PFT speculation: Pats did NOT tape Rams '01 reg season

[JoePats]

WALSH DIDN’T FILM RAMS DURING 2001 REGULAR SEASON
Posted by Mike Florio on May 26, 2008, 9:29 p.m.

Last week, we wrote that someone needs to nail down the question of whether former Pats video employee Matt Walsh taped the defensive coaching signals of the St. Louis Rams during the 2001 regular-season game played between the two teams.

If Walsh did, then there would be a real possibility that the tape was used in an effort to crack the Rams’ code for the teams’ Super Bowl XXXVI rematch.

Buried in a Q&A session between Walsh and the New York Times is the apparent answer to the question. Asked what his duties were during that regular-season game, Walsh said: “Filmed, to the best of my recollection. I can’t specifically say I remember the details of what I filmed.”

So the answer to the key question is “maybe”.

We’re concerned, frankly, by the equivocal nature of Walsh’s response. Faced with an opportunity to remove a fairly large cloud of concern from the Pats’ unexpected achievements in 2001, Walsh pulled out the “I don’t remember” card, even though his memory on other topics is as clear and thorough as Rain Man’s knowledge of the phone book from A through half of G.

How could Walsh not remember whether the team’s then-fledging taping experiment would return the ultimate payoff by giving the Pats video evidence of the Rams’ defensive coaching signals as the two teams prepared to meet in the Super Bowl?

Surely, Walsh didn’t tape the Rams’ defensive coaching signals during that regular season game. Otherwise, he would have said that he did. His failure to say that he didn’t in unmistakable terms is, in our view, disgraceful.

Our guess is that Walsh knew that he’d be running afoul of the terms of his indemnity agreement with the NFL if he said he taped the 2001 regular-season game with the Rams, and so he opted to allow the doubt to continue to hover on this specific question. And Greg Bishop of the New York Times, whose puff pieces on folks like Walsh lawyer Michael Levy, former Patriots quarterback Drew Bledsoe, and former NFL exec Charley Casserly possibly were rewarded with scoops such as the submission of tapes from Matt Walsh to the NFL, an off-the-record statement from a former Pats player (Bledsoe?) regarding the cheating scandal, an unnamed quotes from a longtime NFL exec with knowledge of competition committee meetings (Casserly?) regarding the supposed focus of cheating complaints on the Pats, failed in his duty to play both sides of the story evenly by not pressing Walsh as to the ludicrous nature of his supposed failure of recollection.

So even though Walsh stopped short of claiming that the Pats engaged in more widespread cheating than previously reported, we believe that part of his plan was to cause as much trouble for the team as he possibly could, while at the same time protecting himself against any claim that he was intentionally lying.

Also, Florio obviously read Bruce Allen's BSM piece.

 

[BPF]

Walsh intentionally lying

Noooooooooooooooooooooo, I can't believe it. He seems like such a great kid (sarcasm). I can't believe it took this long for someone in the media, hey PFT counts, to call him something we all knew all along, a liar.

WALSH DIDN’T FILM RAMS DURING 2001 REGULAR SEASON
Posted by Mike Florio on May 26, 2008, 9:29 p.m. EDT
Last week, we wrote that someone needs to nail down the question of whether former Pats video employee Matt Walsh taped the defensive coaching signals of the St. Louis Rams during the 2001 regular-season game played between the two teams.

If Walsh did, then there would be a real possibility that the tape was used in an effort to crack the Rams’ code for the teams’ Super Bowl XXXVI rematch.

Buried in a Q&A session between Walsh and the New York Times is the apparent answer to the question. Asked what his duties were during that regular-season game, Walsh said: “Filmed, to the best of my recollection. I can’t specifically say I remember the details of what I filmed.”

So the answer to the key question is “maybe”.

We’re concerned, frankly, by the equivocal nature of Walsh’s response. Faced with an opportunity to remove a fairly large cloud of concern from the Pats’ unexpected achievements in 2001, Walsh pulled out the “I don’t remember” card, even though his memory on other topics is as clear and thorough as Rain Man’s knowledge of the phone book from A through half of G.

How could Walsh not remember whether the team’s then-fledging taping experiment would return the ultimate payoff by giving the Pats video evidence of the Rams’ defensive coaching signals as the two teams prepared to meet in the Super Bowl?

Surely, Walsh didn’t tape the Rams’ defensive coaching signals during that regular season game. Otherwise, he would have said that he did. His failure to say that he didn’t in unmistakable terms is, in our view, disgraceful.

