Peter King says if no tape, Kraft could sue Herald - Page 2 - New England Patriots Forums

Hooded Sweatshirt · 02-25-2008, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BelichickFan

Yeah, that was a strange article. He tried to drum up worst case scenarios then backtracked off them.

The thing about what could happen if a tape exists then saying he doesn't think it does was weird at best. Maybe tonight I'll tell my wife I'm leaving her if she's cheating on me - then tell her I don't think she is cheating. Weird stuff.

And, yeah, the inside the 20 thing is stupid. We all need to email him about that.

What is his email address?

***richpats*** · 02-25-2008, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fgssand

There simply cannot be a tape.

Was that last statement based on the evidence or your own wishes?

NOBODY outside of Matt Walsh knows if the Walsh tape exists or not.

PonyExpress · 02-25-2008, 09:42 AM

King has no opinions of his own. He is a mouthpiece, regurgitating opinions he has been fed by powerful sources in the league. I have been and will continue to be hard on tomase and the Herald, but the true villains in this debacle reside inside the power structure of the league, and they have cloaked themselves with mediots and mouthpieces, league statements and unnamed sources, and anonymous tips. The men who have orchestrated this assault on our team are sitting in a smoke filled room at the combine right now, having a good laugh.

***BelichickFan*** · 02-25-2008, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hooded Sweatshirt

What is his email address?

There's a form you can fill in here :

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...ine/index.html

(below the picture of Joe Flacco) titled "Mailbag".

He gets them because he replies to some on Tuesday.

ivanvamp · 02-25-2008, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoePats

He also said the "Rams, as it turned out, struggled mightily inside the 20 in that game.

Apparantly one TD in one possession inside the red zone now is "struggling mightily."

Well, you could look at it two ways:

On the one hand, the Rams went 1-1 inside the red zone with a TD. Moreover, the Rams only got inside the Pats 30 two times, and both times they scored a TD (the other was the 26-yard pass to Proehl to tie the game at 17).

But on the other hand, the Rams *did* struggle inside the red zone. Here are their plays once they got into the red zone:

1st and goal, NE 9 - Warner 6 yd pass to Robinson
2nd and goal, NE 3 - Warner incomplete to Hakim
3rd and goal, NE 3 - Warner incomplete to Bruce
4th and goal, NE 3 - Warner 1 yd run, fumble returned for a TD by T. Jones. Play nullified by defensive holding penalty
1st and goal, NE 1 - Faulk -1 yd run
2nd and goal, NE 2 - Warner 2 yd run, Touchdown

So it took them 6 plays and a fortunate (but correct) defensive penalty to get into the end zone from the 9 yard line.

So did they go 1-1 in the red zone? Clearly, yes. But did they "struggle"? Also, I'd say yes. It was very tough sledding for them.

But Martz' contention is ludicrous, because obviously, even if the Pats knew what was coming, it didn't change the outcome of the game since the Rams scored a TD.

Jimke · 02-25-2008, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by richpats

Was that last statement based on the evidence or your own wishes?

NOBODY outside of Matt Walsh knows if the Walsh tape exists or not.

This is the crux of the situation. Not even the Patriots know if Walsh

taped the walk thru on his own without instructions from the Patriots

to do so. This is why he will be sued by the Patriots if the tape does,

in fact, exist.

JoePats · 02-25-2008, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ivanvamp

Well, you could look at it two ways:

On the one hand, the Rams went 1-1 inside the red zone with a TD. Moreover, the Rams only got inside the Pats 30 two times, and both times they scored a TD (the other was the 26-yard pass to Proehl to tie the game at 17).

But on the other hand, the Rams *did* struggle inside the red zone. Here are their plays once they got into the red zone:

1st and goal, NE 9 - Warner 6 yd pass to Robinson
2nd and goal, NE 3 - Warner incomplete to Hakim
3rd and goal, NE 3 - Warner incomplete to Bruce
4th and goal, NE 3 - Warner 1 yd run, fumble returned for a TD by T. Jones. Play nullified by defensive holding penalty
1st and goal, NE 1 - Faulk -1 yd run
2nd and goal, NE 2 - Warner 2 yd run, Touchdown

So it took them 6 plays and a fortunate (but correct) defensive penalty to get into the end zone from the 9 yard line.

