Walsh's Times interview [merged]

[DaBruinz]

Very interesting. He was actually hired by the team BEFORE Bill Belichick came on board and was taping games then.

Also, I find his telling about the No Huddle offense to be funny because its clearly there to throw people off and to make him look like he knows what he is doing in terms of coaching..

 

[BadMoFo]

Re: Walsh's Times Interview

So him saying that it worked 75 percent of the time is hearsay from what he heard from someone.

A. Well, I gave him the piece of information that I gave to you about the conversation I had with a quarterback who told me that the first time it was used, at least 75 percent of the time it was successful.

Also, the stuff about the walkthrough is pathetic.

So I guess the next guys that the media will go after are Ernie Adams, Jimmy Dee, Charlie Weis, Brian Daboll and "the quarterback."

What I don't get is why the Times didn't ask him anything about why he got fired? If he is still upset at the Patriots for firing him?

 

[BrianPat]

Re: Walsh's Times Interview

So him saying that it worked 75 percent of the time is hearsay from what he heard from someone.



Also, the stuff about the walkthrough is pathetic.

So I guess the next guys that the media will go after are Ernie Adams, Jimmy Dee, Charlie Weis, Brian Daboll and "the quarterback."

What I don't get is why the Times didn't ask him anything about why he got fired? If he is still upset at the Patriots for firing him?

Or about Spectors comment that the Jets were doing it, they brought it up, but didn't name the team ?? Oh, not biased LOL

 

[BradyManny]

Re: Walsh's Times Interview

Bledsoe and Brady are both on record saying they've never had any information about what the defense was about to be run fed to them. So whatever information Weiss gathered from Adams would be incorporated into the playcall and not given to the quarterback. Which makes sense, you don't want to give the QB more information than they need and only want them worrying about what they're executing.

But what's hugely ignored in this whole thing about the "75% of the plays" is that Brady knows what the defense is running 75% of the time anyway based on their film work and ability to study a D. I guess that's the most frustrating thing about this whole thing, all the shyt that BB has had to go through, at the end of the day, they didn't even really need this, yet they're getting killed for it.

 

[BelichickFan]

Re: Walsh's Times Interview

Very interesting. He was actually hired by the team BEFORE Bill Belichick came on board and was taping games then.

He wasn't taping coaching signals back then, though, unless I misread; regardless, everything he said was benign to me a covered in what we knew back in September.

 

[BradyManny]

Re: Walsh's Times Interview

He wasn't taping coaching signals back then, though, unless I misread; regardless, everything he said was benign to me a covered in what we knew back in September.

That's what I gathered as well.

Interesting Zolak comment yesterday was that his main job as a backup was to try and steal defensive signals. I honestly think the average Patriot hater has no clue that stealing signals is a part of the game and an accepted one, and don't realize that a) it was the taping that we were penalized for, not for having stolen signals b) up until 2006, BB's explanation of using the tapes for another game is rather legit.

 

[BelichickFan]

Re: Walsh's Times Interview

Interesting Zolak comment yesterday was that his main job as a backup was to try and steal defensive signals. I honestly think the average Patriot hater has no clue that stealing signals is a part of the game and an accepted one, and don't realize that a) it was the taping that we were penalized for, not for having stolen signals b) up until 2006, BB's explanation of using the tapes for another game is rather legit.

That's exactly the point. The tapes were used to steal signals. The end result is no different than having someone write it down; why video ? it expedites the process and likely makes it more error free. But there's no indication they were used in the same game and the only thing they were used for was to steal signs which, we all know, is legal.

A bunch of stuff about very little.

 

[BradyManny]

Re: Walsh's Times Interview

That's exactly the point. The tapes were used to steal signals. The end result is no different than having someone write it down; why video ? it expedites the process and likely makes it more error free. But there's no indication they were used in the same game and the only thing they were used for was to steal signs which, we all know, is legal.

A bunch of stuff about very little.

Honestly, I think the best idea I heard is just to make taping signals legal. If everything's fair game, teams would have to change them up week to week anyway. It's all moot now because of the headsets.

To me, stealing signals is basically like counting cards. I can't understand how it could be considered cheating. So, we used technology to help count cards. Big deal. After 2006, it was a clear violation of the rules, and thats the only thing we can really fault BB for.

 

[RussFrancis]

Re: Walsh's Times Interview

the more he opens his mouth, the more he sounds like an asst. golf pro.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Re: Walsh's Times Interview

one comment showed you how important the signal taping wasn't:

It was the kind of situation that being the third video guy, there wasn’t anything else I necessarily needed to shoot, especially for home games. So it was said, “Go ahead and shoot the signals.”


something like this, I'd guess:
OK, there...Matt, that's your name, right? Get me some coffee, please... and you say you have nothing better to do, huh? Well, shoot the coaches signals, I guess. Or pick your nose... whatever.

 

[NEPatriot]

Re: Walsh's Times Interview

What I don't get is why the Times didn't ask him anything about why he got fired? If he is still upset at the Patriots for firing him?

he would say that he was glad that he left Pats even if he was NOT fire because he didn't like what they told him to do. Cheating is bad. A outstanding citizen if you ask me.? It certainly explains to everybody that he has not worked at the same company for more than 2 years.

As long as Time can keep spygate going for another 10 years, they don't care if this guy is mentally ******ed or whatever.

 

[BelichickFan]

Re: Walsh's Times Interview

The talk with Daboll was ridiculous too. Hardly diabolical. He told a coach he'd seen something and Daboll says : what did you see. What's he expected to do, say "shhh, don't say anything" ?

