More Spygate Fallout? Former Patriots Video Guy Matt Walsh speaks (1 Viewer)

[Loopdog]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3226465

Didn't see this posted

He sure talks a big game, I wonder if we will ever find out what he knows.....

 

[Little Lord Humpleroy]

He comes off as a looking for a payday type. Must have asked

"What's in it for me? five different times in the article. Odd that

he'd attempt to violate his confidentiality agreement with the

Pats. Risky move. They dismissed him almost five years ago.

It's no secret that the Pats have been videotaping for a long time.

Nothing new here. Someone really must hate the G-men to drudge

up all this crapola 2 days before the Superbowl. Until now I thought

they had a better than good chance of beating the spread.

No more.

 

[PhD]

He comes off as a looking for a payday type. Must have asked "What's in it for me? five different times in the article. Odd that he'd attempt to violate his confidentiality agreement with the Pats. Risky move. They dismissed him almost five years ago. It's no secret that the Pats have been videotaping for a long time. Nothing new here. Someone really must hate the G-men to drudge up all this crapola 2 days before the Superbowl. Until now I thought they had a better than good chance of beating the spread. No more.

????????Giants have less chance because Pats are perhaps emotional and distracted from the game itself (at most)?

 

[Mr. Sparkle]

interesting....

 

[freelander]

"*" its alive!

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

Apparently, if congress subpoena's Walsh his confidentiality agreement is not applicable. Further, I'm guessing that Spector can acquire immunity from prosecution for breach of contract, etc. that the Pats could attempt against Walsh. Such a chain of events could reveal the existence of additional videotape evidence, in which case the Pats, and Belichick, could face additional action from the Commissioner's office.

Having said that, if there is a dialog between Spector and Goodell, there is likely to be some discussion of collateral damage to the NFL on the one hand, versus Spector's whoremaster Comcast on the other. I could see a scenario where the NFL "gives up" Belichick to get the cable deals it wants.

 

[GRIDIRON ASSASSIN]

Stealing signs, etc. have been going on in baseball for the past century. The Cubs really should come up with some new signals.

It's called gamesmanship in my book.

 

[jonessed]

If this guy speaks and it turns out there was more to this than Goodell let on his credibility is going to go down the tank.

 

[Sinn Fein]

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/footbal...&position=0

 

[Ghost Rider]

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/footbal...&position=0

Here is the text:PHOENIX - One night before the Patriots [team stats] face the Giants in Super Bowl XLII, new allegations have emerged about a Patriots employee taping the Rams’ final walkthrough before Super Bowl XXXVI.

According to a source, a member of the team’s video department filmed the Rams’ final walkthrough before that 2002 game. The next day, the Patriots upset St. Louis, 20-17, on a last-second field goal by Adam Vinatieri for their first championship.

A walkthrough involves practicing plays at reduced speed without contact or pads. It is common for teams to film their own walkthroughs and practices.

When contacted last night, Patriots vice president of media relations Stacey James said: “The coaches have no knowledge of it.”

Yesterday, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) stated that he plans to summon NFL commissioner Roger Goodell before Congress to explain why he destroyed tapes that showed the Patriots stealing defensive signals over the last two years.

After his state of the NFL press conference yesterday, Goodell was asked if the league’s investigation into the Pats included allegations that they recorded the Rams walkthrough in 2002.

“I’m not aware of that,” Goodell said.

“We have no information on that,” seconded NFL spokesman Greg Aiello.

According to a source close to the team during the 2001 season, here’s what happened. On Feb. 2, 2002, one day before the Patriots’ Super Bowl game against heavily favored St. Louis in New Orleans, the Patriots visited the Superdome for their final walkthrough.

After completing the walkthrough, they had their team picture taken and the Rams then took the field. According to the source, a member of the team’s video staff stayed behind after attending the team’s walkthrough and filmed St. Louis’ walkthrough.

At no point was he asked to identify himself or produce a press pass, the source said. The cameraman rode the media shuttle back to the hotel with news photographers when the Rams walkthrough was completed, the source said.

It’s not known what the cameraman did with the tape from there. It’s also not known if he made the recording on his own initiative or if he was instructed to make the recording by someone with the Patriots or anyone else.

The next day, the Patriots opened a 14-3 halftime lead on the Rams, who were 14-point favorites and operators of an offense known as “The Greatest Show on Turf.”

