CelticsStrong
Other Discussions => Other / General Sports => Patriots / Football => Topic started by: JSD on January 20, 2015, 11:47:47 PM
-
Thoughts on this?
Apparently 11 out of the 12 balls presented by the patriots were under inflated.
-
Deflategate?
-
All sides of this are dumb. Dumb for doing it and dumb for making a big deal of it.
-
I guess these footballs need to be presented to referees who then give their stamp of approval. Afterwards they're set aside for the game. So the question is, were these balls presented as is and approved, or were they deflated afterwards?
That's what's going to matter because then it's on the refs.
-
Even if New England deflated the footballs, the league is going to have a difficult time proving it. I mean, is there video footage of the equipment manager taking air out of them? Do they expect a signed confession from Belichick?
I still say it was the cold weather. And I also say this is much ado about nothing. No one batted an eyelash when Aaron Rodgers admitted to preferring footballs that are overinflated. There was no investigation into that.
And I'm going to make a prediction: If the Pats win the Super Bowl, there WILL be another scandal, another "fill in the blank"-gate. And if the Pats lose, there will conveniently be no issues brought forth by the media.
-
I guess these footballs need to be presented to referees who then give their stamp of approval. Afterwards they're set aside for the game. So the question is, were these balls presented as is and approved, or were they deflated afterwards?
That's what's going to matter because then it's on the refs.
Nah. Then the storyline would be, "The Patriots paid off the refs to allow deflated footballs."
-
Hoping this picture comes up
(http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=75779.0;attach=5753)
-
Wow... After 7 years here on this forum, I just learned a new trick to uploading a picture quickly.
-
All sides of this are dumb. Dumb for doing it and dumb for making a big deal of it.
This. Just a stupid situation.
-
Boo...hoo... more sore losers. Time to add Seahawks to the list next. They will complain about something else guaranteed!
-
In any sport its up to the referee to check the ball to make sure its regulation. Ultimately it comes down to the refs failing to do their job - a recurring theme with the NFL. The fact that there was gamesmanship going on...so what. It's part of the sport and always has been.
-
The refs underinflated only the Patriots' share of footballs by two whole pounds each but all of the Colts' footballs were just fine?
I don't think so.
Time for Pats fans to stop making excuses. This clearly had no impact on the outcome of the game -- the Pats whooped the Colts and deserved to win. But to go as far as to suggest that they are completely innocent in this clear act of cheating is extremely biased and continues to discredit the Pats any time they are accused of cheating from here on out.
-
In any sport its up to the referee to check the ball to make sure its regulation. Ultimately it comes down to the refs failing to do their job - a recurring theme with the NFL. The fact that there was gamesmanship going on...so what. It's part of the sport and always has been.
The refs did check the balls, it is quite obvious that they were toyed with after they had been approved by the officiating crew. To further point out how asinine your comment is, it only took a few plays for the refs to realize that something was wrong with the footballs and they were immediately substituted in with properly inflated balls.
-
Actually they played the entire first half with the deflated balls. The issue wasn't raised till Brady threw the INT late in half. An official handles the ball before every single play so this went on for an entire half without anyone noticing.
-
A few things:
1) Refs are allowed to discard any ball that does not conform. This is entirely in their court to deal with during the game, not after when someone ELSE makes a stink.
"In the event a home team ball does not conform to specifications, or its supply is exhausted, the Referee shall secure a proper ball from the visitors and, failing that, use the best available ball. Any such circumstances must be reported to the Commissioner."
2) This reeks of Spygate in a "every one does it, but we got caught" kind of way. There's an entire SI article on how Eli Manning's game balls are personally crafted for 2 weeks ahead of time. Rodgers just went on record that he tries to get his game balls overinflated. Literally every team tries to tailor their footballs to their quarterback. It's a known thing.
3) This means nothing until someone addresses the basic physics here. 12.5 PSI in the locker room is about 11.8 PSI in 49 degree rain. And that's before 300lb men bash the thing around. And when were measurements taken for the investigation? Where were the balls in between?
-
The refs underinflated only the Patriots' share of footballs by two whole pounds each but all of the Colts' footballs were just fine?
I don't think so.
Time for Pats fans to stop making excuses. This clearly had no impact on the outcome of the game -- the Pats whooped the Colts and deserved to win. But to go as far as to suggest that they are completely innocent in this clear act of cheating is extremely biased and continues to discredit the Pats any time they are accused of cheating from here on out.
Each team supplies it's own footballs. Patriots can legally supply them at 12.5PSI, which would naturally drop to 11.8PSI the moment they hit the field in 49 degree rain. Per Aaron Rodgers' recent comments, some teams would prefer to inflate to the max. Indy could easily have had theirs at 13.5PSI depending on Luck's preference. Just those basic facts can explain the difference between an 11.5PSI and 13+ PSI ball from each sideline.
-
The Patriots cheated?
(http://img.pandawhale.com/post-33745-What-No-way-gif-Jason-Segel-Ba-IF15.gif)
Sorry, it was too easy, lol. ;D I guess that you could also turn this into a Geico commercial, "Huh. The Patriots cheated?" "Yeah, everyone knows that." "Well, did you know that playing cards with Kenny Rogers gets old pretty fast?" ;) ::) ;D I hate Geico, lol. ;D
-
As someone with very little emotional attachment to the Pats, or football in general, this is a hilarious thing to be up in arms about, on either side.
-
From Boston.com
"The NFL found 11 of the 12 footballs the Patriots used in Sunday’s AFC Championship game were under-inflated, according to an NFL letter about the investigation that was shared with the Boston Globe on Tuesday.
Game officials discovered at halftime that game balls were under-inflated according to the Globe. The officials tested each ball twice using different gauges."
My question is... Did the findings that the balls were under pressure come from those measurements taken at half time? And did the officials re-inflate those balls at half time? I ask this because naturally the balls would have lost pressure due to the cold weather. This would happen every cold game, but the difference in this case is that Colts filed a complaint with the league who then ordered the testing during half time. This is very unusual. I also question how carefully the balls were measured and how accurately the measurements were recorded. All of this testing occurred during the 15 minute half time putting serious time constraints on the officials to receive the notification from the league, test the balls, record the measurements, inflate the balls, and then be prepared to start the second half. It doesn't sound very scientific.
On a related note, here's a tweet from the Panthers kicker Graham Gano
"Since the whole "deflated ball" story is a hot topic right now, here is a situation that we experienced this year. When checking the game balls, the refs check the psi indoors. This is frustrating bc the ball loses some pressure in cold weather. During our home playoff game this year I asked the official if he could check the psi outside again bc the ball felt flat and he said he could not. I guess you can't blame the official for that. Rules are rules. Maybe the league will make some changes this offseason." https://mobile.twitter.com/grahamgano
-
The NFL has botched this with their leaking of info to the media.
-
Boo...hoo... more sore losers. Time to add Seahawks to the list next. They will complain about something else guaranteed!
Nah, man, the Patriots clearly cheated. Point blank, they cheated. Did it have an effect on the game, I seriously doubt it. But cheating is cheating, and the Patriots have a history of cheating.
That is their legacy, cheaters.
But it ain't about sour grapes, or being a sore lower. I am a Giants fan, what reason would I have to be sour about anything the Pats do? That's like being afraid of your wimpy little brother.
-
...and now the Ravens are saying "yeah, we think the balls were deflated against us too".... ::)
-
The Patriots cheated?
(http://img.pandawhale.com/post-33745-What-No-way-gif-Jason-Segel-Ba-IF15.gif)
Sorry, it was too easy, lol. ;D I guess that you could also turn this into a Geico commercial, "Huh. The Patriots cheated?" "Yeah, everyone knows that." "Well, did you know that playing cards with Kenny Rogers gets old pretty fast?" ;) ::) ;D I hate Geico, lol. ;D
LOL
-
Boo...hoo... more sore losers. Time to add Seahawks to the list next. They will complain about something else guaranteed!
Nah, man, the Patriots clearly cheated. Point blank, they cheated. Did it have an effect on the game, I seriously doubt it. But cheating is cheating, and the Patriots have a history of cheating.
That is their legacy, cheaters.
But it ain't about sour grapes, or being a sore lower. I am a Giants fan, what reason would I have to be sour about anything the Pats do? That's like being afraid of your wimpy little brother.
Lol Giants and their fans proof that there are sore winners too.
-
This thread a great reminder why I really dislike most Pats fans. Just saying it doesn't matter? Really?
If my team did this I would be disappointed.
I don't mean to generalize. My good friend is a Pats fan and when I was just talking with him he was pretty shocked and disappointed. But why wouldn't this matter? Why would you be okay with it?
-
If I understand correctly, the 11 balls were deflated by 2 PSI from the pre-game check to the in-game check.
That seems fairly significant, and it's pretty clear circumstantial proof of tampering. If the Colts balls were fine, this seems like a pretty obvious attempt to gain an advantage by cheating.
Is this a morally huge deal? I don't think so; I see it as similar to baseball teams that wet their infields, or let the grass grow long.
However, when you knowingly mislead the officials by tampering with the balls after the initial check, I think that becomes a big deal.
This isn't going to hurt the Pats in the least going into the Super Bowl, though. They're ultra-focused, and they thrive on the "us against the world" stuff.
-
Stupidest.....NFL thing....ever
-
First rule about Deflate Club is you do not talk about Deflate Club. Second rule of Deflate Club is that if it's your first day you gotta deflate a ball.
-
If the Patriots inflate the balls with hot air, then give the officials the balls to check and after playing in 40 degree weather the balls cool and the PSI goes down, is that cheating?
-
If I understand correctly, the 11 balls were deflated by 2 PSI from the pre-game check to the in-game check.
That seems fairly significant, and it's pretty clear circumstantial proof of tampering. If the Colts balls were fine, this seems like a pretty obvious attempt to gain an advantage by cheating.
Is this a morally huge deal? I don't think so; I see it as similar to baseball teams that wet their infields, or let the grass grow long.
However, when you knowingly mislead the officials by tampering with the balls after the initial check, I think that becomes a big deal.
This isn't going to hurt the Pats in the least going into the Super Bowl, though. They're ultra-focused, and they thrive on the "us against the world" stuff.
It's a little more like if the team let the grass grow long and the grass is walked on and handled by the umpires hundreds of times during the game with no problem whatsoever. Then the home teams wins by 20 runs and two days later MLB says "OOOOOHHHHH MYYYY GOD! THE GRASS WAS TOO LONG!"
Then other players say "Yeah we do stuff with the grass"
It's kinda more like that.
-
If the Patriots inflate the balls with hot air, then give the officials the balls to check and after playing in 40 degree weather the balls cool and the PSI goes down, is that cheating?
Why weren't the Colts affected, then?
Plus, from what I understand, weather probably wouldn't account for losing 2 PSI in a few hours.
I have some minor degree of the sympathy for the "everyone is doing it" argument. I think the "this wasn't intentional" justification is silly, though.
-
Weren't the Showtime Era Lakers notorious for overinflating their basketballs because they thought long rebounds would help with their fastbreak game?
As far as this goes, it's sounding more and more definitive that the Patriots deliberately underinflated the balls. The game was such a blowout that there's no way it mattered to the outcome, but it's still cheating, albeit of a kind I think is more common than most.
-
When the Colts ran out of the way of LeGarret Blount that had everything to do with underinflated balls.
-
I think to determine what has happened we need video of a Pats ball boy deflating the ball. He has to be looking at the camera, holding up two forms of ID with his mother in the room saying "That's my boy". Then I'll agree that the Pats absolutely cheated and need to be punished. Till then this is firmly in the realm of "It wasn't me. It was the one armed man" or "Many witnesses saw a second shooter on the grassy knoll" or "He was just a little confused when he drove off a bridge, walked across a whole island, never bothered to call from any of four houses including one right next to the bridge that was well lit, didn't notice the emergency phone near the ferry, swam across a very strong current late at night, walked all the way back to his hotel room, never called the police, was seen laughing at breakfast the next day, and never spent a day in jail" or "the CIA lost all its emails".
It's in that realm.
-
I didn't read much into it, so forgive me if I am wrong...
from what I understand, the home team presents 12 footballs to the ref to inspect before playing. With that being said, if what is said is true, that 11 out of 12 balls are deflated (sources: http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/patriots/2015/01/21/new-england-patriots-underinflated-balls-afc-championship-game/22087953/)
then shouldn't we blame the refs for not doing their job?
-
During Panthers/Vikings this game, teams were shown on TV heating up the balls, against the rules. No punishment.
http://espn.go.com/blog/minnesota-vikings/post/_/id/11218/nfl-aware-of-game-ball-incident-during-panthers-vikings
-
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/bucs/bucs-qb-johnson-paid-to-have-footballs-altered-before-sb-37/2214490
-
The NFL and pro sports in general is ultra competitive. If you lose, you lose your job. Those at the top level of success in environments like that may and do occasionally push things too far. Michael Jordan being an example - who had to get his competitive fix off the court by gambling - with huge amounts of money.
It works that way in sales too. The top producers in a company often have personalities that the average producers can't relate too - and at times they can take things to the extreme. Heck most of the NFL owners got where they are in life due to their ultra competitiveness in business.
Guessing Brady's the one who orchestrated this and we all know how competitive he is. In the words of Belichick 'it is what it is".
I think the people most offended by this have trouble relating to the ultra competitiveness thing.
-
I think to determine what has happened we need video of a Pats ball boy deflating the ball. He has to be looking at the camera, holding up two forms of ID with his mother in the room saying "That's my boy". Then I'll agree that the Pats absolutely cheated and need to be punished. Till then this is firmly in the realm of "It wasn't me. It was the one armed man" or "Many witnesses saw a second shooter on the grassy knoll" or "He was just a little confused when he drove off a bridge, walked across a whole island, never bothered to call from any of four houses including one right next to the bridge that was well lit, didn't notice the emergency phone near the ferry, swam across a very strong current late at night, walked all the way back to his hotel room, never called the police, was seen laughing at breakfast the next day, and never spent a day in jail" or "the CIA lost all its emails".
It's in that realm.
Here are some great stories on the life of a ball boy in the NFL, including Zach DeOssie's remembrances from his time with Bill Belichick and the Pats:
http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/90206418/nfl-ball-boy-lessons-larry-fitzgerald-john-elway-philip-rivers
-
I didn't read much into it, so forgive me if I am wrong...
from what I understand, the home team presents 12 footballs to the ref to inspect before playing. With that being said, if what is said is true, that 11 out of 12 balls are deflated (sources: http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/patriots/2015/01/21/new-england-patriots-underinflated-balls-afc-championship-game/22087953/)
then shouldn't we blame the refs for not doing their job?
I think the argument is that the refs weighed them, they were conforming, and then at some point between that time (2+ hours before game time, for whatever reason) and halftime, they were tampered with.
The refs definitely have some explaining to do, though. A referee handles the ball on literally every down. Why didn't they notice the change in pressure, which was apparently pretty significant? If the Colts defender and equipment manager could immediately tell something wasn't right, why couldn't the officials?
-
I didn't read much into it, so forgive me if I am wrong...
from what I understand, the home team presents 12 footballs to the ref to inspect before playing. With that being said, if what is said is true, that 11 out of 12 balls are deflated (sources: http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/patriots/2015/01/21/new-england-patriots-underinflated-balls-afc-championship-game/22087953/)
then shouldn't we blame the refs for not doing their job?
I think the argument is that the refs weighed them, they were conforming, and then at some point between that time (2+ hours before game time, for whatever reason) and halftime, they were tampered with.
The refs definitely have some explaining to do, though. A referee handles the ball on literally every down. Why didn't they notice the change in pressure, which was apparently pretty significant? If the Colts defender and equipment manager could immediately tell something wasn't right, why couldn't the officials?
This is what I was thinking. Unlike the spying scandal, this had to pass through a 3rd party for approval. Not saying anyone is guilty or innocent, but I'm curious why this hasn't been mentioned in the main point of any argument with these recent articles.
-
I didn't read much into it, so forgive me if I am wrong...
from what I understand, the home team presents 12 footballs to the ref to inspect before playing. With that being said, if what is said is true, that 11 out of 12 balls are deflated (sources: http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/patriots/2015/01/21/new-england-patriots-underinflated-balls-afc-championship-game/22087953/)
then shouldn't we blame the refs for not doing their job?
I think the argument is that the refs weighed them, they were conforming, and then at some point between that time (2+ hours before game time, for whatever reason) and halftime, they were tampered with.
The refs definitely have some explaining to do, though. A referee handles the ball on literally every down. Why didn't they notice the change in pressure, which was apparently pretty significant? If the Colts defender and equipment manager could immediately tell something wasn't right, why couldn't the officials?
This is what I was thinking. Unlike the spying scandal, this had to pass through a 3rd party for approval. Not saying anyone is guilty or innocent, but I'm curious why this hasn't been mentioned in the main point of any argument with these recent articles.
Graham Gano (Panthers kicker) was saying on Twitter that he's asked the refs to check ball pressure mid-game and they've told him they can't. They may not be allowed to recheck after the initial inspection.
"During our home playoff game this year I asked the official if he could check the psi outside again bc the ball felt flat and he..." "...said he could not. I guess you can't blame the official for that. Rules are rules. Maybe the league will make some changes this...
-
I didn't read much into it, so forgive me if I am wrong...
from what I understand, the home team presents 12 footballs to the ref to inspect before playing. With that being said, if what is said is true, that 11 out of 12 balls are deflated (sources: http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/patriots/2015/01/21/new-england-patriots-underinflated-balls-afc-championship-game/22087953/)
then shouldn't we blame the refs for not doing their job?
I think the argument is that the refs weighed them, they were conforming, and then at some point between that time (2+ hours before game time, for whatever reason) and halftime, they were tampered with.
The refs definitely have some explaining to do, though. A referee handles the ball on literally every down. Why didn't they notice the change in pressure, which was apparently pretty significant? If the Colts defender and equipment manager could immediately tell something wasn't right, why couldn't the officials?
This is what I was thinking. Unlike the spying scandal, this had to pass through a 3rd party for approval. Not saying anyone is guilty or innocent, but I'm curious why this hasn't been mentioned in the main point of any argument with these recent articles.
Graham Gano (Panthers kicker) was saying on Twitter that he's asked the refs to check ball pressure mid-game and they've told him they can't. They may not be allowed to recheck after the initial inspection.
"During our home playoff game this year I asked the official if he could check the psi outside again bc the ball felt flat and he..." "...said he could not. I guess you can't blame the official for that. Rules are rules. Maybe the league will make some changes this...
thanks, it's making a little bit more sense now. So during game time, who takes care of the footballs? the refs? How is it that they got tampered with "easily"? And this is the AFC championship game, shouldn't the refs be on top of their game and assuming that only very experienced refs officiate these kind of playoff games?
-
This is what I suspect happened:
The Pats filled the balls with warm air before the game start, and the specs checked out. As the air inside the balls condensed due to the cold weather, the air pressure dropped.
Whether or not the NFL has rules governing the temperature of the air inside the balls is beyond me, but this seems the most logical explanation of what happened, unless someone comes forward and says they deflated the balls during the game, or a video is produced showing that they did.
-
Wanna wait until the league presents their findings but certainly doesn't look good for the Pats.
Of course, in the court of public opinion, they've been guilty on everything going back almost 8 years now. Whatever the league says really won't change that.
Still a lot of questions here that Mort's report don't answer. Some questions of checks & balances here and whether the deflated balls were intentional or as a result of nature.
Like I mentioned in the other thread, deflated balls definitely help in the passing game and I've certainly be a part of teams who have engaged in it. Certainly not anywhere near the level of NFL football, though.
-
I didn't read much into it, so forgive me if I am wrong...
from what I understand, the home team presents 12 footballs to the ref to inspect before playing. With that being said, if what is said is true, that 11 out of 12 balls are deflated (sources: http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/patriots/2015/01/21/new-england-patriots-underinflated-balls-afc-championship-game/22087953/)
then shouldn't we blame the refs for not doing their job?
I think the argument is that the refs weighed them, they were conforming, and then at some point between that time (2+ hours before game time, for whatever reason) and halftime, they were tampered with.
The refs definitely have some explaining to do, though. A referee handles the ball on literally every down. Why didn't they notice the change in pressure, which was apparently pretty significant? If the Colts defender and equipment manager could immediately tell something wasn't right, why couldn't the officials?
This is what I was thinking. Unlike the spying scandal, this had to pass through a 3rd party for approval. Not saying anyone is guilty or innocent, but I'm curious why this hasn't been mentioned in the main point of any argument with these recent articles.
Graham Gano (Panthers kicker) was saying on Twitter that he's asked the refs to check ball pressure mid-game and they've told him they can't. They may not be allowed to recheck after the initial inspection.
"During our home playoff game this year I asked the official if he could check the psi outside again bc the ball felt flat and he..." "...said he could not. I guess you can't blame the official for that. Rules are rules. Maybe the league will make some changes this...
thanks, it's making a little bit more sense now. So during game time, who takes care of the footballs? the refs? How is it that they got tampered with "easily"? And this is the AFC championship game, shouldn't the refs be on top of their game and assuming that only very experienced refs officiate these kind of playoff games?
(http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/9189283.jpg)
-
Okay, I might be extremely stupid/ignorant on this, but is everyone in this thread saying that a significant amount of air actually escapes from the ball when subjected to cold for a couple hours?
The pressure goes down when the ball enters the cold, but doesn't it go back up when it's re-warmed?
-
Don't know why they don't just use the same balls for both teams . Just make it an even playing field like in basketball . In baseball they don't let pitchers use different size balls because one guy has a bigger hand than another , same in basketball (some guys can palm it, some can't ).
They were just asking for something like this to happen .
-
Both teams bring 12 balls to the game, and they are inspected by officials about 2 hours before the game. Once approved, they are given to the home-team provided ball boy/girl. The officials also take 6 "kicking" balls and keep them themselves.
In other words, this was either cheating during the grey area or simple science. Maybe the Colts like their footballs near over-inflated, the Pats like theirs right on the edge of under-inflated, and science made the Patriots' footballs under-inflated while shrinking the Colts but keeping them inside the legal PSI.
-
Okay, I might be extremely stupid/ignorant on this, but is everyone in this thread saying that a significant amount of air actually escapes from the ball when subjected to cold for a couple hours?
