#Deflategate and #Spygate: Lawsuits, leakers, players

ESPN’s bombshell linking New England Patriots’ coach Bill Belichik’s Spygate and quarterback Tom Brady’s Deflategate has several sidebars to it.

One, from outside the league, is, is there any chance of lawsuits?

One could conceivably come from either a Vegas or a non-Vegas sports book, convinced it lost money on point spreads on some games. Given the duration and depth of the spying, more than previously known (outside of the Boston Globe reporting the Patriots had spied on a St. Louis Rams 2002 Super Bowl walk-through practice, then the NFL forcing a retraction, even though that appears to have been true), I’m sure major sports book companies can find all sorts of game to look at.

Starting with that one.

Per Vegas, the Rams were a 14-point favorite in an expected 53-point total. Actual final, as NFL fans know? Patriots 20, Rams 17.

And, about that game, and the filming of a Rams' pre-game walk-through, we know, as largely reported before:

During the walk-through, the Rams had also practiced some of their newly designed red zone plays. When they ran the same plays late in the Super Bowl's fourth quarter, the Patriots' defense was in position on nearly every down. On one new play, quarterback Kurt Warner rolled to his right and turned to throw to Marshall Faulk in the flat, where three Patriots defenders were waiting. On the sideline, Rams coach Mike Martz was stunned. He was famous for his imaginative, unpredictable plays, and now it was as if the Patriots knew what was coming on plays that had never been run before. The Patriots' game plan had called for a defender to hit Faulk on every down, as a means of eliminating him, but one coach who worked with an assistant on that 2001 Patriots team says that the ex-Pats assistant coach once bragged that New England knew exactly what the Rams would call in the red zone. "He'd say, 'A little birdie told us,'" the coach says now.

Sounds more than just a bit suspicious.

Or, let’s say a centimillionaire or higher rent guy is a big NFL fantasy sports fan, and has played in leagues with serious betting. Is he going to sue for losses?

And ... in a civil suit, there's no Fifth Amendment to plead.

The second is from inside the league.

Thinking like a journalist (rather than thinking like a pot-stirrer regarding a potential Vegas suit), the big question is:

Who started leaking to ESPN and why?

Is it the same (anonymous) owner who called the original Deflategate decision a make-good, and now feels HE got burned? (That said, per the tail end of the ESPN piece, other owners had similar sentiment.) Does the attempt to call John Mara in as a mediator last week make it less, or more, likely, that it's him?

It could be one of those disgruntleds, but which one? 

Or, could it be ...

Stan Kroenke, trying to get leverage to move the Rams back to Los Angeles? Even though a lot of fellow owners reportedly dislike him? Or, maybe precisely because a lot of fellow owners dislike him? Obviously, as owner of the Rams, he’s got a direct connection on the story. And, as 2002 Super Bowl loser, even as Vegas had things pegged totally differently, he has leverage, too. (Meanwhile, he becomes more loathed by the day in St. Louis. Even though the city and/or county may shell out for his every stadium demand and more at end.)

Let's say Kroenke knows even more, because at this point, there may well be an "even more" still lurking. He threatens to drop that other shoe ... or sue, the league, Goodell, AND Kraft and the Patriots, knowing Goodell once was, until Deflategate, Kraft's fair-haired boy who shielded Kraft and the Pats during Deflategate.

Kroenke's price for silence? A guaranteed 75 percent of owners supporting his move to LA, no matter what.

Meanwhile, back to the 2002 Super Bowl ...

Is the #Belichick era closing in New England?

Two assistant coaches leaving the team. One, Pepper Johnson, on that first link, unhappy he didn't get to move up to defensive coordinator. The other to leave, O-line coach Dante Scarnecchia, takes 30 years with the club off the table.

Tom Brady likely on his contract before retiring, although maybe he'd like some post-Belichick time, and, with four years left, could have that happen. But that's not likely. I doubt Belichick will retire before Brady does.

Belichick going off half-cocked on Wes Welker, as I blogged about here.

Don't get me wrong, he's been a great coach. But, like Phil Jackson and Tony LaRussa, maybe he's hit his expiration date.

And, for that matter, the Patriots probably have an expiration date, too. No telling how good, or not, Vince Wilfork is next year. Even if Aqib Talib is healthy, they still have a thin secondary. And, he's not totally young, in NFL years, for a cornerback anymore.

Losing your O-line coach, the one who's been there more than a decade, won't help the vaunted rushing game. Nor pass protection. And, speaking of passing ...

Post-Welker, post-Aaron Hernandez, and an iffy Rob Gronkowski, Brady has a thin receiving corps.

