NYT: Walsh sends tapes to Goodell, NO walkthrough tape, all from 2000-2002

[Sean Pa Patriot]

Like I said, and If Im wrong prove it to me, where was there a law in the nfl bylaws, that show what the pats did from 2000-2006 , illigeal.. If its wrong, the pats admited they did that, if not, I call it advance scouting, maybee if Coward would have did that his great stiller teams he coached would have won more than 1 Super bowl...

 

[DW Toys]

Re: NYT: Walsh sends tapes to Goodell, NO walkthrough tape, all from 2000 and 2002

Keep in mind that the NFL only clarified its "no taping PERIOD" policy in 2006.

Until then the rule simply said that no taping for the purpose of game day assistance was allowed - or words to that effect.

And by the very nature of the tape (with additional camera angles edited in) makes clear these were not used on the day of the game.

So I'm unclear how the NFL will punish the Patriots for tapings in 2002 that violated a 2007 policy.

Two questions: What was Walsh afraid of legally? Nobody has mentioned that. This is B.S. and was B.S. He had nada (unless some Herald writer told him to shut his mouth!)
Secondly: The NFL rule clearly states that the taping of plays is only legal if the film operator is in an enclosed structure with a roof covering. All of these tapes could have been made from the coaching box or even a satellite in this day and age, but if our Jets taping was performed within a big cardboard discarded refrigerator packing box on the sideline it would have been legal. Are you all aware of this? Spygate? Please!!!!!!!!! We got nailed for where it took place not the information received. A rules violation, not mortal sin. We got robbed a draft pick and Bill his pocketbook.
Clinton gets away with worse and his wife runs for president? What the hell is wrong with all these people? The worst we should get nailed for is our "out of the box" approach..........Sorry.
DW Toys

 

[Kdo5]

I am 98% confident that there will be no further punishment. But with that prick Goodell as the commishener, I wouldn't necessarily put it past him.

 

[spacecrime]

Re: NYT: Walsh sends tapes to Goodell, NO walkthrough tape, all from 2000 and 2002

If that's the case, why would he start all of this to begin with..?

Up until the day before teh Superbowl, it wasn't public knowledge just what the Pats had confessed to. Everyone knew it was videotaping, and they all assumed it was for the Jets. A couple teams mentioned taping in 2006.

Walsh thought he had new info, that the Pats taped in 2000 to 2002. Once he found out otherwise, it was too late to put the genie back in the bottle.

He tried to go low key, said he couldn't talk because of a confidentiality agreement, tried to totally lay low.

But until he came forward, the NFL and Pats were under suspicion. I suspect the Pats and/or NFL threatened to take him to court if he didn't come forward and say what he had.

Now he looks like a dope, and Tomasse is in deep doo-doo since Walsh's lawyer through him under the bus. Well, Tomasse wouldn't fit under a bus, but you get the idea.

 

[Gator Mike]

So, after all of this, Matt Walsh has NOTHING NEW???!!!

What a tool.

 

[N.Eman]

Re: Breaking News : NYT - Matt Walsh & Tapes

We knew he did not have a tape, because it did not exisit.. But the bigger question where did Tommosse get the info??

Maybe he got it off Walsh's butthole, like that movie 3 Kings!!!!

 

[spacecrime]

Re: NYT: Walsh sends tapes to Goodell, NO walkthrough tape, all from 2000 and 2002

Two questions: What was Walsh afraid of legally? Nobody has mentioned that.

Sure they have. talked about ad nauseum. Walsh illegally taped Scott Pioli, and he has in his possession tapes stolen from the Patriots.

He didn't want to go to jail.

 

[Zeke_Mowatt]

Re: NYT: Walsh sends tapes to Goodell, NO walkthrough tape, all from 2000 and 2002

Sure they have. talked about ad nauseum. Walsh illegally taped Scott Pioli, and he has in his possession tapes stolen from the Patriots.

He didn't want to go to jail.

Hmm, just realized, no mention of the Vinatieri winning kick...does Walsh still have stolen property? I thought there was some clause about "returning all property"?