The Rams didn’t begin moving the ball until the fourth quarter, when their 14-point rally pulled the teams into a 17-17 tie with less than two minutes remaining. Tom Brady [stats] then led the most famous drive in Patriots history for the winning field goal.

The Patriots were fined $750,000 and docked a first-round draft pick for breaking league policy and filming the Jets’ defensive signals from the sideline in September.

Asked yesterday if he believed the Pats used similar films to achieve their three Super Bowl victories, Goodell was adamant.

“No,” he said. “There was no indication that it benefited them in any of the Super Bowl victories.”

This will be interesting to see where this story goes...

 

[Green and Gold]

I don't get why the Rams wouldn't have kicked out someone filming their practice. That part of the story just doesn't make any sense. In any case, is it illegal to videotape a walkthrough or practice? I'm just curious.

 

[Floyd The Barber]

Is anybody else watching the Duece this morning? They're breaking down the potential impact of Spygate and all blowhard Sean Salisbury wants to do is defend and deflate what New England has done. He has NO business on the same set as Steve Young.

Young is intelligent and articulate and making valid points with comments coaches shared with him, while Salisbury is trying to sweep it under the rug - a gas bag in love with his own voice. Right up there with Emmitt in terms of intellect.

Up until now I was willing to give the Pats the benefit of the doubt, but once Matt Walsh finally spills his guts - and god forbid, he produces a video tape - New England's dynasty is no doubt going to have a big, fat asterik next to it.

 

[twitch]

Are you guys serious? Does anyone in their right mind actually think that BILL BELICHICK would have trusted this knucklehead with any valuable information whatsoever??? Let alone 'top secret' video or information that could potentially bring the man down????! I mean come on. Shut up about this idiot already.

Specter is embarassing himself by bringing this ridiculous topic up 2 or 3 days before the Superbowl. This is politics and money being fought over at the worst of possible times. Let this thing go for atleast another week.

 

[kevinray]

I can understand why people will see this reflecting on Goodell but why should we assume he's covering it up? I mean if the Patriots have been illegally recording practices then I wouldn’t be surprised if they ever gave it to Goodell. I guess if this guy has information then Goodell should've talked to him during the investigation, but it seems like he stayed quite through the initial investigation. If the Patriots have been doing other shady things then I fully expect more punishment to come from it, but there’s gonna have to be more to confirm it then this article.

 

[jonessed]

I can understand why people will see this reflecting on Goodell but why should we assume he's covering it up? I mean if the Patriots have been illegally recording practices then I wouldn’t be surprised if they ever gave it to Goodell. I guess if this guy has information then Goodell should've talked to him during the investigation, but it seems like he stayed quite through the initial investigation. If the Patriots have been doing other shady things then I fully expect more punishment to come from it, but there’s gonna have to be more to confirm it then this article.

Goodell said he trusted that the Pats gave and told him everything. If there is more then he is either naiive or a liar. Neither looks good for him.

 

[freelander]

Are you guys serious? Does anyone in their right mind actually think that BILL BELICHICK would have trusted this knucklehead with any valuable information whatsoever??? Let alone 'top secret' video or information that could potentially bring the man down????! I mean come on. Shut up about this idiot already. Specter is embarassing himself by bringing this ridiculous topic up 2 or 3 days before the Superbowl. This is politics and money being fought over at the worst of possible times. Let this thing go for atleast another week.

An obession to win can do funny things to the brain ...besides, BB is himself a knucklehead

 

[Workhorse]

Why exactly is all of this info coming out 5 months after "Spygate"?

 

[kevinray]

I can understand why people will see this reflecting on Goodell but why should we assume he's covering it up? I mean if the Patriots have been illegally recording practices then I wouldn’t be surprised if they ever gave it to Goodell. I guess if this guy has information then Goodell should've talked to him during the investigation, but it seems like he stayed quite through the initial investigation. If the Patriots have been doing other shady things then I fully expect more punishment to come from it, but there’s gonna have to be more to confirm it then this article.

Goodell said he trusted that the Pats gave and told him everything. If there is more then he is either naiive or a liar. Neither looks good for him.

