Walsh Hands Over 8 Tapes (1 Viewer)

[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.

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.

I think the crux of the issue in this respect is that, IIRC in his punishment ruling Goodell did not reveal that BB admitted the taping had gone on not only during his entire Patriots tenure, but even back when he was the Cleveland Brown's coach as well. He didn't give any specific time frame, that I recall, other than to say that the tapes turned over were 6 tapes, all from 2006, without mentioning the time frame of the notes that went all the way back to 2000. He didn't actually lie as his statement was factually correct. But his partial addressing of the timing created the erroneous illusion that the taping only went on in 2006. Though his statement was factually correct, it was misleading from the truth.Personally, I believe this was entirely deliberate on the NFL's part to try to keep to a minimum debate about whether championship seasons were affected by the taping, though we'll never know. In any event, it wasn't until Specter got involved and asked the direct questions of which games exactly the taping went on in, that the NFL's hand was forced to admit more openly the extent of the taping going back to 2000. What is revealed now is consistent with those later statements.

So to Class Dismissed, no, I don't think anyone lied outright. Well, except for BB's weak excuse as to why he thought it was legal. What did happen is Goodell let the public misinterpret his statement when he only gave confirmation the taping was happening in 2006, but did not give details about what went on prior to that until Specter pushed him on it.

 

[twitch]

Reporter Jay Glazer had a pretty significant role back in September in breaking this story, somehow getting ahold of the Jets/Pats video before anyone else. He has a fair perspective on the story. And here's a link to his current views.

GLAZER - Fox

 

[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.

I think the crux of the issue in this respect is that, IIRC in his punishment ruling Goodell did not reveal that BB admitted the taping had gone on not only during his entire Patriots tenure, but even back when he was the Cleveland Brown's coach as well. He didn't give any specific time frame, that I recall, other than to say that the tapes turned over were 6 tapes, all from 2006, without mentioning the time frame of the notes that went all the way back to 2000. He didn't actually lie as his statement was factually correct. But his partial addressing of the timing created the erroneous illusion that the taping only went on in 2006. Though his statement was factually correct, it was misleading from the truth.Personally, I believe this was entirely deliberate on the NFL's part to try to keep to a minimum debate about whether championship seasons were affected by the taping, though we'll never know. In any event, it wasn't until Specter got involved and asked the direct questions of which games exactly the taping went on in, that the NFL's hand was forced to admit more openly the extent of the taping going back to 2000. What is revealed now is consistent with those later statements.

So to Class Dismissed, no, I don't think anyone lied outright. Well, except for BB's weak excuse as to why he thought it was legal. What did happen is Goodell let the public misinterpret his statement when he only gave confirmation the taping was happening in 2006, but did not give details about what went on prior to that until Specter pushed him on it.

I believe this is correct.Thanks

 

[Workhorse]

Michael Holley on WEEI said earlier today that the tapes turned over back up the contention that the tapes were never intended to be used in real time because of the way they were edited together with the taped signals to show multiple angles of the plays that ensued. Unless you think the Patriots had a whole in-game video editing lab at work during games, of course...

The tapes seem to have used as a scouting tool for future games. Just thought it bears mentioning.

It was also interesting that Patriots PR head Stacey James issued a "no comment" on whether or not the Patriots would sue the Boston Herald for the story about taping the Rams walkthrough. Despite Walsh's attorney now claming that he's not the source of that story, nobody in the local or national media is buying that one...

 

[ScottyFargo]

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.

I think the crux of the issue in this respect is that, IIRC in his punishment ruling Goodell did not reveal that BB admitted the taping had gone on not only during his entire Patriots tenure, but even back when he was the Cleveland Brown's coach as well. He didn't give any specific time frame, that I recall, other than to say that the tapes turned over were 6 tapes, all from 2006, without mentioning the time frame of the notes that went all the way back to 2000. He didn't actually lie as his statement was factually correct. But his partial addressing of the timing created the erroneous illusion that the taping only went on in 2006. Though his statement was factually correct, it was misleading from the truth.Personally, I believe this was entirely deliberate on the NFL's part to try to keep to a minimum debate about whether championship seasons were affected by the taping, though we'll never know. In any event, it wasn't until Specter got involved and asked the direct questions of which games exactly the taping went on in, that the NFL's hand was forced to admit more openly the extent of the taping going back to 2000. What is revealed now is consistent with those later statements.

So to Class Dismissed, no, I don't think anyone lied outright. Well, except for BB's weak excuse as to why he thought it was legal. What did happen is Goodell let the public misinterpret his statement when he only gave confirmation the taping was happening in 2006, but did not give details about what went on prior to that until Specter pushed him on it.

Yeah, there's been a whole other level of spin going on here for quite some time, and while I can understand why people would complain that Specter is butting in where he isn't needed, there are things that came to light because of his questions that otherwise would have had a blind eye turned towards. I agree to the point that other posters have made here, that if nothing new was gained here atleast it the public will know more specifics about a few of the games, the style in which the cheating occured, and the length that was gone to get this information. Not that anyone believed Belichik at the time, but having the tapes open for discussion will shut down his contention that he felt he simply misinterpreted a rule.

 

[PatsFanCT]

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

A little less than it would have cost for them to hire Marvin "Hit man" Harrison to shoot his ### up with a 50 caliber. Seems like they made the right choice here. Imagine hiring Harrison to kill Walsh only to find out there was no new evidence? They saved some money right there.

 

[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.

I think the crux of the issue in this respect is that, IIRC in his punishment ruling Goodell did not reveal that BB admitted the taping had gone on not only during his entire Patriots tenure, but even back when he was the Cleveland Brown's coach as well. He didn't give any specific time frame, that I recall, other than to say that the tapes turned over were 6 tapes, all from 2006, without mentioning the time frame of the notes that went all the way back to 2000. He didn't actually lie as his statement was factually correct. But his partial addressing of the timing created the erroneous illusion that the taping only went on in 2006. Though his statement was factually correct, it was misleading from the truth.Personally, I believe this was entirely deliberate on the NFL's part to try to keep to a minimum debate about whether championship seasons were affected by the taping, though we'll never know. In any event, it wasn't until Specter got involved and asked the direct questions of which games exactly the taping went on in, that the NFL's hand was forced to admit more openly the extent of the taping going back to 2000. What is revealed now is consistent with those later statements.

So to Class Dismissed, no, I don't think anyone lied outright. Well, except for BB's weak excuse as to why he thought it was legal. What did happen is Goodell let the public misinterpret his statement when he only gave confirmation the taping was happening in 2006, but did not give details about what went on prior to that until Specter pushed him on it.

Yeah, there's been a whole other level of spin going on here for quite some time, and while I can understand why people would complain that Specter is butting in where he isn't needed, there are things that came to light because of his questions that otherwise would have had a blind eye turned towards. I agree to the point that other posters have made here, that if nothing new was gained here atleast it the public will know more specifics about a few of the games, the style in which the cheating occured, and the length that was gone to get this information. Not that anyone believed Belichik at the time, but having the tapes open for discussion will shut down his contention that he felt he simply misinterpreted a rule.