That said, let's not blame all of his overthrows in the Broncos game on his receiving cast, although he kind of went there himself. Albeit on a worse weather day, Brady had plenty of miscues the week before. And in the last couple of weeks of the regular season.

At least they were overthrows, so Pats fans know his arm isn't near to being shot.

Unless he was overcompensating.

Seriously, throw out game-winning drives this year (which mean you were behind in the first place), and Brady's been on a steady decline for several years. Throwing out his one-game injury season of 2008, he had a sub-90 season quarterback rating for the first time since 2003. And, while a fair amount of that may be blamable on all of the above issues plus a run-heavy offense, is all of it?

Meanwhile?

Miami will be hungry after this year's playoff near miss, and Ryan Tannehill will be better with experience. Ditto on Geno Smith in New York. (I think. If he can get worse, the Jets are in a lot of trouble.)

And, if Brady is aging, and all of these other things, maybe Belichick won't stick for four more years after all. If the Pats had won it all this year, an imminent retirement wouldn't have surprised me.

Bill Belichick, sore loser — the truth grows larger

Hey, most pro football fans who live outside Bill Simmons' former ZIP code and stomping grounds already know this.

But, one comment of his after the New England Patriots lost to the Denver Broncos on Sunday only shows just how bad this is.

Belichick claims that Broncos wideout Wes Welker, a Patriot for the previous six years before leaving for Denver after a bitter free-agent contract dispute, deliberately took out Aqib Talib with his first-half block, and that it was dirty.

First, pick play blocks in general aren't illegal; it's a judgment call.

Second, it's close, yes, but Demaryius Thomas had touched the ball before Welker hit Talib, from the way I see it. And, even if Welker got there early, a penalty for a personal foul due to bad timing still isn't the same as dirty play.

As ESPN notes, Pats players were warning each other about the pick block before Welker threw it.

Third, the idea that a guy who had two concussions this year, and is wearing a special helmet to prevent another, is not just going to throw a block, but one that risks a third concussion to take out Talib is ridiculous.

And, maybe Welker's leaving the Pats was about more than Bob Kraft lowballing him on a contract:

In 2012, Welker took a sarcastic jab at Belichick when his production skyrocketed following a slow start to the season, saying, "It's kind of nice to stick it in Bill's face once in a while."

After choosing to sign with the Broncos, Welker said in a Sports Illustrated report that he had to "endure" Belichick during his time in New England.

Bill, it was a hard, legal block. And, Welker just stuck it in your face.

Plus, if that's a designed block for after the ball is caught, technically, it's not a pick play at all.

Don't get me wrong about Belichick the coach. He knows his X's and O's, and per the likes of Talib, knows personnel evaluation, and how to pick other people off the scrap heap.

Besides, he's lost some degree of moral credibility ever since Spygate. And, I didn't even mention Aaron Hernandez, did I?

Doorknob, Belichick will be insufferable if  or when the Pats win another Super Bowl on his watch.

Get rid of the extra point? Or add a new "extra point"?

Get rid of the extra point? Or do something with it?

Pretty interesting piece here from NBC. Not sure which change I favor, but, in line with New England Patriot head coach Bill Belichick, I do favor some change. And, about any change would, per modern analytic football, make going for two more valuable yet. That said, per NBC's offerings, if you forced me to support one idea, I'd say put the extra-point conversion line at the 20. It makes an extra point somewhat less valuable, plus makes a blocked extra point a bit more likely to be returned by the other team for a point the other way.

That said, speaking of points, here's a change I'd like to see in the NFL, both coming from our friends up north.

Even with the smaller end zone, per Belichick's comment on special teams in general, allow the CFL's rouge point for punts the defense touches down in the end zone. Instead of coffin corner kicks, you'd want a boomer. And, would give coaches yet another strategy on fourth and 3 from the opponent 40. Now, instead of kicking a 57-yard field goal, going for it, or punting to try to down it inside the 10, punt to try to down it in the end zone.

Related to that, it would stimulate more quick kicks on some third and long plays.

That said, per CFL rouge rules, when the "single" is scored, the touchback comes to the 35, not the 20. If the NFL kept that part, too, it would force more of a gamble vs. coffin corner punts.

Unlike Canada, though, I wouldn't count it on missed field goals. And, because of the shorter U.S. field, I wouldn't count it on kickoffs. I might even tweak the CFL rule on touchbacks on punt rouges to put them at the 20 instead of the 35. It would still be an added twist to the U.S. game.

Speaking of, what about putting men in forward motion before the snap and allowing multiple shifts?

Bye-bye Belichick and hello Vegas lawsuits?