 

[PatriotsReign]

Re: Breaking News : NYT - Matt Walsh & Tapes

You snatched the words right out of my mouth

Maybe he took my advice and p!ssed on an electric fence then went and rejoined his inbred friends over at the Bills forum:rocker:

I told that sob about 5 times that no matter how bad he wanted the Pats & BB to be punished further, it would never happen. i guaranteed it and told him to huff & puff with all his might...but nuttin' wuz gonna happen.

Damn, I feel so good about myself!

 

[JoeSixPat]

The only issue as I see it is if Goodell believes the Patriots gave him all the tapes they had, just as he ordered.

If the Patriots gave him these its not an issue. If they assert they no longer had the tapes (obviously Walsh did, not them) then Goodell will have to have some proof they were not honest with him.

But he's judge, jury and executioner, so one never knows.

 

[DW Toys]

Re: NYT: Walsh sends tapes to Goodell, NO walkthrough tape, all from 2000 and 2002

Sure they have. talked about ad nauseum. Walsh illegally taped Scott Pioli, and he has in his possession tapes stolen from the Patriots.

He didn't want to go to jail.

True but everyone wanted more intrigue. If you recall it was the league that gave him indemnity first. The Pats agreed later on.
DW Toys

 

[Blizzzard]

I am loving this, but just to be safe, lets not all start sucking each others popsicles just yet.

I can see it now..... May 13th. NFL Commish. Roger Goodell announces that it was worse than he had suspected. After reviewing the tapes, he has found that on more than 1 occassion he can see Patriots staff drinking Coca Cola and Powerade products, thus breaking contractual agreements between the NFL and its sponsors, Pepsi and Gatorade.

Punishment will include the Patriots being banned form ever playing in a superbowl again, because Gatorade does not want its products being poured over Bill Bellichicks head

 

[jmt57]

Re: NYT: Walsh sends tapes to Goodell, NO walkthrough tape, all from 2000 and 2002

Up until the day before teh Superbowl, it wasn't public knowledge just what the Pats had confessed to. Everyone knew it was videotaping, and they all assumed it was for the Jets. A couple teams mentioned taping in 2006.

Walsh thought he had new info, that the Pats taped in 2000 to 2002. Once he found out otherwise, it was too late to put the genie back in the bottle.

He tried to go low key, said he couldn't talk because of a confidentiality agreement, tried to totally lay low.

But until he came forward, the NFL and Pats were under suspicion. I suspect the Pats and/or NFL threatened to take him to court if he didn't come forward and say what he had.

Now he looks like a dope, and Tomasse is in deep doo-doo since Walsh's lawyer through him under the bus. Well, Tomasse wouldn't fit under a bus, but you get the idea.

If I'm not mistaken, it has been brought forward several times that there is/was no confidentiality agreement.

 

[FirstAndGoal]

The only issue as I see it is if Goodell believes the Patriots gave him all the tapes they had, just as he ordered.

If the Patriots gave him these its not an issue. If they assert they no longer had the tapes (obviously Walsh did, not them) then Goodell will have to have some proof they were not honest with him.

But he's judge, jury and executioner, so one never knows.

Not true at all. The Pats stated that they took notes and overwrote the tapes. This turd (Walsh) just kept copies.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

If I'm not mistaken, it has been brought forward several times that there is/was no confidentiality agreement.

It was but that was the weasels way of weasling out of his weasly situation. I think he would have been happy to let the world go on thinking he had something, whcih was way more damaging than the actual facts, but the NFL and Pats called him on it to end the speculation.
This is for an intents and purposes OVAH!

 

[FootballFanetic]

I could feel the love, so I just had to stop by. It's like having my own little cheering section.

I have to agree that if this is all Walsh has next week, then I don't think that anything more will happen to the Pats. He doesn't have the Big Enchilada (the Rams SB tape) and from the article it sounds like the only new thing might be that there were offensive signals taped also. That strikes even me as "more of the same," even if my team was one of the victims in the tapes.

Looks like Walsh's mouth did overload his butt in some sense (which I had thought was about a 70% chance), although I also think that what happened was that before Walsh made his comment about "things out there no one has taken responsibility for yet" in late Jan./early Feb. Goodell had not yet announced that the Pats' taping activities went back to 2000--as you may recall, he only said that after Walsh's quotes were public, perhaps in an attempt to cut the ground out from under Walsh (which was successful it looks like).