I found this on the Boston Herald Websitehttp://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/sports/p...php/2007/10/11/

Bob Costas: “I had a conversation with Roger Goodell today, a phone conversation. He told me several things on the record. One, he said it was always his intention — and he has the documents to prove it in his communications with the Patriots — always his intention to destroy the tapes and the notes once he had them in his possession. He remains satisfied that he got all the tapes and the notes. When he got them it didn’t change his essential understanding of the situation at the time that he levied the penalty following their being caught against the Jets. He said that the Jets situation was not an isolated situation. There were other games and perhaps other seasons. But when I asked him directly whether this practice affected any of the playoff games in their Super Bowl seasons or the Super Bowl games themselves, he said he found no evidence that it did.”

I guess it comes down to what "Affected" means, and I wonder if Costas feels Goodell was being straightforward with him?

Now The NFL has the Matt Walsh tape of the AFC Championship Game, I guess for Goodell, it all goes back to "Affected" which really can't be proven.

Also found this interview with Peter King on WEEI and found it interesting, Peter King Is a voter for the HOF. It's about 20 minutes long. Too sum it up, PK is really bothered by all this and IMO, I don't think anything that has been revealed since, does anything but bolster his disenchantment with Bellichick.

It's an interesting discussion and well worth a click

http://audio.weei.com/m/12528285/peter_kin....htm?pageid=782

I'm still looking for Goodells Transcript with Costas on NBC Football Night In America.

 

[twitch]

October 12th? You provide an October 12th transcript? What's the point? That was 7 months ago.

 

[Wadsworth]

October 12th? You provide an October 12th transcript? What's the point? That was 7 months ago.

Are you serious? The point is the commish said to his knowledge it did not affect any playoff games. Now that there are tapes the story from the NFL is that they knew about it all along. You don't see a bit of a credibility gap? And arguing that the NFL knew of the taping but said it didn't "affect" the games is pure lawyer spin. I'm not saying this is the smoking gun or anything dramatic. But there is certainly an obvious reason to post that article.

 

[David Yudkin]

October 12th? You provide an October 12th transcript? What's the point? That was 7 months ago.

Are you serious? The point is the commish said to his knowledge it did not affect any playoff games. Now that there are tapes the story from the NFL is that they knew about it all along. You don't see a bit of a credibility gap? And arguing that the NFL knew of the taping but said it didn't "affect" the games is pure lawyer spin. I'm not saying this is the smoking gun or anything dramatic. But there is certainly an obvious reason to post that article.

Everyone will have a differnt viewpoint on this, so each opinion is only one of many.As I see it, the league is suggesting that even the Steelers playoff game film was fully edited and matched up with different information, angles, cameras, etc. which is representative of a full scale editing job. By extension, I believe their conclusion is that tape was clearly put together well after the game was concluded and could be viewed to support the Pats claim that they did not use game day film and instead gathered intel for future meetings against that opponent.As even Goodell has said, teams are constantly trying to steal signals and get an advantage, and he indicated teams should as a common practice continue to change their signals beause everyone knows their opponents are trying to get a read on them.To that end, if teams are routinely changing their signals, having a tape for future use with a high likelihood that there would be a new signaling system in place is what likely caused Goodell to determine that there really was not much of a competitive advantage gained by NE.And before I get flamed, I do agree with those saying that if they didn't gain an advantage, why did they persist on doing it for 7 years.

 

[pats3in4]

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?

Yes, the Pats taped the opposing coaches' signals during the January 2002 AFCCG. However, the tape that Walsh turned over contained the following:- Shots of the coaches making their hand signals during the game, immediately followed by (spliced with)

- Shots of the play, often from two different angles (including endzone shots)

How likely does anyone think such a tape was put together during the game? Think of the logistics. The Pats would have to have access to all of that footage, parse through it and splice it onsite. All while nobody is looking. That's a serious undertaking.

Belichick's defense all along has been that the tapes were to be used for future games against the opponent. This particular tape was dated the day after the AFCCG, so that likely was the day it was spliced together. The Pats knew they would be playing the Steelers sometime in the 2002 season (turned out to be the opener), so this tape was probably put together in anticipation of that game. This is consistent with BB's defense.

Condemn him for the taping since he wasn't supposed to do that, but I think it's a stretch to say that the AFCCG tape actually helped the Pats win that AFCCG.

Edit: Cross-posted with Yudkin. Also, regarding the competitive advantage the Pats got, they definitely got good info from the tapes even if the teams changed their signals. They timed how long certain coordinators/coaches signaled their plays in; The coaches who took longer were prime targets to run the no-huddle against. Note that any team can gather such info without a camera, but using a camera was more convenient and also might catch a coach too lazy to change signals between meetings of the teams.

 

[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?

Yes, the Pats taped the opposing coaches' signals during the January 2002 AFCCG. However, the tape that Walsh turned over contained the following:- Shots of the coaches making their hand signals during the game, immediately followed by (spliced with)

- Shots of the play, often from two different angles (including endzone shots)

How likely does anyone think such a tape was put together during the game? Think of the logistics. The Pats would have to have access to all of that footage, parse through it and splice it onsite. All while nobody is looking. That's a serious undertaking.

Belichick's defense all along has been that the tapes were to be used for future games against the opponent. This particular tape was dated the day after the AFCCG, so that likely was the day it was spliced together. The Pats knew they would be playing the Steelers sometime in the 2002 season (turned out to be the opener), so this tape was probably put together in anticipation of that game. This is consistent with BB's defense.

Condemn him for the taping since he wasn't supposed to do that, but I think it's a stretch to say that the AFCCG tape actually helped the Pats win that AFCCG.

1. How many tapes did the Pats turn over to the NFL? 2. If you are only doing it for future use, do you really tape over all but your last 6 or 7 tapes? Seems like a pretty short sighted version of "future".

Not that it matters. Trying to steal signs isn't uncommon and that is not what the issue was in the first place. But much like Goodell tactfully dodging the playoff question until presented with evidence to the contrary, saying tapes are for future use and then taping over them begs a rather large degree of faith.

 

[GregR_2]

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?

Yes, the Pats taped the opposing coaches' signals during the January 2002 AFCCG. However, the tape that Walsh turned over contained the following:- Shots of the coaches making their hand signals during the game, immediately followed by (spliced with)

- Shots of the play, often from two different angles (including endzone shots)

How likely does anyone think such a tape was put together during the game? Think of the logistics. The Pats would have to have access to all of that footage, parse through it and splice it onsite. All while nobody is looking. That's a serious undertaking.

Belichick's defense all along has been that the tapes were to be used for future games against the opponent. This particular tape was dated the day after the AFCCG, so that likely was the day it was spliced together. The Pats knew they would be playing the Steelers sometime in the 2002 season (turned out to be the opener), so this tape was probably put together in anticipation of that game. This is consistent with BB's defense.

Condemn him for the taping since he wasn't supposed to do that, but I think it's a stretch to say that the AFCCG tape actually helped the Pats win that AFCCG.

1. How many tapes did the Pats turn over to the NFL? 2. If you are only doing it for future use, do you really tape over all but your last 6 or 7 tapes? Seems like a pretty short sighted version of "future".

Not that it matters. Trying to steal signs isn't uncommon and that is not what the issue was in the first place. But much like Goodell tactfully dodging the playoff question until presented with evidence to the contrary, saying tapes are for future use and then taping over them begs a rather large degree of faith.

