[Dr. Christian Troy]

Per Drudge...
To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

[Jetzz]

bad links... no story there...

[nyjetsrule]

yeah link isnt working... no good. I was kind of hoping for something really incriminating too.

[Dr. Christian Troy]

Hence the word "developing" in the thread title. Drudge only had that blip so far, but so far it's more than CNN, MSNBC, Fox, The Post, The Globe, The Herald, the Times or anyone else has.
Developing means stand by....

REASON FOR EDIT: the NYT is on board too
To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

[hwismer]

New Claim of Taping Emerges Against Patriots

By JOHN BRANCH and GREG BISHOP

Published: February 22, 2008

INDIANAPOLIS — The Patriots’ pattern of illicitly videotaping the signals of opposing N.F.L. coaches began in Coach Bill Belichick’s first preseason with the team in 2000, a former Patriots player said. The information was put to use in that year’s regular-season opener against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Belichick’s debut as New England’s coach.

The secret taping of signals, which is against league rules, continued at least through three championship seasons to the 2007 season opener against the Jets, when the Patriots were caught and subsequently sanctioned by the league.

As coaches and executives gathered here Thursday for the N.F.L. scouting combine, many saying they were satisfied with the league’s investigation and ready to move on, new details were emerging about the history of the Patriots’ videotaping.

According to several executives in the league, the season opener against the Jets was not the first time the Patriots had been spotted taping another team’s defensive coaches at Giants Stadium. In the final preseason game of 2006, the Patriots were caught taping a Giants defensive assistant giving signals, the executives said.

The incident prompted a letter addressed to all teams seven days later from the N.F.L. vice president Ray Anderson that detailed the league’s interpretation of the rules. That letter was cited by Commissioner Roger Goodell when he punished the Patriots.

Belichick has said that he misinterpreted the league’s bylaws , telling Goodell that he thought it was permissible to use electronic equipment as long as the information was not used in the same game. That explanation has been greeted with disbelief by some peers and league officials.

In a news conference last week, Goodell said Belichick’s explanation led to the assumption that he had been videotaping opponents’ signals “as long as he has been head coach.”

The league’s nine-member competition committee spent three days this week discussing various rules changes that it might recommend for next season. After a 90-minute briefing on the Patriots’ videotaping activities Thursday by Goodell and three league vice presidents, the committee said taping rules would not be changed in the aftermath of the controversy.

“The rules are very, very clear,” said Tennessee Titans Coach Jeff Fisher, a committee member. “There is no need to be more specific or clarify any rules whatsoever.”

Questions linger about how much of an advantage the Patriots may have had if they intercepted defensive signals. Under Belichick, the Patriots have often run a no-huddle offense, which forces opponents to quickly call a defensive play. N.F.L. rules allow quarterbacks to hear instructions from coaches — through a headset and into a speaker in the quarterback’s helmet — until there are 15 seconds left on a play clock. When the defensive play call is deciphered, the Patriots could call a play to counteract. The Patriots lost the 2000 opener against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, when videotape of signals was used in preparation, according to the former Patriots player, who was among several former players interviewed by the N.F.L but said he did not want to speak publicly because the investigation is continuing.

The Patriots appear to have continued the practice of taping opposing signals for seven years. Last September, Goodell fined Belichick $500,000, fined the Patriots $250,000 and took away one of team’s first-round draft choices in 2008. After the sanctions were announced, the Patriots submitted six tapes, from games in 2006 and 2007, and some notes that dated to 2002, Goodell said. The tapes and notes were destroyed days after being handed to the league, because Goodell considered the matter closed.

But questions remain about how wide and deep the Patriots’ taping habits extended. Senator Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican who met with Goodell last week, is among those still questioning why the league was so quick to sanction the Patriots and destroy the evidence.

Goodell met with the competition committee Thursday to discuss his handling of the spying case. Committee members seemed satisfied and eager to turn the page.

“We were all satisfied, every one of us,” said John Mara, the Giants’ president. “All of us have our different opinions about the Patriots, but we were all satisfied that this thing was investigated properly and that they came to the proper conclusion.”

Bill Polian, the president of the Indianapolis Colts, said: “It’s behind us. It’s time to move forward.”

But emerging details continue to pull the league back in time. On Feb. 2, The Boston Herald reported that the Patriots might have taped a St. Louis Rams walkthrough practice the day before the teams played in the 2002 Super Bowl. The Patriots won, 20-17, on a last-second field goal. Belichick, speaking to The Boston Globe, recently denied that the practice was taped.

In the hallway at the convention center here, Mike Martz wanted to talk about his new job as San Francisco’s offensive coordinator. Instead, reporters peppered him with questions about the Patriots. Martz was the coach of the Rams when the teams met in the Super Bowl six years ago.