I guess I just don't see it as that simple. This was one investigation into the use of cameras to film coordinators in unauthorized locations. I don't believe that Goodell ever set out for a full fledged historical investigation into all Patriots cheating through out their history. There’s never been any reports of a team recording practices illegally so why would the investigation look into it? When he made reference to Spygate not affecting any of there previous super bowls he was referring specifically to the act of film coordinators during the game in an unauthorized way. He said it didn't affect those games because the investigation showed that the Patriots weren't reviewing the film during games. If there was other kind of cheating from spying on other team’s locker rooms, or film practices that wouldn't have been something the original investigation would've been covering. If there’s more cheating I image there will be more investigating and probably more punishment.

 

[Green and Gold]

Why exactly is all of this info coming out 5 months after "Spygate"?

Bootgate was getting old.

 

[Loopdog]

at what point does the "They still have to make the plays on the field to win" argument begin to lose water? I love the fact that the Patriots have had a successful team over the past few years, I love Tom Brady and I think Belichick is a great coach. All of those things and I'm a Dallas Cowboys fan. I think dynasties or consistency is great for football, it creates rivalries and "hatred" and makes beating certain teams that much more invaluable. But I don't want to hear that the Patriots are just one big web of lies after another. I dont want to find out that they knew what plays were coming before they came. It really makes me wonder how many teams in the league are shady as all hell. It's not just the Patriots. NO WAY. Will this become a steroids in baseball kind of witchhunt where teams employees begin to sell them out, or does everyone think the Patriots are the only team that will be looked into?

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

Goodell creates plausible deniability and distances himself from any additional tapes being discovered as he, as I understand it, asked NE to certify that no other tapes existed.

I'm surprised that no one is raising the obvious question: did Walsh successfully retain the alleged tape without NE's knowledge and will Goodell flip flop if and when it surfaces (with Walsh under congressional immunity) and bury Belichick?

There are a lot of dollars at stake between Comcast, Time-Warner and the NFL. I suspect things are about to get ugly.

 

[Little Lord Humpleroy]

Is anybody else watching the Duece this morning? They're breaking down the potential impact of Spygate and all blowhard Sean Salisbury wants to do is defend and deflate what New England has done. He has NO business on the same set as Steve Young. Young is intelligent and articulate and making valid points with comments coaches shared with him, while Salisbury is trying to sweep it under the rug - a gas bag in love with his own voice. Right up there with Emmitt in terms of intellect.Up until now I was willing to give the Pats the benefit of the doubt, but once Matt Walsh finally spills his guts - and god forbid, he produces a video tape - New England's dynasty is no doubt going to have a big, fat asterik next to it.

I watched it. Basically Salisbury said he'd like to see some actual evidence. When and if that evidence is presented he'd take another look at it. Until then it's a bunch of crap. Young seemed to be of the opinion that since the Pats were penalized the cash and the draft pick for the early season infraction they were undoubtably guilty in this instance as well. Regardless of the fact that so far there isn't a shred of evidence or even an allegation. I don't have a problem with either Salisbury or Young. It isn't a coincidence that everyone sitting at a desk at ESPN automatically has a contrarian opinion to whoever's sitting next to him. This argumentative stuff sells. Gets people pissed off. I doubt very much they're voicing their own opinions. They just do a Ron Burgandy and read whatever the little monitor tells them to. Are their opinions real or do they just adopt them like a presidential candidate chooses which side of an issue will land him more votes? It's a joke really.

 

[Little Lord Humpleroy]

He comes off as a looking for a payday type. Must have asked "What's in it for me? five different times in the article. Odd that he'd attempt to violate his confidentiality agreement with the Pats. Risky move. They dismissed him almost five years ago. It's no secret that the Pats have been videotaping for a long time. Nothing new here. Someone really must hate the G-men to drudge up all this crapola 2 days before the Superbowl. Until now I thought they had a better than good chance of beating the spread. No more.

????????Giants have less chance because Pats are perhaps emotional and distracted from the game itself (at most)?

Pretty much. Except switch angered and focused with emotional and distracted.

 

[cstu]

He comes off as a looking for a payday type. Must have asked "What's in it for me? five different times in the article. Odd that he'd attempt to violate his confidentiality agreement with the Pats. Risky move. They dismissed him almost five years ago. It's no secret that the Pats have been videotaping for a long time. Nothing new here. Someone really must hate the G-men to drudge up all this crapola 2 days before the Superbowl. Until now I thought they had a better than good chance of beating the spread. No more.

????????Giants have less chance because Pats are perhaps emotional and distracted from the game itself (at most)?