The pressure goes down when the ball enters the cold, but doesn't it go back up when it's re-warmed?
PV/T = k
or V = kT/P or P = kT/V
V = volume, T = temp, P = pressure, and k is a constant. So a lower temperature means less pressure for the same volume of gas.
-
Okay, I might be extremely stupid/ignorant on this, but is everyone in this thread saying that a significant amount of air actually escapes from the ball when subjected to cold for a couple hours?
The pressure goes down when the ball enters the cold, but doesn't it go back up when it's re-warmed?
Under NFL rules, the ball can't be re-warmed or exposed to any artificial heating device. Ironically enough, it's to prevent unfair advantages.
http://www.foxsports.com/north/story/nfl-reminds-teams-of-rules-regarding-heating-footballs-120114
-
I think I like "Ballghazi" better than "Deflategate"
-
Okay, I might be extremely stupid/ignorant on this, but is everyone in this thread saying that a significant amount of air actually escapes from the ball when subjected to cold for a couple hours?
The pressure goes down when the ball enters the cold, but doesn't it go back up when it's re-warmed?
PV/T = k
or V = kT/P or P = kT/V
V = volume, T = temp, P = pressure, and k is a constant. So a lower temperature means less pressure for the same volume of gas.
That was my point.
The pressure changes but the volume/moles of air never do.
So it's extremely easy to prove a human did the tampering, not the weather. Just control T.
-
Don't know why they don't just use the same balls for both teams . Just make it an even playing field like in basketball . In baseball they don't let pitchers use different size balls because one guy has a bigger hand than another , same in basketball (some guys can palm it, some can't ).
They were just asking for something like this to happen .
Ya someone explain the reason behind this rule to me. I’m not a football guy at all, so I need some help with this.
My 1st thought was why wouldn't this affect both teams equally, they’re using the same balls right? Then I learn that’s wrong because each team provides their own balls when they’re on offense.
So now that leads me to wonder, why is that even a rule in the first place? What is the rationale for each team using a different set of balls? It’s seems inevitable that a rule like that would lead to this type of controversy eventually.
-
As a Pats fan, this is all disappointing.
A few thoughts:
(1) It didn't affect the outcome of the game....
(2) ... but that's not the point. The point is that it appears that the Pats did something to gain an edge, and pushed the boundaries of what is considered "fair".
(3) "Fair" in this context, as with other things related to the NFL, is a bit murky.
(4) If the Pats literally tampered with the balls, ie having a ball boy use a device to deflate the balls a bit, then it is clearly "unfair"
(5) If the Pats did something less direct to affect the balls, then it is not clear how "unfair" it is (I don't know the science of this, but some sort of initial underinflation to the balls, that are then slightly warmed (ie kept in a warm room for X hours), then taken into the cold... etc).
(6) Proving or showing evidence of either (4) or (5) is going to be difficult in any case. But, that doesn't mean that circumstantial evidence won't be overwhelmingly against the Pats in this case.
(7) The NFL is not a court of law, so the NFL doesn't need to "presume innocence until proven guilty" or anything like that. I believe the commissioner could simply say "we have enough evidence, the Pats lose a pick" or something like that. My guess is that is what happens, and that it happens soon. The NFL wants this over and done with before next Monday...
-
Okay, I might be extremely stupid/ignorant on this, but is everyone in this thread saying that a significant amount of air actually escapes from the ball when subjected to cold for a couple hours?
The pressure goes down when the ball enters the cold, but doesn't it go back up when it's re-warmed?
PV/T = k
or V = kT/P or P = kT/V
V = volume, T = temp, P = pressure, and k is a constant. So a lower temperature means less pressure for the same volume of gas.
That was my point.
The pressure changes but the volume/moles/grams of air never do.
So it's extremely easy to prove a human did the tampering, not the weather. Just control T.
I know, I was just transcriping the gas law as my own way of saying that.
If the balls were properly inspected pre-game then they were clearly tampered with after they were turned over to the ball boys.
-
As a patriots fan this upsets me. Simply because it is another thing that will cause anti patriots people to discount what they have done.
Other teams/qbs have openly said they overinflated/underinflated balls, but it obviously significantly more of a story because of the Patriots history.
It seems that due to their reputation, the Patriots need to avoid doing anything illegal even if literally every team in the league does it.
What is really upsetting is that all the things that decided the game on Sunday had very little to do with the ball itself. The Patriots ran at will, the Colts couldn't run at all, the Pats receivers consistently got open and the colts receivers couldn't get open.
BTW, I think the NFL purposely leaked the 11 of 12 balls information to paint the Pats as a villian and make the super bowl even more intriguing.
-
Okay, I might be extremely stupid/ignorant on this, but is everyone in this thread saying that a significant amount of air actually escapes from the ball when subjected to cold for a couple hours?
The pressure goes down when the ball enters the cold, but doesn't it go back up when it's re-warmed?
Under NFL rules, the ball can't be re-warmed or exposed to any artificial heating device. Ironically enough, it's to prevent unfair advantages.
http://www.foxsports.com/north/story/nfl-reminds-teams-of-rules-regarding-heating-footballs-120114
I didn't mean the teams, I meant after the game when somebody re-weighed the balls. I'm assuming that happens back inside, likely in the same room where they were originally weighed.
Anyone who has ever taken a science class (let alone someone who takes measurements for such a big money incorporation) should have known to take PV = nRT into account (either mathematically or experimentally, but they probably did both). Let's all stop pretending that fact just slipped past them and EVERYBODY else before it made it to the media.
-
Okay, I might be extremely stupid/ignorant on this, but is everyone in this thread saying that a significant amount of air actually escapes from the ball when subjected to cold for a couple hours?
The pressure goes down when the ball enters the cold, but doesn't it go back up when it's re-warmed?
The 12th ball having the correct amount of pressure kind of screws them.
-
Okay, I might be extremely stupid/ignorant on this, but is everyone in this thread saying that a significant amount of air actually escapes from the ball when subjected to cold for a couple hours?
The pressure goes down when the ball enters the cold, but doesn't it go back up when it's re-warmed?
Under NFL rules, the ball can't be re-warmed or exposed to any artificial heating device. Ironically enough, it's to prevent unfair advantages.
http://www.foxsports.com/north/story/nfl-reminds-teams-of-rules-regarding-heating-footballs-120114
I didn't mean the teams, I meant after the game when somebody re-weighed the balls. I'm assuming that happens back inside, likely in the same room where they were originally weighed.
Anyone who has ever taken a science class (let alone someone who takes measurements for such a big money incorporation) should have known to take PV = nRT into account (either mathematically or experimentally, but they probably did both). Let's all stop pretending that fact just slipped past them and EVERYBODY else before it made it to the media.
What is a non story being blown up for an off week's worth of coverage, Trebek?
-
Okay, I might be extremely stupid/ignorant on this, but is everyone in this thread saying that a significant amount of air actually escapes from the ball when subjected to cold for a couple hours?
The pressure goes down when the ball enters the cold, but doesn't it go back up when it's re-warmed?
The 12th ball having the correct amount of pressure kind of screws them.
My guess is that's a "K" ball.
-
Okay, I might be extremely stupid/ignorant on this, but is everyone in this thread saying that a significant amount of air actually escapes from the ball when subjected to cold for a couple hours?
The pressure goes down when the ball enters the cold, but doesn't it go back up when it's re-warmed?
The 12th ball having the correct amount of pressure kind of screws them.
My guess is that's a "K" ball.
I thought it was the ball they put in play at the beginning of the 2nd half when the refs held up the game . The pats scored 21 points in the 3rd after they did that by the way .
-
Okay, I might be extremely stupid/ignorant on this, but is everyone in this thread saying that a significant amount of air actually escapes from the ball when subjected to cold for a couple hours?
The pressure goes down when the ball enters the cold, but doesn't it go back up when it's re-warmed?
The 12th ball having the correct amount of pressure kind of screws them.
My guess is that's a "K" ball.
I thought it was the ball they put in play at the beginning of the 2nd half when the refs held up the game . The pats scored 21 points in the 3rd after they did that by the way .
I'm talking about the ball with the correct amount of pressure. My guess is it was a "K" ball.
-
Wow... After 7 years here on this forum, I just learned a new trick to uploading a picture quickly.
What the heck is with the text as pictures recently? It's annoying, it doesn't resize with your screen, and carries no particular benefits to speak of.
-
I thought it was the ball they put in play at the beginning of the 2nd half when the refs held up the game . The pats scored 21 points in the 3rd after they did that by the way .
No doubt that the Pats were decisively the better team. They've crushed Indy the last three times they've played them. That's not due to air pressure.
That said, in some ways that makes it less understandable. Why cheat when you're clearly the better team?
-
In any sport its up to the referee to check the ball to make sure its regulation. Ultimately it comes down to the refs failing to do their job - a recurring theme with the NFL. The fact that there was gamesmanship going on...so what. It's part of the sport and always has been.
The refs did check the balls, it is quite obvious that they were toyed with after they had been approved by the officiating crew. To further point out how asinine your comment is, it only took a few plays for the refs to realize that something was wrong with the footballs and they were immediately substituted in with properly inflated balls.
Um, no, it didn't. The balls were not reported "soft" until halftime when Brady was picked off. This was well-documented when the story broke down yesterday.
Which brings us full circle to the following question: how did the officials, who handle every ball after every snap (both Pats balls and Colts balls) didn't see anything wrong, and one Colts player suddenly figured out something is wrong from one touch. I mean, wouldn't it be immediately obvious to an official that the Pats balls were noticeably softer than Colts balls?
Also, the narrative of the story has suddenly changed from "balls were underinflated by 2 PSI" to "balls were underinflated by up to 2 PSI". So go figure.
-
The Pats have always done very well in poor weather conditions. It makes you wonder how long this has been going on.
-
Also, the narrative of the story has suddenly changed from "balls were underinflated by 2 PSI" to "balls were underinflated by up to 2 PSI". So go figure.
Yes, this is a point I've been curious about.
Its one thing if all 11 balls were 2 PSI under.
Its another if 11 balls were under regulation, with the one that was the most underinflated being 2PSI under.
-
Okay, I might be extremely stupid/ignorant on this, but is everyone in this thread saying that a significant amount of air actually escapes from the ball when subjected to cold for a couple hours?
The pressure goes down when the ball enters the cold, but doesn't it go back up when it's re-warmed?
The 12th ball having the correct amount of pressure kind of screws them.
My guess is that's a "K" ball.
I thought it was the ball they put in play at the beginning of the 2nd half when the refs held up the game . The pats scored 21 points in the 3rd after they did that by the way .
I'm talking about the ball with the correct amount of pressure. My guess is it was a "K" ball.
I don't see how it screws them. If all balls lost 1-2 PSI in the cold and the K ball was pumped to the max (which K balls usually are), then it may still be 12.5 PSI, which is regulation pressure.
We'll wait and see, I guess. Though I doubt people inflating the balls are sitting there is sitting there with a pressure gauge to make sure balls are 12.5 PSI even -- given that the QB will hand-pick 12 balls that "feel right" anyhow. I can't imagine the referees do that when they inspect the equipment pre-game, either.
One interesting thing I learned over the last couple of days is that QBs are fairly particular about the game balls, so it's not that someone pumps up a bunch of balls to some specs and then the QB uses them without having seen them before game day. Here's an interesting article on this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/sports/football/eli-mannings-footballs-are-months-in-making.html
-
Okay, I might be extremely stupid/ignorant on this, but is everyone in this thread saying that a significant amount of air actually escapes from the ball when subjected to cold for a couple hours?
The pressure goes down when the ball enters the cold, but doesn't it go back up when it's re-warmed?
The 12th ball having the correct amount of pressure kind of screws them.
My guess is that's a "K" ball.
I thought it was the ball they put in play at the beginning of the 2nd half when the refs held up the game . The pats scored 21 points in the 3rd after they did that by the way .
I'm talking about the ball with the correct amount of pressure. My guess is it was a "K" ball.
I don't see how it screws them. If all balls lost 1-2 PSI in the cold and the K ball was pumped to the max (which K balls usually are), then it may still be 12.5 PSI, which is regulation pressure.
Oh, I didn't say that it necessarily screws them. I'm just postulating that the regulation ball that did meet specs was a "K" ball. Common sense would dictate that thing would be inflated to the max.
-
Oh, I didn't say that it necessarily screws them. I'm just postulating that the regulation ball that did meet specs was a "K" ball. Common sense would dictate that thing would be inflated to the max.
Probably true. Also, I find it highly unlikely that they can play the entire second half with one ball. There are 12 game balls for a reason, and that's especially important in bad weather.
-
Okay, I might be extremely stupid/ignorant on this, but is everyone in this thread saying that a significant amount of air actually escapes from the ball when subjected to cold for a couple hours?
The pressure goes down when the ball enters the cold, but doesn't it go back up when it's re-warmed?
The 12th ball having the correct amount of pressure kind of screws them.
My guess is that's a "K" ball.
I thought it was the ball they put in play at the beginning of the 2nd half when the refs held up the game . The pats scored 21 points in the 3rd after they did that by the way .
I'm talking about the ball with the correct amount of pressure. My guess is it was a "K" ball.
I don't see how it screws them. If all balls lost 1-2 PSI in the cold and the K ball was pumped to the max (which K balls usually are), then it may still be 12.5 PSI, which is regulation pressure.
Oh, I didn't say that it necessarily screws them. I'm just postulating that the regulation ball that did meet specs was a "K" ball. Common sense would dictate that thing would be inflated to the max.
I said it. I didn't know this information about the 12th ball being a K ball.
-
Def disappointed as a Pats fan. We'll never hear the end of this and they're too good to even need this.
That being said, they really should test the Colt's balls to see how they compare. It does seem like they were tampered with, but at least they should take test the Colt's balls to get a comparison and rule out the cold weather issue.
NFL should be in charge of all football used in the game and not allow either side to make adjustments. This isn't something new. I'm sure a lot of teams mess with the PSI of the ball, by heating it or deflating it.
-
Okay, I might be extremely stupid/ignorant on this, but is everyone in this thread saying that a significant amount of air actually escapes from the ball when subjected to cold for a couple hours?
The pressure goes down when the ball enters the cold, but doesn't it go back up when it's re-warmed?
The 12th ball having the correct amount of pressure kind of screws them.
My guess is that's a "K" ball.
What they were saying on the radio is that "K" balls are handled separately from the 12 game balls used in regular play. Also the 12th ball was also under typical pressure, but not outside of the specificed range.
My guess is that it just didn't get as deflated as the others for whatever reason, deflator error if you will.
-
I said it. I didn't know this information about the 12th ball being a K ball.
Teams usually have a separate ball for their kicking units. It is typically "straight out of the box" and pumped to the max, so that it's a little more slick and hard to handle. In contrast, QB balls are usually prepped for days in advance to wear them in a bit for better grip.
-
Okay, I might be extremely stupid/ignorant on this, but is everyone in this thread saying that a significant amount of air actually escapes from the ball when subjected to cold for a couple hours?
The pressure goes down when the ball enters the cold, but doesn't it go back up when it's re-warmed?
The 12th ball having the correct amount of pressure kind of screws them.
My guess is that's a "K" ball.
What they were saying on the radio is that "K" balls are handled separately from the 12 game balls used in regular play. Also the 12th ball was also under typical pressure, but not outside of the specificed range.
My guess is that it just didn't get as deflated as the others for whatever reason, deflator error if you will.
Could very well be the case.
-
Gronk has already figured it out. He's a better scientist than Neil deGrasse Tyson
https://twitter.com/RobGronkowski/status/557394981930168320
-
I said it. I didn't know this information about the 12th ball being a K ball.
Teams usually have a separate ball for their kicking units. It is typically "straight out of the box" and pumped to the max, so that it's a little more slick and hard to handle. In contrast, QB balls are usually prepped for days in advance to wear them in a bit for better grip.
related:
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/bucs/bucs-qb-johnson-paid-to-have-footballs-altered-before-sb-37/2214490
At the Super Bowl, the NFL had 100 footballs. They were new, slick and supposedly under the league's watchful eye. But not leaving anything to chance, Johnson made sure the balls were scuffed and ready well before the Dixie Chicks sang the national anthem.
"I paid some guys off to get the balls right," Johnson now admits. "I went and got all 100 footballs, and they took care of all of them."
How much did it cost Johnson? "Seventy-five hundred (dollars)," he said.
"They took care of them."
Johnson made the revelation several years ago, proir to the 10-year reunion of the Bucs' Super Bowl champion team.
-
So wait, teams bring their own balls to every game but the NFL supplies the SB balls? That's just odd.
-
Bruce Allen of Boston Sports Media Watch with an absolutely epic rant. Can't say I necessarily agree with everything but he does make some good points. If nothing else, it's an entertaining read. Hint: It's not exactly objective.
Big Bad Bill Belichick.
He really does bring out the absolute worst in the media. Things that would be ignored, or laughed off if they were done by any other team, results in hysterical, hair-on-fire denunciations if the Patriots are involved.
He causes the media to become unable to think for themselves, and become subject to a mob mentality in which they are all sheep, following along with the loudest voices, and afraid to produce an original thought.
The NFL, specifically its Commissioner, is a laughingstock, pledging a transparent investigation, they instead allow late night leaks of salacious details to good ol’ boy reporters. They pledge to get all the details and facts from Foxboro when they can’t even ascertain whether a video was received by the league office showing a player knocking a woman unconscious. They want us to trust their investigation when they hire a former associate to investigate themselves over said video incident.
As usual Roger Goodell has lost control of the situation, and will be in full reactionary mode once he decides to take action.
For Goodell, he can get himself into the good graces with the media by inflicting the harshest possible punishment upon Bill Belichick and the Patriots. This satisfies the bloodlust of the media and the public outside of New England, and gets Goodell back into the good graces of the media after his PR fiascos earlier in the season.
What I’m saying is be prepared for the worst possible outcome from this. Belichick suspended for Super Bowl? Entirely possible. Suspended for next season? Entirely possible. Multiple first round draft picks taken away? Entirely possible.
If, after all of that Robert Kraft kowtows to Goodell and tells us all what a great job he’s doing one more time, I’m going to be gravely disappointed in him and what he stands for.
For making the football a bit softer so the QB could grip them better. (and that’s even speculation, we don’t actually know the facts here yet, just that the balls were under regulation by 2 PSI.)
It doesn’t matter that the best quarterback in the NFL told CBS earlier this season about liking to overinflate balls and pushing the limits and seeing if they can fool the officials, all so he can grip them better.
It doesn’t matter that a two-time Super Bowl winning quarterback insists on his footballs being doctored for months before he will use them in a game because he wants to be comfortable gripping them.
It doesn’t matter that a Super Bowl winning quarterback has admitted to paying $7500 to have the 100 footballs used in the Super Bowl he played in altered so that he could grip them better.
It doesn’t matter that the Minnesota Vikings and Carolina Panthers were using heaters to warm up footballs on the sidelines this season. (which would impact the hardness/grip of the football, by the way)
Nothing matters other than the fact that the Colts were getting their butts kicked and wanted to find a way to try and get in the Patriots heads. They didn’t actually anticipate it going this far, very similar to the Jets when they reported the Patriots for taping in an incorrect spot.
Nothing matters other than the fact the owner of the Colts, coming off a season in which he was suspended for six games, gave a crony columnist a middle of the night tip, which initially the columnist thought to ignore, but instead decided that since it was the Patriots, he’d get a lot of play out of it, and ran with it, and now says Belichick should be suspended for the Super Bowl and is a national star.
Nothing matters other than the fact that Belichick isn’t cuddly with the media, and most out there would like nothing more than to see him fired and disgraced, so they’re put aside any objectivity they may (unlikely) have possessed and have gone all-in on the idea that this is a huge cheat masterminded by Bill Belichick who personally oversaw the deflation of the footballs. (also unlikely) That’s the true endgame here.
The national media, in addition to the piling on of Belichick also goes after the fans who make the points above. They call it excuse making, and saying that those incidents don’t matter because the rules were broken here, and the Patriots were caught. OK. That’s legit. Punish them according to the severity of the alleged crime. But why can’t the hypocrisy be pointed out at least? We’re supposed to take this incident seriously – to the point of huge suspensions/punishments – but it’s OK to completely ignore the other incidents that have taken place?
sometimes you can get lucky and put an extra half a pound of air in there to help Aaron Rodgers out.
Hypocrites. Cowards. Frauds.
-
Also, there is this in the rulebook:
The Referee shall be the sole judge as to whether all balls offered for play comply with these specifications. A pump is to be furnished by the home club, and the balls shall remain under the supervision of the Referee until they are delivered to the ball attendant just prior to the start of the game.
So, we should be expecting footage from one of the 47 or so cameras during the AFC final showing someone deflating a football.
This, or the actual truth is that no-one really uses a pressure gauge when inflating or inspecting a NFL football...
-
Bruce Allen of Boston Sports Media Watch with an absolutely epic rant. Can't say I necessarily agree with everything but he does make some good points. If nothing else, it's an entertaining read. Hint: It's not exactly objective.
Big Bad Bill Belichick.
He really does bring out the absolute worst in the media. Things that would be ignored, or laughed off if they were done by any other team, results in hysterical, hair-on-fire denunciations if the Patriots are involved.
He causes the media to become unable to think for themselves, and become subject to a mob mentality in which they are all sheep, following along with the loudest voices, and afraid to produce an original thought.
The NFL, specifically its Commissioner, is a laughingstock, pledging a transparent investigation, they instead allow late night leaks of salacious details to good ol’ boy reporters. They pledge to get all the details and facts from Foxboro when they can’t even ascertain whether a video was received by the league office showing a player knocking a woman unconscious. They want us to trust their investigation when they hire a former associate to investigate themselves over said video incident.
As usual Roger Goodell has lost control of the situation, and will be in full reactionary mode once he decides to take action.
For Goodell, he can get himself into the good graces with the media by inflicting the harshest possible punishment upon Bill Belichick and the Patriots. This satisfies the bloodlust of the media and the public outside of New England, and gets Goodell back into the good graces of the media after his PR fiascos earlier in the season.
What I’m saying is be prepared for the worst possible outcome from this. Belichick suspended for Super Bowl? Entirely possible. Suspended for next season? Entirely possible. Multiple first round draft picks taken away? Entirely possible.
