Goodell praises Williams hire

[Boffo97]

True enough.
I'm just not sure why Matt Walsh seems to be untrustworthy.

No offense, but I don't see how admitting to a worse offense than signal taping would take heat off on that subject. I would think it would make it worse if anything.

He said a lot of things, then provided no evidence whatsoever of them. That strikes me as very untrustworthy.

And the Patriots didn't admit to a worse offense than signal taping. Matt Walsh (at least officially not affiliated with them at the time) SAID it happened, then provided no evidence (remember, the Boston Herald admitted they never saw the tape) after dragging the process out for as long as possible until people got sick of it. With no evidence, there's nothing to go on except Walsh's word.

And it worked. 99% of people forgot about the signal taping.

So I choose to focus on the cheating that we KNOW happened and that we have more than one person's word on. Otherwise, we look like we just want the Patriots to be guilty and don't care about the facts.

 

[Selassie I]

Here's what we do know...

The patsies fucking cheated. FACT

That's the Fact , Jack !

 

[Ram_of_Old]

Here's what we do know...

The patsies fucking cheated. FACT

That's the Fact , Jack !

Their SB wins should all have an asterisk beside them..

**Won while illegally video taping other teams.

 

[Ram Quixote]

True enough.
I'm just not sure why Matt Walsh seems to be untrustworthy.

No offense, but I don't see how admitting to a worse offense than signal taping would take heat off on that subject. I would think it would make it worse if anything.

Obviously because he violated his non-disclosure agreement with the Patriots.

 

[Rambitious1]

Obviously because he violated his non-disclosure agreement with the Patriots.

I suppose that is arguable. However, violating that agreement does not on the face if it, mean he was lying. But, it is arguable.

 

[RamFan503]

True enough.
I'm just not sure why Matt Walsh seems to be untrustworthy.

No offense, but I don't see how admitting to a worse offense than signal taping would take heat off on that subject. I would think it would make it worse if anything.

Exactly what I was thinking. That makes no sense. Besides, why the hell would he make that specific claim if they were actually only taping signals? I would think that taping signals would come with a slap on the wrist. Taping walk-throughs however, raises the bar significantly. I am guessing that EVERY team studies the signal calling of other teams. To me, destroying the tapes says there was something much more incriminating. The spectre of a tainted Superbowl would be a much more logical reason for a cover up than taping signals.

Personally, and I also don't mean any offense but the idea that this was just about taping signals is laughable.

 

[kurtfaulk]

Exactly what I was thinking. That makes no sense. Besides, why the hell would he make that specific claim if they were actually only taping signals? I would think that taping signals would come with a slap on the wrist. Taping walk-throughs however, raises the bar significantly. I am guessing that EVERY team studies the signal calling of other teams. To me, destroying the tapes says there was something much more incriminating. The spectre of a tainted Superbowl would be a much more logical reason for a cover up than taping signals.

Personally, and I also don't mean any offense but the idea that this was just about taping signals is laughable.

what else would they be taping of the opposition sideline?

.

 

[RamFan503]

what else would they be taping of the opposition sideline?

.

I'm referring to the taping of the Rams walk through. Is that what you're asking?

 

[kurtfaulk]

I'm referring to the taping of the Rams walk through. Is that what you're asking?

my mistake. you said there was something more incriminating because they destroyed the tapes. i thought you were talking about the content of the tapes.

.

 

[Thordaddy]

Man where's the Hard Hat Area sign?

It's the day of Love c c c c can't we all just get along?

 

[RamFan503]

my mistake. you said there was something more incriminating because they destroyed the tapes. i thought you were talking about the content of the tapes.

.

Yeah - the walk through taping is the more incriminating content that they are not fessing up to and seriously taints that Superbowl. I firmly believe that is why they destroyed the tapes - not because the tapes only showed signal calling.

 

[Boffo97]

Exactly what I was thinking. That makes no sense. Besides, why the hell would he make that specific claim if they were actually only taping signals? I would think that taping signals would come with a slap on the wrist. Taping walk-throughs however, raises the bar significantly. I am guessing that EVERY team studies the signal calling of other teams. To me, destroying the tapes says there was something much more incriminating. The spectre of a tainted Superbowl would be a much more logical reason for a cover up than taping signals.

Personally, and I also don't mean any offense but the idea that this was just about taping signals is laughable.

Taping signals IS cheating. Why is that alone laughable? That lets you, at your leisure (which is not the case with merely observing said signals), figure out your opponent's signal system and thus guess what defense they're going to run before they do so. That's a huge advantage. So much so, that now the MLB gets a radio signal just like the QB does.

