Sources: Goodell determines Pats broke rules by taping Jets' signals

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

I think that coach should be bitch slapped just for his response alone. Be a freaking man and own up to it, don't try to act like a little 5 year old and say "but I didn't know it was wrong".

If you listened to Goodell, that was pretty much exactly why he gave the punishment he gave. He thought Bellichick's response (interpretation of the constitution and bylaws) was ridiculous and nailed him for it.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

Actually, that's not at all what the Pats' fans here were saying with respect to the actual rule breaking. Certainly, an issue with respect to the level of punishment, especially when you have talking head and former players on the losing end calling for forfeiture of SBs and banishment from playoffs. So, in that context, it is an appropriate way to respond.

".

[Kodos]

According to the ESPN poll, over 60% of people polled believe the penalty was too lenient.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Kodos

According to the ESPN poll, over 60% of people polled believe the penalty was too lenient.

How many after reading this?

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/09/17/...s-500000-fine/

September 17, 2007, 5:04 pm
Tax Profs: Bill Belichick Can Deduct His $500,000 Fine
Posted by Amir Efrati

bill belichick The TaxProf blog, which gets its second salute from the Law Blog today, tackled an interesting question: Whether Bill Belichick (pictured), head coach of the New England Patriots, can deduct the $500,000 fine — the biggest ever for an NFL coach — he received after violating league rules by videotaping defensive signals from New York Jets coaches in the Pats’ regular-season opener earlier this month. (The team was fined $250,000.) The answer: Yes.

The blog excerpted an email discussion by 12 tax law professors who, after 10,000 words on the matter, including testy exchanges over the interpretation of some old tax cases, mostly agreed that the fine is deductible under section 162 of the internal revenue code, “trade or business expenses.”

Wrote Myron Grauer of Capital University Law School: “Because, unfortunately, in this day and age, it probably is ‘ordinary’ for coaches and players in professional sports to cheat and, if caught, to be fined by the league, the fine levied on the Patriots’ coach can be viewed as an ordinary and necessary business expense….”

After some profs raised questions about whether being fined for “cheating” was an ordinary expense, Mike McIntyre of Wayne State University slammed the tax law hammer to end the discussion.

“[T]he fine was for violating a rule, not for cheating. The Patriots were not accused of cheating by the Commissioner and were not fined for cheating….No professional football game is played without someone breaking the rules. It is expected that people will break the rules,” McIntyre wrote.

Meanwhile, ESPN has reported that Belichick got a contract extension through at least the 2013 season.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

Honestly, I think they are more concerned with the asterik.

LOL at the New York Post:

[jeff061]

Heh, that is kinda funny .

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Especially since they still show the Jets as 0-2. Apparently the Jets can't even win a forfeit, even in the minds of their own media.

[rkmsuf]

These KFFL entries are funny.
----------------------------------------





Patriots | Ventrone signed to practice squad
Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:15:05 -0700

Mike Reiss, of the Boston Globe, reports the New England Patriots have signed free-agent S Ray Ventrone (Jets) to their practice squad.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jets | T. James works out for team
Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:14:31 -0700

Mike Reiss, of the Boston Globe, reports free-agent DB Tory James (Patriots) recently worked out for the New York Jets.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jets | Hawkins works out for team
Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:12:57 -0700

Mike Reiss, of the Boston Globe, reports free-agent DB Artrell Hawkins (Patriots) recently worked out for the New York Jets.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Patriots | Maxey works out for team
Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:12:27 -0700

Mike Reiss, of the Boston Globe, reports free-agent DB Marcus Maxey (Chiefs) worked out for the New England Patriots Tuesday, Sept. 18.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Patriots | Hodge works out for team
Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:11:51 -0700

Mike Reiss, of the Boston Globe, reports free-agent CB Alphonso Hodge (Jets) worked out for the New England Patriots Tuesday, Sept. 18.

