemnity, and it exposes Walsh to litigation based on a contention that he's a disgruntled employee who stole sensitive materials in the hopes of later selling them to other teams, blackmailing the Patriots, and/or simply causing trouble when the opportunity to do so ever might arise.

But he would be shielded from a pissing match over who's right and who's wrong, with the NFL and/or the Pats potentially taking the position that if Walsh is simply incorrect it necessarily means that he's lying, and thus exposed to liability for his words, or his past actions in retaining club property.

However, this too is apparently relative and needs to be understood in the context with which it was said. According to Goodell, the Patriots denied any cheating, but in a different description of events he also noted that Belicheck did not find anything wrong with taping and using the tapes (and on that point they would "agree to disagree). By Belicheck's perspective, I suppose the Pats could have used such a tape in active gameplanning and still they would not think that would be cheating.

That is exactly correct. The Patriots would tape defensive signals and then use them in gameplanning the next time they faced that opponent. That is what Belichick said.There isnt much more to say other than anyone supporting this lawsuits merit is an IDIOT.

 

[PhD]

From PFT, regarding the 2 different indemnity provisions:

In this case, a reasonable reading of the indemnity language exchanged by the parties could cause a reasonable person to believe that the NFL and/or the Patriots are prepared to label anything and everything Walsh says as untruthful, even if he genuinely and in good faith believes his statement. Indeed, the Pats already have denied flatly any cheating in conjunction with Super Bowl XXXVI. So if Walsh says that he videotaped the Rams' walk-through (and if he doesn't have the tape to back it up), his version would instantly be called "untruthful" by the entity whose interests would be most clearly affected if what Walsh says is true.

In our view, "good faith" is the key. Walsh is willing to sacrifice indemnity upon a finding that any alleged untruthfulness was the product of bad faith on his part. In other words, he can be sued -- successfully -- if there's a finding that his statements to Senator Specter are made in bad faith. It's not full indemnity, and it exposes Walsh to litigation based on a contention that he's a disgruntled employee who stole sensitive materials in the hopes of later selling them to other teams, blackmailing the Patriots, and/or simply causing trouble when the opportunity to do so ever might arise.

But he would be shielded from a pissing match over who's right and who's wrong, with the NFL and/or the Pats potentially taking the position that if Walsh is simply incorrect it necessarily means that he's lying, and thus exposed to liability for his words, or his past actions in retaining club property.

However, this too is apparently relative and needs to be understood in the context with which it was said. According to Goodell, the Patriots denied any cheating, but in a different description of events he also noted that Belicheck did not find anything wrong with taping and using the tapes (and on that point they would "agree to disagree). By Belicheck's perspective, I suppose the Pats could have used such a tape in active gameplanning and still they would not think that would be cheating.

That is exactly correct. The Patriots would tape defensive signals and then use them in gameplanning the next time they faced that opponent. That is what Belichick said.There isnt much more to say other than anyone supporting this lawsuits merit is an IDIOT.

I was actually referring to the potential for using a tape of a team's walkthrough and gameplan around that. I'm not saying that the lawsuit has merit per se, but if I was a Ram player I would be pretty pissed if it turns out the Pats actually taped a final walthrough. But perhaps I would be most pissed after losing to a team that 'practices so hard at the fundamentals' and simply is 'better coached' and 'just sees the play developing so quickly' and 'are just students of the game'... and then finding out that they stooped to that level of cheating in preparation.

Say what you want about any of this, but it will be a long time before the Patriots get praise for these sorts of things without the skeptical fan chiming in. Heck, Steeler fans still hear that the Immaculate Reception was a fraud play. But that's nothing compared to a fraud dynasty.

 

[Pat Patriot]

From PFT, regarding the 2 different indemnity provisions:

In this case, a reasonable reading of the indemnity language exchanged by the parties could cause a reasonable person to believe that the NFL and/or the Patriots are prepared to label anything and everything Walsh says as untruthful, even if he genuinely and in good faith believes his statement. Indeed, the Pats already have denied flatly any cheating in conjunction with Super Bowl XXXVI. So if Walsh says that he videotaped the Rams' walk-through (and if he doesn't have the tape to back it up), his version would instantly be called "untruthful" by the entity whose interests would be most clearly affected if what Walsh says is true.

In our view, "good faith" is the key. Walsh is willing to sacrifice indemnity upon a finding that any alleged untruthfulness was the product of bad faith on his part. In other words, he can be sued -- successfully -- if there's a finding that his statements to Senator Specter are made in bad faith. It's not full indemnity, and it exposes Walsh to litigation based on a contention that he's a disgruntled employee who stole sensitive materials in the hopes of later selling them to other teams, blackmailing the Patriots, and/or simply causing trouble when the opportunity to do so ever might arise.

But he would be shielded from a pissing match over who's right and who's wrong, with the NFL and/or the Pats potentially taking the position that if Walsh is simply incorrect it necessarily means that he's lying, and thus exposed to liability for his words, or his past actions in retaining club property.

However, this too is apparently relative and needs to be understood in the context with which it was said. According to Goodell, the Patriots denied any cheating, but in a different description of events he also noted that Belicheck did not find anything wrong with taping and using the tapes (and on that point they would "agree to disagree). By Belicheck's perspective, I suppose the Pats could have used such a tape in active gameplanning and still they would not think that would be cheating.

That is exactly correct. The Patriots would tape defensive signals and then use them in gameplanning the next time they faced that opponent. That is what Belichick said.There isnt much more to say other than anyone supporting this lawsuits merit is an IDIOT.

I was actually referring to the potential for using a tape of a team's walkthrough and gameplan around that. I'm not saying that the lawsuit has merit per se, but if I was a Ram player I would be pretty pissed if it turns out the Pats actually taped a final walthrough. But perhaps I would be most pissed after losing to a team that 'practices so hard at the fundamentals' and simply is 'better coached' and 'just sees the play developing so quickly' and 'are just students of the game'... and then finding out that they stooped to that level of cheating in preparation.

Say what you want about any of this, but it will be a long time before the Patriots get praise for these sorts of things without the skeptical fan chiming in. Heck, Steeler fans still hear that the Immaculate Reception was a fraud play. But that's nothing compared to a fraud dynasty.

Have you ever been in or conducted a walkthrough? I have done both. The walkthrough is a lot of walking through various plays to ensure that everyone on the team knows who should be on the field during certain situations. The emphasis isnt on the plays themselves but ensuring that everyone knows the different personnel packages that will be used in a game. A good deal of the walkthrough is used on Special Teams to make sure everyone knows who is on the Punt team, Kickoff team, Punt return team, Kickoff return team, Hands team, Fake Punt team, Short Yardage team. And also to know if someone goes down injured, say Rodney Harrison, who replaces him on the Kickoff team.The Patriots had played the Rams about 10 weeks earlier. There is nothing that the Patriots would have seen on a tape of the walkthrough that they didnt already have on tape.

Besides, the story about the Rams walkthrough has been out since before the Super Bowl, I havent seen a tape produced. I think the story is a bunch of malarkey. The Patriots conducted their walkthrough for that Super Bowl in a Hotel Ballroom. Do you really think the taping of that walkthrough would have given the Rams any advantage?

 

[Pat Patriot]

From PFT, regarding the 2 different indemnity provisions:

In this case, a reasonable reading of the indemnity language exchanged by the parties could cause a reasonable person to believe that the NFL and/or the Patriots are prepared to label anything and everything Walsh says as untruthful, even if he genuinely and in good faith believes his statement. Indeed, the Pats already have denied flatly any cheating in conjunction with Super Bowl XXXVI. So if Walsh says that he videotaped the Rams' walk-through (and if he doesn't have the tape to back it up), his version would instantly be called "untruthful" by the entity whose interests would be most clearly affected if what Walsh says is true.

In our view, "good faith" is the key. Walsh is willing to sacrifice indemnity upon a finding that any alleged untruthfulness was the product of bad faith on his part. In other words, he can be sued -- successfully -- if there's a finding that his statements to Senator Specter are made in bad faith. It's not full indemnity, and it exposes Walsh to litigation based on a contention that he's a disgruntled employee who stole sensitive materials in the hopes of later selling them to other teams, blackmailing the Patriots, and/or simply causing trouble when the opportunity to do so ever might arise.

But he would be shielded from a pissing match over who's right and who's wrong, with the NFL and/or the Pats potentially taking the position that if Walsh is simply incorrect it necessarily means that he's lying, and thus exposed to liability for his words, or his past actions in retaining club property.

However, this too is apparently relative and needs to be understood in the context with which it was said. According to Goodell, the Patriots denied any cheating, but in a different description of events he also noted that Belicheck did not find anything wrong with taping and using the tapes (and on that point they would "agree to disagree). By Belicheck's perspective, I suppose the Pats could have used such a tape in active gameplanning and still they would not think that would be cheating.

That is exactly correct. The Patriots would tape defensive signals and then use them in gameplanning the next time they faced that opponent. That is what Belichick said.There isnt much more to say other than anyone supporting this lawsuits merit is an IDIOT.

I was actually referring to the potential for using a tape of a team's walkthrough and gameplan around that. I'm not saying that the lawsuit has merit per se, but if I was a Ram player I would be pretty pissed if it turns out the Pats actually taped a final walthrough. But perhaps I would be most pissed after losing to a team that 'practices so hard at the fundamentals' and simply is 'better coached' and 'just sees the play developing so quickly' and 'are just students of the game'... and then finding out that they stooped to that level of cheating in preparation.