Advance word on the Matt Walsh-Roger Goodell tete-a-tete today suggests that the New England Patriots not only DID tape other teams’ offensive signals in 2000-2002 (the story forgets to mention Super Bowl XXXVI opponent Los Angeles Rams, taped in a week-11 2001 regular season game), but were analyzing signals, based on game action of the ensuing play being spliced with signals.

From what I’m hearing, Goodell has enough goods to lower the boom on Belichick hard enough for at least a suspension.

And, I think he has to.

Question is, since the NFL does not have an antitrust exemption, unlike Major League Baseball, is the league now open to a shitstorm of lawsuits for fraud, false advertising, etc? And, I’m not just talking about Joe Fan, either.

What about Vegas sports houses?

I mean, if any of the games we know the Pats taped had results that were way off the book numbers on W/L, spread, over-under, etc., we’re talking millions of dollars, potentially.

Beyond that, the irony of sports bookmakers suing the NFL would probably be lost on Goodell as he tore out his hair.

I’ll have more on this later, as it becomes more clear what all Walsh revealed.

Free polls from Pollhost.com

Is Belichick lying about not taping offensive signals of other teams?

Yes No

Spygate – Pats partially off the hook

Former New England Patriots assistant coach Matt Walsh did not have any info on the Pats taping the St. Louis Rams’ pre-game walk-through at the 2002 Super Bowl, but did have info about the Pats taping regular-season games in 2000-2002. That includes new revelations that Pats head coach Bill Belichick has denied in the past:

While the tapes reportedly include recordings of opponents' offensive signals, an NFL official cited in today's Hartford Courant said Belichick did not admit to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell that the team taped offensive signals. Belichick had previously admitted to taping opponents' defensive signals.

And Greg Aiello is speaking the party line for Goodell, it appears:

“This is consistent with that the Patriots had admitted they had been doing, consistent with what we already knew,” Aiello, the NFL’s senior vice president of public relations, told the Associated Press.

Sounds like pretty thin ice for Belichick. Given that all the games that Walsh has allegations on occurred before the Patriots’ first Super Bowl victory, even if the Rams’ walk-around wasn’t taped, Belichick is not close to being totally off the hook.

Unfortunately, Dillon appears to be swallowing Aiello’s line as well. Referencing Aiello’s comment, he says:

In other words, the NFL isn’t expecting to discover anything it doesn’t already know.

Well, Dennis, expectations can be wrongly focused as well as set too high.

And, you just have what we know so far. Walsh still has a meeting scheduled with Roger the Dodger May 13. He also has one scheduled with Sen. Arlen Specter, who’s been pushing the league on this because his Philly Iggles lost to the Pats three years ago.

That leads me to repost this old poll:

Free polls from Pollhost.com

Is Bill Belichck, regardless of whether any legal action is ever actually pursued

Criminally guilty of "stealing a trade secret"? Civilly liable for depriving Kurt Warner of earnings? Neither

And to offer this new one:

Free polls from Pollhost.com

Is Belichick lying about not taping offensive signals of other teams?

Yes No

Bill Belichick says ‘move along nothing here’ on Spygate

New England Patriots head coach Bill Belichick continues to insist there is nothing further to be uncovered about Spygate.

“I think they’ve addressed everything they possibly can address. … We addressed so many questions so many times from so many people I don’t know what else the league could ask.”

Considering NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is moving at tortoise pace on offering an immunity deal to former Pats assistant coach/video gofer Matt Walsh, we of course have no way of knowing if what Belichick claims is true. Goodell confirmed for the first time that the NFL spoke again with Belichick and other Patriots employees after the Super Bowl.

“We followed up on other things because certain things had been tossed out.”

Walsh, through his lawyer, Michael Levy, has been negotiating with the NFL for legal protection, from lawsuits by the Pats or the league, to come forward to talk. Levy and the league reported three weeks ago that they were close to an agreement to do that, but talks have been sporadic since, the story notes.

Meanwhile, the Belichick spin-o-meter continues to run at full tilt:

“I barely knew Matt Walsh. He was hired before I became the coach.”

He conceded he should have contacted Ray Anderson, the NFL’s vice president for football operations, after a memo from Anderson in 2006 that laid down the specifications for intelligence gathering.

“What I should have done … I should have called the league and asked for a clarification,” he said. “That was my mistake.”

He said that in one respect, Spygate did the Patriots a favor.

“We’ve taken it as a positive and reorganized our operations to make sure a situation like this never comes up again,” he said. “Our operation is more efficient, more streamlined. Look at the results of this season. That would confirm it.”

Well, then, does the loss to the Giants disprove anything?