If, after all of that Robert Kraft kowtows to Goodell and tells us all what a great job he’s doing one more time, I’m going to be gravely disappointed in him and what he stands for.
For making the football a bit softer so the QB could grip them better. (and that’s even speculation, we don’t actually know the facts here yet, just that the balls were under regulation by 2 PSI.)
It doesn’t matter that the best quarterback in the NFL told CBS earlier this season about liking to overinflate balls and pushing the limits and seeing if they can fool the officials, all so he can grip them better.
It doesn’t matter that a two-time Super Bowl winning quarterback insists on his footballs being doctored for months before he will use them in a game because he wants to be comfortable gripping them.
It doesn’t matter that a Super Bowl winning quarterback has admitted to paying $7500 to have the 100 footballs used in the Super Bowl he played in altered so that he could grip them better.
It doesn’t matter that the Minnesota Vikings and Carolina Panthers were using heaters to warm up footballs on the sidelines this season. (which would impact the hardness/grip of the football, by the way)
Nothing matters other than the fact that the Colts were getting their butts kicked and wanted to find a way to try and get in the Patriots heads. They didn’t actually anticipate it going this far, very similar to the Jets when they reported the Patriots for taping in an incorrect spot.
Nothing matters other than the fact the owner of the Colts, coming off a season in which he was suspended for six games, gave a crony columnist a middle of the night tip, which initially the columnist thought to ignore, but instead decided that since it was the Patriots, he’d get a lot of play out of it, and ran with it, and now says Belichick should be suspended for the Super Bowl and is a national star.
Nothing matters other than the fact that Belichick isn’t cuddly with the media, and most out there would like nothing more than to see him fired and disgraced, so they’re put aside any objectivity they may (unlikely) have possessed and have gone all-in on the idea that this is a huge cheat masterminded by Bill Belichick who personally oversaw the deflation of the footballs. (also unlikely) That’s the true endgame here.
The national media, in addition to the piling on of Belichick also goes after the fans who make the points above. They call it excuse making, and saying that those incidents don’t matter because the rules were broken here, and the Patriots were caught. OK. That’s legit. Punish them according to the severity of the alleged crime. But why can’t the hypocrisy be pointed out at least? We’re supposed to take this incident seriously – to the point of huge suspensions/punishments – but it’s OK to completely ignore the other incidents that have taken place?
sometimes you can get lucky and put an extra half a pound of air in there to help Aaron Rodgers out.
Hypocrites. Cowards. Frauds.
This is a solid example of the time honored "well these other things are bad and didn't get punished so this thing that was bad shouldn't get punished either."
Also of note: there's literally no reason to take DeflateGate/Ballghazi seriously. That's entirely a bit of froth coming out of the mouth of Bruce Allen as his neck reddens and his veins bulge.
-
Bruce Allen of Boston Sports Media Watch with an absolutely epic rant. Can't say I necessarily agree with everything but he does make some good points. If nothing else, it's an entertaining read. Hint: It's not exactly objective.
Big Bad Bill Belichick.
He really does bring out the absolute worst in the media. Things that would be ignored, or laughed off if they were done by any other team, results in hysterical, hair-on-fire denunciations if the Patriots are involved.
He causes the media to become unable to think for themselves, and become subject to a mob mentality in which they are all sheep, following along with the loudest voices, and afraid to produce an original thought.
The NFL, specifically its Commissioner, is a laughingstock, pledging a transparent investigation, they instead allow late night leaks of salacious details to good ol’ boy reporters. They pledge to get all the details and facts from Foxboro when they can’t even ascertain whether a video was received by the league office showing a player knocking a woman unconscious. They want us to trust their investigation when they hire a former associate to investigate themselves over said video incident.
As usual Roger Goodell has lost control of the situation, and will be in full reactionary mode once he decides to take action.
For Goodell, he can get himself into the good graces with the media by inflicting the harshest possible punishment upon Bill Belichick and the Patriots. This satisfies the bloodlust of the media and the public outside of New England, and gets Goodell back into the good graces of the media after his PR fiascos earlier in the season.
What I’m saying is be prepared for the worst possible outcome from this. Belichick suspended for Super Bowl? Entirely possible. Suspended for next season? Entirely possible. Multiple first round draft picks taken away? Entirely possible.
If, after all of that Robert Kraft kowtows to Goodell and tells us all what a great job he’s doing one more time, I’m going to be gravely disappointed in him and what he stands for.
For making the football a bit softer so the QB could grip them better. (and that’s even speculation, we don’t actually know the facts here yet, just that the balls were under regulation by 2 PSI.)
It doesn’t matter that the best quarterback in the NFL told CBS earlier this season about liking to overinflate balls and pushing the limits and seeing if they can fool the officials, all so he can grip them better.
It doesn’t matter that a two-time Super Bowl winning quarterback insists on his footballs being doctored for months before he will use them in a game because he wants to be comfortable gripping them.
It doesn’t matter that a Super Bowl winning quarterback has admitted to paying $7500 to have the 100 footballs used in the Super Bowl he played in altered so that he could grip them better.
It doesn’t matter that the Minnesota Vikings and Carolina Panthers were using heaters to warm up footballs on the sidelines this season. (which would impact the hardness/grip of the football, by the way)
Nothing matters other than the fact that the Colts were getting their butts kicked and wanted to find a way to try and get in the Patriots heads. They didn’t actually anticipate it going this far, very similar to the Jets when they reported the Patriots for taping in an incorrect spot.
Nothing matters other than the fact the owner of the Colts, coming off a season in which he was suspended for six games, gave a crony columnist a middle of the night tip, which initially the columnist thought to ignore, but instead decided that since it was the Patriots, he’d get a lot of play out of it, and ran with it, and now says Belichick should be suspended for the Super Bowl and is a national star.
Nothing matters other than the fact that Belichick isn’t cuddly with the media, and most out there would like nothing more than to see him fired and disgraced, so they’re put aside any objectivity they may (unlikely) have possessed and have gone all-in on the idea that this is a huge cheat masterminded by Bill Belichick who personally oversaw the deflation of the footballs. (also unlikely) That’s the true endgame here.
The national media, in addition to the piling on of Belichick also goes after the fans who make the points above. They call it excuse making, and saying that those incidents don’t matter because the rules were broken here, and the Patriots were caught. OK. That’s legit. Punish them according to the severity of the alleged crime. But why can’t the hypocrisy be pointed out at least? We’re supposed to take this incident seriously – to the point of huge suspensions/punishments – but it’s OK to completely ignore the other incidents that have taken place?
sometimes you can get lucky and put an extra half a pound of air in there to help Aaron Rodgers out.
Hypocrites. Cowards. Frauds.
This is a solid example of the time honored "well these other things are bad and didn't get punished so this thing that was bad shouldn't get punished either."
Also of note: there's literally no reason to take DeflateGate/Ballghazi seriously. That's entirely a bit of froth coming out of the mouth of Bruce Allen as his neck reddens and his veins bulge.
I see it differently. I see it as people in the NFL saying "I'm SHOCKED SHOCKED to find out a ball may have been deflated at some point!" "Here's your illegal ball sir." "Oh thank you."
-
I think there's more aggrandizing "oh they're only making a big deal about it because it's the Patriots and everyone likes to see the Patriots fail" sentiment than there is "Oh Emm Geee They're Dirty Cheaters."
To be certain, there's far too much of both, but they're feeding each other in an annoying feedback loop of dumb stuff to kill time before the Super Bowl. As someone who has to pay attention to the NFL, it's actively hurting my brain.
For all the Patriots playoff games this year, my sons and I have all donned our No. 12 Tom Brady jerseys. We wore them because Brady is so darn good, so darn handsome and so full of the values of hard work and perseverance that you want your sports icons to embody. Or so we thought. Did he have any knowledge or any involvement in deflating footballs? Oh God, I hope not. But can I guarantee you that he didn't? Nope. Not even close. So how can I wear his jersey for the Super Bowl? I can't. At least I shouldn't. I know that.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/21/opinion/berman-patriots-deflate-gate/index.html
Seriously? I know you work for CNN (and as such are allowed to spout/embrace nonsense and platitudes 24-7) but you are a grown man with children. Get over it.
-
I think there's more aggrandizing "oh they're only making a big deal about it because it's the Patriots and everyone likes to see the Patriots fail" sentiment than there is "Oh Emm Geee They're Dirty Cheaters."
To be certain, there's far too much of both, but they're feeding each other in an annoying feedback loop of dumb stuff to kill time before the Super Bowl. As someone who has to pay attention to the NFL, it's actively hurting my brain.
For all the Patriots playoff games this year, my sons and I have all donned our No. 12 Tom Brady jerseys. We wore them because Brady is so darn good, so darn handsome and so full of the values of hard work and perseverance that you want your sports icons to embody. Or so we thought. Did he have any knowledge or any involvement in deflating footballs? Oh God, I hope not. But can I guarantee you that he didn't? Nope. Not even close. So how can I wear his jersey for the Super Bowl? I can't. At least I shouldn't. I know that.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/21/opinion/berman-patriots-deflate-gate/index.html
Seriously? I know you work for CNN (and as such are allowed to spout/embrace nonsense and platitudes 24-7) but you are a grown man with children. Get over it.
I hate quoting WEEI's Jerry Thornton, because most of what he puts out is bush league, but this part is good:
Let’s review, shall we?
Quarterback A, let’s call him Aaron, admits he likes footballs that have more air pressure in them than the NFL allows and defies the officials to do anything about it. This story is repeated by a network’s No. 1 broadcast team as a funny little anecdote in the middle of a Patriots game, but no one can remember hearing it because it just wasn’t that important. Aaron remains an adored media darling and his coach and team are revered throughout the land.
-
WALL OF VENOM (a Bruce Allen joint)
This is a solid example of the time honored "well these other things are bad and didn't get punished so this thing that was bad shouldn't get punished either."
The "Why this but not that?" defense is applicable to basically any issue in any conceivable circumstance, which is why it's so popular with hacks of the professional and amateur varieties. My personal favorite recent use was that if you didn't travel back in time and boycott Donald Sterling when he did racist stuff decades ago, he gets a blank check to keep doing it in perpetuity.
It's fair to say this is getting an inordinate amount of attention and handwringing of all kinds, partly because it's the Patriots and partly because there's still 10 days to kill before the Superb Owl, but commonplace cheating is still cheating. There's no way any of the ridiculous penalties ol' Angerbot up there is suggesting will come to pass though. They'll just fine them and hopefully tighten up ball check procedures for the future.
-
They'll just fine them and hopefully tighten up ball check procedures for the future.
Must. Resist. Crass Michael Sam joke.
I have a hunch that Aaron Rodgers is in Goodell's personal gulag right now for saying that God doesn't care about football. :D
-
WALL OF VENOM
This is a solid example of the time honored "well these other things are bad and didn't get punished so this thing that was bad shouldn't get punished either."
The "Why this but not that?" defense is applicable to basically any issue in any conceivable circumstance, which is why it's so popular with hacks of the professional and amateur varieties. My personal favorite recent use was that if you didn't travel back in time and boycott Donald Sterling when he did racist stuff decades ago, he gets a blank check to keep doing it in perpetuity.
It's fair to say this is getting an inordinate amount of attention, partly because it's the Patriots and partly because there's still 10 days to kill before the Superb Owl, but commonplace cheating is still cheating. There's no way any of the ridiculous penalties ol' Angerbot up there is suggesting will come to pass though. They'll just fine them and hopefully tighten up ball check procedures for the future.
When the heck did I say "WALL OF VENOM"? If people are going to quote me, at least be accurate and don't edit my posts.
-
It's fair to say this is getting an inordinate amount of attention, partly because it's the Patriots and partly because there's still 10 days to kill before the Superb Owl, but commonplace cheating is still cheating.
So do you think that someone was sitting one the sidelines with a needle deflating balls (because the refs have the balls until the game starts)? And is it still "cheating" if the balls were, in fact, approved by the refs in this condition? The rulebook does say that the officiating crew is the sole authority on whether a football conforms with the necessary standards.
-
WALL OF VENOM
This is a solid example of the time honored "well these other things are bad and didn't get punished so this thing that was bad shouldn't get punished either."
The "Why this but not that?" defense is applicable to basically any issue in any conceivable circumstance, which is why it's so popular with hacks of the professional and amateur varieties. My personal favorite recent use was that if you didn't travel back in time and boycott Donald Sterling when he did racist stuff decades ago, he gets a blank check to keep doing it in perpetuity.
It's fair to say this is getting an inordinate amount of attention, partly because it's the Patriots and partly because there's still 10 days to kill before the Superb Owl, but commonplace cheating is still cheating. There's no way any of the ridiculous penalties ol' Angerbot up there is suggesting will come to pass though. They'll just fine them and hopefully tighten up ball check procedures for the future.
When the heck did I say "WALL OF VENOM"? If people are going to quote me, at least be accurate and don't edit my posts.
I think that's the quote box limiter thing that came with the forum redesign working nefarious magic.
-
WALL OF VENOM
This is a solid example of the time honored "well these other things are bad and didn't get punished so this thing that was bad shouldn't get punished either."
The "Why this but not that?" defense is applicable to basically any issue in any conceivable circumstance, which is why it's so popular with hacks of the professional and amateur varieties. My personal favorite recent use was that if you didn't travel back in time and boycott Donald Sterling when he did racist stuff decades ago, he gets a blank check to keep doing it in perpetuity.
It's fair to say this is getting an inordinate amount of attention, partly because it's the Patriots and partly because there's still 10 days to kill before the Superb Owl, but commonplace cheating is still cheating. There's no way any of the ridiculous penalties ol' Angerbot up there is suggesting will come to pass though. They'll just fine them and hopefully tighten up ball check procedures for the future.
When the heck did I say "WALL OF VENOM"? If people are going to quote me, at least be accurate and don't edit my posts.
Sorry Dons, I didn't want to repost the entire long article again. Didn't mean to imply it was your words, so I altered the original post.
-
If the Patriots inflate the balls with hot air, then give the officials the balls to check and after playing in 40 degree weather the balls cool and the PSI goes down, is that cheating?
Why weren't the Colts affected, then?
Plus, from what I understand, weather probably wouldn't account for losing 2 PSI in a few hours.
I have some minor degree of the sympathy for the "everyone is doing it" argument. I think the "this wasn't intentional" justification is silly, though.
IF THE PATRIOTS INFLATED THEIR BALLS WITH HOT AIR. Maybe the Dolts used room temperature balls. Maybe the Patriots inflate their balls to 10 1/2 psi room temp, stick them in the sauna until they get to 12 1/2 psi and then give them to the refs to check the PSI.
What I am saying is, if you want an underinflated ball, simply pump it up with hot air, get it checked, then send it out into 40 degree weather.
-
Seems pretty clear to me as a non-Pats fan, that deflated balls had nothing to do the way the Pats handled the Colts.
At the same time, reading through this thread, I have to shake my head. The way so many of you fans are rationalizing it or putting it on the refs is ridiculous.
They cheated, and I fail to see how it could be unintentional.
All this "well other teams do it too!" Is nonsense.
Not impressed with this group of football fans (on the whole) at all.
-
It's fair to say this is getting an inordinate amount of attention, partly because it's the Patriots and partly because there's still 10 days to kill before the Superb Owl, but commonplace cheating is still cheating.
So do you think that someone was sitting one the sidelines with a needle deflating balls (because the refs have the balls until the game starts)?
No idea.
And is it still "cheating" if the balls were, in fact, approved by the refs in this condition? The rulebook does say that the officiating crew is the sole authority on whether a football conforms with the necessary standards.
If the balls were deliberately treated in such a way to make them non-conforming at any point during the game, then yes, that's cheating by definition.
-
If the Patriots inflate the balls with hot air, then give the officials the balls to check and after playing in 40 degree weather the balls cool and the PSI goes down, is that cheating?
Why weren't the Colts affected, then?
Plus, from what I understand, weather probably wouldn't account for losing 2 PSI in a few hours.
I have some minor degree of the sympathy for the "everyone is doing it" argument. I think the "this wasn't intentional" justification is silly, though.
IF THE PATRIOTS INFLATED THEIR BALLS WITH HOT AIR. Maybe the Dolts used room temperature balls. Maybe the Patriots inflate their balls to 10 1/2 psi room temp, stick them in the sauna until they get to 12 1/2 psi and then give them to the refs to check the PSI.
What I am saying is, if you want an underinflated ball, simply pump it up with hot air, get it checked, then send it out into 40 degree weather.
If they used heated air or warmed the balls in a sauna, that would be cheating as well.
What's the problem with just playing by the rules? The Pats were clearly the dominant team.
-
Bruce Allen of Boston Sports Media Watch with an absolutely epic rant. Can't say I necessarily agree with everything but he does make some good points. If nothing else, it's an entertaining read. Hint: It's not exactly objective.
Big Bad Bill Belichick.
He really does bring out the absolute worst in the media. Things that would be ignored, or laughed off if they were done by any other team, results in hysterical, hair-on-fire denunciations if the Patriots are involved.
He causes the media to become unable to think for themselves, and become subject to a mob mentality in which they are all sheep, following along with the loudest voices, and afraid to produce an original thought.
The NFL, specifically its Commissioner, is a laughingstock, pledging a transparent investigation, they instead allow late night leaks of salacious details to good ol’ boy reporters. They pledge to get all the details and facts from Foxboro when they can’t even ascertain whether a video was received by the league office showing a player knocking a woman unconscious. They want us to trust their investigation when they hire a former associate to investigate themselves over said video incident.
As usual Roger Goodell has lost control of the situation, and will be in full reactionary mode once he decides to take action.
For Goodell, he can get himself into the good graces with the media by inflicting the harshest possible punishment upon Bill Belichick and the Patriots. This satisfies the bloodlust of the media and the public outside of New England, and gets Goodell back into the good graces of the media after his PR fiascos earlier in the season.
What I’m saying is be prepared for the worst possible outcome from this. Belichick suspended for Super Bowl? Entirely possible. Suspended for next season? Entirely possible. Multiple first round draft picks taken away? Entirely possible.
If, after all of that Robert Kraft kowtows to Goodell and tells us all what a great job he’s doing one more time, I’m going to be gravely disappointed in him and what he stands for.
For making the football a bit softer so the QB could grip them better. (and that’s even speculation, we don’t actually know the facts here yet, just that the balls were under regulation by 2 PSI.)
It doesn’t matter that the best quarterback in the NFL told CBS earlier this season about liking to overinflate balls and pushing the limits and seeing if they can fool the officials, all so he can grip them better.
It doesn’t matter that a two-time Super Bowl winning quarterback insists on his footballs being doctored for months before he will use them in a game because he wants to be comfortable gripping them.
It doesn’t matter that a Super Bowl winning quarterback has admitted to paying $7500 to have the 100 footballs used in the Super Bowl he played in altered so that he could grip them better.
It doesn’t matter that the Minnesota Vikings and Carolina Panthers were using heaters to warm up footballs on the sidelines this season. (which would impact the hardness/grip of the football, by the way)
Nothing matters other than the fact that the Colts were getting their butts kicked and wanted to find a way to try and get in the Patriots heads. They didn’t actually anticipate it going this far, very similar to the Jets when they reported the Patriots for taping in an incorrect spot.
Nothing matters other than the fact the owner of the Colts, coming off a season in which he was suspended for six games, gave a crony columnist a middle of the night tip, which initially the columnist thought to ignore, but instead decided that since it was the Patriots, he’d get a lot of play out of it, and ran with it, and now says Belichick should be suspended for the Super Bowl and is a national star.
Nothing matters other than the fact that Belichick isn’t cuddly with the media, and most out there would like nothing more than to see him fired and disgraced, so they’re put aside any objectivity they may (unlikely) have possessed and have gone all-in on the idea that this is a huge cheat masterminded by Bill Belichick who personally oversaw the deflation of the footballs. (also unlikely) That’s the true endgame here.
The national media, in addition to the piling on of Belichick also goes after the fans who make the points above. They call it excuse making, and saying that those incidents don’t matter because the rules were broken here, and the Patriots were caught. OK. That’s legit. Punish them according to the severity of the alleged crime. But why can’t the hypocrisy be pointed out at least? We’re supposed to take this incident seriously – to the point of huge suspensions/punishments – but it’s OK to completely ignore the other incidents that have taken place?
sometimes you can get lucky and put an extra half a pound of air in there to help Aaron Rodgers out.
Hypocrites. Cowards. Frauds.
link?
-
Bruce Allen of Boston Sports Media Watch with an absolutely epic rant. Can't say I necessarily agree with everything but he does make some good points. If nothing else, it's an entertaining read. Hint: It's not exactly objective.
Big Bad Bill Belichick.
He really does bring out the absolute worst in the media. Things that would be ignored, or laughed off if they were done by any other team, results in hysterical, hair-on-fire denunciations if the Patriots are involved.
He causes the media to become unable to think for themselves, and become subject to a mob mentality in which they are all sheep, following along with the loudest voices, and afraid to produce an original thought.
The NFL, specifically its Commissioner, is a laughingstock, pledging a transparent investigation, they instead allow late night leaks of salacious details to good ol’ boy reporters. They pledge to get all the details and facts from Foxboro when they can’t even ascertain whether a video was received by the league office showing a player knocking a woman unconscious. They want us to trust their investigation when they hire a former associate to investigate themselves over said video incident.
As usual Roger Goodell has lost control of the situation, and will be in full reactionary mode once he decides to take action.
For Goodell, he can get himself into the good graces with the media by inflicting the harshest possible punishment upon Bill Belichick and the Patriots. This satisfies the bloodlust of the media and the public outside of New England, and gets Goodell back into the good graces of the media after his PR fiascos earlier in the season.
What I’m saying is be prepared for the worst possible outcome from this. Belichick suspended for Super Bowl? Entirely possible. Suspended for next season? Entirely possible. Multiple first round draft picks taken away? Entirely possible.
If, after all of that Robert Kraft kowtows to Goodell and tells us all what a great job he’s doing one more time, I’m going to be gravely disappointed in him and what he stands for.
For making the football a bit softer so the QB could grip them better. (and that’s even speculation, we don’t actually know the facts here yet, just that the balls were under regulation by 2 PSI.)
It doesn’t matter that the best quarterback in the NFL told CBS earlier this season about liking to overinflate balls and pushing the limits and seeing if they can fool the officials, all so he can grip them better.
