Walsh Hands Over 8 Tapes (1 Viewer)

[datonn]

Walsh stole the tapes. How could the Patriots tell Goodell there were more tapes out there if they did not know it themselves. You are really reaching here.

E-A-S-Y there, big fella! I didn't post that to try and drag the Pats through the mud. Heck, the only reason I posted in this thread of you guys breaking 2x4s over each other's heads was to say WHY I thought these eight tapes might be important. Not saying the Pats were hiding anything....not saying that they weren't. Just thinking out loud about *why* this issue is lurking out there again and why it might matter.Jeez. Just meet out back in the alley and raise your voices a bit...getting your "tough guy" on. Heck, maybe even throw a punch or two. The testosterone in this thread though is thick enough to cut with a knife...

 

[David Yudkin]

We'll find out in due time, but IIRC BB said he turned over everything that they still had in their possession. They suggested that they copied over a lot of tape and recycled it. I'm not sure that the Pats could get in trouble for the copies that Walsh had (that the Pats no longer had in their possession).

Correct. I just wonder if the issue might all be centered around where and when Walsh got those tapes. But it's all conjecture and speculation at this point...no sense watching all these other guys bash each other's skulls in over Pats love/hate until we get more info from the league. I just think it's sad that one of the most storied franchises in recent years got caught up in all this mess, regardless.

Walsh stole the tapes. How could the Patriots tell Goodell there were more tapes out there if they did not know it themselves. You are really reaching here.

Which again boils down to how much they disclosed. Did they reveal all the games that they had taped even if they did not have the evidence from those games? They didn't have to have the evidence to divulge the fact that their improprieties occured. They would certainly stand to face less punishment if the totality of the cheating was not to be discovered.But do you really think that the Pats didn't KNOW all the games that they had taped? Please. They knew it down to the exact down. Walsh stealing the tapes does not equal the cheating not happening because they no longer had the evidence of it.

Whether there were tapes or not, NE admitted to taping signals and games from 2000-2008. How much more do you want them to disclose than "we did it every game?" They admitted to doing it and at that point I do not believe they had more to give the NFL (that certainly is open for debate).If there is evidence of other wrong doing (signal jamming, stealing audio from helmets, intentionally pulling the plug on other teams' transmissions, etc.) NE will get zapped again. But if all Walsh has is similar to what NE gave the league I think this will go away quickly. Without any additional proof, alleging that he did other things probably will be duely noted with further investigation to see if those actions could be confirmed or denied.

 

[ScottyFargo]

We'll find out in due time, but IIRC BB said he turned over everything that they still had in their possession. They suggested that they copied over a lot of tape and recycled it. I'm not sure that the Pats could get in trouble for the copies that Walsh had (that the Pats no longer had in their possession).

Correct. I just wonder if the issue might all be centered around where and when Walsh got those tapes. But it's all conjecture and speculation at this point...no sense watching all these other guys bash each other's skulls in over Pats love/hate until we get more info from the league. I just think it's sad that one of the most storied franchises in recent years got caught up in all this mess, regardless.

Walsh stole the tapes. How could the Patriots tell Goodell there were more tapes out there if they did not know it themselves. You are really reaching here.

Which again boils down to how much they disclosed. Did they reveal all the games that they had taped even if they did not have the evidence from those games? They didn't have to have the evidence to divulge the fact that their improprieties occured. They would certainly stand to face less punishment if the totality of the cheating was not to be discovered.But do you really think that the Pats didn't KNOW all the games that they had taped? Please. They knew it down to the exact down. Walsh stealing the tapes does not equal the cheating not happening because they no longer had the evidence of it.

Did you miss the part where Belichek admitted that they had been using the same taping procedure since the beginning of his tenure in NE. Maybe they did, maybe they didnt, but the presumption was that they taped EVERY game. They didnt have to detail to the league which games they did or did not tape.

Apparently you missed that part because you're the one claiming that the Pats didn't remember cheating because they didn't have the tape in their possession any longer.They didn't have to admit they cheated at all, but they got caught and then the cat was out of the bag. If the assumption was that they cheated during every single game under Belichik then they needed nothing from Walsh, then they're admitting they cheated during the AFC Championship games. As far as I know, once they realized the jig was up they tried to come clean to as much as they had to. It certainly isn't reaching to question the depths to which this saga goes.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

We'll find out in due time, but IIRC BB said he turned over everything that they still had in their possession. They suggested that they copied over a lot of tape and recycled it. I'm not sure that the Pats could get in trouble for the copies that Walsh had (that the Pats no longer had in their possession).

Correct. I just wonder if the issue might all be centered around where and when Walsh got those tapes. But it's all conjecture and speculation at this point...no sense watching all these other guys bash each other's skulls in over Pats love/hate until we get more info from the league. I just think it's sad that one of the most storied franchises in recent years got caught up in all this mess, regardless.

Walsh stole the tapes. How could the Patriots tell Goodell there were more tapes out there if they did not know it themselves. You are really reaching here.

Which again boils down to how much they disclosed. Did they reveal all the games that they had taped even if they did not have the evidence from those games? They didn't have to have the evidence to divulge the fact that their improprieties occured. They would certainly stand to face less punishment if the totality of the cheating was not to be discovered.But do you really think that the Pats didn't KNOW all the games that they had taped? Please. They knew it down to the exact down. Walsh stealing the tapes does not equal the cheating not happening because they no longer had the evidence of it.

