Homer Spadaro

Any Eagles fan has come to expect the consistently sunny optimism of Eagles house organ, Dave "Homer" Spadaro, to the point where there is an odd affection for Sapadaro's company-line (if for no other reason than it is so easy to mock).

But is there trouble afoot for Spadaro among the mainstream Philadelphia sports scribes?

Writes Kevin Cooney,

"The real threat to journalism in the new millennium is Dave Spadaro.

For years, Spadaro has been the Eagles' minister of information — a.k.a. the “Insider” for the team's Web site. Basically, it goes like this: The Eagles' brass thinks it, and Spadaro writes it as fact.

Team doesn't think it needs a wide receiver. Spadaro really doesn't think it needs a wide receiver. Team loves its draft. Spadaro really loves its draft.

For the most part, the rest of the Philadelphia media accepted this as a guy just trying to collect a paycheck and doing his job. Sure, there were some giggles, but Spadaro seemed like a nice guy to those who met him and everybody went along their merry way.

That was until “Spuds” decided to become the lecturer on all things journalism on the first day of minicamp."

Apparently, the press can tolerate his one-sided stories. But want they won't abide is any suggestion, especially from Spadaro, that their stories are somehow biased against the home team. The Philadelphia media too negative? Say it ain't so!

"When things go poorly, Spadaro turns around the mirror and tries to blame people who had nothing to do with it. If this town were really as negative as Spadaro portrays it to be, the head coach would have been run out of it for what happened in his personal life last year.

There are a lot of ticked-off sports reporters in this city who feel the same way I do. This was a low blow that threw down the gauntlet between the franchise and some circles of the city's press corps. "

Should make for an interesting season: Spadaro vs. the Philadelphia media.

Little Known Draft Factoid

When the Eagles drafted Andy Studebaker out of Wheaton College, he was one of only two players drafted out of Division III this year (the Colts took Pierre Carcon, WR, Mount Union). Coincidentally, both players were taken in the 6^th round.

Why Gas Is So Expensive

On an unrelated sports matter, I came across an interesting article about Americans' gas usage, and perhaps why our pump prices are so high. Hint: It's not China but is related to the Iraq war, but not in the way you might assume.

Writes Michael Klare:

Every day, the average G.I. in Iraq uses approximately 27 gallons of petroleum-based fuels. With some 160,000 American troops in Iraq, that amounts to 4.37 million gallons in daily oil usage, including gasoline for vans and light vehicles, diesel for trucks and armored vehicles, and aviation fuel for helicopters, drones, and fixed-wing aircraft. With U.S. forces paying, as of late April, an average of $3.23 per gallon for these fuels, the Pentagon is already spending approximately $14 million per day on oil ($98 million per week, $5.1 billion per year) to stay in Iraq. Meanwhile, our Iraqi allies, who are expected to receive a windfall of $70 billion this year from the rising price of their oil exports, charge their citizens $1.36 per gallon for gasoline.

When questioned about why Iraqis are paying almost a third less for oil than American forces in their country, senior Iraqi government officials scoff at any suggestion of impropriety. "America has hardly even begun to repay its debt to Iraq," said Abdul Basit, the head of Iraq's Supreme Board of Audit, an independent body that oversees Iraqi governmental expenditures. "This is an immoral request because we didn't ask them to come to Iraq, and before they came in 2003 we didn't have all these needs."

In other words, the American military is burning up 40% of Saudi Arabia's daily output. There's no speculative oil bubble per se, it's a supply shortage. The Iraq Troop Surge has caused a Gas Price Surge. And like the war in Iraq, there is no end in sight. (and nevermind about the US paying retail for oil, or that we are protecting a country with the second largest known oil reserves and they are making us pay through the nose - via oil prices - for the privilege of doing so.)

Why Spygate is Important

Washington Post political reporter Paul Kane hosted an interactive chat with readers today. While the thrust of the questions centered on the demise of the Republican party, several questions came up about Spygate given Kane's encouragement of Arlen Specter's role in the evolving scandal.

Kane eloquently articulated why the scandal, cover up and Specter's intervention are so important and worthy of congressional attention.