It doesn’t matter that a two-time Super Bowl winning quarterback insists on his footballs being doctored for months before he will use them in a game because he wants to be comfortable gripping them.
It doesn’t matter that a Super Bowl winning quarterback has admitted to paying $7500 to have the 100 footballs used in the Super Bowl he played in altered so that he could grip them better.
It doesn’t matter that the Minnesota Vikings and Carolina Panthers were using heaters to warm up footballs on the sidelines this season. (which would impact the hardness/grip of the football, by the way)
Nothing matters other than the fact that the Colts were getting their butts kicked and wanted to find a way to try and get in the Patriots heads. They didn’t actually anticipate it going this far, very similar to the Jets when they reported the Patriots for taping in an incorrect spot.
Nothing matters other than the fact the owner of the Colts, coming off a season in which he was suspended for six games, gave a crony columnist a middle of the night tip, which initially the columnist thought to ignore, but instead decided that since it was the Patriots, he’d get a lot of play out of it, and ran with it, and now says Belichick should be suspended for the Super Bowl and is a national star.
Nothing matters other than the fact that Belichick isn’t cuddly with the media, and most out there would like nothing more than to see him fired and disgraced, so they’re put aside any objectivity they may (unlikely) have possessed and have gone all-in on the idea that this is a huge cheat masterminded by Bill Belichick who personally oversaw the deflation of the footballs. (also unlikely) That’s the true endgame here.
The national media, in addition to the piling on of Belichick also goes after the fans who make the points above. They call it excuse making, and saying that those incidents don’t matter because the rules were broken here, and the Patriots were caught. OK. That’s legit. Punish them according to the severity of the alleged crime. But why can’t the hypocrisy be pointed out at least? We’re supposed to take this incident seriously – to the point of huge suspensions/punishments – but it’s OK to completely ignore the other incidents that have taken place?
sometimes you can get lucky and put an extra half a pound of air in there to help Aaron Rodgers out.
Hypocrites. Cowards. Frauds.
link?
http://www.bostonsportsmedia.com/2015/01/media-hypocrisy-cowardice-never-bigger-than-when-patriots-are-involved
-
WALL OF VENOM
This is a solid example of the time honored "well these other things are bad and didn't get punished so this thing that was bad shouldn't get punished either."
The "Why this but not that?" defense is applicable to basically any issue in any conceivable circumstance, which is why it's so popular with hacks of the professional and amateur varieties. My personal favorite recent use was that if you didn't travel back in time and boycott Donald Sterling when he did racist stuff decades ago, he gets a blank check to keep doing it in perpetuity.
It's fair to say this is getting an inordinate amount of attention, partly because it's the Patriots and partly because there's still 10 days to kill before the Superb Owl, but commonplace cheating is still cheating. There's no way any of the ridiculous penalties ol' Angerbot up there is suggesting will come to pass though. They'll just fine them and hopefully tighten up ball check procedures for the future.
When the heck did I say "WALL OF VENOM"? If people are going to quote me, at least be accurate and don't edit my posts.
Sorry Dons, I didn't want to repost the entire long article again. Didn't mean to imply it was your words, so I altered the original post.
Just looks bad. That's all I'm saying.
-
If the Patriots inflate the balls with hot air, then give the officials the balls to check and after playing in 40 degree weather the balls cool and the PSI goes down, is that cheating?
Why weren't the Colts affected, then?
Plus, from what I understand, weather probably wouldn't account for losing 2 PSI in a few hours.
I have some minor degree of the sympathy for the "everyone is doing it" argument. I think the "this wasn't intentional" justification is silly, though.
IF THE PATRIOTS INFLATED THEIR BALLS WITH HOT AIR. Maybe the Dolts used room temperature balls. Maybe the Patriots inflate their balls to 10 1/2 psi room temp, stick them in the sauna until they get to 12 1/2 psi and then give them to the refs to check the PSI.
What I am saying is, if you want an underinflated ball, simply pump it up with hot air, get it checked, then send it out into 40 degree weather.
If they used heated air or warmed the balls in a sauna, that would be cheating as well.
What's the problem with just playing by the rules? The Pats were clearly the dominant team.
You say it is cheating, but what rule is it breaking? You can do anything you want to the balls prior to being inspected by the refs. I haven't seen a rule saying what temperature the air in the balls has to be. I can see a "spirit of the rule" argument but this is a billion dollar business, I don't think you can have "spirit of the rule" arguments.
-
You say it is cheating, but what rule is it breaking? You can do anything you want to the balls prior to being inspected by the refs. I haven't seen a rule saying what temperature the air in the balls has to be. I can see a "spirit of the rule" argument but this is a billion dollar business, I don't think you can have "spirit of the rule" arguments.
The other curious part is that the rulebook says that the balls should be in the custody of the officiating crew until the game, and reports from today indicate they were instead handed back to the teams after inspection.
I wonder how meticulous things get in an NFL locker room on Sunday. Is it more of a "this ball looks fine, let's play", or do they take a pressure gauge to each individual ball before they mark it. It certainly looks more like the former rather than the later.
I have no doubts that most teams do something to game balls that is to their QBs liking, just as I have no doubts that if anyone is to be slammed for this, it would be the Patriots.
-
It certainly seems the Pats deflated balls which IS cheating, though it is unlikely that it can be proved. Yes, Pats were clearly the better team though that only makes the latest incident even more crass and classless.
Also, several have mentioned that the weather would bring the psi down, which is true. How do you explain the 12th football not being deflated? One would assume that the temperature would have effected all 12 footballs equally, yet it did not. Also, people keep bringing up Rodgers saying he likes overinflated balls. There is a window of 12.5-13.5 psi which is legal. So, Rodgers could prefer his balls at 13.5 (still legal). I am not aware of any complaints regarding the balls Rodgers uses in games either.
Just wanted to make sure it was pointed out that neither argument holds any weight nor does it justify tampering with a ball; otherwise known as cheating.
-
Bruce Allen of Boston Sports Media Watch with an absolutely epic rant. Can't say I necessarily agree with everything but he does make some good points. If nothing else, it's an entertaining read. Hint: It's not exactly objective.
Big Bad Bill Belichick.
He really does bring out the absolute worst in the media. Things that would be ignored, or laughed off if they were done by any other team, results in hysterical, hair-on-fire denunciations if the Patriots are involved.
He causes the media to become unable to think for themselves, and become subject to a mob mentality in which they are all sheep, following along with the loudest voices, and afraid to produce an original thought.
The NFL, specifically its Commissioner, is a laughingstock, pledging a transparent investigation, they instead allow late night leaks of salacious details to good ol’ boy reporters. They pledge to get all the details and facts from Foxboro when they can’t even ascertain whether a video was received by the league office showing a player knocking a woman unconscious. They want us to trust their investigation when they hire a former associate to investigate themselves over said video incident.
As usual Roger Goodell has lost control of the situation, and will be in full reactionary mode once he decides to take action.
For Goodell, he can get himself into the good graces with the media by inflicting the harshest possible punishment upon Bill Belichick and the Patriots. This satisfies the bloodlust of the media and the public outside of New England, and gets Goodell back into the good graces of the media after his PR fiascos earlier in the season.
What I’m saying is be prepared for the worst possible outcome from this. Belichick suspended for Super Bowl? Entirely possible. Suspended for next season? Entirely possible. Multiple first round draft picks taken away? Entirely possible.
If, after all of that Robert Kraft kowtows to Goodell and tells us all what a great job he’s doing one more time, I’m going to be gravely disappointed in him and what he stands for.
For making the football a bit softer so the QB could grip them better. (and that’s even speculation, we don’t actually know the facts here yet, just that the balls were under regulation by 2 PSI.)
It doesn’t matter that the best quarterback in the NFL told CBS earlier this season about liking to overinflate balls and pushing the limits and seeing if they can fool the officials, all so he can grip them better.
It doesn’t matter that a two-time Super Bowl winning quarterback insists on his footballs being doctored for months before he will use them in a game because he wants to be comfortable gripping them.
It doesn’t matter that a Super Bowl winning quarterback has admitted to paying $7500 to have the 100 footballs used in the Super Bowl he played in altered so that he could grip them better.
It doesn’t matter that the Minnesota Vikings and Carolina Panthers were using heaters to warm up footballs on the sidelines this season. (which would impact the hardness/grip of the football, by the way)
Nothing matters other than the fact that the Colts were getting their butts kicked and wanted to find a way to try and get in the Patriots heads. They didn’t actually anticipate it going this far, very similar to the Jets when they reported the Patriots for taping in an incorrect spot.
Nothing matters other than the fact the owner of the Colts, coming off a season in which he was suspended for six games, gave a crony columnist a middle of the night tip, which initially the columnist thought to ignore, but instead decided that since it was the Patriots, he’d get a lot of play out of it, and ran with it, and now says Belichick should be suspended for the Super Bowl and is a national star.
Nothing matters other than the fact that Belichick isn’t cuddly with the media, and most out there would like nothing more than to see him fired and disgraced, so they’re put aside any objectivity they may (unlikely) have possessed and have gone all-in on the idea that this is a huge cheat masterminded by Bill Belichick who personally oversaw the deflation of the footballs. (also unlikely) That’s the true endgame here.
The national media, in addition to the piling on of Belichick also goes after the fans who make the points above. They call it excuse making, and saying that those incidents don’t matter because the rules were broken here, and the Patriots were caught. OK. That’s legit. Punish them according to the severity of the alleged crime. But why can’t the hypocrisy be pointed out at least? We’re supposed to take this incident seriously – to the point of huge suspensions/punishments – but it’s OK to completely ignore the other incidents that have taken place?
sometimes you can get lucky and put an extra half a pound of air in there to help Aaron Rodgers out.
Hypocrites. Cowards. Frauds.
Well, I'm a biased Pats fan as well, so keep that in my mind as you read my comments, but the above writer makes some great points that should be heeded. For example, the Panthers and Vikings were captured on live TV last November heating up footballs during a cold game—and it seems that the only thing the league did was issue a league-wide memo reminding teams that balls are not to be heated during games. Ok, fine. No sweat.
But this is a witch hunt, a case of "we've had enough of Belichick pushing the envelope and sometimes crossing the line, and this is our chance to nail him to the wall." Pure and simple.
I'm not a cheater. If I'm playing a friendly (or competitive) game of cards with friends and a card falls to the floor and I have a chance to look at it without anyone knowing, I don't look at it. So I'm disappointed if any of "my" teams or players cheat.
But the NFL isn't treating all offenders of this rule equally, and that's also wrong. In fact, this rule seems to be one of those "it's technically a rule but not really a rule" kind of rules—you know, like how cars technically aren't supposed to be over the line marking the crosswalk, but people do it all the time. I'm a cyclist and I see this happen a lot, but it usually doesn't bother me—no harm, no foul. Whatever. That's life. God gives me grace, so I try to give it to others.
Or to look at it another way, technically I'm breaking the law if I'm driving 46 mph in a 45-mph zone, but am I really doing something wrong? Am I being reckless? Am I endangering anyone? Because is there any real difference between 45 and 46 mph? Only a jerky police officer would pull me over in that instance, and that's what the NFL is being here: a jerky police officer.
I admit that I'm more of a "spirit of the law" kind of guy, as opposed to being a "letter of the law" person. And it seems that the NFL has been a "spirit of the law" kind of entity when it comes to footballs and how QBs prefer them to be (Eli Manning, Aaron Rodgers, Brad Johnson), basically sending the message, "Hey, as long as the balls aren't at some extreme—like rock-hard or pillow-soft—do what you want."
And I have to ask this question: Why is there even a rule about inflation? Really, why? You obviously can't play with a flat ball, but why does it matter whether the ball is a bit soft, or firm, or superfirm? And yes, I realize that the level of inflation changes the grip, but that's not what I mean by "why does it matter?". What I mean is, the football is usually in the hands of the offense, so why not let each QB inflate the ball to the level he wants, to whatever level works best for him and his receivers? That's not cheating. That's not an unfair competitive advantage. It's letting each QB be comfortable. And each team would have the same opportunity to do what it wants. That's perfectly fair. In fact, the NFL is already allowing this to an extent, by allowing a range of PSI in which the football can be. So the league is already saying there can be differences—so why not just allow all differences (or virtually all, excluding those extremes I mentioned)? What's the rationale behind saying a ball can be anywhere from 12.5 psi to 13.5 psi? Why is 12.4 psi bad? Or 13.8? Seems arbitrary to me. And I also have to ask: What's the difference between slightly deflating a ball—and letting receivers wear supergrip gloves?
Granted, the NFL hasn't made any ruling yet, so it may end up adhering to the spirit of the law, but that's not the impression I'm getting so far. Instead, judging by what has taken place to this point, the NFL is poised to crush the head of the Belichick snake. Over a little bit of air.
I realize the Patriots have a track record of pushing the envelope, if not outright cheating, but the past is the past. The Patriots paid a price for SpyGate. But if SpyGate was so egregious, the NFL should've just banned Belichick then and been done with it. You can't keep punishing someone for old wounds. Move on. Judge them on this instance alone, an instance that, at worst, is so minor as to be not worth the fuss.
-
I can see a "spirit of the rule" argument but this is a billion dollar business, I don't think you can have "spirit of the rule" arguments.
(http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/article/media_slots/photos/000/775/572/tuckrule_original.gif?1363860393)
-
It certainly seems the Pats deflated balls which IS cheating, though it is unlikely that it can be proved. Yes, Pats were clearly the better team though that only makes the latest incident even more crass and classless.
Also, several have mentioned that the weather would bring the psi down, which is true. How do you explain the 12th football not being deflated? One would assume that the temperature would have effected all 12 footballs equally, yet it did not. Also, people keep bringing up Rodgers saying he likes overinflated balls. There is a window of 12.5-13.5 psi which is legal. So, Rodgers could prefer his balls at 13.5 (still legal). I am not aware of any complaints regarding the balls Rodgers uses in games either.
Just wanted to make sure it was pointed out that neither argument holds any weight nor does it justify tampering with a ball; otherwise known as cheating.
12th ball was initially inflated to the high end of of psi spectrum while the other 11 were inflated to the bare minimum. With any deflation occurring after the fact (natural or not), the 11 would fall under the threshold while the 12th one may not have.
-
If the Patriots didn't monkey around with the temperature of the balls, I have a hard time believing the ball boy pulled out 12 footballs in front of everyone and started deflating balls right before the game. Nobody noticed? On Mike and Mike the former Officials supervisor said they give the ball boy the bag of balls just 10 minutes before the game starts. He'd have to pull out all the balls, deflate, put it in the bag, grab the next one, deflate, put it in the bag, grab the next one, deflate and put it in the bag... and so on and so on without anyone noticing? I'm not buying it.
It would be much easier to believe they heat them up, it probably wouldn't have to be too hot to get 2 psi difference between 40degrees and whatever they needed to warm them to be legal.
It would be easy to test for anyone with a football, a pressure gauge, and a refrigerator. Someone get on that.
-
It certainly seems the Pats deflated balls which IS cheating, though it is unlikely that it can be proved. Yes, Pats were clearly the better team though that only makes the latest incident even more crass and classless.
Also, several have mentioned that the weather would bring the psi down, which is true. How do you explain the 12th football not being deflated? One would assume that the temperature would have effected all 12 footballs equally, yet it did not. Also, people keep bringing up Rodgers saying he likes overinflated balls. There is a window of 12.5-13.5 psi which is legal. So, Rodgers could prefer his balls at 13.5 (still legal). I am not aware of any complaints regarding the balls Rodgers uses in games either.
Just wanted to make sure it was pointed out that neither argument holds any weight nor does it justify tampering with a ball; otherwise known as cheating.
Make sure you don't miss the part where Rodgers is quoted to say he likes to go above the rulebook limit to see whether the officials will take air out of the ball.
http://www.bostonsportsmedia.com/2015/01/deflategate-is-over-this-is-the-smoking-gun
-
If the Patriots didn't monkey around with the temperature of the balls, I have a hard time believing the ball boy pulled out 12 footballs in front of everyone and started deflating balls right before the game. Nobody noticed? On Mike and Mike the former Officials supervisor said they give the ball boy the bag of balls just 10 minutes before the game starts. He'd have to pull out all the balls, deflate, put it in the bag, grab the next one, deflate, put it in the bag, grab the next one, deflate and put it in the bag... and so on and so on without anyone noticing? I'm not buying it.
It would be much easier to believe they heat them up, it probably wouldn't have to be too hot to get 2 psi difference between 40degrees and whatever they needed to warm them to be legal.
It would be easy to test for anyone with a football, a pressure gauge, and a refrigerator. Someone get on that.
Someone seems to have done the math, which adds up to about 1.2 PSI if the temp drop is from 72F to 49F and the balls were inflated to the minimum to boot.
(http://i.imgur.com/u3gzeCi.jpg)
-
Cool, so if you put 140degree or so air in them... 2lbs or so difference. Is there a rule against use warm air to inflate a football?
-
In any sport its up to the referee to check the ball to make sure its regulation. Ultimately it comes down to the refs failing to do their job - a recurring theme with the NFL. The fact that there was gamesmanship going on...so what. It's part of the sport and always has been.
The refs did check the balls, it is quite obvious that they were toyed with after they had been approved by the officiating crew. To further point out how asinine your comment is, it only took a few plays for the refs to realize that something was wrong with the footballs and they were immediately substituted in with properly inflated balls.
Um, no, it didn't. The balls were not reported "soft" until halftime when Brady was picked off. This was well-documented when the story broke down yesterday.
Which brings us full circle to the following question: how did the officials, who handle every ball after every snap (both Pats balls and Colts balls) didn't see anything wrong, and one Colts player suddenly figured out something is wrong from one touch. I mean, wouldn't it be immediately obvious to an official that the Pats balls were noticeably softer than Colts balls?
Also, the narrative of the story has suddenly changed from "balls were underinflated by 2 PSI" to "balls were underinflated by up to 2 PSI". So go figure.
My bad, got that info from a Pats fan. I knew I should never trust that evil breed of human ;)
-
Cool, so if you put 140degree or so air in them... 2lbs or so difference. Is there a rule against use warm air to inflate a football?
Not really, the rulebook is pretty minimalistic when it comes to the football. It just prescribes dimensions and makes it illegal to tamper with the ball after the officiating crew has marked it as approved.
http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/5_2013_Ball.pdf
-
My bad, got that info from a Pats fan. I knew I should never trust that evil breed of human ;)
Never trust a fan without verifying the facts. The main reason why you should ignore Bleacher Report altogether.
-
Cool, so if you put 140degree or so air in them... 2lbs or so difference. Is there a rule against use warm air to inflate a football?
Not really, the rulebook is pretty minimalistic when it comes to the football. It just prescribes dimensions and makes it illegal to tamper with the ball after the officiating crew has marked it as approved.
http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/5_2013_Ball.pdf
Yeah, that was my point. I knew there wasn't. Just like the spygate rule and furthur "clarifications" all stated you couldn't videotape from that location for use in "the game." It didn't prohibit it, just as it pertained to "the game." Which game? The one going on? So you can do it to break down the game after, grade players based on what the defense called for? Poorly written rules and the clarification seemed to end the confusion, until the last line when they stuck "the game" back in there.
A better system would have the balls delivered uninflated to the referees and they inflate them. They then give them to the ball boy who is an employee of the NFL instead of the teams.
-
It really takes BALLs to come up with something this trivial
-
My bad, got that info from a Pats fan. I knew I should never trust that evil breed of human ;)
Never trust a fan without verifying the facts. The main reason why you should ignore Bleacher Report altogether.
I'm a Ravens fan who admittedly would love nothing more than to be able to say the Pats cheated in beating us a couple of Sundays back, so I don't know why I was so eager to regurgitate info coming from the enemy.
-
Ok so we got Aaron Rogers admitting publicly that he intentionally overinflates the balls and we have two teams caught on tv.
Punish them. They cheated. They are the cheats.
-
Oh, and what an ****y season for the NFL. Domestic violence rules the regular season, allegations of foul play rule the playoffs.
This is why I'm a bigger NBA fan. At least when there's foul play, the perpetrators write books about it ;D
(http://media.nbcphiladelphia.com/images/1200*900/PHI+former+nba+ref+tim+donaghy+on+court.jpg)
-
Next time
Don't deflate your balls
-
If the Patriots inflate the balls with hot air, then give the officials the balls to check and after playing in 40 degree weather the balls cool and the PSI goes down, is that cheating?
Why weren't the Colts affected, then?
Plus, from what I understand, weather probably wouldn't account for losing 2 PSI in a few hours.
I have some minor degree of the sympathy for the "everyone is doing it" argument. I think the "this wasn't intentional" justification is silly, though.
IF THE PATRIOTS INFLATED THEIR BALLS WITH HOT AIR. Maybe the Dolts used room temperature balls. Maybe the Patriots inflate their balls to 10 1/2 psi room temp, stick them in the sauna until they get to 12 1/2 psi and then give them to the refs to check the PSI.
What I am saying is, if you want an underinflated ball, simply pump it up with hot air, get it checked, then send it out into 40 degree weather.
Haha, and they wouldn't notice one team's balls are 100+ degrees and much hotter to the touch than the other team's? Seems a lot more noticeable (qualitatively) than less air.
Why would they go through all that, when all they have to do is stick a needle in the ball for 2 whole seconds? It's not like that even solves the problem of having your balls checked after the game. All that means is they would have to fudge TWO weigh-ins instead of just one.
-
Ok so we got Aaron Rogers admitting publicly that he intentionally overinflates the balls and we have two teams caught on tv.
Punish them. They cheated. They are the cheats.
40 lashes
Public flogging
-
Cool, so if you put 140degree or so air in them... 2lbs or so difference. Is there a rule against use warm air to inflate a football?
Not really, the rulebook is pretty minimalistic when it comes to the football. It just prescribes dimensions and makes it illegal to tamper with the ball after the officiating crew has marked it as approved.
http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/5_2013_Ball.pdf
best part about this rule, the unit of measure articulated by the NFL:
The ball shall be made up of an inflated (12 1/2 to 13 1/2 pounds) urethane bladder enclosed in a pebble grained, leather case
(natural tan color) without corrugations of any kind.
13.5 pounds...per? seems open to interpretation.
was there a rule broken or is this a broken rule?
