SaCaCh

what could this be, just showed up on his site.

otis p. driftwood

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/sp...tml?ref=sports

Looks like standard hack Times bullshirt crap.

SaCaCh

But what are the "new" charges?

otis p. driftwood

How about you read the article and find out?

As I said "standard hack crap".

Meaning standard NY Times fare--pick up all the old stuff and present it as new because obviously it's never been covered before until they cover it.

pats1

There's none, it's just two overzealous Times reporters thinking they're uncovering something new. They're not. We know this to be true.

Hok

It's "new" to incompetent NY Times writers (redundant, I know) who don't understand that the original punishment covers ALL signal filming.

otis p. driftwood

Umm...that's what I said.

BelichickFan

Again, people have trouble comprehending. Not you guys. The media.

Belichick told Goodall about all the taping he's done. We assume he told the truth. Goodall said the tapes just had stuff from 2006 on. Those two statements DO NOT mean that Belichick said he started taping in 2006. He likely told Goodall he's been doing it all along and re-used tapes when the analysis was done.

For some reason, people have decided that the fact that Goodall said the tapes were from no earlier than 2006 means that any taping prior to 2006 is "new allegations against Belichick". However it's not, assuming that Belichick really did tell Goodall everything.

SaCaCh

Um I read it and found nothing "new". This is retread stuff.

SaCaCh

Ordway, who we know has some inside connection to the Pats said that he was told they don't keep the tapes for more than a couple years. The Pats tape over after a few years. So we have been taping since 2000, but only had actual tapes that went back to 2006.