Page 13 of 15 FirstFirst ... 3456789101112131415 LastLast
Results 181 to 195 of 212
  1. #181
    moloch41 Guest

    Re: Boston Herald-Possible Rams/Pats Superbowl Spygate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ramer View Post
    Im sure nothing will get done. I just get furious thinking about it.
    Acceptance is the first step to recovery!!!


  2. #182
    BrokenWing's Avatar
    BrokenWing is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    1,731
    Rep Power
    36

    Re: Boston Herald-Possible Rams/Pats Superbowl Spygate?

    The NFL needs to look at itself in a mirror and say:

    "What would Vince Lombardi do?"

    There's a reason, ok, a few reasons, the trophy is named after him.

  3. #183
    GreatestShow99's Avatar
    GreatestShow99 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Age
    32
    Posts
    499
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Boston Herald-Possible Rams/Pats Superbowl Spygate?


  4. #184
    BM_Face's Avatar
    BM_Face is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Nebraska
    Age
    44
    Posts
    522
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Boston Herald-Possible Rams/Pats Superbowl Spygate?

    So Belichick admits to taping for the last 7-8 seasons. Wow. He says he thought it was legal. Despite what Marshall thinks this may go somewhere. Spector has a wicked reputation and is capable of using his influence to hurt the NFL or the Patriots. GoArlen! Sink Belicheat!

  5. #185
    Ramer Guest

    Re: Boston Herald-Possible Rams/Pats Superbowl Spygate?

    Is Belichick that much of an idiot to think tapping another team is okay. He should be kicked out of the NFL.

  6. #186
    moloch41 Guest

    Re: Boston Herald-Possible Rams/Pats Superbowl Spygate?

    Quote Originally Posted by BM_Face View Post
    So Belichick admits to taping for the last 7-8 seasons. Wow. He says he thought it was legal. Despite what Marshall thinks this may go somewhere. Spector has a wicked reputation and is capable of using his influence to hurt the NFL or the Patriots. GoArlen! Sink Belicheat!

    Listening to Goodell yesterday, this is going nowhere. They are apparently not forcing that Walsh guy to testify if he doesn't want to and Spectator has made statements that he's satisfied with what he was told by Goodell.

  7. #187
    r8rh8rmike's Avatar
    r8rh8rmike is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    29 Palms, Ca.
    Age
    55
    Posts
    12,086
    Rep Power
    132

    Re: Boston Herald-Possible Rams/Pats Superbowl Spygate?

    Quote Originally Posted by moloch41 View Post
    Listening to Goodell yesterday, this is going nowhere. They are apparently not forcing that Walsh guy to testify if he doesn't want to and Spectator has made statements that he's satisfied with what he was told by Goodell.
    I'm just hoping the press doesn't want to let go just yet. This story will go as far as they want to take it.

  8. #188
    Keenum's Avatar
    Keenum is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Age
    26
    Posts
    2,865
    Rep Power
    28

    Re: Boston Herald-Possible Rams/Pats Superbowl Spygate?

    Cheated against the Steelers now:

    "
    In a press conference conducted after his Wednesday meeting with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said that notes surrendered by the Patriots to the league showed that the Patriots engaged in videotaping of defensive signals against the Steelers in 2004.
    The significance? When the Pats and Steelers played during the regular season that year, the Steelers ended New England's NFL-record 21-game winning streak. When they got together again in Pittsburgh in January 2005 (I was there, and I still have a couple of frozen body parts from it), the Pats could have used the information gathered during the regular-season game to topple the Steelers."

    I guess it's another step.

  9. #189
    RamOfDenmark Guest

    Re: Boston Herald-Possible Rams/Pats Superbowl Spygate?

    Hmm, I was reading that Yahoo Sports article GreatestShow99 linked to and came upon this bit:

    "Goodell said he has offered Walsh a deal whereby "he has to tell the truth and he has to return anything he took improperly" in return for indemnity."