Our guess is that Walsh knew that he’d be running afoul of the terms of his indemnity agreement with the NFL if he said he taped the 2001 regular-season game with the Rams, and so he opted to allow the doubt to continue to hover on this specific question. And Greg Bishop of the New York Times, whose puff pieces on folks like Walsh lawyer Michael Levy, former Patriots quarterback Drew Bledsoe, and former NFL exec Charley Casserly possibly were rewarded with scoops such as the submission of tapes from Matt Walsh to the NFL, an off-the-record statement from a former Pats player (Bledsoe?) regarding the cheating scandal, an unnamed quotes from a longtime NFL exec with knowledge of competition committee meetings (Casserly?) regarding the supposed focus of cheating complaints on the Pats, failed in his duty to play both sides of the story evenly by not pressing Walsh as to the ludicrous nature of his supposed failure of recollection.

So even though Walsh stopped short of claiming that the Pats engaged in more widespread cheating than previously reported, we believe that part of his plan was to cause as much trouble for the team as he possibly could, while at the same time protecting himself against any claim that he was intentionally lying.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

Also, Florio obviously read Bruce Allen's BSM piece.

and should have credited him....

From last week...........

http://www.bostonsportsmedia.com/20...aceful-episode-in-recent-sports-media-history

Greg Bishop, New York Times - You can detect a clear pattern in his stories. Let’s see, a puff piece on Charley Casserly in April leads to a piece in May with a “longtime N.F.L. team executive.” Think they’re not one and the same?

Another puff piece on Michael Levy in March leads to the Times getting the 8 Tapes from Walsh before the NFL did and also an exclusive interview with Matt Walsh.

Why in the world would the New York Times write a piece on Drew Bledsoe? (March 10) Well, on February 22nd, Bishop got a
“a former Patriots player” to talk about the Patriots taping signals as far back as 2000. Is it too much of a stretch to consider that Bishop wrote the article on Bledsoe’s wine and coffee business ventures as payola for the info in the Feb 22nd article?

From 5/26/08

http://www.profootballtalk.com/category/rumor-mill/

Surely, Walsh didn’t tape the Rams’ defensive coaching signals during that regular season game. Otherwise, he would have said that he did. His failure to say that he didn’t in unmistakable terms is, in our view, disgraceful.

Our guess is that Walsh knew that he’d be running afoul of the terms of his indemnity agreement with the NFL if he said he taped the 2001 regular-season game with the Rams, and so he opted to allow the doubt to continue to hover on this specific question. And Greg Bishop of the New York Times, whose puff pieces on folks like Walsh lawyer Michael Levy, former Patriots quarterback Drew Bledsoe, and former NFL exec Charley Casserly possibly were rewarded with scoops such as the submission of tapes from Matt Walsh to the NFL, an off-the-record statement from a former Pats player (Bledsoe?) regarding the cheating scandal, an unnamed quotes from a longtime NFL exec with knowledge of competition committee meetings (Casserly?) regarding the supposed focus of cheating complaints on the Pats, failed in his duty to play both sides of the story evenly by not pressing Walsh as to the ludicrous nature of his supposed failure of recollection.

 

[IcyPatriot]

Another thread about a useless topic ... when is mini camp?

 

[IcyPatriot]

Re: Walsh intentionally lying

Another bowel movement thread ... it's like diareah around here.

 

[Rob0729]

Another thread about a useless topic ... when is mini camp?

I agree. Last week, the guy was speculating that the Pats did tape the regular season game. Now he is speculating the opposite. He is playing both sides of the fence to drive traffic to his site. I see this as ESPN putting the loudmouth Joey Porter on camera to keep Spygate alive. No use giving Florio the floor for such an obvious manipulation.

Although, his possible plaigiarizing BSM's piece is a bit disturbing.

 

[DefenseRules]

Re: Walsh intentionally lying

Another bowel movement thread ... it's like diareah around here.

LOL!! That's all I can say.

 

[BigMike]

PFT: Trying To Extend Spygate Until 2010: Why R U Playing Along?

He needs his hit counts to stay high so he can keep making those ad dollars. Alledgedly, ESPN is intersted in buying his site, so he has to try and stay in lockstep with MTV jr. aka ESPN.

Dont be PFT lapdogs - frankly its embarrassing.

 

[BelichickFan]

Re: PFT -Trying To Extend Spygate Until 2010-Why R U Playing Along?

It's a nation wide addiction. After 8 months they don't know how to stop. Is there a spygate patch or something ?

:bricks:

 

[BigMike]

Re: PFT -Trying To Extend Spygate Until 2010-Why R U Playing Along?

this future ESPN website seller is hoping "Matt Walsh Scratched his Nuts During SB 36' "Matt Walsh Says BB Hates referees"
will pump up his website sale price and give him the fame he wants....

Look for Spygate 2040 - "Matt Walsh Says BB Denied Him Access To His Nursing Home" stuff on the interweb.

 

[Rob0729]

Re: PFT -Trying To Extend Spygate Until 2010-Why R U Playing Along?

He is definitely transparent on this. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he is posting on his comments fields to rile people up. I played along for awhile, but no more.

He will post a "Pats are guilty" type of post tomorrow. That's his pattern now. Post stories that appease and riles up both sides.

