Hi, irrational Pats fan here who thought the original, in-game taping was far more speeding ticket than felony; it didn't really bother me. But taping a walkthrough before the SB, wtf? I don't even know if it's explicitly against the rules, but it's beneath sleazy and you're messing w/ people's livelihoods.

Also if the if Pats lied to the league, or withheld info the league requested, Belichick should suspended and fired. Can't believe I have to write this.

Well it seems that the Pats video taping activities were more extensive than previously thought, which further calls into question the validity of their first three wins.

We will probably never fully know the extent of the taping but I am suprised that it has taken this long for any lawmaker to become interested in what could amount to fraud that could have cost several people very large sums of money in lost employment and other revenues.

There, no foaming at the mouth. . .a little dribbling but no foam.

There's also the ESPN story involving the guy who used to film for them.

Along with the big write up about "Belichick's Belichick".

Either there's more than meets the eye or people are trying to tear down one of the most successful runs in NFL history, and grasping at every straw imaginable.

I'm not a Pats fan, but it's despicable that all this comes out the day(s) before the Super Bowl in which they are trying for something never achieved.

If the Pats really did what the article said, then Kraft should fire Belichick without hesitation once the allegations are proven.

The sideline taping stuff is much ado about nothing (note Goodell's comment about one of the taped coaches waving to the camera), as Goodell's comments boil down to: "the Pats were punished because breaking the rules is against the rules, not because the taping had any meaningful effects on gameplay or outcomes". And note the recent comments by Terry Bradshaw, Jimmy Johnson, and Howie Long.

As for Specter, OpenSecrets.org reveals that the top contributor to his campaign is Comcast. Which just happens to be at war with the NFL over NFL Network. As the Church Lady used to say, "How conveeeeenient!"

All that said, taping a team's final pre-SB walkthrough is a completely different matter and is totally beyond the pale and should carry severe consequences.

I think the timing of this news breaking is very suspicious, and I'm not inclined to believe it as of yet.

If it's true, though, there will be hell to pay.

Re: #4

I agree on both counts. If this source knew about it all these years, why wait until now to come out of the closet? Why not bring it up back in September? It is suspicious.

Wow. Just think if this happened during each Super Bowl. Is knowing the other team's plays worth 3 points a game?

Re: #6

Errr, I mean Re: #5, not Re: #4.

I'm surprised this story has stayed as quiet as it has since breaking in September. The way the investigation ended so abrubtly, with no explanation and the destruction of the tapes should have caused an uproar among the media types. Why didn't they make a bigger deal of it at the time?

Still the big issue at hand is whether or not the cheating was more than just the Jets game, how far did it go, and how did it impact the game? All I can say is this, how improbable is it for a sixth round draft pick to come in and be able to read defenses the way Brady has? Why is it that the Pats can blow away teams in the AFC that they play 1-2 times ayear, but have so much difficulty with supposedly outclassed NFC teams that they don't have as much footage...I mean experience with. How did a coach that posted a miserable record with the Browns, and had a miserable first year with the Pats turn it around immediately and become a "genius"?

9:
...and just imagine what Belichick could have done with Peyton Manning at QB!

What convenient timing for this to get back on the radar!

Then again, like Mike Florio said, maybe having the game that pretty much gave birth to the Patriot dynasty will motivate the players yet again to show that they win with the talent on the field, not the talent behind the cameras.

I'll also point out that Goodell's "well, since I destroyed them, if they're seen again they must've come from the Pats, so that's one of the main reasons I destroyed them" doesn't come close to passing the laugh test. Destroying them because of leaks (notice how fast the first one got leaked from NFL HQ) at least has some shreds of logic. But the other argument is just silly, on both sides of the coin (for one thing, if a team other than the Patriots, or a former employee who had already left had copies, then copies showing up post-Goodell-destruction doesn't mean the tapes came from the Pats.)

10: LOL, why not? The thread is going to go to hell anyway. I might as well say that if Manning were on the Patriots, he'd be going on one for the thumb right now.

5: Yeah, I agree. What I find most suspicious is that the guy wasn't asked to identify himself - wasn't that SB supposedly so fortified with security that it was almost suffocating (in the wake of September 11)?

9: Until this year, the Pats didn't blow much of anyone away. The team they have the biggest trouble with? Denver. Who they've played multiple times over the last seven years.

And BB had the genius label with the Giants. Keep in mind that the employee in Hawaii who allegedly has information worked with the team from 1996 through 02 or 03 (his wedding announcement claimed that he stopped working for the Pats in January 02, before the SB) -mostly during Parcells' tenure...

I'm to rational to comment at this point. I will return later after digesting my Memphis Grizzlies trading away Pau Gasol for a bag of rocks.

Sorry, but there is no way to justify Specter's actions here, or the notion of Congress investigating in general any alleged taping by the Patriots, and I say this as someone who thought Goodell should have stripped the Patriots of an entire year's draft picks for what they were caught doing in the Jets game.

At least in the steroids hearings, Congress can rightfully say that it is investigating behavior which Congress has deemed criminal. No, there is no element of criminal fraud, or other criminal behavior, if Bill Belichik had the Rams' walkthrough taped. What is Congress going to do next, hold hearings about offensive linemen getting away with holding?

Specter is simply absurd, and it is indicative of how abusive Congress has become that the people who might be asked to testify won't tell Specter and Co. to go perform an anatomically impossible act.

9: "Why is it that the Pats can blow away teams in the AFC that they play 1-2 times ayear, but have so much difficulty with supposedly outclassed NFC teams that they don’t have as much footage…"

Um. The Pats lost to Miami and the Jets last year. They lost multiple games in a row to the Colts before this year. They have a hard time with Denver.

Meanwhile, I can't remember the last time they lost to an NFC team. Maybe the Panthers a couple of years ago?

re #16 That would be fantastic because then we could pile on to the patriots for having such a dirty defense the other o-lines have to hold.