Whether there were tapes or not, NE admitted to taping signals and games from 2000-2008. How much more do you want them to disclose than "we did it every game?" They admitted to doing it and at that point I do not believe they had more to give the NFL (that certainly is open for debate).If there is evidence of other wrong doing (signal jamming, stealing audio from helmets, intentionally pulling the plug on other teams' transmissions, etc.) NE will get zapped again. BUt if all Walsh has is similar to what NE gave the league I think this will go away quickly. Without any additional proof, alleging that he did other things probably will be duely noted with further investigation to see if those actions could be confirmed or denied.

And if the Walsh tapes provided show far more detail (in the information gathered, its dissemination or usefulness) then what was previously provided by the Patriots to the league?

 

[ScottyFargo]

If there is evidence of other wrong doing (signal jamming, stealing audio from helmets, intentionally pulling the plug on other teams' transmissions, etc.) NE will get zapped again. But if all Walsh has is similar to what NE gave the league I think this will go away quickly. Without any additional proof, alleging that he did other things probably will be duely noted with further investigation to see if those actions could be confirmed or denied.

I agree to that point. If it only further proves that which they've already claimed, then this hasn't done much to further any case. This is what Goodell appeared to be banking on at the outset.

 

[Wadsworth]

So then why didn't they just eliminate the rule and let everyone tape everybody?

IIRC, teams are allowed to tape things from certain designated areas in a stadium if they ask for (and generally get) permission from the league. I believe the issue for NE was that they were taping from places that they were not authorized to tape from. A lot of this is sketchy in terms of the actual rules and I believe there is a lot of grey zone.

I'm not sure how there's any grey area. A couple years ago, before all this Pats/Jets stuff, the was a minor issue at a Jags game. Marcus Stroud was injured and on the sidelines in street clothes. He had his personal camcorder with him and was using it, joking around with teammates on the sidelines. The game official stopped play and went over to the Jags sideline and told them Stroud had to put the camcorder away. Stroud said after the game said he knew he wasn't suppose to have it but thought the ref wouldn't notice. This wasn't some obscure rule that no one has ever heard of.

 

[David Yudkin]

So then why didn't they just eliminate the rule and let everyone tape everybody?

IIRC, teams are allowed to tape things from certain designated areas in a stadium if they ask for (and generally get) permission from the league. I believe the issue for NE was that they were taping from places that they were not authorized to tape from. A lot of this is sketchy in terms of the actual rules and I believe there is a lot of grey zone.

I'm not sure how there's any grey area. A couple years ago, before all this Pats/Jets stuff, the was a minor issue at a Jags game. Marcus Stroud was injured and on the sidelines in street clothes. He had his personal camcorder with him and was using it, joking around with teammates on the sidelines. The game official stopped play and went over to the Jags sideline and told them Stroud had to put the camcorder away. Stroud said after the game said he knew he wasn't suppose to have it but thought the ref wouldn't notice. This wasn't some obscure rule that no one has ever heard of.

I beleive that teams can ask to record plays, coaches, and games from behind the end zone if they ask the league and opposing team and this is pretty much a common practice. I also believe that there are certain spots and angles that are allowed and others that are not.I also think that a team could take as many still photos as they wanted from the press box with a non-video camera and could very easily accomplish exactly what the Pats did. Signal stealing is not new and has been going on for years, which IMO is why Goodell didn't make this out to be a huge ordeal.

I think that in some ways the Pats are bearing the brunt of the league's scrutiny and if Goodell went amiss it would be that he should be investigating all teams practices and then doling out more penalties to other teams. Maybe he already did that and found NE to be the only team breaking the rules, but some how I doubt it.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I think that in some ways the Pats are bearing the brunt of the league's scrutiny and if Goodell went amiss it would be that he should be investigating all teams practices and then doling out more penalties to other teams.

Yes its the Patriots who are being wronged.

 

[Wadsworth]

So then why didn't they just eliminate the rule and let everyone tape everybody?

IIRC, teams are allowed to tape things from certain designated areas in a stadium if they ask for (and generally get) permission from the league. I believe the issue for NE was that they were taping from places that they were not authorized to tape from. A lot of this is sketchy in terms of the actual rules and I believe there is a lot of grey zone.

I'm not sure how there's any grey area. A couple years ago, before all this Pats/Jets stuff, the was a minor issue at a Jags game. Marcus Stroud was injured and on the sidelines in street clothes. He had his personal camcorder with him and was using it, joking around with teammates on the sidelines. The game official stopped play and went over to the Jags sideline and told them Stroud had to put the camcorder away. Stroud said after the game said he knew he wasn't suppose to have it but thought the ref wouldn't notice. This wasn't some obscure rule that no one has ever heard of.

I beleive that teams can ask to record plays, coaches, and games from behind the end zone if they ask the league and opposing team and this is pretty much a common practice. I also believe that there are certain spots and angles that are allowed and others that are not.I also think that a team could take as many still photos as they wanted from the press box with a non-video camera and could very easily accomplish exactly what the Pats did. Signal stealing is not new and has been going on for years, which IMO is why Goodell didn't make this out to be a huge ordeal.

I think that in some ways the Pats are bearing the brunt of the league's scrutiny and if Goodell went amiss it would be that he should be investigating all teams practices and then doling out more penalties to other teams. Maybe he already did that and found NE to be the only team breaking the rules, but some how I doubt it.