You do once you have the useful information in an easier to access form, like the notes they took and allegedly handed over to Goodell at the same time as the tapes.It's a lot easier to look at a spreadsheet and see that "closed fist" was used for a cover 2 in 2001 and for a mike blitz in 2002, than it is to have to scroll back through video tapes to find that signal whenever it was used. Once you have recorded the signal and the resulting play in an easier to access format, the tape's value would be much more limited.

 

[pats3in4]

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?

Yes, the Pats taped the opposing coaches' signals during the January 2002 AFCCG. However, the tape that Walsh turned over contained the following:- Shots of the coaches making their hand signals during the game, immediately followed by (spliced with)

- Shots of the play, often from two different angles (including endzone shots)

How likely does anyone think such a tape was put together during the game? Think of the logistics. The Pats would have to have access to all of that footage, parse through it and splice it onsite. All while nobody is looking. That's a serious undertaking.

Belichick's defense all along has been that the tapes were to be used for future games against the opponent. This particular tape was dated the day after the AFCCG, so that likely was the day it was spliced together. The Pats knew they would be playing the Steelers sometime in the 2002 season (turned out to be the opener), so this tape was probably put together in anticipation of that game. This is consistent with BB's defense.

Condemn him for the taping since he wasn't supposed to do that, but I think it's a stretch to say that the AFCCG tape actually helped the Pats win that AFCCG.

1. How many tapes did the Pats turn over to the NFL? 2. If you are only doing it for future use, do you really tape over all but your last 6 or 7 tapes? Seems like a pretty short sighted version of "future".

Not that it matters. Trying to steal signs isn't uncommon and that is not what the issue was in the first place. But much like Goodell tactfully dodging the playoff question until presented with evidence to the contrary, saying tapes are for future use and then taping over them begs a rather large degree of faith.

1. I don't know.2. I'd assume the tapes have a short shelf life: one season, two tops. With both coaching and player turnover, I'd assume things change so much every few years to make the tapes obsolete. Heck, the Pats' entire playbooks from 2003 and 2004, including their audibles, are available online in PDF format. You can bet they've changed things up since then.

 

[twitch]

October 12th? You provide an October 12th transcript? What's the point? That was 7 months ago.

Are you serious? The point is the commish said to his knowledge it did not affect any playoff games. Now that there are tapes the story from the NFL is that they knew about it all along. You don't see a bit of a credibility gap? And arguing that the NFL knew of the taping but said it didn't "affect" the games is pure lawyer spin. I'm not saying this is the smoking gun or anything dramatic. But there is certainly an obvious reason to post that article.

Youre kidding, right? Did you even get under what context that statement was delivered and for what reasoning that 7 month old interview was provided? To decpipher exactly how Peter King will cast his HOF vote in likely another 10 or so years, or whenever Bill Belichick retires from coaching and even becomes a candidate. So suggesting some statements Peter King makes ONE MONTH after the incident how he'll determine the Hall of Fame fate of Belichick is just a little simple minded. That's the 'obvious reason' one isolated interview dating that far back is completely irrelevant. Alot can change in 10 years, let alone 7 months. If youre going to provide a Peter King statement on the situation, at least make a fairly current one.

 

[Class Dismissed]

I find it hard to believe they were using Tapes, wouldn't an SDS card be much easier.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

I'm honestly tired and bored with all of this and don't really care if anything new comes of it or not. But, man, how anyone can argue that this wasn't cheating is beyond me.

The other seven tapes are more sophisticated. They show shots of the opposing coaches’ signals, followed immediately by a shot of the play, usually from the end zone camera, Levy said.

The tape from the A.F.C. championship game is the most extensive, showing two angles of each play.

I'm done with it, new season let's move on. They cheated, they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. I don't buy that they are supposedly the greatest coaching staff and organization in football didn't know it was illegal.They're masterminds at all these things, drafting, coaching, managing a multi hundred million dollar organization but I'm then supposed to believe they didn't know the rule.

Whatever, let's just move on. Don't tell me the Pats didn't cheat and I won't tell you that all the players on the Cowboy's team I'd like to have for my neighbors.

 

[Class Dismissed]

October 12th? You provide an October 12th transcript? What's the point? That was 7 months ago.

Are you serious? The point is the commish said to his knowledge it did not affect any playoff games. Now that there are tapes the story from the NFL is that they knew about it all along. You don't see a bit of a credibility gap? And arguing that the NFL knew of the taping but said it didn't "affect" the games is pure lawyer spin. I'm not saying this is the smoking gun or anything dramatic. But there is certainly an obvious reason to post that article.

Youre kidding, right? Did you even get under what context that statement was delivered and for what reasoning that 7 month old interview was provided? To decpipher exactly how Peter King will cast his HOF vote in likely another 10 or so years, or whenever Bill Belichick retires from coaching and even becomes a candidate. So suggesting some statements Peter King makes ONE MONTH after the incident how he'll determine the Hall of Fame fate of Belichick is just a little simple minded. That's the 'obvious reason' one isolated interview dating that far back is completely irrelevant. Alot can change in 10 years, let alone 7 months. If youre going to provide a Peter King statement on the situation, at least make a fairly current one.

He's not talking about Peter King, He's talking about Bob Costas and his conversations with Goodell.

 

[BusMan]

OK, so the Patriots perceived that they were getting something useful out of this practice, which can be inferred from the fact that they taped signals in the first place. This argument is strengthened when you consider that they continued the practice in Week 1 of 2007 despite the off season memo from Goodell reinforcing the prohibited nature of the practice.

So, in that sense, I shouldn't believe any of this "they didn't gain an advantage" schtick. If they didn't gain any advantage, the Patriots are idiots, right?

To soften that statement a bit, I can see a scenario where the Patriots videotape their opponents for purely legal, ethical scouting purposes. They also taped the hand signals as a sort of possible "icing on the cake," if you will. If said team hadn't updated the signals by the next time they played---BOOM; big time plus. If not, at least they have regular scouting tapes.

 

[Otis]

Did they get any video of the Giants beating them in the Super Bowl?

 

[JamesTheScot]

You do once you have the useful information in an easier to access form, like the notes they took and allegedly handed over to Goodell at the same time as the tapes.It's a lot easier to look at a spreadsheet and see that "closed fist" was used for a cover 2 in 2001 and for a mike blitz in 2002, than it is to have to scroll back through video tapes to find that signal whenever it was used. Once you have recorded the signal and the resulting play in an easier to access format, the tape's value would be much more limited.