[MikeVic]

This one doesn't belong there:
Patriots | Maxey works out for team
Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:12:27 -0700

Mike Reiss, of the Boston Globe, reports free-agent DB Marcus Maxey (Chiefs) worked out for the New England Patriots Tuesday, Sept. 18.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

Actually, that's not at all what the Pats' fans here were saying with respect to the actual rule breaking. Certainly, an issue with respect to the level of punishment, especially when you have talking head and former players on the losing end calling for forfeiture of SBs and banishment from playoffs. So, in that context, it is an appropriate way to respond.

No, even then, the Patriots and their fans have nothing to bring to the table.

There wasn't a leaguewide memo sent to all teams telling the Cowboys not to look for scraps of playbook paper in the opposing teams coaches box. That memo changes everything in terms of comparing what the Patriots did vs. any other team past or present.

What we have is a no nonsense commish who has shown a willingness to lay the hammer down when someone goes against him. He sent a memo saying DON'T VIDEOTAPE COACHES SIGNALS. The Patriots chose to ignore it. That's the only context that is/was/will be. . . Unless a comparable event in the past happened, there is no context to be gained for Jimmy.

As for the people talking about Super Bowls or playoffs, they were few and far between. (Terrell Davis was the most adament on that topic) Most were questioning how it would tarnish the Super Bowls, not talking about taking them away.

[molson]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Unless a comparable event in the past happened, there is no context to be gained for Jimmy.

As for the people talking about Super Bowls or playoffs, they were few and far between. (Terrell Davis was the most adament on that topic) Most were questioning how it would tarnish the Super Bowls, not talking about taking them away.

Why doesn't Jimmy add context to the tarnishing Super Bowl argument?

He certainly doesn't add context to the issue of whether the Patriots should be punished or not, but for the Billionth time, NO ONE IS DISPUTING THAT.

The issue is tarnishing past success. When people are talking about taking away super bowls (including McNabb, Bettis, and Davis), they're not litterally calling for that, they're trying to tarnish the Patriots and in the case of McNabb and Bettis, trying to justify their own failures. The Johnson comments are appropriate in all of those contexts, to the question that has no clear answer - how much of an edge was this?

[Alan T]

I guess the part of this that makes the least sense to me is...


If the cameraman had been in the first row of stands it would have been perfectly legal. If he had been anywhere else in the stadium, it would have been allowed according to the rules.

The rules (and even the memo that went out) are a bit ambiguous for direct meaning, which is what Bellicheck obviously used as his defense. The rules seem to state that its perfectly fine to tape (and everyone else probably does), just you can't benefit from the tape that game.

Considering how powerful cameras are these days, why not just do what every other team likely does and do the exact same video from some place other than the sideline and this whole issue doesn't come up.

I think I believe Bellicheck's statement that he wasn't using the video footage to gain an advantage during -that- game, so why push the envelope here?

I guess I just don't understand what is to gain by taping these signals from the sidelines instead of just doing what everyone else likely does and tape it from somewhere else... I guess just color me puzzled on what he was thinking.

[rkmsuf]

Bellicheck

Is it really that hard to spell his name?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Alan T

The rules (and even the memo that went out) are a bit ambiguous for direct meaning, which is what Bellicheck obviously used as his defense. The rules seem to state that its perfectly fine to tape (and everyone else probably does), just you can't benefit from the tape that game.

The weird part of the rule to me is that it's OK to tape the game from the field (teams HAVE to do this - you can't really have any idea what's going on in the secondary from the TV tape. I still have no idea how regular fans can have specific opinions on how good Cornerbacks and Safetys are because you never see them unless the ball is thrown their way, but that's a story for another thread), but it's only illegal if you focus on the defensive coaches for too long.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Is it really that hard to spell his name?

I have no idea how his name is spelled. I actually used to get it mixed up with the coach of the Ravens (back when both of them were coordinators). So, guess so.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Is it really that hard to spell his name?

Apparently it is.

[molson]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Is it really that hard to spell his name?

Extremely. Belichick doesn't look right, especially since most people don't pronounce it that way.

[Alan T]

I just spelled it the way I hear it on the radio all the time. I actually don't know how to read. I post on here through a modified speak and spell.