What I find most suspicious is that the guy wasn’t asked to identify himself - wasn’t that SB supposedly so fortified with security that it was almost suffocating (in the wake of September 11)?

Considering that he is a white male, this doesn't really surprise me too much. It sounds like he came on with the Patriots and just stuck around... insecurity by obscurity. If you don't make yourself suspicious looking no one is going to notice.

I thought the reason this guy wasn't talking about anything that went on is that he felt the Patriots or the NFL would sue the pants off of him. Given the way the public has reacted to the whole HGH scandal, and the predisposition of most football fans to already suspect something going on with the Patriots, I don't think this will help itself.

I think the fact that the media didn't really try to track this guy down until recently says more about the quality of the media. Do you really believe that would finger out everyone who ever worked for Belichik at the Patriots and hound them about taping? Most of the media benefits from the NFL, so there is a benefit from not digging too hard into some hard things.

In that regards I'd like to say thanks to MDS regarding his line of questioning about HGH to Belichick and Goodell. There were illumination answers from the coach and commish.

Assuming the report is true, and that this is worth caring about...

1. Was it actually against the rules? Or was it an 'unwritten rule'?

2. Are the Pats being singled out because of their winning? I'm sure there is a selective bias in the investigative journalists' approach. If so, and if people want to make a big deal about it, then you need investigations for all teams before you start deciding on a punishment for Belichick et al.

That being said, am I the only one willing to file this under the heading of 'gamesmanship'? I'm a Lions fan, so maybe it's just because I don't have any hope of winning (ever), but this just seems like the typical 'fifth-column' type of activities that have been in the league for many decades.

I honestly don't care what goes on behind the scenes in the NFL. This isn't politics or business or something that really matters - it's just entertainment.

I have as much interest in the behind-the-scenes of football as I do in the behind-the-scenes of a sitcom. Which is to say, none.

Just give me the game, with some winners and some losers (like my hapless Lions,) and let the show go on. Bring on SB XLII!

As a Giant fan, I'm not thrilled to see this pop up either. As if people could get any more irrational about the game, or read more into every call.

A hearty "thanks!" to Bill Belichick and the New England Patriots for screwing up professional football.

I hope the taping was worth the trouble.

16: The equivalency Specter drew in the Times article between Spygate tape destruction and destruction of CIA tapes is completely ridiculous. That comment shows that he doesn't understand (or seeks to downplay the distinction) between Spygate and a government agency destroying tapes purportedly depicting torture that may not only be illegal, but in violation of international law. If he can't figure out why they're different, he shouldn't be a U.S. Senator.

I have been involved in civil litigation where records where destroyed by other parties, likely in violation of a number of state and federal statutes. Quick, Arlen, where's your subpoena?

I was one of a few people who wrote a few months ago that the failure to disclose pretty much anything about what the Pats had done and what they got punished for was a mistake. The punishment was the biggest the NFL has ever handed out, and the crime must also therefore have been the worst offence. Yet all we ever heard was basically a bunch of platitudes from Goodell.

There were also huge conflicts of interest that influenced whether disclosure could happen. It is Goodell's job to protect the business interest of the NFL, if he had evidence that compromised the integrity of the league in the eyes of its fans it would be his job to make sure that we never got wind of it. This latest set of 'revelations' poses a different problem to the previous tapegate conundrum. I think most people can easily see how the Pats might have been able to capitalise on this transgression to enable them to win a game that they otherwise would have lost. That is a whole scale of madness worse than a few signals. If I understand the anti-trust exemption correctly then Goodell (or anyone who works for the NFL, or any media entity which profits from it) isn't an appropriate figure to lead any investigation into this issue.

If true where does this stop? Millions of people will have gambled on the game, have they been cheated? Coaches, players and front office staff have been fired. The Pats have built a dynasty and huge commercial success off the back of that first win, probably at the expense of other teams in the league, of course with revenue sharing it isn't in the interest of anyone in the league to see any more mud appear about this. Specter is right to question whether the sweeping of these problems under the rug violates the spirit of the league's antitrust exemption.

Although in principle I agree with Will, I don't have a big problem with Spector doing what he's doing. I think there are a fair amount of NFL fans who think the NFL is covering up some of the facts of spy gate. There's also a fair amount of people who think that Congress does more to screw up the country than fix things.

Re:#24 That was one of the most insightful and intelligent posts regarding the contravery that I've read.

24: I think we want to be clear here. Unlike MLB, which has a broad antitrust exemption, as I understand it the NFL's antitrust exemption applies specifically to their ability to negotiate one broadcasting arrangement (rather than market-by-market). Al Davis was permitted to sue the NFL for violation of antitrust laws, for instance.

This is the third time in the last two years that Specter has threatened to lift that exemption. The first time was in 2006 (see link) over Sunday Ticket issues. The second time was in 2007 over the NFL Network not being sufficiently available.

I'd like to hear an explanation as to what Spygate has to do with negotiating broadcast agreements. I suspect it was a way to kill two birds with one stone: try to get the exemption lifted for Comcast, while helping add credibility to the Eagles' claim to an SB title.

Everyone is missing spectre's motivation. He is an Eagles season ticket holder and huge fan. I can't wait for congress to award us our Super Bowl Trophy. kinda takes the fun out of it though. Sheldon Brown has long contended how odd it was that the Pats knew EVERY single blitz in the 2nd half.

#4,5,6 - I'm sure Specter has his own shady motivation for bringing this up now, but it's also not hard to imagine why the NFL would want to cover up something like, uh, cheating in the Super Bowl. Now that it's come out, 19-0 will be football's version of 756.

What's the appropriate punishment for something like this? The hater in me wants the NFL to do to the Pats what the NCAA did to SMU, like say, no draft picks for 2 years and banning Belicheat from the game. What'd be more realistic?