Exactly. Taping the Steelers signals in the playoffs wasn't a competitive advantage in that game. It would only be an advantage in future games AFTER the staff had an opportunity to break it down and match up different shots and compare/contrast them to other plays. Think about it. Teams use fake signals all the time. It takes time to filter through the garbage to find the nugget of actual signal. It then takes time to decipher if it's a formation vs. play call. But since both teams were deep in the playoffs, there was a fair chance that NE might face Pit in the playoffs the next season, thus taping those signals would be a worthwhile investment. The same would hold true for division opponents that NE would face multiple times over the next few seasons. There isn't much reason to tape signals in a one-off game against a non-conference or non-division opponent that won't have the same coaching staff when you next face them in 3-4 years.Why aren't there tons of tapes? Because coaching staffs on non-conference/non-division teams are going to change before you get to face them again and make use of your spyware. So you don't even tape some games. And the tapes/notes from last year go out the window as soon as your division rival hires a new coach or offensive coordinator, or just change signals as teams frequently do. So you recycle and tape over old information that isn't of any use.For you that want to blast the Pats for not turning in all the tapes...How in the hell can the Pats turn over tapes in 2007 that went missing back in 2000? Do you really believe that BB knew Walsh stuffed them in his duffle bag on his last day at work back in 2000 and had them squirreled away under his mattress for almost a decade? Geez.

 

[GregR_2]

OK, so the Patriots perceived that they were getting something useful out of this practice, which can be inferred from the fact that they taped signals in the first place. This argument is strengthened when you consider that they continued the practice in Week 1 of 2007 despite the off season memo from Goodell reinforcing the prohibited nature of the practice.So, in that sense, I shouldn't believe any of this "they didn't gain an advantage" schtick. If they didn't gain any advantage, the Patriots are idiots, right?To soften that statement a bit, I can see a scenario where the Patriots videotape their opponents for purely legal, ethical scouting purposes. They also taped the hand signals as a sort of possible "icing on the cake," if you will. If said team hadn't updated the signals by the next time they played---BOOM; big time plus. If not, at least they have regular scouting tapes.

I pretty much agree. Three ridiculous statements that are frequently made from either side of the Spygate aisle:1. The Patriots got no advantage at all. If you believe this, then you're pretty much indicating their coaches are morons to have wasted the resources on it for 7 years in New England plus the previous stint in Cleveland.2. The Patriots only won championships because they cheated. No one but the Patriots know how much this helped them or not. And after BB's "explanation" for why he thought it was legal, I wouldn't take their word on it at face value anyway. But no one knows, so to speak like it was even clearly a major factor is just sowing BS.3. The Pats going 16-0 without the cheating is some sort of indication the cheating didn't help them. Ridiculous thing to say. The two have no relationship. If I cheat on all my tests and finally get caught, then study harder for the next one and get an A+ without cheating, does that mean my cheating didn't affect my grade on those previous tests? Of course not. Same thing here.

 

[twitch]

OK, so the Patriots perceived that they were getting something useful out of this practice, which can be inferred from the fact that they taped signals in the first place. This argument is strengthened when you consider that they continued the practice in Week 1 of 2007 despite the off season memo from Goodell reinforcing the prohibited nature of the practice.So, in that sense, I shouldn't believe any of this "they didn't gain an advantage" schtick. If they didn't gain any advantage, the Patriots are idiots, right?To soften that statement a bit, I can see a scenario where the Patriots videotape their opponents for purely legal, ethical scouting purposes. They also taped the hand signals as a sort of possible "icing on the cake," if you will. If said team hadn't updated the signals by the next time they played---BOOM; big time plus. If not, at least they have regular scouting tapes.

I pretty much agree. Three ridiculous statements that are frequently made from either side of the Spygate aisle:1. The Patriots got no advantage at all. If you believe this, then you're pretty much indicating their coaches are morons to have wasted the resources on it for 7 years in New England plus the previous stint in Cleveland.2. The Patriots only won championships because they cheated. No one but the Patriots know how much this helped them or not. And after BB's "explanation" for why he thought it was legal, I wouldn't take their word on it at face value anyway. But no one knows, so to speak like it was even clearly a major factor is just sowing BS.3. The Pats going 16-0 without the cheating is some sort of indication the cheating didn't help them. Ridiculous thing to say. The two have no relationship. If I cheat on all my tests and finally get caught, then study harder for the next one and get an A+ without cheating, does that mean my cheating didn't affect my grade on those previous tests? Of course not. Same thing here.

Dude, you cant dumb it down to that level. Taking one test and getting an A+ on it in comparison to going 16-0 in the NFL?? Something that's never been done in the history of football? How many A+'s do you think have been earned during our lifetime? Somewhere in the billions? Lets at least be fairly accurate in our context. You seem to think going undefeated and winning 17 straight ball games with a huge bullseye on your back is something that's fairly routine. I know they made it look pretty easy, but jeez. Some perspective please, for God's sake.

 

[Franknbeans]

Wasn't that the second time the Pats played the Steelers that season? If so, it seems likely that they could have used the information they gleaned from the first game (whether taped or not) to figure out what the play-calling was in the Championship game. Just a thought.

 

[GregR_2]

OK, so the Patriots perceived that they were getting something useful out of this practice, which can be inferred from the fact that they taped signals in the first place. This argument is strengthened when you consider that they continued the practice in Week 1 of 2007 despite the off season memo from Goodell reinforcing the prohibited nature of the practice.So, in that sense, I shouldn't believe any of this "they didn't gain an advantage" schtick. If they didn't gain any advantage, the Patriots are idiots, right?To soften that statement a bit, I can see a scenario where the Patriots videotape their opponents for purely legal, ethical scouting purposes. They also taped the hand signals as a sort of possible "icing on the cake," if you will. If said team hadn't updated the signals by the next time they played---BOOM; big time plus. If not, at least they have regular scouting tapes.

I pretty much agree. Three ridiculous statements that are frequently made from either side of the Spygate aisle:1. The Patriots got no advantage at all. If you believe this, then you're pretty much indicating their coaches are morons to have wasted the resources on it for 7 years in New England plus the previous stint in Cleveland.2. The Patriots only won championships because they cheated. No one but the Patriots know how much this helped them or not. And after BB's "explanation" for why he thought it was legal, I wouldn't take their word on it at face value anyway. But no one knows, so to speak like it was even clearly a major factor is just sowing BS.3. The Pats going 16-0 without the cheating is some sort of indication the cheating didn't help them. Ridiculous thing to say. The two have no relationship. If I cheat on all my tests and finally get caught, then study harder for the next one and get an A+ without cheating, does that mean my cheating didn't affect my grade on those previous tests? Of course not. Same thing here.

Dude, you cant dumb it down to that level. Taking one test and getting an A+ on it in comparison to going 16-0 in the NFL?? Something that's never been done in the history of football? How many A+'s do you think have been earned during our lifetime? Somewhere in the billions? Lets at least be fairly accurate in our context. You seem to think going undefeated and winning 17 straight ball games with a huge bullseye on your back is something that's fairly routine. I know they made it look pretty easy, but jeez. Some perspective please, for God's sake.

Explain why their 2007 performance has such a direct bearing on the videotaping being there or not. If you ask anyone above a 5 year old why the Patriots improved you'll hear things like "Because they added 3 good receivers including Randy Moss" and "because they played with more motivation than they had in the past" and "because their division sucked and they had a pretty easy schedule". How do you ignore those changes as being insignificant enough compared to the lack of video taping, that the Pats weren't going to improve to a large degree whether they had their illegal notes to help them or not?

 

[pats3in4]

Wasn't that the second time the Pats played the Steelers that season? If so, it seems likely that they could have used the information they gleaned from the first game (whether taped or not) to figure out what the play-calling was in the Championship game. Just a thought.

Pats didn't play the Steelers during the '01 season. Maybe you're thinking of '04.