Say what you want about any of this, but it will be a long time before the Patriots get praise for these sorts of things without the skeptical fan chiming in. Heck, Steeler fans still hear that the Immaculate Reception was a fraud play. But that's nothing compared to a fraud dynasty.

So the Patriots are going to spend 2 weeks Gameplanning for the Super Bowl and then scratch that and change the Gameplan because of a tape of the Rams walking through plays a day before the game. Do you think they went out collected all of the game plans from the 45 players and then issued new ones the morning of the game?This is ridiculous.

 

[Routilla]

Is it too late to award the Lombardi Trophy to the St. Louis Rams for the 2001 season?

 

[ImTheScientist]

After all this mess there is NO WAY I would ever consider them Champions....let alone a Dynasty. Not an example of a franchise you would want to like. I have zero respect for them.

 

[Das Boot]

It's absolutely hilarious to see people trying to defend what the Patriots did, and claim it gave NE no advantage.

1. Why did the Patriots do it if they derived no benefit from it? The answer is they did derive benefit from it.

2. If, as Patriots apologists want to insist, there is no benefit to be gained from viewing/taping walkthroughs and defensive signals, I'm quite sure the Patriots will willingly permanently open their walk throughs and sidelines to anyone interested in filming them including all other NFL teams.

Seriously, NE will allow this to demonstrate the 100% complete lack of value in that type of information, right?

Wow.

You NE fans and apologists would at least earn some respect if you admitted to the cheating, admitted advantages were clearly gained, and then apologized for it and made sure it didn't happen again.

I won't hold my breath though.

 

[JAA]

It's absolutely hilarious to see people trying to defend what the Patriots did, and claim it gave NE no advantage.

1. Why did the Patriots do it if they derived no benefit from it? The answer is they did derive benefit from it.

2. If, as Patriots apologists want to insist, there is no benefit to be gained from viewing/taping walkthroughs and defensive signals, I'm quite sure the Patriots will willingly permanently open their walk throughs and sidelines to anyone interested in filming them including all other NFL teams.

Seriously, NE will allow this to demonstrate the 100% complete lack of value in that type of information, right?

Wow.

You NE fans and apologists would at least earn some respect if you admitted to the cheating, admitted advantages were clearly gained, and then apologized for it and made sure it didn't happen again.

I won't hold my breath though.

 

[ImTheScientist]

It's absolutely hilarious to see people trying to defend what the Patriots did, and claim it gave NE no advantage.

1. Why did the Patriots do it if they derived no benefit from it? The answer is they did derive benefit from it.

2. If, as Patriots apologists want to insist, there is no benefit to be gained from viewing/taping walkthroughs and defensive signals, I'm quite sure the Patriots will willingly permanently open their walk throughs and sidelines to anyone interested in filming them including all other NFL teams.

Seriously, NE will allow this to demonstrate the 100% complete lack of value in that type of information, right?

Wow.

You NE fans and apologists would at least earn some respect if you admitted to the cheating, admitted advantages were clearly gained, and then apologized for it and made sure it didn't happen again.

I won't hold my breath though.

Very

 

[Ksquared]

It's absolutely hilarious to see people trying to defend what the Patriots did, and claim it gave NE no advantage.

1. Why did the Patriots do it if they derived no benefit from it? The answer is they did derive benefit from it.

2. If, as Patriots apologists want to insist, there is no benefit to be gained from viewing/taping walkthroughs and defensive signals, I'm quite sure the Patriots will willingly permanently open their walk throughs and sidelines to anyone interested in filming them including all other NFL teams.

Seriously, NE will allow this to demonstrate the 100% complete lack of value in that type of information, right?

Wow.

You NE fans and apologists would at least earn some respect if you admitted to the cheating, admitted advantages were clearly gained, and then apologized for it and made sure it didn't happen again.

I won't hold my breath though.

Really really BTW, When this blew up just before the Super Bowl, Martz stated they walked through their red zone package. And during the game, the only plays that worked were ones they drew up on the sidelines or did not use in the walk through. But the Pats apologists are correct, there would be no advantage to seeing the red zone walk through the day before the game.

 

[Chaz McNulty]

From PFT, regarding the 2 different indemnity provisions:

In this case, a reasonable reading of the indemnity language exchanged by the parties could cause a reasonable person to believe that the NFL and/or the Patriots are prepared to label anything and everything Walsh says as untruthful, even if he genuinely and in good faith believes his statement. Indeed, the Pats already have denied flatly any cheating in conjunction with Super Bowl XXXVI. So if Walsh says that he videotaped the Rams' walk-through (and if he doesn't have the tape to back it up), his version would instantly be called "untruthful" by the entity whose interests would be most clearly affected if what Walsh says is true.

In our view, "good faith" is the key. Walsh is willing to sacrifice indemnity upon a finding that any alleged untruthfulness was the product of bad faith on his part. In other words, he can be sued -- successfully -- if there's a finding that his statements to Senator Specter are made in bad faith. It's not full indemnity, and it exposes Walsh to litigation based on a contention that he's a disgruntled employee who stole sensitive materials in the hopes of later selling them to other teams, blackmailing the Patriots, and/or simply causing trouble when the opportunity to do so ever might arise.

But he would be shielded from a pissing match over who's right and who's wrong, with the NFL and/or the Pats potentially taking the position that if Walsh is simply incorrect it necessarily means that he's lying, and thus exposed to liability for his words, or his past actions in retaining club property.

However, this too is apparently relative and needs to be understood in the context with which it was said. According to Goodell, the Patriots denied any cheating, but in a different description of events he also noted that Belicheck did not find anything wrong with taping and using the tapes (and on that point they would "agree to disagree). By Belicheck's perspective, I suppose the Pats could have used such a tape in active gameplanning and still they would not think that would be cheating.

That is exactly correct. The Patriots would tape defensive signals and then use them in gameplanning the next time they faced that opponent. That is what Belichick said.There isnt much more to say other than anyone supporting this lawsuits merit is an IDIOT.

I was actually referring to the potential for using a tape of a team's walkthrough and gameplan around that. I'm not saying that the lawsuit has merit per se, but if I was a Ram player I would be pretty pissed if it turns out the Pats actually taped a final walthrough. But perhaps I would be most pissed after losing to a team that 'practices so hard at the fundamentals' and simply is 'better coached' and 'just sees the play developing so quickly' and 'are just students of the game'... and then finding out that they stooped to that level of cheating in preparation.

Say what you want about any of this, but it will be a long time before the Patriots get praise for these sorts of things without the skeptical fan chiming in. Heck, Steeler fans still hear that the Immaculate Reception was a fraud play. But that's nothing compared to a fraud dynasty.

So the Patriots are going to spend 2 weeks Gameplanning for the Super Bowl and then scratch that and change the Gameplan because of a tape of the Rams walking through plays a day before the game. Do you think they went out collected all of the game plans from the 45 players and then issued new ones the morning of the game?This is ridiculous.

Are you really this obtuse? All they need to do to get a huge advantage is to know the formations on any special plays. If NE see's the Rams line up in an unuaual formation they would know exactly how to defend this play. They only need to tell one cornerback that he has safety help on this play and they want him to jump this route. All of a sudden you may have 7 points on the board. Pretty big play in a game that was won on a last second field goal.

 

[Pat Patriot]

From PFT, regarding the 2 different indemnity provisions:

In this case, a reasonable reading of the indemnity language exchanged by the parties could cause a reasonable person to believe that the NFL and/or the Patriots are prepared to label anything and everything Walsh says as untruthful, even if he genuinely and in good faith believes his statement. Indeed, the Pats already have denied flatly any cheating in conjunction with Super Bowl XXXVI. So if Walsh says that he videotaped the Rams' walk-through (and if he doesn't have the tape to back it up), his version would instantly be called "untruthful" by the entity whose interests would be most clearly affected if what Walsh says is true.

In our view, "good faith" is the key. Walsh is willing to sacrifice indemnity upon a finding that any alleged untruthfulness was the product of bad faith on his part. In other words, he can be sued -- successfully -- if there's a finding that his statements to Senator Specter are made in bad faith. It's not full indemnity, and it exposes Walsh to litigation based on a contention that he's a disgruntled employee who stole sensitive materials in the hopes of later selling them to other teams, blackmailing the Patriots, and/or simply causing trouble when the opportunity to do so ever might arise.

But he would be shielded from a pissing match over who's right and who's wrong, with the NFL and/or the Pats potentially taking the position that if Walsh is simply incorrect it necessarily means that he's lying, and thus exposed to liability for his words, or his past actions in retaining club property.

However, this too is apparently relative and needs to be understood in the context with which it was said. According to Goodell, the Patriots denied any cheating, but in a different description of events he also noted that Belicheck did not find anything wrong with taping and using the tapes (and on that point they would "agree to disagree). By Belicheck's perspective, I suppose the Pats could have used such a tape in active gameplanning and still they would not think that would be cheating.

That is exactly correct. The Patriots would tape defensive signals and then use them in gameplanning the next time they faced that opponent. That is what Belichick said.There isnt much more to say other than anyone supporting this lawsuits merit is an IDIOT.