[Kodos]

I poast by Hooked on Fonics.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Alan T

If the cameraman had been in the first row of stands it would have been perfectly legal. If he had been anywhere else in the stadium, it would have been allowed according to the rules.

This is not true, at least based on the memo quoted in Easterbrook's column on ESPN.com.

Originally Posted by http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/070918

The NFL rule bans teams from filming each other's sidelines. There's no room for interpretation, it's a ban! Here's the NFL policy, from a memo sent to all head coaches and general managers Sept. 6, 2006: "Videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game." Prohibited.

So basically, videotaping is illegal from anywhere, period, and the Pats knew it. I guess they figured that since they were breaking the rules anyway, they might as well get as close as possible.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

So basically, videotaping is illegal from anywhere, period, and the Pats knew it. I guess they figured that since they were breaking the rules anyway, they might as well get as close as possible.

I know I've heard coaches referring to extended "game tape" that covers the whole field. There's no way they're making personnel decisions based on watching NFL on FOX, which shows only a very limited part of the field.

Where are they getting that from?

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by molson

I know I've heard coaches referring to extended "game tape" that covers the whole field. There's no way they're making personnel decisions based on watching NFL on FOX, which shows only a very limited part of the field.

Where are they getting that from?

I would assume teams can make their own tapes of the action on the field.

What does that have to do with the prohibition of videotaping the sidelines?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

I would assume teams can make their own tapes of the action on the field.

What does that have to do with the prohibition of videotaping the sidelines?

Ahh, I took your statement "videotaping is illegal from anywhere, period" too litterally.

Though it seems it would be tricky to film the game and not the sidelines.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

This is not true, at least based on the memo quoted in Easterbrook's column on ESPN.com.



So basically, videotaping is illegal from anywhere, period, and the Pats knew it. I guess they figured that since they were breaking the rules anyway, they might as well get as close as possible.

Actually I think your post is making my point. The memo states that video taping of any kind (doesn't have anything to do with signal stealing) is not allowed anywhere they can take advantage of it. The memo as I read it says you could have someone in a blimp taking video footage of the opposing team's signals and its perfectly legal as they can't gain access from it for that game.

Thats why I don't understand why the Pats did this. It seems pretty common that every other team is doing recording, they just are doing it somewhere that is not ruled illegal (ie: that they can't get hold of it during that game). Why not just put the camera somewhere else and do the exact same thing but within the rules?

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

I would assume teams can make their own tapes of the action on the field.

What does that have to do with the prohibition of videotaping the sidelines?

I don't think what you posted actually says what the writer's interpretation of it says.

"Videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game."

It says you can't do any videotaping somewhere that you can access it during that game. So the rule that the Patriots broke wasn't stealing signals or anything to do with that. It was simply having the camera on the sideline.. Which is what my original point was.. Why have that there? WHy not just have it somewhere within the rules to do the same thing? Thats what I don't understand.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Alan T

It says you can't do any videotaping somewhere that you can access it during that game.

I believe the point is that you can't take take video of anywhere that the other team's staff has access to. In other words, all the places listed (coach's booth, sidelines, locker room) are places that you can not try to videotape. If it's somewhere that the staff can't be anyways (such as the field during play) then film away.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by molson

Why doesn't Jimmy add context to the tarnishing Super Bowl argument?

He certainly doesn't add context to the issue of whether the Patriots should be punished or not, but for the Billionth time, NO ONE IS DISPUTING THAT.

The issue is tarnishing past success. When people are talking about taking away super bowls (including McNabb, Bettis, and Davis), they're not litterally calling for that, they're trying to tarnish the Patriots and in the case of McNabb and Bettis, trying to justify their own failures. The Johnson comments are appropriate in all of those contexts, to the question that has no clear answer - how much of an edge was this?

Ummmm, actually, no. Throughout the thread people have been making those assertions to talk about what the punishment should be. That past cases should show how damning it is and how that should be taken into consideration for the punishment. I'm telling you that's nonsense and is has been disputed to me repeatedly. In fact the quote I had in it stated the words "Certainly, an issue with respect to the level of punishment" in it.

