Belichick interview with Armen Keteyian on CBS News [mergedx4]

[Patriot_in_NY]

Re: PFT is perplexed at BB's interview

I understand what you're saying too, but I think we've already established that BB can't win no matter what he does, so why add more fuel to the fire and allow this thing to stay on the front page for another day? I guess the thinking was he went on national tv with an impartial national reporter who asked tough questions that he answered, so what more can he do? But I still didn't like it. I think other coaches/players coming out in support of him (see Mike Martz; Howie Long, etc.) is more helpful as they don't have an "agenda" that everyone can point to. I suspect this will be the last interview that BB gives on the subject, so that is a good thing to me.

In a way, you are right. But, I also think HE HAD TO post-mortem this publicly. I think he did a good job too, certainly to objective, reasonable observers out there.

 

[upstater1]

Re: PFT is perplexed at BB's interview

Steve Alic "That's football" in response to the Dolphins stealing the Patriots signals off a videotape en route to a shutout victory late in a season when the Phins were horrid and the Patriots played in the championship game.

"That's football."

Stealing signals off a tape and employing them in a game.

"That's football."

 

[FootballFanetic]

Re: Belichick interview with Armen Keteyian on CBS News tonight

A Belles fan thinks BB is arrogant....oh the irony

I got plenty of company there, and how is it ironic that a Bills fan thinks Belichick is arrogant? It's tough for a Bills fan to be arrogant after losing 4 Super Bowls, wouldn't you say? Even I need to admit that

 

[Funktopus]

Re: BB interview - 15 min version

I'm dissapointed that Armen K. didn't ask BB if he was surprised by the severity of the punishment given that he was doing it in plain view SINCE the 2006 season. And if he saw anyone else taping since the Anderson memo.

I would have thought that a reporter would be salivating to get BB to say that everyone else was doing it. But he never went for it.

 

[the taildragger]

Re: PFT is perplexed at BB's interview

Florio is from West Virginia, so I’ll try to spell it out for him.

Totally ambiguous rule does not explicitly preclude use of video in FUTURE games. A loophole which BB believed (in hindsight wrongly) that it was his duty to exploit (rather than to interpret the spirit of every poorly written league rule).

So called “clarifying memo” does not specifically address said loophole.

Bill continues his policy in plain view for all the world to see.

After being “outed“ and inflaming the media for weeks through an unfortuante PR stonewalling strategy that ignored the dynamics working against the team, Goodell imposed -- in his words -- the most extreme sanctions in league history on a single team (for essentially doing something he either knew -- or chose to ignore -- was going on elsewhere in similar forms).

Bill accepts punishment and states, IN HINIDSIGHT, he was “wrong.” This is called towing the company line (which until the day he retires, he must continue to do). Where the hell is it written that by expressing the phrase, “I made a mistake, I was wrong“ he therefore consciously BROKE -- and not merely stretched -- a rule? He only would’ve been consciously breaking the rule, had he continued the process after enduring the punishment!

Let’s stop overestimating the clarification powers of that memo.

Why would anyone with half a brain wonder why BB would want to -- at this point -- attack the credibility of Walsh. This guy is being paraded around NY and Washington on his white horse like he’s some heroic whistle blower with special inside knowledge….how many false personal attacks does BB have to endure before he‘s allowed to CLARIFY for all of us exactly how insane this kid is?

I would argue the league has enough lawyers to know exactly how to write a clear rule, but allowed for the loophole because they had to know how widespread the practice is. Goodell won’t and can’t admit this. This is why I fully support a Congressional anal probe, such as the one the Pats have endured, into the entire league.

The severity of the punishment is the reason public perception is what it is today….and I would argue that was BB’s worst mistake of all. The stonewalling strategy simply pissed off the media and they kept throwing **** at that wall until we all started believing it….that forced the league’s hand. Had they acknowledged the “evil” video taping process was rampant and widely accepted, the league ran the risk of opening itself to further harsh criticism.

 

[Leave No Doubt]

Re: PFT is perplexed at BB's interview

florio apparently watched the full interview now and has posted his updated comments. i give him some credit of doing this

http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/05/17/the-full-cbs-belichick-interview/

Wish he had put in the bylaws in his blog piece. Can someone send it to him ?


but reading the comments at the bottom shows its a no win situation

Kudos to Florio for at least paying attention and being open minded enough to revisit the issue after receiving updated info (the full video).
Again, I can fully understand why Belichick's so disdainful and mistrusting of all things media, and why he has chosen his "Belichicklets" so carefully. Maz should take note of how just one interview took on such a distorted life of it's own in just a matter of hours, and take note of Reiss' blog, which carried the video and transcript in it's entirety-starting at 9:42am.
I'm still glad BB did the CBS interview; the fact it's getting misinterpreted shouldn't really be any surprise to anyone. But I doubt he'll do another one anytime soon-not because of the spin but simply because there's not much else for him to say on the subject right now.
I hope his next interview is all football:singing:

 

[Jackson 2]

Re: BB interview - 15 min version

Any good reporter should be able to take those stated facts and show both sides of the story. Now with Long, Johnson and allegations the Jets did the same, any reporter with an ounce of integrity would delve further into this.