#27

I wasn't too sure about the anti-trust issue, we don't have anti-trust in the UK. I still stand by my argument about the massive conflict of interest in revealing basically anything which would cast doubt on the propriety of the results of past Superbowls.

#28- They can't just hand the Iggles the trophy, they must assume the Pats cheated against the Steelers in the AFCG. The only fair way to decide it would be to reassemble the Steelers and Eagles teams from that year and have them play. I hope you enjoy having TO back for that game!

Re: 24

Someone has to explain to me how you get from having information about your opponent into there being any question about the result of a game.

Are people really that naieve about what each team knows about the other's play calls, game plan, and so on?

What makes you win is how you defend what you KNOW is coming, not being tricked or confused about what happened.

In fact, "blown plays" or "trick plays" are even called out just because they are so rare.

I don't get it.

Specter's motivation is about doing something for Pennsylvanians that carries with it little or no electoral risk. In other words, it's about him. This is the kind of crap that looks great back home even if nothing happens and if he exposes the Patriots, he's going to look even better. Remember, he nearly lost in a primary in his last election. It is grandstanding at its best or worst.

That being said, we've learned a hell of a lot more in the past 48 hours about this situation than we have in the past 4 months since Specter brought it up.

If the story in the Herald is true (in my opinion, a pretty big if at this point), that takes a hell of a lot of chutzpah. Keeping a guy back with video equipment for the Rams practice and then having him blend in with media members for the ride home.

To 20, you can't videotape another team's practice.

#32,

1) There's a world of difference between defending against what you know is going to happen, and attacking the area of the field that is going to be weakest based on the coverage called.

2) It's also extremely different thinking "this defense likes to rush five in this situation with one man over top protecting their weak corner" vs knowing "they're blitzing their ROLB while runiing a two ddep zone" Thinking and knowing are two completely different things and greatly improve the offenses chances.

#3) Most games swing on 3-4 plays.

I don’t even know if it’s explicitly against the rules, but it’s beneath sleazy and you’re messing w/ people’s livelihoods.

Well that's certainly a strong argument!

You don't even know if it's against the rules, but it somehow strikes you as "beneath sleazy"?

People do know that, by the time the Super Bowl has come around, that all the teams have a season's worth of videotape on the other team that they can watch, right? I'm just not seeing the "moral outrage" here if the behavior in question is not against the rules. And what extra information could be obtained from a "walk-through" would not appear to be much.

I do hope, though, that if something develops from this, Mangini's name will get dragged through the mud, too. 'Cause let's be honest here: unless rules have been broken, this is just mudslinging, and it smells like it's being done by somebody who has chosen his moment to maximize his personal visibility. If this were some kind of conscience-driven former employee, he could have come forward four months ago. He would have had a bit more credibility if he had taken that path.

Oh, good grief, whether the Patriots taped some practices has exactly nothing to do with the NFL's antitrust status, just like how the NFL chooses to enforce, or not enforce, contact with a receiver five yards downfield has nothing to do with the NFL's antitrust status. In fact, the taping may not even rise to that level, given it is less than clear if any rules were violated. Specter is a perfect and complete ass.

Also, if anybody here thinks there is something new about this, they are completely ignorant. George Halas thought competitors were secretly filming the Bears practices fifty years ago. George Allen was convinced it happened to his Rams' teams. Golly gee, Everett Dirksen and Hubert Humphrey musta' been a couple of pikers; instead of investigating systematic civil rights violations, or organized crime, they coulda' been making sure NFL teams weren't having their practices filmed by guys with 8mm cameras!

Having a US senator waste time on this is just unbelievable.

Im from Canada, and all I ever hear and read about the US is how its in recession and how much worse it could get. The only reason I mention I am from Canada is that this really doesnt even effect me, and it STILL ticks me off.

On top of this America is fighting a war that costs $200 million/day and is on the verge of WWIII with Iran.

Now an elected public service official who probably clears well north of 100k in Salary DIRECTLY from tax payers is persuing the NFL?

WOW, I am completely outraged over this. Um Mr Senator, GET BACK TO WORK YOU FAT PRICK, dont waste another second of your time on this and how about solving the problems that really matter.

Now onto the video. I dont buy it, for 3 reasons.

1. They allegedly taped the Rams walk through the day before the SB. This was also after the Pats had their final walk through. It just doesnt add up. Lets say that by the time this guy taped the practice and made it back to the hotel it was 3pm. How much time could the Pats coaches have to change their preparations and relay it to their players? A couple hours at the most? Yes it could have helped, but unquestionably the Pats were already prepared to play the Rams. Belichick is always saying that he wants his players playing, and not thinking. So you really think he would have added a whole bunch of new wrinkles the night before their biggest game when he has meticulously trained them for the previous 2 weeks?

2. Any person with a PVR could have had 3 years worth of tape on the Rams. 99, 2000 and 2001. I mean honestly there is only so many plays and formatitions. At some point it is about the players.

3. The NFL is a rather tight night brotherhood. Free agent players and coaches change teams every
year and most guys know each other from previous years in college and HS. Do you mean to tell me that this would not have gotten out in the prior 6 years? No way, somebody would have let it slip by now.

Several points: (disclosure--I'm a Saints fan--I have no dog in this fight)
1. IF (big IF) the story of taping the Rams is true, every coach/employee (NOT player) involved deserves a lifetime ban. Period. IMO, the players involved may not have known because it may have been presented as simply Xs & Os on a board, or with video of previous games when the Rams ran those plays practiced in the walkthrough.
2. Could Goodell give the video guy in Hawaii some kind of endemnity? (i.e., the NFL nor the Pats would come after him--only if he disclosed what he knows to the NFL/commish and ONLY them)
3. Timing is definitely suspicious--why did it take so long to find this ex-Pats employee?
4. I'm not taking time to find the link, but I remember TMQ stating something like this early in the season: "The NFL has to make sure it keeps a great product on the field. There is nothing guaranteeing them #1 sports league status. They can fall, just like the NBA & MLB once did." Basically stating that if there is REAL evidence of cheating, and ESP. IF that cheating affected SB's, the NFL will lose a lot of casual fans. (BTW, a 1% loss of revenues =$70 million--that's a lot of cash)

I love that any discussion of Spygate is automatically "irrational".