I was actually referring to the potential for using a tape of a team's walkthrough and gameplan around that. I'm not saying that the lawsuit has merit per se, but if I was a Ram player I would be pretty pissed if it turns out the Pats actually taped a final walthrough. But perhaps I would be most pissed after losing to a team that 'practices so hard at the fundamentals' and simply is 'better coached' and 'just sees the play developing so quickly' and 'are just students of the game'... and then finding out that they stooped to that level of cheating in preparation.

Say what you want about any of this, but it will be a long time before the Patriots get praise for these sorts of things without the skeptical fan chiming in. Heck, Steeler fans still hear that the Immaculate Reception was a fraud play. But that's nothing compared to a fraud dynasty.

So the Patriots are going to spend 2 weeks Gameplanning for the Super Bowl and then scratch that and change the Gameplan because of a tape of the Rams walking through plays a day before the game. Do you think they went out collected all of the game plans from the 45 players and then issued new ones the morning of the game?This is ridiculous.

Are you really this obtuse? All they need to do to get a huge advantage is to know the formations on any special plays. If NE see's the Rams line up in an unuaual formation they would know exactly how to defend this play. They only need to tell one cornerback that he has safety help on this play and they want him to jump this route. All of a sudden you may have 7 points on the board. Pretty big play in a game that was won on a last second field goal.

Do you know that little about football? What formation would ANY NFL team have that only has one play that can be run from it? Most have 5-10 options or plays that can be run from any given formation. Through hours of "legit" film study, when a team comes out in a certain formation in a certain down and distance, the defensive team has some knowledge of what a team LIKES to run. Not what they will definitely run.BTW. The Rams only entered the red zone once and they scored in that possession.

 

[SteelerMurf]

From PFT, regarding the 2 different indemnity provisions:

In this case, a reasonable reading of the indemnity language exchanged by the parties could cause a reasonable person to believe that the NFL and/or the Patriots are prepared to label anything and everything Walsh says as untruthful, even if he genuinely and in good faith believes his statement. Indeed, the Pats already have denied flatly any cheating in conjunction with Super Bowl XXXVI. So if Walsh says that he videotaped the Rams' walk-through (and if he doesn't have the tape to back it up), his version would instantly be called "untruthful" by the entity whose interests would be most clearly affected if what Walsh says is true.

In our view, "good faith" is the key. Walsh is willing to sacrifice indemnity upon a finding that any alleged untruthfulness was the product of bad faith on his part. In other words, he can be sued -- successfully -- if there's a finding that his statements to Senator Specter are made in bad faith. It's not full indemnity, and it exposes Walsh to litigation based on a contention that he's a disgruntled employee who stole sensitive materials in the hopes of later selling them to other teams, blackmailing the Patriots, and/or simply causing trouble when the opportunity to do so ever might arise.

But he would be shielded from a pissing match over who's right and who's wrong, with the NFL and/or the Pats potentially taking the position that if Walsh is simply incorrect it necessarily means that he's lying, and thus exposed to liability for his words, or his past actions in retaining club property.

However, this too is apparently relative and needs to be understood in the context with which it was said. According to Goodell, the Patriots denied any cheating, but in a different description of events he also noted that Belicheck did not find anything wrong with taping and using the tapes (and on that point they would "agree to disagree). By Belicheck's perspective, I suppose the Pats could have used such a tape in active gameplanning and still they would not think that would be cheating.

That is exactly correct. The Patriots would tape defensive signals and then use them in gameplanning the next time they faced that opponent. That is what Belichick said.There isnt much more to say other than anyone supporting this lawsuits merit is an IDIOT.

I was actually referring to the potential for using a tape of a team's walkthrough and gameplan around that. I'm not saying that the lawsuit has merit per se, but if I was a Ram player I would be pretty pissed if it turns out the Pats actually taped a final walthrough. But perhaps I would be most pissed after losing to a team that 'practices so hard at the fundamentals' and simply is 'better coached' and 'just sees the play developing so quickly' and 'are just students of the game'... and then finding out that they stooped to that level of cheating in preparation.

Say what you want about any of this, but it will be a long time before the Patriots get praise for these sorts of things without the skeptical fan chiming in. Heck, Steeler fans still hear that the Immaculate Reception was a fraud play. But that's nothing compared to a fraud dynasty.

So the Patriots are going to spend 2 weeks Gameplanning for the Super Bowl and then scratch that and change the Gameplan because of a tape of the Rams walking through plays a day before the game. Do you think they went out collected all of the game plans from the 45 players and then issued new ones the morning of the game?This is ridiculous.

Are you really this obtuse? All they need to do to get a huge advantage is to know the formations on any special plays. If NE see's the Rams line up in an unuaual formation they would know exactly how to defend this play. They only need to tell one cornerback that he has safety help on this play and they want him to jump this route. All of a sudden you may have 7 points on the board. Pretty big play in a game that was won on a last second field goal.

Do you know that little about football? What formation would ANY NFL team have that only has one play that can be run from it? Most have 5-10 options or plays that can be run from any given formation. Through hours of "legit" film study, when a team comes out in a certain formation in a certain down and distance, the defensive team has some knowledge of what a team LIKES to run. Not what they will definitely run.BTW. The Rams only entered the red zone once and they scored in that possession.

What are you saying...if you run a play in the redzone during practice....you would never run it the other 80 yards of the field....OK interesting. I ask you how little do you know about football? For all we know, the Law INT returned for a TD could have been one of the plays the Rams practiced in their last walk thru.Nobody knows the effect all this cheating they did had on games, but no doubt it did have an effect or else why would Bellicheat have risked everything this year after being explicitly told not to do it? It helped.....you don't do this for 7 years without a clear and decisive benefit.

 

[Pat Patriot]

From PFT, regarding the 2 different indemnity provisions:

In this case, a reasonable reading of the indemnity language exchanged by the parties could cause a reasonable person to believe that the NFL and/or the Patriots are prepared to label anything and everything Walsh says as untruthful, even if he genuinely and in good faith believes his statement. Indeed, the Pats already have denied flatly any cheating in conjunction with Super Bowl XXXVI. So if Walsh says that he videotaped the Rams' walk-through (and if he doesn't have the tape to back it up), his version would instantly be called "untruthful" by the entity whose interests would be most clearly affected if what Walsh says is true.

In our view, "good faith" is the key. Walsh is willing to sacrifice indemnity upon a finding that any alleged untruthfulness was the product of bad faith on his part. In other words, he can be sued -- successfully -- if there's a finding that his statements to Senator Specter are made in bad faith. It's not full indemnity, and it exposes Walsh to litigation based on a contention that he's a disgruntled employee who stole sensitive materials in the hopes of later selling them to other teams, blackmailing the Patriots, and/or simply causing trouble when the opportunity to do so ever might arise.

But he would be shielded from a pissing match over who's right and who's wrong, with the NFL and/or the Pats potentially taking the position that if Walsh is simply incorrect it necessarily means that he's lying, and thus exposed to liability for his words, or his past actions in retaining club property.

However, this too is apparently relative and needs to be understood in the context with which it was said. According to Goodell, the Patriots denied any cheating, but in a different description of events he also noted that Belicheck did not find anything wrong with taping and using the tapes (and on that point they would "agree to disagree). By Belicheck's perspective, I suppose the Pats could have used such a tape in active gameplanning and still they would not think that would be cheating.

That is exactly correct. The Patriots would tape defensive signals and then use them in gameplanning the next time they faced that opponent. That is what Belichick said.There isnt much more to say other than anyone supporting this lawsuits merit is an IDIOT.

I was actually referring to the potential for using a tape of a team's walkthrough and gameplan around that. I'm not saying that the lawsuit has merit per se, but if I was a Ram player I would be pretty pissed if it turns out the Pats actually taped a final walthrough. But perhaps I would be most pissed after losing to a team that 'practices so hard at the fundamentals' and simply is 'better coached' and 'just sees the play developing so quickly' and 'are just students of the game'... and then finding out that they stooped to that level of cheating in preparation.

Say what you want about any of this, but it will be a long time before the Patriots get praise for these sorts of things without the skeptical fan chiming in. Heck, Steeler fans still hear that the Immaculate Reception was a fraud play. But that's nothing compared to a fraud dynasty.

So the Patriots are going to spend 2 weeks Gameplanning for the Super Bowl and then scratch that and change the Gameplan because of a tape of the Rams walking through plays a day before the game. Do you think they went out collected all of the game plans from the 45 players and then issued new ones the morning of the game?This is ridiculous.

Are you really this obtuse? All they need to do to get a huge advantage is to know the formations on any special plays. If NE see's the Rams line up in an unuaual formation they would know exactly how to defend this play. They only need to tell one cornerback that he has safety help on this play and they want him to jump this route. All of a sudden you may have 7 points on the board. Pretty big play in a game that was won on a last second field goal.

Do you know that little about football? What formation would ANY NFL team have that only has one play that can be run from it? Most have 5-10 options or plays that can be run from any given formation. Through hours of "legit" film study, when a team comes out in a certain formation in a certain down and distance, the defensive team has some knowledge of what a team LIKES to run. Not what they will definitely run.BTW. The Rams only entered the red zone once and they scored in that possession.

What are you saying...if you run a play in the redzone during practice....you would never run it the other 80 yards of the field....OK interesting. I ask you how little do you know about football? For all we know, the Law INT returned for a TD could have been one of the plays the Rams practiced in their last walk thru.Nobody knows the effect all this cheating they did had on games, but no doubt it did have an effect or else why would Bellicheat have risked everything this year after being explicitly told not to do it? It helped.....you don't do this for 7 years without a clear and decisive benefit.