-
Cool, so if you put 140degree or so air in them... 2lbs or so difference. Is there a rule against use warm air to inflate a football?
Not really, the rulebook is pretty minimalistic when it comes to the football. It just prescribes dimensions and makes it illegal to tamper with the ball after the officiating crew has marked it as approved.
http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/5_2013_Ball.pdf
best part about this rule, the unit of measure articulated by the NFL:
The ball shall be made up of an inflated (12 1/2 to 13 1/2 pounds) urethane bladder enclosed in a pebble grained, leather case
(natural tan color) without corrugations of any kind.
13.5 pounds...per? seems open to interpretation.
was there a rule broken or is this a broken rule?
Wow this is a stretch.
"The ball shall be..."
There's your answer. 12.5 lbs to 13.5 lbs per.
-
Ok so we got Aaron Rogers admitting publicly that he intentionally overinflates the balls and we have two teams caught on tv.
Punish them. They cheated. They are the cheats.
40 lashes
Public flogging
That's it? That's all I get? Makes me sick.
-
Actual Post-AFC Championship Video of the Indianapolis Colts Owner and CEO Jim Irsay's conversation with League Officials about deflated balls during the the game.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/26/9f/a2/269fa226ea55ad028164bcab79c38aab.jpg)
Mk
-
Actual Post-AFC Championship Video of the Indianapolis Colts Owner and CEO Jim Irsay's conversation with League Officials about deflated balls during the the game.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/26/9f/a2/269fa226ea55ad028164bcab79c38aab.jpg)
Mk
Source? :P
-
My bad, got that info from a Pats fan. I knew I should never trust that evil breed of human ;)
Never trust a fan without verifying the facts. The main reason why you should ignore Bleacher Report altogether.
I'm a Ravens fan who admittedly would love nothing more than to be able to say the Pats cheated in beating us a couple of Sundays back, so I don't know why I was so eager to regurgitate info coming from the enemy.
I think we should have one of these every year. It beats mulling over how in earth Andy Dalton made it to the Pro Bowl roster. It's ANDY FREAKIN' DALTON!
-
If the Patriots inflate the balls with hot air, then give the officials the balls to check and after playing in 40 degree weather the balls cool and the PSI goes down, is that cheating?
Why weren't the Colts affected, then?
Plus, from what I understand, weather probably wouldn't account for losing 2 PSI in a few hours.
I have some minor degree of the sympathy for the "everyone is doing it" argument. I think the "this wasn't intentional" justification is silly, though.
IF THE PATRIOTS INFLATED THEIR BALLS WITH HOT AIR. Maybe the Dolts used room temperature balls. Maybe the Patriots inflate their balls to 10 1/2 psi room temp, stick them in the sauna until they get to 12 1/2 psi and then give them to the refs to check the PSI.
What I am saying is, if you want an underinflated ball, simply pump it up with hot air, get it checked, then send it out into 40 degree weather.
If they used heated air or warmed the balls in a sauna, that would be cheating as well.
What's the problem with just playing by the rules? The Pats were clearly the dominant team.
May have been against spirit of the rule, but I was not aware of NFL rule that the balls had to be filled with air at room temperature. Any cite on this?
-
Wow this is a stretch.
"The ball shall be..."
There's your answer. 12.5 lbs to 13.5 lbs per.
I think he meant that "13 1/2 pounds" is not the same as "13 1/2 pounds per sq inch". Or is it pounds per sq cm? Pounds per barn? Per rood? Per square rood?
-
Actual Post-AFC Championship Video of the Indianapolis Colts Owner and CEO Jim Irsay's conversation with League Officials about deflated balls during the the game.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/26/9f/a2/269fa226ea55ad028164bcab79c38aab.jpg)
Mk
Source? :P
stock footage
-
Actual Post-AFC Championship Video of the Indianapolis Colts Owner and CEO Jim Irsay's conversation with League Officials about deflated balls during the the game.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/26/9f/a2/269fa226ea55ad028164bcab79c38aab.jpg)
Mk
Actual footage of Belicheat in locker room before AFC semifinals vs. Baltimore:
(http://rasica.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/golem-692573-1.jpeg)
And in AFC Finals vs. Indy:
(http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121002112414/lotr/images/6/64/Gollum_-_Two_Towers.png)
-
Not to mention, why wouldn't you fill the kickers' ball with colder air while you're at it if that was the case?
-
My bad, got that info from a Pats fan. I knew I should never trust that evil breed of human ;)
Never trust a fan without verifying the facts. The main reason why you should ignore Bleacher Report altogether.
I'm a Ravens fan who admittedly would love nothing more than to be able to say the Pats cheated in beating us a couple of Sundays back, so I don't know why I was so eager to regurgitate info coming from the enemy.
I think we should have one of these every year. It beats mulling over how in earth Andy Dalton made it to the Pro Bowl roster. It's ANDY FREAKIN' DALTON!
Hah, you're telling me. I dislike the Bengals more than I dislike the Pats. Heck I dislike them more than I dislike the Steelers (who I can actually respect as a franchise). Andy Dalton is my least favorite player in the NFL.
Wow this is a stretch.
"The ball shall be..."
There's your answer. 12.5 lbs to 13.5 lbs per.
I think he meant that "13 1/2 pounds" is not the same as "13 1/2 pounds per sq inch".
Ah, this makes more sense, but still seems like a distraction from the primary issue. We know the NFL is an incompetent league. But that's far from the only thing at work here.
-
Actual Post-AFC Championship Video of the Indianapolis Colts Owner and CEO Jim Irsay's conversation with League Officials about deflated balls during the the game.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/26/9f/a2/269fa226ea55ad028164bcab79c38aab.jpg)
Mk
Source? :P
stock footage
I'm more curious how they took post-game video of a mid-game conversation.
-
Not to mention, why wouldn't you fill the kickers' ball with colder air while you're at it if that was the case?
Balls for the kicking game come directly from the manufacturer and are handled by the refs, apparently. Teams have like 45 mins to work them in the presence of a member of the officiating crew.
-
Actual Post-AFC Championship Video of the Indianapolis Colts Owner and CEO Jim Irsay's conversation with League Officials about deflated balls during the the game.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/26/9f/a2/269fa226ea55ad028164bcab79c38aab.jpg)
Mk
Actual footage of Belicheat in locker room before AFC semifinals vs. Baltimore:
(http://rasica.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/golem-692573-1.jpeg)
And in AFC Finals vs. Indy:
(http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121002112414/lotr/images/6/64/Gollum_-_Two_Towers.png)
Well who can blame him? Once you have several rings you just want more.
-
Hah, you're telling me. I dislike the Bengals more than I dislike the Pats. Heck I dislike them more than I dislike the Steelers (who I can actually respect as a franchise). Andy Dalton is my least favorite player in the NFL.
I don't care much about the Bengals one way or the other -- just felt compelled to pitch in on this. The next time Dalton plays well in a game that matters will be his first.
-
If the Patriots inflate the balls with hot air, then give the officials the balls to check and after playing in 40 degree weather the balls cool and the PSI goes down, is that cheating?
Why weren't the Colts affected, then?
Plus, from what I understand, weather probably wouldn't account for losing 2 PSI in a few hours.
I have some minor degree of the sympathy for the "everyone is doing it" argument. I think the "this wasn't intentional" justification is silly, though.
IF THE PATRIOTS INFLATED THEIR BALLS WITH HOT AIR. Maybe the Dolts used room temperature balls. Maybe the Patriots inflate their balls to 10 1/2 psi room temp, stick them in the sauna until they get to 12 1/2 psi and then give them to the refs to check the PSI.
What I am saying is, if you want an underinflated ball, simply pump it up with hot air, get it checked, then send it out into 40 degree weather.
Haha, and they wouldn't notice one team's balls are 100+ degrees and much hotter to the touch than the other team's? Seems a lot more noticeable (qualitatively) than less air.
Why would they go through all that, when all they have to do is stick a needle in the ball for 2 whole seconds? It's not like that even solves the problem of having your balls checked after the game. All that means is they would have to fudge TWO weigh-ins instead of just one.
Maybe they did notice. There isn't a rule saying the balls can't be warm. I'd guess, the refs really don't care. They measure what they have to and go on with their game preparation. What are they going to do, tell the Patriots to go get new balls because these are too warm?
If they did say, "hey why are these balls hot?" The Patriots probably said it makes them soft or the laces stick up, or sticky or whatever. It isn't the refs job to to monitor the temperature of the balls. They might even have said, the balls are hot because the cold weather will make them deflate to how we like them. Ok, no rule against that. It isn't like the refs can go making rules up on the fly.
-
Hah, you're telling me. I dislike the Bengals more than I dislike the Pats. Heck I dislike them more than I dislike the Steelers (who I can actually respect as a franchise). Andy Dalton is my least favorite player in the NFL.
I don't care much about the Bengals one way or the other -- just felt compelled to pitch in on this. The next time Dalton plays well in a game that matters will be his first.
I just dislike teams like the Bengals and Falcons who always receive the "this is their year" hype, and then predictably choke. One way to look at it is that it's just noise that you can ignore and therefore no harm is done. But if they're in your division as Cincy is in Baltimore's division, it becomes harder to ignore and much more of an annoyance.
Baltimore and Pittsburgh had rebuilding years in 2014/15 and still proved to be the better ballclubs than a Cincy team that was supposed to at least reach the second round. Next year fans of AFC North teams will again have to hear about Cincy's eventual breakout year. It's getting tired.
-
Maybe they did notice. There isn't a rule saying the balls can't be warm. I'd guess, the refs really don't care. They measure what they have to and go on with their game preparation. What are they going to do, tell the Patriots to go get new balls because these are too warm?
If they did say, "hey why are these balls hot?" The Patriots probably said it makes them soft or the laces stick up, or sticky or whatever. It isn't the refs job to to monitor the temperature of the balls. They might even have said, the balls are hot because the cold weather will make them deflate to how we like them. Ok, no rule against that. It isn't like the refs can go making rules up on the fly.
The problem is that the mental picture people will get out of this is Belichick with a needle on the sidelines, letting air out of balls. Which is pretty ridiculous.
I mean, do you think the average Joe can tell you why exactly the Pats were fined in "Spygate"? (hint: it wasn't because they were "spying").
-
Here's another interesting tidbit, in a Yahoo story (http://sports.yahoo.com/news/why-tom-brady-should-be-at-the-center-of-deflate-gate-175151215.html):
You don’t just use random footballs in the NFL, or even major college football. They are never brand new. A coach doesn't just decide "try that one." They’ve been selected, and prepared, specifically for a certain QB, and in New England that means Brady and Brady only.
They can take weeks to get exactly right. They get scuffed and buffed to remove the slippery wax veneer. They get soaked in water to help make them less susceptible to moisture during actual in-game weather. Some teams rub dirt all over them. Others sand the laces just so.
The writer's making the point that whatever happened, Brady had to have been aware of it. But when I read this, I say to myself: What the heck? It's okay to soak balls in water, rub dirt on them, and sand the freakin' laces ... but they're going to get all nitpicky on the level of inflation?!? What?!?
-
I find it a little funny that Jerry Rice is saying the Pats cheated. This is the man that came back IN SEASON from a snapped ACL at the age of 35. I'm sure he did it well within the rules. No help there. Just nature.
-
Here's another interesting tidbit, in a Yahoo story (http://sports.yahoo.com/news/why-tom-brady-should-be-at-the-center-of-deflate-gate-175151215.html):
You don’t just use random footballs in the NFL, or even major college football. They are never brand new. A coach doesn't just decide "try that one." They’ve been selected, and prepared, specifically for a certain QB, and in New England that means Brady and Brady only.
They can take weeks to get exactly right. They get scuffed and buffed to remove the slippery wax veneer. They get soaked in water to help make them less susceptible to moisture during actual in-game weather. Some teams rub dirt all over them. Others sand the laces just so.
The writer's making the point that whatever happened, Brady had to have been aware of it. But when I read this, I say to myself: What the heck? It's okay to soak balls in water, rub dirt on them, and sand the freakin' laces ... but they're going to get all nitpicky on the level of inflation?!? What?!?
Yup. I think you'll find the Eli Manning story I posted further up interesting.
-
There's a new rumor circulating: D'Qwell Jackson didn't turn the ball in. Apparently, the officials became suspicious when somebody on the Colts actually caught a pass.
Mike
-
There's a new rumor circulating: D'Qwell Jackson didn't turn the ball in. Apparently, the officials became suspicious when somebody on the Colts actually caught a pass.
Mike
BOOM
-
There's a new rumor circulating: D'Qwell Jackson didn't turn the ball in. Apparently, the officials became suspicious when somebody on the Colts actually caught a pass.
Mike
What happened to the MBunge account? :P
-
This is gonna be a loooooong 11 days. :P
-
This is gonna be a loooooong 11 days. :P
Yeah, Wetzel at Y!Sports loves it so much he already has 2 articles out within 10 hrs or so.
-
This modern era of Sports Journalism is utterly pathetic, Every QB in the league has the balls exactly the way they prefer, WIlson was using Seahawks balls, and Brady the Patriots balls, It's just mastering the game of football.
The fact this is a story is garbage, the NFL will do ANYTHING to make more money, and gain exposure. Any advertising is good advertising.
-
News update.
The Patriots ball boy was caught on tape. He was trying to put air back into the ball before the rest were seized. This explains the 12th ball.
-
News update.
The Patriots ball boy was caught on tape. He was trying to put air back into the ball before the rest were seized. This explains the 12th ball.
Source?
-
News update.
The Patriots ball boy was caught on tape. He was trying to put air back into the ball before the rest were seized. This explains the 12th ball.
Source?
The news, of course :P
-
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/patriots/2015/01/21/new-england-patriots-deflating-footballs-may-not-as-easy-as-it-sounds/22113343/
Interesting read. I'm still very skeptical about how this has been leaked with the NFL not being command of all the facts yet.
-
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/patriots/2015/01/21/new-england-patriots-deflating-footballs-may-not-as-easy-as-it-sounds/22113343/
Interesting read. I'm still very skeptical about how this has been leaked with the NFL not being command of all the facts yet.
I wouldn't exactly consider the NFL the most tightly knit organization when it comes to information control. They've bungled item after item under the Goodell regime.
-
The same league officials who couldn't remember if they saw the Ray Rice elevator tape are investigating this?
-
The same league officials who couldn't remember if they saw the Ray Rice elevator tape are investigating this?
that's an excellent point...the NFL is filled with incompetent people, starting from Goodell
-
Infowars has pitched in on deflated footballs. My life is now complete.
::) ::) ::)
-
Infowars has pitched in on deflated footballs. My life is now complete.
::) ::) ::)
Oooh! Can we play "Alex Jones or Felger & Mazz?"
I'll start.
I don’t think all lotteries are rigged. But there’s evidence some of them are rigged.
-
Sometimes I wonder why other teams are always caught doing the exact same stuff as the Patriots and it's always afterwards and they never get in trouble for it. How much can the Pats fine the league for double standards?
-
#InflateThis is now trending ;)
-
Infowars has pitched in on deflated footballs. My life is now complete.
::) ::) ::)
Oooh! Can we play "Alex Jones or Felger & Mazz?"
I'll start.
I don’t think all lotteries are rigged. But there’s evidence some of them are rigged.
Felger.
Adam Jones uninformed, whinny overreaction to the Rondo trade the night it was made was laughably stupid -- especially considering he's supposed to be the basketball mind at the station. That he doesn't know jack is bad enough, but then he lays on that stupid preachy tone... they should relieve him of his responsibilities.
-
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/patriots/2015/01/21/new-england-patriots-deflating-footballs-may-not-as-easy-as-it-sounds/22113343/
Interesting read. I'm still very skeptical about how this has been leaked with the NFL not being command of all the facts yet.
I wouldn't exactly consider the NFL the most tightly knit organization when it comes to information control. They've bungled item after item under the Goodell regime.
I'm not even going to believe they were inspected prior to the game. Officials have been messing up a lot more recently.
-
So all reports I've seen so far say all the balls were inspected at half time AND reinflated as needed. The Patriots went on to crush the Colts in the second half, so why is this even an issue? The Colts reported the deflated balls issue to the league after the game , after getting crushed in the second half with reinspected balls. The issue should be that they are displaying unsportsmanlike behavior and defamation after getting beaten fairly on the field.
-
So all reports I've seen so far say all the balls were inspected at half time AND reinflated as needed. The Patriots went on to crush the Colts in the second half, so why is this even an issue? The Colts reported the deflated balls issue to the league after the game , after getting crushed in the second half with reinspected balls. The issue should be that they are displaying unsportsmanlike behavior and defamation after getting beaten fairly on the field.
Does the fact that the Patriots would have won anyway make the cheating any better?
It's like if you're playing poker, and a guy takes an ace out of his sleeve to make 4 of a kind. Does he get excused for cheating because his 3 aces would have won the pot regardless?
-
Sure we cheated, but we didn't need to cheat to beat you so you're the bad sport is a really strange way to talk about this.
-
I think they should check the other teams footballs as well but maybe everyone deflates in cold weather.
It is more hype to get people into football than actual advantage. Patriots would have won anyway.
-
Sure we cheated, but we didn't need to cheat to beat you so you're the bad sport is a really strange way to talk about this.
Is it as strange as getting the living snot beaten out of you and then accusing the other team of cheating with balls that were checked and then checked again and handled hundreds of times by refs?
Is it as strange as getting beat when you were up by two TDs and then complaining the other team used totally legal formations?
-
I think they should check the other teams footballs as well but maybe everyone deflates in cold weather.
They did and they don't it appears to be a QB preference thing.
-
Sure we cheated, but we didn't need to cheat to beat you so you're the bad sport is a really strange way to talk about this.
Is it as strange as getting the living snot beaten out of you and then accusing the other team of cheating with balls that were checked and then checked again and handled hundreds of times by refs?
This is a great story except for the bit where they checked the ball and found them to be deflated to the point of breaking the rules.
Once again machismo about the Colts getting "beat" really doesn't play into the whole cheating thing. Its a deflection meant to change the subject.
-
So all reports I've seen so far say all the balls were inspected at half time AND reinflated as needed. The Patriots went on to crush the Colts in the second half, so why is this even an issue? The Colts reported the deflated balls issue to the league after the game , after getting crushed in the second half with reinspected balls. The issue should be that they are displaying unsportsmanlike behavior and defamation after getting beaten fairly on the field.
Does the fact that the Patriots would have won anyway make the cheating any better?
It's like if you're playing poker, and a guy takes an ace out of his sleeve to make 4 of a kind. Does he get excused for cheating because his 3 aces would have won the pot regardless?
The rulebook expressly forbids tampering with the balls after they were approved by the officials. So far, there is exactly zero evidence this has happened, and a throng of angry grunts looking for the authorities to hand out life in prison sentences for going 80 on a 60 mph road.
I think I'll reserve judgement until the league can speak about this on the record.
-
So all reports I've seen so far say all the balls were inspected at half time AND reinflated as needed. The Patriots went on to crush the Colts in the second half, so why is this even an issue? The Colts reported the deflated balls issue to the league after the game , after getting crushed in the second half with reinspected balls. The issue should be that they are displaying unsportsmanlike behavior and defamation after getting beaten fairly on the field.
Does the fact that the Patriots would have won anyway make the cheating any better?
It's like if you're playing poker, and a guy takes an ace out of his sleeve to make 4 of a kind. Does he get excused for cheating because his 3 aces would have won the pot regardless?
The rulebook expressly forbids tampering with the balls after they were approved by the officials. So far, there is exactly zero evidence this has happened, and a throng of angry grunts looking for the authorities to hand out life in prison sentences for going 80 on a 60 mph road. I think I'll reserve judgement until the league can speak about this on the record.
So its zero evidence because the reports are off the record?
-
Part of the issue here is that fans know the NFL is a control freak league. You can watch it for your whole life and then after a dominant win your team is supposedly in trouble for something nobody even knew is a thing and that other teams routinely do.
What next? Do we now have to be on the lookout for the Pats not using regulation teeth guards? Maybe their socks aren't pulled up high enough? Maybe after another dominant with the other team can complain about possibly use of voodoo dolls? Perhaps the eye black was too long?
-
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/patriots/2015/01/21/new-england-patriots-deflating-footballs-may-not-as-easy-as-it-sounds/22113343/
Interesting read. I'm still very skeptical about how this has been leaked with the NFL not being command of all the facts yet.
I wouldn't exactly consider the NFL the most tightly knit organization when it comes to information control. They've bungled item after item under the Goodell regime.
I agree. They've screwed this up royally too.
-
Sure we cheated, but we didn't need to cheat to beat you so you're the bad sport is a really strange way to talk about this.
Is it as strange as getting the living snot beaten out of you and then accusing the other team of cheating with balls that were checked and then checked again and handled hundreds of times by refs?
This is a great story except for the bit where they checked the ball and found them to be deflated to the point of breaking the rules.
Once again machismo about the Colts getting "beat" really doesn't play into the whole cheating thing. Its a deflection meant to change the subject.
So speaking of non machismo deflection if the Pats had lost would the Colts have even brought this up? Of course not. They were feeling a bit numb from having had their hands grabbed and used to punch their own faces repeatedly so needed a bit of non news to feel like human beings again so they came up with a bogus accusation. Ticky tack at absolute best.
-
Infowars has pitched in on deflated footballs. My life is now complete.
::) ::) ::)
Oooh! Can we play "Alex Jones or Felger & Mazz?"
I'll start.
I don’t think all lotteries are rigged. But there’s evidence some of them are rigged.
Felger.
BZZZT. Alex Jones:
http://www.esquire.com/anxiety/alex-jones-beliefs-0913
-
It's cheating, but it's a silly rule that everyone has ignored until the Patriots do it. There shouldn't even be an inflation rule—footballs obviously have to be inflated to a minimum level to be of any use, but otherwise the league should just let teams inflate to a level they're comfortable with. There's no difference between softening a football and wearing supergrip gloves. This is all so silly.
And if the league is going to punish the Pats, they should also punish the Vikings and Panthers for warming up balls during a cold game in November, and they should punish the Bucs because a decade ago Brad Johnson "doctored" the Super Bowl footballs, and they should punish the Packers because Aaron Rodgers admitted to trying to sneak overinflated balls into games, and they should punish Eli Manning for filing the laces on his footballs, and they should punish ...
You see where I'm going with this?