 

[jmt57]

It's a double edged sword. On one hand PFT is the only national web site willing to write articles in defense of the Pats, while all the others are either telling fans what they want to hear (your team should have won) or are trying to instigate a riot in order to increase interest (and views, ratings, ad rates and profits - e.g., espn.)

One one hand I'm bothered that Florio did not credit BSMW and on the other I'm glad he didn't. Florio obviously used thier piece for his own benefit without mentioning his source, a huge journalism gaffe. On the other hand if he had revealed his source, everybody outside of New England would have dismissed it as 'homer journalism' and assumed it was also a 'puff' piece, slanted based on it's origin without even considering its merits - or reading the article beyond the heading where it said "Boston Sports Media Watch." Heck, I've already seen other web sites use this article just for BSMW's title; the original writer as well as commenters pile on as if it's a Gregg Easterbrook column, without (obviously) having even bothered to click on the link and read the article.

 

[BigMike]

Re: PFT -Trying To Extend Spygate Until 2010-Why R U Playing Along?

so he can make that advertising revenue.....its all about the $$$$

 

[Rob0729]

It's a double edged sword. On one hand PFT is the only national web site willing to write articles in defense of the Pats, while all the others are either telling fans what they want to hear (your team should have won) or are trying to instigate a riot in order to increase interest (and views, ratings, ad rates and profits - e.g., espn.)

One one hand I'm bothered that Florio did not credit BSMW and on the other I'm glad he didn't. Florio obviously used thier piece for his own benefit without mentioning his source, a huge journalism gaffe. On the other hand if he had revealed his source, everybody outside of New England would have dismissed it as 'homer journalism' and assumed it was also a 'puff' piece, slanted based on it's origin without even considering its merits - or reading thearticle beyond the heading where it sais "Boston Sports Media Watch." Heck, I've seen other web sites use the article just for BSMW's title; the original writer as well as commenters pile on as if it's a Gregg Easterbrook column, without (obviously) having even bothered to click on the link and read the article.

Let's be real. Nothing in that article is going to change anyone's minds either way. Do you really think Patriots haters are going to read what Florio or BSM says and say "Hey, maybe Matt Walsh has an ax to grind." Aint' gonna happen.

Every single thread associated with Spygate or the Patriots on his site are almost exactly the same. In fact, a little conveniently too much the same. It seems that there is always someone baiting the other side early in the thread. I am really starting to believe that it may be Florio trying to infuriate people to keep posting.

 

[Rob0729]

Re: PFT -Trying To Extend Spygate Until 2010-Why R U Playing Along?

so he can make that advertising revenue.....its all about the $$$$

Of course it is. He and ESPN are both transparent on how they are desperately trying to keep this story alive because of ratings and clicks. Seriously, why did NFL Live have Joey Porter of all people come on and talk about Spygate? Because they know he would run off at the mouth and say something controversal that will grab headlines.

 

[PatsFan24]

Re: PFT -Trying To Extend Spygate Until 2010-Why R U Playing Along?

Of course it is. He and ESPN are both transparent on how they are desperately trying to keep this story alive because of ratings and clicks. Seriously, why did NFL Live have Joey Porter of all people come on and talk about Spygate? Because they know he would run off at the mouth and say something controversal that will grab headlines.

of course....espn is satan

 

[PatsFan24]

Re: Walsh intentionally lying

Another bowel movement thread ... it's like diareah around here.

LOL well said

 

[SVN]

Re: Walsh intentionally lying

wasnt this same content posted in some other article -bostonsportsmedia ..was it ?

this PFT piece is a direct lift off of that.

EDIT: here is the piece he copied from http://www.bostonsportsmedia.com/20...aceful-episode-in-recent-sports-media-history

 

[jmt57]

Re: PFT -Trying To Extend Spygate Until 2010-Why R U Playing Along?

Why would ESPN be interested in buying PFT? Is Florio and his rumors really that much of a threat to their own web site? Or is it because PFT is the only well known site that exposes ESPN as frauds?

Once there was a time when monopolistic practices were not allowed, but not today. This takeover will silently go through with both sides smiling while the public has one less contrary voice to help make an informed decision.

 

[Rob0729]

Re: PFT -Trying To Extend Spygate Until 2010-Why R U Playing Along?

Why would ESPN be interested in buying PFT? Is Florio and his rumors really that much of a threat to their own web site? Or is it because PFT is the only well known site that exposes ESPN as frauds?

Once there was a time when monopolistic practices were not allowed, but not today. This takeover will silently go through with both sides smiling while the public has one less contrary voice to help make an informed decision.

Are you sure ESPN is thinking of buying PFT? I thought Florio left ESPN because they wouldn't let him write the stories that he is writing now for his own site. That's part of the reason why Florio is less than flattering towards ESPN and their writers in his articles.