Pretty much. Except switch angered and focused with emotional and distracted.

Don't forget the way they destroyed the Chargers in the Spygate aftermath. They are going to run up the score and make it blowout to stop people from questioning their 19-0 season.

 

[freelander]

He comes off as a looking for a payday type. Must have asked "What's in it for me? five different times in the article. Odd that he'd attempt to violate his confidentiality agreement with the Pats. Risky move. They dismissed him almost five years ago. It's no secret that the Pats have been videotaping for a long time. Nothing new here. Someone really must hate the G-men to drudge up all this crapola 2 days before the Superbowl. Until now I thought they had a better than good chance of beating the spread. No more.

????????Giants have less chance because Pats are perhaps emotional and distracted from the game itself (at most)?

Pretty much. Except switch angered and focused with emotional and distracted.

Don't forget the way they destroyed the Chargers in the Spygate aftermath. They are going to run up the score and make it blowout to stop people from questioning their 19-0 season.

hmmm , maybe better suited for public opinion to win by 3 like usual ...

 

[Johnny Ice]

Stealing signs, etc. have been going on in baseball for the past century. The Cubs really should come up with some new signals.It's called gamesmanship in my book.

Nice job comparing stealing a signs during a baseball game to setting up shop with video equipment.

 

[Green and Gold]

He comes off as a looking for a payday type. Must have asked "What's in it for me? five different times in the article. Odd that he'd attempt to violate his confidentiality agreement with the Pats. Risky move. They dismissed him almost five years ago. It's no secret that the Pats have been videotaping for a long time. Nothing new here. Someone really must hate the G-men to drudge up all this crapola 2 days before the Superbowl. Until now I thought they had a better than good chance of beating the spread. No more.

????????Giants have less chance because Pats are perhaps emotional and distracted from the game itself (at most)?

Pretty much. Except switch angered and focused with emotional and distracted.

Don't forget the way they destroyed the Chargers in the Spygate aftermath. They are going to run up the score and make it blowout to stop people from questioning their 19-0 season.

I don't think they're questioning the 19-0 season, they're questioning the 2001 superbowl.

 

[AsimoV]

Stealing signs, etc. have been going on in baseball for the past century.

Yeah, and look how much people respect baseball now.

It's called gamesmanship in my book.

Get a new book. It's actually called cheating.

 

[radiohead417]

I think it anything this should show a lesson to us all about winning. The message in all of this should be winning at all costs is a very, very bad thing. So many times, all of us seem like we're looking more to win 'within the rules'; by manipulating things rather than working hard and doing the best you can. Trying to get an edge, if you will. It shows than if you are willing to cross the line at all, then how far will you go?

Because the Patriots used cameras once, now any claim against seems absolutely plausible. At this point, we can't give them the benefit of the doubt on these things because they've shown they're not worthy of that benefit. It's like a cheater at a card game. If he's willing to cheat once, who's to say he isn't willing to do it again?

It's one thing to outscheme someone, or to read signals from a coach on the sidelines. But it's a complete other thing to use video.

Bottom line, anyone who doesn't think it's possible (note I said possible) that the Patriots cheated on all three of their previous Super Bowl wins is being naive.

So in other words, don't toe the line, don't cheat. Whatever you're trying to obtain, even if it is a Super Bowl, isn't worth ruining your reputation.

 

[cstu]

He comes off as a looking for a payday type. Must have asked "What's in it for me? five different times in the article. Odd that he'd attempt to violate his confidentiality agreement with the Pats. Risky move. They dismissed him almost five years ago. It's no secret that the Pats have been videotaping for a long time. Nothing new here. Someone really must hate the G-men to drudge up all this crapola 2 days before the Superbowl. Until now I thought they had a better than good chance of beating the spread. No more.

????????Giants have less chance because Pats are perhaps emotional and distracted from the game itself (at most)?

Pretty much. Except switch angered and focused with emotional and distracted.

Don't forget the way they destroyed the Chargers in the Spygate aftermath. They are going to run up the score and make it blowout to stop people from questioning their 19-0 season.

I don't think they're questioning the 19-0 season, they're questioning the 2001 superbowl.

I'm saying the Pats will be pissed off and do to the Giants what they did to the Chargers.