He took exception to the theory that the Patriots could not have gleaned much information from taping the walkthrough. He said indeed they could, but added that was not the point.

“For somebody to say that, it’s kind of disgusting,” Martz said. “The whole point is if they really cheated. To say he took some steroids and it did help or it didn’t help, that’s never the point. The point is, to all these high school coaches and high school kids and college kids, that if they did cheat, that’s the point.”

Martz said he assumed the walkthrough report was false. A similar sentiment was voiced by Chicago Bears Coach Lovie Smith, the Rams’ defensive coordinator that season.

“It’s just hard for me to fathom anyone would do anything like that,” Smith said. “I’m sure, if there’s something to it, No. 1, it will come out later. Time has a way of taking care of all things.”

Martz was asked if he wanted the N.F.L. to continue investigating the walkthrough. “Of course,” he said. “I was involved in that. I was responsible for a lot of people in that game.”

Executives dismissed any lingering notions that the Patriots’ taping opponents was a common practice around the league.

“I don’t want the outside perception to be, ‘Boy, there are all these teams and they’re all doing all these things,’ ” said Rich McKay, the Falcons’ president and a member of the competition committee. “Because it’s not true.”

Belichick was not seen in the hallways of the convention center Thursday. Representatives of 21 teams are scheduled to meet with reporters for news conferences from Thursday to Sunday. Belichick and the Patriots are not among them.

[Jetcane]

In the hallway at the convention center here, Mike Martz wanted to talk about his new job as San Francisco’s offensive coordinator. Instead, reporters peppered him with questions about the Patriots. Martz was the coach of the Rams when the teams met in the Super Bowl six years ago.

He took exception to the theory that the Patriots could not have gleaned much information from taping the walkthrough. He said indeed they could, but added that was not the point.

“For somebody to say that, it’s kind of disgusting,” Martz said. “The whole point is if they really cheated. To say he took some steroids and it did help or it didn’t help, that’s never the point. The point is, to all these high school coaches and high school kids and college kids, that if they did cheat, that’s the point.”

TRUE!

[Yisman]

this continues to get more and more interesting. I'm going to try to write a paper on it.

[TheBlairThomasFumble]

I swear this is just like Watergate. First we hear about a little thing (with Watergate, there was the break-in at the DNC, with no immediate links to Nixon) and then we learn more and more about unlawful behavior and before long the top guy is implicated.

The parallels are clear.

TBTF

Originally Posted by Yisman

this continues to get more and more interesting. I'm going to try to write a paper on it.

[gustoonarmy]

Goodell needs firing. How much more is going to get swept under the rug?

[Dierking]

Meh. No smoking gun here. Still, its nice to see other coaches throwing BB under the bus. Jeff Fisher rocks. "The rules are very, very clear." Unless you happen to be a "genius."

[dubagedi]

I don't get why this is supposed to be any revelation or new development at all. From day 1 after the original story broke, who didn't assume that the Pats had been doing this for most of or all of BB's reign?

This was also in the Times article:

As coaches and executives gathered here Thursday for the N.F.L. scouting combine, many saying they were satisfied with the league’s investigation and ready to move on, new details were emerging about the history of the Patriots’ videotaping.

(Emphasis added)

Again, really nothing previously unknown being reported. If everyday another story comes out saying "Pats videotaped signals in loss against the Dolphins in 2000" it's not new news, its just specifics on something everybody already assumed.

Many Pats fans like to assume that BB is telling the truth and didn't actually use the tapes during the games while many Pats haters like to assume the Pats used them to steal signals while the games were happening. For the most part, neither side has any way to prove which way it was, but the other day it came to me that maybe NFL Films can. During every game they have films crews on the sidelines, I'm not quite sure if they're present for the entire game or if they cover the entire bench, but they can usually hear what players and coaches on the sidelines and see some diagrams from the coaches. If for 5 years every game there has been a coach that rounds up all of the offensive players with a few polaroids and goes "alright guys when they give this signal it means they're gonna do this, this signal they do that, etc." I would think it would have caught onto the cameras of NFL Films at least a few times. Just a thought, I'm sure the people who run NFL Films aren't going to let other people come in and try to investigate for them but it would be interesting to examine all Pats sideline videos from the last 5 seasons and see if any signal stealing is documented.

[Dierking]

Originally Posted by dubagedi

I don't get why this is supposed to be any revelation or new development at all. From day 1 after the original story broke, who didn't assume that the Pats had been doing this for most of or all of BB's reign?

This was also in the Times article:



(Emphasis added)

Again, really nothing previously unknown being reported. If everyday another story comes out saying "Pats videotaped signals in loss against the Dolphins in 2000" it's not new news, its just specifics on something everybody already assumed.

