Ian O'Connor of Foxports wishes Walsh has something

[PonyExpress]

Re: Ian O'Connor of Foxports is sure Walsh has something

O'Conner is a NY mediot rag writer who moonlights for Fox. What else would you expect from a NY media whore? It seems clear to this poster that the reason for "radio silence" between the Pats and ESPN/BHerald is that lawsuits are pending. When the Pats sue ESPN and the BH I expect O'Connor will move on to his next subject, like praising his pimp Governor.

 

[kolbitr]

Re: Ian O'Connor of Foxports is sure Walsh has something

O'Connor is a New Jersey sportshack who despises Belichick. Check his archives.

That these guys get paid to commit borderline libel is just part of American media, unfortunately.

 

[Jimke]

Re: Ian O'Connor of Foxports is sure Walsh has something

This Spygate thing is very disturbing to me. I agree

with the poster who would like to see these articles

quarantined to another forum or if that is not possible

to a single thread.

 

[captain stone]

Re: Ian O'Connor of Foxports is sure Walsh has something

O'Conner is a NY mediot rag writer who moonlights for Fox. What else would you expect from a NY media whore? It seems clear to this poster that the reason for "radio silence" between the Pats and ESPN/BHerald is that lawsuits are pending. When the Pats sue ESPN and the BH I expect O'Connor will move on to his next subject, like praising his pimp Governor.

Ian O'Connor has been wring Dan LeBastard-style jock-worshipping drivel for years now. He's the type of sports "journalist" who wishes he could be writing for Bryant Gumbel's Real Sports, or the Daily Show. That he would write a piece of self-righteous trash comes as no surprise whatsoever.

 

[BrianPat]

Re: Ian O'Connor of Foxports is sure Walsh has something

This Spygate thing is very disturbing to me. I agree

with the poster who would like to see these articles

quarantined to another forum or if that is not possible

to a single thread.

I find this interesting, you need this moved because it disturbs you ? I thought I was clear as too the content, did you read it anyway ? I figured it may be moved because it was repetitive, not because it disturbs you, that's censership at it's worst !

 

[fgssand]

Re: Ian O'Connor of Foxports is sure Walsh has something

I find this interesting, you need this moved because it disturbs you ? I thought I was clear as too the content, did you read it anyway ? I figured it may be moved because it was repetitive, not because it disturbs you, that's censership at it's worst !

Brian..thanks for posting - it's cool that you did.

JImke - hang in there buddy - this will all end up allright for NE - you will get your last laugh for sure.

 

[pao]

Re: Ian O'Connor of Foxports is sure Walsh has something

If Specter really wants to get to the bottom line of it, i suggest that he ask Gooddell to do the same to every SB game instead of focusing solely on Pats. Let start with the first SB game.

Well there IS a reason start with the Patriots. They DID get caught taping on the sideline. Not defending Specter just saying that there is at least a reason the Patriots could be a starting point.

pao

 

[BrianPat]

Re: Ian O'Connor of Foxports is sure Walsh has something

Well there IS a reason start with the Patriots. They DID get caught taping on the sideline. Not defending Specter just saying that there is at least a reason the Patriots could be a starting point.

pao

This is true and honestly, once the the attention whore named Walsh gets resolved, I'd rather see this die completely and let it be fair warning to all the other teams in the NFL. Really, it's time to move on, there will never be the kind of pressure to investigate all the teams like there was on the Pats, why, because the Pats are the team of the decade, that's why !

 

[PatsFanSince74]

the author of the piece is right about a couple of things; one, the nfl clearly wants this to go away, IMO not only because it tarnishes its headliner franchise success story (build a relatively worthless team to a billion dollar enterprise) but because spying was a widespread and accepted part of the game, which belichick can no doubt expose, starting with Parcells, the Giants and the Jets. two, without Arlen Specter this story was dead in the Fall.

other than that this is a "stoke the fires and keep the body warm" piece.

for me, the bottom line is simple.

if there is no tape of the walkthrough (90+% likely IMO), no matter what little details Walsh tattles, Spygate will be dead as an issue after a final media firestorm;

if there is a tape, no matter how much the pats claim it is unauthorized, it's all over for belichick and it will take the franchise years to recover.

The sooner we get this idiot Walsh's story, the sooner this will be over, one way or the other.

 

[NE_PATS_FAN_54]

ugh, i dont care what the rest of the country thinks. couldnt care less.

 

[friggs]

First off, I do not believe what I will say in the next section. I believe that the Giants had a better game plan, better execution, and better adjustments than the Pats did and deserved to win the Super Bowl. That being said...

Nobody thought the Giants could win that game. The Patriots had the top offense and one of the top defenses in the NFL. And yet, somehow, they beat a heavily favored team by 3 points by scoring a late TD. Hmmm, I think any reasonable person can only assume that the Giants MUST have cheated. I expect the investigation to have started weeks ago and any day now we will be awarded a victory due to the Giants being forced to forfeit the game.

