New England Patriots: ESPN's Sal Paolantonio - Time to Move on From Spygate

I can't believe I did it again.  For the umpteenth time since the whole Spygate story broke last September, I thought we had reached the end. 

For many, May 8 was the end.  Matt Walsh finally delivered the much anticipated tapes we have been hearing about since days before the Super Bowl.  But shockingly, there was no tape of a Rams' practice from before Super Bowl XXXVI.  No such tape exists because it never happened.  

End of story, right?

Not if you have an agenda like Sal Paolantonio and other reporters who thought finally you were going to get to celebrate while Bill Belichick went down in flames. 

They can't let it go.  Their obsession with getting Belichick leads these reporters to continue to come up with convoluted theories why we still need to dig deeper into Spygate.

To be honest, most of the so-called investigative reporters and columnists who are doing this, I understand why.  They are nobodies.  They were before, and I am sure many of them saw Spygate as a chance to make a name for themselves. 

Do as much over the top reporting as they can, write outlandish theories and make accusations based on no evidence—and if by some chance it comes true, maybe it can be their turn to appear on the sports talk radio shows.  If very fortunate, maybe even an appearance on Around the Horn, so they too can yell and scream while making fake arguments.

Of course, if none of it is true, so what?  There are no repercussions for making carefully crafted accusations based on zero evidence.  Journalism 101 to many.  

But Sal Paolantonio?  Really?  You aren't better than this, Sal?  

His article from yesterday reached the point that he clearly has no credibility on this issue and is willing to sell his soul in the hope that, maybe, there is a way he can still get Bill Belichick. 

The article is such a disgrace.  I do not even know where to begin.

Paolantonio starts by writing that some in the media have made a "hasty" conclusion that Spygate is over?  Hasty—is that the correct word to describe a story that has lingered for over nine months?

The reason the story persisted was because of an article based on false accusations printed in the Boston Herald and adopted by ESPN and others, that a former Patriots' employee had a video tape of a Rams' practice. 

A story by the way that ESPN and other media outlets refused to run on their own because they did not at the time find it to be credible.  Good thing then they followed up by spending months talking about the not credible accusations.

So Sal, it is not the end when we finally learn definitively that no such tape exists?

Not to Sal.  Belichick said that he did break the rules, but he did so unknowingly and had interpreted the rule differently.  Sal therefore wants Goodell to ask "tough questions" and to "grill" Walsh on this issue because he doesn't believe Belichick.  If it isn't true, then Sal for the good of the game wants to see more punishments.  

A few points.

First, could a video assistant, one way or the other, be able to honestly tell Paolantonio what he wishes to learn?  

Let's assume it is true that Belichick knew all along he was breaking the rules.  

Does Paolantonio honestly believe that the video assistant would have any insight into Belichick's reasoning for doing anything?

Does Paolantonio honestly believe that there was a meeting in a room at the Patriots' offices—with possible attendees including Belichick, Scott Pioli, Ernie Adams, Robert Kraft, Charlie Weiss, and the video assistant?

And at this meeting, Belicihick stood up and said, "There is this rule, and we are going to break it.  And I want the video assistant to tape the other team.  I know we are cheating, but we are going to do it anyway.  Everyone understand." 

Maybe Sal thinks there was a coaches/video assistant meeting, but after the coaches left, Belichick met privately with the video assistant - similar to the meeting where Lt. Kendrick ordered Downey and Dawson to commit the code red.  In this meeting, Belichick told the video assistant his true intentions.  The coach also probably picked the video assistant's brain for play-calling suggestions and then confessed to killing Jimmy Hoffa. 

I can't even imagine that Belichick ever had a conversation with the video assistant to discuss anything, let alone his motives.  Belichick made the decision, the wrong decision, to video tape opponents' signals.  But thinking, let alone actually writing, that the video assistant may have insight into Belichick's actual intent is simply beyond preposterous. 

Paolantonio continues on though, imploring Goodell to grill Walsh (or one might say he is providing last minute instructions to Walsh on what to say in order to keep this story going). 

He is so desperate that he even wrote that we need to find out from the video assistant, "Did Tom Brady" see reports from the taping of signals? 

Sal Paolantonio just wrote in an article on the worldwide leader in sports web site that he wants to know if the video assistant knows what information Tom Brady, and any other name Paolantonio can throw in, received in reports from the coaching staff.  

A possible distribution list in Foxboro for quarterback reports, according to NFL Insider Sal Paolantonio - head coach, offensive coordinator, quarterbacks coach, video assistant, Tom Brady.  

There is no plausible scenario in the history of football where the video assistant would have such information.  

But good ol' unbiased Sal believes Matt Walsh and Tom Brady must have interacted - enough to justify writing it in his column.  If Goodell gets tough with his questioning, we will learn this type of information, according to Paolantonio.  

I find it very telling that people like Paolantonio, who are now coming up with all new theories of what information Matt Walsh could have against the Patriots, had to wait until after it was shown Walsh did not have the smoking gun video tape of the Rams' practice.

