Goodell says "Nothing New" in Spygate

[Ferter]

There is one thing I know for certain.....

No one here, or anywhere, will ever convince me that the patriots and/or bellichick are the only team and/or coaches that have tried to steal signals or buy information for the purpose of gaining an advantage.

In fact I would not be the least bit surprised if all the teams, including our Rams, have tried to "cheat" as some like to call it.

Here is a link to a story prior to the 2007 season:

Read it and weep


ESPN - NFL: Dolphins did no wrong vs. Patriots - NFL

[YodaRam]

Originally Posted by Ferter

There is one thing I know for certain.....

No one here, or anywhere, will ever convince me that the patriots and/or bellichick are the only team and/or coaches that have tried to steal signals or buy information for the purpose of gaining an advantage.

In fact I would not be the least bit surprised if all the teams, including our Rams, have tried to "cheat" as some like to call it.

Here is a link to a story prior to the 2007 season:

Read it and weep


ESPN - NFL: Dolphins did no wrong vs. Patriots - NFL

O.K. Ferter. I'll go along with that. But that means 1 of 2 things have to be true.
1: They were better at cheating than we were. OR...
2: It wasn't really cheating "as some like to call it" and they just beat us fair and square because it's a given that cheating is normal in the N.F.L.


RAM ON!

[TekeRam]

Good memory and find Ferter, though that's a whole lot different than what the Pats did. Assuming Saban was telling the truth, the Phins used a tape that was broadcast to the world and then they eliminated background noise to hear the audibles and line calls by Brady. I wouldn't call that cheating as it's a public domain(yeah yeah yeah prior written consent by the NFL, blah blah blah) video, and does not go against the rule that prohibits a team from making their own tape of opposing teams signals, mainly to the defense, which was the ONLY way to signal what the defensive play was, which is what the Pats did.

Yes I realize that the Pats never used the videos in game, but it's still an issue because they then cataloged the signals and used them later that year or even in another year, using their "hurry up" offense which would give the coaches plenty of time to call in a new play to Brady before the 15 second cutoff if the defense was going to run a play that would stop the Pats. That's where the cheating comes in, at least in my mind. If you get your offensive team up the the line of scrimmage quickly, then the defense has to call it's play, your guy with binoculars(legal) takes the signal, references his "cheat sheet", and then tells Belichick what the defense will be doing. If the defense is good, then Belichick will tell Brady to audible into something else that'll beat the called defense.

Back in the fall there were multiple defensive coaches that said that Spygate all made sense because there were games in which whole drives the offense "guessed right every time. No one guesses right every time." Not to mention the various times that the offensive radio for visiting teams magically goes out in Foxboro.

[txramsfan]

All i know is....the game was tied late in the fourth quarter and our defensive was rested.

Why Lovie went didn't send the kitchen sink on every play is beyond me.

[Rambos]

Yes I realize that the Pats never used the videos in game,

How does anyone know they did not use them during a game? Because they said so. Walsh said he was told not to get caught taping. Why would he be told that if the HC thought it was ok?

[Pape]

Originally Posted by Yodude

Why should any one believe that....because you say so? Please...spare me.

Anyone who's been cheating for years and then says...."Yeah, but we didn't cheat in the Super Bowl" has zero credibility with that statement...even if it's true.

Regardless, even if the Super Bowl walk through was not taped, I guarantee that there was a tape made during the Rams-Pats regular season game (even if it was not produced by the Pats at the NFL's request), and that would have been infinitely more useful than any walk through.

On top of that, the real travesty perpetrated by the NFL is the sorry excuse for officiating we were forced to witness in that Super Bowl.

They have zero credibility in your eyes yodude?. Fine, as i said, conspiracy theorists are free to rage on.....

Everything you said is based on your opinion of whats happened and offer no proof regarding anything having to do with "spygate". Just what you feel. Based on the investigation so far, what we do know:
- Walsh said the SB 36 walkthru was not taped. Today the Boston Herald issued a retraction regarding the issue.
- Walsh stated he knew of no one else taping the walk thru.
- Said he was on the field during the walk thru and told some of the Patriot coaches what he saw. Whose bloody fault is that? Its the Rams fault.
- The commissioner indicated that the regular season game between the Rams and Patriots was not taped.
- Walsh said he did not tape the regular season match up.
- Walsh was told to conceal his taping activities.
- Walsh indicated that the tapes were not used during the games in which they were made.
- That the Patriots Cameramen liked to film the San Diego Chargers Cheerleaders.

This story is such a non-issue which has been overblown to the point that its become ridiculous. There were two things that interested me: 1) Did they tape the walk thru? - The answer - No.
2) Were they able to use the tapes during the games? - No. Based on that tidbit of information, this issue died. The commissioner stated that its legal for teams to scout and steal signals. Basically, based on that comment, all the Patriots did wrong imo was have a cameraman on the sidelines instead of being locked in a booth. So yes its a dead issue.

So Yodude, spare me the shrill screeching of someone who wants to believe what they want to believe regardless of how many facts are presented.

[Rambos]

Well, hold the phone. At NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell's press conference following his meeting with ex-Patriots employee Matt Walsh, Goodell said there would be no new sanctions against the Patriots because "there was no Rams walk-through tape."

But afterward, ESPN's Sal Paolantonio reported that although Walsh didn't tape the Rams' walk-through, he attended it, watched what the Rams did and reported back to the team's coaching staff about what he saw.