So your premise is that the Patriots taped the Rams walkthrough. Studied it. Waited till they saw the Rams come out in a 3 wide, single back set and said, "Hey, we know this play. Send Vrabel in Warner's face, the Rams protection slides to the left so no one will pick up Vrabel and after Vrabel whacks Warner in the head, he will throw it to Ty. Ready break!!"Did you even watch the game? You are so grasping at straws.

 

[Das Boot]

From PFT, regarding the 2 different indemnity provisions:

In this case, a reasonable reading of the indemnity language exchanged by the parties could cause a reasonable person to believe that the NFL and/or the Patriots are prepared to label anything and everything Walsh says as untruthful, even if he genuinely and in good faith believes his statement. Indeed, the Pats already have denied flatly any cheating in conjunction with Super Bowl XXXVI. So if Walsh says that he videotaped the Rams' walk-through (and if he doesn't have the tape to back it up), his version would instantly be called "untruthful" by the entity whose interests would be most clearly affected if what Walsh says is true.

In our view, "good faith" is the key. Walsh is willing to sacrifice indemnity upon a finding that any alleged untruthfulness was the product of bad faith on his part. In other words, he can be sued -- successfully -- if there's a finding that his statements to Senator Specter are made in bad faith. It's not full indemnity, and it exposes Walsh to litigation based on a contention that he's a disgruntled employee who stole sensitive materials in the hopes of later selling them to other teams, blackmailing the Patriots, and/or simply causing trouble when the opportunity to do so ever might arise.

But he would be shielded from a pissing match over who's right and who's wrong, with the NFL and/or the Pats potentially taking the position that if Walsh is simply incorrect it necessarily means that he's lying, and thus exposed to liability for his words, or his past actions in retaining club property.

However, this too is apparently relative and needs to be understood in the context with which it was said. According to Goodell, the Patriots denied any cheating, but in a different description of events he also noted that Belicheck did not find anything wrong with taping and using the tapes (and on that point they would "agree to disagree). By Belicheck's perspective, I suppose the Pats could have used such a tape in active gameplanning and still they would not think that would be cheating.

That is exactly correct. The Patriots would tape defensive signals and then use them in gameplanning the next time they faced that opponent. That is what Belichick said.There isnt much more to say other than anyone supporting this lawsuits merit is an IDIOT.

I was actually referring to the potential for using a tape of a team's walkthrough and gameplan around that. I'm not saying that the lawsuit has merit per se, but if I was a Ram player I would be pretty pissed if it turns out the Pats actually taped a final walthrough. But perhaps I would be most pissed after losing to a team that 'practices so hard at the fundamentals' and simply is 'better coached' and 'just sees the play developing so quickly' and 'are just students of the game'... and then finding out that they stooped to that level of cheating in preparation.

Say what you want about any of this, but it will be a long time before the Patriots get praise for these sorts of things without the skeptical fan chiming in. Heck, Steeler fans still hear that the Immaculate Reception was a fraud play. But that's nothing compared to a fraud dynasty.

So the Patriots are going to spend 2 weeks Gameplanning for the Super Bowl and then scratch that and change the Gameplan because of a tape of the Rams walking through plays a day before the game. Do you think they went out collected all of the game plans from the 45 players and then issued new ones the morning of the game?This is ridiculous.

Are you really this obtuse? All they need to do to get a huge advantage is to know the formations on any special plays. If NE see's the Rams line up in an unuaual formation they would know exactly how to defend this play. They only need to tell one cornerback that he has safety help on this play and they want him to jump this route. All of a sudden you may have 7 points on the board. Pretty big play in a game that was won on a last second field goal.

Do you know that little about football? What formation would ANY NFL team have that only has one play that can be run from it? Most have 5-10 options or plays that can be run from any given formation. Through hours of "legit" film study, when a team comes out in a certain formation in a certain down and distance, the defensive team has some knowledge of what a team LIKES to run. Not what they will definitely run.BTW. The Rams only entered the red zone once and they scored in that possession.

What are you saying...if you run a play in the redzone during practice....you would never run it the other 80 yards of the field....OK interesting. I ask you how little do you know about football? For all we know, the Law INT returned for a TD could have been one of the plays the Rams practiced in their last walk thru.Nobody knows the effect all this cheating they did had on games, but no doubt it did have an effect or else why would Bellicheat have risked everything this year after being explicitly told not to do it? It helped.....you don't do this for 7 years without a clear and decisive benefit.

So your premise is that the Patriots taped the Rams walkthrough. Studied it. Waited till they saw the Rams come out in a 3 wide, single back set and said, "Hey, we know this play. Send Vrabel in Warner's face, the Rams protection slides to the left so no one will pick up Vrabel and after Vrabel whacks Warner in the head, he will throw it to Ty. Ready break!!"Did you even watch the game? You are so grasping at straws.

The premise is that NE taped the Rams walk through, which is cheating.What happened in the game is immaterial.

 

[Popinski]

It's absolutely hilarious to see people trying to defend what the Patriots did, and claim it gave NE no advantage.

1. Why did the Patriots do it if they derived no benefit from it? The answer is they did derive benefit from it.

2. If, as Patriots apologists want to insist, there is no benefit to be gained from viewing/taping walkthroughs and defensive signals, I'm quite sure the Patriots will willingly permanently open their walk throughs and sidelines to anyone interested in filming them including all other NFL teams.

Seriously, NE will allow this to demonstrate the 100% complete lack of value in that type of information, right?

Wow.

You NE fans and apologists would at least earn some respect if you admitted to the cheating, admitted advantages were clearly gained, and then apologized for it and made sure it didn't happen again.

I won't hold my breath though.

It really is fairly pathetic.

 

[fred_1_15301]

From PFT, regarding the 2 different indemnity provisions:

In this case, a reasonable reading of the indemnity language exchanged by the parties could cause a reasonable person to believe that the NFL and/or the Patriots are prepared to label anything and everything Walsh says as untruthful, even if he genuinely and in good faith believes his statement. Indeed, the Pats already have denied flatly any cheating in conjunction with Super Bowl XXXVI. So if Walsh says that he videotaped the Rams' walk-through (and if he doesn't have the tape to back it up), his version would instantly be called "untruthful" by the entity whose interests would be most clearly affected if what Walsh says is true.

In our view, "good faith" is the key. Walsh is willing to sacrifice indemnity upon a finding that any alleged untruthfulness was the product of bad faith on his part. In other words, he can be sued -- successfully -- if there's a finding that his statements to Senator Specter are made in bad faith. It's not full indemnity, and it exposes Walsh to litigation based on a contention that he's a disgruntled employee who stole sensitive materials in the hopes of later selling them to other teams, blackmailing the Patriots, and/or simply causing trouble when the opportunity to do so ever might arise.

But he would be shielded from a pissing match over who's right and who's wrong, with the NFL and/or the Pats potentially taking the position that if Walsh is simply incorrect it necessarily means that he's lying, and thus exposed to liability for his words, or his past actions in retaining club property.

However, this too is apparently relative and needs to be understood in the context with which it was said. According to Goodell, the Patriots denied any cheating, but in a different description of events he also noted that Belicheck did not find anything wrong with taping and using the tapes (and on that point they would "agree to disagree). By Belicheck's perspective, I suppose the Pats could have used such a tape in active gameplanning and still they would not think that would be cheating.

That is exactly correct. The Patriots would tape defensive signals and then use them in gameplanning the next time they faced that opponent. That is what Belichick said.There isnt much more to say other than anyone supporting this lawsuits merit is an IDIOT.

I was actually referring to the potential for using a tape of a team's walkthrough and gameplan around that. I'm not saying that the lawsuit has merit per se, but if I was a Ram player I would be pretty pissed if it turns out the Pats actually taped a final walthrough. But perhaps I would be most pissed after losing to a team that 'practices so hard at the fundamentals' and simply is 'better coached' and 'just sees the play developing so quickly' and 'are just students of the game'... and then finding out that they stooped to that level of cheating in preparation.

Say what you want about any of this, but it will be a long time before the Patriots get praise for these sorts of things without the skeptical fan chiming in. Heck, Steeler fans still hear that the Immaculate Reception was a fraud play. But that's nothing compared to a fraud dynasty.

So the Patriots are going to spend 2 weeks Gameplanning for the Super Bowl and then scratch that and change the Gameplan because of a tape of the Rams walking through plays a day before the game. Do you think they went out collected all of the game plans from the 45 players and then issued new ones the morning of the game?This is ridiculous.

Are you really this obtuse? All they need to do to get a huge advantage is to know the formations on any special plays. If NE see's the Rams line up in an unuaual formation they would know exactly how to defend this play. They only need to tell one cornerback that he has safety help on this play and they want him to jump this route. All of a sudden you may have 7 points on the board. Pretty big play in a game that was won on a last second field goal.

Do you know that little about football? What formation would ANY NFL team have that only has one play that can be run from it? Most have 5-10 options or plays that can be run from any given formation. Through hours of "legit" film study, when a team comes out in a certain formation in a certain down and distance, the defensive team has some knowledge of what a team LIKES to run. Not what they will definitely run.BTW. The Rams only entered the red zone once and they scored in that possession.

