Specter: Patriots Cheated in '04 Against Steelers

[Dodger12]

#1 he's an eagle fan

I stand corrected. I misread the article in the thread where it referenced the Steelers/Pats game. My bad.

#2 how do you know why he's doing this?

Just my opinion and no slight against yours.

 

[Dodger12]

If all this is, is sour grapes, then why destroy the tapes? Really think about it, ask yourself that and think about it. If you can't seem to grasp it, maybe try to go back and reread this thread.

I agree with what another poster said about this whole situation.. it stinks.

Jey, don't get me wrong, the NFL should have never destroyed the tapes and it raises allot of issues. There's also no question the Pats cheated. Did the NFL try and cover up the extent of the cheating before it got uglier for the NFL. Sure. I just don't think anything will come of it but I also won't downplay how good Brady and the Patriots were. The shame of it for guys like Brady is probably that they didn't have to cheat to win.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Nothing is going to come of this cause I feel like the video guy doesn't have anything concrete to give up and show. So this will be looked at, and nothing more.

 

[DCfaninDC]

Nothing is going to come of this cause I feel like the video guy doesn't have anything concrete to give up and show. So this will be looked at, and nothing more.

Somehow I think it is the opposite. I think Specter "might have" seen the tapes in Walsh's possession and knows that he can make a case out of it.

 

[tyke1doe]

I don't think anyone ever argued with you on those two points. The rest of your tripe was just Goodell pandering.

I think you did take exception to point 2. You asked why Goodell didn't interview Walsh and determine whether he had additional information, i.e., tapes. And I said it was because there was no reason for Goodell to believe that Walsh had NFL/Patriots property.

As for Goodell pandering, that's your opinion. I've already stated that I didn't agree with everything with respect to Goodell and his punishments. See Wade Wilson.

He said, he said, yes... but that doesn't mean Walsh won't be more credible than Belichick.

But I never compared Walsh with Belichick. I compared Walsh with Goodell with respect to arguing why Goodell didn't interview Walsh.

 

[tyke1doe]

Ok maybe I wasn't clear on how to ask the question. What I meant was, what if they haven't really given the NFL all the tapes they had. I mean how can the NFL make sure that the Pats don't have back-up copies they can use later?

Also, if you caught a person cheating and think he is not honest to the game, how can they beleive anything he says from that point on?

To be honest, I really disliked Belicheck, but always thought he was one of the great ones and very smart. Now, hmmm...he is looking more like a Jim Haslett as far as I am concerned.

But that's why Goodell said earlier if any additional information surfaces, he would issue even more harsher fines.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The one thing that has struck me here is that the Patriots have not released
Walsh from the nondisclosure agreement in light of these developments.

the fact tht they have not seems to lend credence to the idea that there is something going on here.

 

[theogt]

The one thing that has struck me here is that the Patriots have not released
Walsh from the nondisclosure agreement in light of these developments.

the fact tht they have not seems to lend credence to the idea that there is something going on here.

This whole ordeal just smells funny.

 

[DCfaninDC]

But that's why Goodell said earlier if any additional information surfaces, he would issue even more harsher fines.

But that would like stopping a guy for speeding and asking him if he has done any other illegal activities for the last couple of years and to admitting to it. Now unless that person is a moron, that will never happen.

 

[peplaw06]

I think you did take exception to point 2. You asked why Goodell didn't interview Walsh and determine whether he had additional information, i.e., tapes. And I said it was because there was no reason for Goodell to believe that Walsh had NFL/Patriots property.

That's not what you said in point 2. You said that Walsh took the tapes improperly.

I don't give a rats *** if he took the tapes "improperly." If he has em I want to see em. I don't think the fact that he took them improperly, if he did, has any relevance to whether Goodell should have been investigating to see if he indeed had them.

As for Goodell pandering, that's your opinion. I've already stated that I didn't agree with everything with respect to Goodell and his punishments. See Wade Wilson.

What is the angle which you compare the Wilson punishment to, for you not to agree with it?

I thought the only relevant point of comparison was in regards to how the Pats were punished.

But I never compared Walsh with Belichick. I compared Walsh with Goodell with respect to arguing why Goodell didn't interview Walsh.

What does "he said, he said" have to do with Goodell?

If you're talking about Goodell and Walsh, then this comment --

Specter can question Walsh all he wants, but if he doesn't have any evidence - i.e., the tapes - then it's going to be simply he said he said.

-- makes zero sense.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

The one thing that has struck me here is that the Patriots have not released
Walsh from the nondisclosure agreement in light of these developments.

the fact tht they have not seems to lend credence to the idea that there is something going on here.

it's a government conspiracy, Bill Belichick is an alien, they don't want to upset him

 

[tyke1doe]

But that would like stopping a guy for speeding and asking him if he has done any other illegal activities for the last couple of years and to admitting to it. Now unless that person is a moron, that will never happen.