Should probably ask Wilbon: But you said: "Compel the NFL to conduct at least a semi-legitimate investigation into the New England Patriots cheating scheme that helped them produce three Super Bowls." Seriously, you think that's a significant part of why they won three Super Bowls? And that they are the only team spying on signals from other teams? I think the NFL is hoping this goes away so it doesn't blow the cover off a systemic issue that could smear the whole league, not just the Patriots.

Paul Kane: Arlen Specter is a hero to all NFL fans who want answers to this scandal. I'm speaking here solely as a fan of the single most important sports and cultural league in America. Why do 100 million people watch the Super Bowl? Because we love the National Football League more than any other sports, cultural or societal organization in America.

As of now, there has not been a single scintilla of evidence produced that any other team participated in any form of cheating in the manner of the Patriots. There have been whispers other teams did it, but not a shred of evidence put forward. Tonight, on HBO, a former Patriots worker will explain the amazingly complex organization wide effort to steal opposing team's signals -- using multiple cameramen, then folks in an editing room who spliced the film together, then pulling in backup players to study the film along with assistant coaches, then positioning those backup players right next to the assistant coaches so, once they stole the signals during games, the backup players could immediately tell the offensive coordinator, who would then radio into the Patriots quarterback what play the defense was going to run against them.

So, my question to you is, do you think this didn't help the Patriots? Come on, buddy. You think they went to all this trouble -- probably employing a dozen or more people in this scheme -- they went to all this trouble and it didn't give them a "competitive advantage"?

Go Arlen.


Indianapolis: Do you truly believe that, given the shape this country is in, what we need is a congressional investigation of the NFL?

Paul Kane: I believe that this country's in bad shape and that it's up to the president and congressional leaders to sit down and work those things out.

But, listen, there are 435 members of the House, 100 senators, and there are almost 50 different committees combined in the two chambers. Not all of them are supposed to deal with war and energy and home mortgages. If not for the heroic work of Henry Waxman and Tom Davis exposing Major League Baseball's duplicity in the steroids scandal, we'd all still have our heads in the sand applauding Barry Bonds as he strokes his 800th home run.

I'm sure people wondered just what the heck young Bobby Kennedy was doing when, as a Senate counsel, he helped lead an investigation into the mob in the 1950s as really big things were happening around the globe (Soviets marching into Hungary, the beginnings of the space race, the Castro takeover of Cuba). Why would a Senate committee then bothered to explore a little corruption in a few corners of a few cities? Because it was there, it was rotting to its core and someone needed to do something.

That's what Tom Davis and Henry Waxman did with steroids, and that's what Specter is trying to do with the Patriots.

Thank Hillary, Don't Demonize Her

For all the Obamacans out there who are seething that Hillary Clinton has yet to withdraw from the race, think about this. She probably did Obama a favor by staying in this past week.

Given her margin of victory in W. Va., the Senator from Illinois might have lost the state, albeit not as badly as he actually did, even with her out of the race but her name still on the ballot.

Has any presumptive nominee ever lost an uncontested primary? Obama should thank Clinton for preventing us from finding out.

And on another note, why are superdelegates who are now switching their allegiance from Clinton to Obama viewed as a sign of Obama's momentum and nomination inevitability (and not portrayed as the opportunistic turncoats they really are), while suggestions by the Clinton campaign that delegates can switch from Obama to Clinton are treated as tampering
with the electoral process?

Marshall Faulk

Interestingly, Rams star RB Marshall Faulk performed the unusual job (for him) of returning kicks in Super bowl 36. Coach Mike Martz must have thought it would be a surprise to the Patriots. However, Arlen Specter’s investigation suggests the Pats were well aware of what the Rams were going to do.

Notes Specter:

Matt Walsh and other Patriots employees, Steve Scarnecchia, Jimmy Dee, Fernando Neto and possibly Ed Bailey were present to observe most if not all of the St. Louis Rams walk-through practice in advance of the 2002 Super Bowl, including Marshall Faulk’s unusual positioning as a punt returner.

David Halberstam's book, The Education of a Coach, documents the way Belichick spent the week before the Super Bowl obsessing about where the Rams would line up Faulk.

Walsh was asked and told Assistant Coach, Brian Daboll, about the walkthrough.

