The War of Words Begins
by MaPatsFan
on May 16, 2008 7:16 PM EDT
in News
Bill Belichick fires a salvo back at Matt Walsh on CBS News tonight:
FOR HIM TO TALK ABOUT GAME PLANNING AND STATEGY AND PLAY CALLING AND HOW HE ADVISED COORDINATORS, IT'S EMBARRASING, IT'S ABSURD. HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF FOOTBALL. HE WAS OUR THIRD VIDEO ASSISTANT.
And this:
On Matt Walsh saying he was told by superiors to avoid detection:
"I NEVER TOLD ANYBODY TO DO THAT. ALL I CAN TELL YOU IS WHAT THE FACTS ARE. YOU LOOK AT THE TAPE. YOU SEE HIM FILMING THE GAME. YOU TELL ME HOW DISCREET IT IS."
Finally:
On videotaping signals after the league's 2006 memo:
"I MADE A MISTAKE. I WAS WRONG. I WAS WRONG."
The strategy is clear - discredit Walsh as a low level, peripheral, support employee with little to no knowledge of football operations. Oh, let's not forget this statement from Mike Martz, head coach of the Rams during the XXXVI Superbowl:
"I was stunned at Matt Walsh’s allegation that he was on the sideline in New England Patriots apparel during our walk-thru. I find that insulting, disturbing and a slap in the face to both our team security and NFL security, who both do outstanding jobs. I promise you that if he was on the sideline, he was not in New England Patriots apparel because he would have been identified.
There is a boatload of information out there that I won't cut and paste in here, but it's clear to me the campaign to discredit Walsh has begun and it'll be a "he said, she said" kind of thing. Who you believe depends on where you sit in this whole mess. Hate the Patriots? Walsh is credible and the victim. Love the Patriots? Walsh is a disgruntled employee looking for his 15 minutes of fame.
Belichick continued to tape after being instructed, in a 2006 NFL memo, it was against the rules. He was caught and both himself and the organization were punished. I've already written that I believe the NFL totally botched this thing and are circling the wagons because noone wants our fine government investigating. Ross Tucker, a writer for SI.com and former offensive lineman had this to say:
"Bending rules is a fact of life in the NFL," Tucker writes. "From ballboys allowing the opposing team's footballs to get soaked, to hotel employees scouring rooms for game plan sheets after a team heads to the stadium, there are several ways to get in on the act. Seemingly no organization, no matter how accomplished or destitute it may be, is immune from the win-at-all-costs mentality. Some teams cheat and never get caught. Others simply refrain from breaking the rules but bend them right to the breaking point."
Hmm... What a tangled web we weave. Who you believe is a matter of where you sit. Bring it on, Arlen. Let's clear this thing up.
0 recs |
15
comments
EmailComments
Perhaps it’s just me, but I’m of the opinion that the Government should just butt the heck out. I get that the NFL is a sort of Monopoly, blah, blah, blah, but at the moment there’s the war to worry about, the fact that the middle class is getting deeper and deeper into the crap that’s called gas prices, not to mention the million other things that are just More Important than ‘Spygate’. Heck, they should have a knock down drag out fight over gay marriage before they start micromanaging the NFL. (Actually, on second thought, it probably wouldn’t end the way I’d like, so…)
Steriods was sorta different, they’re a drug, they’re a problem in the general society, the whole high schoolers and younger using and stuff. If the government wants to go after something to do with spying, start looking at legislation that lets peeping toms get away with it not the NFL. Or if they have a nagging to get into videos, actually start cleaning up the internet of child porn.
Just MHO.
by DanieXJ on May 16, 2008 9:24 PM EDT 0 recs
A Kennedy agrees with you!
Interestingly enough, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) agrees with you:
With the war in Iraq raging on, gasoline prices closing in on $4 a gallon, and Americans losing their homes at record rates to foreclosure, the United States Senate should be focusing on the real problems that Americans are struggling with…
Kennedy also sits on the Judiciary Committee with none other than Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania). Far be it for me to suggest Sen. Kennedy is the most credible guy (there was that thing with a bridge and a dead woman), but both the Senator and you have a point.
by MaPatsFan on
May 17, 2008 6:59 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Martz
of course he wouldn’t admit it if Walsh was able to stand on the sidelines, it would mean him and his staff were hugely incompetent. I don’t know which of them is telling the truth but Martz has even more reason to lie than Walsh.
my blog http://shakennbaken.blogspot.com
by shake n bake on May 16, 2008 11:45 PM EDT 0 recs
Honestly...