Where were all these theories months ago when we first heard about Walsh?  It wasn't until Walsh had nothing to offer, that Paolantonio and company had to dream up reasons why Walsh could still be relevant.  I believe grasping at straws is the term to descrbe Paolantonio's actions.

The second glaring problem with Paolantonio's article is this—the source he wants to get the information from is Matt Walsh. 

Why would we at this point ever listen to or believe for one second anything that comes out of Matt Walsh's mouth?  Walsh is a proven thief and a proven liar.  Other than that though, he makes a credible witness.  He rates somewhere between Rafael Palmeiro and Pete Rose. 

Walsh, had he wanted to, could have put an end to this story months ago, but he lacked the basic integrity needed to do so. 

Very quickly, reason No. 1 not to listen to a word Walsh has to say:  he got fired from the Patriots.  Briefly glossed over in Paolantonio's article.

Reason No. 2: he broke the law by secretly taping conversations with Scott Pioli and then through his lawyer lied about it.  Not mentioned in Paolantonio's article. 

Reason No. 3: he stole from the Patriots. Not mentioned in Paolantonio's article.

Reason No. 4: he lied for months about having a confidentiality agreement. Not mentioned in Paolantonio's article.

Reason No. 5: and the most telling reason, when given numerous opportunities and months to correct a completely fabricated story, Walsh did not say a word. This is thrown in at the end of Paolantonio's article, but not until he had already spent paragraph after paragraph imagining the information Walsh could have against the Patriots.

This article by Paolantonio is a complete hatchet job.  He writes that it is clear from Walsh's tapes that the Patriots taping practices went back to 2000.  This isn't clear because of Walsh's tapes, it is clear because Bill Belichick admitted it to the NFL back in September.  Slight difference.   

Maybe it took the NFL a few months to put that precise information in a press release (surprised it was able to slip by an investigative reporter like Mike Fish for all those months-thought he would get to the truth much sooner with his investigative reporting skills).  That does not take away from the fact the Patriots, and not Matt Walsh as Paolantonio is trying to make readers believe, were the source of the information.  

Why is Paolantonio soiling his reputation by writing such a clearly biased article?  Is it because he is a Philadelphia based reporter and loves the Eagles?  Does he think the Patriots taping, and not the Patriots’ players, was the reason his Eagles lost to New England in the Super Bowl in 2005?

Maybe he is just such a believer in integrity in football he can't help himself - I'm sure, he along with other all too vocal Patriot-haters like former Bronco Mark Schlereth, were this upset when Denver repeatedly broke the rules to win two Super Bowls.

Or is it much more typical of reporters these days?  Is it personal?

I listen to sports reporters like Paolantonio not because they know so much more about sports than I do.  It is because through years of hard work they have developed better contacts and relationships with people on the inside.  These contacts allow Paolantonio, and others like him, to provide insight at a level I could never reach. 

Without access and contacts though, Paolantonio can't really offer anything worth listening to.  

Do the Patriots' not return Sal's calls?  Do they limit his access, thus making it more difficult to do his job trying to cover one of the top teams in the sport (more specifically, does Belichick do these things?).  It is easier to find out about troop movements from the Pentago then it is to learn anything from the Patriots.

I don't have any precise evidence of this type of bias on Sal's part, but based on what I know about journalism from following this story, maybe I should write, "an unnamed source told me Sal Paolantonio is writing biased and absurd articles against the Patriots because Bill Belichick refused to speak to Sal following New England's 2006 pre-season victory over the Redskins."

While I am at it, two things I wish would happen on a related note—one, Arlen Specter to find something else to worry about.  If only there were other major issues going on that a United States Senator could get involved in.  If only.

And second, can Roger Goodell grow a pair?  He wants to be the get-tough commissioner, be more like the authoritative David Stern and less like the weaselly Bud Selig.  I have news for the commish—right now, he is more like Selig. 

He needs to defend his league.  He has allowed Arlen Specter and the Paolantonios of the world to keep this story alive.  He allowed Specter, days before the sport's biggest event, to take the spotlight off the field. 

He has allowed Specter to bully him now for months.  And he continues to do this, by placating Specter and giving Walsh the time of day, even though Walsh after months of lying and misleading doesn't deserve it. 

I compare this to Stern—who in one press conference, put to rest the entire Tim Donaghy scandal.  Taping coaching signals compared to an official compromised in a betting scandal—which is worse and which story has received more attention? 

If Goodell really was a tough commissioner, he would say this to Arlen Specter—"This is an NFL matter.  It was handled by the NFL.  I issued a decision that is the final decision.  As far as the league is concerned, the matter is over and done with.  A rule was broken. A penalty was issued.  This is for the NFL to handle not the United States Senate." 

I truly am sick of the Spygate story.  For the millionth time I will write, the Patriots cheated, they were wrong, they were severely punished.  I want to move on. 

For months the story was we need to find out what is on the tapes that Walsh has.  When we did, and the answer was nothing, I thought that would be the end.

But as long as reporters like Sal Paolantonio are going to continue to write articles, and dream up theories to keep the story alive and defame the Patriots, I am going to continue to write articles explaining why they are wrong and am going to continue to defend the Pats.