So, can we actually get back to talking about football now?
Few jobs could be more enjoyable than covering an NFL team, at least for those of us without the talent to actually play for an NFL team.
Add in getting a chance to witness history last year with the league's first unbeaten regular season in a 16-game campaign paced by a record-breaking offensive juggernaut, then followed by one of the greatest upsets in Super Bowl history, and the 2007 Patriots' season should have been a reporter's dream.
Instead, the wonders on the field too often took a backseat to the intrigue off it after the Pats were caught videotaping the Jets' defensive signals from the sidelines at the Meadowlands in Week 1.
More than eight months later, the so-called Spygate scandal remains the top topic in the football world, culminating in the long-awaited meeting between NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and former Pats employee Matt Walsh yesterday morning in New York.
Walsh helped keep the scandal alive with his ambiguous comments hinting at further illicit activities during his time with the club, offenses that could bring down even more sanctions on the Pats beyond the unprecedented toll of $750,000 in fines and the loss of a first-round draft pick levied against New England last September.
After speaking with Goodell for more than three hours yesterday, Walsh proved that you can talk a long time without actually saying anything. Walsh offered nothing new. No smoking gun, no evidence of any tape of the Rams' walkthrough prior to Super Bowl XXXVI, nothing to further taint any of New England's three championships this decade.
"The fundamental information that was provided today is consistent with what we knew last September," said Goodell.
Apparently, Walsh just didn't know that the Pats had already copped to taping signals throughout Bill Belichick's head coaching tenure in Foxboro.
"(Walsh) did not feel that it was well known publicly that the taping had gone back to 2000," said Goodell. "He felt there was not enough knowledge of that and that was what he referenced."
So if no further indictments of the Pats were forthcoming, why exactly has this all been dragged out for eight-plus months?
Part of it has to due with the nature of our culture. Scandal sells, and too many people revel in tearing down public figures.
That certainly appeared the goal of many in the media, both nationally and locally. The media has a duty to investigate and hold public figures accountable for misdeeds. But in this case, the role of watchdog often morphed into a witchhunt.
And Belichick makes for an easy target. He's surly and curt, at least in front of the cameras and microphones. He treats press conferences like tooth extractions, largely avoids the one-on-one interviews most of his counterparts around the league give out and guards the flow of information from his organization the way Homeland Security wishes it could secure the border.
Does that make him a bad guy? That's impossible to say, since he doesn't let down his guard enough to truly gauge him. Does it make him a bad coach? Absolutely not. His track record speaks for itself, though many have tried to use this ongoing scandal to tarnish that record.
In truth, even Goodell admitted he couldn't quantify just how much of an advantage New England may have gained from the tapes. The issue wasn't even with the stealing of signals - long an accepted part of the game's chess match - but simply with how the Pats tried to do it.
"According to NFL policy, it is permissible to scout people's coaching signals," said Goodell. "And as you know, clubs go to great lengths to protect those. They change them frequently. They change them during the game. So I think the teams are sophisticated enough to know that that's a possibility and they go to great lengths to address that."
And no one should be naive enough to think the Pats are the only club willing to bend, or break, a few rules for a competitive edge.
"Every team in the league is trying to do everything they can to get ahead," said former Pats quarterback Drew Bledsoe while visiting Foxboro last week. "I'm sure most if not all of them are bending the rules in some shape or form. This just happened to be one that was very public and obviously the organization has been reprimanded for it. ... To be honest, it's really not that big a deal."
Goodell obviously disagreed, but does appear to think that Bledsoe might be correct on the widespread nature of the rule-breaking. He admitted his harsh punishment of the Pats was meant as a message to the entire league.
"I think it was appropriate," said Goodell of the punishment. "I think it was unprecedented, which it should be. I think it sent a loud and clear message not only to the Patriots but to every club to play by the rules."
Here's hoping that it's just finally time to get back to playing, period. Senator Arlen Specter, who postponed his press conference to today after meeting with Walsh later in the afternoon yesterday, may try to prolong the misery, but at least Goodell appears ready to wrap up the inquest.
"I think as I stand before you today, and having met with Matt Walsh and over 50 other people, I don't know where else I would turn," said Goodell.
How about back to the field? There's a pretty good team in Foxboro worth watching.
(Douglas Flynn covers the Patriots for the Daily News. He can be reached at dflynn@cnc.com or 508-626-4405.)
