Spygate: The Prequel

[STL FANATIC]

I can't believe this hasn't been brought up here yet. Maybe people are sick of it. I dunno, but I can't leave it untouched.

I've never denied that my primary (or at least initial, as they've done nothing but reaffirm it) reason for hating the Patriots is that I'm bitter about the Rams losing Super Bowl XXXVI and the devastating effect it had on the franchise. The Rams were poised to have the dynasty. Instead careers were altered.

Realizing it bordered on crazy or at least that I'd be called crazy and a conspiracy theorist, I always held that something wasn't right about that game. Be it the way the Rams didn't/couldn't run the plays that made them great all year. The way the Patriots were allowed to murder Rams receivers. Or the things I hold onto on the final drive of that game...Brady getting away with a HUGE blatant intentional grounding and then two seconds ticking off the clock AFTER Viniteri's FG went through.

Even now I realize it's crazy to try and suggest the idea of a conspiracy theory, but I'd be lieing to say the thoughts didn't go swirl in my head. And by the way, the motive that crossed my mind with those thoughts was that of 9-11 and the American clad Patriots.

Anyways, whether any of that has anything to do with what went down or not, it's now coming out that it's very possible/likely that there was something going on, something more related to the Spygate form earlier this season. Videotaping before 2006. And specifically potential video taping of the Rams final walk-through practice before the Super Bowl. Also, while I haven't heard this, it may be of note that the Rams played the Patriots earlier that season.

This story is exploding right now, and obviously it's a topic of interest in St. Louis.

Did the NFL cover this up? Is it true in the first place?

There's just tons of questions right now. I for one hope the answers come out.

There's articles all over the place.

I think it's worth of discussion.

[jkrdevil]

Check the Super Bowl thread the story has been brought up.

[kewp80]

Check the Super Bowl thread the story has been brought up.

Well, this isn't about Super Bowl XLII, it's about Spygate and Super Bowl XXXVI. I think it deserves it's own thread. I actually thought about bringing it up yesterday.

Back to the topic: Yes, the NFL did cover it up. They knew about it months ago. Of course I would guess that they didn't release the story since there wasn't much evidence there. Now that the story is out though it kinda makes the NFL look a little bit like conspirators.

I would like to have more answers as well, which I hope more come following the Super Bowl and Goodell's meeting with Spector.

Taping a final walk through is a big deal. Then you pretty much know the other team's gameplan. Now, do I think the Rams would of won if the Pats hadn't taped their walk through (like the allegations said they did), no. But it certainly would of been a great aid in knowing the oppositions gameplan.

[kewp80]

Sorry, double post, but I would like to add that I hope people don't claim this whole thing as adding on to the Pats hating. Hell, I was rooting for the Patriots tonight, and I'm a Rams fan.

[kewp80]

Sorry, triple post.

[Sterling84]

HUGE Deal. This thing is going to rock the foundations.

[DG_YouKnowWhatThatMeans]

HUGE Deal. This thing is going to rock the foundations.

People said that about Tim Donaghy too. "Who?" Exactly.

[STL FANATIC]

HUGE Deal. This thing is going to rock the foundations.

People said that about Tim Donaghy too. "Who?" Exactly.

I don't know to what extent this will rock the foundations, but I think it's bigger than the Donaghy incident. Especially if the NFL is involved in a cover up.

If that's the case, you have something between the Black Sox Scandal and the Donaghy incident with a little bit of steroids mixed in.

I'm not looking to see the NFL ruined over this. I just want the truth out. I want some vindication (last night helped) if my Rams were cheated out of Super Bowl XXXVI and a dynasty that probably would have become theirs, not the Patriots.

[rams80]

HUGE Deal. This thing is going to rock the foundations.

People said that about Tim Donaghy too. "Who?" Exactly.

Regardless of what one lunatic poster with a obscenely large sig says, Donaghy's crooked officiating did not really determine who won the NBA title. If Walsh's statements are true...you can pretty much say that that played a large roll in who won the Super Bowl.

If there was a cover-up, Goodell is almost certainly crippled as a commissioner, and also this could harm Tags' legacy-because this happened under his watch.

[Lee.]

I want some vindication (last night helped) if my Rams were cheated out of Super Bowl XXXVI and a dynasty that probably would have become theirs, not the Patriots.

I think you need to stop overstating the quality and potential of the St Louis franchises.

