1. I think if the silly lawsuit filed by the former Rams player we've never heard of, or the rantings of Arlen Specter can get us closer to the bottom of how much the Patriots taped and whether those tapes ever influenced the outcome of a Super Bowl, I'm all for it.
The most significant thing I've read in the last few days came from Dave Goldberg of the Associated Press, who got the attorney of former Patriot video aide Matt Walsh to reveal that Walsh has tapes from his employment with the Patriots. Tapes, plural. This thing will not go to bed until we know what is on those tapes. Which leads us to ...
2. I think it's inevitable. We've got to hear what Walsh has to say. If we don't, the world will root against Bill Belichick even harder next year (that's hard to imagine) because they'll be sure he's been cheating since 2000, and probably before, and wasn't punished enough by the commissioner.
If we do hear from Walsh, then the book should be closed either way. Either Belichick will get whacked more by Roger Goodell, or the Patriots will be able to say: "See? We really didn't gain an edge taping Super Bowl foes illegally.'' And we can be done with it.
I've said this from the beginning: If an edge was gained in any of the three three-point New England Super Bowl wins, that puts this story on a different level. That's why we must chase every lead to discover if any evidence exists that any of those Super Bowls were compromised. And I don't care what any pooh-poohing coach will say. In my opinion, if a team tapes a walkthrough the day before a Super Bowl, and knows which plays the opposition runs at that walkthrough, it's an advantage. Potentially a big advantage.
