Belichick interview with Armen Keteyian on CBS News [mergedx4]

[chech1965]

Re: Belichick interview with Armen Keteyian on CBS News tonight

Has it been mentioned yet that Belichick seemed to say that he had given a tape to CBS showing Walsh filming? Did I misunderstand that part of the interview. It sounded like BB had footage of Matt taping showing that it was obvious and out in the open in Patriot's gear. If they did have this, why didn't they show it??? Wouldn't a tape like this give credence to the idea that BB thought what he was doing was ok? Maybe someone can help me out, am I missing something?

They did show it. He was standing next to the scoreboard. Walsh was highlighted holding a camera and wearing a Patriots jacket.

:singing:

 

[Sean Pa Patriot]

Re: BB interview - 15 min version

I agree with Florio, some of this should been on the national part...But the thing Belichick made a mistake and admited, he should ceased taping signals right then and there in 06.. and for his credit he said he was wrong, over done with...

But the conspiricy theroist will

Yeah but, Belichick lied, its assinine..

 

[Sean Pa Patriot]

Re: PFT is perplexed at BB's interview

He put retraction today, also I wonder if this good enough for Peter King... I dont think so...

 

[nelly57]

Re: BB interview - 15 min version

I know Im a lilttle bias because IM the biggest patriots fan ever (dont argue, I am, ok, I just am) but I beilive BB 100% when he said he misinterpeted the rules.

Couple this with the fact that other coaches did this during the Tagliabue era, yes. Furthermore, the fact that they had to send out the 2006 memo just reinforces how ambiguos the rule was in the first place.

Reiss was the only local print reporter (maybe the only reporter) to point out the facts. Thats what I expect out of a journalist, not "logical leap" based on rumors....sorry, I can't let it go yet.

 

[cubicle_6]

Re: BB interview - 15 min version

Wow, ESPN actually aired the important dismissal of Walsh's contention that the Patriots were concealing the taping.

 

[Sean Pa Patriot]

Re: BB interview - 15 min version

Belichick is right, when he says we were making our job easier, my main contention is what is the difference of looking through binocolors and writing notes, or video taping.. I dont think its much.. Again it was whitch hunt, and still us, but glad the Pats have a chance to defend himself..

He did make a mistake, and should of stoped taping in 06, this might never of happened.. But he is smarter than any coach in the leauge.

 

[Bella*chick]

Re: Belichick interview with Armen Keteyian on CBS News tonight

Exactly, Walsh gave them the film that helped with the game plan - Belichek is trying to avoid the fact that he had Walsh doing something illegal.
I guess Bill Belichek can't read, because after two written warnings form the NFL, he still didn't stop the illegal filming. Your comments about the ability to read should be directed to Belichek, he is the one with the reading comprehension problem.

The only thing BB can be accused of as pertains to reading is overthinking what he was actually reading. The same could never be said of you, I assure you.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Re: BB interview - 15 min version

You know, if the league wanted the bylaws to be clear, they should have put in a few simple words.

"in the playing of any game, whether a present day game or a future game,...."

It's that simple. It's written to be exploited. BB was only doing what many, many shrewd people have done before him and continue to do to this day....make the rules work for you.

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.

 

[upstater1]

Re: BB interview - 15 min version

Exactly, the biggest a-hole in this whole mess is definately Goodell. But he did issue that directive at the beginning of the season, so we have to bear some of the responsibility - but The Herald and Tom******* have no leg to stand on, so they are the biggest scumbags.

The beginning of 2006, not the beginning of this season.

As Howie Long argued to Patrick, after the memo was sent, the NFL dismissed instances of illegal tapings of other teams.

Which is really why Bill Belichick said that even after the memo they went by the bylaws instead.

Because the memo was total crap after other teams had taped and been let off.

 

[upstater1]

Re: BB interview - 15 min version

You know, if the league wanted the bylaws to be clear, they should have put in a few simple words.

"in the playing of any game, whether a present day game or a future game,...."

It's that simple. It's written to be exploited. BB was only doing what many, many shrewd people have done before him and continue to do to this day....make the rules work for you.

The best way to be clear is not to mention any game at all. Lawyers know that when certain extra qualifiers are chosen, that can only be to differentiate between two sets of possibilities (i.e. the current game versus a future game).

Read the rule again and take out the words "during a game" and you'll see exactly what I mean. Just don't mention games at all, and the rule forbids ANY taping.

Which of course wouldn't explain why the NFL thought it was OK for the Jets to tape in 2006.

 

[patriotspride]

Re: BB interview - 15 min version

thanks to BelichickFan who found it

for those who didnt see the original broadcast on tv.


http://youtube.com/watch?v=Hyg9BhqESxU

EDIT:Why didnt AP and PFT refer to all those relevant points he made ?

thanks for posting that. bb nailed it :rocker:

 

[upstater1]

Re: BB interview - 15 min version

Thanks for posting this!

Like many Patsfans, I was not happy with the show last night wondering why it was abrupt and not that smooth. Seeing the full clip on this thread makes me feel a lot better.