[infrared41]

I want some vindication (last night helped) if my Rams were cheated out of Super Bowl XXXVI and a dynasty that probably would have become theirs, not the Patriots.

I think you need to stop overstating the quality and potential of the St Louis franchises.

I'll second that. The Rams were really good but let's not get carried away.

[rams80]

I want some vindication (last night helped) if my Rams were cheated out of Super Bowl XXXVI and a dynasty that probably would have become theirs, not the Patriots.

I think you need to stop overstating the quality and potential of the St Louis franchises.

I'll second that. The Rams were really good but let's not get carried away.

That's two titles right there...and somehow I doubt they start 0-5 in 2002 if they actually win Super Bowl XXXVI. Frontiere, Shaw, and Ziggy might have still let the team fall apart after 2001 with a win-but they might have won another title before that happened.

Not saying its a given, just a possibility.

[STL FANATIC]

I understand I'll never be able to lose my reputation here, and that's...whatever.

But there's plenty of times when that reputation is applied to things that it has no bearing on.

If the Rams win the Super Bowl, that's two in 3 years and very, very, very likely changes the career paths of guys like Kurt Warner and Mike Martz. If Martz wins that game, his relationship with the front office doesn't go down the drain. Kurt Warner doesn't lose confidence on the field and doesn't end up in a QB contraversy that has yet to be positive for the Rams (I like Bulger now, I think soon enough he'll be stud while leading a winning Rams team, but ultimately that was one of the key events to this downward spiral the Rams are in).

That's just two people, but two very key people.

Keep things going on that pace, and it's likely they appear in at least one more Super Bowl.

That Rams team was very dominant, and it's downfall can be attributed precisely to the Super Bowl lose and the frustration and confusion it caused within the organization. Change that outcome and you change it all.

Maybe I overstated it when I said "probably" but not much.

[CDuffy26]

The thing about back in 2002 was the NFL had a rule were the clock didn't stop until the ball hit the ground, not the net, the ground. That's why the clock ticked off those 2 seconds.

And about the other things, everybody says there was a conspiracy theory everytime their team loses a big game. You know, it could've just been bad officiating (which my Ravens had against them quite a bit this year) or just the refs not seeing it. Until anything is proven though, I'll never believe any conspiracy theory because half of the time the people bringing it up are fans of the losing team (No offense to you STL, or anyone for that matter).

[STL FANATIC]

The thing about back in 2002 was the NFL had a rule were the clock didn't stop until the ball hit the ground, not the net, the ground. That's why the clock ticked off those 2 seconds.

And about the other things, everybody says there was a conspiracy theory everytime their team loses a big game. You know, it could've just been bad officiating (which my Ravens had against them quite a bit this year) or just the refs not seeing it. Until anything is proven though, I'll never believe any conspiracy theory because half of the time the people bringing it up are fans of the losing team (No offense to you STL, or anyone for that matter).

Didn't know that about the FG. I of course wanna be skeptical of that, but I'll believe you on that.

As for the other part, I do agree with you. Conspiracy theories are generally absurd. Something just seemed (and still seems) so wrong about that game though.

And perhaps all that was is that the Patriots really did get away with murder on the Rams recievers. But like you said, that very easily could have just been bad calls or a general lenancy given it was the Super Bowl (which is BS because you shouldn't change the way games are called, but still a distinct possibility).

But yeah, I have no problem admitting conspiracy theories are generally just stupid, including mine. I just can't help but sometimes wonder about it.

[gingerbreadmann]

I think you could make a conspiracy out of any game, so I agree on that.

No offense, but with so many people telling Boston fans to just accept the loss, I can't help but to say that maybe the Patriots just played better, and [gasp] actually did something right. I know you won't be offended by that, but I apologize anyway. I just can't think that something like this would have happened back then and given the Patriots an advantage, which Goodell denies. Just my thoughts, I would probably even think this if I wasn't a Pats fan.

[kewp80]

I think you could make a conspiracy out of any game, so I agree on that.

No offense, but with so many people telling Boston fans to just accept the loss, I can't help but to say that maybe the Patriots just played better, and [gasp] actually did something right. I know you won't be offended by that, but I apologize anyway. I just can't think that something like this would have happened back then and given the Patriots an advantage, which Goodell denies. Just my thoughts, I would probably even think this if I wasn't a Pats fan.

