_2.gif "Time.com 50 Best Websites 2008")
There was much information to receive and digest on Tuesday after NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell met for more than three hours with former Patriots employee Matt Walsh. There still might be more to receive and digest once we hear from Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) about his own session with Walsh, and once we hear directly from Walsh.
For now, though, Sal Paolantonio of ESPN aptly summarized on the air on Tuesday night the critical new information we’ve learned.
First, Walsh says he was told to conceal his practice of videotaping defensive coaching signals. This directly contradicts coach Bill Belichick’s explanation that he merely misunderstood the rules. Goodell scoffed at the notion that Belichick should be subject to new punishment based on this disclosure, explaining that Goodell didn’t believe Belichick’s explanation in the first instance.
Still, the message is obvious. Belichick, by all appearances, lied about his interpretation of the rules. Presumably, Goodell’s punishment of Belichick (via a $500,000 fine) was influenced by the coach’s decision to offer up a flimsy excuse for his behavior.
Second, Walsh told Goodell that the tapes were turned over to football savant Ernie Adams. This raises real questions about the team’s contention that the value of the tapes was minimal.
Third, Walsh said that he was told that the taping system was designed to focus on divisional opponents (the Bills, the Jets, and the Dolphins). This reinforces the notion that the tapes weren’t used for in-game adjustments, and proves to us that there’s at least one person at ESPN whose head isn’t currently residing in his rectum when it comes to the question of whether the Pats were turning the tapes around and using them in the same game in which the raw footage was being harvested.
Of course, we also learned that there was no videotape of the Rams’ walk-through prior to Super Bowl XXXVI, thanks to Walsh and to the Boston Herald, which wisely retracted its February 2 story after Walsh’s version of the events was shared with us by Goodell.
May 14th, 2008 at 7:36 am
Enough already!! Who cares!! IF you ain’t cheating you ain’t trying.
AS a Bronco fan that hasnt won much of anything lately atleast we can say that we have New Englands #…
Put it to rest already!
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3.4 / 5 with 5 rating(s)
May 14th, 2008 at 7:44 am
I think we also learned that:
The general American public is far more foolish than any of us ever imagined: Now the conspiracy theories are getting more ludicrous and far-fetched than ever imagined.
ESPN is not done beating this story to death: First it was “Matt Walsh has a Rams’ walthrough tape.” When it was apparent that wasn’t the case, the story became “Now, we know they were stealing OFFENSIVE signals as well!” Now the story will become Ernie Adams. Let it die ESPN. You are starting to turn into the National Enquirer.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4.1 / 5 with 11 rating(s)
May 14th, 2008 at 7:45 am
I remember when the Pats were first punished and people generally thought the punishment was fair.
Then, four months later we learned that the punishment was not for the one game, but for EIGHT YEARS of foul play. Is the late first round pick and $750,000 still fair? I don’t think so…
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 2.2 / 5 with 10 rating(s)
May 14th, 2008 at 7:48 am
I think its minimal , only if they tried to use it in game.. Which they never did.. Its just another way of scouting, its becoming mt everrest, thanks to mediots like Espn…The new TMZ
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3.85 / 5 with 6 rating(s)
May 14th, 2008 at 7:54 am
ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, wrong florio! If the tapes were to focus on the divisional opponents and couldn’t be used within the same game, then why, are there tapes against, San Diego, Cleveland, AND Pittsburgh; all of which are teams that they didn’t face for at least another two years, at the time of the tapings.
I must say, I’ve enjoyed the coverage you’ve given this but, I believe you may be mistaken in regards to that point.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 2.85 / 5 with 14 rating(s)
May 14th, 2008 at 8:08 am
The fact that Walsh was told to keep the taping quiet does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that Belichick was aware that he was breaking a rule. One alternative explanation is to keep the subject from hiding or changing the signals; everyone knows your subject changes their behavior when they are aware that they are being recorded.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3.7 / 5 with 10 rating(s)
May 14th, 2008 at 8:13 am
And don’t forget that we learned what a hypocrite Schlereth of the Broncos** is.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3.25 / 5 with 8 rating(s)
May 14th, 2008 at 8:15 am
After my long-held suspicions, I now officially believe that there was no videotape of the St. Louis Rams’ walk through. Well, I believe that but am not 100 percent certain, but pretty close. I’m sure Tom Brady is personally relieved that I now believe this.
But seriously. How the hell does something like THAT get made up and published in a reputable newspaper?
I want answers to that more than anything else right now. I guess as a journalism person, maybe that bothers me more than it bothers most people, who still seem to be focusing on whether Bill Belichick lied or not (he did, but the legacy of the Patriots ought not to be tarnished).
