INDIANAPOLIS — Gene Upshaw would have a unique perspective on the cheating allegations against the New England Patriots.
A former Oakland Raiders tough guy and currently the politically savvy NFL union boss, Upshaw implied the Patriots may have gotten way more undeserved competitive advantage from the “tuck rule” than they ever could from Spygate.
At the NFL scouting combine last week, Upshaw’s competitive juices seemed to molt into skull and crossbones after he was asked if he had ever encountered a more egregious, underhanded tactic than videotaping opposing defensive coaching signals.
“Don’t start me with that one,” Upshaw said. “I happened to play in some games where you have to wonder. I was in the game with the Broncos in which Rob Lytle fumbled the ball at the 1-yard line and the official said it wasn’t a fumble, he was down.”
Besides the Broncos’ first AFC championship victory in 1977, Upshaw went on to rail about other injustices he had personally suffered as a Raider. The Immaculate Reception. The incomplete pass that was instead ruled a fumbled lateral against Joe Namath’s New York Jets in the 1968 AFL championship game.
“The (gosh darn) tuck rule happened against the Raiders,” Upshaw said in regards to Tom Brady’s nonfumble in a 2001 AFC playoff game. “You can go on and on and on. I don’t even want to start down that road.”
Spygate? Yes, it broke a rule, Upshaw said. Harsh punishment was levied. But otherwise, Upshaw believes the illicit taping — including reports the Patriots spied on the St. Louis Rams’ walk-through before the Super Bowl in the “tuck rule” postseason of 2001, an allegation NFL commissioner Roger Goodell continues to investigate — has been overblown.
“I don’t care how many tapes (Patriots coach Bill) Belichick could have had, there’s no way you could ever account for Eli Manning getting out of that sack and then throwing the ball and (David) Tyree catching the ball at the top of his helmet,” Upshaw said. “There’s nothing on a tape that’s going to stop that from happening. It comes down to execution.
“I hear them talking about that St. Louis game. Kurt Warner fumbled the ball at the 1-yard line. Critics say, ‘Well, (the Patriots) were in the right position.’ Yeah, but he still fumbled the ball. My biggest concern when you start talking about these tapes, it’s almost like the players’ play doesn’t count. It does.”
Heart of the matter
In NFL circles, many have come to dismiss Spygate and Spygate II as Upshaw has: Even if the allegations are true, any Patriots advantage was minimal.
Such thinking flabbergasts Mike Martz. He was the Rams’ head coach in 2001, when the Pats pulled off one of the four biggest upsets in Super Bowl history (the others were the Jets over the Colts in 1969, the Broncos over the Packers in 1998 and Giants over the Pats three weeks ago).
What offends Martz isn’t the potential advantage gained but the de-emphasis of the act. Would an armed bank robber be found not guilty because there was no more than a $10 bill in the vault?
“I don’t think the point is ever whether they got something out of it,” Martz said. “For somebody to say that is rather disgusting. The whole point is whether they cheated or not, isn’t it?”
At its news conference during the combine last week, members of the league’s competition committee nearly fell over each other while praising Goodell for his swift and decisive action against the Patriots when Belichick was caught illegally taping the Jets’ defensive signals in the opening game of the 2007 season.
But what about the possibility the Pats taped the Rams’ walk-through?
“I never saw anything like that,” said Cleveland head coach Romeo Crennel, who was the Pats’ defensive coordinator in 2001. “All we did was coach football and win football games. The commissioner has taken care of it. He’s investigating it and if he’s found anything he would take action. And he hasn’t taken any action so that implies there’s nothing wrong.”
But Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., is miffed at Goodell for destroying those illicit tapes and notes from the investigation. Specter wonders if the Patriots illegally obtained covert information that helped beat two teams in his constituency — the Pittsburgh Steelers in the 2004 AFC championship game and the Philadelphia Eagles in the 2004 Super Bowl.
Goodell said he destroyed the tapes partly because he was satisfied the matter was closed but mostly because one of the ill-gotten tapes was leaked to the press.
Game is what counts
If only the case would close.
It has recently been divulged Matt Walsh, a former Patriots video staffer, might have a tape of the Rams’ Super Bowl walk-through. The NFL is currently negotiating with Walsh, who is seeking lawsuit protection in exchange for his testimony and evidence.
Meanwhile, the Patriots have tried to distance themselves from their former video conspirator, with Belichick saying he “couldn’t pick Matt Walsh out of a lineup,” and general manager Scott Pioli saying he fired Walsh in 2003 because he was secretly recording phone conversations.
Even if Walsh has a tape of the Rams’ Super Bowl walk-through, expect Belichick and the Patriots to say they never authorized it and never saw it. Then what?
“You start talking, do we put an asterisk?” Upshaw said. “Are we going to take the game away? Do we make the Patriots give back their ring and Lombardi Trophy? No. It comes down to the execution of the game, and it’s unfair to those players — on both sides of the ball, for the Rams and the Patriots. You still have to go out and block and tackle and catch.”
Upshaw may have a point. But with the integrity of fair competition at stake, Roger Clemens may not be the last sports celebrity to visit Capitol Hill.
“I guess when I hear people say it didn’t affect it, well, it probably didn’t,” Martz said. “Who knows, it probably didn’t affect it at all. But that’s really not the point now, is it?”
Mike Klis: 303-954-1055 or mklis@denverpost.com
