Eleven more days to go until the long awaited Matt Walsh sit down with Roger Goodell. I'm very curious to hear what Walsh has to say, although we'll likely never get the full story. So many months of haggling over indemnity sure makes it seem like he has some juicy information.
From the AP <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Roger Goodell is fully prepared to crack down again on the New England Patriots if his meeting with Matt Walsh uncovers a tape made of the St. Louis Rams' final walkthrough practice before the 2002 Super Bowl. "Taping a walkthrough is much different from what I punished them for," the NFL commissioner said Thursday at a meeting of a group representing the Associated Press Sports Editors. After more than two months of negotiations, lawyers for the league and Walsh, the former New England employee, finally reached agreement Wednesday on terms that will allow him to talk Goodell. They include an agreement by the Patriots not to sue Walsh and to pay his legal expenses and his airfare to New York from Hawaii, where he is now a golf pro. Walsh's name first surfaced just before the Super Bowl, in which the Patriots were upset by the New York Giants after finishing the regular season 16-0 and winning two playoff games. Among the allegations was that the Patriots illegally taped the Rams' final walkthrough before that title game, when New England, a two-touchdown underdog, upset St. Louis 20-17. Five months before their loss to the Giants, New England coach Bill Belichick was fined $500,000 and the team $250,000 for taping the New York Jets' defensive signals during the season opener. The Patriots also lost their first-round pick in this weekend's draft. Goodell said Thursday he has no idea what Walsh, who spent six years as a New England employee, has to offer than what the league already knows: Belichick had been taping defensive signals since first becoming Patriots coach in 2000. He noted, however, that the league, which destroyed the tapes from the Jets game after reviewing them, had spoken to 50 people in connection with the case and that Walsh was the only one who asked for legal protection. Belichick has emphatically denied taping the walkthrough. "I have never taped a practice, certainly not that one," New England's coach has said repeatedly. Goodell said his mind is open on the subject.</div> It is hilarious that the Pats have to pay for Walsh's airfare and legal expenses
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Belichick has emphatically denied taping the walkthrough. "I have never taped a practice, certainly not that one," New England's coach has said repeatedly. Goodell said his mind is open on the subject.[</div> He's telling the truth. *HE* never taped anything. Someone on his staff did.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ May 2 2008, 07:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Eleven more days to go until the long awaited Matt Walsh sit down with Roger Goodell. I'm very curious to hear what Walsh has to say, although we'll likely never get the full story. So many months of haggling over indemnity sure makes it seem like he has some juicy information.</div> I agree, Goodell is not going to tell us everything that they see. Then, he's going to destroy the tapes. No matter how juicy the details might be, I expect Goodell to only offer the public an extremely bland version of what he saw. Like, "We have found some indescretions, and we are going to sanction the Patriots for those." I expect the announcement to be anticlimactic, whether its true or not.
If the guy has a tape of the Rams walk through, Belichek has to get the Pete Rose vacation plan....Goodell has already admited that the Patriots taped signals starting in 2000 and through the begining of last season, so nothing the Pats did during that time is worth a nickel, might as well jettison the guy who was responsible for this embarrassment....
If he got the Pete Rose treatment, I would be satisfied. I hold nothing against the owner, or the players of his teams, only him. Okay, well maybe I despise Moss, but that's because he basically stole paychecks from the Raiders. Edit: I can't stand Harrison either. okay. enough.
I haven't seen if the protection extends to Belichick being able to sue Walsh. My personal hope is that Walsh has damning enough evidence that Goodell does send Belichick away and then Belichick is dumb enough to sue Walsh. That way lots of testimony becomes public.
About Goodell destroying the tapes, am I in the minority that thinks it was a good idea? Its not up to us to punish him and I dont want my teams signals falling into another teams hand. I know they are stupid enugh not to change them, plus they only play the Pats once ever like 4 years.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Big Frame @ May 4 2008, 01:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>About Goodell destroying the tapes, am I in the minority that thinks it was a good idea? Its not up to us to punish him and I dont want my teams signals falling into another teams hand. I know they are stupid enugh not to change them, plus they only play the Pats once ever like 4 years.</div> As long as the NFL gets an anti-trust exemption and tax money to help build their stadiums, then the NFL owes the public an in-depth explanation when it comes to cheating scandals. The problem with destroying the tapes is that there is no proof as to how many games and for how long a period the Patriots have been cheating. What if one of the teams that had been victimized, like one of the three teams beaten by just 3 points in the Super Bowl, wanted to sue the Patriots. I would think they would have a legit gripe. Think of what a Super Bowl victory would have meant to Philadelphia or Carolina and, with the games so close, a few plays could have made the difference. Because Goodall Ollie Northed the tapes, we really don't know if he had more damning evidence and decided to overlook it. Really, if the NFL wants to regain it's integrity, it needs to hire an outside agency to audit the proof being offered by Matt Walsh. I don't trust Goodall for one second and that's his fault for slapping Belicheat and the Patriots on the wrist then being so quick to destroy the evidence.
