Sources: Saints' GM could eavesdrop on opposing coaches during home games

[Brady_to_Moss]

I am on a car forum and this moron on there is a saints fan..this is what he has to say regarding this latest news.

Im happy you think everything you read is true...

All of a sudden this eavesdropping stuff comes out from something Loomis is being accused of doing in early 2000's before Katrina makes no sense at all. What was Loomis listening at anyway? Other teams coaches laughing at Aaron Brooks and that Dumb Haslett?


You guys really are worse then the left sided libs..

He can't read and can barley write

 

[DarrylS]

This can prove mighty interesting...

 

[PatsSox363804]

This can prove mighty interesting...

I doubt it. I think if there was any proof NFL network would have said something by now.

 

[ausbacker]

Is it the draft already?

 

[THELAWFIRM226]

I doubt it. I think if there was any proof NFL network would have said something by now.

ESPN wouldn't just air this stuff without serious confirmation first, they wouldn't risk it if you ask me. As for the libel and slander issue someone mentioned, when you are a public figure, winning a libel/slander suit is exponentially more difficult due to the fact that you are in the limelight and you are essentially asking for it. I could say/write just about anything I want about Peyton Manning for example and he would have a very tough time winning a libel/slander suit. I'm sure that if this proves to be false (which I highly doubt) then Loomis will have options, but I doubt it will be for libel and slander.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

I call BS on this. Right there with the apocryphal tapes of the Lambs walkthroughs.
Bleep ESPN.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

John Clayton sounds like even more of a ******* idiot than he already is desperately trying to downplay this as much as he can.

Micky Loomis isn't an X's and O's guy, he wouldn't know what to do with the information. They may not have used it for a competitive advantage. etc, etc.

Where's the moral outrage on this from the usual suspects? espn dbags trying to downplay their own breaking story.

 

[PatsSox363804]

John Clayton sounds like even more of a ******* idiot than he already is desperately trying to downplay this as much as he can.

Micky Loomis isn't an X's and O's guy, he wouldn't know what to do with the information. They may not have used it for a competitive advantage. etc, etc.

Where's the moral outrage on this from the usual suspects? espn dbags trying to downplay their own breaking story.

That tells me all the more that they have nothing. If they thought this story had legs killing it wouldnt be in their best interest.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

I think it is true that Loomis as a contracts guy without a coaching background would not readily interpret play calls and use that info to any advantage, so certain things do not add up.

Given their institutionalized lack of journalistic integrity, I offer an explanation: like the Boston Herald in early 2008, ESPN may be just making stuff up.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

ESPN wouldn't just air this stuff without serious confirmation first, they wouldn't risk it if you ask me. As for the libel and slander issue someone mentioned, when you are a public figure, winning a libel/slander suit is exponentially more difficult due to the fact that you are in the limelight and you are essentially asking for it. I could say/write just about anything I want about Peyton Manning for example and he would have a very tough time winning a libel/slander suit. I'm sure that if this proves to be false (which I highly doubt) then Loomis will have options, but I doubt it will be for libel and slander.

The bar is higher for a public figure but not impossible. The standard is what they refer to as New York Times malice, based on a Supreme court case NY Times v Sullivan in which a public figure, like Loomis has to prove that the publisher of the statement in question knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity.Then the issue is what did ESPN do to research the truth of the matter and did they have any sources or did they followup???? Can Loomis prove that they were reckless? As you said, it's a high hurdle but not insurmountable.

 

[BradyFTW!]

ESPN wouldn't just air this stuff without serious confirmation first, they wouldn't risk it if you ask me. As for the libel and slander issue someone mentioned, when you are a public figure, winning a libel/slander suit is exponentially more difficult due to the fact that you are in the limelight and you are essentially asking for it. I could say/write just about anything I want about Peyton Manning for example and he would have a very tough time winning a libel/slander suit. I'm sure that if this proves to be false (which I highly doubt) then Loomis will have options, but I doubt it will be for libel and slander.

Were you watching ESPN in 2007?

 

[Rob0729]

Well at least the ESPN anti-Patriots bias is being exposed today. The ESPN analysts going the extra mile to try to make this story no big deal is hilarious.

Seriously, the whole "Micky Loomis couldn't understand anything the opposing coaches were saying" is laughable. Yes, he might not understand the plays being called, but you gotta think that there are tons of information being discussed that could give a team a competitive edge if they overheard than any layman could understand.

Just off the top of my head, the things Loomis could have overheard that he could have easily understood and relayed to the Saints' staff to gain a competitive edge include:

- Any injuries to key personnel who are still playing, but they want to hide
- If they see players on the other team they think they can expose in certain situations (certain downs, run or pass plays, certain types of routes, etc.)
- Whether or not they will go for it on third and long or fourth downs. or just play it safe and punt the ball away
- On the flip side whether they are expecting the Saints to go for it or not in certain situations
- The strategy of how a team will use their timeouts in crunch time

 

[JMarr]

F*** the Saints. That whole organization was/is rotten from the top to the bottom. Give em the death penalty and give LA a franchise.

 

[THELAWFIRM226]

The bar is higher for a public figure but not impossible. The standard is what they refer to as New York Times malice, based on a Supreme court case NY Times v Sullivan in which a public figure, like Loomis has to prove that the publisher of the statement in question knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity.Then the issue is what did ESPN do to research the truth of the matter and did they have any sources or did they followup???? Can Loomis prove that they were reckless? As you said, it's a high hurdle but not insurmountable.

Agreed, if I came across as "there's no way a public figure can win a slander lawsuit" I apologize, that's not what I meant. Just as you said, the bar is just much higher for public figures.

 

[THELAWFIRM226]

Were you watching ESPN in 2007?

As a matter of fact yes, I was. Are you trying to say that Spygate is a fabrication by ESPN? Let's just kick the ballistics here, the Pats screwed up and we paid for it, there's no denying we were in the wrong.

 

[Koma]

John Clayton sounds like even more of a ******* idiot than he already is desperately trying to downplay this as much as he can.

Micky Loomis isn't an X's and O's guy, he wouldn't know what to do with the information. They may not have used it for a competitive advantage. etc, etc.

Where's the moral outrage on this from the usual suspects? espn dbags trying to downplay their own breaking story.

I haven't watched any coverage of this story, but if that's their angle ("Loomis is a front office guy. How would he know playcalling terminology?"), that's laughable.

Was there some rule that Mickey Loomis, and only Mickey Loomis, was allowed in his suite during games? It was impossible for a someone else, someone who might have experience with football terminology, to also be in the suite? Like it could only be Loomis, sitting there listening to this stuff thinking "I don't understand any of this, but it sounds cool."

 

[JoeSixPat]

ESPN is really slipping.

Don’t they know the time to break a NFL news story that they haven’t really fact checked or verified is on the eve of the Super Bowl when a team is 18-0 and not in the offseason just before the draft???

They would do well to take some tips from the Boston Herald. Perhaps John Tomase can help them write up their apology if it winds up being needed.

No matter if this is proven false or not there will still be plenty of illiterate fans who never get the memo if it turns out to be a fabricated story.

Heck, Marshall Faulk and Kurt Warner still haven’t gotten around to reading the Herald’s front page Mea Culpa.

 

[JoeSixPat]

As a matter of fact yes, I was. Are you trying to say that Spygate is a fabrication by ESPN? Let's just kick the ballistics here, the Pats screwed up and we paid for it, there's no denying we were in the wrong.

The story released on the eve of the biggest game in the history of football - a chance for a team to go 19-0 for the first time ever - was false and fabricated and the Herald later issued a front page retraction. The other news outlets like ESPN that covered the false story surely didn't give the Herald's Mea Culpa half as much coverage and of course by that point the Super Bowl was over, damage done.

At issue there was the taping of walk thoughs.... That in and of itself is very different from what the Patriots admittedly did, which was locate their signal filming cameras on the sidelines rather than in the stands as the NFL rules still allow to this day.

A great many fans, as well as Marshall Faulk and Kurt Warner, still to this day don't realize that the allegations were fabricated or understand that the NFL actually allows signal filming (though surely even they must wonder why coordinators cover their mouths when calling in plays)

Assuming this report is false, fans everywhere will always still believe it to be true, especially if their team ever lost to the Saints.

 

[Koma]

Okay, so let me get this straight.

Sclereth is saying that physically listening in to a play call with about 40 seconds to go before the snap is of no advantage, because it is of no use - but watching three different people relay hand signals in several seconds later is a huge advantage because you may have cracked the code and the opponent over the course of several weeks (or several years) wouldn't possibly change those signals.

Yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense.

If I recall correctly hasn't Schlereth been one of those guys that keeps saying 'if it didn't help, then why did they do it' in regards to the Pats over the last five years?

So why is he not applying the same logic to the Saints? :idontgetit:

F#*%ing hypocrite, that's why.

Schlereth is also a guy who, when someone brought up the Broncos the salary cap violations 90s in a discussion about the Patriots rule violation 5 years ago, claimed that "everybody did it" and acted like it was no big deal. Then he went on to say he felt "violated" by what the Patriots did.

He's either a moron or he does a great job acting like one.

 

[mashburn falcon]

ok first off just wondering do y'all every knock on the falcons anymore?
-we finally got 4 back to back winning seasons and back to back playoffs.....yeah yeah I know we stunk in the playoffs. but at least we are doing better then a lot of teams right now.

---------------------------------------------
as for this saints are worse then the spygate. y'all just saw hand signals, while they heard word for word.
-funny thing is they had barely one winning season and the other two were 8-8. LMBO that is pathetic to cheat and still suck at it. (regardless cheating is cheating.....even if you suck at it. LOL
- with them hearing falcons/panties/bucs they could actually start to learn what was what and plan ahead of time what to do if the heard a certain play.
- Loomis could call down and say if something was going on. injuries, tactics later, etc. it exceeds more then jst knowing plays.

now yes they do not have video proof of this crap. but for it to hit so big, I believe there is something. with the FBI getting involved, they will find out.....just like Nixon with the water gate kind of.

but with it being a 3 1/2 months to pre season, draft, bounty hand outs to players, meetings, looking into evidence, etc.....then I believe we will not get an answer until next off season.