If the story regarding the walk through was made up, then who was the source, AND WHY? Why make that up?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4.5 / 5 with 4 rating(s)
May 14th, 2008 at 8:16 am
What on earth difference does it make that Ernie Adams was giving the tapes?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3.85 / 5 with 6 rating(s)
May 14th, 2008 at 8:22 am
I would be shocked if Bill Belichick just came out and said he thought he found a loophole that would allow him to video tape those signals. That his goal is to find any and all competitive advantages. That he thought it would be better to ask for forgiveness than to seek clarification and get shot down. He gambled on it and ended up getting nailed. I doubt he even thought the penalty would be nearly as harsh. Maybe a letter from the NFL telling him to stop it at most. He’s playing with words when he says he misunderstood them and made a mistake. It was obviously deliberate, but he’s just not going to come out and say it. Just like they don’t talk about what, and how useful it is to pick up a player who is just released by an upcoming opponent.
If you are to believe Walsh, the tapes were never used in game. Even when Estrella was caught, he was recording to tape from the sideline. There simply isn’t enough time to synch that up with the end zone camera. Also, it is reported that Ernie Adams has a photographic memory. If so, wouldn’t he be able to just watch the signals during the game?
From my perspective, what seems the most plausible is that the Patriots were building an archive and deciphering signals. The next time they played that coaching staff, they were prepared if they could figure out they were still using those same signals. There may have also been a general pattern to figure out and while the signals may have changed, perhaps they could be cracked faster, by say Ernie Adams. I think there’s a clear competitive advantage, but it would be solely dependent on the opponent, the strength of their signals and how much they changed them to protect them.
Roger Goodell was basically saying that everyone should’ve known about this practice and taken measures to protect their signals. It does not excuse what the Patriots did, but it allows him to believe that the benefit was minimal. I don’t really agree. It seems it would come down to what I said before.
Finally, the process may have started out as division opponents only, but we saw that they had some Browns, Steelers and Chargers. We also were told about Green Bay telling the Patriots to stop recording. And that Minnesota knew too. Plus the pre-season tapes confiscated last year were all non-division opponents. The practice had clearly expanded to everyone at some point. That would seem to imply they were getting something out of it, but who knows how much and how often. Again, it depends on the opponent.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4.4 / 5 with 5 rating(s)
May 14th, 2008 at 8:25 am
That Walsh was told to keep his operation secret does not directly contradict Belichick’s case. Presumably there are many specific team operations which teams keep secret from other teams in the league for reasons of competitve advantage (fair or otherwise). It is certainly likely that Belichick knew he was violating a league rule - he is not so stupid as to “forget” a clear memo - but just because Walsh was told to keep quiet does not instantly confirm that Belichick also had an alternate understanding of the rule.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3.4 / 5 with 5 rating(s)
May 14th, 2008 at 8:28 am
Does any team really need to cheat when playing the Bills, Jets or Dolphins? WTF Belichick ?!?1?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3.55 / 5 with 9 rating(s)
May 14th, 2008 at 8:32 am
I don’t get it. Why did it take so long for this to come out?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 2.75 / 5 with 4 rating(s)
May 14th, 2008 at 8:34 am
the division focus makes some sense - but it doesn’t explain the numerous tapes that were of conference opponents that they were not playing again that same season (Chargers, Browns, Steelers). In the Steelers case it was the AFC Championship game, so the Pats knew they weren’t playing them again that year. That leaves plenty of room to speculate. Also, wasn’t the Jets tape being taken to somebody at the half when it was intercepted by the league?
Also you simply don’t engage in something you know is against the rules for 7 years if it doesn’t offer a tangible advantage.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4 / 5 with 6 rating(s)
May 14th, 2008 at 8:38 am
You know what’s a shame? As a Bills fan I always thought that the Patriots were just leagues better every year. Well….they still are/were; however, what’s done is done. They got punished and they are tarnished in the minds of football fans and gurus alike. Let’s just move on now, all the information has been delivered (hopefully) and it’s time to starting moaning about rookie contracts soon!