 

[phthalatemagic]

Vince Lombardi is rolling in his grave

 

[bostonfred]

I think it anything this should show a lesson to us all about winning. The message in all of this should be winning at all costs is a very, very bad thing. So many times, all of us seem like we're looking more to win 'within the rules'; by manipulating things rather than working hard and doing the best you can. Trying to get an edge, if you will. It shows than if you are willing to cross the line at all, then how far will you go?Because the Patriots used cameras once, now any claim against seems absolutely plausible. At this point, we can't give them the benefit of the doubt on these things because they've shown they're not worthy of that benefit. It's like a cheater at a card game. If he's willing to cheat once, who's to say he isn't willing to do it again? It's one thing to outscheme someone, or to read signals from a coach on the sidelines. But it's a complete other thing to use video.Bottom line, anyone who doesn't think it's possible (note I said possible) that the Patriots cheated on all three of their previous Super Bowl wins is being naive.So in other words, don't toe the line, don't cheat. Whatever you're trying to obtain, even if it is a Super Bowl, isn't worth ruining your reputation.

Serious question: as a fan, would you trade your team's last seven years to have the Patriots' last seven years?

 

[Phlash]

I think it anything this should show a lesson to us all about winning. The message in all of this should be winning at all costs is a very, very bad thing. So many times, all of us seem like we're looking more to win 'within the rules'; by manipulating things rather than working hard and doing the best you can. Trying to get an edge, if you will. It shows than if you are willing to cross the line at all, then how far will you go?Because the Patriots used cameras once, now any claim against seems absolutely plausible. At this point, we can't give them the benefit of the doubt on these things because they've shown they're not worthy of that benefit. It's like a cheater at a card game. If he's willing to cheat once, who's to say he isn't willing to do it again? It's one thing to outscheme someone, or to read signals from a coach on the sidelines. But it's a complete other thing to use video.Bottom line, anyone who doesn't think it's possible (note I said possible) that the Patriots cheated on all three of their previous Super Bowl wins is being naive.So in other words, don't toe the line, don't cheat. Whatever you're trying to obtain, even if it is a Super Bowl, isn't worth ruining your reputation.

Serious question: as a fan, would you trade your team's last seven years to have the Patriots' last seven years?

:X Anyone who says no is a delusional hater.

 

[Sabertooth]

I think it anything this should show a lesson to us all about winning. The message in all of this should be winning at all costs is a very, very bad thing. So many times, all of us seem like we're looking more to win 'within the rules'; by manipulating things rather than working hard and doing the best you can. Trying to get an edge, if you will. It shows than if you are willing to cross the line at all, then how far will you go?Because the Patriots used cameras once, now any claim against seems absolutely plausible. At this point, we can't give them the benefit of the doubt on these things because they've shown they're not worthy of that benefit. It's like a cheater at a card game. If he's willing to cheat once, who's to say he isn't willing to do it again? It's one thing to outscheme someone, or to read signals from a coach on the sidelines. But it's a complete other thing to use video.Bottom line, anyone who doesn't think it's possible (note I said possible) that the Patriots cheated on all three of their previous Super Bowl wins is being naive.So in other words, don't toe the line, don't cheat. Whatever you're trying to obtain, even if it is a Super Bowl, isn't worth ruining your reputation.

Serious question: as a fan, would you trade your team's last seven years to have the Patriots' last seven years?

Anyone who says no is a delusional hater.

No. Not a hater. Just a fan of fair play that wants his kids to see that cheating is wrong.

 

[bostonfred]

I think it anything this should show a lesson to us all about winning. The message in all of this should be winning at all costs is a very, very bad thing. So many times, all of us seem like we're looking more to win 'within the rules'; by manipulating things rather than working hard and doing the best you can. Trying to get an edge, if you will. It shows than if you are willing to cross the line at all, then how far will you go?Because the Patriots used cameras once, now any claim against seems absolutely plausible. At this point, we can't give them the benefit of the doubt on these things because they've shown they're not worthy of that benefit. It's like a cheater at a card game. If he's willing to cheat once, who's to say he isn't willing to do it again? It's one thing to outscheme someone, or to read signals from a coach on the sidelines. But it's a complete other thing to use video.Bottom line, anyone who doesn't think it's possible (note I said possible) that the Patriots cheated on all three of their previous Super Bowl wins is being naive.So in other words, don't toe the line, don't cheat. Whatever you're trying to obtain, even if it is a Super Bowl, isn't worth ruining your reputation.