 

[twitch]

OK, so the Patriots perceived that they were getting something useful out of this practice, which can be inferred from the fact that they taped signals in the first place. This argument is strengthened when you consider that they continued the practice in Week 1 of 2007 despite the off season memo from Goodell reinforcing the prohibited nature of the practice.So, in that sense, I shouldn't believe any of this "they didn't gain an advantage" schtick. If they didn't gain any advantage, the Patriots are idiots, right?To soften that statement a bit, I can see a scenario where the Patriots videotape their opponents for purely legal, ethical scouting purposes. They also taped the hand signals as a sort of possible "icing on the cake," if you will. If said team hadn't updated the signals by the next time they played---BOOM; big time plus. If not, at least they have regular scouting tapes.

I pretty much agree. Three ridiculous statements that are frequently made from either side of the Spygate aisle:1. The Patriots got no advantage at all. If you believe this, then you're pretty much indicating their coaches are morons to have wasted the resources on it for 7 years in New England plus the previous stint in Cleveland.2. The Patriots only won championships because they cheated. No one but the Patriots know how much this helped them or not. And after BB's "explanation" for why he thought it was legal, I wouldn't take their word on it at face value anyway. But no one knows, so to speak like it was even clearly a major factor is just sowing BS.3. The Pats going 16-0 without the cheating is some sort of indication the cheating didn't help them. Ridiculous thing to say. The two have no relationship. If I cheat on all my tests and finally get caught, then study harder for the next one and get an A+ without cheating, does that mean my cheating didn't affect my grade on those previous tests? Of course not. Same thing here.

Dude, you cant dumb it down to that level. Taking one test and getting an A+ on it in comparison to going 16-0 in the NFL?? Something that's never been done in the history of football? How many A+'s do you think have been earned during our lifetime? Somewhere in the billions? Lets at least be fairly accurate in our context. You seem to think going undefeated and winning 17 straight ball games with a huge bullseye on your back is something that's fairly routine. I know they made it look pretty easy, but jeez. Some perspective please, for God's sake.

Explain why their 2007 performance has such a direct bearing on the videotaping being there or not. If you ask anyone above a 5 year old why the Patriots improved you'll hear things like "Because they added 3 good receivers including Randy Moss" and "because they played with more motivation than they had in the past" and "because their division sucked and they had a pretty easy schedule". How do you ignore those changes as being insignificant enough compared to the lack of video taping, that the Pats weren't going to improve to a large degree whether they had their illegal notes to help them or not?

Im not ignoring anything, least of all the difficulty of reeling off 17 straight wins. I dont care if every player was an HOFer and 10 of their opponents were winless. The fact is they went undefeated and it hadnt been done. Improving to a large degree is recognizable. Winning 18 straight? That's remarkable. And as Id said, unprecedented.

 

[Kit Fisto]

I don't think this can be said any clearer, so all of you Pats-bashers out there who troll these threads, please read this twice if you don't get it the first time:

THE PATRIOTS WERE NOT PUNISHED FOR TAPING OPPONENTS SIGNALS! THEY WERE PUNISHED FOR THE LOCATION OF THEIR CAMERA! ALL TEAMS TAPE OPPOSING COACHES! ALL TEAMS! SOME TAPE FROM THE COACHES BOX; SOME TAPE ILLEGALLY FROM THE SIDELINES AND GET RIGHTFULLY PUNISHED FOR IT.

Let go of the hate and focus on your team. Sheesh!

 

[Class Dismissed]

Wasn't that the second time the Pats played the Steelers that season? If so, it seems likely that they could have used the information they gleaned from the first game (whether taped or not) to figure out what the play-calling was in the Championship game. Just a thought.

Pats didn't play the Steelers during the '01 season. Maybe you're thinking of '04.

It was in 2004 that they played twice, in fact, Arlen Specter addressed this with GoodellFrom Specters Website



In an Oct. 31, 2004, game against the Steelers, Tom Brady was sacked four times and threw two interceptions. The Patriots lost, 34-20. When the teams met again in that AFC Championship on Jan. 27, 2005, Brady was sacked twice and threw no interceptions, and the Patriots won, 41-27. Specter asked Goodell whether the Patriots had spied against the Steelers; Goodell told him they had. Goodell denied, however, that they had spied on the Eagles in Super Bowl XXXIX on Feb. 5, 2005.

Which makes Goodell's remarks to Costas even more dubious.

Goodell's continued bungling of this really does a disservice to the NFL and the Patriots Organization.

 

[GregR_2]

OK, so the Patriots perceived that they were getting something useful out of this practice, which can be inferred from the fact that they taped signals in the first place. This argument is strengthened when you consider that they continued the practice in Week 1 of 2007 despite the off season memo from Goodell reinforcing the prohibited nature of the practice.

So, in that sense, I shouldn't believe any of this "they didn't gain an advantage" schtick. If they didn't gain any advantage, the Patriots are idiots, right?

To soften that statement a bit, I can see a scenario where the Patriots videotape their opponents for purely legal, ethical scouting purposes. They also taped the hand signals as a sort of possible "icing on the cake," if you will. If said team hadn't updated the signals by the next time they played---BOOM; big time plus. If not, at least they have regular scouting tapes.

I pretty much agree. Three ridiculous statements that are frequently made from either side of the Spygate aisle:1. The Patriots got no advantage at all. If you believe this, then you're pretty much indicating their coaches are morons to have wasted the resources on it for 7 years in New England plus the previous stint in Cleveland.

2. The Patriots only won championships because they cheated. No one but the Patriots know how much this helped them or not. And after BB's "explanation" for why he thought it was legal, I wouldn't take their word on it at face value anyway. But no one knows, so to speak like it was even clearly a major factor is just sowing BS.

3. The Pats going 16-0 without the cheating is some sort of indication the cheating didn't help them. Ridiculous thing to say. The two have no relationship. If I cheat on all my tests and finally get caught, then study harder for the next one and get an A+ without cheating, does that mean my cheating didn't affect my grade on those previous tests? Of course not. Same thing here.

Dude, you cant dumb it down to that level. Taking one test and getting an A+ on it in comparison to going 16-0 in the NFL?? Something that's never been done in the history of football? How many A+'s do you think have been earned during our lifetime? Somewhere in the billions? Lets at least be fairly accurate in our context. You seem to think going undefeated and winning 17 straight ball games with a huge bullseye on your back is something that's fairly routine. I know they made it look pretty easy, but jeez. Some perspective please, for God's sake.

Explain why their 2007 performance has such a direct bearing on the videotaping being there or not. If you ask anyone above a 5 year old why the Patriots improved you'll hear things like "Because they added 3 good receivers including Randy Moss" and "because they played with more motivation than they had in the past" and "because their division sucked and they had a pretty easy schedule". How do you ignore those changes as being insignificant enough compared to the lack of video taping, that the Pats weren't going to improve to a large degree whether they had their illegal notes to help them or not?

Im not ignoring anything, least of all the difficulty of reeling off 17 straight wins. I dont care if every player was an HOFer and 10 of their opponents were winless. The fact is they went undefeated and it hadnt been done. Improving to a large degree is recognizable. Winning 18 straight? That's remarkable. And as Id said, unprecedented.