But it's the Patriots, so the league will make an example of them. And then no one will think badly of the NFL anymore. ::)
-
Infowars has pitched in on deflated footballs. My life is now complete.
::) ::) ::)
Oooh! Can we play "Alex Jones or Felger & Mazz?"
I'll start.
I don’t think all lotteries are rigged. But there’s evidence some of them are rigged.
Almost as good as "Ballsghazi." TP.
-
So its zero evidence because the reports are off the record?
There is zero evidence because there is zero evidence, I don't know how to explain it better. "The balls were irregular at halftime therefore the Patriots tampered with them" is not evidence, it is conjecture.
Also, the part where the officiating crew is supposed to be in charge of the balls pretty much until the whole thing goes live on national TV is somehow not receiving a lot of emphasis.
-
For those wondering why one of the balls was more inflated than others, it probably has to do with the occasional Tom Brady punt, which would be with a regular ball rather than a kicking ball (since using a kicking ball would give it away)
-
So all reports I've seen so far say all the balls were inspected at half time AND reinflated as needed. The Patriots went on to crush the Colts in the second half, so why is this even an issue? The Colts reported the deflated balls issue to the league after the game , after getting crushed in the second half with reinspected balls. The issue should be that they are displaying unsportsmanlike behavior and defamation after getting beaten fairly on the field.
Does the fact that the Patriots would have won anyway make the cheating any better?
It's like if you're playing poker, and a guy takes an ace out of his sleeve to make 4 of a kind. Does he get excused for cheating because his 3 aces would have won the pot regardless?
Better example, Barry Bonds probably would have hit 600 homers without steroids, but that argument still hasn't gotten him into the Hall... yet.
-
So all reports I've seen so far say all the balls were inspected at half time AND reinflated as needed. The Patriots went on to crush the Colts in the second half, so why is this even an issue? The Colts reported the deflated balls issue to the league after the game , after getting crushed in the second half with reinspected balls. The issue should be that they are displaying unsportsmanlike behavior and defamation after getting beaten fairly on the field.
Does the fact that the Patriots would have won anyway make the cheating any better?
It's like if you're playing poker, and a guy takes an ace out of his sleeve to make 4 of a kind. Does he get excused for cheating because his 3 aces would have won the pot regardless?
The rulebook expressly forbids tampering with the balls after they were approved by the officials. So far, there is exactly zero evidence this has happened, and a throng of angry grunts looking for the authorities to hand out life in prison sentences for going 80 on a 60 mph road.
I think I'll reserve judgement until the league can speak about this on the record.
Wow there are some gems in this thread.
TP.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/AA1TJHQ.jpg)
-
Also, the part where the officiating crew is supposed to be in charge of the balls pretty much until the whole thing goes live on national TV is somehow not receiving a lot of emphasis.
The stories I've read (ESPN, I assume they'd've fixed it by now if it was wrong) state that the ref check is 2 hours 15 minutes before kickoff, and they're returned to the teams at that point. Where are you hearing differently?
League sources have confirmed that the footballs were properly inspected and approved by referee Walt Anderson 2 hours and 15 minutes before kickoff, before they were returned to each team.
-
(http://pbs.twimg.com/media/B72S8zuIQAEG-nZ.jpg)
-
Also, the part where the officiating crew is supposed to be in charge of the balls pretty much until the whole thing goes live on national TV is somehow not receiving a lot of emphasis.
The stories I've read (ESPN, I assume they'd've fixed it by now if it was wrong) state that the ref check is 2 hours 15 minutes before kickoff, and they're returned to the teams at that point. Where are you hearing differently?
League sources have confirmed that the footballs were properly inspected and approved by referee Walt Anderson 2 hours and 15 minutes before kickoff, before they were returned to each team.
No-one is really elaborating on the timing of this, though. It's worth noting that the rulebook states that approved balls “shall remain under the supervision of the referee until they are delivered to the ball attendant just prior to the start of the game.”
So this pretty much means there is an equipment guy with a needle sitting in the middle of Gillette with all sort of players, personnel, and league guys walking around -- letting air out of the balls. Really?
-
Im bummed.
Patriots didn't even need to do this and never have needed to, but its an ugly stain right now as people love to hate the Patriots and beat the "cheaters" drum.
-
So its zero evidence because the reports are off the record?
There is zero evidence because there is zero evidence, I don't know how to explain it better. "The balls were irregular at halftime therefore the Patriots tampered with them" is not evidence, it is conjecture.
Also, the part where the officiating crew is supposed to be in charge of the balls pretty much until the whole thing goes live on national TV is somehow not receiving a lot of emphasis.
The balls being underinflated is evidence that someone deflated them. I don't see how they aren't evidence, maybe you could up the "sacrasm" and "condescension" a notch and I'll get it?
-
Part of the issue here is that fans know the NFL is a control freak league. You can watch it for your whole life and then after a dominant win your team is supposedly in trouble for something nobody even knew is a thing and that other teams routinely do.
What next? Do we now have to be on the lookout for the Pats not using regulation teeth guards? Maybe their socks aren't pulled up high enough? Maybe after another dominant with the other team can complain about possibly use of voodoo dolls? Perhaps the eye black was too long?
Precisely. This is one of those rules that makes no sense to begin with. If the league would just let teams inflate their footballs to whatever level they want, then every QB will be perfectly comfortable and no team will have an "unfair competitive advantage." This is not like putting grease on a baseball and thereby leaving hitters at a great disadvantage. This is about QBs being comfortable with the primary tool of their trade.
In fact, the rule, as currently written, is creating a disadvantage for some QBs; case in point: Aaron Rodgers is forced to use footballs that are softer than he'd prefer. That's giving Green Bay's opponents an unfair advantage. And how is Eli Manning filing the laces on his footballs NOT unfair under this same kind of thinking?
Firmness of the football has little bearing on the overall outcome of a football game. It seems to me that many people are being pharisaic on this issue, nitpicking about every letter of the law instead of just letting people play football—as everyone else besides the Patriots (Rodgers, E. Manning, Brad Johnson, Vikings and Panthers) has been allowed to do.
-
So its zero evidence because the reports are off the record?
There is zero evidence because there is zero evidence, I don't know how to explain it better. "The balls were irregular at halftime therefore the Patriots tampered with them" is not evidence, it is conjecture.
Also, the part where the officiating crew is supposed to be in charge of the balls pretty much until the whole thing goes live on national TV is somehow not receiving a lot of emphasis.
agreed this appears to be more inference than evidence for the most part.
Finally, it is the refs responsibility to take balls unfit for play out of play. They were tested before the game, the refs saw them fit for play during the first half as evidenced by the fact that no balls were removed during the first half. Saw them unfit for play during halftime, balls were removed, patriots proceeded to roll the colts in the second half.
-
Also, the part where the officiating crew is supposed to be in charge of the balls pretty much until the whole thing goes live on national TV is somehow not receiving a lot of emphasis.
The stories I've read (ESPN, I assume they'd've fixed it by now if it was wrong) state that the ref check is 2 hours 15 minutes before kickoff, and they're returned to the teams at that point. Where are you hearing differently?
League sources have confirmed that the footballs were properly inspected and approved by referee Walt Anderson 2 hours and 15 minutes before kickoff, before they were returned to each team.
A former Ref they interviewed said the ballboys get them when the refs leave their room for the final time and head out to the field for the game. So that'd be prior to the coin toss and all that. So 15-20 minutes minimum given the TV breaks?
-
So its zero evidence because the reports are off the record?
There is zero evidence because there is zero evidence, I don't know how to explain it better. "The balls were irregular at halftime therefore the Patriots tampered with them" is not evidence, it is conjecture.
Also, the part where the officiating crew is supposed to be in charge of the balls pretty much until the whole thing goes live on national TV is somehow not receiving a lot of emphasis.
The balls being underinflated is evidence that someone deflated them. I don't see how they aren't evidence, maybe you could up the "sacrasm" and "condescension" a notch and I'll get it?
No, it isn't. Perhaps stick your nose in a couple of articles out there to see the lengths to which teams would go to make sure the ball is "pre-processed" to their QB's liking.
There are ways to make a ball lose pressure before inspection and kickoff without having to tamper with the ball. Just talk to your local tire retailer. Or try this:
A good estimate to use when comparing tire pressure to air temperature is for every 10 degrees F, tire pressure will adjust by 1 psi. For example, if the outside air temperature increases 10 degrees, the tire pressure will increase by 1 psi. Conversely, if the air temperature falls 10 degrees, the tire pressure will decrease by 1 psi.
http://www.tirebuyer.com/education/tire-inflation-pressure-and-temperature
Judging by what's out there, the league allows all sorts of malarkey prior to inspection, as long as the officiating crew deems the balls conforming. Inflating the balls in an 80F laundry room, soaking a ball in water and running it through a commercial dryer to improve grip, you name it.
It's not the great conspiracy that a dozen of loud hacks are making it out to be. Most former players and officials tend to think that this is a big deal just because it's the Patriots. Which makes sense, because the refs can swap any ball they feel isn't conforming at just about any time.
-
Peter King ?@SI_PeterKing · 6m6 minutes ago
RT @whichever99: Who has custody of the balls between the ref's testing and the refs giving the balls to the ball boys? … The officials.
-
What next? Do we now have to be on the lookout for the Pats not using regulation teeth guards? Maybe their socks aren't pulled up high enough? Maybe after another dominant with the other team can complain about possibly use of voodoo dolls? Perhaps the eye black was too long?
File under odd things I learned because of Deflategate:
The NFL does random uniform checks before and at the half-time of playoff games because apparently some DLs started spraying silicone on their jerseys. I kid you not -- it's supposed to make it harder for blockers to get a grip on the body.
-
Peter King ?@SI_PeterKing · 6m6 minutes ago
RT @whichever99: Who has custody of the balls between the ref's testing and the refs giving the balls to the ball boys? … The officials.
Indeed either the officials deflated them or the ballboys did (or someone the ballboys allowed access to).
Or we could go with the immaculate deflation caused by temperatures that only effected one teams footballs. Given that they were reinflated at halftime I'd imagine the NFL would know pretty well if the immaculate deflation was true given that they'd likely be similarly deflated after the second half as well.
-
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/patriots/2015/01/21/new-england-patriots-deflating-footballs-may-not-as-easy-as-it-sounds/22113343/
A person with intimate knowledge of the process told USA TODAY Sports the ball attendant is a uniformed official – generally the same person each week at a given stadium – who comes to the locker room to pick up the balls and takes them to the officials' locker room for testing.
The ball attendant delivers the balls to the ball boys – usually four provided by the home team and two traveling with the visiting team – who make sure their quarterback's preferred balls get into the game, said the person, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak publicly.
At halftime, the balls return to the officials' locker room, the person said. So, if proper protocol is followed, the only opportunity to manipulate the balls is minutes before kickoff or during the game on the sideline, where there's a risk of anyone in the stadium and dozens of TV cameras seeing it.
...
Asked how long it takes to change and measure the pressure of a football, the person said, "Ten seconds. But if they were all exactly 2 pounds under? It would be almost impossible to get them exactly all the same weight or the same psi.
"That, or you'd have to be really good at knowing exactly where to pull the needle. And then what if you take too much out? How are you going to pump it back up on the field? You can't. You need a ball pump to do it. That's what's even more weird about it. Too many moving parts."
-
Peter King ?@SI_PeterKing · 6m6 minutes ago
RT @whichever99: Who has custody of the balls between the ref's testing and the refs giving the balls to the ball boys? … The officials.
When do they actually give them to the ball boys? How prior to kickoff?
-
Peter King ?@SI_PeterKing · 6m6 minutes ago
RT @whichever99: Who has custody of the balls between the ref's testing and the refs giving the balls to the ball boys? … The officials.
Indeed either the officials deflated them or the ballboys did (or someone the ballboys allowed access to).
Or we could go with the immaculate deflation caused by temperatures that only effected one teams footballs. Given that they were reinflated at halftime I'd imagine the NFL would know pretty well if the immaculate deflation was true given that they'd likely be similarly deflated after the second half as well.
La canfora's source believes it was not deliberate
spoke to someone who is very familiar with the Pats practice and game-day handling of their game balls -- someone no longer a member of the organization who has no stake in the outcome of this investigation one way or another -- who was adamant that there had never been any sort of protocol about deflating balls in the rain or certain conditions.
"We would practice in the rain, Bill would throw water on dry balls during practice and there was never anything done to deflate them because of it being wet," the former Patriot said. "That doesn't even make any sense. As anal as Tom is about the balls, there's no way he'd let some ball boy or whatever try to deflate it to a certain PSI.
"Tom knows a football, and the way he wants it, like you or I would know a kid. But there was never anything deflating or doctoring balls during a game. He knows how he wants the ball going into a game and he's not going to take any chances of someone else messing around with a ball to get it right. As anal as he is about the way he wants the balls to be, he's not going to able to tell the difference of 1psi or whatever."
-
Also, the part where the officiating crew is supposed to be in charge of the balls pretty much until the whole thing goes live on national TV is somehow not receiving a lot of emphasis.
The stories I've read (ESPN, I assume they'd've fixed it by now if it was wrong) state that the ref check is 2 hours 15 minutes before kickoff, and they're returned to the teams at that point. Where are you hearing differently?
League sources have confirmed that the footballs were properly inspected and approved by referee Walt Anderson 2 hours and 15 minutes before kickoff, before they were returned to each team.
A former Ref they interviewed said the ballboys get them when the refs leave their room for the final time and head out to the field for the game. So that'd be prior to the coin toss and all that. So 15-20 minutes minimum given the TV breaks?
Yeah on rereading I guess there's some wiggle room in "before they were returned to each team". Could be anywhere between that 2.25 hours pre-game inspection and pretty shortly before kickoff.
-
The rest of LaCanfora's article is also worth it:
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer/jason-la-canfora/24982082/as-deflategate-unfolds-we-find-doctoring-nfl-footballs-is-nothing-new
-
I wonder whether something as simple as a bad pressure gauge would explain this.
I guess we'll see.
-
Sure we cheated, but we didn't need to cheat to beat you so you're the bad sport is a really strange way to talk about this.
Is it as strange as getting the living snot beaten out of you and then accusing the other team of cheating with balls that were checked and then checked again and handled hundreds of times by refs?
Is it as strange as getting beat when you were up by two TDs and then complaining the other team used totally legal formations?
Eja explained my point very well. The balls were checked and approved by officials before the game, both teams played with the same balls, the balls were re-inspected and re-inflated, then the Patriots go on to crush them on fair, even ground. That's when they take the complaint to the league. It's poor sportsmanship on their part and an attempt at defamation.
-
maybe the Pats balls were flatter after the game cuz they kept getting spiked in the end zone?
they put up 4 second half touchdowns to Indy's zero.
-
http://itiswhatitis.weei.com/sports/newengland/football/patriots/2015/01/21/source-patriots-used-backup-balls-in-second-half-of-sundays-game/
-
I wonder whether something as simple as a bad pressure gauge would explain this.
I guess we'll see.
it would be much more reasonable considering all the balls were at about the same pressure and doing that on purpose secretly between referee inspections is almost impossible, and so is the idea that the weather deflated them all equally.
-
Did anyone see Fran Tarkenton on CNN today ?
He went a little nutty . He was screaming how deflating a ball has no effect on a game , but went off yelling that all the teams in the playoffs are there because they are bigger and stronger because of PED use .
He said he has been bringing this up for 5 years but no one wants to report it. The talking head on CNN cut him off before he could finish and went onto the whole " This is not the opinion of CNN" .
It is kind of true though . Rodney Harrison caught back a few years ago, numerous Seahawks players being suspended the last few years .....
-
People will take any chance they can get to get on television and yell.
-
Did anyone see Fran Tarkenton on CNN today ?
He went a little nutty . He was screaming how deflating a ball has no effect on a game , but went off yelling that all the teams in the playoffs are there because they are bigger and stronger because of PED use .
He said he has been bringing this up for 5 years but no one wants to report it. The talking head on CNN cut him off before he could finish and went onto the whole " This is not the opinion of CNN" .
It is kind of true though . Rodney Harrison caught back a few years ago, numerous Seahawks players being suspended the last few years .....
What's wrong with today's America is that this was legitimately discussed on CNN "world news."
And no, I'm not a 50 year old white dude screaming at neighborhood punks to get off my lawn.
-
This is going to be a BIG deal given the Patriots' sad history (see SpyGate) of cheating or winning at ANY cost!! This is absolutely humiliating for the NFL and you will see some substantial punishment doled out this time. There will be NO more slaps on the wrists.
I could see the Pats losing multiple draft picks over several years and their coach suspended for half of next season.
This will NOT go away.
Smitty77
-
Sure we cheated, but we didn't need to cheat to beat you so you're the bad sport is a really strange way to talk about this.
Is it as strange as getting the living snot beaten out of you and then accusing the other team of cheating with balls that were checked and then checked again and handled hundreds of times by refs?
Is it as strange as getting beat when you were up by two TDs and then complaining the other team used totally legal formations?
Eja explained my point very well. The balls were checked and approved by officials before the game, both teams played with the same balls, the balls were re-inspected and re-inflated, then the Patriots go on to crush them on fair, even ground. That's when they take the complaint to the league. It's poor sportsmanship on their part and an attempt at defamation.
Not sure if I am understanding this the way you intended, but it sounds like you are saying the teams played the game with the same footballs, which is not true. Indy's offense plays with Indy's balls; Pats offense plays with Pats balls. So, assuming the Pats balls were deflated and Indy's weren't, the Pats offense had an advantage.
-
This is going to be a BIG deal given the Patriots' sad history (see SpyGate) of cheating or winning at ANY cost!! This is absolutely humiliating for the NFL and you will see some substantial punishment doled out this time. There will be NO more slaps on the wrists.
I could see the Pats losing multiple draft picks over several years and their coach suspended for half of next season.
This will NOT go away.
Smitty77
Wouldn't surprise me, but this would also be an unfair overreaction: Unfair because other teams have been filmed—FILMED—doing similar things without getting ANY punishment, and an overreaction because it would be the equivalent of pulling someone's driver's license for going 5 miles over the limit.
-
This is going to be a BIG deal given the Patriots' sad history (see SpyGate) of cheating or winning at ANY cost!! This is absolutely humiliating for the NFL and you will see some substantial punishment doled out this time. There will be NO more slaps on the wrists.
Just out of curiosity, do you know EXACTLY why the Patriots were fined in the so-called SpyGate?
-
Sure we cheated, but we didn't need to cheat to beat you so you're the bad sport is a really strange way to talk about this.
Is it as strange as getting the living snot beaten out of you and then accusing the other team of cheating with balls that were checked and then checked again and handled hundreds of times by refs?
Is it as strange as getting beat when you were up by two TDs and then complaining the other team used totally legal formations?
Eja explained my point very well. The balls were checked and approved by officials before the game, both teams played with the same balls, the balls were re-inspected and re-inflated, then the Patriots go on to crush them on fair, even ground. That's when they take the complaint to the league. It's poor sportsmanship on their part and an attempt at defamation.
Not sure if I am understanding this the way you intended, but it sounds like you are saying the teams played the game with the same footballs, which is not true. Indy's offense plays with Indy's balls; Pats offense plays with Pats balls. So, assuming the Pats balls were deflated and Indy's weren't, the Pats offense had an advantage.
But would this have really been an advantage? If Luck had his footballs at the psi he prefers (even if within the legal limit), then he's not at a disadvantage versus Brady. The NFL already leans towards this principle by allowing a range of psi (without, I might add, giving any reasoning as to why "12.5—13.5 psi" is "proper" and why anything outside that is "improper"; i.e., it all seems arbitrary to me).
In other words, if both QBs are comfortable with the level of inflation in their respective footballs, there is no unfair advantage on either side, regardless of what an arbitrary and meaningless rule states.
-
It's that time of the week again.....time for analogies! :o
I'm hearing now that descendants of Stonewall Jackson are claiming the North used bayonets that were too pointy.
The crown has contacted the Pentagon to reiterate that troops under George Washington purposely fired at commanding officers and back then you just didn't do that.
Germany is complaining the Russian snipers in WW2 used extra powder in their bullets against the Geneva conventions.
An 8 year old bully in Iowa tried to steal a smaller 6 year old's lunch money but got beat up so naturally his mom is stating the 8 year old used karate, which is against the rules at their school.
A recent would be jewel thief is suing a couple in CA because the pit bull that stopped him "had too many teeth and his toe nails clearly hadn't been clipped in weeks".
A politician somewhere is stating that his opponent has mischaracterized him as voting against something because he actually voted for it before he voted against it.
The FDA is sending angry messages to Tootsie because it simply takes way too many licks to get to the middle of a tootsie pop.
Some actresses are upset at statements by Fashion Police that other actresses wore it better.
And the NFL is investigating the Patriots for underinflated balls.
-
Sure we cheated, but we didn't need to cheat to beat you so you're the bad sport is a really strange way to talk about this.
Is it as strange as getting the living snot beaten out of you and then accusing the other team of cheating with balls that were checked and then checked again and handled hundreds of times by refs?
Is it as strange as getting beat when you were up by two TDs and then complaining the other team used totally legal formations?
Eja explained my point very well. The balls were checked and approved by officials before the game, both teams played with the same balls, the balls were re-inspected and re-inflated, then the Patriots go on to crush them on fair, even ground. That's when they take the complaint to the league. It's poor sportsmanship on their part and an attempt at defamation.
Not sure if I am understanding this the way you intended, but it sounds like you are saying the teams played the game with the same footballs, which is not true. Indy's offense plays with Indy's balls; Pats offense plays with Pats balls. So, assuming the Pats balls were deflated and Indy's weren't, the Pats offense had an advantage.
But would this have really been an advantage? If Luck had his footballs at the psi he prefers (even if within the legal limit), then he's not at a disadvantage versus Brady. The NFL already leans towards this principle by allowing a range of psi (without, I might add, giving any reasoning as to why "12.5—13.5 psi" is "proper" and why anything outside that is "improper"; i.e., it all seems arbitrary to me).
In other words, if both QBs are comfortable with the level of inflation in their respective footballs, there is no unfair advantage on either side, regardless of what an arbitrary and meaningless rule states.