King hasn't proven me he has that integrity, in all honesty, his radio segments broadcast on EEI really sounds like a glorified gossip column.

And he'll never prove it, because he hasn't any. I've heard him on other outlets, such as Sirius NFL Radio, WFAN and a couple of southwest Florida stations and his tune changes depending upon his audience. What he says about a particular subject on WEEI with Dale and Holley differs vastly from his take on the same subject on WFAN.

 

[the taildragger]

Re: PFT is perplexed at BB's interview

"Perhaps there was no way to covertly tape the signals." - Mike Florio

If he actually believes that, he's more stupid than I thought.

That's a pretty thin case on which to continue to rest your claim that BB knew he was unfairly taping signals.

Think they had the money for a remote controlled eye in the sky? I realize you've been bludgeoned over the head for months that the Pats are cheaters, but at least try to think it through Florio.

 

[SVN]

Re: BB interview - 15 min version

I challenged King to take a look at that this week in-between parroting the party line that Bill's explanation was dismissed by Goodell as not believable. Because that seems to be the smoking gun and sticking point for Peter. Asked him to run a copy of the By Laws and Constitution, Game Operations Manuel, Anderson's 2006 memo and a little context (like the JETS claiming their 3rd guy was on the field with "permission" and the league refusing to persue them) past a good lawyer and ask that counsel what he would interpret his client being legitimately able to do pre and post 2006.

I pointed out to Peter that if the rules were as cut and dried as everyone seemed to want to claim, there would have been no need for additional language in the form of a memo from the league. And I'm not entirely sure a memo supercedes a by-law or constitution in the real world either... Goodell and the Competition can't just change the rules on a whim, every change they attempt to make has to be voted on by the owners generally speaking. This wasn't a matter of emphasis either, simply enforcing a rule as written, it was a change of interpretation of an existing rule that required altered verbiage to justify the new interpretation. So my point to Peter was in a court of law the response to rash generalizations that Bill's interpretation was laughable would almost certainly be...not so fast.

I'm sure he will ignore my request, but I figured I'd make it anyway in an attempt to force him to think.

king's argument has always been the memo. still ,if you ask anyone where can they get the nfl rules, iam sure the one can get hold of only the rulebook and not all the memos which were sent over decades to clear up an apparently ambigious rule.
in the "court of law" the rule book overrides the memo. the memo is just enforcing what the rulebook says but in different words. this is what king fails to accept.
wish he had an email and responded like reiss does to emails promptly

 

[Return of the Nizz]

Re: BB interview - 15 min version

This is a perfect example of why nobody should ever consent to a tv interview. They cut it up and can make the entire tone completely different than what it was.

In the original, they make it seem like BB was admitting that he was wrong to tape, ie, that he cheated.

People are throwing that three word clip of "I was wrong" out there completely out of context.

“Again, I go back to the Constitution & Bylaws. That overrode it. I interpreted it incorrectly. I was wrong and we were penalized for it.”

Clearly he is saying his interpretation was wrong, which is much different than his intent being wrong, which is how it's being painted.

 

[Return of the Nizz]

Re: BB interview - 15 min version

I'm dissapointed that Armen K. didn't ask BB if he was surprised by the severity of the punishment given that he was doing it in plain view SINCE the 2006 season. And if he saw anyone else taping since the Anderson memo.

I would have thought that a reporter would be salivating to get BB to say that everyone else was doing it. But he never went for it.

Armen did ask him about the penalty and got a typical BB answer.

“It doesn’t really make any difference. It wasn’t my penalty. It was the commissioner’s decision. Whatever it was, that’s what it was.”

This is why you have to respect BB. He can't change it so why whine about it?

 

[Bella*chick]

Re: BB interview - 15 min version

I also doubt he will trot out the "They were doing it too!" as that is just not his style.

THat's for others to point out, though, because it's true.

 

[shmessy]

Re: Belichick interview with Armen Keteyian on CBS News tonight

On a slightly different subject, did anyone here catch the Real Sports interview of Walsh? I'm a bit surprised none of the major news outlets have picked up on the fact that HBO stated that a "former Patriots offensive start" who played on that 2000 team backed up Walsh--i.e., he knew about the taping and that it was very helpful and effective. My guess is that it's Antowain Smith, but I could be wrong. I expect that the mediots will eventually glom on to that, but I'm surprised it's taken this long.....

Antowain Smith was playing in anonymity on YOUR team in 2000.

And, by the way, videotaping was LEGAL back then - - as long as it was not used DURING the game. The 2006 point of emphasis strengthened it to the AREAS from which the taping could occur.

 

[bradmahn]

Re: BB interview - 15 min version

Armen did ask him about the penalty and got a typical BB answer.

“It doesn’t really make any difference. It wasn’t my penalty. It was the commissioner’s decision. Whatever it was, that’s what it was.”