Walsh said Daboll asked him specific questions about the Rams offense and Walsh told Daboll about Faulk’s lining up as a kick returner. Walsh also told Daboll about Rams running backs “lining up in the flat.” Walsh said Daboll then drew diagrams of the formations Walsh had described.

(According to media reports, Daboll denied talking to Walsh about Faulk. We do not know what Scarnecchia, Dee, Neto or Bailey did or even if they were interviewed.

Specter Statement Highlights

Excerpt highlights of Sen. Arlen Specter’s Spygate statement

“WHAT WE KNOW:

The extent of the taping was not disclosed until the NFL was pressured to do so. Originally, Commissioner Goodell said the taping was limited to late in the 2006 season and early in the 2007 season. In his meeting with me on February 13, 2008, Goodell admitted the taping went back to 2000. Until my meeting with Matt Walsh on May 13, 2008, the only taping we knew about took place from 2000 until 2002 and during the 2006 and 2007 seasons.

Walsh said he did not tell Goodell about the taping during 2003, 2004 and 2005 because he was not asked. (emphasis added)

The NFL confiscated the Jets tape on September 9, 2007; imposed the penalties on September 13, 2007; on September 17, 2007, viewed the tapes for the first time; and then announced they had destroyed those tapes on September 20, 2007. Commissioner Goodell made his judgment on the punishment to be levied before he had viewed the key evidence.

The Patriots took elaborate steps to conceal their filming of opponents’ signals.
Patriots personnel instructed Walsh to use a “cover story” if anyone questioned him about the filming.

During at least one game, the January 27, 2002 AFC Championship game, Walsh was specifically instructed not to wear anything displaying a Patriots logo. Walsh indicated he turned the Patriots sweatshirt he was wearing at the time inside-out. Walsh was also given a generic credential instead of one that identified him as team personnel.

These efforts to conceal the filming demonstrate the Patriots knew they were violating NFL rules.

II. THE VIDEOTAPING HAD A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE GAME

Walsh was told by a former offensive player that a few days before the September 11, 2000 regular season game against Tampa Bay, he (the offensive player) was called into a meeting with Adams, Bill Belichick and Charlie Weis, then the offensive coordinator for the Patriots, during which it was explained how the Patriots would make use of the tapes. The offensive player would memorize the signals and then watch for Tampa Bay’s defensive calls during the game. He would then pass the plays along to Weis, who would give instructions to the quarterback on the field. This process enabled the Patriots to go to a “no-huddle” offensive, which would lock in the defense the opposing team had called from the sideline, preventing the defense from making any adjustments. When Walsh asked whether the tape he had filmed was helpful, the offensive player said it had enabled the team to anticipate 75 percent of the plays being called by the opposing team.

(2) Among the tapes Walsh turned over to the NFL is one of the AFC Championship game on January 27, 2002 in which the Patriots defeated the Steelers by a score of 24-17. When the Patriots played the Steelers again during their season-opener on September 9, 2002, the Patriots again won, this time by a score of 30-14.

On October 31, 2004, the Steelers beat the Patriots 34-20, forced four turnovers, including two interceptions, and sacked the quarterback four times. In the AFC Championship game on January 23, 2005, the Patriots won 41-27 and intercepted Ben Roethlisberger three times. The Steelers had no sacks that game.

With respect to the 2002 AFC Championship game, it was reported in February of this year that Hines Ward, Steelers wide receiver, said: “Oh, they know. They were calling our stuff out. They knew, especially that first championship game here at Heinz Field. They knew a lot of our calls. There’s no question some of their players were calling out some of our stuff.”

In addition, Steelers cornerback, Sheldon Brown, reportedly said earlier this year that he noticed a difference in New England’s playcalling in the second quarter of the January 27, 2002 AFC Championship game.

(3) Tampa Bay won the August 20, 2000 pre-season game by a score of 31-21. According to the information provided by Matt Walsh, the Patriots used the film to their advantage when they played Tampa Bay in their first regular season game on September 3, 2000. The Patriots narrowed the spread, losing by a score of 21-16. After the game, Charlie Weis, the Patriots’ offensive coordinator, was reportedly overheard telling Tampa Bay’s defensive coordinator, Monte Kiffin, “We knew all your calls, and you still stopped us.”The tapes Walsh turned over to the NFL indicate the Patriots filmed the Dolphins during their game on September 24, 2000, a game the Patriots lost by 10-3.

