By Jeff Gordon
STLTODAY.COM SPORTS COLUMNIST
05/13/2008
Here is a real shocker: NFL commissioner Roger Goodell pulled out his broom Tuesday and tried to sweep Spygate under the rug.
Did he succeed? That’s up to you to decide. In this corner of cyberspace, skepticism remains.
Goodell met with former Patriots video assistant Matt Walsh for 3 hours 20 minutes Tuesday morning. Afterward, he announced there would be no more punishment for Patriots coach Bill Belichick or the New England franchise.
“I don’t anticipate it,” Goodell told reporters at his news conference. “The fundamental information provided today is consistent with what we knew last September. The discipline I took at the time was unprecedented and I believe appropriate.”
The commissioner insists the Patriots did not videotape the Rams' walkthrough practice before Super Bowl XXXVI.
Yes, the Patriots had personnel at the Rams walkthrough adjusting communication equipment. “He was even on the sidelines in his Patriots gear during the walkthrough,” Goodell said.
But, no, Walsh wasn’t aware of any videotaping. “He had not seen such a tape,” Goodell said. “He is not aware of anyone who knows there is such a tape.”
The Boston Herald speculated that the Patriots taped the walkthrough, an allegation Walsh never denied until shortly before the summit with Goodell, when Walsh’s attorney claimed he never had such a tape.
But the time lag between the Herald report and Walsh’s clarification makes Rams fans wonder if some sort of cover-up occurred. Also, ESPN.com repeatedly asked Walsh about the walkthrough taping and never got a categorical denial that this subterfuge took place.
“His answer to that . . . is he did not want to be part of this publicly in any way,” Goodell said. “He did not want to provide information related to this issue. He wanted to be consistent to not say 'yes' or 'no' to any specific allegation.”
That seems odd, because a specific “no” would have kept all those reporters from flying to Hawaii and hassling Walsh at his workplace, a golf pro shop. Why would Walsh drag out this ordeal?
ESPN reported that Walsh admitted observing the walkthrough and shared two scouting points with the Patriots coaching staff -– one involving the Rams' use of their tight ends and one involving Marshall Faulk's use in a kick-return formation.
So, technically speaking, the Patriots did spy on the Rams on some level. (Although, if I’m Mike Martz, I might shoo away a guy wearing Patriots gear from the sidelines. This is the same coach that suspected teams were spying on his team from hotel rooms overlooking Rams Park.)
As for the videotaping of coaching signals, Belichick earlier told Goodell he believed it was OK as long as he didn’t use the information during that game. But Walsh told Goodell that he knew to act secretively while taping the signals.
“I didn’t accept Bill Belichick's explanation of what happened then and I still don’t today,” Goodell said.
The commissioner did accept the team’s assertion that the tapes were used to prepare for later games, not to help the Patriots with the ongoing game. He stood by his original assessment that videotaping of signals had a minimal competitive impact -– since coaches know that scouting the signals is allowed.
“Because teams know there is a permissible way to do that,” Goodell said, “they prepare for it.”
But if the Patriots used the tapes to prepare for future games, why did Walsh tape coaching signals of teams they weren’t going to see later in the season?
Tuesday’s session didn’t answer that critical question.
ESPN analysts Mark Schlereth and Cris Carter, two former NFL standouts, argued that the information gleaned from the tapes would have great value during the course of the game.
They argued that the tapes had far greater than “minimal” benefit. They argued that the new tapes offered more damning evidence of cheating.
So issues remain, despite Goodell's best effort to put the matter to rest. He noted that Walsh provided no information of any other sorts of spying, including bugging of locker rooms or manipulation of stadium communication systems.
Goodell threw reporters a few bones, including a revelation that a Patriot player on injured reserve practiced in 2001 in violation of league rules. Such a violation typically draws a league fine . . . which Goodell would graciously roll into the team's earlier fine.
“We’ve conducted over 50 interviews,” he said. “I don’t know where else I would turn.”
Sweep, sweep, sweep.
Specter wants Mitchell-like investigation
Sen. Arlen Specter wants an independent investigation of the Patriots' taping of opposing coaches' signals similar to the Mitchell Report on performance enhancing drugs in baseball.
Specter again criticized the league's handling of the investigation during a news conference Wednesday. Specter is the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. He met with former New England video assistant Matt Walsh a day earlier.
NFL commissioner Roger Goodell indicated he considered the investigation over after meeting with Walsh on Tuesday.
