Unbelievable! Mike & Mike are still talking about Matt Walsh

[Rob0729]

Ok, I was flipping through stations and I got to ESPN and Mike Lupica was on Mike & Mike and Lupica said that Matt Walsh is on the top of the minds of every sports fan in America. Really?!? Maybe because ESPN will drudge up any reason to bring back up the story while the collective sports audience may get riled up for a day or two when they do and then quickly forget the whole thing.

Later an e-mailer wrote Greeney saying that America doesn't care and he basically chastised the e-mailer and the rest of the country because they should think this is the most important topic in sports right now or something to that effect.

 

[FootballFanetic]

They are right. This isn't going away until we hear from Walsh himself what he has to say, without threat of being sued into oblivion. Plain and simple. I would think Pats fans themselves would want that--it's the only way for all of this to go away is for him to speak.

 

[chech1965]

Matt who?

 

[Spiral]

What Greenberg is really upset about is that the Patriots are right behind his beloved Jets at #7 in the draft. I heard a couple of other nitwits say that Goodell should have taken that pick as well as their other #1. He's trying to shake the tree a little here, hoping that something will fall out before the draft.

 

[PonyExpress]

The guy is a serial liar. Why should the Pats or the NFL give him a platform and promise not to take action should he lie (again)?

This is a NY-Boston, ESPN vs NFL, Comcast vs NFLNetowk issue. That's it. If Walsh doesn't have the guts to speak out that's his problem. No confidentiality agreement prevents him from talking to anyone he pleases.

As for this show, which I don't listen to, I understand Mr. Greenberg is a Jet fan. That makes every word out of his mouth a joke.

Lupica is a famously tendentious NY columnist. He has no idea what the country wants, only what would fit his own agenda. He is an agenda writer, in sports and politics.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

They are right. This isn't going away until we hear from Walsh himself what he has to say, without threat of being sued into oblivion. Plain and simple. I would think Pats fans themselves would want that--it's the only way for all of this to go away is for him to speak.

If he's telling the truth, he has absolutely nothing to fear from anybody (in the US, truth is an absolute defense against defamation lawsuits). Hell, if he had the tape, he could have broadcast it to the world already, and if the Pats tried to do anything, they would be crucified in the media even further.

The problem is, he wants indemnity for anything he might say, basically so long as he believes it is true, and no lawyer worth hiring would (or should) agree to that.

 

[BSR]

I talk to non-NE sports fans all the time. Nobody has mentioned Walsh in eons. As from the begining, this is a media pushed issue.

 

[cblesz]

Hear what you are talking about this morning. Greenberg, whiny biatch that he is was complaining that every time he brings it uo people ridicule him. Of course they do jackarse! Stop talking about it and hoping something comes up. He is a huge Jet fan and would love nothing more than to see the Pats hurt. Deal with it Greenberg, the Jets svck...

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Make that media and message board driven...

This is only the third Matt Walsh related thread here in the last 24 hours...

Incredibly if you back away from your keyboard and monitor you realize that this is getting very little coverage apart from the occasional ESPN outlet blather. Those who choose to mention it here are just doing the same thing with it as Lupica - looking for an audience and attention.

 

[MrTibbs]

They are right. This isn't going away until we hear from Walsh himself what he has to say, without threat of being sued into oblivion. Plain and simple. I would think Pats fans themselves would want that--it's the only way for all of this to go away is for him to speak.

The funny thing is Belichick and Kraft himself are dying to hear what he has to say. There is NOTHING stopping him from talking, NOTHING. They repeatedly said there is nothing legally stopping him from talking. The only reason is he doesn't have sh*t to say.

 

[blackglass3]

Lupica would need a sex change operation just to have the balls to say anything about it to BB's face...he's a big man behind his column in a tabloid (with no e-mail address or comments section where sane people could offer counterpoints, BTW), and on his tv appearances. But if it ever came down to it, he would kiss Belichick (and Barry Bonds) as$es if he ever came across them in a parking lot somewhere, or on TV.