According to Walsh, when the Patriots first began filming opponents, they filmed opponents they would play again during that same season. The Patriots played the Dolphins again that season on December 24, 2000; they again narrowed the spread, losing by a score of 27-24.

(4) The Patriots filmed opponents offensive signals in addition to defensive signals. On April 23, 2008, the NFL issued a statement indicating that "Commissioner Goodell determined last September that the Patriots had violated league rules by videotaping opposing coaches' defensive signals during Patriots games throughout Bill Belichick's tenure as head coach.” However, the tapes turned over by Matt Walsh contain footage of offensive signals. The tapes turned over to the NFL and the information provided by Walsh proves that the Patriots also routinely filmed opponents’ offensive signals.

(5) Why the Patriots videotaped signals during games when they were not scheduled to play that opponent during the balance of the season unless they were able to utilize the videotape during the latter portion of the same game. The NFL has not addressed the question as to whether the Patriots decoded signals during the game for later use in that game.

III. The NFL’s Investigation was not objective, transparent or adequate

(1) Walsh said that Dan Goldberg, an attorney for the Patriots, was present at his interview and asked questions. With some experience in investigations, I have never heard of a situation where the subject of an investigation or his/her/its representative was permitted to be present during the investigation. I strains credulity that any objective investigator would countenance such a practice. During a hearing or trial, parties will be present with the right of cross-examination and confrontation but certainly not in the investigative stage.

(2) Commissioner Goodell misrepresented the extent of the taping when he said at the super Bowl press conference on February 1, 2008: “I believe there were six tapes, and I believe some were from the pre-season in 2007, and the rest were primarily in the lat 2006 season. In addition, there were notes that had been collected, that I would imagine many teams have from when they scout a team in advance, that we took, that may have been collected by using an illegal activity, according to our rules.” Later, Goodell said of the taping “[W]e think it was quite limited. It was not something that was done on a widespread basis.”

(3) Commissioner Goodell materially changed his story in his meeting with me on February 13, 2008 when he said there has been taping since 2000. (emphasis added).

(4) There has been no plausible explanation as to why Commissioner Goodell imposed the penalty on September 13, 2007, before the NFL examined the tapes on September 17, 2007.

(5) There has been no plausible explanation as to why the NFL destroyed the tapes. Commissioner Goodell sought to explain his reason by saying during his February 1, 2008 press conference that: “We didn’t want there to be any question about whether this existed. If it shows up again, it would have to be something that came outside of our investigation and what I was told existed.”

(7) The overwhelming evidence flatly contradicts Commissioner Goodell’s assertion that there was little or no effect on the outcome of the game: during his February 1, 2008 press conference, Commissioner Goodell stated “I think it probably had a limited effect, if any effect, on the outcome on any game.” Later during the press conference, Goodell stated again “I don’t believe it affected the outcome of any games.” Commissioner Goodell’s effort to minimize the effect of the videotaping is categorically refuted by the persistent use of the sophisticated scheme which required a great deal of effort and produced remarkable results.

(8) In the absence of the notes, which the NFL destroyed, of the Steelers’ three regular season games and two post-season games, including the championship game on January 23, 2005, we do not know what effect the videotaping of the earlier games, especially the October 31, 2004 game, had on enabling the Patriots to win the AFC Championship. It is especially critical that key witnesses (coaches, players) be questioned to determine those issues.

IV. An Objective, Thorough, Transparent Investigation is an Absolute Necessity

There is an unmistakable atmosphere of conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest between what is in the public’s interest and what is in the NFL’s interest. The NFL has good reason to disclose as little as possible in its effort to convince the public that what was done wasn’t so bad, had no significant effect on the games and, in any event, has all been cleaned up. Enormous financial interests are involved and the owners have a mutual self-interest in sticking together. Evidence of winning by cheating would have the inevitable effect of undercutting public confidence in the game and reducing, perhaps drastically, attendance and TV revenues.