So, yeah, looks like it was only the cheating you've already been punished for, unless Walsh has more to say on Tuesday in addition to the tapes turned over, which is possible, but we'll see. If he does, he'll need to provide additional proof presumably (I still think in such case my lie detector idea may come into play.) Does make one wonder though where Tomasse got his information if it wasn't Walsh as Levy claims in the article.

What's funny is that folks around the League who haven't followed this story closely are already saying that this is new and the Pats should be fined more (including on some Bills sites). As noted above, and as someone who has followed the story closely, I don't think that's going to be the case here, as Goodell did say belatedly the taping went back to 2000, so this is stuff he was aware of in Sept. when he took your pick away and fined BB. If Walsh has nothing else, you should be fine (and that's "fine" and not "fined").

 

[Hok]

I could feel the love, so I just had to stop by. It's like having my own little cheering section.

I have to agree that if this is all Walsh has next week, then I don't think that anything more will happen to the Pats. He doesn't have the Big Enchilada (the Rams SB tape) and from the article it sounds like the only new thing might be that there were offensive signals taped also. That strikes even me as "more of the same," even if my team was one of the victims in the tapes.

Looks like Walsh's mouth did overload his butt in some sense (which I had thought was about a 70% chance), although I also think that what happened was that before Walsh made his comment about "things out there no one has taken responsibility for yet" in late Jan./early Feb. Goodell had not yet announced that the Pats' taping activities went back to 2000--as you may recall, he only said that after Walsh's quotes were public, perhaps in an attempt to cut the ground out from under Walsh (which was successful it looks like).

So, yeah, looks like it was only the cheating you've already been punished for, unless Walsh has more to say on Tuesday in addition to the tapes turned over, which is possible, but we'll see. If he does, he'll need to provide additional proof presumably (I still think in such case my lie detector idea may come into play.) Does make one wonder though where Tomasse got his information if it wasn't Walsh as Levy claims in the article.

What's funny is that folks around the League who haven't followed this story closely are already saying that this is new and the Pats should be fined more (including on some Bills sites). As noted above, and as someone who has followed the story closely, I don't think that's going to be the case here, as Goodell did say belatedly the taping went back to 2000, so this is stuff he was aware of in Sept. when he took your pick away and fined BB. If Walsh has nothing else, you should be fine (and that's "fine" and not "fined").

GFY
__________

 

[cmasspatsfan]

This is consistent with what the Patriots had admitted they had been doing, consistent with what we already knew," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told The Associated Press.

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=119&sid=1400174

 

[FootballFanetic]

GFY
__________

Back at you, friend....

 

[slash83]

I could feel the love, so I just had to stop by. It's like having my own little cheering section.

I have to agree that if this is all Walsh has next week, then I don't think that anything more will happen to the Pats. He doesn't have the Big Enchilada (the Rams SB tape) and from the article it sounds like the only new thing might be that there were offensive signals taped also. That strikes even me as "more of the same," even if my team was one of the victims in the tapes.

Looks like Walsh's mouth did overload his butt in some sense (which I had thought was about a 70% chance), although I also think that what happened was that before Walsh made his comment about "things out there no one has taken responsibility for yet" in late Jan./early Feb. Goodell had not yet announced that the Pats' taping activities went back to 2000--as you may recall, he only said that after Walsh's quotes were public, perhaps in an attempt to cut the ground out from under Walsh (which was successful it looks like).

So, yeah, looks like it was only the cheating you've already been punished for, unless Walsh has more to say on Tuesday in addition to the tapes turned over, which is possible, but we'll see. If he does, he'll need to provide additional proof presumably (I still think in such case my lie detector idea may come into play.) Does make one wonder though where Tomasse got his information if it wasn't Walsh as Levy claims in the article.

What's funny is that folks around the League who haven't followed this story closely are already saying that this is new and the Pats should be fined more (including on some Bills sites). As noted above, and as someone who has followed the story closely, I don't think that's going to be the case here, as Goodell did say belatedly the taping went back to 2000, so this is stuff he was aware of in Sept. when he took your pick away and fined BB. If Walsh has nothing else, you should be fine (and that's "fine" and not "fined").

eat a fat one.