I can’t believe Matt Walsh is being given so much credibility. He is a self admitted thief, and breaker of all the employment NDAs he signed with the Pats. If he were a witness in a criminal case, most lawyers won’t touch him because of his tainted credibility. But in todays society, anyone can make any kind of accusation they want without worry of backlash.
I am not saying he is lieing, or being untruthful in any way. I am just saying its only his word, and everyone seems to be believing it.
by Ogor on May 16, 2008 11:46 PM EDT 0 recs
Wrong angle
Look, if I taped OJ killing his wife with his videocamera and then kept it for myself, how relevant would the fact that I “stole” the tapes be? Compared to the bigger issue here? :)
Now, now, before you jump on my throat, stealing signals is not the same as killing someone, but the same concept holds. To keep referencing the fact that he stole the materials is a cheap shot and is totally irrelevant.
Also, in the Jeffrey Wigand, Big Tobacco case, he was violating his NDA, but it was considered a bigger noble act. (Again, ignore the scale of the crime, focus on the concept.)
by Bluebulb1 on
May 17, 2008 9:40 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Slippery Slope
I think if credibility is extended to Walsh after he stole Patriots property, logic dictates we must also extend credibility to Belichick after he broke league rules.
by MaPatsFan on
May 17, 2008 10:36 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Not so slippery
Not to parse this too much, but the philosophy major in me compels me to comment. Admittedly the concept of “credibility” is somewhat subjective, but you’re comparing apples and oranges. Giving credibility to a person who broke rules/laws in order to expose a greater injustice is not the same thing as giving credibility to a person who broke rules/laws for personal gain.
Think of an underling at a tobacco company stealing classified documents that prove extra nicotine was added to cigarettes to get consumers addicted to a deadly product. Then think of the CEO of the tobacco company who lied under oath about adding the nicotine. Just because the underling stole the documents does not mean the tobacco company’s wrongdoing did not occur, nor does it mean the the CEO deserves credibility or should be excused for his crime.
Not exactly the same degree here obviously, but I think the principle holds true.
by ctnyc on
May 18, 2008 12:27 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Fair arguement
The “whistle blower” scenario can apply here. However, one thing disturbs me about that scenario when applied to this case: I’m unclear what Walsh’s intent was. It took him an awfully long time to blow that whistle. If it was such a great injustice and he was a standup guy, I would suggest he should’ve brought out the tapes much sooner (he was holding them for quite some time). Maybe the timing or “climate” was better after th 2006 memo and subsequent Mangini reporting. At any rate, not knowing his intent still bothers me.
Thanks for the thoughtful post!
by MaPatsFan on
May 18, 2008 7:43 AM EDT
up
0 recs
The difference is...
...that if you claimed to have a tape of OJ killing his wife, demanded immunity from prosecution in exchange for turning it over, and then turned out not to have the tape after all, then the bigger issue is that you’re a thief and in violation of the employment NDAs you signed, only your former employer can’t go after you now.
by RSNexile on
May 17, 2008 12:11 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I thought Walsh hinted
but never straight up said he had the Rams walkthrough tape. That it was just others speculating.
my blog http://shakennbaken.blogspot.com
by shake n bake on
May 17, 2008 12:27 PM EDT
up
0 recs
he could've hinted, I'm not sure
John Tomase of the Boston Herald, in this story, stated it was a “Patriots’s employee”. Fate being what it is, the timing was almost perfectly aligned with Walsh’s “coming out”. Tomase never said it was Walsh, but other members of the media and bloggers made a leap of logic it the rumor became fact.
by MaPatsFan on
May 17, 2008 1:02 PM EDT
up
0 recs
What about
the fact that Goodell basically HAD to send that memo out - kinda makes you think that teams were put on notice not to do it anymore - BB decided to forget the memo and do it anyway—that’s why people are so pissed. Stealing signals and trying to gain an edge is one of the most commonplace thing in the NFL, doing it via videotape is where teams draw the line. What about Jimmy Johnson’s comments in an interview with WFAN….