Wonderfully biased framing of the issue.

37:
i'd much rather a senator waste his time. there are so many more destructive ways for senators to use their time

Pssst. Karl Cuba is actually Fidel Castro posting under an alias. I know this, because I'm his personal friend.

And now that an anonymous source has alleged this, it must be true.

Hypothetical question--suppose it came to light that some assistant was digging through the opposing coach's garbage the night before the Superbowl and found a crumpled up copy of some plays the team planned on executing. Suppose the garbage digger's team went on to win the SB. Four years later, it comes to light that this had occurred.

Would people be as outraged? Just curious...

SPECTRE is quite obviously in Comcast's pocket. I am not at all surprised that our government has degenerated to the point where Senators are pawns in a war between the NFL and the cable companies.

Incidentally, the linked article about the Rams taping goes to a Boston Herald article. Does anyone know if it was the Herald that broke the story, or are they just re-reporting it?

The reason why I ask is that, for those of you not familiar with Boston newspapers, the Herald is maybe half a step above the National Enquirer as far as their believability, bias, and veracity...

Damn, I sure wouldn't want to be the Giants tomorrow...

Seriously, Tomase's piece is just about at the level of Dr.Z's post-tapegate piece collecting spurious rumors and third-hand hearsay. "A source close to the team during the 2001 season" told Tomase that "a member of the team’s video staff stayed behind" and taped the Rams. But note: "it’s not known what the cameraman did with the tape" or "if he made the recording on his own initiative or if he was instructed to make the recording by someone with the Patriots or anyone else."

So, the "source" could be anyone of the many hundreds of people who just hang around the team, not necessarily an employee, and he/she clearly is not the video-staff member, or he'd know at least some of the other details (what he did with the tape, who ordered it made, etc). Yet, this at least once-removed source knows for a fact that the cameraman was not asked for identification while filming in a highly secure location in the wake of 9/11 (remember how high the security was, fearing bombings etc?), which is probably the least credible of all the claims.

Basically, a collection of unfalsifiable statements from an unidentifiable source who doesn't even explain how he/she acquired the information. All coming out the day before the SB, when it should have come out 3 months ago. Uh, OK.

In the meantime, the conspiracy theorists and Pats haters, after months of grumbling and hinting at shady cover-ups of massive cheating, refuse to accept the only now officially known facts: the commissioner's own words that the tapes and notes were few and of minimal competitive significance. Jeez, folks.

Ya' gotta point there, formanchu. If there is any carbon-based matter in the universe more useless than a United States Senator, I've yet to encounter it. Criminy, if we agreed to pay these jackasses 10 million annually, do ya' think we get them to take 51 weeks of vacation a year? What is really frightening is that we have about at least a 75% chance that someone from the World's Most Fatuous Deliberative Body is going to be our next President, and to head off an argument, no, I don't mean that as an endorsement of the former Governor Of Mass. with the fabulous hair.

By the way, I love the "Spectre" typo. Very appropriate for "Spygate" (though the "gate" was not about "spying" at all). Perhaps Tomase's source was Ernst Stavro Blofeld himself.

My God.

Fellow Giants fans-- give it a rest. It is not relevant. The league will handle it, or won't. Not one bit of whining is going to help us tomorrow, or change the result of the game if the Giants don't play well.

It just makes us look bad.

I love how people can hold the "there's no way they cheated" and "an eagles fan senator is really only doing this to help comcast I can tell because of campaign contributions" in their head at the same time.

42: "Hypothetical question–suppose it came to light that some assistant was digging through the opposing coach’s garbage the night before the Superbowl and found a crumpled up copy of some plays the team planned on executing. Suppose the garbage digger’s team went on to win the SB. Four years later, it comes to light that this had occurred.

Would people be as outraged? Just curious…"

Depends. Is that against the rules?

45: "...refuse to accept the only now officially known facts: the commissioner’s own words that the tapes and notes were few and of minimal competitive significance. Jeez, folks."

Yea but come on, what is the guy going to say, that past SBs were compromised? Maybe they were and maybe they weren't, but the comish assuring us that this didn't happen isn't exactly evidence, considering he has a huge vested interested in us believing nothing happened.

Look, I don't care all that much what happened. My team wasn't in any of those games. And in any case, my team is so bad, the Pats could give US tapes of THEM and we would still lose. Never the less, it does seem somewhat suspicious.

If there was nothing on those tapes that would arouse suspicion, why destroy them? I mean, you don't hide a body you didn't kill.

dbt, Comcast's support for Specter is as likely an accurate explanation as there is for Specter's behavior, besides the fact that Specter is an example of grotesquely self-important swine, who is so psychologically damaged from his years in the Senate, that he is by now unable to differentiate between matters of import appropriate for consideration by the agents of state power, and the videotaping of an effing football practice prior to 3 hours of televised entertainment.

"I love that any discussion of Spygate is automatically “irrational”.

Wonderfully biased framing of the issue."

THIS

Will...you must be new here.

Will Allen,

As someone who had Arlen as his Senator for many years, let me opine.

"Comcast’s support for Specter is as likely an accurate explanation as there is for Specter’s behavior,"

It is an unlikely explanation for Specter's behavior.

"besides the fact that Specter is an example of grotesquely self-important swine,"

Now you are getting closer.

"who is so psychologically damaged from his years in the Senate,"

Getting colder. The Senate did not make him this way. Arlen "Magic Bullet, Scottish Law" Specter has *always* been this way.

"that he is by now unable to differentiate between matters of import appropriate for consideration by the agents of state power, and the videotaping of an effing football practice prior to 3 hours of televised entertainment."