Yes this would have really been an advantage. In general it is easier to throw and catch the ball when it has a little give to it. My guess is Aaron Rodgers' preference of slightly harder footballs is the exception. To assume that Luck and all of his receivers liked a ball inflated closer to 13.5 psi is pretty inconceivable to me.
Anyways this didn't matter in the Colts game. I'm only arguing it to demonstrate why they should be punished. You shouldn't get a pass for cheating just because in hindsight the cheating wasn't necessary.
What would really make me upset as a Ravens fan is if it is discovered that similar behavior was performed before and during Baltimore's match vs. the Pats. That game only ended in a 4-point differential. That's the type of game where it could be said the outcome of that game could have changed if not for the Pats' offensive advantage.
-
Simply put, the Patriots are a disgrace and simply canNOT win without cheating. Big ramifications are coming. Trust me on this one!!
Smitty77
-
News update.
The Patriots ball boy was caught on tape. He was trying to put air back into the ball before the rest were seized. This explains the 12th ball.
Source?
The news, of course :P
My cousin is friends with the ball boy. The news will come out with the report findings.
-
Simply put, the Patriots are a disgrace and simply canNOT win without cheating. Big ramifications are coming. Trust me on this one!!
I'm getting the feeling that every other NFL team plus several known loudmouths are doing everything possible to drum this up as much as they can. In the meantime, we're still waiting for evidence that someone related to the Patriots actually tampered with the game balls in a manner prohibited by the rules.
Oh, and here is a quote from Jets coach Eric Mangini on Spygate for your evening read tonight:
“This is one of those situations where I didn’t want them to do the things they were doing. I didn’t think it was any kind of significant advantage, but I wasn’t going to give them the convenience of doing it in our stadium, and I wanted to shut it down. But there was no intent to get the league involved. There was no intent to have the landslide that it has become.”
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/01/eric-mangini-regrets-turning-in-the-patriots-over-spygate/
By the way, why isn't anyone calling SB LXIV "tainted" these days?
-
Sure we cheated, but we didn't need to cheat to beat you so you're the bad sport is a really strange way to talk about this.
Is it as strange as getting the living snot beaten out of you and then accusing the other team of cheating with balls that were checked and then checked again and handled hundreds of times by refs?
Is it as strange as getting beat when you were up by two TDs and then complaining the other team used totally legal formations?
Eja explained my point very well. The balls were checked and approved by officials before the game, both teams played with the same balls, the balls were re-inspected and re-inflated, then the Patriots go on to crush them on fair, even ground. That's when they take the complaint to the league. It's poor sportsmanship on their part and an attempt at defamation.
Not sure if I am understanding this the way you intended, but it sounds like you are saying the teams played the game with the same footballs, which is not true. Indy's offense plays with Indy's balls; Pats offense plays with Pats balls. So, assuming the Pats balls were deflated and Indy's weren't, the Pats offense had an advantage.
But would this have really been an advantage? If Luck had his footballs at the psi he prefers (even if within the legal limit), then he's not at a disadvantage versus Brady. The NFL already leans towards this principle by allowing a range of psi (without, I might add, giving any reasoning as to why "12.5—13.5 psi" is "proper" and why anything outside that is "improper"; i.e., it all seems arbitrary to me).
In other words, if both QBs are comfortable with the level of inflation in their respective footballs, there is no unfair advantage on either side, regardless of what an arbitrary and meaningless rule states.
Yes this would have really been an advantage. In general it is easier to throw and catch the ball when it has a little give to it. My guess is Aaron Rodgers' preference of slightly harder footballs is the exception. To assume that Luck and all of his receivers liked a ball inflated closer to 13.5 psi is pretty inconceivable to me.
Anyways this didn't matter in the Colts game. I'm only arguing it to demonstrate why they should be punished. You shouldn't get a pass for cheating just because in hindsight the cheating wasn't necessary.
If, as seems to be the case, most QBs prefer softer footballs, why does this silly, pointless rule even exist?
I assume the NFL wants its QBs to be as comfortable as possible throwing the ball, and I also assume the NFL wants receivers to have as good a chance as possible to catch the ball—after all, there isn't much entertainment value in bad passes and dropped balls—so why have this rule? Why not just let every team do what it wants with the psi of its footballs (which seems to have been the case already, except as it applies to the Patriots)? If every team is allowed to do this, then no team is being placed at a competitive disadvantage.
-
Sure we cheated, but we didn't need to cheat to beat you so you're the bad sport is a really strange way to talk about this.
Is it as strange as getting the living snot beaten out of you and then accusing the other team of cheating with balls that were checked and then checked again and handled hundreds of times by refs?
Is it as strange as getting beat when you were up by two TDs and then complaining the other team used totally legal formations?
Eja explained my point very well. The balls were checked and approved by officials before the game, both teams played with the same balls, the balls were re-inspected and re-inflated, then the Patriots go on to crush them on fair, even ground. That's when they take the complaint to the league. It's poor sportsmanship on their part and an attempt at defamation.
Not sure if I am understanding this the way you intended, but it sounds like you are saying the teams played the game with the same footballs, which is not true. Indy's offense plays with Indy's balls; Pats offense plays with Pats balls. So, assuming the Pats balls were deflated and Indy's weren't, the Pats offense had an advantage.
But would this have really been an advantage? If Luck had his footballs at the psi he prefers (even if within the legal limit), then he's not at a disadvantage versus Brady. The NFL already leans towards this principle by allowing a range of psi (without, I might add, giving any reasoning as to why "12.5—13.5 psi" is "proper" and why anything outside that is "improper"; i.e., it all seems arbitrary to me).
In other words, if both QBs are comfortable with the level of inflation in their respective footballs, there is no unfair advantage on either side, regardless of what an arbitrary and meaningless rule states.
Quarterbacks and receivers probably do have some variability about what they like in a football, but in rain and cold, it would be difficult to argue that a harder, more expanded football would be easier to throw/catch (in general). Did it povide a substantial advantage -- who knows? But I think I could rest easily saying that if the Patriots in any way conspired to deflate footballs they didn't do it simply because they like sticking needles in pigskin.
-
By the way, why isn't anyone calling SB LXIV "tainted" these days?
Probably because it won't be played for another 15 years. ;)
-
If, as seems to be the case, most QBs prefer softer footballs, why does this silly, pointless rule even exist?
The better question is why is the range so narrow. From what I hear, the difference between a 13 PSI ball and a 11 PSI ball is fairly small.
-
By the way, why isn't anyone calling SB LXIV "tainted" these days?
Probably because it won't be played for another 15 years. ;)
Eh, XLIV, I mean.
-
Simply put, the Patriots are a disgrace and simply canNOT win without cheating. Big ramifications are coming. Trust me on this one!!
I'm getting the feeling that every other NFL team plus several known loudmouths are doing everything possible to drum this up as much as they can. In the meantime, we're still waiting for evidence that someone related to the Patriots actually tampered with the game balls in a manner prohibited by the rules.
Oh, and here is a quote from Jets coach Eric Mangini on Spygate for your evening read tonight:
“This is one of those situations where I didn’t want them to do the things they were doing. I didn’t think it was any kind of significant advantage, but I wasn’t going to give them the convenience of doing it in our stadium, and I wanted to shut it down. But there was no intent to get the league involved. There was no intent to have the landslide that it has become.”
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/01/eric-mangini-regrets-turning-in-the-patriots-over-spygate/
By the way, why isn't anyone calling SB LXIV "tainted" these days?
Koz,
I don't mean to be overly critical, but that is simply ridiculous. To think that NO advantage was gained is simply asanine.
I am done with this discussion.
Smitty77
-
By the way, why isn't anyone calling SB LXIV "tainted" these days?
Probably because it won't be played for another 15 years. ;)
Eh, XLIV, I mean.
A lot of it has to do with the laundry.
-
Simply put, the Patriots are a disgrace and simply canNOT win without cheating. Big ramifications are coming. Trust me on this one!!
I'm getting the feeling that every other NFL team plus several known loudmouths are doing everything possible to drum this up as much as they can. In the meantime, we're still waiting for evidence that someone related to the Patriots actually tampered with the game balls in a manner prohibited by the rules.
Oh, and here is a quote from Jets coach Eric Mangini on Spygate for your evening read tonight:
“This is one of those situations where I didn’t want them to do the things they were doing. I didn’t think it was any kind of significant advantage, but I wasn’t going to give them the convenience of doing it in our stadium, and I wanted to shut it down. But there was no intent to get the league involved. There was no intent to have the landslide that it has become.”
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/01/eric-mangini-regrets-turning-in-the-patriots-over-spygate/
By the way, why isn't anyone calling SB LXIV "tainted" these days?
Koz,
I don't mean to be overly critical, but that is simply ridiculous. To think that NO advantage was gained is simply asanine.
I am done with this discussion.
Smitty77
lol stop getting so upset.
-
I don't mean to be overly critical, but that is simply ridiculous. To think that NO advantage was gained is simply asanine.
I don't think that. Eric Mangini, who was coaching the Jets at that time said he thought that. Make of that what you will.
What a lot of people don't realize is that the Patriots weren't disciplined because they were "spying". Everyone films the opposition in the NFL, it's called scouting. They were penalized because they were doing it from the sidelines rather than a booth.
-
just saw the sport science deflategate
They said the 2lbs per square inch is the equivalent of the weight of a dollar bill
-
just saw the sport science deflategate
They said the 2lbs per square inch is the equivalent of the weight of a dollar bill
That's not about weight. PSI is a measure of pressure, hence it mostly affects the firmness of the ball. And yes, given that the difference in weight will come from the extra air, it sounds about right.
-
Brilliant.
http://youtu.be/vd3D2gsPUR0
-
There is zero evidence because there is zero evidence, I don't know how to explain it better. "The balls were irregular at halftime therefore the Patriots tampered with them" is not evidence, it is conjecture.
Of course it's evidence.
Refs check the balls for both teams. Both comply. Refs have balls until a bit before kickoff, then Pats are in charge of Patriots balls afterwards; Colts are in control of Colts balls. At halftime, refs check the balls of both teams. Colts still comply, Patriots 90%+ not in compliance, to a significant degree.
Is there any other reasonable explanation? Circumstantial evidence is evidence, and it all points at the Pats.
-
(https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/8432769024/h89CFFE80/)
-
There is zero evidence because there is zero evidence, I don't know how to explain it better. "The balls were irregular at halftime therefore the Patriots tampered with them" is not evidence, it is conjecture.
Of course it's evidence.
Refs check the balls for both teams. Both comply. Pats are in charge of Patriots balls afterwards; Colts are in control of Colts balls. At halftime, refs check the balls of both teams. Colts still comply, Patriots 90%+ not in compliance, to a significant degree.
Is there any other reasonable explanation? Circumstantial evidence is evidence, and it all points at the Pats.
Totally agree Roy. That being said, what should the punishment now be??
-
There is zero evidence because there is zero evidence, I don't know how to explain it better. "The balls were irregular at halftime therefore the Patriots tampered with them" is not evidence, it is conjecture.
Of course it's evidence.
Refs check the balls for both teams. Both comply. Pats are in charge of Patriots balls afterwards; Colts are in control of Colts balls. At halftime, refs check the balls of both teams. Colts still comply, Patriots 90%+ not in compliance, to a significant degree.
Is there any other reasonable explanation? Circumstantial evidence is evidence, and it all points at the Pats.
Totally agree Roy. That being said, what should the punishment now be??
I'm actually with Koz on this even though I think it's highly plausible that Belichick messed with the balls (and I'm a Pats fan).
What evidence is there? Refs check the balls before the game... they checked out. But if they provide the balls right before game time (maybe a very short window) there isn't enough time to leak the balls after they were checked... and a ball boy obviously isn't on the sideline with cameras blaring during the game letting out air...
That means the balls were messed with before the game... meaning the refs were too incompetent to catch it, meaning even if Belichick and the Pats messed with the balls the NFL A. cannot prove it and B. would have to admit their own employees screwed this up which looks very very bad for them.
I'm sure if the officials had caught it they would have told Bill "you can't do this fix it" and it would have been a non story. Actually the story would be "Belichick tries to gain every advantage, duh." Who knows maybe the Pats have done this before every game and the refs have never caught it (and wouldn't have this time)
There really is no way to prove it
-
There is zero evidence because there is zero evidence, I don't know how to explain it better. "The balls were irregular at halftime therefore the Patriots tampered with them" is not evidence, it is conjecture.
Of course it's evidence.
Refs check the balls for both teams. Both comply. Pats are in charge of Patriots balls afterwards; Colts are in control of Colts balls. At halftime, refs check the balls of both teams. Colts still comply, Patriots 90%+ not in compliance, to a significant degree.
Is there any other reasonable explanation? Circumstantial evidence is evidence, and it all points at the Pats.
First of all, the officials are in charge of the balls afterwards. No-one has yet answered when the Pats equipment personnel received the balls -- although indications are that this customarily happens immediately before kickoff. There were 47(!) TV cameras at Gilette that night and god knows how many fans with cellphones, and I'm still waiting for footage of the Pats ball boy letting air out of TB's footballs.
Second, the only thing that the book explicitly prohibits is tampering with the footballs after they're approved for play. It makes no prescriptions about how teams should treat their balls prior to presenting them for inspection, and clearly points at the officiating crew as the sole authority of whether a ball is fit for play. There are things you can do prior to presenting balls for inspection to make sure a football loses some pressure before game time without tampering with it the way everyone seems to suggest. It's not against the rules, and if an official deems a ball unfit for play they can remove it at any time.
-
I'm actually with Koz on this even though I think it's highly plausible that Belichick messed with the balls (and I'm a Pats fan).
I'm sure the Pats "messed with the balls". One thing that is abundantly clear so far is that every team and every QB has their own routine of messing with the balls that starts days and perhaps weeks before the game is played.
The point is that inflating the balls to 12.5 lbs. PSI in a 85F degree room, presenting them for inspection, and then taking them to play in 50F weather with the expectation that they will lose some pressure is not against the rules.
-
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/patriots/2015/01/21/new-england-patriots-deflating-footballs-may-not-as-easy-as-it-sounds/22113343/
Interesting read. I'm still very skeptical about how this has been leaked with the NFL not being command of all the facts yet.
What the heck does that prove? The article is a complete waste of space. All it says is the reason a human couldn't pull it off is because they're not a computer, capable of letting out an exact amount of air and "what if he messes up and takes too much out?"
We're honestly trying to say this is impossible, purely due to a precision factor? It’s not brain/spine surgery. You put a needle inside a ball for a second. Oops, I left it in for 1.5 seconds!!! So what? You'd have to screw up in some unbelievable manner. Not to mention you get diminishing returns when deflating a ball. The air rushes out when fully inflated and you insert the needle, then exponentially slows down.
There's simply nothing hard about holding a needle inside a ball for 2 seconds without going over/under by 2 seconds. It's not like the article makes it out to be, you don't have to "know when to pull to the needle." Each football deflates at the exact same rate, I'd say it's extremely hard for a ball boy to get confused. It doesn't even take skill , you're just going by time. Everyone's born knowing what a second feels like. Plus, he's obviously not trying to do this on the first time. He has all the practice in the world if he wants. It's not like it takes special training/practice/IQ to repeat the exact same 2 second task 11 times in a row, in fact I bet you a chimp (or some less intelligent monkey) could pull that off for the proper reward.
-
This story just piles onto all the other stories that demonstrate how the NFL's front office is incompetent.
I doubt there will be any penalties but the NFL will change their rules regarding how and who handles the footballs before games.
Anyone who gets bent out of shape about this being about the Patriots just makes me laugh. The rules will change and the Patriots and every other team will look for other things to exploit.
-
There is zero evidence because there is zero evidence, I don't know how to explain it better. "The balls were irregular at halftime therefore the Patriots tampered with them" is not evidence, it is conjecture.
Of course it's evidence.
Refs check the balls for both teams. Both comply. Pats are in charge of Patriots balls afterwards; Colts are in control of Colts balls. At halftime, refs check the balls of both teams. Colts still comply, Patriots 90%+ not in compliance, to a significant degree.
Is there any other reasonable explanation? Circumstantial evidence is evidence, and it all points at the Pats.
Totally agree Roy. That being said, what should the punishment now be??
Considering that this infraction is the equivalent of going 50 mph in a 45-mph zone, the penalty should be minimal—which means the league will do something drastic like dock us a couple draft picks and slap us with a huge fine.
-
Don Shula is our generations version of Nostradamus!! Only Pats fans can look at this and say it doesn't matter. I hope all your kids get suspended from school for cheating on a test and they tell you they only cheated on 15% of the questions and so that didn't create an advantage! Cheating is cheating...
-
Don Shula is our generations version of Nostradamus!! Only Pats fans can look at this and say it doesn't matter. I hope all your kids get suspended from school for cheating on a test and they tell you they only cheated on 15% of the questions and so that didn't create an advantage! Cheating is cheating...
...except this is more like them being suspended for using a pencil instead of a pen despite all students using pencils AND the teacher having approved of it before the test
Also, what kind of person hopes for kids to get suspended from school?
-
Don Shula is our generations version of Nostradamus!! Only Pats fans can look at this and say it doesn't matter. I hope all your kids get suspended from school for cheating on a test and they tell you they only cheated on 15% of the questions and so that didn't create an advantage! Cheating is cheating...
Well wait a second. Did they get a 100% and get caught cheating on the extra credit portion and the teacher said they could use their smartphone to find the answer as long as they don't use wiki, but they ended up following a link to wiki anyway? Because this is sorta like that.
Stupid rule. Stupid enforcement. Stupid news story.
-
Don Shula is our generations version of Nostradamus!! Only Pats fans can look at this and say it doesn't matter. I hope all your kids get suspended from school for cheating on a test and they tell you they only cheated on 15% of the questions and so that didn't create an advantage! Cheating is cheating...
You're right. But this is sports and not my kid. And it's the Patriots, not the Lakers. I'll support Bill, and make all sorts of rationalizations, just as we all did (those of us who remember) when Red Auerbach was finding devious ways to gain an advantage.
-
Don Shula is our generations version of Nostradamus!! Only Pats fans can look at this and say it doesn't matter. I hope all your kids get suspended from school for cheating on a test and they tell you they only cheated on 15% of the questions and so that didn't create an advantage! Cheating is cheating...
Sneaking 13 items into the 12 items or less aisle is equal to adultry?
-
Don Shula is our generations version of Nostradamus!! Only Pats fans can look at this and say it doesn't matter. I hope all your kids get suspended from school for cheating on a test and they tell you they only cheated on 15% of the questions and so that didn't create an advantage! Cheating is cheating...
Sneaking 13 items into the 12 items or less aisle is equal to adultry?
Not to mention the Pats played a better second half without a deflated ball... so there really was no advantage
-
Don Shula is our generations version of Nostradamus!! Only Pats fans can look at this and say it doesn't matter. I hope all your kids get suspended from school for cheating on a test and they tell you they only cheated on 15% of the questions and so that didn't create an advantage! Cheating is cheating...
Stop blaming the Patriots. It's the fault of the NFL front office.
The only way the Patriots can make sure they are not at a competitive disadvantage is to make sure they are exploiting every edge that their opponent might be. So blame the NFL front office for allowing teams access to these balls after they've been inspected, but don't blame the Patriots. Especially since we have no idea if this is common place in the NFL.
All that will happen out of all this, is a rule change with who handles the footballs after inspection.
-
Video of the 12 balls lol
https://vine.co/v/OIeeDPhF6q5
-
Video of the 12 balls lol
https://vine.co/v/OIeeDPhF6q5
+1 Awesome.
-
Video of the 12 balls lol
https://vine.co/v/OIeeDPhF6q5
+1 Awesome.
I cant stop watching this lol
-
Don Shula is our generations version of Nostradamus!! Only Pats fans can look at this and say it doesn't matter. I hope all your kids get suspended from school for cheating on a test and they tell you they only cheated on 15% of the questions and so that didn't create an advantage! Cheating is cheating...
...except this is more like them being suspended for using a pencil instead of a pen despite all students using pencils AND the teacher having approved of it before the test
Also, what kind of person hopes for kids to get suspended from school?
Just proving my point... rationalize all you want, but if it didn't give them a clear advantage they wouldn't have risked the punishment they are about to justly receive!
-
Don Shula is our generations version of Nostradamus!! Only Pats fans can look at this and say it doesn't matter. I hope all your kids get suspended from school for cheating on a test and they tell you they only cheated on 15% of the questions and so that didn't create an advantage! Cheating is cheating...
...except this is more like them being suspended for using a pencil instead of a pen despite all students using pencils AND the teacher having approved of it before the test
Also, what kind of person hopes for kids to get suspended from school?
Just proving my point... rationalize all you want, but if it didn't give them a clear advantage they wouldn't have risked the punishment they are about to justly receive!
I guess everyone outside of New England already knows EXACTLY what is that the Patriots have done. Good job.
-
Don Shula is our generations version of Nostradamus!! Only Pats fans can look at this and say it doesn't matter. I hope all your kids get suspended from school for cheating on a test and they tell you they only cheated on 15% of the questions and so that didn't create an advantage! Cheating is cheating...
...except this is more like them being suspended for using a pencil instead of a pen despite all students using pencils AND the teacher having approved of it before the test
Also, what kind of person hopes for kids to get suspended from school?
Just proving my point... rationalize all you want, but if it didn't give them a clear advantage they wouldn't have risked the punishment they are about to justly receive!
disagree. brady is OCD, as many QBs are, not everything they do makes a ton of sense. just look at the weird routines of baseball players for reference.
and this is a common procedure which is largely accepted in the football world. here's an article by a well-known football columnist on the topic:
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/not-for-attribution/longtime-college-football-equipment-manager-everyone-cheats-deflates-184104713.html
and pete carroll's former QB matt leinart also said "all QB's do it." i wonder if any seahawks QB's have done it too? i bet few current QBs will say much about it, teams know it could be them next time getting skewered of something minor like this.
regardless, the funny thing is that a couple PSI's really does little to alter the feel, on the felger and mazz show today (they were heavily criticizing the pats and are far form apologists BTW), and then they brought in 2 NFL footballs, one inflated to 14 PSI and one to 11 PSI, and they were very surprised because they could barely tell the difference between them.
-
There is zero evidence because there is zero evidence, I don't know how to explain it better. "The balls were irregular at halftime therefore the Patriots tampered with them" is not evidence, it is conjecture.
Of course it's evidence.