Serious question: as a fan, would you trade your team's last seven years to have the Patriots' last seven years?

Anyone who says no is a delusional hater.

No. Not a hater. Just a fan of fair play that wants his kids to see that cheating is wrong.

I don't disagree with that. I think we'll hear plenty about this over time to find out whether this is true. I'm sure we all agree that whoever waited until the day before the Superbowl to make all this noise probably has a very good reason to do so. The reasons for this sudden thrust of the Patriots in front of the court of public opinion notwithstanding, though, I'm not asking whether you would want your team to have cheated. I'm asking whether you would trade the last seven years your team has had for the Patriots' last seven years. You raise an interesting point about wanting your kids to see that cheating is wrong. The Patriots received the harshest punishment in NFL history for doing a legal and commonplace thing in an illegal way. We can argue whether the punishment fit the crime and I'm sure each of us will have valid reasons to believe it should have been harsher or less harsh. But at the end of the day, your kids saw someone cheat, and get punished. Whether they're fans of this team or another, they saw the exact same thing. So that's really not an answer to the question: Would you trade the last seven years of rooting for your team to have watched your team win a Superbowl as an underdog, win another in a shootout, win a third to clinch the dynasty label, and then go 18-0 en route to a fourth Superbowl in seven years with a chance to clinch a 19-0 season?

 

[Slider]

Where there's smoke there's usually fire. Forget this Superbowl, this story is going to blow up like crazy.

 

[geoff8695]

Would you trade the last seven years of rooting for your team to have watched your team win a Superbowl as an underdog, win another in a shootout, win a third to clinch the dynasty label, and then go 18-0 en route to a fourth Superbowl in seven years with a chance to clinch a 19-0 season?

Spygate has cast doubt on this organization's character and that is a fact. Now it doesn't automatically mean that the Patriots are guilty of any other wrong doing whatsoever, but as a previous poster already stated the current organization is no longer worthy of any 'benefit of the doubt' in the court of public opinion. Instead we will have to wait and see if any further evidence comes out. IF nothing else comes of this, then you would probably be correct in your insinuation that most fans could tolerate this level of 'scandal' and still enjoy rooting for their team given the tradeoff off seven years of championship level success.

OTOH, if spygate is only the tip of the iceberg, and if we are going to begin hearing more and more about how BB and the Pats organization weren't patient enough to put together a winner the 'right' way, but instead revolutionalized 'cheating' in professional sports using all the wonders of modern technology-then what?

What if by this time next season the evidence of cheating, corruption, and scandal reach so deep that the coaching staff is banned for life from the NFL and we remember the Patriots dynasty in a similar light to the 'Black Sox' scandal that rocked baseball almost a century ago? What then? Will you still tell me how wonderful it is to be a fan of this team's accomplishments for the past several seasons and how anyone would rather root for this team than any other?

 

[AB in DC]

at what point does the "They still have to make the plays on the field to win" argument begin to lose water?

When there is actual evidence that the Pats gained a significant competitive advantage by breaking the rules?

 

[AB in DC]

Where there's smoke there's usually fire. Forget this Superbowl,

Except that the Super Bowl is the very reason why there probably isn't any fire.If there was, would it show up in the papers the day before the biggest game all year?

 

[Ron_Mexico]

at what point does the "They still have to make the plays on the field to win" argument begin to lose water?

When there is actual evidence that the Pats gained a significant competitive advantage by breaking the rules?

 

[CrossEyed]

Serious question: as a fan, would you trade your team's last seven years to have the Patriots' last seven years?

Serious answer: No.

 

[AB in DC]

Is anybody else watching the Duece this morning? They're breaking down the potential impact of Spygate and all blowhard Sean Salisbury wants to do is defend and deflate what New England has done. He has NO business on the same set as Steve Young. Young is intelligent and articulate and making valid points with comments coaches shared with him, while Salisbury is trying to sweep it under the rug - a gas bag in love with his own voice.

I watched it. Basically Salisbury said he'd like to see some actual evidence. When and if that evidence is presented he'd take another look at it. Until then it's a bunch of crap.

Sounds like Salisbury is the sane one to me. Young was probably following the typical ESPN m.o. -- take any story that's out there and blow it up into a huge controversy to drive up ratings.

 

[geoff8695]

at what point does the "They still have to make the plays on the field to win" argument begin to lose water?