He never was able to so differentiate.

What makes Arlen tick, and has always made him tick, is the unquenchable urge to put himself in the middle of anything and everything. He wants, and needs, to be the center of attention.

Gerry, I'm just trying to be charitable to swine this afternoon, having consumed a lot of bacon at breakfast this morning.

#17 -- here all the Patriot losses to NFC teams, going back to the 2000 season:

2005 Week 2: NE 17, CAR 27
2003 Week 4: NE 17, WAS 20
2002 Week 6: GB 28, NE 10
2001 Week 10: STL 24, NE 17
2000 Week 15: NE 17, CHI 24
2000 Week 13: NE 9, DET 34
2000 Week 3: MIN 21, NE 13
2000 Week 1: TB 21, NE 16

Since 2000 (when the Patriots were 5-11), they just haven't lost much to NFC teams.

#51, Will

It may well be that Specter is only acting due to Comcast, it is a reasonable hypothesis.

Is it not also a reasonable hypothesis that Goodell wouldn't choose to disclose evidence that questions the validity of victories in previous Superbowls? As the CEO of the NFL he is bound by law not to damage its commercial interests.

Re: 39
I agree. If Michael Vick and dogfighting didn't require its own 'irrational' thread, then this shouldn't either. There are some great, RATIONAL posts here (Jimmy's I really like). I think this story's handling here might be a nail in the coffin of me pimping this site anymore as something other than everywhere else. Sure, the analysis is intelligent and researched, not littered with cliches, and the user discussion is typically frank and at worst interesting and thoughtful, but if huge STORIES (not thread-hijackers like Brady v. Manning) warrant immediate "irrational" threads, I think that's saying something to me about the way the user feedback contributes to this site. I'm disappointed to say the least. If there are going to be "irrational" threads, and tons of rules, maybe this should just become a non-comment site like Baseball Prospectus, because feedback surely isn't respected.

Jimmy, I don't care what possible motivations Goodell has. If I am disatisfied, I can watch a movie tomorrow, instead of a football game. What irritates me a great deal is bloviating, pompous, egomaniacal, power-hungry jerk, using his access to the levers of the state, to force citizens that he has power over to dance to his tune, all over the alleged videotaping of some football coaches on the sideline, or a football practice.

To be fair to the outsiders the naming of the thread as 'irrational' is I think intended to be somewhat tongue in cheek. I have no idea what any of the FO writers think about this topic as none of them have written anything about it. It is the intention that this topic should only be discussed on this thread and is banned from other threads to avoid ruining them. Any such thread gets the irrational sobriquet, I wouldn't take it too seriously.

58: And to go a step further - if Specter's concerned about entertainment and its impact on the economy, what about the writer's strike? (Over which Congress clearly has jurisdiction to intervene if they so choose, as a matter of labor relations.) It's costing the L.A. economy hundreds of millions - if not billions - of dollars, with thousands of people out of work.

I'm not saying that Congress necessarily should intervene, but willingness to speak about Spygate, while ignoring the economic effects of the writer's strike (which has few tangible economic effects in comparison), certainly casts his credibility into question.

miggy, maybe you should just leave if you don't like something, instead of being so presumptuous as to tell people, people who have invested real money and labor, how they should they operate what they have invested their labor and money in.

Look, maybe you should just ask for the money back on what you paid to visit this site.

From the pool report at the time (courtesy the NY Times archives):

Halfway through practice, Patriots’ linebackers coach Pepper Johnson noticed something in a third-floor window of a house next to the field.

Club and league officials said a telescope was clearly visible in the window, according to a pool report, and that 15 minutes later, a person appeared at the window, and then vanished.

Officials scanned the window with binoculars, but the person never returned.

I don't believe either side, and I am stunned by the blinders of those who do agree completely with one side or the other.

One tidbit that convinces me that NE did not come clean is the statement by the Commmish that NE gave him all their tapes, and that the tapes totaled 6 games. Are you kidding me? If that's true, only back to mid-2006, then how did Mangini know? The assumption was that he was in on the process, and thus knew what to look for.

On the other hand, I am not sure if any of this matters in winning games. I am sure I would prefer MY team to have the extra knowledge, but I am not sure what exactly was done with any possible tapes. However, I absolutely think Brady and other players would have no idea if illegal tapes were being used. If I were doing something semi-illegal as the coach, I'd keep that knowledge as tight to my inner circle as possible, and just have my players think we coaches had done a great job preparing them via normal means.

Irrational thread? Yeah, it's a clear statement by FO leadership that they have already decided this whole thing is bunk, but so be it .. it's their website.

(And now, as a Colt fan, I want to reiterate one more time a defense of Dungy's statements after the inital spygate story broke, the statements that so many have accused of him of being hypocritical from. He said, "Really, a sad day for the NFL" when NE was fined. And, he's wrong? Unfortunately, that sad day is continuing.

The only one to blame is Godell. He had the opportunity to clear this all up, and he didn't. I can't feel very confident of his leadership in the future.

Irrational thread? Yeah, it’s a clear statement by FO leadership that they have already decided this whole thing is bunk,

Or that they expect that virtually all of the posts on the topic will be irrational, regardless of whether or not the underlying topic is true.

One tidbit that convinces me that NE did not come clean is the statement by the Commmish that NE gave him all their tapes, and that the tapes totaled 6 games. Are you kidding me? If that’s true, only back to mid-2006, then how did Mangini know? The assumption was that he was in on the process, and thus knew what to look for.
As I understand it, the tapes were recent, but the notes went back a while. I imagine that once the signals were analyzed and decoded, they were put in note format so that they would be manageable at game time, as needed. At that point, the older tapes may have been deleted/discarded.

From the ESPN story, Mike Fish, (IMO is a fantastic journalist), I actually emailed him after the story last night: Is Matt Walsh a credible source?
His response (aready!) was that it is up to the NFL and Senator Specter's commission to question him and decide.

