Before we become fully immersed in the final countdown to the 2008 NFL draft, let’s consider what former Pats video employee Matt Walsh might tell Commissioner Roger Goodell when they get together for tea and crumpets on May 13.

We’re convinced that Walsh doesn’t have a tape of the Rams’ walk-through practice prior to Super Bowl XXXVI.  But even though the production of such a video would surely result in the wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth throughout Boston and the rest of New England, there are ways that the Patriots can be damaged by Walsh’s disclosures short of proof that there was cheating in the league’s championship game.

If Walsh has credible proof of anything other than everything to which the Pats ‘fessed up last September, there will be very serious trouble, most particularly for head coach Bill Belichick.  Last September, Goodell gave Belichick an opportunity to cleanse his soul regarding any and all potential cheating; if Walsh can put meat on a bone from a skeleton that was left in the closet, Goodell will likely throw the book at Belichick.

What that means and whether the coach would still be the coach when a likely suspension ends remains to be seen.  The hiring of Dom Capers as an assistant coach earlier this year raised eyebrows in some circles, and some think he’d take the reins if Belichick is suspended and, thereafter, possibly not retained.

But, again, all of this hinges on Walsh having credible evidence that there was more cheating than previously known.  Further proof of the videotaping of defensive coaching signals isn’t enough; Walsh needs proof of other rules violations such as, for example (and as an example only), secretly using players who have been placed on injured reserve during practice, or other possible rules violations. 

And while no one knows what Walsh knows (or thinks he knows), some league insiders firmly believe that he has something, and some believe that it will be enough to cause real problems for the Pats and for Belichick.

There’s an expectation in some circles that the first line of defense will be that Walsh was acting on his own.  As we’ve previously explained, however, such an excuse could be rejected pursuant to an NCAA-style notion of “institutional control.”  Under this theory, the NFL could find that the Patriots and Belichick are responsible for anything Walsh did, even if they claim that he did it without approval or authority. 

Moreover, there’s a belief that the organization’s response will include an effort to press charges against Walsh for his alleged audiotaping of private conversations with V.P. of player personnel Scott Pioli.  Such conduct is a crime under Massachusetts law, and the indemnity promise that Walsh has received in exchange for his willingness to talk doesn’t provide immunity from a criminal prosecution.

Still, the fact that charges weren’t pressed at the time and were be pursued only in retaliation for Walsh’s cooperation with the league would expose the Patriots, and any authorities who opt to prosecute Walsh, to intense criticism for using the legal process as a tool for attacking those who dare to take a stand.  If Walsh broke the law, then a decision to press charges shouldn’t be made based on whether Walsh does something in the future that the victim(s) don’t like. 

Moreover, such an approach would provide critics of the Patriots with an easy opening to turn back against the team the “Doesn’t our government have better things to do?” argument that has been cited time and again against the efforts of Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) to explore the league’s handling of the Spygate I scandal.

Barring any further developments, that’s all we’ve got to say about this issue until May 13, at which time we’ll finally find out what Walsh knows . . . or what he thinks he knows.