Ok back to reality. The haters need to get a grip. From what I've heard the Pats never tried to hide any taping they were doing because they never believed it to be a violation of rules. It turns out it was a violation. So be it. They got called on it and paid the penalty. Call it it too heavy a penalty, too light, whatever you want. They paid the penalty that was assessed. If you don't like it complain to the NFL. The Pats didn't decide what the penalty was going to be. Here's the other side of it that all these fans and players and coaches from other teams need to consider: The Patriots never tried to hide what they were doing. So, isn't the onus on the teams being filmed to remove the camera guy? You can't very well smile and wave to the camera, then 5 years later whine that you got filmed and because of that you should be given an extra win that season. I don't know. I'm starting to ramble. This is all stuff that's been said before. But man, it still gets under my skin. You still have to go out on the field and make the plays regardless of whether or not a tape tells you that in situation x theres a 5% greater chance player y will run route z.

 

[DW Toys]

Re: Ian O'Connor of Foxports is sure Walsh has something

Nearly everybody out there was sure that Pats would win 07 SB. Guess what happened.? So much for being 'SURE'.

If Specter really wants to get to the bottom line of it, i suggest that he ask Gooddell to do the same to every SB game instead of focusing solely on Pats. Let start with the first SB game.

If SB games aren't enough, Goodell needs to go through every AFC and NFC championship game and so on.

How come Specter doesn't go after the league for "the integrity of the sports" when the Giants had (not 1 but) 4 blatant penalties that were ignored on "that fateful play" that would have had historical consequence, when in plain sight of Carey and his merry zebras and further exasperated by SI with their beautiful high resolution SB picture spread of the "crime scene"?
Can you imagine the accusations if the Pats had won the "last" game under those conditions of four penalties ignored? Yet they shut up about everything. Specter and the media would have had BB dragging a huge wooden cross up on his back to the White House lawn with the media spitting at him and ESPN drawing lots for his robes (or hoodies). I can almost see Goodell washing his hands.
DW Toys

 

[pao]

Re: Ian O'Connor of Foxports is sure Walsh has something

This is true and honestly, once the the attention whore named Walsh gets resolved, I'd rather see this die completely and let it be fair warning to all the other teams in the NFL. Really, it's time to move on, there will never be the kind of pressure to investigate all the teams like there was on the Pats, why, because the Pats are the team of the decade, that's why !

Great post!

pao

 

[pao]

the author of the piece is right about a couple of things; one, the nfl clearly wants this to go away, IMO not only because it tarnishes its headliner franchise success story (build a relatively worthless team to a billion dollar enterprise) but because spying was a widespread and accepted part of the game, which belichick can no doubt expose, starting with Parcells, the Giants and the Jets. two, without Arlen Specter this story was dead in the Fall.

other than that this is a "stoke the fires and keep the body warm" piece.

for me, the bottom line is simple.

if there is no tape of the walkthrough (90+% likely IMO), no matter what little details Walsh tattles, Spygate will be dead as an issue after a final media firestorm;

if there is a tape, no matter how much the pats claim it is unauthorized, it's all over for belichick and it will take the franchise years to recover.

The sooner we get this idiot Walsh's story, the sooner this will be over, one way or the other.

Great post!

pao

 

[pao]

First off, I do not believe what I will say in the next section. I believe that the Giants had a better game plan, better execution, and better adjustments than the Pats did and deserved to win the Super Bowl. That being said...

Nobody thought the Giants could win that game. The Patriots had the top offense and one of the top defenses in the NFL. And yet, somehow, they beat a heavily favored team by 3 points by scoring a late TD. Hmmm, I think any reasonable person can only assume that the Giants MUST have cheated. I expect the investigation to have started weeks ago and any day now we will be awarded a victory due to the Giants being forced to forfeit the game.

By posting this, even though you don't believe it, you are intimating that it is as illogical to suspect the Patriots of "cheating" in previous SBs as it is to suspect the Giants of cheating in this SB. Well it isn't as illogical. The Patriots were not suspected of cheating in previous SBs until Belichick got caught "misinterpreting" the rules. If he hadn't done that there would be no rational reason to suspect them of cheating just as there is no rational reason to suspect he Giants were cheating in this SB. Because BB was caught there are people out there trying to make a name for themselves by looking under every rock on the globe, including Hawaii. This part of the consequences of his act and was predicted at the beginning of this thing. Sorry but that is the truth. This will go away as soon as every rock has been overturned and any creepy crawly thing that is exposed is investigated.

pao

 

[pao]

Re: Ian O'Connor of Foxports is sure Walsh has something

How come Specter doesn't go after the league for "the integrity of the sports" when the Giants had (not 1 but) 4 blatant penalties that were ignored on "that fateful play" that would have had historical consequence, when in plain sight of Carey and his merry zebras and further exasperated by SI with their beautiful high resolution SB picture spread of the "crime scene"?