Specifically, according to Paolantonio, Walsh told Brian Daboll, a Patriots assistant coach, about the way the Rams planned to align their tight end against the Patriots' defense, and that the Rams lined up in a kick return formation in which Marshall Faulk took the field.

If Paolantonio's report is accurate, Goodell should have mentioned it at his press conference -- and you can bet Senator Arlen Specter will mention it later today. As far as Goodell is concerned, this issue is over, but Paolantonio's report is just the kind of information Specter needs to keep Spygate alive.

They make it seem as if the Rams are at fault for not seeing Walsh. He stated that he was in his Pats Gear. I'm not so sure he was, standing there in a Pats hat and T-shirt. Was he told to stay behind by the Pats or did he do this on his own? He was there we know that. Walsh stated he knew taping was cheating, but did it anyways. So why am I to believe he did not tape the walk through.

If a tape came out yesterday nothing would have happened. If a tape comes out in the next year or so all hell will break out. I would not be shocked if this guy got paid off.

The primary rumor, which was reported Saturday by the Boston Herald, was that the Patriots secretly taped the St. Louis Rams' private walk-through before Super Bowl XXXVI, that the Pats knew some of the Rams' plays and formations in advance.

Taping from the sidelines during games, although forbidden, is regarded as a minor violation of the rules. Secret taping of a Super Bowl opponent's practice, if true, would be much more serious.

No tape but they still knew some of the Rams' plays and formations in advance.

[general counsel]

How in the world does this not constitute "new information."

It may be that goodall cant act because walsh cant prove he was there, but its still new information.

ramming speed to all

general counsel

[MoonJoe]

I am not sure if anything will ever really come out of this, BUT at least there will always be doubt about the Hatriots and how good they really were. No longer will the words "dynasty" be associated with this team and that coach, but rather the word "cheaters" will. And for that I am thankful!

Joe

[Tampa_Ram]

I truly think that i might hate the cheatriots more then the ********. Its a cloe race still. screw em both.

[shower beers]

Originally Posted by general counsel

How in the world does this not constitute "new information."

It may be that goodall cant act because walsh cant prove he was there, but its still new information.

ramming speed to all

general counsel

I was thinking the same thing when I heard this. If anything, it certainly warrants further investigation.

[Mooselini]

I think its time to change the commisioner. I don't like Goodel. We need a commish who will be fair for all teams rather than just his repuation, the best team and the NFL.

[Pape]

Does it really require further investigation? I suppose thats why Goodell is going to talk to Brian Daboll regarding this. But imo its not a huge deal. I just ask myself Did the Rams lose because the Patriots knew Faulk would return kick? If anything I think it casts a really bad light on Martz and the Rams staff for allowing the Patriot crew to be in the arena when they held the walk thru.

[TekeRam]

First off, I can't agree more GC, I don't understand how Walsh admitting that he watched the walkthrough doesn't constitute new information. Yes it's not taping it, but it's still related. And now, seven years later he remembers two things he saw. What did he remember the day of, hmm? That's what gets me. I remember plenty of things I did seven years ago, but I don't remember details exactly; in other words what has he forgotten but told the Pats then?

As for blame, I think blame can go all around, in that one, he shouldn't have been there, two the NFL officials should have escorted a Pats employee out when the Rams' time came up, and three the Rams personnel themselves should have gone, "Hey, what's that Pats guy doing here?" And gotten someone to get him out of there.

Furthermore, the reports all mention that they used the tapes against teams they were likely to see later in the season. Considering that the Rams and Pats played earlier in the year, why has no reporter asked if Walsh taped the first game? He might not HAVE the tape, but he'd have taken it by god.

Last thing, I don't see any reason why Walsh would be covering anything up. He's got a bit of an axe to grind too, so I'm sure that he'd be telling everything he knows. I mean come on, he even mentioned IR guys practicing. So if he said something didn't happen, it probably didn't at least as far as he knows.

Real last thing, Tampa, I've hated the Pats more than the whiners since the super bowl loss, now it's just ingrained a bit more so.

[GreatestShow99]

Originally Posted by TekeRam

First off, I can't agree more GC, I don't understand how Walsh admitting that he watched the walkthrough doesn't constitute new information. Yes it's not taping it, but it's still related. And now, seven years later he remembers two things he saw. What did he remember the day of, hmm? That's what gets me. I remember plenty of things I did seven years ago, but I don't remember details exactly; in other words what has he forgotten but told the Pats then?

As for blame, I think blame can go all around, in that one, he shouldn't have been there, two the NFL officials should have escorted a Pats employee out when the Rams' time came up, and three the Rams personnel themselves should have gone, "Hey, what's that Pats guy doing here?" And gotten someone to get him out of there.

Furthermore, the reports all mention that they used the tapes against teams they were likely to see later in the season. Considering that the Rams and Pats played earlier in the year, why has no reporter asked if Walsh taped the first game? He might not HAVE the tape, but he'd have taken it by god.

Last thing, I don't see any reason why Walsh would be covering anything up. He's got a bit of an axe to grind too, so I'm sure that he'd be telling everything he knows. I mean come on, he even mentioned IR guys practicing. So if he said something didn't happen, it probably didn't at least as far as he knows.

Real last thing, Tampa, I've hated the Pats more than the whiners since the super bowl loss, now it's just ingrained a bit more so.

one reporter did ask that question, but Goodell said that they didn't because they were a non-divisional and conference team.. *rolling eyes*