The public interest is enormous. Sports personalities are role models for all of us, especially youngsters. If the Patriots can cheat, so can the college teams, so can the high school teams, so can the 6th grader taking a math examination. The Congress has granted the NFL a most significant business advantage, an antitrust exemption, highly unusual in the commercial world. That largesse can continue only if the NFL can prove itself worthy. Beyond the issues of role models and antitrust, America has a love affair with sports. Professional football has topped all other sporting events in fan interest. Americans have a right to be guaranteed that their favorite sport is honestly competitive.

In an extraordinary time, baseball took extraordinary action in turning to a man of unimpeachable integrity – Federal Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis – to act forcefully and decisively to save professional baseball from the Black Sox scandal in 1919.

On this state of the record, an objective, thorough, transparent investigation is necessary. If the NFL does not initiate an inquiry like the investigation conducted by former Senator George Mitchell for baseball, it will be up to Congress to get the facts and take corrective action.

Belichick is Lying

Belichick has tried to explain his videotaping cheating to Commissioner Closeau as a differing “interpretation of the rules.

Yet, as Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) points out,

“The Patriots took elaborate steps to conceal their filming of opponents’ signals. Patriots personnel instructed Walsh to use a “cover story” if anyone questioned him about the filming.

For example, if asked why the Patriots had an extra camera filming, he was instructed to say that he was filming “tight shots” of a particular player or players or that he was filming highlights.

If asked why he was not filming the play on the field, he was instructed to say that he was filming the down marker.

The red light indicating when his camera was rolling was broken.

During at least one game, the January 27, 2002 AFC Championship game, Walsh was specifically instructed not to wear anything displaying a Patriots logo. Walsh indicated he turned the Patriots sweatshirt he was wearing at the time inside-out. Walsh was also given a generic credential instead of one that identified him as team personnel.

These efforts to conceal the filming demonstrate the Patriots knew they were violating NFL rules.”

Not Just the Eagles

Tampa QB Jeff Garcia is unhappy with the status of his contract, halfway into his two year deal. It wasn’t that long ago…wait, it was last year, that the Eagles were slammed for not acceding to Garcia’s contract overtures. It’s seems it just wasn’t the Eagles who are cool to extending the contract of a 38 year old QB.

Specter to the Rescue?

A friend writes:

"I didn't accept Bill Belichick's explanation, and I still don't
today."

So said Goodell at today's presser.

That's an amazing statement. Yet, he's tanking the entire thing.
He won't go into it, won't investigate further. He has set up the
fake straw man of whether or not they "taped" the Rams walk through. And
since there's no tape of the Rams game, case closed.

This is stunning. Specter is my only hope.

NFL Take on Walsh

From the NFL press release:

“The NFL released the tapes Walsh provided, and they didn't show any previously undisclosed rule violations. The clips cut between shots of opposing coaches sending in signals and the play that followed.

"The fundamental information that Matt provided was consistent with what we disciplined the Patriots for last fall," Goodell said at a news conference.”

Really? The league knew the Patriots had taped games as far back as 2000, as Walsh’s tapes prove? The league knew the Patriots taped the Steelers in the 2002 AFC Championship?

The NY Times is reporting that Walsh would hand the tapes over to Belichick confidant Ernie Adams. Says Closeau, "I don't know where else I would turn."

Here's a thought! Maybe the league could rouse itself and bother to interview Mr. Adams, still an employee with the Patriots, about what he did with the tapes he received from Matt Walsh. But given Inspector Closeau’s performance in this entire “investigation,” it’s probably doubtful if such a promising lead were pursued.

Sal Pal to the Rescue

Philadelphia’s own Sal Pal is one of the few sports journalists, and the only one at ESPN, willing to write that Spygate may not come to the quick conclusion both the league and most of its source-dependent scribes seem to wish.

With Matt Walsh meeting with NFL Commissioner Inspector Closeau this morning, Sal Pal writes, “

As far as we know, Walsh is the first person currently with no ties to the Patriots organization with direct knowledge of Belichick's videotaping shenanigans who will be answering the commissioner's questions, and Walsh can provide some much-needed context, background and intent.