If it works out as Cpaw suggests in post 7, then Goddell will "advise" Belichick not to sue so the positive perception of the league remains in tact to the masses. However, It will be ROTR suggested in post 4. We'll get a sanitized version and that will be that just like last time.
http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patr...of_walkthrough/ <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Former Patriots employee Matt Walsh certified in writing that he will turn over eight stolen videotapes to the NFL that show the signals of opposing teams, but the smoking gun that some believed Walsh might provide - a tape of the St. Louis Rams' walkthrough prior to Super Bowl XXXVI in 2002 - is not included. more stories like thisAs part of Walsh's certification, he signed off that all videotapes and documents in his possession - from 2000-02 - have been handed over to the NFL, eliminating the possibility he has a tape of the walkthrough.</div> So now can we cut the shit?
cut what shit? I hope you dont think that this is any way positive for the Patriots....according to the story, theres video evidence that goes back to 2002 and Walsh is expected to tell Goodell its been going on since 2000....if anything, this confims what most of us have thought for a while, the NE Patriots have been a complete embarrasment for the past decade....I dont know how any Pats fan could even stomach this and continue to root for them....
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ May 8 2008, 12:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>cut what shit? I hope you dont think that this is any way positive for the Patriots....according to the story, theres video evidence that goes back to 2002 and Walsh is expected to tell Goodell its been going on since 2000....if anything, this confims what most of us have thought for a while, the NE Patriots have been a complete embarrasment for the past decade....I dont know how any Pats fan could even stomach this and continue to root for them....</div> Did you notice the part where he doesn't have a tape of the Rams walk-through before the Super Bowl? Wasn't that the only new info since Goodell came out and said that Belichick has been taping since 2000? There's nothing new here. Walsh is a fraud and this story is over.
A Patriots fan and a Boston newspaper says the Patriots didn't cheat, so there must not be any cheating. Yeah, right.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (agoo101284 @ May 8 2008, 01:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>There's nothing new here. Walsh is a fraud and this story is over.</div> Matt Walsh never said he had a tape of the Rams walk through....the media reported he did, Matt Walsh has never said anything publically....in reality, the fraud here is the New England Patriots....their history is so damaged by this, it might be in everyones best interest if the team folded and was replaced by a new one in LA....how any fan can deny this level of taint is beyond me....
Video evidence going back to 2002? Killer stuff. Seems too late to do anything about it though, this will slide like the steroid era in baseball. Also, I'd like to see exactly what happens May 13 before I make any definitive claims about the Patriots.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ May 8 2008, 02:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (agoo101284 @ May 8 2008, 01:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>There's nothing new here. Walsh is a fraud and this story is over.</div> Matt Walsh never said he had a tape of the Rams walk through....the media reported he did, Matt Walsh has never said anything publically....in reality, the fraud here is the New England Patriots....their history is so damaged by this, it might be in everyones best interest if the team folded and was replaced by a new one in LA....how any fan can deny this level of taint is beyond me.... </div> It wouldn't surprise me if the Patriots started the Super Bowl walk through video taping rumor, so that they could start claiming that people are making false allegations against them. What better way to try and deflect attention from the actual cheating that we know they have done. Still, if Walsh produces one tape that Belicheat didn't fess up to, then Belicheat gets the Pete Rose Severance Deal or Goodell loses what little credibility that he's grasping to hang on to. My scorecard says Walsh 8 videotapes, Belicheat 6 tapes turned over. That means Belicheat was doing a lot more taping than he fessed up to and which was one of my original points. Why didn't the NFL send over it's own officials to do an inventory of what the Patriots had in their offices the second that they caught wind of the cheating rather than asking the chief criminal to hand over the evidence himself?
Walsh’s first recording is dated Sept. 25, 2000, and is of the previous day’s 10-3 loss to the Dolphins. Snowplows to this, is it any wonder why I hate the Cheatriots?
