Though many media sources and Sen. Arlen Specter just can't seem to get enough about Spygate, it appears that most league officials would like to see this thing go away. It's telling to me that Steelers owner Dan Rooney made a strong statement that he was personally satisfied that the issue was dead and that reports out of Indy (I am not there; I am home nursing a sore knee following surgery) that, among others, Bill Polian -- who serves on the highly influential competition committee -- also appears fine with the league's punishment and handling of the issues related to the case.
Plainly put, if you fed Rooney and Polian with strong doses of truth serum, neither would profess to be big fans of the Patriots. That said, they have the league's best interest prominently in mind, and that said they are in favor of burying this chapter of history. Honestly, if both men thought there was something to revive and keep going after related to Spygate, they would. But I think they know that what has been done has been dealt with -- severely.
I know that readers have complained in this space that they feel I am being too lenient on the Patriots for their improprieties, but there has been nothing new that has surfaced that would suggest more should be done. So how can I be any tougher on them when highly respected men such as Polian and Rooney are with me here?
I think the Patriots have been through a rough enough time the last month or so. To me, the issue is settled.
ADDENDUM:
I should note that the one item left hanging, clearly, is Matt Walsh. Clearly, he holds some kind of key to this whole thing, and there might indeed be new evidence on the matter. I guess I should have clarified what I said based on the "facts that currently exist," or something along those lines.
If Walsh were to unleash a video library of taped practices and other against-the-rules fodder, well, then we might have something. The thing that has bothered me is how media types are saying, "The commissioner shouldn't have destroyed those tapes. We should know what was on them." What the heck do you think was on them? Coaches' signals. That's it. The Patriots did what every other team does -- spied on the other teams' offensive and defensive signals -- they just took it to another level by taping it. They could have saved themselves some trouble by getting a Rainman-like character to just remember what all the coaches did with their hands, mouths and other body parts.
The point is, there would have to be something akin to the taping of the pre-Super Bowl walkthroughs that would raise any new doubt for me. And, clearly, for many others.
Hope that clears it up.
Comments (4)
Eric, you ignorant boob, spygate is what it is because 1) not investigated prior to 2006 2) poor explanations by indicted party 3) inexcusable "destruction of tapes" 4) poor investigation led by new commissioner who's chief advocate for his position was Robert Kraft. 5) curious offense run benefitting from scheme of stolen signals. (some critical thought logically leads one to know that if you rush to the line force a D to a certain formation (and you know by their signals the scheme) you can call the play - thus a REAL advantage. Strangley, the NE offense runs an offense that would real benefit from stolen signals.
To your point, that you would rest upon the high and well deserved reputaions of Rooney and Polian belief its overblown or not a factor - THIS IS A BUSINESS #1. #2 they are business men, they know its a lot easier to internally deal with this than to extend and have an out of control investigation and a shadow cast over this and any other suspect event or game over the years. Think they want asteriks in the record books next to SB winners during there time in the league? So take your asburd points and take note of this - for every Rooney, I can find a Vermeil, Martz, K Warner who although they advocate the line "players play the game, and it probably did not make the outcome" THEY all say an investigation (genuine) is warranted AND it should be conclusive for any other reason to rest players thoughts (ie warner) and the integrity of the game.
Posted by NICK S | February 22, 2008 8:05 AM
Posted on February 22, 2008 08:05
Some corrections to what you said. The explanations by the indicted party were roundly accepted by Commissioner Goodell, the man who published the Patriots, and the Competition Committee, which is unbiased and quite adamant about protecting the league's image and leveling the field. It was not investigated before 2006 because no one blew the whistle on them before Mangini did. That's when it became a league matter. And if this is, as you say, a business, wouldn't these men who have no love lost for the Patriots want to treat it as such? What do you mean by deal with it internally? If the league punishes the Patriots, that information will get out. If Belichick is suspended or given other penalties, we'll find out. This controversy already is well out in the open. So I guess I am confused by what you say. Also: The Patriots run the offense they do because they have the best quarterback in the league at doing it. Not because they got defensive signals. They didn't stop running it when the league ceased their videotaping, did they? No, sir.
Posted by Eric Edholm | February 22, 2008 11:14 AM
Posted on February 22, 2008 11:14
Eric my friend, you are wrong. The Pittsburgh tribune reported as did others that there had been numerous complaints filed before about the Patriots over multiple seasons. A thorough investigation would and should of logically pursued the depth of the signal stealing.
The internal part means there are plenty of NFL meetings and events that do take place that neither you (media) and I will ever know about. Especially, if you write half thought out articles (in support) as to the one that prompted my post. The idea is a quick reading of Profootball Weekly or any given teams discussion boards, one can find dozens of conspiracy theories over a season. I am confident 99% are way out there. Burying this spygate does not give rise to these conspiracies, and in the mind of people like goodall preserves the integrity of the league. But like many leaders, politicians, celebrities, some things are too big to cover up - but at the time the person or body does not know that. Your so confident that your profession will pry the details out, yeah right, an aging bumbling Senator Specter raised more information and questions than all the "investigative" sports reporters did from September to January.
Finally, my point about the offense was mostly conjecture (I will admit) But if I was running the offense with the benefit of knowing the signals, I would employ an offense that rushes to the line and makes adjustments at the line based on the stolen signals gathered by the illegal taping. You can say coincidence, I say logical probablility.
Posted by NICK S | February 23, 2008 8:33 AM
Posted on February 23, 2008 08:33
PS you (Eric)said : The explanations by the indicted party were roundly accepted by Commissioner Goodell, the man who published the Patriots, and the Competition Committee.
Huh, I think Jeff Fisher wouldn't agree with that and you think any of them would come out to the media and smack down the NFL commissioner? boy, where is the koolaid your drinking! Goodall would probably try and fine them, like any player that says any "truth" after a poorly officiated game.
Posted by NICK S | February 23, 2008 8:39 AM
Posted on February 23, 2008 08:39