Interesting take... http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2008...trategic-defense-against-matt-walsh-but-argu/ Patriots Planning Strategic Defense Against Matt Walsh, but Arguments Don't Add Up Michael David SmithPosted Feb 18th 2008 4:00PM by Michael David Smith Filed under: Patriots, Boston, Featured Stories Strategic defense has long been the hallmark of New England Patriots head coach Bill Belichick, but it was a different kind of defense that Belichick offered up in the extensive interview he and right-hand man Scott Pioli gave the Boston Globe over the weekend. In publicly discussing former Patriots employee Matt Walsh for the first time, Belichick and Pioli didn't state categorically that there's no way Walsh has video evidence of New England taping its opponents' practices, but they did provide the outline for the way they'll defend themselves in case Walsh produces such evidence, including, possibly, a tape of the St. Louis Rams' final walkthrough practice before they lost to the Patriots in the 2002 Super Bowl. Specifically, the Belichick defense strategy is this: 1. Walsh has a history of taping things against the Patriots' wishes, so if he has damaging tapes, he did them on his own. 2. Walkthrough practices are basically meaningless exercises that wouldn't give opposing teams any type of advantage even if they were filmed. 3. Belichick doesn't know Matt Walsh from Adam, so anything Walsh did for the Patriots had nothing to do with Belichick's success as a coach. Unfortunately for the Patriots, none of those three arguments holds up to much scrutiny. 1. Walsh was fired for taping Pioli. This is the Patriots' key claim in the Globe interview. Pioli (above celebrating after last month's AFC Championship) told the Globe he fired Walsh in January 2003 after he discovered Walsh was "secretly tape-recording conversations between him and me." Pioli said he learned of the recording because "two other employees saw him doing it, and I checked after, and heard it on the tape myself." You can practically hear the gears turning in Pioli's head: "If I say now that Walsh was fired for making tapes against the team's wishes, I can say later that any tapes he made of the Rams were against the team's wishes." Walsh's lawyer, however, calls Pioli's claims a "complete fabrication," and although there's really no way to judge this he-said, he-said dispute, the Patriots should do more than just put this accusation out there. They ought to have the two employees who saw Walsh taping Pioli say so publicly, they ought to produce the tape that Pioli heard himself and they ought to produce the written documentation that any employer would be sure to have after terminating an employee for such a breach. Until the Patriots do so, it's hard not to be skeptical. 2. Walkthroughs are meaningless. Belichick attempted to suggest in his Globe interview that they're just not important enough to bother taping: In my entire coaching career, I've never seen another team's practice film prior to playing that team. I have never authorized, or heard of, or even seen in any way, shape, or form any other team's walkthrough. We don't even film our own. We don't even want to see ourselves do anything, that's the pace that it's at. Regardless, I've never been a part of that. Belichick added that in his "entire coaching career, I have never filmed a walkthrough, our own. I've never been on a staff that has filmed a walkthrough. I'm talking about when I was a head coach. As an assistant, I've never seen a head coach film a walkthrough the day before a game." Those comments weren't just a denial; they were also an attempt to shape the public opinion of what a walkthrough practice is: If Belichick can convince people that walkthroughs just aren't important enough to bother with, he can say that even if Walsh does produce a tape of the Rams' walkthrough, that it wasn't a big deal. But there's no way anyone could buy that. The Education of a Coach, David Halberstam's book about Belichick, documents the way Belichick spent the week before the Super Bowl obsessing about where the Rams would line up running back Marshall Faulk. Belichick would yell to his players about Faulk, "Where is he? Where is he?" If Belichick had a tape of the Rams' walkthrough showing where the Rams were lining up Faulk on various plays they planned to run, that would be an enormous strategic advantage. Former Rams coach Mike Martz