| |
Why Didn't Matt Walsh Say Something Sooner?
|
|
|
|
Why Didn't Matt Walsh Say Something Sooner?
|
Why Didn't Matt Walsh Say Something Sooner?
|
Reputation:93
Level:All-Star
Since:Apr 4, 2007
|
|
Loser? My team may stink, but they did not cheat. The same can't be said for the Patriots. Losers cheat. It is just that simple. Deny, deny, deny. How does that 50 degree sand feel?
|
Why Didn't Matt Walsh Say Something Sooner?
|
Why Didn't Matt Walsh Say Something Sooner?
|
Reputation:93
Level:All-Star
Since:Mar 10, 2008
|
|
How does that 50 degree sand feel?
similar to your mom, only a little warmer..
the only ones with their heads buried in the sand, are those who honestly believe the Pats are/were the only ones who did what they did..
|
Why Didn't Matt Walsh Say Something Sooner?
|
Why Didn't Matt Walsh Say Something Sooner?
|
Reputation:94
Level:All-Star
Since:Jul 28, 2007
|
|
You said division which I answered. Congrats on going 16-0. What did that get you. Nothing. Strill didn't answer how your "genius" coach could mis-interpret the rules, especially since the Commish sent a severe warning to all teams before the 07 season started. Genius NO! Arrogant a$$hole..Yes!
|
Why Didn't Matt Walsh Say Something Sooner?
|
Why Didn't Matt Walsh Say Something Sooner?
|
Reputation:94
Level:All-Star
Since:Mar 7, 2008
|
|
does Arlen Specter really have nothing better to do??
Yes and no. His cancer is back so he's busy fighting that, but he is a Senator so by definition he doesn't have much to do except seek publicity, take gifts from lobbyists, waste taxpayer money and habitually lie about everything. He's one of my senators and I can't stand him. He is, however, better than our other senator, that weak, mealey mouthed Bobby Casey.
the State of Pennsylvania is running 100% is it??? no issues to clean up or improve?? no gun control issues to take care of??
No state is running 100%. We have a scumbag governor from Philadelphia who is supposed to address these issues along with a complacent, self-serving corrupt state legislature. Gun control? See the Second Amendment. The PA constitution also protects the right to bear arms or arm Bears, one of the two.
we are to believe that a State Senator has time to jump into a debate about a rules infraction within a professional sports league?? seriously, whats his deal??? did he lose money or something on a particualr superbowl???
Arlen Specter is not a state senator. He is a U.S. Senator from PA. My guess is that he likes the limelight and doesn't like cheating or corruption, unless it's perpetrated by the Federal government.
|
Why Didn't Matt Walsh Say Something Sooner?
|
Why Didn't Matt Walsh Say Something Sooner?
|
Reputation:97
Level:Superstar
Since:May 17, 2007
|
|
If he has admitted to it, then why has it already been reported that the tapes Walsh handed over contain film has not discussed? Hmmmmmmm. Interesting question. where did you get this information? All i've heard is that Walsh brought the same things that have already been reviewed and delt with. This is no surprise to any-one. Why make up lies? Are you Tomas'?
|
Why Didn't Matt Walsh Say Something Sooner?
|
Why Didn't Matt Walsh Say Something Sooner?
|
Reputation:92
Level:All-Star
Since:Feb 13, 2008
|
Why does it always have to go personal? Let's stick to facts and be logical.
For the love of god, yes please!
Walsh never said he had a tape of the Rams walk through, it was reported in a Boston newspaper with source unrevealed. Walsh said he had information pertaining to the accusation that the Patriots filmed opposing coaches during games.
Absolutely right, Walsh never explicitly stated he had a walkthrough tape, but he did state that he had information regarding the situation that members of the Patriots organization had not yet taken credit for. Honestly, I think that the following happened (I posted this on April 23rd):
I think it's entirely possible that Walsh has tapes of the Patriots taping defensive signals. He started hinting to ESPN and a few other places that he had damaging info on the Pats before it was widely known that Belichick had admitted to Goodell that it had been a common practice since the start of his time with the team. I mean, let's say you're Walsh and you are still a little bit bitter about how your tenure with them ended. This whole Spygate thing comes out and you've got more evidence of the Pats taping defensive signals. You think Belichick has only admitted to doing such for a short amount of time even though you know that it's been going on since he became head coach. Goodell has made public statements that if the Patriots had not disclosed everything, or if there were other tapes, that further punishment would be warranted.
So you start covertly talking to places like ESPN and saying you have damaging info on their videotaping practices. You won't go on the record as to what you have unless you get a payday, so none of these places can report on your assertions without calling you an unnamed source. Then, things start to snowball on you. The Herald prints the story and Spector makes it public knowledge that Belichick has admitted to taping since 2000. Suddenly your videos aren't nearly as damaging as you thought and the chances of you getting a payday or revenge or notoriety or whatever you were seeking from this is rapidly shrinking, while your chances of getting sued for making these allegations is growing. The story has now grown out of control and you know you no longer have the bombshell evidence that everyone seems to be expecting.
So what do you do? You clam up. You get a lawyer you can't possibly afford (who is most likely being paid for by someone else) and you let him hammer out a deal with the NFL and Patriots that doesn't leave you remotely vulnerable to legal action for saying things that aren't true so long as you genuinely believe them.
Who knows what will come of this, we'll all have to wait and see, but it honestly wouldn't surprise me to find out that Walsh DOES have videotapes, but that they're all the same stuff the Pats have already come clean about.
I think Walsh kept his mouth shut about there being no Rams walkthrough in order to get full protection for all the things he reportedly took from the Patriots during his tenure, but it wouldn't surprise me if he got some pleasure out of the extreme damage that doing so did to the Patriots brand.
I don't know if these tapes are similar to what Goodell has already seen.
Aiello has already stated that, judging by what Walsh and Levy have certified as being the content of the 8 tapes, that they contain nothing that the NFL was not previously aware of. Of course, we have to wait for a formal determination of the content once they have been reviewed, but the information that Levy has provided in that regard certainly makes it appear as though, in terms of physical evidence, Walsh has provided nothing that was not already acknowledged by Belichick.
|
Why Didn't Matt Walsh Say Something Sooner?
|
Why Didn't Matt Walsh Say Something Sooner?
|
Reputation:95
Level:Superstar
Since:Feb 6, 2008
|
|
No one asked him???
|
Why Didn't Matt Walsh Say Something Sooner?
|
Why Didn't Matt Walsh Say Something Sooner?
|
Reputation:99
Level:Superstar
Since:Dec 22, 2006
|
|
but he did state that he had information regarding the situation that members of the Patriots organization had not yet taken credit for.
You are dead on there... I had no idea offensive signals were stolen, and Belichick had admitted to that. I had no idea conference championship games were taped. I had no idea they had taped the Rams in 2001 in a game prior to the superbowl.
What did we know when he came out and said what he did??? Remember, this was before Arlen Specter's little talk. This was when it wasn't out that this practice had been going on for some time. All we knew is tapes had been turned over.. No idea how many, what they were of, and how far they went back.
|
Why Didn't Matt Walsh Say Something Sooner?
|
Why Didn't Matt Walsh Say Something Sooner?
|
Reputation:96
Level:Superstar
Since:Nov 5, 2007
|
|
37**** - 1 Lots of fun!
Gooooo Patriots!
The three *s are for the wins over your guys
And the fourth is for . . . ? | |