No, it certainly is not an issue with respect to the level of punishment, because this is a new situation with no context to fall back on.

I've lost count of how many times I've said it in this thread. Either people can't read or they continue to believe I have some irrational hatred of the Patriots. But here we go again:

There will be people who will slam the Patriots for this out of bitternes. That's sad. There will be people who say Tom Brady sucks or Belichick can't coach. That's equally sad. It's not fair, but that's the way it is. When you get caught cheating, you bring that on yourself. It doesn't make it right or fair.

Does that clear up my opinion on it? Or should do I have to make it in 40 point bolded font?

In the case of the former players slamming the Patriots, I think they have a right to complain. If the Patriots were doing something that was illegal (in football terms) that gave them ANY KIND OF EDGE, that could have had a difference in the outcome of the game.

They have every right to be pissed off about it. But the idea that you can take away a Super Bowl or ban them from the playoffs is absurd and idiotic. The idea that the Pats are full of scrubs who only win because of the cheating and have no talent is absurd and idiotic.

At the end of the day we don't know how much or how little it helped the Pats. (again, I personally believe it helped them a great deal, which is why Belichick did it knowing he could be caught and why he lied through his teeth with some "interpretation" garbage. If it wasn't that big of a deal, there is no reason to lie about that part of it) But all we have are opinions and all we can do is move forward. The punishment has been handed down and if the Pats comply with everything, it's over.

If they don't, I have a feeling that'll be the last we see of Bill Belichick in the NFL. I don't think Goodall will tolerate another infraction and that if NE doesn't walk a perfect line and follow every rule in the book, that Goodall will really show em what a hammer is. It won't happen. They'll be perfect. They'll win 12-14 games. They'll compete for the title at least for a few more years, maybe longer. This isn't going to change it.

[dime]

honestly, as a sports fan, if you were told this happened and had ONE GUESS as to which nfl franchise did it, who would you choose?

the pats, of course. not because they "win all the time" or are "hated" (huh?) but because they fit the profile perfectly. belichick's insulting response and typically arrogant dismissal of any accountability for the cheating was sadly predictable.

I don't like the pats, not because I give a shit about boston or the colts or the steelers or anyone else...but because the nfl deserves a better "dynasty". the post-game taunting, the wal-mart approach to personnel, the desperate paranoia ("no one respects us!"), etc. are not becoming for a champion franchise. they are tedious and embarrassing.

[SirFozzie]

Finally, our long week-long national nightmare is over.

Nice to see the J-E-T-S allegations attempt to pile on got properly taken care of.


NEW YORK -- The NFL has received and destroyed all materials it requested from the New England Patriots concerning videotaping of opponents' sidelines.

A league statement Thursday said the team was in compliance with a request for tapes and other documents.

"The Patriots have fully cooperated and complied with the requirements of the commissioner's decision," the statement said. "All tapes, documents and other records relating to this matter were turned over to the league office and destroyed, and the Patriots have certified in writing that no copies or other records exist.

"League policies on in-game videotaping and audio communication will continue to be closely monitored and strictly enforced with all 32 teams."

Last week, Patriots coach Bill Belichick was fined $500,000 by NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and the team was fined $250,000 for violating a league rule that prohibits clubs from using a video camera on the sidelines for any purpose -- including recording signals relayed to opposing players on the field. New England also must forfeit a first-round draft pick next year if it makes the playoffs or a second- and third-rounder if it doesn't.

A video camera aimed at Jets coaches was confiscated from a Patriots employee during the first quarter of the team's 38-14 win Sept. 9 over New York. Jets coach Eric Mangini has had a cool relationship with Belichick since leaving as Patriots defensive coordinator after the 2005 season.

When asked if the Patriots' defensive players also used microphones or other recording devices in their shoulder pads to pick up Jets audibles, NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said: "We have no evidence to support that claim."

[EagleFan]

But they still need to pay for making "our" quarterback puke in the Super Bowl...