None of what you said has anything to do with it being "sketchy" or a "grey zone". The rule is clear to anyone but a defense attorney. The teams know the rule, the players know the rule, the league reminded the teams of the rule right before the season. The Pats broke the rule. You can argue that it's a dumb rule or that it was reasonable to expect that the league would ignore enforcement of the rule. But the rule is plenty clear.

 

[mdog1967]

We'll find out in due time, but IIRC BB said he turned over everything that they still had in their possession. They suggested that they copied over a lot of tape and recycled it. I'm not sure that the Pats could get in trouble for the copies that Walsh had (that the Pats no longer had in their possession).

Correct. I just wonder if the issue might all be centered around where and when Walsh got those tapes. But it's all conjecture and speculation at this point...no sense watching all these other guys bash each other's skulls in over Pats love/hate until we get more info from the league. I just think it's sad that one of the most storied franchises in recent years got caught up in all this mess, regardless.

Walsh stole the tapes. How could the Patriots tell Goodell there were more tapes out there if they did not know it themselves. You are really reaching here.

Which again boils down to how much they disclosed. Did they reveal all the games that they had taped even if they did not have the evidence from those games? They didn't have to have the evidence to divulge the fact that their improprieties occured. They would certainly stand to face less punishment if the totality of the cheating was not to be discovered.But do you really think that the Pats didn't KNOW all the games that they had taped? Please. They knew it down to the exact down. Walsh stealing the tapes does not equal the cheating not happening because they no longer had the evidence of it.

Whether there were tapes or not, NE admitted to taping signals and games from 2000-2008. How much more do you want them to disclose than "we did it every game?" They admitted to doing it and at that point I do not believe they had more to give the NFL (that certainly is open for debate).If there is evidence of other wrong doing (signal jamming, stealing audio from helmets, intentionally pulling the plug on other teams' transmissions, etc.) NE will get zapped again. BUt if all Walsh has is similar to what NE gave the league I think this will go away quickly. Without any additional proof, alleging that he did other things probably will be duely noted with further investigation to see if those actions could be confirmed or denied.

And if the Walsh tapes provided show far more detail (in the information gathered, its dissemination or usefulness) then what was previously provided by the Patriots to the league?

From ROTOWORLD The NFL confirmed that the tapes turned in by former video assistant Matt Walsh will not be used to levy more punishment against the Patriots."This is consistent with what the Patriots had admitted they had been doing, consistent with what we already knew," league spokesman Greg Aiello said.

There you go Tin Man, stick that in your happy place!!

Dufas is as Dufas does. Jump the gun again. You have been measured and you have been found wanting. Come on lets hear a retort, you have none. Get back behind the skirt.

Your screen name says it all, but the closet is thrown open steel man. We all know what that means.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

From ROTOWORLD The NFL confirmed that the tapes turned in by former video assistant Matt Walsh will not be used to levy more punishment against the Patriots.

"This is consistent with what the Patriots had admitted they had been doing, consistent with what we already knew," league spokesman Greg Aiello said.

There you go Tin Man, stick that in your happy place!!

Dufas is as Dufas does. Jump the gun again. You have been measured and you have been found wanting. Come on lets hear a retort, you have none. Get back behind the skirt.

Your screen name says it all, but the closet is thrown open steel man. We all know what that means.

So the tapes didnt provide more detail or expound upon what was known.

You are pretty pissy for me simply asking Yudkin a "what if" question - that had has no answer at the time.

BTW: Didn't the NFL state it hadn't received the tapes as of today in the NY Times article?

"The N.F.L. declined to comment Wednesday night because it did not have the tapes in its possession."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/sports/f...amp;oref=slogin

I see now... Rotoworld said there would be no more penalty.

Not the NFL. (Not saying there will be more penalties, just that your post was misleading as to who made that claim).

http://cbs.sportsline.com/nfl/story/10817027/cbsnews

It is consistent with what they already knew, the Patriots were cheating through the use of illegal recordings of coaches and plays.

Certainly it doesnt state any degrees of the actual information, just that at the base illegal recording were already known.

 

[GregR_2]

Sounds like the tapes don't show anything that wasn't already admitted to and punished by the league. It will be nice if this thing can be put in the past once and for all. Too bad Goodell wasn't up front about what actually went on without Specter getting involved. I think if he'd been upfront with the public, said exactly how long it went on and to what degree, this Walsh stuff may never have come up.

Though it's probably still going to linger, because if Walsh isn't the source the Boston Globe was referring to, then people are going to speculate who it is and what is still out there undiscovered, if anything.

 

[Road Warriors]

So then why didn't they just eliminate the rule and let everyone tape everybody?

IIRC, teams are allowed to tape things from certain designated areas in a stadium if they ask for (and generally get) permission from the league. I believe the issue for NE was that they were taping from places that they were not authorized to tape from. A lot of this is sketchy in terms of the actual rules and I believe there is a lot of grey zone.

I'm not sure how there's any grey area. A couple years ago, before all this Pats/Jets stuff, the was a minor issue at a Jags game. Marcus Stroud was injured and on the sidelines in street clothes. He had his personal camcorder with him and was using it, joking around with teammates on the sidelines. The game official stopped play and went over to the Jags sideline and told them Stroud had to put the camcorder away. Stroud said after the game said he knew he wasn't suppose to have it but thought the ref wouldn't notice. This wasn't some obscure rule that no one has ever heard of.

