Football Walsh Gives NFL 8 Tapes of Pats Cheating - Page 5

**noa** · 05-07-2008, 08:58 PM

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3386162

Ex-Pats employee Walsh sends NFL video of Pats' taping

After brokering a deal to protect himself, former New England Patriots employee Matt Walsh has finally turned over his evidence in the videotaping controversy.
The New York Times reported and the NFL confirmed on Wednesday that Walsh sent eight tapes to the league that show the Patriots recording the play-calling signals of five opponents in six games between 2000 and 2002.
Taping the signals of opposing teams is prohibited by league rules, and the Patriots were already fined $750,000 and docked a first-round draft choice in September for taping the New York Jets. NFL commissioner Roger Goodell left open the possibility that more penalties could be levied.
A Patriots employee from 1997-2003, Walsh reached an agreement to turn over the tapes in exchange for being indemnified from all future legal fees.
The New York Times obtained a list of the Walsh tapes, and the league confirmed that list, which says that the Patriots taped offensive and defensive coaches in regular-season games against the Miami Dolphins, Buffalo Bills, Cleveland Browns and San Diego Chargers. The team also made video of the Pittsburgh Steelers in the 2002 AFC Championship Game.
Walsh's tapes do not include the video of the St. Louis Rams' walkthrough before the 2002 Super Bowl, as reported by the Boston Herald.
"Mr. Walsh has never claimed to have a tape of the walk-through," said Walsh's lawyer Michael Levy, according to the Times. "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."
Walsh has separate meetings scheduled on Tuesday with the commissioner and Senator Arlen Specter in which he is expected to provide additional details about the taping process.
Under his agreement with the league, Walsh can retain copies of his videotapes, but he cannot use them without the consent of the NFL.

Amnorix · 05-08-2008, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock

They basically got away with it, may as well move on.

Please. If you had a 1st round pick taken away from you you'd be screaming about it. Given the Pats success with 1st rounders, that was a starting-caliber player we lost for the next 5+ years.

Brock · 05-08-2008, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Please. If you had a 1st round pick taken away from you you'd be screaming about it. Given the Pats success with 1st rounders, that was a starting-caliber player we lost for the next 5+ years.

I wouldn't be screaming about it if we had cheated our way to three super bowl victories. Quit your goddamn poor mouthing. You got over, congratulations.

irishjayhawk · 05-08-2008, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Please. If you had a 1st round pick taken away from you you'd be screaming about it. Given the Pats success with 1st rounders, that was a starting-caliber player we lost for the next 5+ years.

But see, that's misleading. The #7 pick was yours too. But they took the lower pick. That's more telling than "just a first round pick".

Amnorix · 05-08-2008, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock

I wouldn't be screaming about it if we had cheated our way to three super bowl victories. Quit your goddamn poor mouthing. You got over, congratulations.

I hope some day we find out exactly what they were used for, and what kind of competitive advantage, if any, it provided. I've never seen anything that would suggest that it gave much of one, but OTOH, if it didn't give any, then why do it?

Given that it seems nearly everyone in NFL coaching circles either did it themselves or knew that everyone else did it, I'm fairly convinced it didn't provide much of an edge -- or at least no more of an edge than other nefarious practices that go on such as Howard Mudd's infamous signal stealing efforts, etc.

Maybe someday we'll know for sure one way or the other.

Amnorix · 05-08-2008, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irishjayhawk

But see, that's misleading. The #7 pick was yours too. But they took the lower pick. That's more telling than "just a first round pick".

No, they took the PATRIOTS' pick, not a pick that we acquired by trade. One was our pick, and the other was a pick we got by a trade. Why should the penalty be worse because we made the trade? If we had made no trade, then it's obviously going to have to be the 31 pick.

Instead, we made a trade so instead of the 31 pick its the 7 pick? How does that make sense?

And how is my statement "misleading". With a #7 pick I'd expect a Pro Bowler, and with the #31 I'd expect a solid starter. Instead of 2 starters (one likely exceptional), we only have 1.

Logan Mankins was the #32 pick a few years ago and is now an All Pro. The Pats know WTF they're doing. This isn't Bradway losing a pick here...

irishjayhawk · 05-08-2008, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amnorix

No, they took the PATRIOTS' pick, not a pick that we acquired by trade. One was our pick, and the other was a pick we got by a trade. Why should the penalty be worse because we made the trade? If we had made no trade, then it's obviously going to have to be the 31 pick.

Instead, we made a trade so instead of the 31 pick its the 7 pick? How does that make sense?

Umm, the penalty was a first round pick. Regardless of a trade, the #7 pick was the PATRIOTS pick. So it's fair game.

They fine you a first round pick. You have two first round picks. The higher one is the one that should be chosen. How does that not make sense?

Amnorix · 05-08-2008, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irishjayhawk

Umm, the penalty was a first round pick. Regardless of a trade, the #7 pick was the PATRIOTS pick. So it's fair game.

They fine you a first round pick. You have two first round picks. The higher one is the one that should be chosen. How does that not make sense?

Obviously it does to you because you want to exact the maximum vengeance. In theory they could have tried to take whatever they want. The entire 2008 draft. The next 10.

But they do have more to worry about than keeping irishjayhawk happy. They exacted the heaviest punsihment, BY FAR, on any team in NFL history. Sorry if it wasn't enough for you, but perhaps you should weigh in your scales of justice the fact that it's not at all clear that this entire thing was either (1) isolated to the Patriots, or (2) all that significant in terms of determining outcomes of games.

You want the death penalty for what may well end up being driving 60 in a 55. I'm not sure that's all it was, but you're not sure either.