When there is actual evidence that the Pats gained a significant competitive advantage by breaking the rules?

You mean like the actual evidence that caused the league commisioner to fine the head coach half a mil' and since the evidence was so damning he also took away their 1st round draft pick in the upcoming draft?Or do you mean evidence that would explain how a Pats team that was a two touchdown dog to the 'greatest show on turf' managed their historic upset and first superbowl victory?

 

[bostonfred]

at what point does the "They still have to make the plays on the field to win" argument begin to lose water?

When there is actual evidence that the Pats gained a significant competitive advantage by breaking the rules?

You mean like the actual evidence that caused the league commisioner to fine the head coach half a mil' and since the evidence was so damning he also took away their 1st round draft pick in the upcoming draft?Or do you mean evidence that would explain how a Pats team that was a two touchdown dog to the 'greatest show on turf' managed their historic upset and first superbowl victory?

Link to where the commissioner said that the Patriots gained an advantage from the videotaping? I'd be interested in reading the quote.

 

[AB in DC]

Goodell: "I think as far as the actual effectiveness of taping signals, as you all know, taking signals from opposing football teams or in other sports is done and it is done quite widely and teams prepare for that. There isn’t a team that doesn’t go into a game prepared for that because of the complex nature of the way they handle either their wristbands, different coaches sending signals in live or not. They all protect against that. I think it probably had a limited effect, if any effect, on the outcome on any game."

Try and keep up.

 

[AB in DC]

According to a source, a member of the team’s video department filmed the Rams’ final walkthrough before that 2002 game. The next day, the Patriots upset St. Louis, 20-17, on a last-second field goal by Adam Vinatieri for their first championship.

Funny, there used to a rule in journalism that you needed two sources before printing anything in the paper, to make sure it wasn't just an unfounded rumor.I guess that goes out the window when the National Enquirer Boston Herald can make a ton of money from unfounded rumors.

 

[geoff8695]

at what point does the "They still have to make the plays on the field to win" argument begin to lose water?

When there is actual evidence that the Pats gained a significant competitive advantage by breaking the rules?

You mean like the actual evidence that caused the league commisioner to fine the head coach half a mil' and since the evidence was so damning he also took away their 1st round draft pick in the upcoming draft?Or do you mean evidence that would explain how a Pats team that was a two touchdown dog to the 'greatest show on turf' managed their historic upset and first superbowl victory?

Link to where the commissioner said that the Patriots gained an advantage from the videotaping? I'd be interested in reading the quote.

Oh my bad, I didn't realize that the comish was just in a really bad mood the day that he decided to hand out what you yourself described as "the harshest punishment in NFL history".

 

[AB in DC]

[Never mind, I'm going to stop feeding the trolls now.]

 

[geoff8695]

Goodell: "I think as far as the actual effectiveness of taping signals, as you all know, taking signals from opposing football teams or in other sports is done and it is done quite widely and teams prepare for that. There isn’t a team that doesn’t go into a game prepared for that because of the complex nature of the way they handle either their wristbands, different coaches sending signals in live or not. They all protect against that. I think it probably had a limited effect, if any effect, on the outcome on any game."

Try and keep up.

Hmmmm.... Now that's funny...Goodell says there's a "limited effect, if any on the outcome of any game" with his words.

Yet with his actions hands out the stiffest penalty of all time against the NE Patriots organization.

 

[bostonfred]

at what point does the "They still have to make the plays on the field to win" argument begin to lose water?

When there is actual evidence that the Pats gained a significant competitive advantage by breaking the rules?

You mean like the actual evidence that caused the league commisioner to fine the head coach half a mil' and since the evidence was so damning he also took away their 1st round draft pick in the upcoming draft?Or do you mean evidence that would explain how a Pats team that was a two touchdown dog to the 'greatest show on turf' managed their historic upset and first superbowl victory?

Link to where the commissioner said that the Patriots gained an advantage from the videotaping? I'd be interested in reading the quote.

Oh my bad, I didn't realize that the comish was just in a really bad mood the day that he decided to hand out what you yourself described as "the harshest punishment in NFL history".

Apology accepted. But it wasn't a mood issue. It's completely consistent for the commissioner who suspended a member of the coaching staff for substance abuse that had little or no impact on a game to hand out a harsh penalty for other actions that had little or no impact on a game.