Comments on: ESPN.COM LEARNS WHAT ESPN.COM REPORTED A MONTH AGO

By: Rob0769

Rob0769 — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 19:30:44 +0000

shaslers,

If Walsh produces real evidence against the Patriots, how in the world would Bob Kraft survive the public relations fiasco of him suing Matt Walsh for stealing property? What would he get out of it? He would keep the Spygate story going for years to try to milk money out of an assistant golf pro. Even if he won, how much money do you think he would get out of Walsh? A few thousands of dollars.

If Walsh truly has anything, the Patriots and NFL will not be able to squash the information forever. The more it appears that they are trying to keep Walsh from talking, the more it will hurt them if there really is hard evidence that they were cheating. Why would the Patriots and NFL do this? It would open the door for Specter to get other Senators, most importantly Patrick Leahy, to consider Senate hearings. The more egg on Goodell’s face on this, the worst it will be for Belichick and the Patriots. If there is really evidence, it will get out and there is no upside for the league or the Patriots to wait.

As for Walsh’s involvement, he is directly responsible for his involvement. He told the NYT that he has dirt and he would give it up to anyone who paid his legal bills in perpitude. If he didn’t want to be part of the story, he could have said “No comment” or that he has nothing.

Both Kraft and Belichick have been almost daring Walsh to come forward. They seem to be defacto indemifying him by saying he doesn’t have anything legally stopping him from talking. I don’t think they would be doing that even for show if they thought he had anything.

(report as inappropriate)

By: Cokey Cola

Cokey Cola — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 19:22:48 +0000

Oh PLEASE DaleJr88, like Walsh is gonna say any of that stuff up there
on this witness stand. Way to try and dirty a guy’s reputation like you’re trying to do with Walsh — I mean, the Patriots and Belichick have been SUCH an open and honest organization, right?

Yeah, Dale, nice try using the blender blade example too. Like you’ve never looked for a little payback from someone who pulled a (literally) dirty trick on you huh? Somebody stained your sheets, you’d just stand there and take it right? Right.

Like Mort said, Walsh didn’t come looking for this, it found him. So please, do us a favor and stop the Pats-fan apologist train right now.

(report as inappropriate)

By: shaslers

shaslers — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 17:52:35 +0000

Robo,
All of what you suggest could be true. Maybe the Pats’ reputation is being tarnished unnecessarily by Walsh’s inexplicable feet dragging. We won’t know what is going on until Walsh says what he knows.

You say that you can’t see another reason for this being held up. While I can’t say the explanation is correct, I can certainly call Mort’s explanation as plausible. Since it’s not a court of law, it’s reasonable that a whistleblower would want protection against the evidence he presents being taken from him, and labeled stolen.

If I stuffed my briefcase full of manila folders to prove my company was into bad stuff, I’d have legitimate concerns my company would try to pry “their property” back from me before I could damage them.

And don’t gloss over the fact that Walsh didn’t start this mess. The press came after him when they started poking around Spygate.

The upside for the Patriots and the league dragging it out is obvious if you are willing to consider that Walsh might have something against them.

You say the Patriots are suffering from Walsh not talking. If some are to be believed, you won’t begin to see their real suffering until after Walsh talks. That’s the upside from dragging this out, possibly. Bad PR is nothing compared to the fallout from real evidence, if it exists.

(report as inappropriate)

By: Rob0769

Rob0769 — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:48:32 +0000

How do you know Walsh isn’t in for the money? How do you know the Pats and NFL are out to try to trap Walsh or force him not to speak by trying to get him on a stolen property charge?

If Walsh had a tape and doesn’t want to cash in, he could have anonymously posted it to YouTube or given it to a reporter long ago without him being attached to it if he didn’t want to be involved. He has never specifically stated he has the tape of the walkthrough or any other specific tape. We still haven’t found out who leaked the tape of the video of defensive signals to Jay Glazer and I am sure Glazer would never testify to who gave it to him. It would be easy for him to walk away from this if he really wanted to.

People want to quickly jump to the Patriots and the league are the ones being underhanded although they are the only ones seem to be suffering from Walsh not talking. There are certain members of the media who will never let this go. So they are getting bad PR now while Walsh doesn’t speak and will potentially get a lot more once Walsh speaks.

What is the upside for the Pats and the league for delaying the inevitable? Maybe they are hoping they can drag it out until the start of the season so it can hurt ratings and merchandise sales. Again, this is the perfect time to have whatever Walsh has release the information since the story will have died down by the time of the draft unless Walsh has Watergate type evidence. Then it is better to get it out now to hope it will have died down by the start of the season. Again, I see no upside for the Patriots and NFL for delaying this.

My only take of why the delay is that either the lawyers are just tying this up with legalize or Walsh knows that what people think he has and making the world think the NFL is hiding the information is more damaging than what he really has. I really can’t see any other reason for this to be held up.

(report as inappropriate)

By: shaslers

shaslers — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 14:34:03 +0000

There has been more than one occurrence where ESPN had to correct ESPN about the revelation that Walsh is not under a confidentiality agreement.

Today on the ManGirl & Meatball in The Morning Show, the boys were prattling on about how this revelation from Bob Kraft that there is no confidentiality deal with Walsh is added proof that the league and the Patriots are beyond reproach in this matter.