 

[blackglass3]

The funny thing is Belichick and Kraft himself are dying to hear what he has to say. There is NOTHING stopping him from talking, NOTHING. They repeatedly said there is nothing legally stopping him from talking. The only reason is he doesn't have sh*t to say.

Don't bother, he won't reply. He runs in, does his troll thing, and never comes back to the thread.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Ok, I was flipping through stations and I got to ESPN and Mike Lupica was on Mike & Mike and Lupica said that Matt Walsh is on the top of the minds of every sports fan in America. Really?!? Maybe because ESPN will drudge up any reason to bring back up the story while the collective sports audience may get riled up for a day or two when they do and then quickly forget the whole thing.

Later an e-mailer wrote Greeney saying that America doesn't care and he basically chastised the e-mailer and the rest of the country because they should think this is the most important topic in sports right now or something to that effect.

That's just Lupica trying to grab a few cheap headlines to burnish his credentials as a sage observer of the current scene.

Mike Lupica of The Daily News is a wannabe Frank Rich (The New York Times Arts Reporter who transitioned to writing Opinion pieces and his own regular column). Lupica's problem is that his writing style is ponderously self-important and banal while Rich's is erudite and flowing (whether or not one agrees with what Rich says) and Lupica's "ideas," when expressed in his Opinion pieces, are usually nothing more than penetrating glimpses of the obvious, warmed over and repackaged from some ongoing contemporary dialogue in the media or political realm. It's unfortunate, since he is a pretty darn good sports reporter, who should have stuck to his knitting.

 

[FootballFanetic]

Don't bother, he won't reply. He runs in, does his troll thing, and never comes back to the thread.

I'm a lawyer myself, so in response to the prior comment on there being no reason Matt Walsh can't talk, I can tell you first hand that the lack of a confidentiality agreement in no way guarantees that a very rich man and very large organization can't make your life a living h*ll for telling the truth about them by dragging you through the mud (as the Pats and the League have already tried to do--that Boston Globe puff piece and the ex-FBI folks the NFL hired to investigate Walsh's background come to mind) and possibly suing you anyways in a spurrious defamation action that you'll have to spend years and hundreds of thousands to defend. You know what I just wrote is all true--your homer glasses just won't allow you to see it. For a literary version of this topic, try reading "Atonement" by Ian McEwan (or check out the recent movie.)

By the same token, this doesn't mean that Walsh has the goods on the Pats, but we need to hear from him what he has so that we can judge for ourselves whether it's credible or not. Again, I defy anyone here to argue with that logic.

 

[Rob0729]

I did forget one thing. Greenberg has actually started a "Days that have passed that the League hasn't spoke to Matt Walsh". He has it at 74.

I think with Golic on vacation (Trey Wingo is filling in), Greeney can push his Jets fan agenda.

 

[Rob0729]

Make that media and message board driven...

This is only the third Matt Walsh related thread here in the last 24 hours...

Incredibly if you back away from your keyboard and monitor you realize that this is getting very little coverage apart from the occasional ESPN outlet blather. Those who choose to mention it here are just doing the same thing with it as Lupica - looking for an audience and attention.

Do you really think posting something here is really going to help their ratings or draw more viewers? If anything, this could have the opposite affect. I am sure that more than half the people on this board who read this thread would be less likely to listen to Mike and Mike now than they were before they read it.

If this was posted on a message board for a team where the fans generally hate the Pats, it might achieve their goal.

