When Belicheat can't cheat, he looses!

[Mule]

From ESPN

From that moment in late September until Friday, the NFL never answered the questions of exactly what the Patriots did and why the evidence was destroyed. People, including me, put these questions to NFL spokesman Greg Aiello and to Goodell, but were told the league would not reveal what was in the destroyed evidence. In December, The New York Times pressed the NFL to say what was in the destroyed materials, and again, the league refused. At his annual state of the league address Friday, Goodell made his first public comments about the destroyed evidence.

So, if you are a New England supporter, or simply a sports fan, wondering, "Why is all this coming out right before the Super Bowl?" the answer is, "Because the NFL would not answer the questions until Goodell was in front of the media this week." Some of this information might have emerged weeks or months ago, had the NFL not acted as if there were something to hide on the tapes.

ESPN and other outlets have been working on Spygate stories for weeks or longer, and all competing to be first with any further revelations. I can assure you there was no attempt to time this to the Super Bowl. Far from it.

Flash back to September. After the league made its strange decision to destroy the materials, then refused to say what they contained, several media figures, including me, did this Journalism 101 exercise: Current scandal involves current taping by the Patriots. Are there any former Patriots video officials from New England's Super Bowl runs? That led to a former New England scout and video department official named Matt Walsh, who now lives in Hawaii. Simultaneously, the NFL grapevine was alive with rumors -- caution, rumors -- that the Patriots were guilty not just of taping sidelines during games but rather of much more serious transgressions. The primary rumor, which was reported Saturday by the Boston Herald, was that the Patriots secretly taped the St. Louis Rams' private walk-through before Super Bowl XXXVI, that the Pats knew some of the Rams' plays and formations in advance.

Taping from the sidelines during games, although forbidden, is regarded as a minor violation of the rules. Secret taping of a Super Bowl opponent's practice, if true, would be much more serious.

Throughout the fall, I, as well as other journalists, had many conversations with Walsh. He would not say he taped the Rams' walk-through, but he would not deny it, either. He would not go on the record about what he knows.

Late in Super Bowl week, Walsh agreed with ESPN and the Times to go on the record as saying he knows damaging information about the Patriots that he will reveal if asked by the NFL. Walsh further noted that, although the NFL announced it had investigated New England's videotaping practices, the league had never spoken to him. People are right to be skeptical about Walsh's saying he knows something damning but not revealing it. Walsh says he fears legal retaliation by the Patriots because he signed a non-disclosure agreement when he left the team. He has been advised by an attorney that he will be on firmer ground if he reveals what he knows only at the request of the NFL or Congress.

[Mule]

Saturday morning, the Boston Herald ran a story asserting the Patriots secretly taped the Rams' private walk-through before Super Bowl XXXVI. The Herald cited an unnamed source and did not name Walsh as the person behind the camera.

Ty Law and the Patriots defense stymied the Rams in Super Bowl XXXVI. Law's first-half interception helped the Pats beat the NFL's highest-scoring team.
Also Saturday, Mike Fish reported on ESPN that St. Louis' walk-through was devoted to red zone plays -- all new plays and new formations the Rams had not shown during the season. Going into that Super Bowl, the Rams' "Greatest Show on Turf" was the league's highest-scoring team. In that game, St. Louis was held to a field goal in the first half. The Rams kept getting bogged down, as if New England knew what plays were coming. If the Patriots secretly taped the Rams' walk-through, then stopped the red zone plays the Rams showed in that walk-through, then won that Super Bowl by three points, then logic says New England materially benefited from cheating in the Super Bowl. If true, this would be the worst sports scandal since the Black Sox.

[Mule]

Post Game:

I've never seen a coach arrive for his interview that quickly. The first question asked was about the Boston Herald report Saturday indicating the Patriots filmed a Rams walkthrough before the 2001 Super Bowl. A reporter wanted him to respond to the Rams' comments on the report.

"I haven't heard them," he said.

Belichick was then questioned about his decision to go for it on fourth-and-13 in the third quarter rather than attempt a 49-yard field goal. Tom Brady tried a deep pass to Jabar Gaffney on the play that sailed out of bounds.

"Yeah, but it was a 50-yard field goal," he said before muttering something about field position.

The only risk involved was giving the Giants the ball at the 39-yard line instead of the 31. At that point, the Giants had only managed to put three points on the board. How do you give up a scoring opportunity over eight lousy yards?

Even Belichick's mentor Bill Parcells, who is consumed with field position, wouldn't pass up that opportunity. It was a bone-headed move at a crucial point in the game.

[gprsh924]

What does looses mean?

[hytem]

The anti-Patriots buildup in the media was so great, helped by playing a NY team, that you wonder how it affected the game. It was obvious efforts were made to knock the Pats off their game--in different ways.
This cheat business was way overblown. Did the Giants cheat? Nobody is looking. They all have their ways. The Patriots were scapegoated.
The Super Bowl has become trivialized by the media. Too commercial.

[Mule]

Originally Posted by gprsh924

What does looses mean?

In this case it means "got his ass whipped!" This could be the biggest sports scandal since the black socks!