That said, it’s time to once again run our “if Kurt Warner sues the Patriots” poll:

Free polls from Pollhost.com

If Kurt Warner sues, he should get

Nothing $100,000 $500,000 $1 million $2-3 million $4-5 million more

Spygate lawsuit: I was RIGHT (updated)

The New England Patriots are being sued for allegedly taping the St. Louis Rams’ final walk-through practice

It’s just not Kurt Warner filing the suit, however, but former Ram Willie Gray. And, he wants $100 million from the Pats, owner Bob Kraft and Spygatemaster Bill Belichick.

Well, Willie, Warner, while he might be entitled to $4-5 million, ain’t entitled to $100 million. You might be entitled to the difference between the losers’ and winners’ share of Super Bowl money, and a tip from Warner for breaking the ice, but that’s about it.

Update: Gray accused the Patriots of fraud, unfair trade practices and engaging in a “pattern of racketeering.” Three fans joined in the suit.

Feb. 19, Hugh Campbell, the Cincinnati lawyer who filed Gary’s suit, said he wanted to add at least two new classes to the action: all employees and players of all NFL teams who were illegally videotaped by the Pats, plus all fans who bought tickets to any game that the Pats illegally taped. He also said he wanted to join with Sen. Arlen Specter, R.-Pa., who also is looking into the allegations.


Once again, I offer the Kurt Warner lawsuit poll;

If Kurt Warner sues, he should get
	Nothing
	$100,000
	$500,000
	$1 million
	$2-3 million
	$4-5 million
	more
Free polls from Pollhost.com

Irony Alert: Pats Spygate taping gofer fired for — spying!!!

Meanwhile, Belichick goes spinmeister on Spygate

When an article like this starts with the claim from New England Patriots Coach, Bill Belichick, Coach Genius™, about former Pats videotaper Matt Walsh, that “he couldn’t pick him out of a line-up,” you know it’s time to put on your hip boots early.

Pats director of player personnel Scott Pioli piles on, claiming Walsh was fired for… wait for it… tape recording conversations he had with Pioli. I guess Walsh either didn’t learn the subtleties of audio tape espionage from Coach Genius™, or else BellyCheck isn’t as good a spymeister as he’d have us believe.

Otherwise, Coach Genius™ doesn’t sound very repentant.

First, he stick by his story when first caught, claiming his actions were within NFL rules as he interprets them. Second, on a 0-100 scale, he claims to have gotten at most one point of benefit.

He also categorically denied taping the St. Louis Rams’ last walk-through before Super Bowl XXXVI, and added that he never taped a walk-through, period, as head or assistant coach.

Specter: Goodell admits Pats’ spying goes back to 2000

So, the New England Patriots were already surreptitiously taping opponents back in 2000; lemme see, that would be BEFORE the 2002 Super Bowl win over the Rams, would it not?

Paging Kurt Warner…. Paging Kurt Warner. You got a good tort lawyer, Kurt?

If Kurt Warner sues, he should get
	Nothing
	$100,000
	$500,000
	$1 million
	$2-3 million
	$4-5 million
	more
Free polls from Pollhost.com

Bill Belichick, Kurt Warner, criminal liability and civil suits

As I blogged here earlier, Bill Belichick may have violated federal law if the Patriots videotaped the St. Louis Rams’ final walk-through practice before the 2002 Super Bowl. (The Economic Espionage Act, signed into law in 1996, criminalizes theft of “trade secrets,” which the Rams’ signals might or might not be.)

Would Belichick, other Patriots’ coaches, owner Robert Craft or the Patriots as a corporation be prosecuted if this is true? That’s a toughie.

Neither NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell nor the Rams would ever prefer charges. The feds would probably leave the case alone if Congress were satisfied Goodell had done enough to come clean and clean up.

Could an individual, i.e. former Rams quarterback Kurt Warner, prefer charges? Since the stolen trade secret the law covers would have to be considered as belonging to the St. Louis Rams as a team and not Warner as an individual, I’d have to say no.

On the other hand, Warner’s already mentioned loss of earnings from not winning back-to-back Super Bowls. Does he have grounds to sue?

I’d say, “Hell, yes.”

Next question is, is this a state or federal suit? I’m sure Warner would love to have a state suit tried in Missouri, since that’s where he potentially lost most his earnings, other than the Super Bowl itself (New Orleans was the site of 2002’s Super Bowl XXXVI),. Belichick would probably want it in federal court if at all possible, in large part because federal civil juries require unanimity in civil as well as criminal cases, and federal juries often, though not always, tend to have a higher view of “preponderance of evidence.” (I’ve been trying some Google terms, but I don’t know if Missouri is unanimous, 11-1 or 10-2 on civil suits. I’ll take any help I can get.)

