Welcome to PatsFans.com

A running list of Matt Walsh's LIES

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by BradyManny, May 17, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. kkpat

    kkpat Third String But Playing on Special Teams

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    940
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Basically he is embellishing everything to to make it look like he knows what is going on with tapes. He basically throws sh!t out there. He knows that NY ***** licking NY times will twist them to make BB look bad. He did not make up all these lies to Goddell because some of the things he is saying are LIES and the agreement with NFL protects him only if he tells truth. The Patriots lawyer was there in the meeting. If he lies in the meeting and if Patriots provide evidence he lied, he would be in a lot of trouble. But HBO and NY Times care sh!t about truth. They want juice not truth. They want him to LIE and exaggerate.

    This is what he told Goddell:

    I practically never had any contact with BB. He is the man behind the curtain.

    Look at these questions:

    Look at the question and the answer. There is no relevance. The question is about tapes and the answer is about QB learning signals on the field. There are totally different things. Is there a rule in NFL that QB can't look at opposing defensive coaches? Probably every backup QB with a clip book tries to read opposing defense signals and help the offense. The questioner and Walsh combine totally different things to make it look like there is a connection between tapes and game. I bet Chris "Farter" does not care. Chris "Farter" will read this and farts! from his mouth on ESPN. So would many NY media morons will spin it in whatever fashion they want.

    ROTFLMAO about this ... But Chris Farter, loser JETS fans and NY IQ less media will jump all over this.
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2008
  2. Rob0729

    Rob0729 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    32,069
    Likes Received:
    860
    Ratings:
    +2,596 / 26 / -7

    Not that I like to be in the position to defend Walsh, but after watching Walsh on the HBO interview that is it clear that the QB in question is either John Friesz or Michael Bishop. My money is on Friesz since he was the most season veteran and if I remember correctly his departure was far from the friendliest.

    I thought it could be Bledsoe since it would make sense for him to see the sign and call an audible at the line. But Walsh said it was a back up feeding the signals to Weis so Weis could get the play into Bledsoe. That definitely eliminates Bledsoe. Brady was the fourth QB and not active for that game and wasn't on the sidelines so it wasn't him either. I was wrong originally on that one myself.

    I do think it is ridiculous to believe that it helped them with 75% of the plays that Friesz decifered though considering preseason games are usually very vanilla defenses. Monty Kiffin is a bright man and probably opened up the playbook during the game where he hadn't in the preseason. Besides Kiffin has been around the block and must change up his signals.
     
  3. kkpat

    kkpat Third String But Playing on Special Teams

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    940
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Moron! Stop it you stupid loser! Don't try to hoodwink us that you are a PATS fan. You are mixing up things to criticize BB. We know that you are NY jerk (i mean JETS) fan masquerading as PATS fan.

    "Goodell investigated 50 people to check if there was a video tape of RAMS. BB told the truth about it."

    Goodell did not buy BB's excuse for taping that he misinterpreted the rule. Don't mix in two and make up a LIE. Where did you get your training? From Chris Farter on ESPN? ....
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2008
  4. BradfordPatsFan

    BradfordPatsFan In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    2,525
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    The no huddle thing is interesting, and by "interesting" I mean "assinine". Doesn't he realize that when the Pats went to the no huddle/hurry up/2 minute, whatever, in that game, they were down two scores and needed to score quickly? Or that they were playing a very fast, physical defense and wanted to wear them down by keeping the same players on the field?

    This must be what BB meant by Walsh's limited football knowldege.
     
  5. kolbitr

    kolbitr Third String But Playing on Special Teams

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    653
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    I have no idea why some of you posters are attempting to argue with these gnomes and worms from other boards...none of them are well-informed or clever...and I am not sure that any of them are even football fans.

    They are just fleas. And make Walsh look knowledgeable by comparison--no easy feat!
     