Knowing the 5-10 options for a specific formation > Not knowing any options for a specific formation. Is taping a walkthrough considered cheating? Thats the question. If you believe it's not cheating, then thats fine. If you agree that it's cheating, then the debate really ends there. Whether you feel that the Pats gained an advantage (which I think most non-Pats fan would agree that it would), they still cheated and you really cannot defend it.

 

[fred_1_15301]

Anybody think any Eagles ex-players might file a lawsuit also

i am so in

A lawsuit for the Rams or Eagles is frivolous. In both cases, the teams would have ended up losing to the Steelers in the superbowl. Thus, they would have received the same check.

 

[Pat Patriot]

From PFT, regarding the 2 different indemnity provisions:

In this case, a reasonable reading of the indemnity language exchanged by the parties could cause a reasonable person to believe that the NFL and/or the Patriots are prepared to label anything and everything Walsh says as untruthful, even if he genuinely and in good faith believes his statement. Indeed, the Pats already have denied flatly any cheating in conjunction with Super Bowl XXXVI. So if Walsh says that he videotaped the Rams' walk-through (and if he doesn't have the tape to back it up), his version would instantly be called "untruthful" by the entity whose interests would be most clearly affected if what Walsh says is true.

In our view, "good faith" is the key. Walsh is willing to sacrifice indemnity upon a finding that any alleged untruthfulness was the product of bad faith on his part. In other words, he can be sued -- successfully -- if there's a finding that his statements to Senator Specter are made in bad faith. It's not full indemnity, and it exposes Walsh to litigation based on a contention that he's a disgruntled employee who stole sensitive materials in the hopes of later selling them to other teams, blackmailing the Patriots, and/or simply causing trouble when the opportunity to do so ever might arise.

But he would be shielded from a pissing match over who's right and who's wrong, with the NFL and/or the Pats potentially taking the position that if Walsh is simply incorrect it necessarily means that he's lying, and thus exposed to liability for his words, or his past actions in retaining club property.

However, this too is apparently relative and needs to be understood in the context with which it was said. According to Goodell, the Patriots denied any cheating, but in a different description of events he also noted that Belicheck did not find anything wrong with taping and using the tapes (and on that point they would "agree to disagree). By Belicheck's perspective, I suppose the Pats could have used such a tape in active gameplanning and still they would not think that would be cheating.

That is exactly correct. The Patriots would tape defensive signals and then use them in gameplanning the next time they faced that opponent. That is what Belichick said.There isnt much more to say other than anyone supporting this lawsuits merit is an IDIOT.

I was actually referring to the potential for using a tape of a team's walkthrough and gameplan around that. I'm not saying that the lawsuit has merit per se, but if I was a Ram player I would be pretty pissed if it turns out the Pats actually taped a final walthrough. But perhaps I would be most pissed after losing to a team that 'practices so hard at the fundamentals' and simply is 'better coached' and 'just sees the play developing so quickly' and 'are just students of the game'... and then finding out that they stooped to that level of cheating in preparation.

Say what you want about any of this, but it will be a long time before the Patriots get praise for these sorts of things without the skeptical fan chiming in. Heck, Steeler fans still hear that the Immaculate Reception was a fraud play. But that's nothing compared to a fraud dynasty.

So the Patriots are going to spend 2 weeks Gameplanning for the Super Bowl and then scratch that and change the Gameplan because of a tape of the Rams walking through plays a day before the game. Do you think they went out collected all of the game plans from the 45 players and then issued new ones the morning of the game?This is ridiculous.

Are you really this obtuse? All they need to do to get a huge advantage is to know the formations on any special plays. If NE see's the Rams line up in an unuaual formation they would know exactly how to defend this play. They only need to tell one cornerback that he has safety help on this play and they want him to jump this route. All of a sudden you may have 7 points on the board. Pretty big play in a game that was won on a last second field goal.

Do you know that little about football? What formation would ANY NFL team have that only has one play that can be run from it? Most have 5-10 options or plays that can be run from any given formation. Through hours of "legit" film study, when a team comes out in a certain formation in a certain down and distance, the defensive team has some knowledge of what a team LIKES to run. Not what they will definitely run.BTW. The Rams only entered the red zone once and they scored in that possession.

Knowing the 5-10 options for a specific formation > Not knowing any options for a specific formation. Is taping a walkthrough considered cheating? Thats the question. If you believe it's not cheating, then thats fine. If you agree that it's cheating, then the debate really ends there. Whether you feel that the Pats gained an advantage (which I think most non-Pats fan would agree that it would), they still cheated and you really cannot defend it.

Thats a nice hypothetical. I dont deal in hypotheticals. The Broncos paid all of their players an extra $1 million dollars under the table and Elway an extra $5 million under the table in each of their Super Bowl wins therefore violating the Salary Cap. How come there is not an uproar about their cheating? Give their titles to the Packers and Falcons.

Unless I see a videotape of the Rams walkthrough that can be attributed to the Patriots, then there is no reason to believe it ever happened.

 

[Pat Patriot]

From PFT, regarding the 2 different indemnity provisions:

In this case, a reasonable reading of the indemnity language exchanged by the parties could cause a reasonable person to believe that the NFL and/or the Patriots are prepared to label anything and everything Walsh says as untruthful, even if he genuinely and in good faith believes his statement. Indeed, the Pats already have denied flatly any cheating in conjunction with Super Bowl XXXVI. So if Walsh says that he videotaped the Rams' walk-through (and if he doesn't have the tape to back it up), his version would instantly be called "untruthful" by the entity whose interests would be most clearly affected if what Walsh says is true.

In our view, "good faith" is the key. Walsh is willing to sacrifice indemnity upon a finding that any alleged untruthfulness was the product of bad faith on his part. In other words, he can be sued -- successfully -- if there's a finding that his statements to Senator Specter are made in bad faith. It's not full indemnity, and it exposes Walsh to litigation based on a contention that he's a disgruntled employee who stole sensitive materials in the hopes of later selling them to other teams, blackmailing the Patriots, and/or simply causing trouble when the opportunity to do so ever might arise.

But he would be shielded from a pissing match over who's right and who's wrong, with the NFL and/or the Pats potentially taking the position that if Walsh is simply incorrect it necessarily means that he's lying, and thus exposed to liability for his words, or his past actions in retaining club property.

However, this too is apparently relative and needs to be understood in the context with which it was said. According to Goodell, the Patriots denied any cheating, but in a different description of events he also noted that Belicheck did not find anything wrong with taping and using the tapes (and on that point they would "agree to disagree). By Belicheck's perspective, I suppose the Pats could have used such a tape in active gameplanning and still they would not think that would be cheating.

That is exactly correct. The Patriots would tape defensive signals and then use them in gameplanning the next time they faced that opponent. That is what Belichick said.There isnt much more to say other than anyone supporting this lawsuits merit is an IDIOT.

I was actually referring to the potential for using a tape of a team's walkthrough and gameplan around that. I'm not saying that the lawsuit has merit per se, but if I was a Ram player I would be pretty pissed if it turns out the Pats actually taped a final walthrough. But perhaps I would be most pissed after losing to a team that 'practices so hard at the fundamentals' and simply is 'better coached' and 'just sees the play developing so quickly' and 'are just students of the game'... and then finding out that they stooped to that level of cheating in preparation.

Say what you want about any of this, but it will be a long time before the Patriots get praise for these sorts of things without the skeptical fan chiming in. Heck, Steeler fans still hear that the Immaculate Reception was a fraud play. But that's nothing compared to a fraud dynasty.

So the Patriots are going to spend 2 weeks Gameplanning for the Super Bowl and then scratch that and change the Gameplan because of a tape of the Rams walking through plays a day before the game. Do you think they went out collected all of the game plans from the 45 players and then issued new ones the morning of the game?This is ridiculous.

Are you really this obtuse? All they need to do to get a huge advantage is to know the formations on any special plays. If NE see's the Rams line up in an unuaual formation they would know exactly how to defend this play. They only need to tell one cornerback that he has safety help on this play and they want him to jump this route. All of a sudden you may have 7 points on the board. Pretty big play in a game that was won on a last second field goal.

Do you know that little about football? What formation would ANY NFL team have that only has one play that can be run from it? Most have 5-10 options or plays that can be run from any given formation. Through hours of "legit" film study, when a team comes out in a certain formation in a certain down and distance, the defensive team has some knowledge of what a team LIKES to run. Not what they will definitely run.BTW. The Rams only entered the red zone once and they scored in that possession.

Knowing the 5-10 options for a specific formation > Not knowing any options for a specific formation. Is taping a walkthrough considered cheating? Thats the question. If you believe it's not cheating, then thats fine. If you agree that it's cheating, then the debate really ends there. Whether you feel that the Pats gained an advantage (which I think most non-Pats fan would agree that it would), they still cheated and you really cannot defend it.

The Patriots or any other team would have known the options from a specific formation by studying 16 weeks of film. Teams typically do not put in NEW plays Super Bowl week.

 

[BusMan]

Unless I see a videotape of the Rams walkthrough that can be attributed to the Patriots, then there is no reason to believe it ever happened.

I guess nothing in this great big 'ol world ever happened unless yer eyes had seen it, eh?

 

[DoubleG]

It's absolutely hilarious to see people trying to defend what the Patriots did, and claim it gave NE no advantage.