    So they want him to return "anything he took improperly" i.e any hard evidence that he has (videotapes etc.). Then what happens when he turns that over to the NFL? Is that evidence then just destroyed (as it was last time) and Goodell comes out and says "yeah, we already punished them for that" and then we never get to know the full extent of what they did? Because that's what I'm thinking would happen.

    If I were Walsh I'd turn over the evidence, but first make a few copies that can be leaked to the press later if neccessary. Oh and I'd also read that indemnity agreement closely to see if they reserve the right to sue him if he does not turn over the ONLY copy of his evidence. I suspect that could be hidden somewhere in the agreement to force him to completely put his trust in the NFL handling this case i.e the NFL wants to have a chance to destroy the only piece of evidence there is and then claim whatever they want about what that evidence contained. Just like they did last time - which was obviously not the WHOLE truth, we've only just now started learning about the videotaping of the Rams Superbowl and the Steelers games in 2004 etc.

    Walsh should consider his next step carefully.

  10. #190
    blood85 Guest

    Re: Boston Herald-Possible Rams/Pats Superbowl Spygate?

    Justice will be served when they return our 2nd trophy to us and the rings to the players. Blasted cheaters, some of you are kidding yourselves saying that "filiming or taping" the Rams was NOT part of the Outcome in that game. Are you freaking kidding me? This game is a game of "inches" so to speak, who knows if that is all they needed to beat us. We lost that game by 3pts. Maybe, that final walk-through was ALL they needed to make an adjustment, here or there, thus sealing our fate in that game.

  11. #191
    RamWraith's Avatar
    RamWraith is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Minnesota
    Age
    44
    Posts
    8,230
    Rep Power
    61

    Re: Boston Herald-Possible Rams/Pats Superbowl Spygate?

    Specter: Goodell's Spygate explanations don't pass scrutiny
    By Mike Fish
    ESPN.com

    Updated: February 15, 2008, 2:26 AM ET

    A day after meeting with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell in Washington D.C., Sen. Arlen Specter said he continues to be troubled by a number of issues surrounding the league's handling of Spygate and will continue his investigation.

    Specter (R-Pa.) told ESPN.com that Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) offered support on Thursday for his inquiry into the New England Patriots' questionable videotaping practices, saying Leahy is "prepared to have the committee pay for people who travel and investigate." Leahy sat in on a part of Wednesday's session with Goodell and league counsel, Specter said.

    Sen. Arlen Specter, ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, calls Roger Goodell's reasoning for the destoying of the Spygate evidence "absurd."
    "I'm determined to go forward," said Specter, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee. "You have answers and positions where is saying that with the destruction of tapes that, 'We did the right thing. We're absolutely sure.'

    "Well, that is absurd . . . Goodell says things that don't make sense."

    Among the issues that continue to trouble Specter are:

    Goodell's imposition of a penalty -- the loss of a first-round draft pick, a $500,000 fine to coach Bill Belichick and a $250,000 to the team -- before the Patriots had turned over evidence, including notes dating to 2002 and six tapes from the 2006 season and 2007 preseason, requested by the league. The Patriots were caught videotaping defensive signals from the sidelines in their Sept. 9 season opener against the New York Jets. The commissioner imposed his penalty on Sept. 13, four days before New England provided the tapes and notes.

    "Did they know the scope of the wrongdoing before the penalty was imposed?" asked Specter, a former Philadelphia district attorney. "The answer is no."

    NFL spokesperson Greg Aiello, in response on Thursday, said Goodell's hasty punishment stemmed from the fact that the Patriots had been caught at the Jets game and Belichick's admission that he had been taping signals since he became New England's head coach in 2000. Belichick reportedly told Goodell that he thought he was within the rules to tape other team's signals as long as the information wasn't used in the game at hand.

    " issued the discipline as quickly as could to send a strong message to teams that this wouldn't be tolerated, and there'd be a severe penalty if you violated the rules," Aiello said. "The discipline included they had to turn over everything that had related to that taping procedure."