  6. nelly57

    nelly57 On the Roster

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Big difference in apologizing for a lie and apologizing for a mistake. BTW, without knowing the context of the two memos and whether the bylaws allows memos to supercede them, its really hard to comment.

    BTW, "dog ate the ball" is the excuse of the day, courtesy from our world series champs. ;)
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2008
  7. Joker

    Joker PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2004
    Messages:
    17,842
    Likes Received:
    905
    Ratings:
    +2,701 / 20 / -26

    You're a moron. What were the Patriots supposed to say to the commisioner.."We don't accept your penalty!!!...please....seek life elsewhere
     
  8. kkpat

    kkpat Third String But Playing on Special Teams

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    940
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Don't try to change the subject here. You got caught redhanded here...

    You said "Goodell spoke to 50 people and still did not believe BB". This is a LIE. I called you out on that. Goodell spoke to 50 people about RAMS tape. He believed BB on that. Walsh only confirmed that BB and PATS were telling the truth. Goodell said no more punishment.

    Instead of addressing that, you rant here. "BB blah blah blah blah blah blah blah"

    What is your point here?

    BB broke a rule. He pleaded ignorance. I for one think he continued to defy the league. PATS and he got screwed for that. This is a lesson for him.

    When I see your rant here , I know you JETS fans can't stand him since he dissed you guys and came here. He built a dynasty. You losers have been losing for 10 years. I can understand your frustration. I am HAPPY about that. I am sure all the money you spent on Damien Woody, Pace will go down the drain. I hope you guys are miserable for another 10 years crying about BB.
     
  9. nelly57

    nelly57 On the Roster

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    BB and the pats accepted the punishment b/c there's no appeal in the NFL.

    Figures a troll like you would think whining and throwing others under bus is an acceptable and the correct way to do things.
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2008
  10. National Sports Advisors

    National Sports Advisors Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,020
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    You are nuts my friend. Good lord.:rolleyes:
     
  11. AndyJohnson

    AndyJohnson PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    23,376
    Likes Received:
    275
    Ratings:
    +1,064 / 20 / -21

    I think you need to take a course in English comprehension.

    Belichick believed he was within the rules. The bylaws include 'during the playing of the game'. BB says he interpretted that to mean to USE the tapes in the SAME game, and that is certainly a rational interpretation.

    The league sent out MEMOs as REMINDERS OF THE RULES. The league did NOT REWRITE THE RULE.
    You are saying that a man who believes he understands a rule then receives a memo as a reminder of the rule and the only difference is 'during the game' instead during the playing of the game', and it is ridiculous to think he felt he understood the rule, felt the reminder made no change, so he saw no reason to do anything differently.

    You viewpoint assume that BB takes every memo from the league, studies in detail, compares it to the bylaws, and goes back and reflects upon he whether he really, really understands what he is pretty certain he already does. That is ludicrous.

    In your sheltered mind, sideline videotaping is on BBs midn every moment of every day. It was this incredible priority that he had to consider its legality, reconsider his interpretation every single day.
    Do you have any idea at all what BB is responsible for? This issue is 1/1000000000th of 1% of his work product. You want an accountability as if BBs job were video coordinator so he spend sleepness nights worrying about video taping, and needed to hire a team of attorneys to analyze a memo on such an important topic.
    NFL coaches work 20 hour days and still do not get in all of the film breakdown, gameplan work, teaching, scouting, analysis of their own players on film, and breakdown of the other teams on film, negotiation with agents, coaching the assistants, not to mention the numerous employees in off-field departments that BB is responsible for as the de facto director of operations.
    You will say that it is IMPOSSIBLE that he misunderstood the rule (you even accept that he did) read a reminder memo on a rule he already felt he understood, that rule was ordered about 999,999,999 on his list of priorities. Rather it had to be a planned deceitful effort, because to you sideline filming is the primary issue BB should have on his mind while coaching the Pats, since as of today its the only issue you can keep your feeble mind on.
    Totally assinine.

    Lets get some perspective.
    You are employed by XYZ company in some type of management position. It is a large corportation with written regulations and proceedures. You have studied them as they pertain to your job, and feel you understand them well. One regulation states use of PROCESS Q is not allowed in instances where it is not completed during that days work. You interpret this to mean that as long as the process is completed by the end of that day it is allowed, and you have absolutley no doubt that this is correct. You recieve a memo. You are in a management position, with a multitude of responsibilities. This memo reminds employees that PROCESS Q is not allowed unless completed by the employee during that work day. You read it, notice nothing out of the ordinary, and since you are confident you understand the policy continue to do what you have always done. (It should be noted that when comparing to the NFL policy and memo which goes into length explaining what type of taping and from where this policy and memo would also be lengthy and include a description of PROCESS Q). Your belief is that as long as the process is completed that day, you are in compliance. However, the intent of the reminder was that some employees had been starting PROCESS Q and having other employees finish PROCESS Q in the same day, and the corp meant to clarify that it should be the same employee, and they feel that was the intent all along. You did not catch this clarification with no bad intentions, no deceit.
    2 years later PROCESS Q is started by one of your employees then another attempts to finish in, screws up, and costs the company $1,000,000. You are questioned, and you say you interpretted the regulation the same way for 8 years. You are asked how you ignored the memo. You say you felt what you were doing was right.
    You are telling me that you would ABSOLUTELY 100% be LYING, and you refuse to BE A MAN and admit you were caught. You offer an apology BECAUSE YOUR MISUNDERSTANDING XOST YOUR COMPANY $1,000,000. You are saying you have now admitted that you were lying all along.

    I once received a speeding ticket for driving 45 in a 30. I had driven on that road for years, it was a 4 lane road, and I thought the speed limit was 45. There are signs posted saying 30. I saw them every day. I was confident that I knew the speed limit, so didnt pay attention to the signs. When I was pulled over, I asked why I was being stopped, was told I was going 45 and said, yeah dont you have anything better to do than stop someone for going the speed limit.
    In your limited scope of intellect, I KNEW that I was breaking the law, and since I said I thought the speed limit was 45. I am a despicable liar. I should be a man and admit I am lying, knew it was 30, and sped every day because I thought I could get away with it.
    See, in this example, you cannot say that, because I am telling you what went through my mind, why it was a mistake, and you'd be an idiot to claim you don't believe I thought that. Especially about such a minor thing.
    HELLO???????? Sidleine taping was a terriblly MINOR thing in Bill Belichicks responsibilities.
    Bill Belichick has NEVER DONE ANYTHING that could be used as evidence of a history of breaking rules, lying or cheating. You REFUSE to accept his explanation because you have decided he was wrong (I am sure you decided that before he ever spoke about the issue).
    Your circular logic is he is lying about this, so that makes him a liar, so since he is a liar I put no faith in his explanation because since I have decided THIS ONE STATEMENT IS A LIE with no other evidence he has lied about anything, my disbelief of the statement is proof that he is a liar, and you cannot believe what a liar says.
    It is ridiculous. The fact that you believe or disbelieve a statement is not proof that the statement is true or false.

    You need to grow up, get a life, and think for yourself instead of letting people with an agenda: ie
    Matt Walsh. Sure, the most believeable man in the room has to be the guy criticizing his former employer who fired him for doing a bad job and being deceitful
    Arlen Spector. Come on.
    Mark Schlereth. You have to be kidding me if you don't think the guy who has done such things as: Tell the story of how he urinated in his pants in the NFL about 1000 times, go on a soap opera, be the 'color coomentator' for a motorcycle jump, etc etc
    in order to sooth his cry for attention,
    didn't begin to create an Anti-Patriot defense system the second that he got notoriety for being the 'former NFL player who explains to us what this all means'
    Any media idiot trying to make a name off of a heavily discussed controversial topic.

    Those are the people that you are telling me are more believable about what was in Bill Belichicks head than Bill Belichick.
    Please recite for me every instance of anything in BBs career that is not related to Spygate, that makes you question his truthfulness, concern for following the rules, or ability to stand up and accept responsiblity.
    You will find none.

    Find any hole in his side of the story. Please. Show me the evidence that contadicts BBs claims that matches evidence that contradicts Walsh's which includes:
    1) Brian Daboll says he is lying that he talked to him about the walkthrough
    2) There is film that shows he was out in the open in Patriot gear when filming. PROOF that he lied
    3) There are coaches waiving at the camera, directly conflicting Walsh's claim that it was cloaked in secrecy. (If there was a scheme to cover it up, where is Walsh's comment about what he said to his boss about being waived at by the coaches he was filming? If he reported it, he would have said so to Spector, if he didnt we now believe the intergirty of a guy who couldn't care to do what he thought his job was) This DIRECTLY supports BBs claim that everythingwas done in the open. If it was secret why were we doing it IN THE MEADOWLANDS? Why were we doing it in a road game against a coach who worked for BB 2 years ago?

    Your version of 'the truth' says that BB KNEW IT WAS ILLEGAL. Did it for 8 years, 6 of which Mangini was his asst coach. your version says we benefited from it, so Mangini knew about. Your version says BB knew it was wrong, knew Mangini knew he did it, and did it in manginis stadium in front of him. Can I stop yet? At this point you would be a fool to say your viewpoint has any credibility at all.
     
  12. reflexblue

    reflexblue PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Messages:
    17,544
    Likes Received:
    74
    Ratings:
    +243 / 6 / -4

    #91 Jersey

    JB really isn't worth all that typing AJ. It was pointed out to her/he/it the "during the playing of the game" part of your post. At least once by me I never got a response on it.
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2008
  13. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    No, it never does answer. That's why I think it's a troll.
     
  14. reflexblue

    reflexblue PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Messages:
    17,544
    Likes Received:
    74
    Ratings:
    +243 / 6 / -4

    #91 Jersey

    Me Too, Night Paul I have to go, I have a low gas pressure situation.:eek:
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2008
  15. jmt57

    jmt57 Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2005
    Messages:
    13,534
    Likes Received:
    219
    Ratings:
    +658 / 0 / -3

    Huh, and I thought this thread was only going to list Walsh's lies, half-truths, innuendos and fabrications.

    I guess I'll just have to wait for him to speak again for that.
     
  16. BradyManny

    BradyManny Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    9,874
    Likes Received:
    48
    Ratings:
    +135 / 4 / -1

    I'm referring to the idea that Weis then fed the information through the headset to the QB on the field, not anything Walsh said about the backup on the sideline. That's the final step in the equation - and it doesn't jive with the accounts of Bledsoe or Brady.
     
  17. Rob0729

    Rob0729 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    32,069
    Likes Received:
    860
    Ratings:
    +2,596 / 26 / -7

    Well, unless he didn't call in the play until after Kiffin called in his signals. That does happen, but it would definitely disprove the 75% of the time crap since Weis definitely wouldn't have called in his signal after Kiffin that often.
     
  18. jmt57

    jmt57 Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2005
    Messages:
    13,534
    Likes Received:
    219
    Ratings:
    +658 / 0 / -3

    Let's not forget that Walsh stated that he watched the Pittsburgh game as a season ticket holder, in which he claimed to witness the Patriots taping signals. Thing was the game was not in Foxboro, it was in Pittsburgh. Funny how nobody outside of New England is questioning Walsh's credibility over this little detail.
     
  19. Koma

    Koma Third String But Playing on Special Teams

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Messages:
    935
    Likes Received:
    40
    Ratings:
    +137 / 0 / -2

    For the sake of argument, let's sat Walsh attended the game in Pittsburgh. Even if he was there, how could he identify any cameramen? According to him, they were all trying to conceal themselves.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>