He also mentioned the timing was coincidental, had nothing to do with the SB being in 2 days.

Walsh basically said nothing, and ESPN reported how he said nothing. He basically said "I know things" but didn't say anything he knew.
Didn't say why he got fired by the Pats, didn't say why he lied about playing golf at Springfield.

Then Tomase from the Herald wrote a story and didn't name a source and didn't offer proof.

Until anyone can prove it was illegal, prove what advantage was gained, and prove that it affected the outcome of any game, this is a dead-end issue.

slo-mo-joe:

I understand your potential scenerio, but why would a team get rid of tapes after less than one year? Is there a shortage of storage room at Foxboro? It just doesn't seem normal. (Of course, nothing in this story seems normal, even the innocent of details.)

if you go to the Superbowl thread, Aaron actually hints as to why he considers it an irrational THREAD (NOT an irrational ISSUE)

And I commend the majority here for keeping it rational so far. Posts from different points of view with well argued statements and no personal attacks.

THIS

is what FO is to me

oops, I'm a bit slow today

PatsFan: "Or that they expect that virtually all of the posts on the topic will be irrational, regardless of whether or not the underlying topic is true."

Doesn't say much for the readership they've cultivated, does it, if they feel they must segregate a debate because they think no one can have a reasonable debate about that topic?

71: I don't think it has anything to do with being unable to have a reasonable debate; this topic is just so volatile that it can take (and has taken) over every thread.

Rather than subject the readers who want to read about the Super Bowl or the Hall of Fame or the Audibles to pages of Spygate posts, I think it makes more sense to concentrate those arguments in one place. Particularly where this argument will likely be an ongoing one for years.

Having watched SB 39 and died a thousand deaths while watching the Eagles fritter away their time at the end of the game, I can't say one way or the other if the Patriots cheated during that game. The Eagles certainly didn't help themselves, though, so I don't think you can lay that loss completely at the feet of any cheating that might have gone on.

If it turns out that the Pats cheated by filming practices or in other ways during any of their SB wins, I think they should be stripped of those titles and Belichick should be fired.

NFL responds:
NFL spokesman Greg Aiello released the following statement today about whether the Patriots filmed the Rams’ walkthrough before Super Bowl XXXVI.

“We were aware of the rumor months ago and looked into it,” Aiello said. “There was no evidence of it on the tapes or in the notes produced by the Patriots, and the Patriots told us it was not true.”

[which I admit is a lame answer -- why would you expect it to be in the tapes or notes produced by the patriots??]

Patriots respond:
The Patriots just released a statement of their own about the Rams’ walkthrough.

“The suggestion that the New England Patriots recorded the St. Louis Rams’ walkthrough on the day before Super Bowl XXXVI in 2002 is absolutely false,” said the statement. “Any suggestion to the contrary is untrue.”

Re: 74
Oh well, then, that's the end of it!
/end sarcasm/

73:
Having watched SB 39 and died a thousand deaths while watching the Eagles fritter away their time at the end of the game, I can’t say one way or the other if the Patriots cheated during that game.
Great, we're even: I can't say whether the Eagles cheated or not in that game either. Thinking of it, I can't say whether any of the other Pats' opponents cheated either, but I have my suspicions. I think I'll write my senator.

71:
I understand your potential scenerio, but why would a team get rid of tapes after less than one year?
Because they were potentially - how shall I put it? - compromising? Best get whatever information you can from any such tapes, and then get rid of the them. (Or do you expect BB to have a VCR tape by his TV with a label saying: "SB XXXVI - Rams' walk-through"?)
Then, the Pats get busted, the Commish tells them to turn over any existing tapes and all material derived from signal-taping, and the Pats do. Just like, you know, everyone who actually knows anything says they did?

Why is it so hard for people to believe the available evidence, while everyone falls over for a few vague, ominous hints from an obscure character whose background and trustworthiness no one knows anything about? Totally beats me.

Belichick planted the rumor to fire up the troops for tomorrow. Watch out Giants! (Remember what happened to the Chargers in Week 2)

#76, what available evidence?

of the various things that have been said, the bit about the eagles seems the most unlikely. I think the complaint was "how could they know what we were going to do?" and the answer was "because you never did anything differently."

I think if there is going to be an investigation into this sort of activity, it should not be limited to looking solely at the patriots. jimmy johnson has already admitted to similar actions while coaching for the cowboys, so if people are going to start suggesting that the patriots be stripped of the the championships, some serious looking at *every* previous game and team should be done. (including the stories of sending hookers to rooms of opposing players the night before the game, setting up loud parties nearby the opposing team hotels, and all the other fun gamesmanship...)

as #62 pointed out, there were reports of spying the other way as well. given the stakes of the game and everything that goes around it, I'm always surprised that these sort of shenanigans are not just seen as the gamesmanship involved.

as far as specter being involved, the government had an interest in the baseball/steroid problem, because those were controlled substances. congress really has no business in an internal dispute like this. he's an eagles fan who figures this is a pointless way to grandstand without real consequences on his reputation and office. (unlike, say, just about anything else he's done in the last 40 years.)

#15 black. You support the Grizz? My condolonces, that was a freaking terrible trade. If Andrew Bynum comes back healthy, you might have just given the Lakers the title. I wonder if Kobe Bryant will back off his trade demand now.

I must say, this thread has been much more civilised and reasonable than I expected. Where are the frothing at the mouth diatribes from Morganja and OMO?