Goodell denies that the Patriots got an advantage from the evidence he collected, which went only as far back as 2006, and had tapes of opposing teams' sidelines and some notes. Attempting to steal a teams signals on the sidelines isn't anything new, as many teams now have dummy signal callers. So this, in my mind, is a minor offense.

Now, here's the question: How much did the NFL actually ask for when it came to obtaining the evidence from the Patriots? Also, do the Pats have any more damaging evidence from before, or even after 2006? This guy Walsh says he has damaging and embarrassing evidence against the Patriots, but wont say anything until he's questioned by the league or congress.

I don't want to jump to any conclusions about conspiracies or Patriots further cheating, but I would like a possible investigation if it come to it, and would also like some answers.

[robbman21]

It's so interesting to me that this has come to light in the past couple of days, because as I watched that game 6 years ago I just got the feeling that something never seemed quite right about it. For years I had chalked it up to the fact that the Patriots did a hell of a job in game-planning their defense to stop St. Louis' offense, based on the experience of having lost to them earlier in the season. But what baffled me was that Martz - who at that time was really on top of his game as a play-caller - never could make the adjustments nessecary to get the offense on track until the 4th quarter. When he finally did get a sense of what was going on, the Rams scored two touchdowns late to tie the game and really had all of the momentum until the final drive and Vinetieri's kick. Take away that kick as well as Ty Law's INT return for a TD, and the Ramss defense effectively shut down the Pats for the whole game. Now, if you factor in the possibility that the Pats had good knowledge of the Rams' game plan enough to know where recievers were gonna be on each route and where Marshall Faulk was going to be running to before the ball was even snapped, and you're looking at a legitimate gripe for anyone in the game, NOT just the Rams and their fans.

I also whole-heartedly agree that the Rams could have and probably should have won 3 Super Bowls. Lets not forget that 13-3 team in 2003 that was two missed Jeff Wilkins field goals away from playing in another NFC Championship game before Steve Smith found the seam in double overtime (and a whiffed tackle by Jason Sehorn).

[cyandlux]

STL FANATIC...I feel ya.

[Sterling84]

I think you could make a conspiracy out of any game, so I agree on that.

No offense, but with so many people telling Boston fans to just accept the loss, I can't help but to say that maybe the Patriots just played better, and [gasp] actually did something right. I know you won't be offended by that, but I apologize anyway. I just can't think that something like this would have happened back then and given the Patriots an advantage, which Goodell denies. Just my thoughts, I would probably even think this if I wasn't a Pats fan.

Goodell denies that the Patriots got an advantage from the evidence he collected, which went only as far back as 2006, and had tapes of opposing teams' sidelines and some notes. Attempting to steal a teams signals on the sidelines isn't anything new, as many teams now have dummy signal callers. So this, in my mind, is a minor offense.

Now, here's the question: How much did the NFL actually ask for when it came to obtaining the evidence from the Patriots? Also, do the Pats have any more damaging evidence from before, or even after 2006? This guy Walsh says he has damaging and embarrassing evidence against the Patriots, but wont say anything until he's questioned by the league or congress.

I don't want to jump to any conclusions about conspiracies or Patriots further cheating, but I would like a possible investigation if it come to it, and would also like some answers.

Kewp80...none of this is directed right at you...i just needed to quote something.

Ya know, if we?re going to rationally discuss this, let?s throw a couple of tired excuses out right now shall we?

First, ?Teams have been stealing signals forever; It?s part of the game; It couldn?t have helped that much anyway?.

Yes, stealing signals and plays has been part of all sports since forever. But what people are failing to grasp is the difference technology makes in the process. What does a camera have that your eyes do not? A zoom lens? The ability to permanently store the information? Yes, all teams have detailed stills and video from every play. And theoretically one could (quasi-legally) watch the assistant coach opponents and take furious notes to try and sync those up with the play on the field. But you?d be standing 60 yards away trying to watch and write as fast as you can about the formation, down, distance etc?.and that?s assuming you could even clearly see the signals and describe them/remember them on paper. Adding digital video and zoom changes everything.

At my job, I work in an administrative capacity. Without even really trying that hard, I can do the tasks that used to require an entire 1950?s-era secretarial pool and then some. What is the difference maker? My skills? NO! My handy-dandy PC, scanner, multi-line phone and high-speed printer/copier. TECHNOLOGY! If you could match illegal video of pre-snap signals to legal video of the plays themselves, and splice that information into a database?..you?ve got a powerful advantage over everyone else.