But if you catch Speed Racer doing other illegal activities then you can arrest him and punish him with more than just a speeding ticket and the accompanying fine.

Thank you for the analogy because it works here too.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

But that would like stopping a guy for speeding and asking him if he has done any other illegal activities for the last couple of years and to admitting to it. Now unless that person is a moron, that will never happen.

depends on what he admits to, if he says he smoked weed, cops can't do crap about it

but if he murdered someone, then that's another story

 

[khiladi]

Who in the world believes Roger Goodell anymore anyways? Last I heard, he was stating that the NFL had leads and they led to nothing, after proper investigation. When the story first happened, the NFL spokesman was saying that the Green Bay episode was never submitted for inspection in 2006 so they never bothered to investigate that lead. Goodell is trying to cover his tracts now, and he is looking like Roger Clemens right now.

I like how Goodell is saying that they were the one's who brought the facts to light. No, it was Mangini that did...

 

[lspain1]

This whole ordeal just smells funny.

It does have an odd feel to it. Goodell clearly has a responsibility for the "integrity of the game" but he also is responsible for the health and public image of the NFL as a whole. A case of this magnitude goes far beyond player misconduct and the two areas of responsibility might begin to conflict a bit. One thing is certain, and that is that Goodell has no desire for Congress to be investigating spygate in any way, shape or form.

We'll see....or perhaps we won't.

 

[khiladi]

This whole thing is just hilarious...

All the defending of the Patriots in light of the ever growing inconsistencies...

 

[Bob Sacamano]

This whole thing is just hilarious...

All the defending of the Patriots in light of the ever growing inconsistencies...

who's doing that?

 

[khiladi]

who's doing that?

People like tyke1doe... I like the new angle:

Walsh shouldn't have stolen the tapes from the Patriots, because that is illegal..

Well, Bellichek shouldn't have stolen signals against NFL rules and used Walsh to illegally tape signals...

Seriously... Specter has already come out and said Goodell told him they knew as far back as 2000 that the Patriots were taping signals. Yet, we are suppose to believe Goodell when he said, we didn't investiagte further because we thought Bellichek gave us all the tapes, and only those were from 2006-2007...

Why anybody would defend Goodell or the Patriots anymore is just bizarre...

 

[tyke1doe]

That's not what you said in point 2. You said that Walsh took the tapes improperly.

But that point was connected to a greater point, i.e., that Goodell didn't interview Walsh because beyond he said/he said Goodell didn't or wouldn't have reason to believe that Walsh would have league property.

I don't give a rats *** if he took the tapes "improperly." If he has em I want to see em.

You keep repeating that as if Goodell knew he had them. He didn't. That's what the issue is.

I don't think the fact that he took them improperly, if he did, has any relevance to whether Goodell should have been investigating to see if he indeed had them.

Again, it presumes that Goodell had a reason to believe that Walsh had improperly acquired company property. I say he didn't have a reason to believe Walsh did so.

What is the angle which you compare the Wilson punishment to, for you not to agree with it?

I thought the only relevant point of comparison was in regards to how the Pats were punished.

I thought the Wilson punishment was excessive because he was a coach who had what appeared to be a legitimate reason for taking the drugs he did - male impotency, if I recall correctly.

But I did not make any connection or comparison between that punishment and the one Goodell administered toward the Patriots for Spygate.

What does "he said, he said" have to do with Goodell?

If you're talking about Goodell and Walsh, then this comment -- -- makes zero sense.

My bad. I'm using as my reference point all our conversations on this matter.

Our first debates on this issue (in another thread) had to do with Goodell interviewing Belichick and not interviewing Walsh.

I argued that Goodell didn't have any knowledge that Walsh had tapes and if Walsh did not have any tapes it would only amount to a he-said/he-said issue.

With respect to Specter, again, without the tapes it's still going to be a he-said/he-said. Yes, Walsh may appear to be more credible than Belichick, but so? That's the case is most, if not all, he-said/he-said situations.

Specter is already convinced the Pats and Belichick cheated. By hearing Walsh sans tapes is he may be convinced even more than Belichick cheated, but so what? What is he going to be able to do with that information?

Thus my comment.

 

[khiladi]

And the issue isn't just about Walsh. It is about the inconsistency of Goodell, and this is independent of Walsh...

For example, anybody that has been paying attention to what Spectre said would know that the primary reasoning for suspicion is because of the timeline of the destruction of the tapes. This has absolutely nothing to do with Walsh.

If I remember correctly, they received and destroyed the tapes after they gave the penalty to the Patriots. And it was done in a matter of a few days, which reveals haste, more than a real investigation.