Quote:
Q: How about the spying thing Jimmy. You’re a coach does that bother you what Belichick did?
JJ: Oh please. I’ve said it on our show. Eighteen years ago a scout for the chiefs told me what they did, and he said what you need to do is just take your camera and you go and zoom in on the signal caller and that way you can sync it up. The problem is that if they’re not on the press box side you can’t do it from the press box, you have to do it from the sideline. This was 18 years ago.
Q: You think the NFL came down too hard on them?
JJ: No, no, I said it on the show. He was wrong for doing it for the simple reason that the league knew this was going on not ust in New England but around the league. And the league sent out the memorandum to all of the teams saying you cannot do this. And os that’s when Bill Belichick was wrong. After he got the memorandum saying don’t do it any more, he did it.
Q: Did you ever steal signals?
JJ: Oh in a heartbeat, yeah. Yes I did.
Q: Via video, Jimmy? Or no?
JJ: Oh yeah, I did it with video and so did a lot of other teams in the league. Just to make sure that you could study it and take your time, because you’re going to play the other team the second time around. But a lot of coaches did it, this was commonplace.
Q: But did you do it by taping the signal caller?
JJ: Yeah.
Q: Oh you did.
JJ: That’s what I’m saying. I was saying one of Marty Schottenheimers scouts, Mark Hatley, who has passed away now, Mark told me that’s how they did it, and Howard Mudd their offensive line coach with Kansas City, who now coaches for Tony Dungy, he was the best in the entire league at stealing signals.
Q: Where’d you put your guy who was videotaping? Where was he?
JJ: My guy was up with my camera crew in the press box. So you’d just put an extra camera up with your camera crew in the press box who zoomed in on the signal callers. That’s the best way to do it, but anyway you can’t always do that because the press box camera crew might be on the same side as the opposing team. If they’re on the same side as the opposing team that’s when you need to do it from the sideline.
Q: Also with some operations and some teams they have equipment set up within the stadium so they can just run it ack and check what’s going on during the game anyway.
JJ: Oh I’ll tell you [laughing] some of the stuff that goes on it’s almost comical.
Q: Jimmy don’t you think using contraptions like that goes against the spirit of football?
JJ: Well that’s why the league put in that you can’t use any electronic equipment, during the game, locker room, press box, sideline, this type of thing. They ruled against it and again that’s why Bill Belichick was wrong.
Q: How much of an advantage would it give them?
JJ: Well you know Bradshaw and I had a talk back and forth on this. I did it a few times and then I stopped doing it because I didn’t think we got much out of it to be honest with you. But games are so close… If it gives you one single play in the ballgame it might be the difference. But again, he was wrong for doing it after the memorandum was sent out by the league, because the league knew that other teams were doing it. And so… it was a commonplace thing though.
____
If a kid asks where rain comes from, I think a cute thing to tell him is 'God is crying.' And if he asks why God is crying, another cute thing to tell him is 'Probably because of something you did.'
- Jack Handey
by OneMore on May 17, 2008 8:13 AM EDT 0 recs
I'd forgotten about that interview
If Jimmy Johnson is credible, this TOTALLY blows the doors off the “Tainted Legacy” rap. 3 time SuperBowl champs – greatest team of the decade.
by MaPatsFan on
May 17, 2008 8:51 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Specter's Spygate investigation comes under fire from Republican senator
“U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, does not think a congressional investigation in the Patriots’ Spygate controversy is worthy of their time.
“Pro football is a multi-million dollar sport with a lot of competitive people from team owners to players and I have every confidence they can regulate themselves in a manner like this,” Graham told ESPN’s Chris Mortensen. “I respect Senator Specter but I think I’m like most Americans who believe we can make better use of our time. We’re getting asked about gas prices, wars and judges but nobody is asking us about football.”
If a kid asks where rain comes from, I think a cute thing to tell him is 'God is crying.' And if he asks why God is crying, another cute thing to tell him is 'Probably because of something you did.'
- Jack Handey
by OneMore on May 17, 2008 6:34 PM EDT 0 recs
New FanPost