Many Pats fans like to assume that BB is telling the truth and didn't actually use the tapes during the games while many Pats haters like to assume the Pats used them to steal signals while the games were happening. For the most part, neither side has any way to prove which way it was, but the other day it came to me that maybe NFL Films can. During every game they have films crews on the sidelines, I'm not quite sure if they're present for the entire game or if they cover the entire bench, but they can usually hear what players and coaches on the sidelines and see some diagrams from the coaches. If for 5 years every game there has been a coach that rounds up all of the offensive players with a few polaroids and goes "alright guys when they give this signal it means they're gonna do this, this signal they do that, etc." I would think it would have caught onto the cameras of NFL Films at least a few times. Just a thought, I'm sure the people who run NFL Films aren't going to let other people come in and try to investigate for them but it would be interesting to examine all Pats sideline videos from the last 5 seasons and see if any signal stealing is documented.

I don't think it could possibly have gone down like that, there would be far too many people on the Patriots organization in on it and someone would've spilled it by now.

[Baron Samedi]

Meh. Bring on the articles..they're all just rehashes of the same thing.

Let Specter put on his dog and pony show.

Let Walsh bring to the table whatever he wants or has.

I have yet to see anybody with anything but expressing their opinions on anything. Show me some lkind of real information, or facts.

The haters will believe whatever they want anyway, so let 'em. None of this is going to change anyone's opinion that already has one. All that remains to be seen is if there is anything new and concrete that comes to light. Walsch's insistence on unconditional immunity makes me pretty comfortable that he doesn't have much of anything. So let's see.

Specter's #1 and #2 contributors are Comcast and Comcast's law firm, so his circus is just part of the ongoing struggle between the NFL and comcast...a good show, but nothing will come of it, either.

[gustoonarmy]

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi

Meh. Bring on the articles..they're all just rehashes of the same thing.

Let Specter put on his dog and pony show.

Let Walsh bring to the table whatever he wants or has.

I have yet to see anybody with anything but expressing their opinions on anything. Show me some lkind of real information, or facts.

The haters will believe whatever they want anyway, so let 'em. None of this is going to change anyone's opinion that already has one. All that remains to be seen is if there is anything new and concrete that comes to light. Walsch's insistence on unconditional immunity makes me pretty comfortable that he doesn't have much of anything. So let's see.

Specter's #1 and #2 contributors are Comcast and Comcast's law firm, so his circus is just part of the ongoing struggle between the NFL and comcast...a good show, but nothing will come of it, either.

can't wait to see the nip tuck show where they parady an NFL player who has to have 3 rings surgically removed

[TheBlairThomasFumble]

I'd love to see that happen too, but since Goodell was/is more concerned with covering up BB's behavior to protect the NFL brand than getting to the truth, we don't have the Pats' tapes or notes to examine, now do we?

TBTF

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi

Show me some lkind of real information, or facts.

[GreenGiant 32]

Shit this was posted already, how'd I miss it? Oh, that's right, I didn't look down past the 5th thread title, duh.

[Youth Is Served]

Originally Posted by dubagedi

I don't get why this is supposed to be any revelation or new development at all. From day 1 after the original story broke, who didn't assume that the Pats had been doing this for most of or all of BB's reign?

This was also in the Times article:



(Emphasis added)

Again, really nothing previously unknown being reported. If everyday another story comes out saying "Pats videotaped signals in loss against the Dolphins in 2000" it's not new news, its just specifics on something everybody already assumed.

Many Pats fans like to assume that BB is telling the truth and didn't actually use the tapes during the games while many Pats haters like to assume the Pats used them to steal signals while the games were happening. For the most part, neither side has any way to prove which way it was, but the other day it came to me that maybe NFL Films can. During every game they have films crews on the sidelines, I'm not quite sure if they're present for the entire game or if they cover the entire bench, but they can usually hear what players and coaches on the sidelines and see some diagrams from the coaches. If for 5 years every game there has been a coach that rounds up all of the offensive players with a few polaroids and goes "alright guys when they give this signal it means they're gonna do this, this signal they do that, etc." I would think it would have caught onto the cameras of NFL Films at least a few times. Just a thought, I'm sure the people who run NFL Films aren't going to let other people come in and try to investigate for them but it would be interesting to examine all Pats sideline videos from the last 5 seasons and see if any signal stealing is documented.

I understand your reasoning behind thinking this, but this is very unlikely. First off the Patriots coaches wouldnt bring polaroids to the game and wouldnt do this in a game time huddle. This stuff would be looked at and studied during practice and meetings. There wouldnt be polaroids there would be walk through films for this. Also, having been on the sidelines working with camera crews before. I just dont see how any NFL Films cameraman would be able to pick this up without full well knowing before what to look at. The cameramans responsibilities are too many to even waste time on trying to find something, when they dont even know what they are looking for. Coaches would have code-words or special signals too communicate. Just stating from experience of knowing how the film crews work on the sidelines. Good theory but very unlikely.

Youth™