Intent is critical. Why? Well, when Belichick was first punished by Goodell in September 2007 for illegally taping the defensive signals of the New York Jets at the Meadowlands, the Patriots' head coach said he had no idea he was doing anything illicit.

Will Roger Goodell finally get to the bottom of Spygate? Only if he puts Matt Walsh on the spot. So, Goodell should pursue a very simple line of questioning to test Belichick's original contention that he was ignorant of the league rules: When Walsh was taping the opponents' sidelines, how much was he told to conceal his activities? What measures were taken to conceal his taping? How concerned were his superiors that what Walsh was doing would be uncovered by a member of the opposing team? Was Walsh worried about getting caught? Why?

What kind of instruction did Walsh get in how to tape the opposition's sideline? Who gave Walsh those instructions? Whom did he report to?

What happened to the tapes? Where did they go? Who analyzed the tapes of the defensive signals? Were there written reports based on the tapes? Who wrote those reports? And, more important, who saw the reports or was told what was in them? Did Tom Brady? Or Charlie Weis, when he was offensive coordinator during the Patriots' run of Super Bowl titles?

What was Walsh told about why this widespread practice of taping the opponents' defensive signals was vital to how the Patriots prepared for an opponent?

These will be difficult questions for Goodell to ask. Why? Because the commissioner has already said publicly many times, dating to September, that he believed the Patriots derived "minimal" benefit from their secret, illegal taping system. Questioning Walsh along those lines may reveal information that contradicts Goodell's earlier conclusions.

But Walsh has already provided some valuable context. In September, the Patriots handed over what Goodell described as "six tapes … from the preseason in 2007 and the rest were primarily late in the 2006 season." Goodell said this at the Super Bowl in Arizona, on Feb. 1, 2008, answering a direct question about how far back the illegal taping went.

Now, it's clear from Walsh's tapes that the illegal taping went back to 2000. When Goodell punished Belichick and the Patriots, did he know the illegal taping went back to 2000? If not, would the punishment have been more severe?

The league clearly wants Walsh's appearance on Tuesday to end the Spygate nightmare. The Patriots certainly do.

King Likes Keeping Lito

Peter King for one, applauds the Eagles for trading their first round pick in the deal they got, but more importantly praises the Eagles for keeping Lito Sheppard.

 

3^rd corners play 57% of defensive snaps, researched King, and that means even if he doesn’t start, Lito will be getting plenty of playing time. Interestingly, that contract he’s not happy about would still be a sizeable payout for a CB that doesn’t start. (though we recognize that given playing time and health, Lito is a pro bowl caliber corner.) I’m just saying.

Spygate "Journalism"

A friend of mine who is a Philadelphia native and reporter for a major national newspaper writes the following regarding Spygate:

 

Stunning!. Seriously, we are witnessing the single greatest conspiracy of our time in this Patriots saga. It's unreal, indescribable. Sadly, the co-conspirators are ESPN.  It's actually the single worst act of journalism I've seen in my lifetime.

 

This guy Walsh is producing video tapes of the Pats-Steelers AFC CHAMPIONSHIP game and people are acting as if this is not a big deal.

 

The Mortensen-ESPN analysis just used the phrase "old news" to refer to what Walsh is turning over.

 

OH MY GOD.

 

This is a full scale corporate coverup. This is what makes "The Insider" happen. It's unreal. The whole thing is unfolding, the Pats dynasty is ending. It's over. They cheated, with every single institutional fiber of their being, from the very moment he arrived as their evil, corrupt coach. Belichick corrupted every single element of his organization.

 

He cheated. He cheated institutionally in a way that no other coach in the history of organized professional sport has ever been found guilty of. It's over. He did it. We now know, without question, he cheated in the very 1st AFC championship game he ever faced. That's it. Lights out.

 

He's evil. Why is the sports media conspiring to downplay this story????? I hate my sports media colleagues. They embarrass me thru their very existence. If you disagree with me it's because you're afraid to step outside the MSM sports media preconceived notion of the world.

 

I hate the world, I hate the sports world I live in. Why is this not the single biggest story in America??????? Go Arlen!

A Whimper?