Before this broke, there were a lot of rumors about how the Pats always seemed to know when a blitz was coming against the eagles. Knowing tendencies can only take you so far, but when Brady was calling a screen EVERY time a blitz was dialled up raises some questions.
I do understand that this site is mostly pro Pats and do not expect a lot of objectivity from the majority of the posters and/or the writers.
It's a lot easier to believe that there is a conspiracy that involves Sen. Spector, Boston newspapers, previous Pats employees and the NFL to stain the legacy of the Pats.
I was reading everywhere on this site that the difference between the 2001 and the 2008 superbowls is BB was the coach of the underdogs back then and is the coach of the favorites now. The point being that BB is capable of an upset but cannot be upset. That argument rings a little hollow all of a sudden.

slo-mo-joe--what evidence are you referring to? If you mean Goodell's statement about the tapes not offering a significant advantage, I don't think that counts as evidence. It's merely an assertion by a non-objective individual. As many others have pointed out, Goodell is in charge of the NFL's commercial interests, and admitting to something like this would be disastrous.

I don't know what's motivating Specter, and I couldn't care less. He, not spygate, is the non-issue.

To me, it all comes down to two main questions: did the Patriots cheat, and if so, what was the extent of that cheating? The answer to the first question is obviously yes--they got docked a first-round draft pick because of an actual conspiracy, not "conspiracy theories". The second question is just now taking center stage.

Having the Patriots compared to, say, Barry Bonds is Roger Goodell's worst nightmare. The Patriots are a marketing dream come true--winning the SB right after 9/11, and (once upon a time) being full of no-name, blue-collar-type players that mirror the very demographic that the League and its advertisers hope to attract. And as of this evening, they're undefeated, heading into the SB. If I were in Goodell's place, I wouldn't want to shatter such a picture-perfect narrative.

It doesn't even have to be the standard cover-up that you commonly see with powerful corporations. Maybe Goodell just didn't want to dig too deep into these accusations, or maybe he was lied to.

I'd like to see an actually-independent investigation into this. I'd be fine with having Congress hold a hearing or two on it, and I'd be fine with a consensus-chosen outsider looking into it.

I want the truth on this, and the NFL can decide where to go from there. Maybe Will Allen is right, and this has always gone on--does that mean it always has to?

Dear Boston Globe,

a mummies going attack the whitehouse.

Yours,
Timmy

Boston Globe: Source: Assassination Plotted by Middle Eastern Extremist

. . .

This is pure foolishness. There was a time when you'd use a single source to investigate a story. To start the investigation of a story. A paper would never, ever run a report from a single source. One person can say anything. Anything.

81: It doesn't have to be a conspiracy. It's not like Sen. Specter knows anything more than we do - he's basically a fan who wants more information. Which is fine, but not the purview of Congress, in my opinion (especially for a Republican - so much for limited federal government).

And ironically, the conspiracy theorists are on the other side of the debate - saying, essentially, that the NFL is conspiring to hide the truth.

So, we're left with a Boston tabloid and a fired ex-employee. Is it that implausible that their vague allegations raise some skepticism? (Didn't there used to be some unwritten rule that you needed three or more sources before running a story?)

And about those rumors - look at Will Allen's post at 36. Rumors of spying have been going on since - well, forever.

I just wanted to post a few thoughts from the linked thread that come from a differnt angle than anything already here.

The first comes from a student coach that was on Brady's Michigan teams.

A walkthrough would give absolutely ZERO competitive advantage. If you've ever been to a walkthrough, it is just the basics. Done as a routine just to keep everyone on the same page. You learn more from film than a walkthrough. There is no strategy there. There is nothing but basic looks and formations. Maybe an assignment or two. I watched Ohio State's walkthrough in our stadium in 1999. It's not unusual, especially in a bowl game or the Super Bowl.

Much ado about nothing. I laughed at the PFT statement that it is a big deal. Hardly.

For what it is worth, this person has a history of unbiased, educated responses. I take his word over just about anyone else on the internet, be it message board posters, bloggers or even people supposedly "in the know".

The next is from someone that I have no experience with, but he seems to know Matt Walsh.

I know people who worked for the Pats back when Walsh was employed. For all of you clinging to hope that this will bring down the Pats......I ask you for a little time until all of the facts come out. Then, please by all means, pass judgment at that time. You will see what a hoax this is!!

Matt Walsh had multiple issues as an employee of the Patriots. When he finally crossed the line, he was fired. The Patriots chose not to press legal charges at the time. I think they were overly generous, but I guess they wanted the kid to have a second chance. This guy was a real beauty....always looking for the spotlight. He used to brag that he was going to be "somebody famous" all of the time. I guess he finally figured out a way to get his 15 minutes.

Way to go...Matt....you got your 15 minutes,,,,now let see how good the media is at investigating your past. I sure hope for your sake, they don't investigate what happened at Springfield (or are you trying to forget about that).

Is that why you want ESPN to cover your legal damages?

Has that issue resurfaced or are you just getting lonely out on the island?

If you only knew what I know, you'd realize that this guy has "zeo" credibility!!

RI Sox Fan | 02/02/08, 02:11 PM

Just thought I would add somethin that wasn't here before.

Oops. I forgot the link. Oh well, I might as well add another take from the same person who I quoted above:

What baffles me is that a lot of these guys played the game. If you play the game and have been around the game, you know what is important and what isn't. I was working for the Vikings in 2005 when they came into Ford Field for a game. I walked out of the lockerroom with them, onto the field on Saturday for a quick walkthrough, and most of the Lions' staff was standing in the tunnel watching, and Tom Rathman was running the stadium steps.

Absolute JOKE if anyone thinks there could be an advantage from watching a walkthrough, especially the day before a game, and especially one coached by Martz who shifted out of the initial looks anyways. The day before the Super Bowl the team knows their game plan and the coaching strategy hinges on maintaining focus.

patriotsgirl, if you go by "All the president's men" the washington post used to require two sources. but these days, as soon as someone says anything, it's reported around the world, ("we report! you decide!") whether factual or not, the news is no longer what was said, but that someone said it. and after it is said, no one ever seems to ask for verification, or even a second source. accountability is a long forgotten tenet of journalism...

btw, John Morgan, this was reported in the Herald, not the Globe... not that the globe is much better in many ways, but accuracy matters to me...