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4 / 5 with 7 rating(s)
May 14th, 2008 at 8:40 am
Yeah, division opponents. That’s why they taped the Chargers and the Steelers. Anybody notice how New England always made incredible adjustments in the second half of games? Why would Bill the cheat risk doing something he obviously new was against the rules and was already warned about if these tapes didn’t afford any real advantage. come on, the so called genius isn’t that stupid. Funny how he was lousy before he came to New England, then starts cheating and what do you know, 3 Super Bowls. The sad part is, we will NEVER know what was on the tapes the commissioner burned or if the tapes the Pats handed over were actually ALL the tapes they had. I guess I’ll be left to always wonder. After reading this article, it’s obvious PFT are fans of the Pats.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
May 14th, 2008 at 8:43 am
Bill Belichick taped all coaches - not just divisional coaches - because he has files and reports on everyone. He’s an informaton junkie. That’s not a bad thing. Breaking rules is. Every team bends or breaks certain rules. The Patriots have evidence of other teams breaking rules. But the Patriots got caught and paid for it. That’s it unless you’re Mark Schlereth.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
May 14th, 2008 at 8:48 am
We learned that Ernie Adams is the socially inept genius/hermit behind every gameplan the Patriots make.
We also learned that Lou Diamond Florio loves the Patriots. C’mon, if they were only using the tapes against AFC East teams, then why tapes the Chargers and Steelers? Also, if they weren’t using the footage in the same game, again, why tape the Chargers & Steelers (in a playoff game!!!), you only play those teams once or twice every couple years.
Most importantly, we learned you can “misinterpret” the rules for 7 years and 3 Super Bowls, lie to NFL Commish and get away with a slap on the wrist.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
May 14th, 2008 at 9:00 am
brian_21: I don’t think Walsh was the source. If you read what TMQ said during the Super Bowl, Walsh seemed to dance around a lot of stuff and would not commit to anything. That would allow the reporter to conclude whatever they want. In my opinion, someone else reached out to the Herald. That person was probably told by Walsh that he had taped the walkthrough. I think Walsh was making up a story/bragging. He was trying to be a part of the Patriots win. That he contributed to it by taping that walkthrough. The source never saw such a tape and the Herald, for whatever reason thought they should run with it. I also think the NYT piece may have led them to believe such a thing happened because Walsh did say what he knows is stuff someone would have to own up to. It now looks like what he knew was the video taping went back to 2000.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
May 14th, 2008 at 9:01 am
I think it is only fair to note that the Pats were punished for the violations after the commissioner sent out his memo prior to last season. That memo had been sent out as a warning and a reminder to teams that this was not allowed and the NFL was now taking it seriously.
Prior to that time, I do not think the league did much about it or cared much about especially given prior admissions from former coaches and stories that appeared along those lines.
I also do not believe it was a huge deal that Walsh was told to be secret about it. This took place long before the time when the commissioner sent him memo (years in fact) so its unlikely they were concerned about league punishment. What it is clear that they were concerned about was being spotted by other teams and ejected from their stadiums. That seemed to be a common thing - the Pats had forced other teams to stop taping them and vice versa. Specifically, the Jets forced the Pats to stop taping them the prior year to Spygate if I recall correctly. It would have been standard practice for the Pats and any other team that did this in the past to keep this on the down low.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
May 14th, 2008 at 9:01 am
beastmode: The tape was confiscated during the first quarter.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
May 14th, 2008 at 9:03 am
What we also learned is that some of the tapes that Matt Walsh turned in were of defensive signals for teams in other divisions. This doesn’t support the contention that the tapes were only used for division opponents and since some of the teams whose signals were taped would not be opponents again in the same season, the contention that they were not used for the same game in which they were taped is also questionable.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
May 14th, 2008 at 9:11 am
“Second, Walsh told Goodell that the tapes were turned over to football savant Ernie Adams. This raises real questions about the team’s contention that the value of the tapes was minimal.”
I think its funny that you think Ernie Adams has such alien powers to suck future plays out of a tape. Its a precentage game, nothing more.
FWIW, as per Walsh being told to conceal his actions, he was told that by his boss NOT by Belichick.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
May 14th, 2008 at 9:13 am
The reason to tape the DC is to compare the execution of the play to the actual play call. With just the coaches film, all you can see is what coverage the defenders actually played. You cannot tell whether that was what the DC wanted them to play. With so many plays now dictated by “reads” and “trees” of possible action-reaction decisions, it’s become increasingly important to know both what the call was, and what the defense did to gauge how well your play worked.
With the DC tape, you can compare the two and see if anything your offense did pre- or post- snap caused any of the defenders to get confused and play the wrong coverage. Also, you can see that perhaps you just got lucky, that based on the DC call (if the defender plays what his DC wanted him to play) then the next time your play call won’t work as well against that defensive call.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
May 14th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Yeah, the Pats could sue the Herald. And they seem to have a strong case.
But how do you think Belichick feels about the prospect of talking about Spygate under oath? Why take the risk? It’s probably better to just let the matter die and not spend more time in the news.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated