BREAKING:MARSHALL FAULK CALLS OUT PATRIOTS FOR CHEATING

[bcess]

Originally Posted by PatriotReign

Pats' Asterisks of Excellence >>>>>>>>> Jets' Asterisks of Comical Irrelevance

Pats fans posting on jets message board thousands of times>>>>>>>?????????

[AFCEastFan]

Originally Posted by PatriotReign

Pats' Asterisks of Excellence >>>>>>>>> Jets' Asterisks of Comical Irrelevance

How's southside's advice been working out for you?

[intelligentjetsfan]

Originally Posted by PETER PAT

What denials???, name me anyone who has denied anything.

Its not like the Pats were hiding Matt Walsh, and he was hidden under the stands, he was in Patriots gear with a huge video camera on his shoulder, right out front. The Pats were very upfront about the whole practice. This was an ego thing, BB thought, the way the rule was written he had a loophole and was allowed to do it. If he thought it was so wrong, and he could get in trouble for it, please explain why he had a person as clear as day standing there in patriots garb from head to toe doing it on the sideline for everyone to see. He clearly thought he could not get in trouble for it.

Goodels over the top reaction for such a minor offense was because he put out a memo which BB ignored, and he had just taken over the job, and he had to let everyone know there was a new sheriff in town, and he will not be ignored.

It is also the reason why the Saints got punished so hard. not because of the actual bounty, but because he told them for two years not to do it, and they continued to do it. If Paul Tags was the commissionaire in 2007, this would have been like a 20K fine to BB, and no lose of draft pick, but Rodger though he could not have the elite coach in his sport, ignoring him, so he made the penalty harsh.

So Belichick thought he was doing nothing wrong.....even after the commissioner warned him to stop in the memo? Really?

Why don't we save the babe in the woods routine; Belichick knew exactly what he was doing, knew it was against the rules and decided that it was worth the risk because he gained an edge from it. Here is a man that is famous for his work ethic and discipline. So explain why he would spend time and effort, as well as the risk of getting caught, if he did not believe he was gaining an edge?

[southside]

Originally Posted by AFCEastFan

How's southside's advice been working out for you?

You aren't clique enough for this type of remark.

[AFCEastFan]

Originally Posted by southside

You aren't clique enough for this type of remark.

Northside would have been ok with it.

[johnnysd]

Originally Posted by PatsFanTX

BB's arrogance.

He just thought he could just ignore the league-wide memo that came out outlinning where and where not you can tape from.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One tale the Globe story previews is New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft's reaction to the team's 2007 "Spygate" taping scandal.

"How much did this help us on a scale of 1 to 100?" Kraft reportedly asked Patriots coach Bill Belichick when the story came to light.

"One," Belichick replied.

"Then you're a real schmuck," Kraft said he told Belichick

http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon...ygate/1697287/

Bill just thought the "hundred" part

[jetssjumets]

Originally Posted by Monsterxman

if they wanted us to shut up about what happened, show us the tapes. Don't burn 'em."

that about sums it up.

++++

exactly!

[jetssjumets]

Originally Posted by canadianjetsfan

It never fails, you Patriot trolls will never stop defending BB.
I say get over it and move on.
happy reading.
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/sport...thout-cheating

Many thanks for posting this link. The author is spot on! Only idiots believe that NE did not cheat; and the Commissioner destroying the evidence was to protect the game from its biggest scandal of all time.

Notice how the author also cites the late Sen. Specter investigation and how it found the Pats cheated going back since 2000.

Of course, the NE trolls will try and persuade anyone who would listen that this is a nonstory and the cheating had no impact on the games/Superbowl victories.

[NYJ37/12]

Originally Posted by GuidoYaztremski

The league requires that every team film every play while showing time, down and distance for each one. There IS NO RULE that prohibits the filming of coaches signals.

And although it has been repeatedly denied, it is unfathomable to ANY reasonable thinking person to believe that teams had the ability to decipher those signals in the 12 minutes at halftime and relay that info back to the team on the field in the time it took between when the play was called and the ball was snapped. Plus I've never heard anyone with this theory mention that many teams change up their signals between halves and sometimes between quarters.

I suppose you believe that the gov't is building underground cities all around us, too.

Its not my story.

[donick-jets]

Anytime spygate is mention i am happy. They cheated got caught . They have under achieved since

Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk HD

[intelligentjetsfan]

Originally Posted by jetssjumets

Many thanks for posting this link. The author is spot on! Only idiots believe that NE did not cheat; and the Commissioner destroying the evidence was to protect the game from its biggest scandal of all time.

Notice how the author also cites the late Sen. Specter investigation and how it found the Pats cheated going back since 2000.

Of course, the NE trolls will try and persuade anyone who would listen that this is a nonstory and the cheating had no impact on the games/Superbowl victories.

Well said. Here is one of my favorite parts of that link;

Here’s what Boston’s own Bob Ryan had to say about Spygate;

“There can no longer be any doubt that he engaged in a practice he knew was against the rules.”

“The big question we cannot answer is how important it all was, really. Did his illegal practice of taping opponents’ defensive signals aid his team’s chances of victory in certain games by 20 percent? Ten percent? Three percent? One-10th of 1 percent? Not at all? No one will ever know.”

“They will be the team that broke the rules. Their three Super Bowls will be regarded as ill-gotten gain.”

“The sports community now associates the Patriots with cheating. The three Super Bowl championships are, and forever will be, under suspicion. The thought will never go away.”

Amen.

[intelligentjetsfan]

Timeline of events and disclosures during Spygate saga

Sept. 9, 2007: NFL security officials confiscate a camera and videotape from 26-year-old Patriots' video assistant Matt Estrella on the New England sidelines when it was suspected he was recording the Jets' defensive signals during New England's 38-14 victory in the season-opening game at Giants Stadium. Clubs had been reminded of the prohibition against taping sideline signals in a Sept. 6, 2006, directive from league headquarters: "Videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game.''

Sept. 11, 2007: League sources tell ESPN's Chris Mortensen that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has determined that the Patriots violated league rules when they videotaped the Jets' defensive signals, and is considering severe sanctions in light of his earlier stern warnings to all teams about competitive violations. … New England owner Robert Kraft is quoted from comments made at a charity appearance that day, saying, "When you're successful in anything, a lot of people like to try to take you down and do different things. We understand that." … Reports surface that the Patriots had been caught videotaping once before. In November 2006 during a game in Green Bay, the Packers caught Estrella shooting unauthorized video and told him to stop.

Sept. 12, 2007: The New York Daily News quotes an anonymous source who says Jets coach Eric Mangini was aware of New England's surveillance methods from his earlier tenure as a Patriots assistant coach. … Patriots' coach Bill Belichick issues a short statement that says in part, "Although it remains a league matter, I want to apologize to everyone who has been affected, most of all ownership, staff and players. Following the league's decision, I will have further comment." When pressed for further information, Belichick walks out of his weekly news conference.

Sept. 13, 2007: Goodell issues an "emergency" order mandating that New England must turn over all videotape and sign-stealing material in violation of league policy. At the same time, before receiving the requested tapes and materials, Goodell fines Belichick the NFL maximum of $500,000, and the Patriots are ordered to pay $250,000 for spying on an opponent's defensive signals. In addition, Goodell orders the team to give up its first-round draft choice in 2008 if it reaches the playoffs this season, or its second- and third-round picks if it misses the postseason. In a written response accepting responsibility, Belichick says in part, "As the commissioner acknowledged, our use of sideline video had no impact on the outcome of last week's game. We have never used sideline video to obtain a competitive advantage while the game was in progress. Part of my job as head coach is to ensure that our football operations are conducted in compliance of the league rules and all accepted interpretations of them. My interpretation of a rule in the Constitution and Bylaws was incorrect." Neither Goodell's statement nor Belichick's response mentions the videotaping practice extending into the past.

