Comments on: Nobody to be Trusted in Spygate Affair

By: Merlin Nippert

Merlin Nippert — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 22:00:04 +0000

I can only think that Kraft (and the team's legal staff — its general counsel, etc., which I am sure is formidable) a week ago basically said to BB, "Give it all up: What has the video been used for? Have any other NFL rules been violated or disrespected? Tell me everything, or I will be forced to suspend or fire you for cause." And Kraft's statements on NBC ("They're telling all 32 teams to not do this") and elsewhere since, along with leaking BB's seven-year contract extension, indicate that this "scandal" is limited to what we, and Goodell, already know. Otherwise, Kraft's reputation will accompany BB's into infamy.

By: Scott

Scott — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 22:00:04 +0000

To this end, I just ran through some of the major sports sites, including ESPN, CNNSI, PFT, and so on, and looked at their headlines menu to see how Peter King and Chris Mortensen's additional penalties are coming – anyway, half a dozen major sites and no mention of 'Spygate', other than a story which says the NFL is investigating who leaked the illegal tape to FOX and several others. As I mentioned before, proceed on the track they are now, and in two weeks, the only time the Pats will be mentioned on any of these sites is when somebody's wondering if they can go undefeated or not.

By: Steve Bevacqua

Steve Bevacqua — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 22:00:04 +0000

One thing – as far as I know, the commish is not asking for 'all tapes back to 2000'. He's asking for all the illegal sideline video and all copies and notes that have those tapes as their source. The intent here, as far as I can tell, is to remove this material from Belichick's library so that he can't use it against anyone in the future. It's just an attempt to make sure any game NE plays from here on out is based on 'legal' intelligence.

Honestly, if I was Roger Goodell, I'd be extremely happy to just put this one to bed and get on with playing out the season. The sooner the league returns to 'business as usual', the better. But then again, I'm not Roger Goodell.

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 22:00:04 +0000

Thanks, Box!

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 22:00:04 +0000

Appeasing the press (or some of them; you're right that some will never be appeased) is a byproduct, not a goal. The owner's honor, I'd say, is a byproduct as well. A worthy goal in this endeavor would be to end the talk, especially when they apparently have a commish who's susceptible to the outside pressure. You might dismiss the PR goals, which is standard Patriots MO most of the time, but when there's the threat of tangible punishments still on the horizon (more picks, what have you), attaining the PR goals is worthwhile IMO, especially if it doesn't affect the performance on the field.

Goodell's the wildcard here. I'm disappointed he didn't end it when he had the chance. The further investigation seems capricious to me.

By: dan558

dan558 — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 22:00:04 +0000

I'm eager to talk about the games for once in two weeks.

Has Moss dropped a pass yet?

By: Scott

Scott — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 22:00:04 +0000

I just don't understand why that (the owner being able to mete his own punishment) would be important, at all. They're getting hit from all sides now, and we're seeing how the players have embraced that challenge. Suspending him from within would have screwed that up completely, and given then even MORE questions to answer. As far as the embarrassment, it was significant, but that's only because he's also been responsible for the greatest glories the franchise has ever – or will ever, quite likely – experienced. I'm pretty sure the owner acknowledged that by accepting his apology.

By: Scott

Scott — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 22:00:04 +0000

I don't know what honor the owner needs to regain. They've got to suspend the coach to appease the press? I think the minute you suspend the coach, you've got players and paying customers that will need appeasing in very short order. Winning is all that counts to that constituency, and their needs were met perfectly by the owner. You can never attend to the other one (press) because their freaking goalposts move every day. Suspension of the coach would be about addressing some public relations controversy. They didn't hire this guy the first time for the same reason – what it may look like. Didn't work for them then, and it wouldn't now either.

By: Mo

Mo — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 22:00:04 +0000

Oh an one more thing, Roger time to get your house in order. How was the tape leaked?

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 22:00:04 +0000

I agree with you, Scott, about the way the team apparently feels about the coach. That's the only thing that had me second-guessing the suspension idea. But in hearing discussion this week about what a suspension would actually mean, I think the harm is mitigated. If I heard correctly, a suspended coach still has contact during the week with his assistants. His fingerprints would still be all over the game plan.

I went with the idea, because I can't help thinking Kraft has been robbed of being able to mete his own punishment for the embarrassment the organization has suffered.