I beleive that teams can ask to record plays, coaches, and games from behind the end zone if they ask the league and opposing team and this is pretty much a common practice. I also believe that there are certain spots and angles that are allowed and others that are not.I also think that a team could take as many still photos as they wanted from the press box with a non-video camera and could very easily accomplish exactly what the Pats did. Signal stealing is not new and has been going on for years, which IMO is why Goodell didn't make this out to be a huge ordeal.

I think that in some ways the Pats are bearing the brunt of the league's scrutiny and if Goodell went amiss it would be that he should be investigating all teams practices and then doling out more penalties to other teams. Maybe he already did that and found NE to be the only team breaking the rules, but some how I doubt it.

None of what you said has anything to do with it being "sketchy" or a "grey zone". The rule is clear to anyone but a defense attorney. The teams know the rule, the players know the rule, the league reminded the teams of the rule right before the season. The Pats broke the rule. You can argue that it's a dumb rule or that it was reasonable to expect that the league would ignore enforcement of the rule. But the rule is plenty clear.

from a Pats homer. The rule is clear. The violation is clear. The punishment is clear. These tapes show nothing new, so the original punishment covers this. I don't think the rule is necessarily grey area. It's pretty clear that they don't want taping done from anywhere the teams can access during a game. The intent is to not be able to leverage any taping during the game. The pats violated that rule, but these tapes only show that they violated that rule ( according to the reports ) It's all the same offense.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

I've been very critical of Belichek, but what a waste of time this thing turned out to be. F Walsh, that damn idiot. Whats his point with this?

 

[Road Warriors]

I've been very critical of Belichek, but what a waste of time this thing turned out to be. F Walsh, that damn idiot. Whats his point with this?

Look at me?!?

 

[radiohead417]

Guys - perhaps a dumb question, and certainly I don't want to incur the wrath of the Pats fans - but people are treating this like it's no big deal. Did I just completely miss the story when it first came out, or is it new that the Pats taped coach signals during the AFC Championship game against the Steelers?

 

[fatness]

From ROTOWORLD The NFL confirmed that the tapes turned in by former video assistant Matt Walsh will not be used to levy more punishment against the Patriots."This is consistent with what the Patriots had admitted they had been doing, consistent with what we already knew," league spokesman Greg Aiello said. .

NFL PR in full swing already. "Nothing to see here, move along."

 

[Tyrion]

Anyone know how much $$$ Kraft payed Walsh for the tape showing the Rams walkthrough?

 

[twitch]

Anyone know how much $$$ Kraft payed Walsh for the tape showing the Rams walkthrough?

Probably slightly more than your lunch money. Why dont you look that up for us.

 

[Wadsworth]

Guys - perhaps a dumb question, and certainly I don't want to incur the wrath of the Pats fans - but people are treating this like it's no big deal. Did I just completely miss the story when it first came out, or is it new that the Pats taped coach signals during the AFC Championship game against the Steelers?

It might have come out before, but since I'm not an avid Pats fan or avid Pats haters I guess missed it, too. Now at least, it seems that BB told the commish that the Pats did what they did ever since Bill was hired by the Pats. And that would of course include the Pitt playoff game among others. Assuming that is the case, it would make sense that the punishment leveled against the Pats previously would cover all past violations. So if the reports about these recent tapes are correct, there's no reason to expect any new drama.

 

[Class Dismissed]

Sounds like the tapes don't show anything that wasn't already admitted to and punished by the league. It will be nice if this thing can be put in the past once and for all. Too bad Goodell wasn't up front about what actually went on without Specter getting involved. I think if he'd been upfront with the public, said exactly how long it went on and to what degree, this Walsh stuff may never have come up.

Though it's probably still going to linger, because if Walsh isn't the source the Boston Globe was referring to, then people are going to speculate who it is and what is still out there undiscovered, if anything.

There are a couple of interesting points in the NY Times article1) Walsh was not the source for the Boston Herald story "that ruined the Pats 08 Super Bowl Experience".

2) According to the article The tapes handed over by the Pats dated back to 2007, As I recall, the league (Goodell?) initially said that the tapes handed over by the Patriots were of the 2008 preseason and the last few games of 2007, that the Patriots taped over other games.

Then in February/March we first hear from Spector that the tapes included the Steelers playoff game. Now the attorney provides the tape.

Either I'm not recalling correctly, or somebody is lying through their teeth.

 

[David Yudkin]

So then why didn't they just eliminate the rule and let everyone tape everybody?

IIRC, teams are allowed to tape things from certain designated areas in a stadium if they ask for (and generally get) permission from the league. I believe the issue for NE was that they were taping from places that they were not authorized to tape from. A lot of this is sketchy in terms of the actual rules and I believe there is a lot of grey zone.

I'm not sure how there's any grey area. A couple years ago, before all this Pats/Jets stuff, the was a minor issue at a Jags game. Marcus Stroud was injured and on the sidelines in street clothes. He had his personal camcorder with him and was using it, joking around with teammates on the sidelines. The game official stopped play and went over to the Jags sideline and told them Stroud had to put the camcorder away. Stroud said after the game said he knew he wasn't suppose to have it but thought the ref wouldn't notice. This wasn't some obscure rule that no one has ever heard of.