Sept. 14, 2007: On ESPN Radio's Mike & Mike show, Mortensen reports the league might not close the book on the controversy and might continue to "review" it. Mortensen suggests that the videotaping of the Sept. 9 game against the Jets could be the tip of the iceberg, and that the Patriots' practices could include jamming the radio frequency in opponents' head-sets, and miking the Pats' defensive linemen to hear the offense's audibles and the cadence between the center and the quarterback. … Mortensen also reports that Belichick has privately told Goodell he has been taping opponents' signals since he became the Pats' head coach in 2000.

Sept. 16, 2007: In an NBC television interview at halftime of New England's Sunday night game against the San Diego Chargers, Kraft says he didn't know his team was using a sideline camera in the game against the Jets. During the interview, Kraft is asked if anything else might have been done that would incur further penalties. "I know of nothing else that could be in this category," he says. ESPN's Mortensen reports that sources tell him Goodell has ordered the Patriots to turn over all videotape, files and notes relating to all their activity that resulted in the disciplinary action. If the Patriots are not compliant, the commissioner is prepared to impose even greater sanctions, Mortensen's sources say. Privately, the commissioner was more specific in his demands and expectations with Kraft when the two men spoke on Sept. 13, Mortensen's sources say.

Sept. 17, 2007: In an Associated Press report, Belichick says he will comply with league request to turn over notes and videotapes but refuses to confirm that there is additional video, saying it is a league issue. Within the next three days, New England turns over materials.

Sept. 20, 2007: The NFL announces New England is in compliance with the request for tapes and other documents.

Sept. 22, 2007: The AP reports that the NFL has received and destroyed all materials it requested from the New England Patriots concerning videotaping of opponents' sidelines, but discloses nothing about the contents. A league spokesman says the team is unlikely to face any further sanctions. Asked if there is evidence of the Patriots using the tactics in their Super Bowl wins, spokesman Greg Aiello declines to comment.

Nov. 15, 2007: Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., writes to Goodell, expressing concern about the league's destruction of tapes.

Dec. 19, 2007: After more than a month without a response, Specter writes to Goodell

Jan. 31, 2008: In a letter to Specter, Goodell responds that the tapes and notes were destroyed to ensure that the Patriots "would not secure any possible competitive advantage as a result of the misconduct that had been identified. The Patriots have separately certified to me in writing that we received all tapes, all notes, and that no other material exists relating to the taping of defensive signals.''
Feb. 1, 2008: A New York Times story makes public Specter's interest in wanting an explanation from Goodell about the league's destruction of evidence related to the Patriots' spying. In public comments, Specter, a lifelong Philadelphia Eagles fan, says Goodell's explanation "absolutely makes no sense at all.'' The Times story introduces Matt Walsh as a former New England video assistant who says, "I'd like to see a resolution to the situation, so I don't have to field media calls, especially after being out of the league for more than four years." … ESPN.com's Mike Fish profiles Walsh as being in position to further pull back the curtain on the Patriots' taping history. "If I had a reason to want to go public or tell a story, I could have done it before this even broke," Walsh tells Fish. "I could have said everything rather than having [Eric] Mangini be the one to bring it out."

Feb. 1, 2008: At his annual Super Bowl news conference, Goodell says the evidence from the Patriots destroyed by the league consisted of six tapes from the 2006 season and 2007 preseason. Asked twice how far back the Patriots began to tape their opponents' signals, Goodell doesn't give a specific answer. There is no mention from Goodell that the practice dated back to 2000. Of the 38 questions posed to Goodell, 10 are related to Spygate. Among other things, Goodell reveals the reason the league destroyed the tapes turned over by the Patriots: "They were totally consistent with what the team told me. There was no purpose for them." Goodell also says he believes the Patriots gained no advantage from taping: "I think it probably had a limited effect, if any effect, on the outcome on any game. … There was no indication that it benefited them in any of the Super Bowl victories." And Goodell says the league did not inform the teams that had been taped: "We didn't. We didn't see any need to."

Feb. 2, 2008: The Boston Herald reports that an unnamed source has claimed a Patriots employee secretly videotaped the St. Louis Rams' walk-through the day before Super Bowl XXXVI. The Herald story doesn't name the employee. The Patriots issue a statement denying the information in the Herald story: "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. Any suggestion to the contrary is untrue."

Feb. 6, 2008: At the Pro Bowl in Hawaii, Goodell acknowledges that the league had heard rumors about the alleged Super Bowl walk-through taping. "We were aware of this before," Goodell says. "We pursued it and weren't able to get any information that was credible. We were aware of some of the rumors and we pursued some of them and we continue that. From Day 1, I said if we feel there is new information that's inconsistent with what we've been told [by the Patriots], I reserve the right to reopen it." Asked why the Patriots turned over six tapes, Goodell says, "That's what they had. My guess is they taped over some of those from time to time. … Their notes were reflective of that."

Feb. 13, 2008: During a 1-hour, 40-minute meeting with Goodell, Specter says the commissioner told him Belichick had been taping the sidelines since 2000. "There was confirmation that there has been taping since 2000, when Coach Belichick took over," Specter says.

Feb. 15, 2008: Specter tells ESPN.com's Mike Fish he is not swayed by the answers he received from Goodell and will continue his investigation. Specter says, "You have answers and positions where [Goodell] is saying that with the destruction of tapes that, 'We did the right thing. We're absolutely sure.' Well, that is absurd. … Goodell says things that don't make sense.'' Among other things, Specter says he learned that the tapes, as well as the notes, turned over by the Patriots in September were destroyed in Foxborough, Mass., rather than in the league's New York offices, and that NFL executives Jeffrey Pash and Ray Anderson reviewed the materials and received an OK from Goodell to destroy the evidence. Specter says he is particularly concerned about how the taping might have affected New England's games involving teams from his home state in the 2004 postseason, including Pittsburgh, which lost the AFC title game to New England after the Steelers had won a regular-season game in late October of that season. … Steelers officials issue a statement that reads: "We consider the tapes of our coaching staff during our games against the New England Patriots to be a non-issue. In our opinion, they had no impact on the results of those games. The Steelers fully support the manner in which commissioner Goodell handled the situation and the discipline that he levied against those who violated league rules. We are confident that the commissioner has taken appropriate action in his investigation of this matter, and will do so again if new information arises which requires further investigation and/or discipline."

Feb. 17, 2007: Belichick tells the Boston Globe he has never seen another team's practice film prior to a game, never taped a walk-through during his coaching career and couldn't pick Walsh out of a lineup. As for the taping of opposing coaches' signals, Belichick said, "I misinterpreted the rule . . . I take responsibility for it. Even though I felt there was a gray area in the rule and I misinterpreted the rule, that was my mistake and we've been penalized for it.''

Feb. 22, 2008: At the league meetings, the NFL's Competition Committee issues strong support for Goodell's handling of Spygate. … In Washington, in an interview with ESPN.com's Fish, Specter accuses the league of stonewalling his investigation. Specter reveals his staff has been rebuffed in efforts to speak with members of the New England Patriots and New York Jets. He also says Kansas City Chiefs quarterback Damon Huard, a former backup to Tom Brady in New England, refused to speak with him during a phone call.
March 9, 2008: A former video assistant with Cleveland tells ESPN.com that the Browns taped defensive signals -- although not from the sideline -- when Belichick was head coach there in the '90s. Fish also reports that an NFL investigator has been inquiring about Matt Walsh with Walsh's former bosses at a Cape Cod, Mass., golf club where he worked after leaving the Patriots.