STLTODAY.COM SPORTS COLUMNIST
05/13/2008
Here is a real shocker: NFL commissioner Roger Goodell pulled out his broom Tuesday and tried to sweep Spygate under the rug.
Did he succeed? That’s up to you to decide. In this corner of cyberspace, skepticism remains.
Goodell met with former Patriots video assistant Matt Walsh for 3 hours 20 minutes Tuesday morning. Afterward, he announced there would be no more punishment for Patriots coach Bill Belichick or the New England franchise.
“I don’t anticipate it,” Goodell told reporters at his news conference. “The fundamental information provided today is consistent with what we knew last September. The discipline I took at the time was unprecedented and I believe appropriate.”
The commissioner insists the Patriots did not videotape the Rams' walkthrough practice before Super Bowl XXXVI.
Yes, the Patriots had personnel at the Rams walkthrough adjusting communication equipment. “He was even on the sidelines in his Patriots gear during the walkthrough,” Goodell said.
But, no, Walsh wasn’t aware of any videotaping. “He had not seen such a tape,” Goodell said. “He is not aware of anyone who knows there is such a tape.”
The Boston Herald speculated that the Patriots taped the walkthrough, an allegation Walsh never denied until shortly before the summit with Goodell, when Walsh’s attorney claimed he never had such a tape.
But the time lag between the Herald report and Walsh’s clarification makes Rams fans wonder if some sort of cover-up occurred. Also, ESPN.com repeatedly asked Walsh about the walkthrough taping and never got a categorical denial that this subterfuge took place.
“His answer to that . . . is he did not want to be part of this publicly in any way,” Goodell said. “He did not want to provide information related to this issue. He wanted to be consistent to not say 'yes' or 'no' to any specific allegation.”
That seems odd, because a specific “no” would have kept all those reporters from flying to Hawaii and hassling Walsh at his workplace, a golf pro shop. Why would Walsh drag out this ordeal?
ESPN reported that Walsh admitted observing the walkthrough and shared two scouting points with the Patriots coaching staff -– one involving the Rams' use of their tight ends and one involving Marshall Faulk's use in a kick-return formation.
So, technically speaking, the Patriots did spy on the Rams on some level. (Although, if I’m Mike Martz, I might shoo away a guy wearing Patriots gear from the sidelines. This is the same coach that suspected teams were spying on his team from hotel rooms overlooking Rams Park.)
As for the videotaping of coaching signals, Belichick earlier told Goodell he believed it was OK as long as he didn’t use the information during that game. But Walsh told Goodell that he knew to act secretively while taping the signals.
“I didn’t accept Bill Belichick's explanation of what happened then and I still don’t today,” Goodell said.
The commissioner did accept the team’s assertion that the tapes were used to prepare for later games, not to help the Patriots with the ongoing game. He stood by his original assessment that videotaping of signals had a minimal competitive impact -– since coaches know that scouting the signals is allowed.
“Because teams know there is a permissible way to do that,” Goodell said, “they prepare for it.”
But if the Patriots used the tapes to prepare for future games, why did Walsh tape coaching signals of teams they weren’t going to see later in the season?
Tuesday’s session didn’t answer that critical question.
ESPN analysts Mark Schlereth and Cris Carter, two former NFL standouts, argued that the information gleaned from the tapes would have great value during the course of the game.
They argued that the tapes had far greater than “minimal” benefit. They argued that the new tapes offered more damning evidence of cheating.
So issues remain, despite Goodell's best effort to put the matter to rest. He noted that Walsh provided no information of any other sorts of spying, including bugging of locker rooms or manipulation of stadium communication systems.
Goodell threw reporters a few bones, including a revelation that a Patriot player on injured reserve practiced in 2001 in violation of league rules. Such a violation typically draws a league fine . . . which Goodell would graciously roll into the team's earlier fine.
“We’ve conducted over 50 interviews,” he said. “I don’t know where else I would turn.”
Sweep, sweep, sweep.
Specter wants Mitchell-like investigation
Sen. Arlen Specter wants an independent investigation of the Patriots' taping of opposing coaches' signals similar to the Mitchell Report on performance enhancing drugs in baseball.
Specter again criticized the league's handling of the investigation during a news conference Wednesday. Specter is the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. He met with former New England video assistant Matt Walsh a day earlier.
NFL commissioner Roger Goodell indicated he considered the investigation over after meeting with Walsh on Tuesday.