I have only one comment of my own.

I'm surprised at how few people are discussing the timing of this. So, with all the digging that the entire universe was doing after spygate burst onto the scene absolutely no one found this source then?

Did they have the source in their back pocket for a little while waiting for the best time to unleash it? Was it the source that waited until the most opportune time to come forth?

Something smells terribly contrived about this whole thing.

Wait, so the Pats run a bunch of screens against the most blitz-happy team in the league (eagles) and we're supposed to be suspicious of this? Like, who knew the eagles would blitz a lot? They must have had spies! No one could have guessed the eagles would be blitzing heavily. Christ. I'm a niners fan and all this sounds like huge sour grapes.

Thanks peter, I appreciate the correction. That fact makes me happy, actually, as I've always held the Globe in higher esteem. I guess I should fact check my satire.

#76 and 82:
I guess you don't believe the Warren Commission conclusions either, since you didn't have direct access to all the evidence, right?

Do you really think there were more tapes than those Goodell publicly said there were? Or that the notes the Pats turned in revealed much more extensive "cheating", and Goodell looked at them all alone in his office, freaked out and covered the whole thing up all by himself? Or do you think that it is a real conspiracy and all the top suits in the NFL NYC office are part of it, all counting on all the others to keep mum? Please do tell.

John, no prob... the Globe has Charlie Savage, one big point in their favor...

Oswlek, I'm very much questioning the timing of this. but the answer is what a perfect time for some publicity. for specter and walsh. as jim ryalto said after you, "Sour Grapes"

88:
I am more surprised about how quickly the media forgot about spygate in lieu of "the perfect season" story. Greg Easterbrook is the only one that I have noticed continuing to ask questions since the rest of the media chose to ignore it.

slo-mo-joe, there are plenty of reasons to doubt the warren commision report that have nothing to do with direct access to the original evidence. even keeping arlen specter's role in that document to the side.

as far as goodel's actions, I think that he listened to the explanation that belichick had, challenged him on the interpretation on a "spirit of the law" vs. a "letter of the law" basis, and then levied a fine that was intended to have the same effect as the death penalty, to act as a deterrent against future infractions by anyone else.

I don't think anyone in the NFL front office is stupid enough to believe that only the patriots were doing this, and realized what a horror show it would be if they launched a full investigation of the entire league. arlen specter is an idiot who wouldn't notice that level of subtlety if it kicked him in the knees. I think everyone was beginning to 'let it go' and this was relaunched by a questionable golf pro and an overreaching senator. if anything, I think goodell must be furious about this coming up now, just as it was appearing to settle, or at least be overshadowed.

One thing that I think is kind of funny in all of this is the realization that due to this speculation and the magnifying glass that they have been under, there is no way that the patriots could have done anything like that this year. as a result, this season cannot be tarnished. in someways it's really neat.

TMQ chimes in.

Re 82:

"Having the Patriots compared to, say, Barry Bonds is Roger Goodell’s worst nightmare."

It might be, but I doubt it would do much damage. For one, Bonds games were played on national TV regardless, and for two, we've had team known for cheating a win a Superbowl and they became one of the most popular teams in the league, the Oakland Raiders.

re: #76: "71:
I understand your potential scenerio, but why would a team get rid of tapes after less than one year?
Because they were potentially - how shall I put it? - compromising? Best get whatever information you can from any such tapes, and then get rid of the them. (Or do you expect BB to have a VCR tape by his TV with a label saying: “SB XXXVI - Rams’ walk-through”?)"

Well, the original argument made by a huge number of NE fans about the videos was that they were no big deal, that everyone did it, that BB probably thought it was okay -- you know, a misinterpretation of the rule. So, if that argument is true, that he really thought the taping was okay, then why consider the tapes, in your words, "potentially - how shall I put it? - compromising? "

I am just trying to keep the pro-NE argument straight:

1) Tapes were no big deal -- everyone does it. BB says he misinterpreted the rule.
2) Mangini's a rotten SOB for turning in BB for doing what NE did when Manginii was there in 2005 and before.
3) We gave the NFL all the tapes.
4) The NFL destroyed the evidence for the good of us all.
5) Actually, there really were only 6 games of tape destroyed, so taping wasn't really something we had been doing when Mangini was here, or if it were, then we just wanted to destroy all the other tapes because they might be "compromising".

But, how can they be compromising if BB really thought everyone did it, or that he was doing it legally?

To me, it means almost nothing in terms of previous wins, SB or otherwise. We'll never know how they were or were not used, and so we'll never know if they helped anyone or not. I prefer to think they did not help, but that's just me.

The episode, to me, just speaks loudly of BB's arrogance, and Goddell's incompetence at cleaning up a mess. NE fans wonder why other fans are not appreciative enough of their dynasty? Kind of tough with this thing swirling around, and Goddell has been no help to clear NE's name.

Would it be so difficult for Goodell to keep the tapes safe? Call a company that sells really good safes and then get one installed in your office or home. Tell the world that you there is nothing on them and that to prove it you will release them in two years when the data contained won't be relevant anymore. How hard would that be?

Or put them in a safe deposit box of a really good bank, heists of those places don't happen as often as hollywood crime caper films would have you beleive.

No decent reason to destroy them. Stupid move.

I have a hard time believing that anything gleaned from a walk through would be of much value. I played football in the Ivy League 20 years ago. Even at out level the coaches were very cognizant of potential spying. We would typically stop practice when a helicopter flew over and our head coach was constantly peering into the distance to make sure that no one was watching us. We never played at a neutral site but on the road walk throughs never revealed anything that wouldn't be obvious from rudimentary film study. The only benefit I could imagine from viewing a walk through would be to evaluate the health of a key player.

Here's my take:
The Patriots weren't stealing signals per-se. Teams change those every game anway. They were stealing defenses.

When studying tape of your team on offense (the other team's defene), it would be useful to know the called defense for every play. Since a g