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/stor...&id=3387401 <span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%">One tape turned over by Walsh shows Patriots also stole offensive signals </span> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>From Day 1 of the Spygate saga in September, the controversy over New England's illicit videotaping practices has centered on the Patriots' efforts to steal their opponents' defensive signals. But the tapes delivered via FedEx to NFL headquarters in New York on Thursday morning also include evidence of an effort by New England to steal offensive signals, which would broaden the extent of the team's surveillance operation. NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and staff members began viewing the eight tapes within hours of their long-awaited delivery, in anticipation of Tuesday's scheduled interview with former Patriots video assistant Matt Walsh. As part of an indemnification pact reached last month with the league, Walsh agreed to turn over any videotapes or related materials he had from his tenure with the team. Perhaps the surprise entry on the list of videotaping documents Walsh turned over to the league was tape No. 3, labeled "OFF Signals" from New England's game against the Miami Dolphins on Oct. 7, 2001. That is the only tape labeled as such on a copy of the list obtained by ESPN.com. Walsh's attorney, Michael Levy, confirmed it was the lone footage in Walsh's possession of offensive coaches' signaling from the sidelines. "[It] contains shots of Miami's offensive coaches signaling Miami's offensive players, followed by a shot from the end zone camera of Miami's offensive play, followed by a shot of Miami's offensive coaches signaling Miami's offensive players for the next play, then edited to be followed by a shot of the subsequent Miami offensive play," Levy said of the tape. "And that pattern repeats throughout the entire tape, with occasional cuts to the scoreboard." Goodell has made repeated references to the stealing of defensive signals by New England. That is, in part, presumably because the league has allowed direct radio communication from a coach to the quarterback since the 1994 season, diminishing the need for hand signals. "We don't know [about attempts to steal offensive signals] yet because we haven't looked at the tapes," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said Thursday before the league had completed its review of the new evidence. "All we have is the list supplied last night [by Walsh's attorney]. One of them is labeled 'OFF signals.' None of the others are listed that way. Let us look at the tapes and we'll have more to say about that. "The rule which the Patriots violated was the policy that prohibits use of equipment for the taping of offensive or defense signals. I know there've been references to defensive signals, which is more logical. But let us look at the tapes and verify what is on there." Although Walsh turned over eight tapes this week, the number of games in which he personally videotaped opposing coaches is unclear. One source told ESPN.com that it "absolutely" is not the case that the six games on the eight tapes are the only instances the Patriots taped opponents during Walsh's tenure with the team. One of the eight tapes in the package was shot by someone other than Walsh. It is a Sept. 29, 2002, game against San Diego, which was shot after Walsh was promoted from the video department. That tape captures just the coaches on the sideline, and the scoreboard before the game action is edited in. The Patriots declined the opportunity to comment on Thursday. Stacey James, the Patriots' vice president for media relations, said Wednesday he expected the team will wait to issue a statement until after Walsh meets with Goodell. The advancing sophistication in New England's videotaping practices apparently is also evident on the tapes, which begin with a Sept. 25, 2000, game against Miami and run through that 2002 game against San Diego. It's also obvious throughout that the video shooter has one job on game day: to capture the opposing team's sideline coaches. In one of the last tapes that Walsh shot -- the 2002 AFC Championship Game against the Pittsburgh Steelers -- the finished product includes sideline footage of the Pittsburgh coaches sending in signals, followed by a scan of the scoreboard that captures down, distance and game time, followed by two separate shots of the ensuing play, one from above the press box and the other from an end zone camera. "The other seven tapes show the final product, which is a series of coaches' signals, followed by the play, followed by coaches' signals and then the next play -- all lined up one after another," said Levy, who represents Walsh. "So the final videotapes contain the opposing coaches' signals lined up directly with the play that was run, one after another." Goodell is likely to quiz Walsh on these issues at their meeting scheduled for 7:30 a.m. Tuesday. Walsh is scheduled to travel to Washington later in the day to meet with Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Specter has been critical of the NFL for destroying evidence turned over in September by New England, including six other tapes and notes from other taped games. Although those tapes only date back to the 2006 season, Aiello, the NFL spokesperson, said Thursday the notes dated to at least the 2002 season. The notes were destroyed, and Aiello said he is uncertain whether there is any record of the games involved. He did say that Goodell previously informed Specter that details on the taping of the 2002 AFC Championship game, as well as three other games with Pittsburgh, were part of the notes. Aiello said it has yet to be decided whether the Walsh tapes will be made public. But as the tapes arrived at the league office in New York, officials were relieved to find the package didn't include a long-rumored video of the St. Louis Rams' walk-through practice the day before the 2002 Super Bowl, which would have put a huge cloud over the league's marquee event. "That is a fair assumption," Aiello said of the feelings of relief in the league office. "I'd rather leave those questions and answers to the commissioner, but it's unfortunate that that had been reported, and apparently there's no substance to it." Quarterback Drew Bledsoe, who was on the Patriots team that beat the Rams in the Super Bowl, told the Boston Herald he's followed SpyGate in the media. "To be honest with you, my take now is the same as it's always been," Bledsoe told the newspaper. "Every team in the league is trying to do everything they can to get ahead. I'm sure most, if not all, are bending the rules in some way, shape or form. This just happened to be one that was very public, and the organization has been reprimanded for it. "As a player here, I never did see anything other than what was already reported. Was it a violation of the spirit of the rules? Absolutely, it was, but I think all of that has been readily acknowledged."</div>