(how can CBS cut off his reply about the reasons (plural) for Walsh's firing, especially the secret taping??)

Unfortunately, given the laziness of most of the columnists covering the Pats, many are going to go by last night's telecast and possibly ignore this full clip. Plus, I wouldn't be surprised if people pounce on BB's comment about taping probably more than 50% of the games.

Blame the Patriots not CBS for this. The Pats chose CBS for the interview. They had to know that CBS Nightly News has more important things to report in that half hour.

Plus, the editors of the clips for that night's newscast might not be totally up to date on all things Spygate.

The Evening News clips away the true story each and every night of the year. The Patriots selected them for the interview.

No matter, real reporters will check it out on YouTube.

 

[upstater1]

Re: BB interview - 15 min version

I agree with Florio, some of this should been on the national part...But the thing Belichick made a mistake and admited, he should ceased taping signals right then and there in 06.. and for his credit he said he was wrong, over done with...

But the conspiricy theroist will

Yeah but, Belichick lied, its assinine..

Belichick might not be able to go into the reasoning for that decision.

He said for them, the bylaws overruled everything--which is not an unreasonable stance.

Also, we don't know the ins and outs behind the scenes NFL maneuvers from 2006. Howie Long was peddling a story on the Patrick show in which he said the NFL dismissed charges against the Jets in 2006. They also dismissed the Phins story with a , "That's Football."

I can speculate in two ways about that. Given the NFL's stance on teams caught taping in 2006, the Patriots thought the memo was just a pro forma warning and that they would continue business as usual.

Or, they Patriots were incensed that the NFL dismissed the taping and violated the spirit of the memo, so they decided to take the NFL on and videotape brazenly in front of everyone. So, what we have here is not so much a case of misinterpretation or mistakes or the commissioner trying to be Duddly-Do-Right, but a big time pissing match in which the commissioner obviously won--in the short term at least.

 

[nelly57]

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.

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.

 

[PatsFan24]

Re: BB interview - 15 min version

I am not tottaly convinced that godell destroyed the tapes to protect himself. He did not want it to get out that this was an overraction by him, he just wanted to show his power. the pats got WAY BEYOND SCREWED on this one.

 

[upstater1]

Re: PFT is perplexed at BB's interview

Florio is confused.

Walsh claimed he spoke to other Patriot coaches about formations and such.

Daboll for one.

Did Florio forget Daboll?

It's clear Belichick was referring to the supposed Walsh-Daboll exchange which Daboll denied.

Next, in the interview, Belichick said that when the memo came out, they read the part about "during a game" again and decided it was just a rehashing of the rule in the bylaw.

That's where Belichick was mistaken.

Regardless, how many Super Bowls have we won since 2006?

 

[BradfordPatsFan]

Re: BB interview - 15 min version

Blame the Patriots not CBS for this. The Pats chose CBS for the interview. They had to know that CBS Nightly News has more important things to report in that half hour.

Plus, the editors of the clips for that night's newscast might not be totally up to date on all things Spygate.

The Evening News clips away the true story each and every night of the year. The Patriots selected them for the interview.

No matter, real reporters will check it out on YouTube.

The Patriots likely chose CBS for this interview for a few reasons.

1. Kraft's relationship with the station. They are building a facility at Patriot Place.

2. The fact that the Pats will be on CBS about 10 times this regular season. Kraft knows that this topic has the potential come up again and again throughout the season whenever the Pats play. This way, the majority of the time the Pats are on tv, the announcers can say, "in an interview with our Armen Katayan (sp), Bill Belichick said (x)." You can bet that bits and pieces will run throughout the season on pregame, post game, and in-game spots. Lastly, Armen is likely to be the sideline reporter during a host of Patriots games this year. This promotes good will between he and the franchise.

NBC villified the Patriots for their role in this, ESPN (and by extension, parent company ABC) have crucified BB. Neither of their nightly news shows were going to get a chance to do this. The only logical team left was the CBS news crew.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Re: BB interview - 15 min version

After just watching the entire clip, it is incomprehensible that one of the most expansive interviews this man has ever given to any outlet was edited down to a couple of insignificant snipets for a national audience. The media has no one but themselves to blame for the problems they have historically had getting information from this man. It's not that he's inaccessible, it's just that he realizes it's a colossal waste of time because this is what they do with their access...piss it away for a convenient sound bite or two. We're lucky it somehow ended up in it's entirety on U-Tube, and somehow that this is the case will be blamed on him for not using some other outlet (who would have done the exact same thing or worse to it so that is patent BS...).

I had noticed in the transcript of snipets sent to the media Bill mentioned Walsh being fired for audio taping his superior - and yet even that snipet got edited out of the package CBS aired last night. God forbid anyone point out that Matt Walsh is a documented serial embellisher and pathological liar...

 

[A.C Vegas]

Re: BB interview - 15 min version

this youtube version should be added to the FRAMe fact sheet i think jsut so that it'll be out there more and more.

 

[PatsFan24]

Re: BB interview - 15 min version

well i am sure he would not want to do it on espn or some of the other 24 hour sports networks because of the treatment they have gotten. why give those jackasses better ratings?