As for it helping anyway? I offer you this. Why would he do it then? If you are a guaranteed HOF coach?.with 3 rings and nothing left to prove; having been explicitly warned to stop this behavior?.what is the simplest, most logical explanation for continuing it? IT. WORKS. And don?t give me any harebrained counter arguments about ?Why don?t they score on every play then?? or ?Why haven?t they won every game since he started?? Well?..come on. It?s not TECMO. It doesn?t completely nullify the other team. It is just one of many tools in the toolbox. It ?could? help to explain why they are so clutch, so well prepared when the entire league lacks coherence.

So?now to Goodell and the NFLs part. Right from the go, the response didn?t fit the supposed crime. They gave the Pats an order to turn over ?Everything?. Days later, Rog appeared on SNF pregame and both promised a thorough investigation AND threatened the Pats further for not having yet complied. Mere days later Rog said they HAD complied, fined them heavily, and announced the evidence had been destroyed. Nothing more from the NFL was said until the Friday prior to the SB. But one must ask ?Which is it?? If it?s a minor offense, why the hefty punishment? If it?s hefty punishment, what did they do exactly? The NFL wanted it both ways, and primarily to go away.

For the most part, it did. Most talking heads dredged up the previously mentioned lazy, stupid arguments and resumed their worship of this (legitimately) amazing team. But a few reporters kept digging and tried to makes sense of it. Finally you come to Walsh, who has blown it open.

And I take no issue with Walsh. I don?t think he is seeking fame or anything. They found him. SO far his comments make perfect sense. And allow me to paraphrase.

?Do you have evidence the Pats cheated??

?I won?t say?.

?Do you DENY you have said evidence?

?I won?t deny it?

?Do you feel bad about anything you did??

?No?

?Will you produce this evidence if asked??

?If I?m forced to??by the NFL, by congress?.yes. But noone has asked me to?

?No one from the NFL questioned you during their thorough (4 day) investigation??

?No?

ESPN wanted to be the ones to break the BIG story. But Walsh seemed legitimately frightened. Afterall, he signed a non-disclosure upon his termination. His retirement is at stake, not to mention he could open himself up to litigation he cannot afford. He asked ESPN in return for his story, to cover ANY and ALL legal fees or settlements he may incur because of it. They said ?no?.

What does that tell you? He knows something. He knows everything. He has a smoking gun. He is afraid and not really interested in bringing this all down at his doorstep. There is no malice on his part. He is still a Pats season ticket holder for crying out loud. But he?s also not a liar. He?s just protecting himself.

Will this bring down Belichek? I dunno. But I do know the NFL won?t allow themselves to fall first. And neither will Kraft and the Pats. Plausible deniability. One of a couple things could happen.

-Swept under the rug entirely. Totally possible. The NFL is resourceful and ruthless.

-Fall guy other than Belichek. The Scooter Libby scenario. Someone high ranking?.Billy had ?no knowledge?

-It?s about to hit Billy, and they cover it up and he leaves (retires) with whatever ?honor? he has left. The MJ Gambling 1st retirement urban legend scenario.

As for whether or not this directly applies to the Rams and whether they would have won the SB? Who knows. How can we know? I?ve often thought people didn?t look too closely because ?we? needed a team clad in RWB, named the Patriots, announced as a team to win that year after the attacks. I know?.NOW who?s talking crazy conspiracies right? I?m just saying.

Whether or not the Rams would?ve won is (sadly) irrelevant. The league can take criminals in it?s midst. It can take garden variety scandal. The game can handle horrible calls. But only if the games themselves are above board. This is why (I feel) baseball has faired better overall than the NBA?..even as both of them deal with terrible scandals. Steroids, as bad as they are?..haven?t seemingly swung the balance of competition because it was widespread among all teams. But the NBA hasn?t been above board in a long time?.from Ewing?s drafting by NYC, to the Suns/Spurs thing, to Donaghy, to the Mutumbo getting like one foul called on him in a seven gamer vs Milwaukee.

The games must not seem rigged in any sense. That?s why this Pats thing must be cleansed?not to honor the Rams, Eagles or Panthers??but for the integrity of the sport itself.