I beleive that teams can ask to record plays, coaches, and games from behind the end zone if they ask the league and opposing team and this is pretty much a common practice. I also believe that there are certain spots and angles that are allowed and others that are not.I also think that a team could take as many still photos as they wanted from the press box with a non-video camera and could very easily accomplish exactly what the Pats did. Signal stealing is not new and has been going on for years, which IMO is why Goodell didn't make this out to be a huge ordeal.

I think that in some ways the Pats are bearing the brunt of the league's scrutiny and if Goodell went amiss it would be that he should be investigating all teams practices and then doling out more penalties to other teams. Maybe he already did that and found NE to be the only team breaking the rules, but some how I doubt it.

None of what you said has anything to do with it being "sketchy" or a "grey zone". The rule is clear to anyone but a defense attorney. The teams know the rule, the players know the rule, the league reminded the teams of the rule right before the season. The Pats broke the rule. You can argue that it's a dumb rule or that it was reasonable to expect that the league would ignore enforcement of the rule. But the rule is plenty clear.

from a Pats homer. The rule is clear. The violation is clear. The punishment is clear. These tapes show nothing new, so the original punishment covers this. I don't think the rule is necessarily grey area. It's pretty clear that they don't want taping done from anywhere the teams can access during a game. The intent is to not be able to leverage any taping during the game. The pats violated that rule, but these tapes only show that they violated that rule ( according to the reports ) It's all the same offense.

I never said that the Pats didn't break any rules. As I mentioned earlier, to some what NE did is on par with jaywalking and to others it should be viewed as first degree murder. A case could be made either way. But the only opinion that matters is the Commissioner's.I'm not saying the Pats should have gotten off scott free for what they did, but IMO if this was such a common practice (or things like it), the COmmish should look to clean up what's going on for all teams . . . and that's the part I am not seeing.

 

[Class Dismissed]

I disagree that the only opinion that matters is the Commissioners.

Sportswriters will have the final say, on their HOF Ballots.

 

[David Yudkin]

I disagree that the only opinion that matters is the Commissioners.Sportswriters will have the final say, on their HOF Ballots.

In terms of doling out a punishment, only the Commish's opinion matters.

 

[Yitbos69]

I agree that if the Pats turned over the tapes and notes to these games with the others they gave the commish then there is nothing new here....however if these thapes were not included then it shows that they did not turn over all there tapes.......And just because they did not tape after the Jets game in 2007 does not mean that the taping from prior years did not help them.

They will always be remembered as cheaters who were caught several time and yes all there Super Bowl wins are tarnished

 

[Class Dismissed]

I disagree that the only opinion that matters is the Commissioners.Sportswriters will have the final say, on their HOF Ballots.

In terms of doling out a punishment, only the Commish's opinion matters.

In terms of doling out OFFICIAL league punishment, yes, but the league & Goodell isn't looking too good right now, and they have a credibility problem because of the way this thing has been handled, or mishandled. The Sportswriters will have the final say on their HOF Ballots, and this whole thing will be rehashed again.

 

[radiohead417]

I do think there's a potential conflict of interest with the commissioner in this situation. Nobody league official is going to want to see the history of the league tarnished. I think the best thing the league could have done is hire a George Mitchell-type whose job was to bang some heads.

It's like Ken Lay being in charge of the FCC.

 

[SuperJohn96]

What's the N.F.L.?

Who writes it that way? Just put NFL...lol

 

[identikit]

(Rotoworld) The NFL confirmed that the tapes turned in by former video assistant Matt Walsh will not be used to levy more punishment against the Patriots.

Impact: "This is consistent with what the Patriots had admitted they had been doing, consistent with what we already knew," league spokesman Greg Aiello said.

 

[Donny Loved Bowling]

Like many others in this thread, I do not believe the Walsh evidence will result in any new punishment from the league office, as it does not depict any wrongdoing not previously admitted to by Belicheck. However, the X factor in the equation is now Arlen Specter - just how far into this mess will he go?

For round 1 of Spygate, Goodell was quick to destroy the evidence before it could be leaked. This time around, I fully expect the senator to push for releasing the Walsh tapes to the media, so the viewing public can see exactly what the Pats have been up to all these years, and determine for themselves the question of cheating. Various talking heads will appear on TV, breaking down the footage, talking about what advantage it would or wouldn't give the team. Some will have an agenda, and will deftly try to smear NE's Super Bowl resume. In the end, a second round of the PR nightmare could prove more costly to the franchise than another lost draft pick.

 

[David Yudkin]

Like many others in this thread, I do not believe the Walsh evidence will result in any new punishment from the league office, as it does not depict any wrongdoing not previously admitted to by Belicheck. However, the X factor in the equation is now Arlen Specter - just how far into this mess will he go?For round 1 of Spygate, Goodell was quick to destroy the evidence before it could be leaked. This time around, I fully expect the senator to push for releasing the Walsh tapes to the media, so the viewing public can see exactly what the Pats have been up to all these years, and determine for themselves the question of cheating. Various talking heads will appear on TV, breaking down the footage, talking about what advantage it would or wouldn't give the team. Some will have an agenda, and will deftly try to smear NE's Super Bowl resume. In the end, a second round of the PR nightmare could prove more costly to the franchise than another lost draft pick.

I'm not sure anyone can force the league to hand over the tapes to the media, although I would not be surprised if Specter was allowed to view them. The NFL will again claim that this is an internal league matter and not subject to Congressional intervention and airing of their dirty laundry in full view of the public.What I don't understand is why Walsh didn't turn the tapes over to the media himself, at which point they would have plastered the most damning elements of them all over the airways. He could have given them to the media anonymously and then everything would have been out in the open.