Garcia Bronco · 05-08-2008, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Obviously it does to you because you want to exact the maximum vengeance. In theory they could have tried to take whatever they want. The entire 2008 draft. The next 10.

But they do have more to worry about than keeping irishjayhawk happy. They exacted the heaviest punsihment, BY FAR, on any team in NFL history. Sorry if it wasn't enough for you, but perhaps you should weigh in your scales of justice the fact that it's not at all clear that this entire thing was either (1) isolated to the Patriots, or (2) all that significant in terms of determining outcomes of games.

You want the death penalty for what may well end up being driving 60 in a 55. I'm not sure that's all it was, but you're not sure either.

Your team got fined that much because they broke a written rule after being explicitly told not to do it in a written letter. BB is a disgrace and he always has been. Don't try an act like New England is a victim. It's pathetic.

Chiefnj2 · 05-08-2008, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Given that it seems nearly everyone in NFL coaching circles either did it themselves or knew that everyone else did it, I'm fairly convinced it didn't provide much of an edge -- .

Where is your proof that "nearly everyone in the NFL coaching circles" did it themselves?

irishjayhawk · 05-08-2008, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Obviously it does to you because you want to exact the maximum vengeance. In theory they could have tried to take whatever they want. The entire 2008 draft. The next 10.

But they do have more to worry about than keeping irishjayhawk happy. They exacted the heaviest punsihment, BY FAR, on any team in NFL history. Sorry if it wasn't enough for you, but perhaps you should weigh in your scales of justice the fact that it's not at all clear that this entire thing was either (1) isolated to the Patriots, or (2) all that significant in terms of determining outcomes of games.

You want the death penalty for what may well end up being driving 60 in a 55. I'm not sure that's all it was, but you're not sure either.

They fined them a 1st round pick. And they skipped over the higher 1st round pick. I'm sorry, but that's pretty lame. And it's tapes of 8 games, and probably the little of the 7 seasons. And you're telling me one 1st round pick (WHICH THEY SKIPPED OVER THE HIGHER ONE) is fair?

Amnorix · 05-08-2008, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

Your team got fined that much because they broke a written rule after being explicitly told not to do it in a written letter. BB is a disgrace and he always has been. Don't try an act like New England is a victim. It's pathetic.

From a Broncos fan no less. This is rich...

Amnorix · 05-08-2008, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

Where is your proof that "nearly everyone in the NFL coaching circles" did it themselves?

That's only half my quote, isn't it.

I think many did it (not most, but many), and that those that didn't do it, knew that many others did. As proof I primarily cite Jimmy Johnson's statement that what the tape showed was the same as what he was taugh tto do by a Chiefs scout waay back when.

This wasn't some nefarious invention on Belichick's part.

**noa** · 05-08-2008, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amnorix

This wasn't some nefarious invention on Belichick's part.

Probably not. He should have just been more careful about disposing of the evidence and knowing who to trust.

Amnorix · 05-08-2008, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irishjayhawk

They fined them a 1st round pick. And they skipped over the higher 1st round pick. I'm sorry, but that's pretty lame. And it's tapes of 8 games, and probably the little of the 7 seasons. And you're telling me one 1st round pick (WHICH THEY SKIPPED OVER THE HIGHER ONE) is fair?

Why yes, I believe that's exactly what I'm saying.

You have NO IDEA (neither do I), whether the Patriots just ended up being the scapegoat for 8 other teams that had been doing this right up until last year. Nor do you have any idea (neither do I) whether this stuff really made a lick of difference in actually, you know, winning and losing games.

And let me point out that when you are caught for speeding, you aren't fined for every speeding violation you had during your entire life.

I know you think BB should have been forced to commit seppuku, but there isn't any logic in that based on what you know.

Amnorix · 05-08-2008, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noa

Probably not. He should have just been more careful about disposing of the evidence and knowing who to trust.

What he should have done was to STOP when the NFL issued written requirements that he do so. That was really, stunning stupid.

05-07-2008, 08:58 PM
noa Band Join Date: Sep 2005 Casino cash: $-634547	Walsh Gives NFL 8 Tapes of Pats Cheating http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3386162 Ex-Pats employee Walsh sends NFL video of Pats' taping After brokering a deal to protect himself, former New England Patriots employee Matt Walsh has finally turned over his evidence in the videotaping controversy. The New York Times reported and the NFL confirmed on Wednesday that Walsh sent eight tapes to the league that show the Patriots recording the play-calling signals of five opponents in six games between 2000 and 2002. Taping the signals of opposing teams is prohibited by league rules, and the Patriots were already fined $750,000 and docked a first-round draft choice in September for taping the New York Jets. NFL commissioner Roger Goodell left open the possibility that more penalties could be levied. A Patriots employee from 1997-2003, Walsh reached an agreement to turn over the tapes in exchange for being indemnified from all future legal fees. The New York Times obtained a list of the Walsh tapes, and the league confirmed that list, which says that the Patriots taped offensive and defensive coaches in regular-season games against the Miami Dolphins, Buffalo Bills, Cleveland Browns and San Diego Chargers. The team also made video of the Pittsburgh Steelers in the 2002 AFC Championship Game. Walsh's tapes do not include the video of the St. Louis Rams' walkthrough before the 2002 Super Bowl, as reported by the Boston Herald. "Mr. Walsh has never claimed to have a tape of the walk-through," said Walsh's lawyer Michael Levy, according to the Times. "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." Walsh has separate meetings scheduled on Tuesday with the commissioner and Senator Arlen Specter in which he is expected to provide additional details about the taping process. Under his agreement with the league, Walsh can retain copies of his videotapes, but he cannot use them without the consent of the NFL.
Posts: 8,302