| |
Was the Pats Scandal Under or Over Blown?
|
|
|
|
Was the Pats Scandal Under or Over Blown?
|
Was the Pats Scandal Under or Over Blown?
|
Reputation:96
Level:Superstar
Since:May 9, 2007
|
|
I'm sure in light of Matt Walsh stating that he never had nor claimed to have a tape of the Rams walkthrough, the easy answer seems like overblown...BUT...
Reportedly, Matt Walsh did watch the walkthrough and report back to Pats assistant coaches on what he saw, though he didn't tape it. Is this not serious as well?
We also now know that players, and not just coaches, were involved in the process.
And I know this is old news--which took a crazed senator to pry it from Goodell's sealed lips--but the cheating has been going on ever since Belichick showed up in New England, and was not just a limited and recent thing as we were originally led to believe.
Maybe that crazed senator Spector is not so crazy for wanting an impartial investigation? It seems to me like the league has done its best to keep a lid on the scandal throughout the process, which is in its best interests, and that certainly isn't conducive to the whole truth.
|
Was the Pats Scandal Under or Over Blown?
|
Was the Pats Scandal Under or Over Blown?
|
Reputation:99
Level:Superstar
Since:Dec 22, 2006
|
|
I agree the average person learned a lot more about it than originally stated. But it isn't the NFL's job to make public everything they learn. It is their job to investigate, decide if there was fault, and punish appropriately, and I think that was done well.
He didn't get into details, but said what rules were broken, and what the punishment would be. People assumed the rest. They don't let every violation out publicly. No one is clamoring to find out what the NFL's community service required of PacMan is, or what it entails, same with his required counseling and education, and if he went to that. Sure, I would like to know, but it isn't a responsibility of the league to let me in on that.
|
Was the Pats Scandal Under or Over Blown?
|
Was the Pats Scandal Under or Over Blown?
|
Reputation:96
Level:Superstar
Since:May 9, 2007
|
|
slash,
What is your opinion of Walsh watching the Rams walkthrough and reporting back to the Pats coaches? Does this really mean so little when a tape would have meant so much?
|
Was the Pats Scandal Under or Over Blown?
|
Was the Pats Scandal Under or Over Blown?
|
Reputation:80
Level:All-Star
Since:Jun 28, 2007
|
peyton.
Walsh watching the Rams walkthrough is not against the rules. He was in full Pats gear and was setting up cameras. The Rams should have had everyone removed when they did their walkthrough. It is not the Pats fault that they did not and it is the Rams own stupidity for allowing him to stay on the sidelines and watch their practice.
|
Was the Pats Scandal Under or Over Blown?
|
Was the Pats Scandal Under or Over Blown?
|
Reputation:96
Level:Superstar
Since:May 9, 2007
|
|
According to Mike Martz, there is no way Matt Walsh was in full Patriots garb. Mike Martz took that as an insult to not only himself, but the Rams' and NFL's security people.
The good thing for the Patriots is that Walsh said he wasn't told by anyone to observe the walkthroughs, so he just did it as a sort of "going the extra mile" thing. However, he said he talked to an assistant coach about what he saw and the assistant coach drew diagrams. Clearly, the information was an advantage, but as it was not filmed, apparantly it was not a clear violation of any rules. I don't see what the big difference is though because information is information regardless.
What's odd is how the Patriots supposedly did set up a camera on the field during the walkthrough but supposedly never turned it on. I guess you can just mark it up to setting up for later, but it seems strange to me none the less. Why would anyone want even the appearance of impropriety? If the camera was never set up, this story never would have happened. It's not unlike spending a lot of time alone with a 15 year old girl. Even if you don't touch her, do you really want to be in that situation where the appearances may be construed otherwise?
|
Was the Pats Scandal Under or Over Blown?
|
Was the Pats Scandal Under or Over Blown?
|
Reputation:96
Level:Superstar
Since:May 9, 2007
|
|
I'm also wondering why now knowing that the players were indeed involved isn't a bigger story. People always defended them before saying it was just the coaches and not the players fault, but we now know that they had a hand in it as well.
Also, I'm very peeved with Bill Belichick's insistance on misinterpreting the rules despite what Walsh has said and Goodell never buying it. I wish he would just come clean and admit that he knew what he was doing was wrong and that he was trying to gain an upper hand unfairly.
|
Was the Pats Scandal Under or Over Blown?
|
Was the Pats Scandal Under or Over Blown?
|
Reputation:95
Level:Superstar
Since:Apr 7, 2007
|
|
Both here, on television and in PHILLY...YES...extremely overblown.
|
Was the Pats Scandal Under or Over Blown?
|
Was the Pats Scandal Under or Over Blown?
|
Reputation:99
Level:Superstar
Since:Dec 22, 2006
|
|
To be honest, if he had a tape, he had solid proof. Without that, it is simply he said/she said, and I don't think just Walsh's testimony is enough to convict Belichick. So yeah, really unless something he said was backed up by proof, backed up by another player/coach/staff, or backed up by admission of Belichick, I don't think anything should come from testimony that is solely his.
slash,
What is your opinion of Walsh watching the Rams walkthrough and reporting back to the Pats coaches? Does this really mean so little when a tape would have meant so much?
|
Was the Pats Scandal Under or Over Blown?
|
Was the Pats Scandal Under or Over Blown?
|
Reputation:93
Level:All-Star
Since:Apr 28, 2008
|
|
I think it's far more serious than we'll ever know..
The NFL doesn't hand out $500,000 fines on individuals for nothing(along with $250,000 to the Team and a loss of a draft pick)
The NFL destroyed the evidence(cover-up) The Pats have lashed out angrily and defensively(something more to hide?) So Walsh had some tapes..How many more in 6-7 years were there? What were they?
They have been doing this for years(why do it if there is NO benefit?)
The fans really will never know..exactly what happened..or to what length.. | |