 

[Va_Pats_Fan]

I'm a lawyer myself, so in response to the prior comment on there being no reason Matt Walsh can't talk, I can tell you first hand that the lack of a confidentiality agreement in no way guarantees that a very rich man and very large organization can't make your life a living h*ll for telling the truth about them by dragging you through the mud (as the Pats and the League have already tried to do--that Boston Globe puff piece and the ex-FBI folks the NFL hired to investigate Walsh's background come to mind) and possibly suing you anyways in a spurrious defamation action that you'll have to spend years and hundreds of thousands to defend. You know what I just wrote is all true--your homer glasses just won't allow you to see it. For a literary version of this topic, try reading "Atonement" by Ian McEwan (or check out the recent movie.)

By the same token, this doesn't mean that Walsh has the goods on the Pats, but we need to hear from him what he has so that we can judge for ourselves whether it's credible or not. Again, I defy anyone here to argue with that logic.

Everything is based on risk vs reward. In your scenario, knowing that the "truth" was told, what is the NFL's reward in doing that? Bad publicity? A failed lawsuit? Assuming that he told the truth, and there was more dirt...No reward there at all. Just a big windmill.

Lawyers, knowing that the NFL would have to ante up the fee's eventually would be lining up to take that case for Walsh. Since, in your own words, the suit is spurious, would they not also launch a counter suit?

 

[blackglass3]

blah blah blah I hate the Patriots and preach about it on one of thier fan sites because the Toronto Bills don't have any fan sites.

1. The ex-FBI thing. ESPN HATES the Pats right now. Don't you think if this was true it would have gotten more press than it did. You showed one article where it said some ex-FBI guy was probably digging on Matt Walsh. If any of that was even HALF true, it would have been on Sportscenter, NYT, CNNSI...it would have been EVERYWHERE for WEEKS. You continue to preach like that is the reason Matt Walsh has been keeping quiet...he already has a US Senator providing a lawyer for him. How much more protection does he need?

2. If you're a lawyer, why don't you help get the NFL and Matt Walsh to get thier agreement? Or even call and inquire about it? Don't sit on a message board trolling, go help The Noble and Just Matt Walsh's Cause.

 

[Metaphors]

I'm a lawyer myself ... By the same token, this doesn't mean that Walsh has the goods on the Pats, but we need to hear from him what he has so that we can judge for ourselves whether it's credible or not. Again, I defy anyone here to argue with that logic.

If you are a lawyer, you know the importance of motive. Rational people don't do things without a reason. Putting Walsh's sanity to the side for a moment...what was his motivation for not saying "I have no comment" when approached by the media? Come up with a credible answer to that question and the rest of the puzzle pieces fall into place.

By not asking the question about his motivation, you are free to fill in the blanks with whatever suits your agenda. He is a whistleblower that cares about the integrity of the NFL. Seriously? He is a scared kid being hassled by a powerful corporation and needs protection. Huh?

When you get to the point where you can see the money motivations by everyone involved, then you can offer a meaningful contribution on this subject. Walsh is Jose Canseco with less credibility and no book deal.

 

[PonyExpress]

I'm a lawyer myself, so in response to the prior comment on there being no reason Matt Walsh can't talk, I can tell you first hand that the lack of a confidentiality agreement in no way guarantees that a very rich man and very large organization can't make your life a living h*ll for telling the truth about them by dragging you through the mud (as the Pats and the League have already tried to do--that Boston Globe puff piece and the ex-FBI folks the NFL hired to investigate Walsh's background come to mind) and possibly suing you anyways in a spurrious defamation action that you'll have to spend years and hundreds of thousands to defend. You know what I just wrote is all true--your homer glasses just won't allow you to see it. For a literary version of this topic, try reading "Atonement" by Ian McEwan (or check out the recent movie.)

By the same token, this doesn't mean that Walsh has the goods on the Pats, but we need to hear from him what he has so that we can judge for ourselves whether it's credible or not. Again, I defy anyone here to argue with that logic.

I see. As a lawyer, you begrudge the Patriots the right to sue to defend themselves against a lie. You would rather they renounced their legal rights, and allowed a known liar to have a platform without any reprecussions should he lie again. I respect the law, and some lawyers, but this is ridiculous.