    Specter heard that explanation from Goodell on Wednesday. On Thursday, Specter said, "The word absurd and ridiculous keep coming to my mind, because he says it with a straight face."

    Specter said it was unsettling to learn that the tapes, as well as notes, turned over by the Patriots in September had been destroyed in Foxboro rather than in the league's New York offices. Aiello said the documents and tapes were destroyed after they were reviewed by NFL officials Jeffrey Pash and Ray Anderson, and that the call to destroy the material came from Goodell, saying "There's no further use for it, so he said get rid of it."

    Nobody could use those. They are scrap paper -- except evidence.
    -- Sen. Arlen Specter, on the notion Spygate materials were destroyed to avoid a competitive advantage
    Specter said the league's suggestion that the material, particularly the notes dating to the 2002 season, was destroyed because it might have afforded a competitive advantage is unbelievable.

    "Everything has changed," he said. "Nobody could use those. They are scrap paper -- except evidence."

    With the evidence destroyed, Specter said there is no way to tell what advantage the Patriots might have gained in the illegal taping practice.
    Specter is particularly concerned about how the taping might have affected New England's games involving teams from his home state in the 2004 playoffs.

    In a preseason opener in August of that year at Gillette Stadium in Foxboro, the Patriots and the Philadelphia Eagles played in what proved to be a preview of the 2005 Super Bowl, won by the Patriots 24-21. And in an Oct. 31 regular-season game in Pittsburgh, the Steelers beat the Patriots 34-20. Those two teams later met in the AFC title game, which New England won, 41-27.

    Later Thursday, the Steelers released a statement that read: "We consider the tapes of our coaching staff during our games against the New England Patriots to be a non-issue. In our opinion, they had no impact on the results of those games. The Steelers fully support the manner in which Commissioner Goodell handled the situation and the discipline that he levied against those who violated league rules. We are confident that the Commissioner has taken appropriate action in his investigation of this matter, and will do so again if new information arises which requires further investigation and or discipline."

    Specter believes the NFL hasn't gone far enough in its offer of legal protection to former Patriots video assistant Matt Walsh, who has told ESPN.com that he has potentially embarrassing information about the team's taping practices.

    The league has offered to indemnify Walsh against exposure to a lawsuit from the Patriots, but the proposal stipulates that Walsh must tell the truth and return anything he took improperly. Under those conditions, the team could still file suit against Walsh even after he turns over evidence to the Patriots and league.

    "Matt Walsh is an important guy, and they have made it so conditional," Specter said. "All they got to do is say, 'We're not going to sue you.' It is not a big deal."

    Specter said he has spoken with Walsh's attorney three times in the last two days and understands that Walsh is "scared." He said the Judiciary Committee could afford Walsh immunity if Walsh is ever summoned to testify at a Senate hearing. He described both Walsh and his attorney as "cooperative."

    Specter said he was concerned to learn from Walsh's attorney that an NFL security representative, Dick Farley, had been investigating Walsh. Specter said: "I confronted them on that, and Goodell says, 'Yeah, he works for us. Yeah, he is a security guy, but we didn't know he was investigating him.' "

    Aiello said Thursday that it is an overstatement to suggest the league is investigating Walsh.

    "The only thing we're doing is looking at public records and trying to verify his employment history in an effort to learn about him," Aiello said.

  12. #192
    BM_Face's Avatar
    BM_Face is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Nebraska
    Age
    44
    Posts
    522
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Boston Herald-Possible Rams/Pats Superbowl Spygate?

    Quote Originally Posted by RamWraith View Post
    Specter: Goodell's Spygate explanations don't pass scrutiny
    By Mike Fish
    ESPN.com

    Updated: February 15, 2008, 2:26 AM ET



    "I'm determined to go forward," said Specter, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee.