1. Why did the Patriots do it if they derived no benefit from it? The answer is they did derive benefit from it.

2. If, as Patriots apologists want to insist, there is no benefit to be gained from viewing/taping walkthroughs and defensive signals, I'm quite sure the Patriots will willingly permanently open their walk throughs and sidelines to anyone interested in filming them including all other NFL teams.

Seriously, NE will allow this to demonstrate the 100% complete lack of value in that type of information, right?

Wow.

You NE fans and apologists would at least earn some respect if you admitted to the cheating, admitted advantages were clearly gained, and then apologized for it and made sure it didn't happen again.

I won't hold my breath though.

Really really

And the irony is, the Pats apologists are replying to every other post in this thread but this one. Ignoring the truth does not make it cease being the truth. Neither does having your good buddy destroy it.

 

[BusMan]

It's absolutely hilarious to see people trying to defend what the Patriots did, and claim it gave NE no advantage.

1. Why did the Patriots do it if they derived no benefit from it? The answer is they did derive benefit from it.

2. If, as Patriots apologists want to insist, there is no benefit to be gained from viewing/taping walkthroughs and defensive signals, I'm quite sure the Patriots will willingly permanently open their walk throughs and sidelines to anyone interested in filming them including all other NFL teams.

Seriously, NE will allow this to demonstrate the 100% complete lack of value in that type of information, right?

Wow.

You NE fans and apologists would at least earn some respect if you admitted to the cheating, admitted advantages were clearly gained, and then apologized for it and made sure it didn't happen again.

I won't hold my breath though.

Really really

And the irony is, the Pats apologists are replying to every other post in this thread but this one. Ignoring the truth does not make it cease being the truth. Neither does having your good buddy destroy it.

Exactly. Either the Patriots cheated or they are idiots, who wasted time and resources for something they received no benefit from. If I were a Pats fan, I'd ignore it too. Its embarrassing.

 

[Road Warriors]

It's absolutely hilarious to see people trying to defend what the Patriots did, and claim it gave NE no advantage.

1. Why did the Patriots do it if they derived no benefit from it? The answer is they did derive benefit from it.

2. If, as Patriots apologists want to insist, there is no benefit to be gained from viewing/taping walkthroughs and defensive signals, I'm quite sure the Patriots will willingly permanently open their walk throughs and sidelines to anyone interested in filming them including all other NFL teams.

Seriously, NE will allow this to demonstrate the 100% complete lack of value in that type of information, right?

Wow.

You NE fans and apologists would at least earn some respect if you admitted to the cheating, admitted advantages were clearly gained, and then apologized for it and made sure it didn't happen again.

I won't hold my breath though.

Really really

And the irony is, the Pats apologists are replying to every other post in this thread but this one. Ignoring the truth does not make it cease being the truth. Neither does having your good buddy destroy it.

In reply to the taping of signals only. I'm excluding the walkthrough issue, I'll wait for the facts to come out there...Rampant speculation of who, what and why has convicted the Pats before a single credible shred of evidence has surfaced. Hopefully, whatever Walsh has comes out, and its collection, it being in Walsh's hands, his motivation for coming forward, REAL proof that the Patriots authorized the taping ( assuming its real ), ie. all the evidence comes out. Not much to reply to. Most Pats "apologists" as you call them have admitted to the rule violations that have taken place. Several don't think the outrage displayed by the many on this thread is warranted. I'm sure I'll be slammed because I don't bow at the altar of those of you here who feel that by placing the camera in the wrong location the Patriots should be banned from the league, I'll be painted as a "head in the sand" apologist.

For the anit-Pats contingent, you deal in speculation, asking things such as "if they didn't gain an advantage, why did they do it?" and act as if that is absolute proof. It is not. It is speculation. They probably did gain an advantage, perceived or real. How much? I don't know, and I doubt that you do either. IMO, it's not so great an advantage ( given the nature of what we KNOW, not what is speculated ) to push a team to the success the Patriots have had over the past 7 years.

Here's my take... If the tapes that were confiscated contained what has been reported, and nothing more (we don't know that, I understand ) ie. shot of the coach signaling, pan up to the clock, shot of the signal, clock, rinse & repeat, and there is no proof that these tapes were EVER used during the game in which they were shot ( if there has been any proof of this, I missed it ) then the entire violation really is the location of the camera when shooting that video.

I admit they cheated by placing the camera in a location that was not allowed. If I had it in my power to make certain that never happened again, I would (as a fan, I don't think I have that kind of juice ) And as a fan, apologizing for the actions of others doesn't seem to make much sense, IMO. I'd like to see the Patriots organization be a little more humble and publicly apologize for violating the league rules.

And if proof comes out that they did willfully authorize the taping of the Rams walkthrough, I will be saddened by that. I don't want this to become the team legacy. I honestly believe if nothing more than the signals taping has happened, Cheating will not be considered the legacy. If something like the walkthrough taping comes out and is proven to be orchestrated by the Patriots, I believe the taint that many of you have been begging for will stick, across the board.

 

[{Syrus}]

If something like the walkthrough taping comes out and is proven to be orchestrated by the Patriots, I believe the taint that many of you have been begging for will stick, across the board.

The taint has already stuck across the board when Goodell issued the Pats* the biggest punishment in league history--a fine against the owner, coach, and penalized them a 1st round draft pick.....then later Goodell admits they have been doing this cheating since 2000. Pats* aren't shaking off any taint--it's here for good.

 

[freelander]

It's absolutely hilarious to see people trying to defend what the Patriots did, and claim it gave NE no advantage.

1. Why did the Patriots do it if they derived no benefit from it? The answer is they did derive benefit from it.

2. If, as Patriots apologists want to insist, there is no benefit to be gained from viewing/taping walkthroughs and defensive signals, I'm quite sure the Patriots will willingly permanently open their walk throughs and sidelines to anyone interested in filming them including all other NFL teams.

Seriously, NE will allow this to demonstrate the 100% complete lack of value in that type of information, right?

Wow.

You NE fans and apologists would at least earn some respect if you admitted to the cheating, admitted advantages were clearly gained, and then apologized for it and made sure it didn't happen again.

I won't hold my breath though.

Really really

And the irony is, the Pats apologists are replying to every other post in this thread but this one. Ignoring the truth does not make it cease being the truth. Neither does having your good buddy destroy it.

In reply to the taping of signals only. I'm excluding the walkthrough issue, I'll wait for the facts to come out there...Rampant speculation of who, what and why has convicted the Pats before a single credible shred of evidence has surfaced. Hopefully, whatever Walsh has comes out, and its collection, it being in Walsh's hands, his motivation for coming forward, REAL proof that the Patriots authorized the taping ( assuming its real ), ie. all the evidence comes out. Not much to reply to. Most Pats "apologists" as you call them have admitted to the rule violations that have taken place. Several don't think the outrage displayed by the many on this thread is warranted. I'm sure I'll be slammed because I don't bow at the altar of those of you here who feel that by placing the camera in the wrong location the Patriots should be banned from the league, I'll be painted as a "head in the sand" apologist.

For the anit-Pats contingent, you deal in speculation, asking things such as "if they didn't gain an advantage, why did they do it?" and act as if that is absolute proof. It is not. It is speculation. They probably did gain an advantage, perceived or real. How much? I don't know, and I doubt that you do either. IMO, it's not so great an advantage ( given the nature of what we KNOW, not what is speculated ) to push a team to the success the Patriots have had over the past 7 years.

Here's my take... If the tapes that were confiscated contained what has been reported, and nothing more (we don't know that, I understand ) ie. shot of the coach signaling, pan up to the clock, shot of the signal, clock, rinse & repeat, and there is no proof that these tapes were EVER used during the game in which they were shot ( if there has been any proof of this, I missed it ) then the entire violation really is the location of the camera when shooting that video.

I admit they cheated by placing the camera in a location that was not allowed. If I had it in my power to make certain that never happened again, I would (as a fan, I don't think I have that kind of juice ) And as a fan, apologizing for the actions of others doesn't seem to make much sense, IMO. I'd like to see the Patriots organization be a little more humble and publicly apologize for violating the league rules.

And if proof comes out that they did willfully authorize the taping of the Rams walkthrough, I will be saddened by that. I don't want this to become the team legacy. I honestly believe if nothing more than the signals taping has happened, Cheating will not be considered the legacy. If something like the walkthrough taping comes out and is proven to be orchestrated by the Patriots, I believe the taint that many of you have been begging for will stick, across the board.

Well, its speculation both ways... and IMO, a real tough sell to just say they did not get a real advantage. Minds like BB and Adams with some opponent footage... could be pretty potent IMO. Speculation yes, but stronger than saying all that effort and risk really didn't amount to much help.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

Is it too late to award the Lombardi Trophy to the St. Louis Rams for the 2001 season?

It is never too late.

 

[fred_1_15301]

From PFT, regarding the 2 different indemnity provisions:

In this case, a reasonable reading of the indemnity language exchanged by the parties could cause a reasonable person to believe that the NFL and/or the Patriots are prepared to label anything and everything Walsh says as untruthful, even if he genuinely and in good faith believes his statement. Indeed, the Pats already have denied flatly any cheating in conjunction with Super Bowl XXXVI. So if Walsh says that he videotaped the Rams' walk-through (and if he doesn't have the tape to back it up), his version would instantly be called "untruthful" by the entity whose interests would be most clearly affected if what Walsh says is true.

