No smoking tape but Patriots' rep singed again
Reports detailing the eight video recordings that former Patriots’ employee Matt Walsh turned over to the league may not include any smoking tapes that go beyond what New England coach Bill Belichick already had admitted to but there are a couple of interesting wrinkles.
For one, there was a tape of San Diego offensive signals. To date, it was believed that the Patriots had only been taping defensive signals because sideline-to-quarterback radio communication would have eliminated the need for offensive hand signals.
In addition, the tapes make apparent that was an increasing sophistication in how the tapes were shot and edited as the practice continued. The Walsh tapes date from 2000 to 2002 and later tapes showed a sequence that had coaches signaling instructions, then there was a scoreboard shot of down-and-distance, and then two shots of the resulting play from different angles.
Walsh is expected to meet with NFL officials on Tuesday and then later with Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter who has often shown an interest in the NFL’s activities.
If you take a look at the video that’s part of this link featuring ESPN investigative reporter Mike Fish, he makes an interesting point about the taping. Although it appears there is no new news here, the fact that the older tapes can now be viewed (remember, the league destroyed the more recent spy tapes) raises again the issue of competitive advantage the Patriots may have gained. Fish points out that if the Pats didn’t gain a competitive edge (the league has said that the taping did not impact on the outcome of games), then why would the Patriots have continued to refine their techniques as they went along? It would appear to be an awfully time-consuming exercise if it had no value. Would Belichick waste his staff's valuable time on work that had no payoff?
If nothing else, the Walsh-supplied tapes further fuel the debate over the legitimacy of the Patriots’ legacy.
Comments
No smoking gun, if you can believe all the tapes were turned in. Thats like asking the neighborhood fence to turn in all of his stolen loot.
Posted by: Captain Jack | May 9, 2008 11:28 AM
Why would he continue? Simple: trending. If you have a staff of the same coaches over a team for a long period of time, you're likely to find some patterns in the way they call their signals, allowing you to make better play calls based on their trending.
This doesn't change the fact that every team is probably trying to bend the rules to gain this kind of competetive advantage. The Patriots legacy is not tainted. The only one making any kind of fuss about this at this point are the media, who seem to want to stir it up so their ad revenue will be better, and Arlen Specter, who seems to be Comcast's weapon.
Seriously, just let it go. No one said anything about (what) ... the Steelers did back when they were the dominant team.
Posted by: Soup | May 9, 2008 11:57 AM
In response to the question, "So what happens to all this hoopla if all the so-called 'extra' tape comes to light and the League looks at it and says, 'yea, this's exactly what the Patriots told us they did, we've already punished them for it...'?", you replied, "I agree, if all Matt Walsh has is the same sort of thing that New England has already been punished for, than the Patriots' explanation for what happened at the Jets game should stand and we shouldn't see any further action by the league."
(http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/sports/ordine/blog/2008/03/post_202.html#comments)
Now, with the tapes having come into the light, and having indeed, only shown things the Patriots had already copped to (the illegal use of cameras on the sidelines), why isn't it your position that, "We shouldn't see any further action by the league"?
Remember, the Pats were NOT sanctioned for stealing the Jet's signals (as there are NO rules prohibiting that action), they were reprimanded for violating the clarification letter issued prior to the 2006 season making use of video cameras on the sidelines illegal.
WHAT they were filming (offensive signals, defensive signals, hot-dog vendors, or hot-chicks in the stands) is IRRELEVANT to the rule they broke and for which they were punished. Isn't trying to make a distinction between the contents of the recordings a smoke-screen whose only purpose can be to prolong the "newsworthiness" of this non-story that you yourself said should be over if things turned out this way?
-Brett
----------------------------------------------
Brett,
Assuming what has been reported about the Walsh tapes are true, I don't think we'll see any further action by the league. My point was that the increasing sophistication of the taping and editing process will tend to make fans at-large believe that the taping was meaningful to the Patriots' preparation through the years and more consequential to the outcomes of games than the league has characterized them. When you look at it that way, it reinforces the impression that New England's winning shoud be viewed with suspcion. But as far as further material penalties, no, I don't see the grounds for that.
-- Bill O.
Posted by: Bleus | May 9, 2008 1:13 PM
Are you kidding me? What they did was make their scouting just a bit easier. Like other team don't review game tapes.
Heck, probably what they did would hurt them if they were trying to pay attention to the defensive coaches rather than the field during the game.
And one tape of offensive signals does not mean anything. We don't even know if Walsh was told to tape the offense. Besides, they have radios - what good are offensive signals when they call plays in by radio?
The time for outrage is over. 18-1 is the real punishment. Are you ready for your team to get steam-rolled again? These types of columns are just asking for it.
Posted by: PDXPaul | May 9, 2008 1:48 PM
"....Fish points out that if the Pats didn’t gain a competitive edge (the league has said that the taping did not impact on the outcome of games)..."
Impact on? Why use "on?" If you had written "an impact on the outcome..." I'd see it.
By the way, isn't there a bit of a conflict of interest in the NFL reviewing the tapes and declaring them free of any new evidence? The NFL isn't hunting the Patriots. That which hurts the Pats hurts the league. Brady is the league's poster boy, Belichek it's genius coach and the Pats one of it's best franchises.
It behooves them to find nothing, it's in the NFL's best interest.
The commissioner declares the story over, ESPN reports it and suddenly it's gone?
Posted by: patrick | May 9, 2008 3:15 PM
Another writer who can't come up with an explanation for how the tapes were actually used. He knows enough about football to write about it for a living, but not enough to come up with a plausible explanation for the great damage done.
Posted by: MarkB | May 9, 2008 4:12 PM
Just sharing a link to a very interesting article that parses the "rule" that started everything:
http://thesportslawprofessor.blogspot.com/2007/09/bill-belichicks-interpretation.html
-Brett
--------------------------------------
Brett,
Thanks for sending that along. It's a thoughtful contribution. I will say this about all that. For such an expansive blog entry that delves into the matter in an in-depth fashion, I'm a little surprsied that the person is relying on fractional quotes of the rule from a league press release rather than putting his or her hands on the operations manual that's really the basis for the debate -- particularly in such a highly technical legal defense. I'm also not buying that the preseason memo from the league is somehow a weakened or suspect document because of who authored it. In the end, if Belicheck is confused by any contradiction ... if that's what happened ... it becomes incumbent on the team to get the ambiguities cleared up. But I give the blogger credit for tackling the subject.
-- Bill O.
Posted by: Bleus | May 9, 2008 7:47 PM
The league's sorry, pretend Spygate investigation is only making things worse. Look at what happened to baseball when it tried to cover-up the steroid scandal. In case Roger G, former super lawyer, has forgotten how to prepare for a witness, here are 10 basic questions that would help initiate the inquiry:
1. How many games were taped?
2. Who knew about the taping? Who did the taping?
3. When did taping start?
4. How much did taping operations cost the Patriots organization?
5. How were tapes prepared for review? By whom? When?
6. Why tape AFC play-off game if no real-time benefit?
7. Was any hush money paid to anyone for silence on Spygate?
8. Which coaches reviewed tapes? Were notes of these reviews prepared? Computer records, e-mails, film? Do these records still exist? Who has custody?
9. What were players told about taping practices? Which players were briefed about tape reviews? What information was conveyed? Did anyone in the organization object? Was anyone subject to retaliation, traded, etc. for complaining?
10. Was any record, document, tape, e-mail etc. destroyed as a result of Spygate becoming public?
Posted by: Rob from Ellicott City | May 9, 2008 8:48 PM