doesn't agree that walkthroughs aren't important. When the allegations arose that the Patriots taped the Rams' final walkthrough, Martz told ESPN.com, "It's a serious allegation and I hope it is not true. Obviously, if there is enough substance to it, the league should look into it." Martz sounds as though he thinks that if the Patriots taped his team's final walkthrough, it's a very big deal. 3. Belichick "couldn't pick Matt Walsh out of a lineup." This sounds like an effort by Belichick to say that even if Walsh did tape other teams in violation of NFL rules, it was so irrelevant that even Belichick, a control freak with a hand in everything the franchise does, didn't know who Walsh was. Not only does that not pass the smell test, it doesn't let Belichick off the hook if Walsh were breaking league rules, either. The buck stops with Belichick in the Patriots organization. And since the buck stops with Belichick, Belichick is the one who needs to answer publicly for all of the allegations of cheating against the team. Not just the first Spygate, for which NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell disciplined Belichick after Week 1 of the NFL season, but also the second Spygate, the more recent allegations that surfaced in the days before this year's Super Bowl. Belichick waited a long time to speak about this issue, and now that he has spoken, unanswered questions remain. So where does this story go next? That mostly depends on where the sports media decide to take it. There are a few intriguing possibilities: Someone gets Walsh to talk. Maybe Walsh will sit down with ESPN or Sports Illustrated and say what he knows. Or maybe, since U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter has taken this story beyond the sports pages, Walsh will talk to CNN or 60 Minutes. If he does, he'll likely choose an interviewer known for softball questions -- and the Patriots will certainly have a Belichick-devised game plan for undermining whatever he says. Someone uncovers a tape of the Rams' final walkthrough. The mere existence of that tape would permanently tarnish Belichick's reputation to a greater extent than the $500,000 fine he got in September. Even if Belichick really didn't order the taping, if someone has that tape and gives it to the media, most people won't buy his explanations. And if the tape does exist, it will surface eventually, just as Fox Sports' Jay Glazer uncovered the tape the Patriots made of the Jets' defensive signals. And while broadcast journalists across the country would kill to get their hands on this tape, don't discount another possibility: If someone is in fact in possession of the tape of the Rams' final Super Bowl walkthrough, that someone could always anonymously post it on YouTube, which is the newest way for people to have their past bad actions come back to bite them. Just ask Chris Berman. The focus of the story shifts from NFL practices to the halls of Congress. If Specter holds hearings on the Patriots' cheating, the Washington press corps will make it an even bigger issue than the Roger Clemens hearings. This is an election year, and members of Congress who think they can score political points at the Patriots' expense won't hesitate to do so. Some other story makes Spygate a distant memory. This is, obviously, the preferred option for the Patriots and their fans. No one can predict where the next big story will come from, and if some NFL player becomes this year's version of Michael Vick, he'd be doing Belichick a big favor. But this doesn't have the feel of a story that's going to go away quietly. Belichick knows he's in for a long, hard off-season, and the game plan he's laid out at the start of it doesn't look like a winner.
Belichick said he never authorized, heard of, or seen another team walkthrough. That's a lot different than saying that there is not tape. It sounds like they are trying to say that even if there is a tape of the walkthrough, they had nothing to do with it. That would be hard to believe. Imagine, Walsh taping the Rams walkthrough on his own. What could he have done with it other than give it to Belichick who could have used it?
This is also a guy that said he never had an extra-marital affair either. He also looked like he was padded cell material the day he left here to go to NE. I wouldn't trust BB as far as I could throw him. Would you trust a guy that dresses up as a bridge troll for every game?