Whether a state-level suit could be moved to Louisiana (New Orleans was the sitge of 2002’s Super Bowl XXXVI), especially if Belichick couldn’t get it moved to federal court, is a more open question. (Look up where 2002 SB played, then that state’s rules, whether 10-2 or 11-1, on civil cases.)

And, there’s a lot of dinero involved here, should Warner sue.

That ranges from the small-dollar stuff, such as the different between winners’ and losers’ Super Bowl payouts, to big-dollar stuff.

That would include Warner’s worth as a quarterback after winning back-to-back Super Bowls rather than just one, lost commercial endorsements, lost speaking engagements, lost value of Kurt Warner merchandise such as his personal cut on No. 13 Rams jerseys, and even longer-term lost moneys such as if back-to-back Super Bowl wins wouldn’t get him into the NFL Hall of Fame. (No two-time Super Bowl-winning quarterback, especially one who won back to back, who is eligible for the HOF is not in there.)
That, then, goes to related tort issues, such as loss of reputation.

All of this leads to two sets of questions.

Is Bill Belichick, regardless of whether legal action is ever actually pursued

Criminally guilty of "stealing a trade secret"?Civilly liable for depriving Kurt Warner of earnings?Neither

Free polls from Pollhost.com

If Kurt Warner sues, he should get

Nothing$100,000$500,000$1 million$2-3 million$4-5 millionmore

Free polls from Pollhost.com

Did Bill Belichick break federal law with ‘Spygate’?

Now that the mask is coming off Coach Genius™, this, is hilarious if it has any possibility of being true:

As the media, the NFL and Congress commence the process of determining whether a video employee fired five years ago can prove the Patriots' video operation went far enough to potentially compromise the outcome of an NFL championship, a possibility exists that the federal government will launch an investigation into whether the Patriots took any action that violated the Economic Espionage Act.

Signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996, the Economic Espionage Act makes the theft of trade secrets a federal offense. Without getting into the nuts and bolts of the applicable legal mumbo-jumbo, 18 U.S.C. § 1832 makes it a criminal act to steal, take, carry away or obtain by fraud or deception what 18 U.S.C § 1839 defines as a “trade secret.”

I’m picturing Belichick and NFL Commish Roger Goodell’s worst nightmare: Patrick Fitzgerald being the prosecuting attorney on this baby.

Update: A friend of mine pooh-poohs this issue with the rhetorical statement of, “So stealing the third base coach's signs are now federal violations?”

No, of course not, but that’s an apples-and-oranges comparison.

Major League Baseball has no internal rules about stealing signs.

The NFL, though, DOES have rules about what you can, and cannot tape, of other teams. From there, it’s an easy argument that the NFL considers signals and other information picked up illicitly to be “trade secrets.”
That’s especially true if the allegations about the Pats’ taping the Rams last walk-through before the 2002 Super Bowl are true, being in advance of the game itself. Because, in this case, as opposed to in-game taping, the Pats would have had time in advance to adjust their defense to the Rams’ offense.

Or, on the civil side, what if Kurt Warner decides to sue Belichick (and the actual videotaper) for loss of income, loss of reputation, etc. What if he names Goodell and the NFL as co-conspirators?

Irony alert: Bill Belichick, coaching genius

The New England Patriots’ head coach has a reputation as a gridiron genius.

So, I want to know why the genius went for it on fourth and long, I repeat long, specifically, fourth and 13, from the New York Giants’ 31 in the second quarter rather than trying a 48-yard field goal. Your kicker, Stephen Gostkowski, had a season long of 52 yards.

Last I checked, coach genius, the scoreboard hadn’t changed. You still lost, 17-14, or by the margin of a field goal.

Knowing that Brady’s ankle wasn’t 100 percent, knowing what the Giants’ defense was doing, and seeing how tight the game was, I’d have to say this was one of the bigger coaching wrong choices in Super Bowl history, albeit with a bit of hindsight.

However, I said at the time that I didn’t get why Coach Genius was going for it.

Oh, and why was Brady not being told to roll out (or not making that decision for himself), at least on occasion, long before the final drive of the game?

Oh, and let me throw Coach Genius under the bus a little bit more.

With it obvious the Pats were having trouble with pass protection from the O-line alone, did you consider two-tight-end sets to chip block Giant D-ends, or catch outside blitzers? Fullback Heath Evans playing some time as a blitz blocking back? Kevin Faulk staying in the backfield to block more?

ESPN fans, as of the time of this post, rated “pass protection” as the No. 1 reason the Pats lost. But, isn’t some of that pass protection blamable on coaching?

The New England Patriots’ head coach has a reputation as a gridiron genius.