Penalties are ignored in playoff games. That's life. Here's an example of the Patriots getting the benefit of that...

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9282/vlcsnap611036iv6.png

The result of this play was a TD drive for the Patriots. Guess what? It happens. Scoreboard, Game Over. Can't wait for next year.

pao

 

[ctpatsfan77]

By posting this, even though you don't believe it, you are intimating that it is as illogical to suspect the Patriots of "cheating" in previous SBs as it is to suspect the Giants of cheating in this SB.

And that is the problem with referring to what he's doing as "cheating." The NFL has as much admitted that attempting to steal signals is a legitimate, if not welcome, practice. That said, there are limitations placed on such attempts, and the Patriots violated those limitations. OTOH, (A) they did so openly, and did not resort to cloak-and-dagger techniques in such violations, and (B) other teams and coaches have admitted to doing the same thing, or have otherwise committed obvious violations of other league rules. So why should they get a free pass, while the Patriots are held to special scrutiny? [Please note, I'm not arguing that the Patriots shouldn't be given some additional oversight in the future, since they were caught violating a rule, but the degree to which everyone is focusing on what the Patriots might have done, and ignoring every other teams' shenaningans is just a bit much.]

 

[pao]

And that is the problem with referring to what he's doing as "cheating." The NFL has as much admitted that attempting to steal signals is a legitimate, if not welcome, practice. That said, there are limitations placed on such attempts, and the Patriots violated those limitations. OTOH, (A) they did so openly, and did not resort to cloak-and-dagger techniques in such violations, and (B) other teams and coaches have admitted to doing the same thing, or have otherwise committed obvious violations of other league rules. So why should they get a free pass, while the Patriots are held to special scrutiny? [Please note, I'm not arguing that the Patriots shouldn't be given some additional oversight in the future, since they were caught violating a rule, but the degree to which everyone is focusing on what the Patriots might have done, and ignoring every other teams' shenaningans is just a bit much.]

Great explanation. I understand. Also my post was meant only as a response to his why aren't the Giants suspected of "cheating" scenario.

pao

 

[wesleyan]

The spygate episode is not so much about cheating as it is about the Patriots. Since the story broke, not one journalist has actually investigated whether other teams break the rules and to what degree. (Some reporters say it's common, but no one has actually done an investigation of any sort). No one is interested in creating a context--how prevalent cheating actually is--to the Patriots actions. Parcells noted that the 49ers would take down all communication equipment back when they used to script their first 15 offensive plays--thus the defensive coaches could not communicate with each other to counter the offense. Jimmy Johnson stated he taped signals with the Cowboys and that the Dolphins organization taught him how to circumvent the 15 second cut off rule in coach to quarterback communication when he arrived there. (That for the record, is phenomenal for several reasons: 1] the reason to circumvent is because you are stealing signals and need more time to tell the quarterback what defensive signal comes in and 2] it was the Dolphins organization that taught Johnson--the coach before Johnson was Shula and the quarterback was Marino. So...) Not one journalist has interviewed anyone in the 49er organization about Parcells' claims. No has interviewed Johnson about his claims, nor Shula, nor Marino for that matter. Again, this is not about cheating, it is about the Patriots. It's about tearing down the guy at the top. The team that beat you with lesser talent. People love a conspiracy and, at the moment, it's really easy to point at the Patriots as conspirators.

 

[PatsFanJess]

The spygate episode is not so much about cheating as it is about the Patriots. Since the story broke, not one journalist has actually investigated whether other teams break the rules and to what degree. (Some reporters say it's common, but no one has actually done an investigation of any sort). No one is interested in creating a context--how prevalent cheating actually is--to the Patriots actions. Parcells noted that the 49ers would take down all communication equipment back when they used to script their first 15 offensive plays--thus the defensive coaches could not communicate with each other to counter the offense. Jimmy Johnson stated he taped signals with the Cowboys and that the Dolphins organization taught him how to circumvent the 15 second cut off rule in coach to quarterback communication when he arrived there. (That for the record, is phenomenal for several reasons: 1] the reason to circumvent is because you are stealing signals and need more time to tell the quarterback what defensive signal comes in and 2] it was the Dolphins organization that taught Johnson--the coach before Johnson was Shula and the quarterback was Marino. So...) Not one journalist has interviewed anyone in the 49er organization about Parcells' claims. No has interviewed Johnson about his claims, nor Shula, nor Marino for that matter. Again, this is not about cheating, it is about the Patriots. It's about tearing down the guy at the top. The team that beat you with lesser talent. People love a conspiracy and, at the moment, it's really easy to point at the Patriots as conspirators.

Great post. Very well put.