 

[Class Dismissed]

Probably because he had an Attorney advising against it.

 

[Class Dismissed]

FWIW Mort said that Goodell will show footage of the tapes to the media on the 13th

 

[twitch]

Probably because he had an Attorney advising against it.

Those tapes were stolen property. He didnt need a lawyer's advice to recognize airing out that information wasnt real wise

 

[AB in DC]

I am of the opinion that it should have originally included a suspension for the initial infraction of the Jets game, one game minimum. However as the Patriots did turn over all incriminating evidence at the start, Goodell obviously wanted to get the ordeal over with quickly. Not issuing Belichick a suspension was a mistake.I do not see how Wade Wilson gets suspended for violation of policy but coaching staff for the Patriots did not. How will they move forward? I don't have the foggiest if the newest tape revelations will lead to any further punishment, but I doubt it. I believe that it is Goodell's intention to still move forward believing that it is the best thing for the league, and since the tapes only back up that which has been admitted, everyone will be expected to take that the punishment that has been handed out was good enough. This isn't an especially damning revelation, however the details that are brought to light because of it show that it was handled improperly from the start by the destruction of the original evidence and the tight lipped way the punishment was handed out. Now that they aren't completely in control of how to spin it they have a much worse situation on their hands.Ultimately, they gained more than they stand to lose with the cost of one draft pick for years of violation. It is impossible to gain equity in such a case, but that was hardly the objective at the start.

Who are you, and what is this piece of well-written, cogent analysis doing in the Shark Pool??

 

[gianmarco]

Probably because he had an Attorney advising against it.

Those tapes were stolen property. He didnt need a lawyer's advice to recognize airing out that information wasnt real wise

Exactly. Which makes you wonder what he was doing with these tapes to begin with and what his intentions were from the onset. Back in 2002, the Pats weren't viewed anywhere near as successful as they are now as that was just the beginning of their run. Speaks to Walsh's credibility that he would be fired and took property before leaving that didn't belong to him. This is part of the reason why I just don't believe much that's come from his mouth and why I'm not surprised nothing new surfaced. All of this hype and drawn-out affair for nothing sounds about right. He got his attention and probably got some money from somewhere as well. Mission accomplished.

 

[Workhorse]

Probably because he had an Attorney advising against it.

Those tapes were stolen property. He didnt need a lawyer's advice to recognize airing out that information wasnt real wise

Exactly. Which makes you wonder what he was doing with these tapes to begin with and what his intentions were from the onset. Back in 2002, the Pats weren't viewed anywhere near as successful as they are now as that was just the beginning of their run. Speaks to Walsh's credibility that he would be fired and took property before leaving that didn't belong to him. This is part of the reason why I just don't believe much that's come from his mouth and why I'm not surprised nothing new surfaced. All of this hype and drawn-out affair for nothing sounds about right. He got his attention and probably got some money from somewhere as well. Mission accomplished.

Well, to play Devil's Advocate, if Walsh had nefarious reasons for stealing those tapes in the first place, then he knew as a member of Belichick's staff that the practice was against league rules and a no-no. That absolutely destroys Belichick's claim that he thought that the taping was within the boundaries of the rulebook.

 

[gianmarco]

Probably because he had an Attorney advising against it.

Those tapes were stolen property. He didnt need a lawyer's advice to recognize airing out that information wasnt real wise

Exactly. Which makes you wonder what he was doing with these tapes to begin with and what his intentions were from the onset. Back in 2002, the Pats weren't viewed anywhere near as successful as they are now as that was just the beginning of their run. Speaks to Walsh's credibility that he would be fired and took property before leaving that didn't belong to him. This is part of the reason why I just don't believe much that's come from his mouth and why I'm not surprised nothing new surfaced. All of this hype and drawn-out affair for nothing sounds about right. He got his attention and probably got some money from somewhere as well. Mission accomplished.

Well, to play Devil's Advocate, if Walsh had nefarious reasons for stealing those tapes in the first place, then he knew as a member of Belichick's staff that the practice was against league rules and a no-no. That absolutely destroys Belichick's claim that he thought that the taping was within the boundaries of the rulebook.

I'm not condoning the taping or Belichick's actions by any means. I'm neither a Pat's fan nor a Belichick fan. I just think this whole story is beyond done and all of this stuff about Walsh has been completely overblown and drawn out beyond insufferable. At this point, we're in no different a spot than when this first broke and the punishment was levied. However, it's STILL being talked and even has a US Senator involved. Seriously, when is enough enough? I think there has been more than enough wrongdoing. Wrongdoing on BB's part (the taping), wrongdoing on Walsh's part (stealing property and seeking attention/money), wrongdoing on Goodell's part (his handling of this from the beginning), wrongdoing on Specter's part (overstepping his responsibilities by a touch), and wrongdoing of the media (turning every non-story into a major story without any basis). I think it's just time to finally put this to rest and move on UNLESS there is actual evidence that more has taken place and not just supposition and rumor from a single source with no credible evidence.

 

[Road Warriors]

I disagree that the only opinion that matters is the Commissioners.Sportswriters will have the final say, on their HOF Ballots.

In terms of doling out a punishment, only the Commish's opinion matters.