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3255287 Goodell 'anxious to speak' to Walsh, hoping sides are nearing deal Associated Press Updated: February 20, 2008, 5:03 PM ET INDIANAPOLIS -- NFL commissioner Roger Goodell hopes the NFL is close to an agreement that will allow former New England Patriots employee Matt Walsh to tell the league about the tapes he is said to have made of the St. Louis Rams' walk-through before the 2002 Super Bowl. "The lawyers are still talking and we're anxious to speak to him. We're anxious to get an agreement to get him to come forth," Goodell told the Associated Press on Wednesday before the start of the NFL combine. "We hope to be able to talk to him shortly." Walsh, now a golf pro in Hawaii, did video work for the Patriots when they won the first of their three Super Bowls after the 2001 season. Three weeks ago, the Boston Herald reported that Walsh claimed he had taped the practice before the Patriots' 20-17 upset of the Rams, who were two-touchdown favorites. NFL lawyers have been meeting with Michael Levy, Walsh's Washington-based lawyer, who is seeking further protection for his client if he tells what he knows. Levy said last week that the NFL's offer of protection "is highly conditional and still leaves Mr. Walsh vulnerable. I have asked the NFL to provide Mr. Walsh with the necessary legal protections so that he can come forward with the truth without fear of retaliation and litigation." Goodell has said Walsh was not interviewed as part of the NFL's investigation into "Spygate," which involved the NFL confiscating tapes from a Patriots employee who recorded the New York Jets' defensive signals from the sideline during the opening game of the 2007 season. As a result of that investigation, Patriots coach Bill Belichick was fined $500,000, and the team was fined $250,000 and had to forfeit its 2008 first-round draft choice. Six confiscated tapes and other documents pertaining to the Patriots' taping were subsequently destroyed by the league. Goodell has defended the destruction of the tapes. Last week, Willie Gary, who played seven games for the Rams that season, filed suit in New Orleans accusing the Patriots of fraud, unfair trade practices and engaging in a "pattern of racketeering." Three fans joined in the suit. On Tuesday, Hugh Campbell, the Cincinnati lawyer who filed Gary's suit, said he wanted to add at least two new classes to the action: all employees and players of all NFL teams who were illegally videotaped by the Patriots, plus all fans who bought tickets to any game that the Patriots illegally taped. He also said he wanted to join efforts with Sen. Arlen Specter, R.-Pa., who also is looking into the allegations. Goodell and Specter met last week in Washington. Specter told The Associated Press on Wednesday that if Walsh is under subpoena in a suit, it might solve the problem of protection. "I think now that the lawsuits have been started, that I got the ball rolling, and the plaintiffs' lawyers are picking it up," Specter said. Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press
Man I haven't looked for a while, but they actually have Great Patriots Collapse linked to the wiki article for SB XLII now. :smile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPC
Patriots' Brady 'just trying to be smart' with foot injury NFL.com Speaking to Boston sports radio station WEEI on Monday, Patriots quarterback Tom Brady did not elaborate on coach Bill Belichick's classificaction of the injury that has kept him out of the preseason so far as a "sore foot," but he did say it is not the same ankle injury that bothered him during last season's Super Bowl. Tom Brady, QB New England Patriots "No, it's not the same," said Brady, who didn't travel with the Patriots for their preseason game against Tampa Bay Sunday night. "It's entirely different than the Super Bowl. Same side of the body and same leg, but not the same injury." Brady indicated that the injury is not serious or expected to keep him out of the Patriots' season opener against Kansas City on Sept. 7. Brady also missed the Patriots' preseason opener against the Ravens. "Preseason is important, but I think the idea is to be ready for when the regular season kicks off," he said. "If I can be out there I'm going to be out there, but it remains to be seen. "It's just trying to be smart and trying to understand that it's a long season, so not to go out and aggravate anything when I'm not entirely ready to go, though I would love to be out there with my teammates playing and trying to prepare that way. But I guess coach (Bill Belichick) made the decision that it's not the smartest thing to do right now." Brady was noncommittal on his status for Friday's preseason game against the Philadelphia Eagles. The third preseason game is when starters typically stay in the game the longest. "I'm not sure," Brady said. "I'm trying to get treatment this week and I'm feeling better every day. It's going to end up being up to coach, what he wants to do. But I think he's been coaching long enough to understand that the first game in September is what's going to be important to us." -------------------------------------------------------------- FUEL FOR THE FIRE!!!!!!
It's pretty clear that Sporano and Tuna have the balls that Mangina and Schitt Jr were lacking last week. It's funny to watch them get beat down by a pathetic team but what's even more laughable is that we were lucky to beat that pathetic team.