So did they go 1-1 in the red zone? Clearly, yes. But did they "struggle"? Also, I'd say yes. It was very tough sledding for them.

But Martz' contention is ludicrous, because obviously, even if the Pats knew what was coming, it didn't change the outcome of the game since the Rams scored a TD.

The other part though is the Pats defense that year was one of the best red zone defenses in the league. I think they were 22nd in yards allowed but 6th or 7th in points. We'll never know until we hear from the golf-pro.

***PatsFanJess*** · 02-25-2008, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PonyExpress

While he's at it, Bob Kraft should sue the league, ala Al Davis, and depose every coach and GM in the league, past and present, on their various practices. Tell the league he'll drop the suit when he gets a 1st rd pick back. A show trial would make for nice entertainment during the coming strike, and end the ongoing spygate charade, exposing it as cynical bullcrap meant to destroy a franchise by whiny competitors and their sheeple fan bases. Take the gloves off and fight for your honor, Bob. This is a league where honor and glory matter, and yours has been smeared by jackals and carrion birds.

Great post!

JR4 · 02-25-2008, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PonyExpress

While he's at it, Bob Kraft should sue the league, ala Al Davis, and depose every coach and GM in the league, past and present, on their various practices. Tell the league he'll drop the suit when he gets a 1st rd pick back. A show trial would make for nice entertainment during the coming strike, and end the ongoing spygate charade, exposing it as cynical bullcrap meant to destroy a franchise by whiny competitors and their sheeple fan bases. Take the gloves off and fight for your honor, Bob. This is a league where honor and glory matter, and yours has been smeared by jackals and carrion birds.

Very well put PE and accurate also.
Expose the Jackals ...

***MoLewisrocks*** · 02-25-2008, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ivanvamp

Well, you could look at it two ways:

On the one hand, the Rams went 1-1 inside the red zone with a TD. Moreover, the Rams only got inside the Pats 30 two times, and both times they scored a TD (the other was the 26-yard pass to Proehl to tie the game at 17).

But on the other hand, the Rams *did* struggle inside the red zone. Here are their plays once they got into the red zone:

1st and goal, NE 9 - Warner 6 yd pass to Robinson
2nd and goal, NE 3 - Warner incomplete to Hakim
3rd and goal, NE 3 - Warner incomplete to Bruce
4th and goal, NE 3 - Warner 1 yd run, fumble returned for a TD by T. Jones. Play nullified by defensive holding penalty
1st and goal, NE 1 - Faulk -1 yd run
2nd and goal, NE 2 - Warner 2 yd run, Touchdown

So it took them 6 plays and a fortunate (but correct) defensive penalty to get into the end zone from the 9 yard line.

So did they go 1-1 in the red zone? Clearly, yes. But did they "struggle"? Also, I'd say yes. It was very tough sledding for them.

But Martz' contention is ludicrous, because obviously, even if the Pats knew what was coming, it didn't change the outcome of the game since the Rams scored a TD.

If struggles are relative, they struggled a whole lot more to get into the red zone than they did once inside it. And that had nothing to do with any walkthrough plays. As someone among the talking heads pointed out a while back, no tape caused Willie to blatently hold, nor did it cause Warner to fumble - he does that a lot now. And while they stopped Marshall on a goaline run, that's something teams can manage to do even when they always know it's coming - as long as they execute. They were stopping Marshall all over the field all night long by executing. The problem for Martz crew was that shocked them. Warner kept whining on the sidelines that they were stopping Marshall, stopping Isaac, stopping everyone. Duh...

Much like us against the Giants, the team wasn't prepared to be stopped COLD. Everyone knew we were going to throw the ball against the Giants, so did they stop us because they knew what was coming or because they out executed us at the LOS?

Game plans are finalized days before the game or players would never be able to consistently execute them. The only films that allowed us to formulate a plan to stop the Rams and allowed the Giants to formulate a plan to stop us were provided to each team BY THE LEAGUE and covered 19 weeks of in game footage.