In terms of doling out OFFICIAL league punishment, yes, but the league & Goodell isn't looking too good right now, and they have a credibility problem because of the way this thing has been handled, or mishandled. The Sportswriters will have the final say on their HOF Ballots, and this whole thing will be rehashed again.

I think you significantly overestimate the attention span of the sportswriters of america. This will be over, and a minor footnote in the future. I will be very surprised if any of this impacts the HOF voting. Out of curiosity, who do you see being impacted? BB? Brady? Are there other HOF players from the NE championship years?

 

[IndyHavoc]

The debate over whether the tapes effected the outcome of the 2002 AFC Championship isn't worth arguing in terms of the Pats dynasty. At this point who cares, obviously the Pats won plenty of big games without tapes. What is more interesting to me is the reaction that an owner like Dan Rooney has...that this is basically a non-story. To me it seems like all NFL owners and Commish Goodell have circled the wagons hoping that Sen. Specter and NFL fans don't try to challenge whether millions of dollars were spent under the presumption of witnessing a fair contest that might not have been.

This was my thinking as well. I'm guessing everyone remotely involved in the NFL (F.O., owners, coaches, etc.) is ready for this to go away. As much as it pains me to say it, it also is lending credence to the belief that other (all?) teams have been doing this as well. I'd like to believe that the Colts (high and mighty??) aren't guilty of taping signals and trying to learn something from them....but I wouldn't be the least bit suprised. It's w/n the rules, for crying out loud. I think the only thing the rules are eliminating is trying to limit the amount of the sidelines and the angles from which you can see the signal callers (maybe making masking/shadowing a bit easier).It is only midly feasible, imo, that someone can realtime decode called in signals (like those of the Jets; 3 callers, alternated by some known rotation) and get that call down to the Offense w/n a 35 second time frame. Which is actually less than that, right? Isn't the Com. turned off with 10 seconds left? I worked with video security software for a few years, and unless there's been a big jump in the last few years pattern recognition software is fast, but I'd really have a very hard time writing something that can catch repeated/fast hand motions and then mate those up with defensive play calls.....very hard and very inaccurate...to the point that you might as well guess I'm rambling, but I guess my point is: as an admitted and die-hard Pats HATER, I really think this Walsh thing is a complete bust-o-rama and means absolutely NOTHING. Time to let this stuff go, folks. It's over. Time to play football.

 

[Road Warriors]

Sounds like the tapes don't show anything that wasn't already admitted to and punished by the league. It will be nice if this thing can be put in the past once and for all. Too bad Goodell wasn't up front about what actually went on without Specter getting involved. I think if he'd been upfront with the public, said exactly how long it went on and to what degree, this Walsh stuff may never have come up.

Though it's probably still going to linger, because if Walsh isn't the source the Boston Globe was referring to, then people are going to speculate who it is and what is still out there undiscovered, if anything.

There are a couple of interesting points in the NY Times article1) Walsh was not the source for the Boston Herald story "that ruined the Pats 08 Super Bowl Experience".

2) According to the article The tapes handed over by the Pats dated back to 2007, As I recall, the league (Goodell?) initially said that the tapes handed over by the Patriots were of the 2008 preseason and the last few games of 2007, that the Patriots taped over other games.

Then in February/March we first hear from Spector that the tapes included the Steelers playoff game. Now the attorney provides the tape.

Either I'm not recalling correctly , or somebody is lying through their teeth.

You missed the part where Goodell states that the Patriots admitted to taping back to 2000, and they recycled tapes, so only some of the most recent games were available. Again, nothing new here.

 

[phthalatemagic]

I disagree that the only opinion that matters is the Commissioners.Sportswriters will have the final say, on their HOF Ballots.

In terms of doling out a punishment, only the Commish's opinion matters.

In terms of doling out OFFICIAL league punishment, yes, but the league & Goodell isn't looking too good right now, and they have a credibility problem because of the way this thing has been handled, or mishandled. The Sportswriters will have the final say on their HOF Ballots, and this whole thing will be rehashed again.

I think you significantly overestimate the attention span of the sportswriters of america. This will be over, and a minor footnote in the future. I will be very surprised if any of this impacts the HOF voting. Out of curiosity, who do you see being impacted? BB? Brady? Are there other HOF players from the NE championship years?

I seriously doubt a decade of cheating is going to be just forgotten. BB's entire resume is dependent on that.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Do your best to be cool to each other and try not to get banned here.

TIA.

J

 

[Class Dismissed]

Sounds like the tapes don't show anything that wasn't already admitted to and punished by the league. It will be nice if this thing can be put in the past once and for all. Too bad Goodell wasn't up front about what actually went on without Specter getting involved. I think if he'd been upfront with the public, said exactly how long it went on and to what degree, this Walsh stuff may never have come up.

Though it's probably still going to linger, because if Walsh isn't the source the Boston Globe was referring to, then people are going to speculate who it is and what is still out there undiscovered, if anything.

There are a couple of interesting points in the NY Times article1) Walsh was not the source for the Boston Herald story "that ruined the Pats 08 Super Bowl Experience".

2) According to the article The tapes handed over by the Pats dated back to 2007, As I recall, the league (Goodell?) initially said that the tapes handed over by the Patriots were of the 2008 preseason and the last few games of 2007, that the Patriots taped over other games.

Then in February/March we first hear from Spector that the tapes included the Steelers playoff game. Now the attorney provides the tape.

Either I'm not recalling correctly , or somebody is lying through their teeth.