This is why you have to respect BB. He can't change it so why whine about it?

I agree with that.

I also think it's great that he never said what he thought Walsh's motives were; he doesn't know them so why go on the record and speculate when it's far too easy to be wrong. Only bad things can come up when a public (or private) figure declares motive when all they are working from is a guess. Belichick handled that in a fashion seldom few did for him.

 

[FootballFanetic]

Re: Belichick interview with Armen Keteyian on CBS News tonight

Antowain Smith was playing in anonymity on YOUR team in 2000.

And, by the way, videotaping was LEGAL back then - - as long as it was not used DURING the game. The 2006 point of emphasis strengthened it to the AREAS from which the taping could occur.

On your first point, that's why I said I could be wrong--I wonder who it is then? Can't be Bledsoe, as he's come out saying it didn't help much, and you don't call O-linemen "stars", so who do you folks think it is? Who were your RBs and WRs in 2000? That was before Branch and Givens, I believe, for ex.

On your second point, that's your view of the situation--most folks understand that the 2006 memo was to reinforce an existing rule, but I agree that reasonable minds can differ on that. Even so, this seems to shatter the illusion (or at least dent it mightily) that this taping didn't help the team much. After all, this guy who played the game with the benefit of that help has apparently come out and said it was a great advantage, like being in the opposing huddle (although on the opposing huddle part, it may have been Walsh who said that). If you haven't seen the interview, you should--again, this wasn't Walsh saying this, but HBO's narrator saying they'd heard it from the unnamed player himself. I'm still perplexed that this hasn't become a bigger issue, considering what a microscope anything related to Spygate is under.....

 

[Frezo]

Re: BB interview - 15 min version

Somewhere in the middle of Belichick's explanation of defensive signals I became more aware than ever of how absurdly overblown this story is. For the first time in a while, my anger was directed back at Goodell, and I was reminded that if he had just given them a slap on the wrist and explained to the public that stealing signs is not cheating or illegal, NONE of this 9 month witch hunt would have happened.

When/where did this full interview air? Its great, and far more informative than the edited version.

I think that we have inadvertently lead people astray in some of our attempts to enlighten about what actually happened. A great deal of NFL fans are casual fans. The same could be said about the media by the way many seem to be constantly misinformed. When these people see phrases like, stealing isn't illegal, or stealing isn't cheating, it's easy to understand how they get confused and mislead. I propose thay we drop the word stealing from any text that relates to the issues at hand. These signs weren't stolen. They were recorded and could have been recorded by anybody. I have seen signs broadcast on television during games. Saying someone stole signs is akin to saying they stole sunshine. I'm not singling you out BradyManny. This has been done by many of us a great many times.

 

[upstater1]

Re: PFT is perplexed at BB's interview

"Perhaps there was no way to covertly tape the signals." - Mike Florio

Digital Binocular Recording.

You really shouldn't even have to move off the defensive coordinator AT ALL. Just keep it trained there. It's easy enough to figure out which play is being signalled. There are only 45-75 defensive plays each game.

How easy would it be?

In fact, it's going on RIGHT NOW!!

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Re: BB interview - 15 min version

Didn't anybody notice that CBS edited out what I think is a great revelation:

More than one person has told me that he said, after Super Bowl XXXVI, that he had videotaped the Rams walkthrough practice. Now that story has changed.

Belichich has identified Matt Walsh directly as the source of the fake walkthrough rumor! Walsh is the one that made it up, spread the word, and when the sh!t hit the fan, had to change his story and deny it!

wow!

 

[Bella*chick]

Re: PFT is perplexed at BB's interview

Send it to Florio. That's awesome. Technology these days!

 

[PonyExpress]

Re: BB interview - 15 min version

I think that we have inadvertently lead people astray in some of our attempts to enlighten about what actually happened. A great deal of NFL fans are casual fans. The same could be said about the media by the way many seem to be constantly misinformed. When these people see phrases like, stealing isn't illegal, or stealing isn't cheating, it's easy to understand how they get confused and mislead. I propose thay we drop the word stealing from any text that relates to the issues at hand. These signs weren't stolen. They were recorded and could have been recorded by anybody. I have seen signs broadcast on television during games. Saying someone stole signs is akin to saying they stole sunshine. I'm not singling you out BradyManny. This has been done by many of us a great many times.

The use of the term "cheating" was a loaded term to begin with, meant to be inflammatory in the extreme. "cheating" is immoral. A responsible press would have called it what it was:

GAMESMANSHIP.

"Gamesmanship" is resourceful and worthy of praise.

The term "stealing" signals falls into the same category. "Stealing" is a crime. The proper term was

DECIPHERING.

"deciphering" is a creative skill requiring intelligence.

But either through poor grasp of vocabulary or a willingness to misrepresent for shock value, inaccurate terms were substituted. We see the media operate in this way every day, using language itself as a subtle but destructive weapon, usually through mass repetition.

Hopefully people become wise to this propaganda technique.