If Walsh did have walkthrough tape, why did he never show it to the Boston Herald or anyone else but Goodell? Remember, the Herald specifically said later that they did not ever see the tape.

Also, the destroyed evidence thing came up first with what the NFL already had pre-Walsh. The alleged walkthrough tape might have been destroyed later, but it was presented to Goodell months after the other evidence was destroyed.

 

[Ram_of_Old]

Yeah - the walk through taping is the more incriminating content that they are not fessing up to and seriously taints that Superbowl. I firmly believe that is why they destroyed the tapes - not because the tapes only showed signal calling.

Exactly! Goodell is a Putriot lover and would do everything he could to keep them from being seen as the cheaters they are.

 

[RamFan503]

Taping signals IS cheating. Why is that alone laughable? That lets you, at your leisure (which is not the case with merely observing said signals), figure out your opponent's signal system and thus guess what defense they're going to run before they do so. That's a huge advantage. So much so, that now the MLB gets a radio signal just like the QB does.

If Walsh did have walkthrough tape, why did he never show it to the Boston Herald or anyone else but Goodell? Remember, the Herald specifically said later that they did not ever see the tape.

Also, the destroyed evidence thing came up first with what the NFL already had pre-Walsh. The alleged walkthrough tape might have been destroyed later, but it was presented to Goodell months after the other evidence was destroyed.

Simply because signals were done in the open during every game. It wouldn't rise to the level of the NFL needing to orchestrate a cover up. And obviously you have a lot more faith in the Boston Herald than I. I also think your timing is off. When I first heard that the NFL had destroyed the tapes was after I had heard about the taping of the Rams walk throughs. And IIRR Walsh went into some pretty specific details that could have only been known if he either taped them or at minimum was present during them.

 

[RamFan503]

Oh... and if it didn't happen, the only way to prove it is to NOT BURN THE FREAKIN' TAPES! There are a lot of people who were involved - including our players and coaches that I am guessing know more about it than any of us OR the Boston Herald. Try telling them it didn't happen. They are quite certain it did.

 

[Boffo97]

Simply because signals were done in the open during every game. It wouldn't rise to the level of the NFL needing to orchestrate a cover up. And obviously you have a lot more faith in the Boston Herald than I. I also think your timing is off. When I first heard that the NFL had destroyed the tapes was after I had heard about the taping of the Rams walk throughs. And IIRR Walsh went into some pretty specific details that could have only been known if he either taped them or at minimum was present during them.

Sure taping signals would require a cover up. Even if you think it was mild cheating (and I don't. The ability to match up signals to the upcoming play and decipher them at leisure is HUGE), the Patriots were still cheating ever since Belichick was hired. They admitted that. SEVEN YEARS OF CHEATING! This was the sole reason the rule was changed so that MLBs got helmet radios.

And it's not that I have faith in the Boston Herald. I just don't buy any paper admitting they ran a story without proof when they didn't. It causes way too much damage to the paper's integrity. Plus it results in the contradictory idea where the Herald fears the Patriots enough to pull the story by falsely admitting they had no evidence, but doesn't fear them enough to not run the story in the first place. Theories that result in contradictory consequences are false.

And everything I heard said that the first batch of evidence was ONLY taped signals and was destroyed immediately after the penalties were imposed. Walsh's allegations came much later. I never heard about specific walkthrough details... and I've seen some opinions that even if the walkthrough (not a full practice) were taped, it wouldn't reveal much anyway.

But, I'm going to let this go because I don't like being in the position that I'm defending the Patriots. I just feel that insisting the walkthrough thing must have happened lets them off the hook for the signal taping.

 

[RamFan503]

I just feel that insisting the walkthrough thing must have happened lets them off the hook for the signal taping.

How? That makes no sense. They should be on the hook for both. Why would insisting the taping of the walk throughs let them off the hook for anything else? That's like saying charging a guy for breaking and entering would let him off the hook for burglary.

And I'm going to guess that the Herald had to retract their story because the NFL burned the evidence that would have supported it. No evidence - no story. But a slander suit brought by Kraft would have been pretty damn messy for the paper. And if Walsh is a non-credible person, why is it credible when he changes his story after meeting with Goodell?

Again. This doesn't pass the smell test. If the NFL is telling us everything, why burn the evidence? Clearly the tapes would have supported what they told us - right? Wrong.

And for the record - you didn't let it go.

 

[Selassie I]

Something smells in here.

 

[RamFan503]

Are we in Denmark?

 

[Selassie I]

Not that kind of quality smell... it reminds me of the stench of a lingering SBD fart. You know, like john shaw.