No one is disputing they went undefeated in the regular seaosn.Are you going to answer the question that was asked?

 

[pats3in4]

Wasn't that the second time the Pats played the Steelers that season? If so, it seems likely that they could have used the information they gleaned from the first game (whether taped or not) to figure out what the play-calling was in the Championship game. Just a thought.

Pats didn't play the Steelers during the '01 season. Maybe you're thinking of '04.

It was in 2004 that they played twice, in fact, Arlen Specter addressed this with GoodellFrom Specters Website



In an Oct. 31, 2004, game against the Steelers, Tom Brady was sacked four times and threw two interceptions. The Patriots lost, 34-20. When the teams met again in that AFC Championship on Jan. 27, 2005, Brady was sacked twice and threw no interceptions, and the Patriots won, 41-27. Specter asked Goodell whether the Patriots had spied against the Steelers; Goodell told him they had. Goodell denied, however, that they had spied on the Eagles in Super Bowl XXXIX on Feb. 5, 2005.

It wouldn't surprise me that the Pats had taped the Steelers in the January 2005 AFCCG because the Pats knew they would play the Steelers in the upcoming '05 season. It also doesn't surprise me that the Pats didn't tape the Eagles in SB39 because they were not playing the Eagles until '07 at the earliest (save for a SB rematch) at which time the tape would probably be obsolete. This seems consistent with Belichick's stated reasoning of taping teams for future games.

 

[twitch]

OK, so the Patriots perceived that they were getting something useful out of this practice, which can be inferred from the fact that they taped signals in the first place. This argument is strengthened when you consider that they continued the practice in Week 1 of 2007 despite the off season memo from Goodell reinforcing the prohibited nature of the practice.

So, in that sense, I shouldn't believe any of this "they didn't gain an advantage" schtick. If they didn't gain any advantage, the Patriots are idiots, right?

To soften that statement a bit, I can see a scenario where the Patriots videotape their opponents for purely legal, ethical scouting purposes. They also taped the hand signals as a sort of possible "icing on the cake," if you will. If said team hadn't updated the signals by the next time they played---BOOM; big time plus. If not, at least they have regular scouting tapes.

I pretty much agree. Three ridiculous statements that are frequently made from either side of the Spygate aisle:1. The Patriots got no advantage at all. If you believe this, then you're pretty much indicating their coaches are morons to have wasted the resources on it for 7 years in New England plus the previous stint in Cleveland.

2. The Patriots only won championships because they cheated. No one but the Patriots know how much this helped them or not. And after BB's "explanation" for why he thought it was legal, I wouldn't take their word on it at face value anyway. But no one knows, so to speak like it was even clearly a major factor is just sowing BS.

3. The Pats going 16-0 without the cheating is some sort of indication the cheating didn't help them. Ridiculous thing to say. The two have no relationship. If I cheat on all my tests and finally get caught, then study harder for the next one and get an A+ without cheating, does that mean my cheating didn't affect my grade on those previous tests? Of course not. Same thing here.

Dude, you cant dumb it down to that level. Taking one test and getting an A+ on it in comparison to going 16-0 in the NFL?? Something that's never been done in the history of football? How many A+'s do you think have been earned during our lifetime? Somewhere in the billions? Lets at least be fairly accurate in our context. You seem to think going undefeated and winning 17 straight ball games with a huge bullseye on your back is something that's fairly routine. I know they made it look pretty easy, but jeez. Some perspective please, for God's sake.

Explain why their 2007 performance has such a direct bearing on the videotaping being there or not. If you ask anyone above a 5 year old why the Patriots improved you'll hear things like "Because they added 3 good receivers including Randy Moss" and "because they played with more motivation than they had in the past" and "because their division sucked and they had a pretty easy schedule". How do you ignore those changes as being insignificant enough compared to the lack of video taping, that the Pats weren't going to improve to a large degree whether they had their illegal notes to help them or not?

Im not ignoring anything, least of all the difficulty of reeling off 17 straight wins. I dont care if every player was an HOFer and 10 of their opponents were winless. The fact is they went undefeated and it hadnt been done. Improving to a large degree is recognizable. Winning 18 straight? That's remarkable. And as Id said, unprecedented.

No one is disputing they went undefeated in the regular seaosn.Are you going to answer the question that was asked?

What do you wanna hear? that they made improvements on their roster that would help them go friggin' UNDEFEATED??? Seriously? There have been talented, talented teams in this league travel down the barrel of an NFL schedule and not come close to going undefeated. Go look up the names of that '94 Niners roster. Or those 90s Cowboys. Do you want to hear that they won all of their games because they added Randy Moss and Wes Welker? Adalius Thomas? because they had a brilliant '07 draft? Because they function better under extreme scrutiny? Maybe they were better off without the taping to begin with. Who knows? Im sure there a multitude of reasons that go into a team winning 18 straight games. Im not going to trick myself into thinking I have that specific answer, and Im just puzzled as you think a Joe like me would have such knowledge. They won 18 straight because they were an incredibly talented, well-coached, highly-driven, highly-focused team with a chip on their shoulder and a lot to prove. Theyre led by one of the better QBs any of us will ever see, the stars were completely aligned, they got lucky and caught some breaks, were helped by a few timely injuries suffered by opposing teams, and frankly they seemed pissed that their legacy was being challenged. Can you buy any of that?

 

[GregR_2]

...No one is disputing they went undefeated in the regular seaosn.Are you going to answer the question that was asked?

What do you wanna hear? that they made improvements on their roster that would help them go friggin' UNDEFEATED??? Seriously? There have been talented, talented teams in this league travel down the barrel of an NFL schedule and not come close to going undefeated. Go look up the names of that '94 Niners roster. Or those 90s Cowboys. Do you want to hear that they won all of their games because they added Randy Moss and Wes Welker? Adalius Thomas? because they had a brilliant '07 draft? Because they function better under extreme scrutiny? Maybe they were better off without the taping to begin with. Who knows? Im sure there a multitude of reasons that go into a team winning 18 straight games. Im not going to trick myself into thinking I have that specific answer, and Im just puzzled as you think a Joe like me would have such knowledge. They won 18 straight because they were an incredibly talented, well-coached, highly-driven, highly-focused team with a chip on their shoulder and a lot to prove. Theyre led by one of the better QBs any of us will ever see, the stars were completely aligned, they got lucky and caught some breaks, were helped by a few timely injuries suffered by opposing teams, and frankly they seemed pissed that their legacy was being challenged. Can you buy any of that?

I said it was ridiculous to claim that doing better the year they didn't videotape meant that the cheating hadn't been of any help to them. You started arguing with me about it.If you recognize that there are a slew of improvements the Patriots made that would make the lost gain of the cheating pale in comparison, why are you arguing?

 

[twitch]

...No one is disputing they went undefeated in the regular seaosn.Are you going to answer the question that was asked?

What do you wanna hear? that they made improvements on their roster that would help them go friggin' UNDEFEATED??? Seriously? There have been talented, talented teams in this league travel down the barrel of an NFL schedule and not come close to going undefeated. Go look up the names of that '94 Niners roster. Or those 90s Cowboys. Do you want to hear that they won all of their games because they added Randy Moss and Wes Welker? Adalius Thomas? because they had a brilliant '07 draft? Because they function better under extreme scrutiny? Maybe they were better off without the taping to begin with. Who knows? Im sure there a multitude of reasons that go into a team winning 18 straight games. Im not going to trick myself into thinking I have that specific answer, and Im just puzzled as you think a Joe like me would have such knowledge. They won 18 straight because they were an incredibly talented, well-coached, highly-driven, highly-focused team with a chip on their shoulder and a lot to prove. Theyre led by one of the better QBs any of us will ever see, the stars were completely aligned, they got lucky and caught some breaks, were helped by a few timely injuries suffered by opposing teams, and frankly they seemed pissed that their legacy was being challenged. Can you buy any of that?

I said it was ridiculous to claim that doing better the year they didn't videotape meant that the cheating hadn't been of any help to them. You started arguing with me about it.If you recognize that there are a slew of improvements the Patriots made that would make the lost gain of the cheating pale in comparison, why are you arguing?

I would just say read post 178. a couple of times. carefully. and dont compare winning 18 straight games against an NFL schedule to aceing a math test. it doesnt work real well.

 

[Gr00vus]

ESPN has a story up about how one of the tapes is breaking down offensive signals, not defensive ones. Did we know that they were taping offensive as well as defensive signals already (I didn't)?

I don't understand the argument about how the tapes couldn't have had anything to do with their success this year - it's my understanding that the tapes were used to prepare for subsequent games, so previous tapings would definitely have benefited them this year, even if they were no longer taping games this season.

Besides that, since it's been proven that they're fine with going all out to cheat in this manner, I for one have to entertain the possibility that they're cheating in other ways as well. I used to have respect for this franchise. I don't anymore.

 

[LDotson]

Maybe on May 13 Matt will release other evidence of different types of cheating like audio jamming, audio recordings that prove BB or Kraft knew it was illegal all along, audio of offense or defensive line calls, offensive play calling recordings of QB headsets, etc. There was ealier, hardly publized rumors of these types of cheating when the story first broke.

Who knows how far they took it once they got away with video taping. Technology gets better every year.

There has to be more to it if Matt took it this far. Will we find out the whole story? Will Matt be paid off first? Who has the Rams tape then?

 

[David Yudkin]

Maybe on May 13 Matt will release other evidence of different types of cheating like audio jamming, audio recordings that prove BB or Kraft knew it was illegal all along, audio of offense or defensive line calls, offensive play calling recordings of QB headsets, etc. There was ealier, hardly publized rumors of these types of cheating when the story first broke.Who knows how far they took it once they got away with video taping. Technology gets better every year.There has to be more to it if Matt took it this far. Will we find out the whole story? Will Matt be paid off first? Who has the Rams tape then?

I think the issue for Walsh at this point is short of actual proof (ie tapes or other solid evidence), anything he claims will be very hard for him to substantiate.I also am now wondering that if there IS a tape of the Rams walkthrough, where it came from and how it was obtained becomes a bit harder to link to the Pats. I'm not saying that it happened this way, but what would happen if the Rams taped their own walkthrough and now someone got a hold of the tape and is trying to pin it on the Pats. So just because there allegedly is a tape, who knows where it came from. (Maybe there is something on it that would tie in the Pts, but who knows at this point . . .)

 

[PatsFanCT]

ESPN has a story up about how one of the tapes is breaking down offensive signals, not defensive ones. Did we know that they were taping offensive as well as defensive signals already (I didn't)?I don't understand the argument about how the tapes couldn't have had anything to do with their success this year - it's my understanding that the tapes were used to prepare for subsequent games, so previous tapings would definitely have benefited them this year, even if they were no longer taping games this season.Besides that, since it's been proven that they're fine with going all out to cheat in this manner, I for one have to entertain the possibility that they're cheating in other ways as well. I used to have respect for this franchise. I don't anymore.

Of course they are cheating in other ways as well. Many, many other ways. Ways that will only come out when Belichick turns into a 40 foot cycloptical monster with high tech instruments that will make you and everyone else on the planet obey his every command and make you all as evil as he is as he rules the world.Too bad your team doesn't steal signals. Otherwise you could be sitting in the fast lane to minion evilness as well.

 

[jurb26]

This thread makes me both sad and laugh at the same time.

 

[GregR_2]

...No one is disputing they went undefeated in the regular seaosn.Are you going to answer the question that was asked?

What do you wanna hear? that they made improvements on their roster that would help them go friggin' UNDEFEATED??? Seriously? There have been talented, talented teams in this league travel down the barrel of an NFL schedule and not come close to going undefeated. Go look up the names of that '94 Niners roster. Or those 90s Cowboys. Do you want to hear that they won all of their games because they added Randy Moss and Wes Welker? Adalius Thomas? because they had a brilliant '07 draft? Because they function better under extreme scrutiny? Maybe they were better off without the taping to begin with. Who knows? Im sure there a multitude of reasons that go into a team winning 18 straight games. Im not going to trick myself into thinking I have that specific answer, and Im just puzzled as you think a Joe like me would have such knowledge. They won 18 straight because they were an incredibly talented, well-coached, highly-driven, highly-focused team with a chip on their shoulder and a lot to prove. Theyre led by one of the better QBs any of us will ever see, the stars were completely aligned, they got lucky and caught some breaks, were helped by a few timely injuries suffered by opposing teams, and frankly they seemed pissed that their legacy was being challenged. Can you buy any of that?

I said it was ridiculous to claim that doing better the year they didn't videotape meant that the cheating hadn't been of any help to them. You started arguing with me about it.If you recognize that there are a slew of improvements the Patriots made that would make the lost gain of the cheating pale in comparison, why are you arguing?

I would just say read post 178. a couple of times. carefully. and dont compare winning 18 straight games against an NFL schedule to aceing a math test. it doesnt work real well.

Post 178 didn't have anything to do with the topic the first time, and didn't at second read either. The magnitude of the feat has little to do with it. It's a simple question. You have one thing that changed, cheating or not, that you are interested in knowing the effect of. But the only results you have to work off of included a large number of other changes which are likely to be a lot more major than the cheating was. I don't claim you can apply the scientific method to sports, because it is not a situation we can control. Sometimes we have to guestimate and speculate at the best answer we can. But I would have thought it would be obvious the same concept holds that the more you change, the less certain you can be of what effect came from the one change you're interested in.It's illogical to say that doing well in 2007 implies that cheating never gave a benefit in 2006 and before. There were too many major changes that happened that would reasonably expect to dwarf the cheating contribution. All that you can logically say is that the improvement from all the positive changes going into 2007 vastly outweighed the detrimental changes, including the cheating. If you can't understand that the analogy I gave is demonstrating exactly that point, it's not worth trying to explain it further. If you can't understand that my argument is also saying the situation is too complex to draw the conclusion I posted about, and that you saying the real matter is even more complex with more changes just supports my argument... it's not worth discussing further.

 

[twitch]

...No one is disputing they went undefeated in the regular seaosn.Are you going to answer the question that was asked?