In our view, "good faith" is the key. Walsh is willing to sacrifice indemnity upon a finding that any alleged untruthfulness was the product of bad faith on his part. In other words, he can be sued -- successfully -- if there's a finding that his statements to Senator Specter are made in bad faith. It's not full indemnity, and it exposes Walsh to litigation based on a contention that he's a disgruntled employee who stole sensitive materials in the hopes of later selling them to other teams, blackmailing the Patriots, and/or simply causing trouble when the opportunity to do so ever might arise.

But he would be shielded from a pissing match over who's right and who's wrong, with the NFL and/or the Pats potentially taking the position that if Walsh is simply incorrect it necessarily means that he's lying, and thus exposed to liability for his words, or his past actions in retaining club property.

However, this too is apparently relative and needs to be understood in the context with which it was said. According to Goodell, the Patriots denied any cheating, but in a different description of events he also noted that Belicheck did not find anything wrong with taping and using the tapes (and on that point they would "agree to disagree). By Belicheck's perspective, I suppose the Pats could have used such a tape in active gameplanning and still they would not think that would be cheating.

That is exactly correct. The Patriots would tape defensive signals and then use them in gameplanning the next time they faced that opponent. That is what Belichick said.There isnt much more to say other than anyone supporting this lawsuits merit is an IDIOT.

I was actually referring to the potential for using a tape of a team's walkthrough and gameplan around that. I'm not saying that the lawsuit has merit per se, but if I was a Ram player I would be pretty pissed if it turns out the Pats actually taped a final walthrough. But perhaps I would be most pissed after losing to a team that 'practices so hard at the fundamentals' and simply is 'better coached' and 'just sees the play developing so quickly' and 'are just students of the game'... and then finding out that they stooped to that level of cheating in preparation.

Say what you want about any of this, but it will be a long time before the Patriots get praise for these sorts of things without the skeptical fan chiming in. Heck, Steeler fans still hear that the Immaculate Reception was a fraud play. But that's nothing compared to a fraud dynasty.

So the Patriots are going to spend 2 weeks Gameplanning for the Super Bowl and then scratch that and change the Gameplan because of a tape of the Rams walking through plays a day before the game. Do you think they went out collected all of the game plans from the 45 players and then issued new ones the morning of the game?This is ridiculous.

Are you really this obtuse? All they need to do to get a huge advantage is to know the formations on any special plays. If NE see's the Rams line up in an unuaual formation they would know exactly how to defend this play. They only need to tell one cornerback that he has safety help on this play and they want him to jump this route. All of a sudden you may have 7 points on the board. Pretty big play in a game that was won on a last second field goal.

Do you know that little about football? What formation would ANY NFL team have that only has one play that can be run from it? Most have 5-10 options or plays that can be run from any given formation. Through hours of "legit" film study, when a team comes out in a certain formation in a certain down and distance, the defensive team has some knowledge of what a team LIKES to run. Not what they will definitely run.BTW. The Rams only entered the red zone once and they scored in that possession.

Knowing the 5-10 options for a specific formation > Not knowing any options for a specific formation. Is taping a walkthrough considered cheating? Thats the question. If you believe it's not cheating, then thats fine. If you agree that it's cheating, then the debate really ends there. Whether you feel that the Pats gained an advantage (which I think most non-Pats fan would agree that it would), they still cheated and you really cannot defend it.

Thats a nice hypothetical. I dont deal in hypotheticals. The Broncos paid all of their players an extra $1 million dollars under the table and Elway an extra $5 million under the table in each of their Super Bowl wins therefore violating the Salary Cap. How come there is not an uproar about their cheating? Give their titles to the Packers and Falcons.

Unless I see a videotape of the Rams walkthrough that can be attributed to the Patriots, then there is no reason to believe it ever happened.

My bad.....I should have added the HYPOTHETICAL that the taping of the walkthrough turns out to be true. In that case, my question is do you consider it cheating? If so, there is really no defending the team regardless of how much you perceive it would have helped them. I'm assuming you won't answer this because you don't "deal with hypotheticals"......

 

[fred_1_15301]

From PFT, regarding the 2 different indemnity provisions:

In this case, a reasonable reading of the indemnity language exchanged by the parties could cause a reasonable person to believe that the NFL and/or the Patriots are prepared to label anything and everything Walsh says as untruthful, even if he genuinely and in good faith believes his statement. Indeed, the Pats already have denied flatly any cheating in conjunction with Super Bowl XXXVI. So if Walsh says that he videotaped the Rams' walk-through (and if he doesn't have the tape to back it up), his version would instantly be called "untruthful" by the entity whose interests would be most clearly affected if what Walsh says is true.

In our view, "good faith" is the key. Walsh is willing to sacrifice indemnity upon a finding that any alleged untruthfulness was the product of bad faith on his part. In other words, he can be sued -- successfully -- if there's a finding that his statements to Senator Specter are made in bad faith. It's not full indemnity, and it exposes Walsh to litigation based on a contention that he's a disgruntled employee who stole sensitive materials in the hopes of later selling them to other teams, blackmailing the Patriots, and/or simply causing trouble when the opportunity to do so ever might arise.

But he would be shielded from a pissing match over who's right and who's wrong, with the NFL and/or the Pats potentially taking the position that if Walsh is simply incorrect it necessarily means that he's lying, and thus exposed to liability for his words, or his past actions in retaining club property.

However, this too is apparently relative and needs to be understood in the context with which it was said. According to Goodell, the Patriots denied any cheating, but in a different description of events he also noted that Belicheck did not find anything wrong with taping and using the tapes (and on that point they would "agree to disagree). By Belicheck's perspective, I suppose the Pats could have used such a tape in active gameplanning and still they would not think that would be cheating.

That is exactly correct. The Patriots would tape defensive signals and then use them in gameplanning the next time they faced that opponent. That is what Belichick said.There isnt much more to say other than anyone supporting this lawsuits merit is an IDIOT.

I was actually referring to the potential for using a tape of a team's walkthrough and gameplan around that. I'm not saying that the lawsuit has merit per se, but if I was a Ram player I would be pretty pissed if it turns out the Pats actually taped a final walthrough. But perhaps I would be most pissed after losing to a team that 'practices so hard at the fundamentals' and simply is 'better coached' and 'just sees the play developing so quickly' and 'are just students of the game'... and then finding out that they stooped to that level of cheating in preparation.

Say what you want about any of this, but it will be a long time before the Patriots get praise for these sorts of things without the skeptical fan chiming in. Heck, Steeler fans still hear that the Immaculate Reception was a fraud play. But that's nothing compared to a fraud dynasty.

So the Patriots are going to spend 2 weeks Gameplanning for the Super Bowl and then scratch that and change the Gameplan because of a tape of the Rams walking through plays a day before the game. Do you think they went out collected all of the game plans from the 45 players and then issued new ones the morning of the game?This is ridiculous.

Are you really this obtuse? All they need to do to get a huge advantage is to know the formations on any special plays. If NE see's the Rams line up in an unuaual formation they would know exactly how to defend this play. They only need to tell one cornerback that he has safety help on this play and they want him to jump this route. All of a sudden you may have 7 points on the board. Pretty big play in a game that was won on a last second field goal.

Do you know that little about football? What formation would ANY NFL team have that only has one play that can be run from it? Most have 5-10 options or plays that can be run from any given formation. Through hours of "legit" film study, when a team comes out in a certain formation in a certain down and distance, the defensive team has some knowledge of what a team LIKES to run. Not what they will definitely run.BTW. The Rams only entered the red zone once and they scored in that possession.

Knowing the 5-10 options for a specific formation > Not knowing any options for a specific formation. Is taping a walkthrough considered cheating? Thats the question. If you believe it's not cheating, then thats fine. If you agree that it's cheating, then the debate really ends there. Whether you feel that the Pats gained an advantage (which I think most non-Pats fan would agree that it would), they still cheated and you really cannot defend it.

The Patriots or any other team would have known the options from a specific formation by studying 16 weeks of film. Teams typically do not put in NEW plays Super Bowl week.

Are you honestly implying that narrowing down a set of formations by taping a walkthrough is equivalent to studying 16 weeks of film? I'm not saying the Pats taped the walkthrough but IF they did, I've lost any respect for all of their accomplishments. I suspect most non-Pats fans will feel the same way.

 

[Devilsden2001]

I suspect most non-Pats fans will feel the same way.

I would not limit that to just Non-Pats Fans, I am and have been a Pats fan for a long time and I have to admit that the taping IF it did happen will change my opinion on the accomplishments of the organization over the past 8 years.

 

[Filthy]

I agree with Ditkaless; take the trophies from this team AND ban Bill Belichick for life from the league AND the H.O.F. should he even get nominated after this.

1 play can affect the outcome of the game as we've seen from the 2008 Superbowl (Samuel missed INT, Tyree's catch, etc)

so there's no telling how much this taping of defensive (and any reasonable person would assume that BB would take any advantage he could so grab some offensive signals as well) signals affected all of these games.

As someone posted in another thread, the Patriot's legacy under BB is firmly entrenched under the bus. Only left for Kraft to do is to fire him and Goddell HAS to ban him from the game. Only way to be sure.

 

[Pat Patriot]

Knowing the 5-10 options for a specific formation > Not knowing any options for a specific formation. Is taping a walkthrough considered cheating? Thats the question. If you believe it's not cheating, then thats fine. If you agree that it's cheating, then the debate really ends there. Whether you feel that the Pats gained an advantage (which I think most non-Pats fan would agree that it would), they still cheated and you really cannot defend it.