March 31-April 1, 2008: Kraft reportedly apologizes for the Pats' past taping practices to the league's owners and head coaches in a private session at the league's meetings in West Palm Beach, Fla., and Kraft and Belichick both address the media there. Kraft says Walsh didn't sign a confidentiality agreement when he left the Patriots in 2003 and says, "I think we've covered the subject. We broke a rule the first week of the season. We were penalized very heavily, and look what happened after that game. To me, that says more than anything. Players work very hard and coaches work very hard, and I think they accomplished something remarkable. I think everything stands on its own after that." Belichick says, "We've been forthright and true. I've answered every question twice that they've come to us with, made everybody in our organization accessible that they wanted to talk to. We've complied with everything they've asked of us." In addition, Belichick says, "I re-read that [videotaping] rule; I still interpreted it, obviously, incorrectly, that as long as it wasn't used in that game, that it was OK. I paid a price for that mistake. It was my mistake."

April 1, 2008: At the league's meetings, a rule is passed that allows headsets to be installed in the helmets of defensive players for sideline-to-field communications.

April 23, 2008: Walsh and the NFL reach an agreement for Walsh to meet with league officials and turn over any videotapes he might have to support his allegations. In a release announcing the agreement, the NFL wrote that Goodell had determined "the Patriots had violated league rules by videotaping opposing coaches' defensive signals'' throughout Belichick's tenure as head coach.

May 8, 2008: Eight videotapes containing footage of six games between 2000 and 2002 involving five teams arrive from Walsh at NFL offices in New York. A tape of the Rams' walk-through before Super Bowl XXXVI is not among the evidence turned over by Walsh.

May 13, 2008: Walsh meets for more than three hours in New York with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell. Commissioner says at a news conference afterward that no new information was revealed.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3392047

[GuidoYaztremski]

I stopped reading after the first paragraph which incorrectly states that videotaping coaches signals is against the rules. The problem? There IS NO SUCH rule. Yes, the commissioner DID send out a memo declaring it illegal. Problem is, he has no such authority as all rule changes must be voted on by ownership. The only rule (look it up) describes where teams are allowed to film from and how they can't use the tape at anytime in the game they are playing. A team can't film from the sidelines. The Pats broke that rule and paid dearly for it.

That's the reality. The rest becomes BS.

[sameoldjets]

who mentioned anything about the black sox? the point is your patsies cheated and got caught. admit it and move on.

Originally Posted by PatsFanTX

Yep, that crime was worse than the Black Sox scandel.

Taping from the sidelines instead of the press box is worse than throwing games for money.

[fnordcircle]

Originally Posted by donick-jets

Anytime spygate is mention i am happy. They cheated got caught . They have under achieved since

Yeah if only we could get back to the offensive dominance we had before 2007 when we had access to all those defensive signals.

It's been nothing but offensive woes ever since!

[McGinley]

Pasts are fake and lame. We already know this, lol.

[GuidoYaztremski]

Originally Posted by McGinley

Pasts are fake and lame. We already know this, lol.

As opposed to 'real' and lamer'?

[Yankeejet22]

Originally Posted by GuidoYaztremski

I stopped reading after the first paragraph which incorrectly states that videotaping coaches signals is against the rules. The problem? There IS NO SUCH rule. Yes, the commissioner DID send out a memo declaring it illegal. Problem is, he has no such authority as all rule changes must be voted on by ownership. The only rule (look it up) describes where teams are allowed to film from and how they can't use the tape at anytime in the game they are playing. A team can't film from the sidelines. The Pats broke that rule and paid dearly for it.

That's the reality. The rest becomes BS.

It must hurt to know that they could have won maybe 3 or 4 more SB's if our boy Mangini hadn't spilled the beans (npi) on them.

[McGinley]

Originally Posted by GuidoYaztremski

As opposed to 'real' and lamer'?

Whoa, you really...actually, I'm not quite sure if you got me or not because that's the worst comeback I've ever heard.

Just be glad that at least one person wasn't joining in on the conspiracy theories, you ungrateful jag.

[GuidoYaztremski]

Originally Posted by McGinley

Whoa, you really...actually, I'm not quite sure if you got me or not because that's the worst comeback I've ever heard.

Just be glad that at least one person wasn't joining in on the conspiracy theories, you ungrateful jag.

lmao....late to rise today so I haven't yet finished a single cup of coffee. Best I could muster given the circumstances.