    Specter believes the NFL hasn't gone far enough in its offer of legal protection to former Patriots video assistant Matt Walsh, who has told ESPN.com that he has potentially embarrassing information about the team's taping practices.


    "Matt Walsh is an important guy, and they have made it so conditional," Specter said. "All they got to do is say, 'We're not going to sue you.' It is not a big deal."

    Specter said he has spoken with Walsh's attorney three times in the last two days and understands that Walsh is "scared." He said the Judiciary Committee could afford Walsh immunity if Walsh is ever summoned to testify at a Senate hearing. He described both Walsh and his attorney as "cooperative."

    Specter said he was concerned to learn from Walsh's attorney that an NFL security representative, Dick Farley, had been investigating Walsh. Specter said: "I confronted them on that, and Goodell says, 'Yeah, he works for us. Yeah, he is a security guy, but we didn't know he was investigating him.' "
    So Goodell has made his stand, and it sounds as if he has decreed that this is a non-issue to his troops, i.e. anyone who relies on the NFL for a paycheck (like the Steelers organization and our own Marshall perhaps?).

    I know a little about Spectors politics and personality and he is a tenacious SOB who thinks and act independently, and has the clout in Washington to make waves.

    Watch for Spector to do an end-run on the NFL and give Matt Walsh immunity. Everything then depends on if Walsh has any evidence. If he does then this will get hairy for the NFL/Patriots/Goodell. Even if he has no hard evidence, he may give Spector enough leads to track down some evidence or more witnesses. Spector has the federal dollars and the political power to launch an investigation.

    I said alot would depend on what happened when Spector and Goodell met behind closed doors. Spector saying Goodell's statements were "absurd" is proof that Goodell blew it, and Spector is likely to drop the hammer twice as hard if he gets wind of a cover-up. Right now, Goodell is making the wrong moves, and it is "absurd" to believe that taping all your opponents defensive signals for 7-8 years is legal as long as you don't use it for the current game.

    Spector is calling BS on Goodell. Might be fun to watch this play out.

  13. #193
    jkramsfan Guest

    Re: Boston Herald-Possible Rams/Pats Superbowl Spygate?

    Quote Originally Posted by moloch41 View Post
    Listening to Goodell yesterday, this is going nowhere. They are apparently not forcing that Walsh guy to testify if he doesn't want to and Spectator has made statements that he's satisfied with what he was told by Goodell.
    thats not quite true,Spector is not even close to being happy with what Goodell told him and is going to continue to pursue this.I am very curious to see what this Walsh guy has to say,if he had nothing on the Pats wouldn't he just say that which leads me to think he has some good video and is just waiting for the right time,he already has a lawyer working for him.

  14. #194
    Keenum's Avatar
    Keenum is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Age
    26
    Posts
    2,865
    Rep Power
    28

    Re: Boston Herald-Possible Rams/Pats Superbowl Spygate?

    I'm afraid Goodell may be trying to scare Walsh off so he won't testify and this thing will die out.
    I'm quickly becoming a huge Spector fan, about time somebody stepped up and said something. Gosh I hope he can pull this off.
    As for Goodell, he is quickly losing my support. I was a huge fan of his when he first got in, but it's been steadily dropping. If he screws this up, it'll be the final straw, and I'll become anti-Goodell.
    I'll turn in to Badell (sorry, couldn't resist, lol)

  15. #195
    PeoriaRam's Avatar
    PeoriaRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    2,173
    Rep Power
    40

    Re: Boston Herald-Possible Rams/Pats Superbowl Spygate?

    I really wish the ESPN talking heads would stop insulting my intelligence. Please don't say that the NFL has done a good job of policing itself, and then immediately also say that Belichick has been taping teams for 8 years.


Similar Threads

  1. Bucs sign Boston
    By RamWraith in forum NFL TALK
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: -05-24-2006, 08:54 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: -02-18-2005, 11:47 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: -11-13-2004, 09:16 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: -07-09-2004, 12:49 AM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: -08-26-2001, 07:31 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •