Bring Back Pat!!! Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Linky-linky Supposedly 8 tapes of 6 opponents over course of 5 games. But he sent nothing from Super Bowl, walk through or otherwise. As far as i can tell, this would not get the Pats any further punishment, as BB admitted he had been taping for a long while, basically since he got to NE. All this does is confirm that statement. Maybe this will be over now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenroom Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Linky-linky Supposedly 8 tapes of 6 opponents over course of 5 games. But he sent nothing from Super Bowl, walk through or otherwise. As far as i can tell, this would not get the Pats any further punishment, as BB admitted he had been taping for a long while, basically since he got to NE. All this does is confirm that statement. Maybe this will be over now? I guess the AFC Championship game in 2001 is not a big game. It only was the game that got the Patriots to the first superbowl! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 That's it? That is what we've been waiting for this whole time? This just doesn't make sense. Where did all this Rams talk come from? Was he paid to make the tape disappear? This can't be it, can it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budlitebrad Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 I don't remember him saying that he had a tape of the Rams' walkthrough, only that he taped it. Right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleeping King Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 I don't remember him saying that he had a tape of the Rams' walkthrough, only that he taped it. Right? The Boston Herald reported the day before this year’s Super Bowl that a tape of the Rams existed, citing an anonymous source. Walsh does not possess such a tape, Levy said. “Mr. Walsh has never claimed to have a tape of the walk-through,” Levy said in a telephone interview. “Mr. Walsh has never been the source of any of the media speculation about such a tape. Mr. Walsh was not the source for the Feb. 2 Boston Herald article.” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/sports/f...l/08nfl.html?hp The Herald started the Super Bowl walkthrough rumor and then fatso Tomase ran with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Yep. The rise of NE becoming the most successful franchise in the NFL since 2001 coinciding with NE overtly creating a significant illegal competitive advantage for themselves over that time period shouldn't bother anyone. Nor should anyone be bothered with how quickly evidence was destroyed by the NFL in their investigation of the scandal. And the way the lawyer-speak in the latest incident so carefully dances around the obvious question of the taping of the Rams' signals before the SB is merely fodder for speculation by Patriot haters and nothing else. Move along. Nothing to see here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peepinmofo Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 I thought all the tapes were supposedly destroyed though. I thought Walsh just had info, not more tapes. Werent the Pats supposed to be punished again if there were more videos? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bring Back Pat!!! Posted May 8, 2008 Author Share Posted May 8, 2008 I thought all the tapes were supposedly destroyed though. I thought Walsh just had info, not more tapes. Werent the Pats supposed to be punished again if there were more videos? Nope. They admitted to the league that they've been taping since BB got to NE, basically. And they were punished for it. The league is supposed to punish more if there was another taping; ie a walk through or a practice, or something besides a coach's signals. At least that's my understanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Check any large deposits of cash Walsh received recently. This sounds very fishy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 I thought all the tapes were supposedly destroyed though. I thought Walsh just had info, not more tapes. Werent the Pats supposed to be punished again if there were more videos? Punished again? What do you mean again? They were never punished in the first place IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peepinmofo Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Nope. They admitted to the league that they've been taping since BB got to NE, basically. And they were punished for it. The league is supposed to punish more if there was another taping; ie a walk through or a practice, or something besides a coach's signals. At least that's my understanding. 10-4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peepinmofo Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Punished again? What do you mean again? They were never punished in the first place IMHO. Maybe not what they deserved, but they lost a p 1st round pick, BB got docked 500k... They were defeinitely penalized at least to an extent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Maybe not what they deserved, but they lost a p 1st round pick, BB got docked 500k... They were defeinitely penalized at least to an extent. So they lost a draft pick - they did not lose the cap money that it would have taken to sign that draft pick so they can grab a free agent that just might pan out to be as good as a draft pick. That was a very minor slap on the wrist and was no punsihment in my mind. The fine has no bearing on the team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 (edited) Punished again? What do you mean again? They were never punished in the first place IMHO. The loss of a 1st round draft pick is seen as severe in the NFL. Teams regard those picks as gold, as can be seen when trading is done for proven players in the league and their comparable value. That said, the NFL has been nothing less than brilliantly masterful at covering this up. This could have turned into a scandal of Black Socks proportions but the league has maintained an incredibly solid front when discussing the issue and the ensuing penalties. Kraft has bought some serious good will in the league in the past and he could be reaping the benefits of that, as well as the league trying to make this go quietly away. Edited May 8, 2008 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmutts Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 In regards to Matt Walsh, the Patriots fired him. When he was terminated he was suppose to turn over everything to the Patriots. For the last 2 months, he has been covering his own ass because the Patriots or the league could have charged him. The league wants this to got to rest and it will. No Rams pre Super Bowl tape, its time to move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 The loss of a 1st round draft pick is seen as severe in the NFL. Teams regard those picks as gold, as can be seen when trading is done for proven players in the league and their comparable value. It is a lot. I wanted to see them lose playoff eligibility for 1-2 years as that would be a better deterrent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 It is a lot. I wanted to see them lose playoff eligibility for 1-2 years as that would be a better deterrent. They should just disband the team and move it to Guam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 (edited) It is a lot. I wanted to see them lose playoff eligibility for 1-2 years as that would be a better deterrent. Again, the problem with that is the damage that a scandal of that magnitude does to the league as a whole. There isn't a professional sports league (or maybe even 99% of companies in any business) that guards its public image as carefully and crafts public perception as acutely as the NFL does. I can't help but think that those constraints have altered the punishment. Edited May 8, 2008 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Yep. The rise of NE becoming the most successful franchise in the NFL since 2001 coinciding with NE overtly creating a significant illegal competitive advantage for themselves over that time period shouldn't bother anyone. Nor should anyone be bothered with how quickly evidence was destroyed by the NFL in their investigation of the scandal. And the way the lawyer-speak in the latest incident so carefully dances around the obvious question of the taping of the Rams' signals before the SB is merely fodder for speculation by Patriot haters and nothing else. Move along. Nothing to see here. BB, I'm not too bright sometimes. Could you please explain, in detail, how these tapes provided a significant competetive advantage? I understand how it's illegal so you can skip that part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 (edited) I could care less about what fines they got or what draft picks they lost, If I was ticket holder of the opposing team, I would want my money back. They cheated... ETA: imagine the lawsuit and how much that would cost them...how many games??? Edited May 8, 2008 by Outshined Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 BB, I'm not too bright sometimes. Could you please explain, in detail, how these tapes provided a significant competetive advantage? I understand how it's illegal so you can skip that part. They were stealing D signals. The D has to get its signals in to the field ASAP since the O can go with a no-huddle offense or hurry to the LoS (in other words, the O controls the tempo of play and the D being reactive has to have its play in well beforehand), while the O has significantly more time to call a play. Knowing what D play/formation is called, the O can easily adjust its play to run a play that puts that particular D play/formation at a disadvantage. You know how some O plays just seem to go a long ways because they happen to be called and the D is in the wrong place at the wrong time - say a RB swing pass when the OLB on that side happens to be crashing the edge on a blitz, or the DT & MLB running a doo-dad and the O happens to be running a trap that allows the OG to negate both players with the same block? Well, if the O understands what the D will be doing before the O calls the play, thay can put in a play that takes specific advantage of that D. And it's not that difficult to do if you have the D signals - get the D play/formation in the first 5 seconds, run your play chart in the next 5 seconds, all while your O is in the huddle, and then 10-15 seconds to install the O play and get to the LoS. Well within the alloted time between plays that is allowed. If you've got a QB like Brady, he'll butcher a D when he knows what is coming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budlitebrad Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Well the competitive advantage was the camera, not the stealing of signals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 It should be noted that using a D headset like the O does would completely negate any advantage that NE gained illegally in this manner. They ought to call the decision to allow D headsets "The Belichick rule". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patriots Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 It should be noted that using a D headset like the O does would completely negate any advantage that NE gained illegally in this manner. They ought to call the decision to allow D headsets "The Belichick rule". If you knew that your signals were being stolen couldn't you change your signals so that you would know that NE though you were going to do something but then you did the opposite? Plus you should be changing your signals from game to game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 (edited) If you knew that your signals were being stolen couldn't you change your signals so that you would know that NE though you were going to do something but then you did the opposite? Plus you should be changing your signals from game to game. So you're putting the onus of keeping Belichick from cheating on the other team? That's convenient. How about that he & his team just play by the same rules everyone else does? Edited May 8, 2008 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.