 

[Rob0729]

Re: Walsh's Times Interview

Bledsoe and Brady are both on record saying they've never had any information about what the defense was about to be run fed to them. So whatever information Weiss gathered from Adams would be incorporated into the playcall and not given to the quarterback. Which makes sense, you don't want to give the QB more information than they need and only want them worrying about what they're executing.

But what's hugely ignored in this whole thing about the "75% of the plays" is that Brady knows what the defense is running 75% of the time anyway based on their film work and ability to study a D. I guess that's the most frustrating thing about this whole thing, all the shyt that BB has had to go through, at the end of the day, they didn't even really need this, yet they're getting killed for it.

The thing is Walsh says that it was a QB that was fed the defensive signals before the Tampa game in 2000. If it wasn't Brady or Bledsoe, it had to be either Michael Bishop or John Friesz.

Here are excerpts from Walsh's interview with the NY Times:

I actually asked one of our quarterbacks if the information that I provided was beneficial in any way. He said, “Actually, probably about 75 percent of the time, Tampa Bay ran the defense we thought they were going to run. If not more.” Because a lot of times, when you’re coming out of a timeout, the defense isn’t signaled in. It’s just told in the huddle. “So that’s even discounting those as times we didn’t know.”

Q. So it was a small circle. Who knew?

A. The people that came to know were Jimmy Dee, obviously, Fernando Neto, who was the assistant video director at the time, found out just because we worked in such close circles. He knew what I was doing. Ernie Adams was the person I presented the tapes to. And then the quarterback that I had spoken with said Charlie Weis and Bill Belichick also knew about it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/sports/football/16nfl.html?ref=football

I still think the QB in question is Bledsoe. I also don't see Bledsoe as being the source of the Times February 22nd article who the player in question in that article is clearly the QB that Walsh talks about in today's articles (in fact, the image on the website the Times ran with was Bledsoe with Belichick which usually means that Bledsoe is the player in question).

Since Walsh says the circle who knew about using the tape that game was very small. I am still convinced Walsh was the source of the February 22nd article and would indicated he lied to Goodell.

 

[bradmahn]

Re: Walsh's Times Interview

The talk with Daboll was ridiculous too. Hardly diabolical. He told a coach he'd seen something and Daboll says : what did you see. What's he expected to do, say "shhh, don't say anything" ?

Which is, in fact, very different than how it's been represented in the media since Tuesday. Walsh approached Daboll concerning information, not the other way around.

 

[Rob0729]

Re: Walsh's Times Interview

Very interesting. He was actually hired by the team BEFORE Bill Belichick came on board and was taping games then.

Actually, Walsh says in the Times interview that he didn't tape before 2000.

Q. Was there any taping of signals in ’99?

A. No.


Q. What was the first game you filmed?

A. Tampa Bay, preseason, 2000.

 

[BradyManny]

Re: Walsh's Times Interview

The thing is Walsh says that it was a QB that was fed the defensive signals before the Tampa game in 2000. If it wasn't Brady or Bledsoe, it had to be either Michael Bishop or John Friesz.

Here are excerpts from Walsh's interview with the NY Times:





http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/sports/football/16nfl.html?ref=football

I still think the QB in question is Bledsoe. I also don't see Bledsoe as being the source of the Times February 22nd article who the player in question in that article is clearly the QB that Walsh talks about in today's articles (in fact, the image on the website the Times ran with was Bledsoe with Belichick which usually means that Bledsoe is the player in question).

Since Walsh says the circle who knew about using the tape that game was very small. I am still convinced Walsh was the source of the February 22nd article and would indicated he lied to Goodell.

I was figuring the QB in question to be a backup. Walsh said that he was not aware if Weiss fed information about the defensive playcall into the headset to the QB on the field - I doubt that they do, considering both Brady and Drew have emphatically said no, this was not the case.

So I think the QB in question is just the backup who is standing on the sidelines watching the opposing D. That's what I took from it at least.

 

[Rob0729]

Re: Walsh's Times Interview

I was figuring the QB in question to be a backup. Walsh said that he was not aware if Weiss fed information about the defensive playcall into the headset to the QB on the field - I doubt that they do, considering both Brady and Drew have emphatically said no, this was not the case.

So I think the QB in question is just the backup who is standing on the sidelines watching the opposing D. That's what I took from it at least.

Maybe. That could be why Specter tried to contact Damon Huard eventhough Huard refused to talk. Yes, Huard wasn't on the team in 2000. But if the QB in question is John Freisz, Specter and his staff might have thought that Huard would have been privvy to the same information.

If this is the case, this further connect the dots of a connection between Specter and Matt Walsh and/or Michael Levy prior to Tuesday.

 

[shmessy]

Re: Walsh's Times Interview

Maybe. That could be why Specter tried to contact Damon Huard eventhough Huard refused to talk. Yes, Huard wasn't on the team in 2001. But if the QB in question is John Freisz, Specter and his staff might have thought that Huard would have been privvy to the same information.

If this is the case, this further connect the dots of a connection between Specter and Matt Walsh and/or Michael Levy prior to Tuesday.

Huard was a Patriot in the 2001 season.....along with 2002 and 2003.

 

[Rob0729]

Re: Walsh's Times Interview

Huard was a Patriot in the 2001 season.....along with 2002 and 2003.

Sorry, my bad. I meant 2000. That was the year the game in question that the Times and Walsh said the QB knew. I will change my original post.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: Walsh's Times Interview

I'm going to be honest, the way that Walsh refused to say who the QB was leads me to believe it was Brady. That being said, it could have also been Friesz.