You missed the part where Goodell states that the Patriots admitted to taping back to 2000, and they recycled tapes, so only some of the most recent games were available. Again, nothing new here.

Goodell did not say that when it mattered most, in fact, I believe it was Spector who revealed that lil nugget of information.

 

[BusMan]

A touch off topic but could result in some good discussion so I'll roll with it:

If the Patriots didn't get a competitive advantage from taping opposing teams' defensive signals, why did they do it?

 

[Road Warriors]

Sounds like the tapes don't show anything that wasn't already admitted to and punished by the league. It will be nice if this thing can be put in the past once and for all. Too bad Goodell wasn't up front about what actually went on without Specter getting involved. I think if he'd been upfront with the public, said exactly how long it went on and to what degree, this Walsh stuff may never have come up.

Though it's probably still going to linger, because if Walsh isn't the source the Boston Globe was referring to, then people are going to speculate who it is and what is still out there undiscovered, if anything.

There are a couple of interesting points in the NY Times article1) Walsh was not the source for the Boston Herald story "that ruined the Pats 08 Super Bowl Experience".

2) According to the article The tapes handed over by the Pats dated back to 2007, As I recall, the league (Goodell?) initially said that the tapes handed over by the Patriots were of the 2008 preseason and the last few games of 2007, that the Patriots taped over other games.

Then in February/March we first hear from Spector that the tapes included the Steelers playoff game. Now the attorney provides the tape.

Either I'm not recalling correctly , or somebody is lying through their teeth.

You missed the part where Goodell states that the Patriots admitted to taping back to 2000, and they recycled tapes, so only some of the most recent games were available. Again, nothing new here.

Goodell did not say that when it mattered most, in fact, I believe it was Spector who revealed that lil nugget of information.

But the judge & jury on this case is Goodell. He has publicly stated he already knew this. Back in Feb. The "now the atty provides tapes" means we've got firm proof of facts already stipulated. Non-issue. But do carry on.

 

[AB in DC]

A touch off topic but could result in some good discussion so I'll roll with it:If the Patriots didn't get a competitive advantage from taping opposing teams' defensive signals, why did they do it?

Oh lordy, not again.This was discussed to death in other threads...if you really want to resurrect those threads, be my guest, but there's no reason to rehash everything that's been already been written here over the past eight months.

 

[Dexter Manley]

For all the people crying and screaming for more punishment, I'll make it really simple. Unless the Patriots explicitly denied taping the signals in any of the games that are on the new tapes (i.e. the Pats told Goodell they never taped any playoff games, etc.), then there is nothing new here that would constitute more punishment. I don't know how to make it any clearer.

As far as saying the Pats titles are tainted, etc., a great analogy for the Pats Tapegate is Barry Bonds. Bonds, like the Pats, pushed the enveloped, "cheated," or did whatever you want to call it in an attempt to gain a competitive advantage.

In both cases, we have no idea how much of an advantage, if any, each party gained by doing what they did. (And before you laugh, many experts claim athletes do not gain a signifcant advantage by using steroids, HGH, etc. Any advantage gained is purely psychological, they say. If Bonds trainer had told him he was giving him the Clear, but it was really a placebo, it's entirely possible that he would of put up similar statistics.)

In both cases, each party has/had established themselves as a great team/player after/before their transgressions. The Patriots had arugably their greatest team last season when they weren't taping games (and if you try and bring up the Jets game as tainting their whole season you are being intentionally obtuse). Bonds was arguably the greatest player in baseball before he was linked to performance enhancing drugs.

In both cases in would be naive to think other players (in Bonds' case) and other teams (in the Pats case) weren't doing the same exact thing.

To say both stories are way overblown is a gross understatement. People love to hate great teams and hate great players that they're not a fan of, for completely non-sensical reasons, so it should be no suprise when a great team or great player "cheats" that hate intensifies exponetially. Add to that the fact that both Belichek and Bonds have extremely non-likeable personalities, at least in the public's eye, and it's easy to understand why so much venom has been directed at both parties.

Both cases aren't that big of deal, imo. Also you cannot say one case is significantly worse than the other without making wild leaps in logic, as we're dealing strictly with correlations in both of them.

 

[jgb95]

If this is true, Belichick needs to be suspended, and the Patriots given another significant fine. The league needs to send a message here.

They've been fined and a 1st rounder was overly harse in my eyes. I figured it would be a 3rd. A 1st was more than even the angriest fan could have thought.Most people just hate the PATS so much they want more.There wasn't anything more than was already acknowledged and owned up to by BB and the PATS.This is over and done.In my eyes what ever Matt Walsh say to the Commish will come w/ a grain of salt as he's already lied about having the walk thru tape (even if it wasn't him that split the beans about it it was him that was spouting off at the mouth to a girl or someone in a bar trying to showoff to someone that he was someone important - i know it's a run on sentence). This guy is a dirtbag and seems to me to be helping Comcast and the Powers that Be (Senator's that need to be worring about the country and not an NFL issue) to make the NFL look foolish and I'd love to know who's paying those $500/hour legal bills.It just stinks all around.

 

[Knight who says Ni]

As a Jets fan, I have no love for the Patriots; however, this Walsh drama seems overblown to me, and I can't see anything new that he provided that would indicate that Belichick or the Patriots should be penalized further. Looking at it objectively (trust me, it's not easy to do) I really hope that this spygate thing goes away - they've been punished, let's move on