That’s when Chris Mortensen, who “happened to be listening” called to say that the boys must have missed the week-old report from ESPN’s Mike Fish that no such deal existed.

Mort cautioned them about reading too much into this news, however. He rightfully pointed out that the Pats and the league have a platoon of lawyers taking aim at Walsh, and that Walsh never sought the limelight (Mangirl had earlier suggested Walsh was out for money in all this) but rather was dug up by the media.

Mort suggested that Walsh’s lawyer is protecting his client from an accusation that his evidence is stolen property.

I can imagine the one-way conversation…

“Sure, Mr. Walsh, come in and tell our lawyers everything you know. Oh, wait, where did you get that video tape Mr. Walsh? Why that appears to be the property of your former employer, sir. We’re going to have to confiscate what isn’t yours. Don’t worry, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Goodell will take good care of your eviden…er, stolen property…he has a special storage location in the boilerroom, for “safekeeping.”

(report as inappropriate)

By: 3efin

3efin — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 12:35:33 +0000

From the beginning of the spygate saga, both fans and media have remembered what they choose to remember. Whatever best suits their agenda. Countless comments and facts have been rehashed, and presented as new news, when in fact they are months old.

(report as inappropriate)

By: AllSeeingEye

AllSeeingEye — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 12:22:25 +0000

I agree with Osterhouse. Especially since to get anything interesting on EPSN.com you have to subscribe to their “insider” section. What a load of crap.

(report as inappropriate)

By: DaleJr88

DaleJr88 — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 10:45:59 +0000

I saw some comments, on the previous story about Kraft, that basically say, everyone should give Walsh anything, and everything he demands, so the “truth” will come out. You cant do that, that would be absolutely retarded. That would mean Walsh can say anything, and there would be no repurcussions. He clearly has an axe to grind. If you give a guy with a vendetta, total immunity, who knows what he might say. He’ll be on the stand, saying Tom Brady molests children (and Brady cant sue him) and Bill Belichick rapes interns (and Belichick cant sue him) and Bob Kraft bought the team to cover up the fact that he is gay (and Kraft cant sue him) etc. You get the point. Giving in to Walsh, gives those that he will “attack” no recourse afterwards. Those that will do anything to get Walsh to talk, assume he will tell the truth, and nothing but the truth. This is a guy that has told lie after lie after lie. There was an entire story about him in the news paper, the same paper that “broke” the story about Walsh. So which story is telling the truth? Walsh claims to have been a “scout” for the Pats. LIE. He has proven to have a rage issue as well. His college room mate (and said room mate’s girlfriend) had “fooled around” on Walsh’s bed. So the next time Walsh was gone, to get revenge, he left a blender blade on his bed. Needless to say, the girl was “injured”. Now he is doing the same thing to the Pats. He was a member of the video department, wasnt getting the job done, thought he was bigger than he really was, got fired, and now wants to get revenge.

(report as inappropriate)

By: kprowland1

kprowland1 — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 09:21:10 +0000

This is the ULTIMATE sight for football news and information. Please don’t ever make me become an “insider” to get the best scoop. Keep up the great work.

(report as inappropriate)

By: JoeSixPack

JoeSixPack — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 02:41:17 +0000

Typical of the “real” media they only “know” what they want to know. Credit this site and host for a willingness to acknowledge the “news” that no one wants to hear. Such as articles documenting the lengths to which nearly all teams have been “cheating” going back to 1955. But no one, least of all the Commissioner, want to see THAT in print. What’s the point of having a scapegoat if you tell it like it is?

So now everyone says - “Well, if the Patriots don’t have a confidentiality agreement, what’s the hold up?”

My guess - some type of immunity from a slander lawsuit from the Pats. In other words, Walsh is in some legal hotwater if he says something untruthful and slanderous as it currently stands - and until all parties agree that he can make up whatever story he wants with no adverse consequence, he’s going to keep his mouth shut.

Just my guess - but if that’s the case, it explains perfectly why Walsh remains silent - and why one likely can’t believe a word he says.

(report as inappropriate)

By: Rob0769

Rob0769 — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 02:35:59 +0000

I think this is partly further evidence the media aren’t looking to get to the truth, but to the big story whether it is true or not. In this case, they want the story to be Patriots not only filmed the walkthrough, but they and the league tried to cover it up. They want this to be the NFL version of Watergate.

Now I am not saying they are manufacturing stories or printing/broadcasting falicies, but they seem so singleminded that walsh has the story of the century that they do not pay attention to anything that questions his credibility.

That’s why his assertions of I have something, but I ain’t telling until I can say whatever I want without impunity claims get run on Sportcenter and assertions that he may be lying about having confidentiality agreements get buried in a story and don’t get mentioned again for a month.

I think this is an indictment on the media. I mean in general, not just this case. News reporting is more about getting to the big story even if it isn’t neccessary the true story or at least both sides of the story.

(report as inappropriate)

By: Osterhouse

Osterhouse — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 02:13:16 +0000

Well Florio to let you know when it comes to getting my daily football fix of info I would chose this site over ESPN any day. PFT>ESPN in football info

(report as inappropriate)