[Maple Leafs]

The demand for all tapes and notes wasn't about finding more wrong-doing. It was about making sure that if any new information comes out, the Pats can't say "well you never asked about that".

Now, if Goodell ever finds any more evidence of cheating, he can drop the bomb on the Pats and nobody will be able to complain.

[Surtt]

From Tuesday Morning Quarterback

Fishy, indeed. On Sunday, Sept. 16, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell went on national TV and promised he would get to the bottom of the Patriots' sign-stealing. Four days later, the NFL announced all videotapes and other spying materials compiled by the Patriots had been obtained by the league and destroyed. Goodell, who until then had been very upfront in addressing the Beli-Cheat scandal, didn't go back on television to say what the tapes contained; the commissioner has been in radio silence about the Patriots since the files arrived at the NFL's Park Avenue headquarters. The league acted in a hurry to dispose of damning documents, but has not revealed what was in the tapes and notes, nor said why there was a rush to get rid of them.

The lack of answers leaves several questions hanging out there. Chief among them: Is it possible the Patriots' tapes showed some evidence of New England cheating in a Super Bowl?

There is much more
hxxp://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/070925&sportCat=nfl


Easterbrook echoes what I have been thinking the last week.
I was trying to reserve judgment on this whole thing until we knew how deep the rabbit hole went.

The way Goodell destroyed the evidence screams "cover up" to me.
I can not see any reason to destroy this stuff, unless there was something to hide.

I have lost all respect for Goodell and am very disappointed with the NFL right now.

[SirFozzie]

Give me a fucking break.

The League says "Bad Patriots. No Biscuit (750K in fines, and an unprecedented first round draft pick) ! Turn over all your spying tapes so we can destroy them."

(Patriots turn over tapes, league confirms tapes are as advertised and there were no hidden tapes)

League: and don't do it again! (destroys tapes as promised)

Conspiracy Theorists: OMGWTFBBQ! The league is hiding something!

You know why Shanoff, Easterbrook and others are so pissed about the League saying there's no evidence for the Jets pile on and closing the case on spygate?

Because they had the idea they could be lazy and spin this story for months on end.. After all, the league's already had one tape mysteriously leak out, which fed the controversy.

So this attitude is just disappointment that they won't have multiple future columns already written for them

[SirFozzie]

Dola: Oh, and another reason that the league wanted to destroy the tapes quickly.. they had one tape in their hands for less then a week, and it already had been leaked nationwide via FOX. Any more leaks, and they'd have to release the whole set to avoid trouble

[gstelmack]

I've lost a lot of respect for Easterbrook over the last 2 weeks. This week in particular. He's just ranting now.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Give me a fucking break.

No kidding.

Every dynasty has three stages

1. the feel good stage
2. the stage where everyone wants to take them down a notch, often irrationally
3. the downside of the dynasty - everyone celebrates about how much they suck now

The Patriots are at the height of #2. The Colts are still very much in #1, but I guarantee you, if they can win a couple more super bowls, they'll reach #2 as well.

[wade moore]

I'm with the Pats fans on this one.

Some people just love to create drama where there is none.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I've lost a lot of respect for Easterbrook over the last 2 weeks. This week in particular. He's just ranting now.

I actually feel completely sympathetic to Easterbrook, not on the details, but on how he is thinking about this. Like Easterbrook, on a regular basis I completely lose my mind about something, and sound like a total lunatic to everybody I talk to about it.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Surtt

From Tuesday Morning Quarterback



There is much more
hxxp://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/070925&sportCat=nfl


Easterbrook echoes what I have been thinking the last week.
I was trying to reserve judgment on this whole thing until we knew how deep the rabbit hole went.

The way Goodell destroyed the evidence screams "cover up" to me.
I can not see any reason to destroy this stuff, unless there was something to hide.

I have lost all respect for Goodell and am very disappointed with the NFL right now.

That article is completely irrational and its just making shit up. There's zero proof that it happened, its just random conspiracy theories.

