Crezbad, you have not been paying attention to detail. From day one of spygate, the allegations have been that the Pats stole opposing teams DEFENSIVE signals, no mention of steeling OFFENSIVE signals came out until after the Walsh tapes were viewed.
Further more, the Walsh tapes went back to 2001, this predates what Belicheat turned over to Goodell by a few years. He claimed, at the time there were no more tapes. If we are to believe what Goodell said about the meeting with Belicheat.
Clearly, Belicheat lied, face to face with Goodell, or Goodell has not told us the entire story. Why would a man, Goodell, with a background in law destroy evidence? That is the biggest red flag in all of this.
This goes to the integrity of the NFL, it is too important to gloss over. You would be livid if it had been say the 1985 Bears who were caught doing this. You would demand a full investigation, and rightfully so.
"Crezbad, you have not been paying attention to detail. From day one of spygate, the allegations have been that the Pats stole opposing teams DEFENSIVE signals, no mention of steeling OFFENSIVE signals came out until after the Walsh tapes were viewed."
I can find nothing in the archives that says that Goodell said that Belichick only admitted to recording defensive signals. You added that detail using your vivid imagination (e.g., bs). If you want to call making things up that weren't actually stated as paying attention to detail then you are indeed, a gass passer.
We can only conclude that because Goodell indicated that no new information was provided that he and Belichick discussed the Offensive signal recording as well. You are supposing that they didn't discuss it, not because it makes sense, but because you choose to conclude that for your own jealous reasons.
"Further more, the Walsh tapes went back to 2001, this predates what Belicheat turned over to Goodell by a few years. He claimed, at the time there were no more tapes. If we are to believe what Goodell said about the meeting with Belicheat."
I think he said there were no more tapes as in, he had no more tapes. I don't think Belichick was in posession of the tapes that Matt turned over. Matt had them. Is that a difficult concept for you to understand?
"Clearly, Belicheat lied, face to face with Goodell, or Goodell has not told us the entire story. Why would a man, Goodell, with a background in law destroy evidence? That is the biggest red flag in all of this."
I can't make any sense of what you are trying to say in this paragraph. It doesn't suprise me that you cross over the border of not being coherent at times. When you try to convince people of your position on a subject, please try to stay focused on one thought at a time. You smashed three thoughts into a pile of verbal vomit.
"This goes to the integrity of the NFL, it is too important to gloss over. You would be livid if it had been say the 1985 Bears who were caught doing this. You would demand a full investigation, and rightfully so."
I don't the video taping alone could have accounted for the score disparity in that game. The recent Miami game where they beat the Pats 21-0 would be a good example of cheating, and no, we didn't raise too much of a stink on that one.
Crezbad, stop with the excuses, it is time for an honest investigation of what happened with this whole spygate business. If they have nothing to hide, why are they trying so hard to hide something?
Destroying evidence, before a third party gets to see it? Lying about the existance of any other tapes? I have no idea what " archives " you are talking about, you keep trying to defend your argument with . It does not matter, this has been covered ad nauseum in the national press. The details are common knowledge, and it is the details that hang the Pats on this one.
Here is what the Pats were ORIGINALLY caught doing: Videotaping DEFENSIVE sideline signals, specifically at the Jets game, not the first time the league caught them doing this by the way. They had been warned previously to stop doing this, by the NFL.
Belicheat and Goodell met, discussed this, and penalties were assessed based on that info. Supposedly ALL EXISTING TAPES were turned over at that time. No mention of the Walsh tapes were admitted to, nor the existance of taped OFFENSIVE signals, nor the existance of tapes predating those turned over by Belicheat.
Turns out he not only knew of the taping by Walsh, but he told him how to go about it, and paid him a salary to do it. Those tapes went back a few years before the ones he ( Belicheat) turned over to the league.
You don't train a guy how to cheat, pay him a salary to do it for you, and have no knowledge of the existance of said tapes he made for you, over the period of several years.
Do you really think the Pats would continue to videotape, against league rules, from 2001 through 2008 if they did not gain some competitve advantage. Come on, man, stop fooling yourself. They would not go to the trouble, or expense, if it wasn't worth it for the past eight years!!!!
Belicheat and Goodell met, discussed this, and penalties were assessed based on that info. Supposedly ALL EXISTING TAPES were turned over at that time. No mention of the Walsh tapes were admitted to, nor the existance of taped OFFENSIVE signals, nor the existance of tapes predating those turned over by Belicheat.
Sorry, but your argument is marred by statements made by the league as well as simple facts. For one thing, the tapes that Walsh was in possession of were not the responsibility of the Patriots. By all accounts, they were taken without permission. The Patriots would be incapable of handing over tapes that they were not in possession of.
Second, we were told in February, before Matt Walsh even came into this picture, that when Spector met with Goodell he was informed that Belichick had admitted to this practice since he had been with the Patriots in the original meeting in September. That covers back to 2000.
Third, the league has verified that the Patriots were punished both for the totality of the conduct and for the entirety of the rule regarding where it is permissible to tape from. Both types of signals are included in that.
Fourth, it should be noted that offensive signals are relayed to the QB through a headset, and that any hand signals used would be of groupings or formations. These signals are usually very very basic and easy to crack, and are therefore not hidden. Should the coach to QB communication go out, the offensive play will usually be either relayed to the QB via another player, or the offensive coach will signal a # that would correspond with the play chart that many QBs wear on their wrist.
Mack208 says: " the tapes that Walsh was in possession of were not the responsibility of the Patriots. By all accounts, they were taken without permission. The Patriots would be incapable of handing over tapes that they were not in possession of ".
Yes, they were the responsibility of the Pats, as he was an employee of the Pats at the time he took them. In fact, he has stated the Pats coaching staff ( under Belicheat ), trained him how to do it, and stressed not getting caught.
It was their responsibility, and they clearly knew about it, they paid him a salary to do it. I am not convinced they did not have a copy of the tapes that Walsh turned over. You may choose to be that naive, I do not.
Belicheat only admitted to stealing Defensive signals prior to the Walsh tapes, and that is all he was punished for. The theft of offensive signals was never mentioned until after the Walsh tapes were released. He lied to the commish, face to face.
As much as you would like this embarassing fiasco to be over, it probably is not, and should not be. Cheating can not be condoned in a league that prides itself on integrity.