Thats a nice hypothetical. I dont deal in hypotheticals.

The Broncos paid all of their players an extra $1 million dollars under the table and Elway an extra $5 million under the table in each of their Super Bowl wins therefore violating the Salary Cap. How come there is not an uproar about their cheating? Give their titles to the Packers and Falcons.

Unless I see a videotape of the Rams walkthrough that can be attributed to the Patriots, then there is no reason to believe it ever happened.

My bad.....I should have added the HYPOTHETICAL that the taping of the walkthrough turns out to be true. In that case, my question is do you consider it cheating? If so, there is really no defending the team regardless of how much you perceive it would have helped them. I'm assuming you won't answer this because you don't "deal with hypotheticals"......

There is as much evidence of there being a tape of the Rams walkthrough as there is that Belichick gave Walt Coleman a $10,000 bribe before the Snow Game against the Raiders. So you are right. I dont deal with unfounded speculation. Give me one shred of evidence of a tape. Just one tid bit. This story has been out for over 2 weeks and still there is no evidence to support it.

 

[AB in DC]

Unless I see a videotape of the Rams walkthrough that can be attributed to the Patriots, then there is no reason to believe it ever happened.

I guess nothing in this great big 'ol world ever happened unless yer eyes had seen it, eh?

Do you believe in Santa Claus, black helicopters, and that Freemasons are controlling our country, too?

 

[Da Guru]

The Pats have gone from a model franchise to a cheating disgrace of a franchise. The fall is hard.

 

[AB in DC]

probably videotaped Offensive stuff too. A guy with a video camera on the Offensive Coordinator calling plays then matching that up with action on the field wouldn't be useful, would it?

Exactly how would it be useful to see the back of a laminated card covering a guy's mouth?Really, the facts must be pretty weak for yall to have to invent new offenses and accusations out of thin air to justify all this venom.

 

[Chaz McNulty]

From PFT, regarding the 2 different indemnity provisions:

In this case, a reasonable reading of the indemnity language exchanged by the parties could cause a reasonable person to believe that the NFL and/or the Patriots are prepared to label anything and everything Walsh says as untruthful, even if he genuinely and in good faith believes his statement. Indeed, the Pats already have denied flatly any cheating in conjunction with Super Bowl XXXVI. So if Walsh says that he videotaped the Rams' walk-through (and if he doesn't have the tape to back it up), his version would instantly be called "untruthful" by the entity whose interests would be most clearly affected if what Walsh says is true.

In our view, "good faith" is the key. Walsh is willing to sacrifice indemnity upon a finding that any alleged untruthfulness was the product of bad faith on his part. In other words, he can be sued -- successfully -- if there's a finding that his statements to Senator Specter are made in bad faith. It's not full indemnity, and it exposes Walsh to litigation based on a contention that he's a disgruntled employee who stole sensitive materials in the hopes of later selling them to other teams, blackmailing the Patriots, and/or simply causing trouble when the opportunity to do so ever might arise.

But he would be shielded from a pissing match over who's right and who's wrong, with the NFL and/or the Pats potentially taking the position that if Walsh is simply incorrect it necessarily means that he's lying, and thus exposed to liability for his words, or his past actions in retaining club property.

However, this too is apparently relative and needs to be understood in the context with which it was said. According to Goodell, the Patriots denied any cheating, but in a different description of events he also noted that Belicheck did not find anything wrong with taping and using the tapes (and on that point they would "agree to disagree). By Belicheck's perspective, I suppose the Pats could have used such a tape in active gameplanning and still they would not think that would be cheating.

That is exactly correct. The Patriots would tape defensive signals and then use them in gameplanning the next time they faced that opponent. That is what Belichick said.There isnt much more to say other than anyone supporting this lawsuits merit is an IDIOT.

I was actually referring to the potential for using a tape of a team's walkthrough and gameplan around that. I'm not saying that the lawsuit has merit per se, but if I was a Ram player I would be pretty pissed if it turns out the Pats actually taped a final walthrough. But perhaps I would be most pissed after losing to a team that 'practices so hard at the fundamentals' and simply is 'better coached' and 'just sees the play developing so quickly' and 'are just students of the game'... and then finding out that they stooped to that level of cheating in preparation.

Say what you want about any of this, but it will be a long time before the Patriots get praise for these sorts of things without the skeptical fan chiming in. Heck, Steeler fans still hear that the Immaculate Reception was a fraud play. But that's nothing compared to a fraud dynasty.

So the Patriots are going to spend 2 weeks Gameplanning for the Super Bowl and then scratch that and change the Gameplan because of a tape of the Rams walking through plays a day before the game. Do you think they went out collected all of the game plans from the 45 players and then issued new ones the morning of the game?This is ridiculous.

Are you really this obtuse? All they need to do to get a huge advantage is to know the formations on any special plays. If NE see's the Rams line up in an unuaual formation they would know exactly how to defend this play. They only need to tell one cornerback that he has safety help on this play and they want him to jump this route. All of a sudden you may have 7 points on the board. Pretty big play in a game that was won on a last second field goal.

Do you know that little about football? What formation would ANY NFL team have that only has one play that can be run from it? Most have 5-10 options or plays that can be run from any given formation. Through hours of "legit" film study, when a team comes out in a certain formation in a certain down and distance, the defensive team has some knowledge of what a team LIKES to run. Not what they will definitely run.BTW. The Rams only entered the red zone once and they scored in that possession.

Knowing the 5-10 options for a specific formation > Not knowing any options for a specific formation. Is taping a walkthrough considered cheating? Thats the question. If you believe it's not cheating, then thats fine. If you agree that it's cheating, then the debate really ends there. Whether you feel that the Pats gained an advantage (which I think most non-Pats fan would agree that it would), they still cheated and you really cannot defend it.

The Patriots or any other team would have known the options from a specific formation by studying 16 weeks of film. Teams typically do not put in NEW plays Super Bowl week.

Where do you come up with these facts? Do you just post something in an authoratative tone and hope that people will believe you? You have no idea if teams "typically" create new play for Super Bowl week. Stop trying to sound like your the authority on game planning for the Superbowl. It's quite pathetic.

 

[Filthy]

probably videotaped Offensive stuff too. A guy with a video camera on the Offensive Coordinator calling plays then matching that up with action on the field wouldn't be useful, would it?

Exactly how would it be useful to see the back of a laminated card covering a guy's mouth?Really, the facts must be pretty weak for yall to have to invent new offenses and accusations out of thin air to justify all this venom.

My point (that keeps getting deleted) is that Bill Belichick admitted to videotaping defensive coordinators' signals so it wouldn't be beyond reason to suspect him of taping other things on the opponent's sidelines.

 

[AB in DC]

My point (that keeps getting deleted) is that Bill Belichick admitted to videotaping defensive coordinators' signals so it wouldn't be beyond reason to suspect him of taping other things on the opponent's sidelines.

And your suspicions are enough to "take the trophies from this team AND ban Bill Belichick for life from the league"??

 

[Filthy]

My point (that keeps getting deleted) is that Bill Belichick admitted to videotaping defensive coordinators' signals so it wouldn't be beyond reason to suspect him of taping other things on the opponent's sidelines.

And your suspicions are enough to "take the trophies from this team AND ban Bill Belichick for life from the league"??

No, I want to hear Matt Walsh testify and have someone other than Goddell or the NFL review the material. It's apparent to most people that there will be a coverup if Walsh turns material over to the NFL. They want this to die NOW. After the facts come out, THEN I want Bill Belichick banned and the Patriot trophies repo-ed.

 

[twitch]

probably videotaped Offensive stuff too. A guy with a video camera on the Offensive Coordinator calling plays then matching that up with action on the field wouldn't be useful, would it?

Exactly how would it be useful to see the back of a laminated card covering a guy's mouth?Really, the facts must be pretty weak for yall to have to invent new offenses and accusations out of thin air to justify all this venom.

My point (that keeps getting deleted) is that Bill Belichick admitted to videotaping defensive coordinators' signals so it wouldn't be beyond reason to suspect him of taping other things on the opponent's sidelines.

Right, and Gaylord Perry used to load up the brim with Vaseline and throw a helluva spit ball, but that didnt mean he used the stuff in the shower with other dudes. Why dont you wait on facts before you start crucifying people??

 

[{Syrus}]

probably videotaped Offensive stuff too. A guy with a video camera on the Offensive Coordinator calling plays then matching that up with action on the field wouldn't be useful, would it?

Exactly how would it be useful to see the back of a laminated card covering a guy's mouth?Really, the facts must be pretty weak for yall to have to invent new offenses and accusations out of thin air to justify all this venom.

My point (that keeps getting deleted) is that Bill Belichick admitted to videotaping defensive coordinators' signals so it wouldn't be beyond reason to suspect him of taping other things on the opponent's sidelines.

Right, and Gaylord Perry used to load up the brim with Vaseline and throw a helluva spit ball, but that didnt mean he used the stuff in the shower with other dudes. Why dont you wait on facts before you start crucifying people??

How's that James Laurinaitis pick by the Patriots coming? The facts are The Pats organization and Bill Bellicheck have been breaking league rules since the year 2000. They were fined the largest fine in history. How's that for facts.