However, no one can be suprised by this. The Pats are going to be dealing with this for quite some time. Part of it is because of their success, part of it is simply because they got caught. You can claim everyone does it, but everyone hasn't been caught. Until more teams are caught doing this type of thing the Pats will be dealing with it.

[MalcPow]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I've lost a lot of respect for Easterbrook over the last 2 weeks. This week in particular. He's just ranting now.

Couldn't agree more, very disappointing set of columns from a guy who I've basically made time to read every week over the last few years. I'm not a Pats fan, but I'm just finding his "perspective" on things is alternating between tediously fake naive and obnoxious.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Atocep

However, no one can be suprised by this. The Pats are going to be dealing with this for quite some time. Part of it is because of their success, part of it is simply because they got caught. You can claim everyone does it, but everyone hasn't been caught. Until more teams are caught doing this type of thing the Pats will be dealing with it.

Yes, and the Pats certainly deserve to deal with it (to some extent). I just (still) don't understand why the Broncos and 49ers can cheat their way to success with salary cap shenanigans (something where the benefits are far more tangible and clear than this case), and no one cares in the least.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by molson

Yes, and the Pats certainly deserve to deal with it (to some extent). I just (still) don't understand why the Broncos and 49ers can cheat their way to success with salary cap shenanigans, and no one cares in the least.

My guess would be the timing of when they got caught and the fact it was salary cap issues. Both the 49ers and Broncos were caught after the fact, while the Pats were actually caught in the act. I think that is a big difference in how much attention the media is going to give it and whether we like it or not the media can shape the perception of things for the average fan.

Also, and I could very well be way out in left field on this, but I think for most fans the salary cap is a very abstract thing and they really can't grasp it affecting games on an individual basis. However, the pats were caught stealing signs, which fans have an easier time understanding the impact of.

100% speculation on my part, but I can't figure it out either.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Atocep

My guess would be the timing of when they got caught and the fact it was salary cap issues. Both the 49ers and Broncos were caught after the fact, while the Pats were actually caught in the act. I think that is a big difference in how much attention the media is going to give it and whether we like it or not the media can shape the perception of things for the average fan.

Also, and I could very well be way out in left field on this, but I think for most fans the salary cap is a very abstract thing and they really can't grasp it affecting games on an individual basis. However, the pats were caught stealing signs, which fans have an easier time understanding the impact of.

100% speculation on my part, but I can't figure it out either.

Before reading your post I was going to make the 2nd point that you made. I think for most people they can't wrap their head around the salary cap, let alone what the Broncos did with it. Plus, I think that all got uncovered during a slow part of the off-season?

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Conspiracy Theorists: OMGWTFBBQ! The league is hiding something!

You know, the NFL did just come out with a new rule about cheerleaders. There MUST be some kind of connection between these tapes and the cheerleaders!

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by sabotai

You know, the NFL did just come out with a new rule about cheerleaders. There MUST be some kind of connection between these tapes and the cheerleaders!

Either that, or someone at the NFL office saw "The Replacements"

(of course, the two are not mutually inconsistent)

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Easy observation. Easterbrook writes a long article speculating there's more to the Pats cheating. The league says there's no more. So, Easterbrook writes another long article that the league must be "hiding" something to cover his ass for the terrible first article. Instead, he should have just written "I was wrong" and saved what was left of his credibility.

I'm actually surprised he didn't tie all the cheating back when the flaming thumbtacks blitzed. His schtick is so tiresome, I stopped reading his stuff a couple of seasons ago. When he got booted off espn.com for his offensive remarks, I missed him. When he came back to nfl.com, I couldn't believe I actually read his stuff.

[JeeberD]

That's hilarious!

[st.cronin]

I think there is a 10% chance Easterbrook mentions that lawsuit in his next column.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I think there is a 10% chance Easterbrook mentions that lawsuit in his next column.

Really? I think he'll try to spin it as "Things are so bad, two seperate lawsuits have been filed against the Patriots..If I was them, I'd fear discovery..."

Never mind the two lawsuits have been filed by an imprisoned whackaloon and a professional suer of people

[Butter]

You Pats fans sure do have a complex, don't you?