What do you wanna hear? that they made improvements on their roster that would help them go friggin' UNDEFEATED??? Seriously? There have been talented, talented teams in this league travel down the barrel of an NFL schedule and not come close to going undefeated. Go look up the names of that '94 Niners roster. Or those 90s Cowboys. Do you want to hear that they won all of their games because they added Randy Moss and Wes Welker? Adalius Thomas? because they had a brilliant '07 draft? Because they function better under extreme scrutiny? Maybe they were better off without the taping to begin with. Who knows? Im sure there a multitude of reasons that go into a team winning 18 straight games. Im not going to trick myself into thinking I have that specific answer, and Im just puzzled as you think a Joe like me would have such knowledge. They won 18 straight because they were an incredibly talented, well-coached, highly-driven, highly-focused team with a chip on their shoulder and a lot to prove. Theyre led by one of the better QBs any of us will ever see, the stars were completely aligned, they got lucky and caught some breaks, were helped by a few timely injuries suffered by opposing teams, and frankly they seemed pissed that their legacy was being challenged. Can you buy any of that?

I said it was ridiculous to claim that doing better the year they didn't videotape meant that the cheating hadn't been of any help to them. You started arguing with me about it.If you recognize that there are a slew of improvements the Patriots made that would make the lost gain of the cheating pale in comparison, why are you arguing?

I would just say read post 178. a couple of times. carefully. and dont compare winning 18 straight games against an NFL schedule to aceing a math test. it doesnt work real well.

Post 178 didn't have anything to do with the topic the first time, and didn't at second read either. The magnitude of the feat has little to do with it. It's a simple question. You have one thing that changed, cheating or not, that you are interested in knowing the effect of. But the only results you have to work off of included a large number of other changes which are likely to be a lot more major than the cheating was. I don't claim you can apply the scientific method to sports, because it is not a situation we can control. Sometimes we have to guestimate and speculate at the best answer we can. But I would have thought it would be obvious the same concept holds that the more you change, the less certain you can be of what effect came from the one change you're interested in.It's illogical to say that doing well in 2007 implies that cheating never gave a benefit in 2006 and before. There were too many major changes that happened that would reasonably expect to dwarf the cheating contribution. All that you can logically say is that the improvement from all the positive changes going into 2007 vastly outweighed the detrimental changes, including the cheating. If you can't understand that the analogy I gave is demonstrating exactly that point, it's not worth trying to explain it further. If you can't understand that my argument is also saying the situation is too complex to draw the conclusion I posted about, and that you saying the real matter is even more complex with more changes just supports my argument... it's not worth discussing further.

good. thank god. have a nice day.

 

[DropKick]

I think the point Arlen Sphincter is missing is that the Steelers and Eagles didn't play well enough to win. The Steelers the victim of their own over-confidence; the Eagles can point to the (lack of) composure of one Donovan McNabb.

If you wish to discuss cheating... how many people subscribe to the theory that T.O (I heal real quick) was on HGH to get back in time (weeks ahead of doctor's estimates) for the SB?

 

[Tyrion]

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

A little less than it would have cost for them to hire Marvin "Hit man" Harrison to shoot his ### up with a 50 caliber. Seems like they made the right choice here. Imagine hiring Harrison to kill Walsh only to find out there was no new evidence? They saved some money right there.

I am thinking it was probably a little more. Imagine the speculation if Walsh turned up dead or missing? With the wealth Kraft has at his disposal it just wouldn't be worth it. There is a reason it took so long for Walsh to to come forward. He had to negotiate his deal and get paid. No way Walsh went through all of this to not get a pay check.

 

[greenroom]

I think the point Arlen Sphincter is missing is that the Steelers and Eagles didn't play well enough to win. The Steelers the victim of their own over-confidence; the Eagles can point to the (lack of) composure of one Donovan McNabb.

If you wish to discuss cheating... how many people subscribe to the theory that T.O (I heal real quick) was on HGH to get back in time (weeks ahead of doctor's estimates) for the SB?

Proof??? We have proof that the Pats did cheat. Do you have proof that TO was on HGH?? I would love to see what you have. But I have a feeling you are

 

[AB in DC]

There has to be more to it if Matt took it this far.

 

[DropKick]

I think the point Arlen Sphincter is missing is that the Steelers and Eagles didn't play well enough to win. The Steelers the victim of their own over-confidence; the Eagles can point to the (lack of) composure of one Donovan McNabb.

If you wish to discuss cheating... how many people subscribe to the theory that T.O (I heal real quick) was on HGH to get back in time (weeks ahead of doctor's estimates) for the SB?

Proof??? We have proof that the Pats did cheat. Do you have proof that TO was on HGH?? I would love to see what you have. But I have a feeling you are

I have a video of T.O taking HGH right after he kissed you on the cheek. Really, It wouldn't amount to much had you not looked so pleased by the encounter.As soon as the NFL grants me immunity, I'll make it all public. The truth will be heard!

PS. Neither the Steelers or Eagles played well enough to win. Film at 11!

 

[kevinray]

I'm still really confused about this filming co-coordinators is illegal business. I've yet to see a rule that places restrictions on what you can film on the field of play only where you can have the camera. I thought this was a big public misconception but Goodells talking about this now like that was the issue. I posted an argument a while back for the legality of filming anything on the field here http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...p;#entry8203114 and I was wondering if there was anything else thats come out from a rule book or bylaw that makes filming coaches illegal?

 

[radiohead417]

I think I've yet to meet a Pats fan that thinks the Pats did anything wrong. I've also yet to meet a non-Pats fan that doesn't thing the Pats were wrong. This threads have the feel of political debate, in that no one is actually listening (reading) to anything anyone is saying, just spewing any analogy or article that agrees with what they think.

I *do* think Pats fans are letting Belichick off too easy. He gave people ammo to try to discredit anything the Pats did in their dynasty, and I think if I were a Pats fan, I'd be a little more pissed about this whole thing *to* Belichick. At the same time, I'm not taking any sides until ALL the information is revealed. I'm skeptical about the league's investigation, because I believe they have a serious conflict of interest, in that it's clearly in the league's best interest to exonerate the Patriots and not discredit the record book. Nobody wants to see asterisks in the sports almanac.

As Joe posted in the Pats fan thread, let's take it easy on this thing?

 

[Bossman]

The other seven tapes are more sophisticated. They show shots of the opposing coaches’ signals, followed immediately by a shot of the play, usually from the end zone camera, Levy said.The tape from the A.F.C. championship game is the most extensive, showing two angles of each play.

To me, this is evidence that the tapes were NOT used for the game in which they were taken....since the tapes were edited to show two different camera angles of coaches then players.This is what Belichick thought was his "loophole" in the rule.... "no filming is permited ...for use during that game"Clearly the team was using the film after the game otherwise there would be no need to edit.As Belichick told Goodell, it was for offseason use (or at least between games use).Belichick adamantly denied ever authorizing taping of another teams practice / walkthrough.There is no "loophole" for that one.Belichick may be dumb but he's not stupid.imo the tapes held by Walsh are likely copies of the tapes the Patriots turned over to the NFL... nothing new here.This is over.(edit to add... they would not have had time to "edit film" during a game)

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

Hi everyone.

As Yudkin suggested, I'll not participate in a re-hash of well documented opinions.

Congratulations to the Giants on a great superbowl championship this year.

Good luck to all teams this season.