ESPN's John Clayton exemplifies the blase attitude he and most of his "journalistic" colleagues share about Spygate. Writes Clayton, "Barring strong testimony to the contrary by Matt Walsh on Tuesday, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell probably will close the Spygate scandal and throw away the key," and " Goodell all along has said he would reopen the investigation if new evidence emerged."

Apparently, a new tape of the Patriots filming the Steelers during the AFC championship is no big deal to Clayton. And what of the "investigation." How can new evidence emerge if Goodell isn't bothering to look? Why has he not questioned any of the Patriots players - both offensive and defensive - about how the taped signals were used? Tom Brady couldn't shed some light on the issue? If it really is no big deal, let the Golden Boy publicly explain that. Or how about asking Ted Johnson, Tedy Bruschi or others about how the defense used the tapes.

And what about the coaches? Why haven't Charlie Weis and Romeo Crennel been interviewed? And how about Eric Mangini? He knew enough about the taping to call attention to it, and reveal the cheating. Why has Goodell never asked Mangini what else he knows about how the tapes were used?

Simply incredible.

Un-Patriotic

Former Patriots videographer Matt Walsh has turned over tapes of 8 games in which the Pats illegally taped the opposition. One of those games was the 2002 AFC championship versus the Steelers. There was no tape of any Rams pre-super bowl run through, and Walsh has denied saying he had such a tape or was the source of those reports.

 

One has to wonder if the lack of a smoking gun of a super bowl tape will somehow overshadow the shocking news that Patriots cheated in the AFC championship game. In other words, the game immediately behind the super bowl in importance to the league.

 

If the Patriots forfeited a first round draft pick and half million dollar fines for taping regular season games, it boggles the mind to think what the potential punishment could be for cheating in a playoff game – and again, not a crappy wild card round game, but the freakin’ AFC championship. (Does it add insult to injury that the infraction occurred in the House that Rooney Built?)

 

And it will also be interesting to see if what the Pats previously turned over matches with what Walsh has provided. If not, Kraft and Belichick will have some explaining to do. And if they did, then NFL Commissioner Inspector Closeau will have to explain why he wasn’t more forthcoming about the Patriots’ cheating in a playoff game. As always, the cover up may become worse than the crime.

Take Your Pick

The just concluded minicamp has allowed everyone to try to get a read on Donovan McNabb and his opinion of the team’s off season personnel moves, and whether the Eagles got the “playmakers” he was seeking (on both sides of the ball).

 

There appears to be a difference of opinion in gauging McNabb’s feelings. So which of these local news headlines is to be believed? Is it:

 

McNabb, Westbrook Have No Complaints

 

McNabb Shows Little Excitement Over Upgrades

 

McNabb Not Displeased by Eagles’ Moves

 

Like I said, take your pick.

 

And in a previous post, I harkened to the days of Kremlinologists analyzing every utterance and appearance of the Soviet leadership for signs of what was happening inside the secretive government. So too, it seems, are we in a similar observation phase with the Eagles, their coaches, and star players.

Playmaker

Very encouraging observations about DeSean Jackson from an AFC Scout about the impact he will have with the Eagles, even if it is only as a punt returner. Here’s a sample: “He may not be the biggest guy, but he plays big. He's fast and he's quick. On top of all that, I think he's going to get [up] to about 180, 185 pounds when he's all said and done."

Kremlin Watch at NovaCare

Looks like the Lito Sheppard situation has evolved into a "Kremlin-watch" where observers try to discern who is in and who is out based on proximity to the reviewing stand, party boss (head coach), etc.  based on this Inqy report.

"What the Eagles did on this day was rotate Sheppard in at both left cornerback and right cornerback. Sometimes Samuel would be on the field with the first-team defense and sometimes Sheppard would replace him. One time, the two even slapped hands as Sheppard returned to the field and Samuel left. Other times, Sheppard went in for his close friend Sheldon Brown at right cornerback and shared the field with Samuel.

At no time did any of the three run with the second-team defense."

April Losses Don't Bring Pennants

"I think you can lose pennants in April," said O'Dowd. "I don't think you can win them, but you can definitely lose them. Go back historically and look at teams that got nine games back in April and still [finished first]. You won't find many."

 

Yep, just ask the Phillies of the past few years. And by the way, congrats to the Phightin’s for finishing April with a winning record…for a change.