Refs check the balls for both teams. Both comply. Pats are in charge of Patriots balls afterwards; Colts are in control of Colts balls. At halftime, refs check the balls of both teams. Colts still comply, Patriots 90%+ not in compliance, to a significant degree.
Is there any other reasonable explanation? Circumstantial evidence is evidence, and it all points at the Pats.
Totally agree Roy. That being said, what should the punishment now be??
Considering that this infraction is the equivalent of going 50 mph in a 45-mph zone, the penalty should be minimal—which means the league will do something drastic like dock us a couple draft picks and slap us with a huge fine.
So the Patriots-haters our there who are hoping that the NFL will ban BB from the SuperBowl are out of luck?
-
The funny thing is that the Patriots are (rightfully, to some extent) being cast as villains.
What about the Seahawks, though? Rampant PED-use, a coach who presided over an extremely dirty college program, multiple violations of off-season contact rules, etc.
-
The funny thing is that the Patriots are (rightfully, to some extent) being cast as villains.
What about the Seahawks, though? Rampant PED-use, a coach who presided over an extremely dirty college program, multiple violations of off-season contact rules, etc.
Somebody's breasts are coming out at the half time of this superbowl .......
-
There is zero evidence because there is zero evidence, I don't know how to explain it better. "The balls were irregular at halftime therefore the Patriots tampered with them" is not evidence, it is conjecture.
Of course it's evidence.
Refs check the balls for both teams. Both comply. Pats are in charge of Patriots balls afterwards; Colts are in control of Colts balls. At halftime, refs check the balls of both teams. Colts still comply, Patriots 90%+ not in compliance, to a significant degree.
Is there any other reasonable explanation? Circumstantial evidence is evidence, and it all points at the Pats.
First of all, the officials are in charge of the balls afterwards. No-one has yet answered when the Pats equipment personnel received the balls -- although indications are that this customarily happens immediately before kickoff. There were 47(!) TV cameras at Gilette that night and god knows how many fans with cellphones, and I'm still waiting for footage of the Pats ball boy letting air out of TB's footballs.
Second, the only thing that the book explicitly prohibits is tampering with the footballs after they're approved for play. It makes no prescriptions about how teams should treat their balls prior to presenting them for inspection, and clearly points at the officiating crew as the sole authority of whether a ball is fit for play. There are things you can do prior to presenting balls for inspection to make sure a football loses some pressure before game time without tampering with it the way everyone seems to suggest. It's not against the rules, and if an official deems a ball unfit for play they can remove it at any time.
TP. this, to me, nails it right on the head.
Isn't it Belicheck's job to find competitive advantages and exploit them?
Is this any different than a really good tax accountant-- find the loophole in the tax code and exploit an advantage?
I mean, look at that rule. They don't say anything about Temp change or how a team can or cannot prepare their footballs. Technically, the whole thing should be moot because the NFL doesn't even get the metric for air density right... That's a loophole you can drive a truck through...
Gamesmanship?
Sure.
Illegal?
Not according to the NFL's rulebook.
-
Simply put, the Patriots are a disgrace and simply canNOT win without cheating. Big ramifications are coming. Trust me on this one!!
Smitty77
If you an't cheat n ....you an't try n
-
this story is really a full-blown witch hunt.
rodgers says he over-inflates footballs and it's seen as funny, a joke. guys put sticky stuff on their gloves, no-one cares. the colts crank up the temps in their building so that the opposing team has cramps, no-one cares. vikings are cooking their football in an oven, no penalty. colts crank up fake noise over the loudspeakers, pats fans aren't whining. the dolphins are stealing the pats signs, no big issue. guys take PEDs all the time, no-one is calling for a team to lose draft picks. brad johnson says he paid off the ball boys at the super bowl to doctor the balls and it receives zero mention from the national media.
there's a million things going on in this sport that aren't completely on the level. opposing football teams usually keep their mouths shut publicly, because they don't want to be the next ones getting nailed. the "crime" here is only important because of the team involved.
the fans and media have hyped this up, largely due to their hatred of belichick.
and BB is certainly not innocent here; the NFL likely warned him after the incident with the colts earlier this season, and he wen ahead and continued doing it anyways. he is unyielding, which can be a strength but in this case has led to embarrassment.
BB should probably face some punishment just for defying the warnings of league. but as a whole to suggest this is some sort of legitimate competitive advantage for the pats is sour grapes at best, this is laughable as far as controversies go.
-
this story is really a full-blown witch hunt.
rodgers says he over-inflates footballs and it's seen as funny, a joke. guys put sticky stuff on their gloves, no-one cares. the colts crank up the temps in their building so that the opposing team has cramps, no-one cares. vikings are cooking their football in an oven, no penalty. colts crank up fake noise over the loudspeakers, pats fans aren't whining. the dolphins are stealing the pats signs, no big issue. guys take PEDs all the time, no-one is calling for a team to lose draft picks. brad johnson says he paid off the ball boys at the super bowl to doctor the balls and it receives zero mention from the national media.
there's a million things going on in this sport that aren't completely on the level. opposing football teams usually keep their mouths shut publicly, because they don't want to be the next ones getting nailed. the "crime" here is only important because of the team involved.
the fans and media have hyped this up, largely due to their hatred of belichick.
and BB is certainly not innocent here; the NFL likely warned him after the incident with the colts earlier this season, and he wen ahead and continued doing it anyways. he is unyielding, which can be a strength but in this case has led to embarrassment.
BB should probably face some punishment just for defying the warnings of league. but as a whole to suggest this is some sort of legitimate competitive advantage for the pats is sour grapes at best, this is laughable as far as controversies go.
There will be NO need for sour grapes because Russell Wilson and the Seahawks are going destroy the N.E. CHEATERS!!!!!! Mark it down. When was the last time the CHEATERS won it all???
-
this story is really a full-blown witch hunt.
rodgers says he over-inflates footballs and it's seen as funny, a joke. guys put sticky stuff on their gloves, no-one cares. the colts crank up the temps in their building so that the opposing team has cramps, no-one cares. vikings are cooking their football in an oven, no penalty. colts crank up fake noise over the loudspeakers, pats fans aren't whining. the dolphins are stealing the pats signs, no big issue. guys take PEDs all the time, no-one is calling for a team to lose draft picks. brad johnson says he paid off the ball boys at the super bowl to doctor the balls and it receives zero mention from the national media.
there's a million things going on in this sport that aren't completely on the level. opposing football teams usually keep their mouths shut publicly, because they don't want to be the next ones getting nailed. the "crime" here is only important because of the team involved.
the fans and media have hyped this up, largely due to their hatred of belichick.
and BB is certainly not innocent here; the NFL likely warned him after the incident with the colts earlier this season, and he wen ahead and continued doing it anyways. he is unyielding, which can be a strength but in this case has led to embarrassment.
BB should probably face some punishment just for defying the warnings of league. but as a whole to suggest this is some sort of legitimate competitive advantage for the pats is sour grapes at best, this is laughable as far as controversies go.
There will be NO need for sour grapes because Russell Wilson and the Seahawks are going destroy the N.E. CHEATERS!!!!!! Mark it down. When was the last time the CHEATERS won it all???
Russel Wilson and the Legion of PED users you mean ? ::) ( not to say the Pats don't have any PED users , seee Browner who came from Seattle ;))
When people saw Seahawks star Richard Sherman's crazed rant after Seattle's victory over the 49ers on January 19, many probably wondered, "What is he on?" Turns out Sherman has been accused of using performance-enhancing drugs, but his suspension was nixed on appeal. Plenty of his teammates haven't been as lucky, though: The other six Seahawks charged with PED gobbling have been suspended, including a number who'll be playing in Sunday's Super Bowl. Meet them below, complete with photos and memes highlighting Seattle's pill-popping rep.
http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2014/01/seahawks_performance_enhancing_drugs_peds.php
-
There is zero evidence because there is zero evidence, I don't know how to explain it better. "The balls were irregular at halftime therefore the Patriots tampered with them" is not evidence, it is conjecture.
Of course it's evidence.
Refs check the balls for both teams. Both comply. Pats are in charge of Patriots balls afterwards; Colts are in control of Colts balls. At halftime, refs check the balls of both teams. Colts still comply, Patriots 90%+ not in compliance, to a significant degree.
Is there any other reasonable explanation? Circumstantial evidence is evidence, and it all points at the Pats.
First of all, the officials are in charge of the balls afterwards. No-one has yet answered when the Pats equipment personnel received the balls -- although indications are that this customarily happens immediately before kickoff. There were 47(!) TV cameras at Gilette that night and god knows how many fans with cellphones, and I'm still waiting for footage of the Pats ball boy letting air out of TB's footballs.
Second, the only thing that the book explicitly prohibits is tampering with the footballs after they're approved for play. It makes no prescriptions about how teams should treat their balls prior to presenting them for inspection, and clearly points at the officiating crew as the sole authority of whether a ball is fit for play. There are things you can do prior to presenting balls for inspection to make sure a football loses some pressure before game time without tampering with it the way everyone seems to suggest. It's not against the rules, and if an official deems a ball unfit for play they can remove it at any time.
TP. this, to me, nails it right on the head.
Isn't it Belicheck's job to find competitive advantages and exploit them?
Is this any different than a really good tax accountant-- find the loophole in the tax code and exploit an advantage?
I mean, look at that rule. They don't say anything about Temp change or how a team can or cannot prepare their footballs. Technically, the whole thing should be moot because the NFL doesn't even get the metric for air density right... That's a loophole you can drive a truck through...
Gamesmanship?
Sure.
Illegal?
Not according to the NFL's rulebook.
Only a Pats fan would say cheating is "gaining a competitive advantage". Of course with their coaches history and actions they really have no choice. Sad what society has come to. What are we teaching our kids?!
-
Just a thought but if someone was to take a needle to the balls immediatly before the inspection then it would still be legal correct? The tampering would of been done before the refs inspected it...A very shady loophole, but legal.
-
Okay.
I read the SI hack piece and found it annoying. Now David Flemming ESPN has his own hack piece:
http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2014/story/_/id/12206633/when-bill-belichick-others-caught-cheating-deflating-all-flem-file?ex_cid=espnapi_public
I stopped reading at :
"There have been so many bizarre scandals with this franchise, moving forward we should just start referring to them as the New England Gatetriots."
By "so many", I assume he is referring to one, ie: Spygate, and the *possibility* - and lets just be clear that it is still a possibility - that Deflategate is a scandal? When did "one or two" become "so many"?????
Sorry, I can't read anymore. What passes for journalism these days is shameful, lame, and insulting to readers.
-
There is zero evidence because there is zero evidence, I don't know how to explain it better. "The balls were irregular at halftime therefore the Patriots tampered with them" is not evidence, it is conjecture.
Of course it's evidence.
Refs check the balls for both teams. Both comply. Pats are in charge of Patriots balls afterwards; Colts are in control of Colts balls. At halftime, refs check the balls of both teams. Colts still comply, Patriots 90%+ not in compliance, to a significant degree.
Is there any other reasonable explanation? Circumstantial evidence is evidence, and it all points at the Pats.
First of all, the officials are in charge of the balls afterwards. No-one has yet answered when the Pats equipment personnel received the balls -- although indications are that this customarily happens immediately before kickoff. There were 47(!) TV cameras at Gilette that night and god knows how many fans with cellphones, and I'm still waiting for footage of the Pats ball boy letting air out of TB's footballs.
Second, the only thing that the book explicitly prohibits is tampering with the footballs after they're approved for play. It makes no prescriptions about how teams should treat their balls prior to presenting them for inspection, and clearly points at the officiating crew as the sole authority of whether a ball is fit for play. There are things you can do prior to presenting balls for inspection to make sure a football loses some pressure before game time without tampering with it the way everyone seems to suggest. It's not against the rules, and if an official deems a ball unfit for play they can remove it at any time.
TP. this, to me, nails it right on the head.
Isn't it Belicheck's job to find competitive advantages and exploit them?
Is this any different than a really good tax accountant-- find the loophole in the tax code and exploit an advantage?
I mean, look at that rule. They don't say anything about Temp change or how a team can or cannot prepare their footballs. Technically, the whole thing should be moot because the NFL doesn't even get the metric for air density right... That's a loophole you can drive a truck through...
Gamesmanship?
Sure.
Illegal?
Not according to the NFL's rulebook.
Only a Pats fan would say cheating is "gaining a competitive advantage". Of course with their coaches history and actions they really have no choice. Sad what society has come to. What are we teaching our kids?!
When did you get such a chip on your shoulder against the Pats?
-
I am just happy and honored to be a Patriots fan. We have been spoiled for so many years with such an amazing franchise that all of this jealousy and animosity just reminds me of what we actually have. When you can't beat 'em, just accuse them of cheating.
Belichick and Brady 4-EVA!
-
There is zero evidence because there is zero evidence, I don't know how to explain it better. "The balls were irregular at halftime therefore the Patriots tampered with them" is not evidence, it is conjecture.
Of course it's evidence.
Refs check the balls for both teams. Both comply. Pats are in charge of Patriots balls afterwards; Colts are in control of Colts balls. At halftime, refs check the balls of both teams. Colts still comply, Patriots 90%+ not in compliance, to a significant degree.
Is there any other reasonable explanation? Circumstantial evidence is evidence, and it all points at the Pats.
First of all, the officials are in charge of the balls afterwards. No-one has yet answered when the Pats equipment personnel received the balls -- although indications are that this customarily happens immediately before kickoff. There were 47(!) TV cameras at Gilette that night and god knows how many fans with cellphones, and I'm still waiting for footage of the Pats ball boy letting air out of TB's footballs.
Second, the only thing that the book explicitly prohibits is tampering with the footballs after they're approved for play. It makes no prescriptions about how teams should treat their balls prior to presenting them for inspection, and clearly points at the officiating crew as the sole authority of whether a ball is fit for play. There are things you can do prior to presenting balls for inspection to make sure a football loses some pressure before game time without tampering with it the way everyone seems to suggest. It's not against the rules, and if an official deems a ball unfit for play they can remove it at any time.
TP. this, to me, nails it right on the head.
Isn't it Belicheck's job to find competitive advantages and exploit them?
Is this any different than a really good tax accountant-- find the loophole in the tax code and exploit an advantage?
I mean, look at that rule. They don't say anything about Temp change or how a team can or cannot prepare their footballs. Technically, the whole thing should be moot because the NFL doesn't even get the metric for air density right... That's a loophole you can drive a truck through...
Gamesmanship?
Sure.
Illegal?
Not according to the NFL's rulebook.
Only a Pats fan would say cheating is "gaining a competitive advantage". Of course with their coaches history and actions they really have no choice. Sad what society has come to. What are we teaching our kids?!
And only a loudmouth hater would say that something that isn't against the rules is "cheating".
-
Rumor from @seniorbowl (don't know if true), small group of team exec's saying Patriots will lose 2nd Rd Pick for "deflated ball scandal."
RUSSLANDE
-
I am just happy and honored to be a Patriots fan. We have been spoiled for so many years with such an amazing franchise that all of this jealousy and animosity just reminds me of what we actually have. When you can't beat 'em, just accuse them of cheating.
Belichick and Brady 4-EVA!
There is zero evidence because there is zero evidence, I don't know how to explain it better. "The balls were irregular at halftime therefore the Patriots tampered with them" is not evidence, it is conjecture.
Of course it's evidence.
Refs check the balls for both teams. Both comply. Pats are in charge of Patriots balls afterwards; Colts are in control of Colts balls. At halftime, refs check the balls of both teams. Colts still comply, Patriots 90%+ not in compliance, to a significant degree.
Is there any other reasonable explanation? Circumstantial evidence is evidence, and it all points at the Pats.
First of all, the officials are in charge of the balls afterwards. No-one has yet answered when the Pats equipment personnel received the balls -- although indications are that this customarily happens immediately before kickoff. There were 47(!) TV cameras at Gilette that night and god knows how many fans with cellphones, and I'm still waiting for footage of the Pats ball boy letting air out of TB's footballs.
Second, the only thing that the book explicitly prohibits is tampering with the footballs after they're approved for play. It makes no prescriptions about how teams should treat their balls prior to presenting them for inspection, and clearly points at the officiating crew as the sole authority of whether a ball is fit for play. There are things you can do prior to presenting balls for inspection to make sure a football loses some pressure before game time without tampering with it the way everyone seems to suggest. It's not against the rules, and if an official deems a ball unfit for play they can remove it at any time.
TP. this, to me, nails it right on the head.
Isn't it Belicheck's job to find competitive advantages and exploit them?
Is this any different than a really good tax accountant-- find the loophole in the tax code and exploit an advantage?
I mean, look at that rule. They don't say anything about Temp change or how a team can or cannot prepare their footballs. Technically, the whole thing should be moot because the NFL doesn't even get the metric for air density right... That's a loophole you can drive a truck through...
Gamesmanship?
Sure.
Illegal?
Not according to the NFL's rulebook.
Only a Pats fan would say cheating is "gaining a competitive advantage". Of course with their coaches history and actions they really have no choice. Sad what society has come to. What are we teaching our kids?!
And only a loudmouth hater would say that something that isn't against the rules is "cheating".
So it's not against the rules but the nfl is going to punish them for breaking the rules... ??? YES taking the balls and removing air 2 lbs below the legal amount after the refs have checked them is against the rules. Keep rationalizing and break forum rules with personal insults. Right from the school of Bellicheat.
-
guys put sticky stuff on their gloves
Stickum and similar substances were banned under the Lester Hayes rule. Gloves can't have adhesives but can have "tackified" surfaces.
In 2012, the Chargers cleared of wrongdoing when suspected of using towels with an adhesive substance but were fined 20K for failing to hand over towels when requested by officials.
-
So it's not against the rules but the nfl is going to punish them for breaking the rules... ??? YES taking the balls and removing air 2 lbs below the legal amount after the refs have checked them is against the rules. Keep rationalizing and break forum rules with personal insults. Right from the school of Bellicheat.
As long as you can prove conclusively that this is exactly what happened, I'm with you. Sadly, so far we've seen absolutely no evidence anyone has "removed air" from the footballs, and I've given you at least one other plausible scenario where the same result can be achieved without tampering with the balls illegally. But of course "Bellicheat" must have cheated, because he's "Bellicheat". That's the type of logic of the modern Internet man.
-
There is zero evidence because there is zero evidence, I don't know how to explain it better. "The balls were irregular at halftime therefore the Patriots tampered with them" is not evidence, it is conjecture.
Of course it's evidence.
Refs check the balls for both teams. Both comply. Pats are in charge of Patriots balls afterwards; Colts are in control of Colts balls. At halftime, refs check the balls of both teams. Colts still comply, Patriots 90%+ not in compliance, to a significant degree.
Is there any other reasonable explanation? Circumstantial evidence is evidence, and it all points at the Pats.
First of all, the officials are in charge of the balls afterwards. No-one has yet answered when the Pats equipment personnel received the balls -- although indications are that this customarily happens immediately before kickoff. There were 47(!) TV cameras at Gilette that night and god knows how many fans with cellphones, and I'm still waiting for footage of the Pats ball boy letting air out of TB's footballs.
Second, the only thing that the book explicitly prohibits is tampering with the footballs after they're approved for play. It makes no prescriptions about how teams should treat their balls prior to presenting them for inspection, and clearly points at the officiating crew as the sole authority of whether a ball is fit for play. There are things you can do prior to presenting balls for inspection to make sure a football loses some pressure before game time without tampering with it the way everyone seems to suggest. It's not against the rules, and if an official deems a ball unfit for play they can remove it at any time.
TP. this, to me, nails it right on the head.
Isn't it Belicheck's job to find competitive advantages and exploit them?
Is this any different than a really good tax accountant-- find the loophole in the tax code and exploit an advantage?
I mean, look at that rule. They don't say anything about Temp change or how a team can or cannot prepare their footballs. Technically, the whole thing should be moot because the NFL doesn't even get the metric for air density right... That's a loophole you can drive a truck through...
Gamesmanship?
Sure.
Illegal?
Not according to the NFL's rulebook.
Only a Pats fan would say cheating is "gaining a competitive advantage". Of course with their coaches history and actions they really have no choice. Sad what society has come to. What are we teaching our kids?!
lol chill out. Teach your own kid what you want. Don't rely on a football league for that.
Haha
-
Let's ignore the question of whether or not the Patriots actually did anything and ask this hypothetical question:
Assume that a team made an intentional effort to change the pressure in footballs after they have been checked. (I'm not sure why people are assuming that would have to mean someone sneaked in with a needle to tamper with each ball individually and not something like trading one sack of balls for another.) What should be the penalty?
Ideally, your answer should be the same as it would be if Ballghazi had never come up, but let's be honest, that's not going to be true for everyone.
-
this story is really a full-blown witch hunt.
rodgers says he over-inflates footballs and it's seen as funny, a joke. guys put sticky stuff on their gloves, no-one cares. the colts crank up the temps in their building so that the opposing team has cramps, no-one cares. vikings are cooking their football in an oven, no penalty. colts crank up fake noise over the loudspeakers, pats fans aren't whining. the dolphins are stealing the pats signs, no big issue. guys take PEDs all the time, no-one is calling for a team to lose draft picks. brad johnson says he paid off the ball boys at the super bowl to doctor the balls and it receives zero mention from the national media.
there's a million things going on in this sport that aren't completely on the level. opposing football teams usually keep their mouths shut publicly, because they don't want to be the next ones getting nailed. the "crime" here is only important because of the team involved.
the fans and media have hyped this up, largely due to their hatred of belichick.
and BB is certainly not innocent here; the NFL likely warned him after the incident with the colts earlier this season, and he wen ahead and continued doing it anyways. he is unyielding, which can be a strength but in this case has led to embarrassment.
BB should probably face some punishment just for defying the warnings of league. but as a whole to suggest this is some sort of legitimate competitive advantage for the pats is sour grapes at best, this is laughable as far as controversies go.
There will be NO need for sour grapes because Russell Wilson and the Seahawks are going destroy the N.E. CHEATERS!!!!!! Mark it down. When was the last time the CHEATERS won it all???
lol stop being a hater.
Btw... who's your team?
-
Despite the investigation and thousands of cameras there is no photographic or video evidence that the Pats tampered (knowingly). There is not one name yet of one person that did this. Just theories of some shadowy figure ordering a code red.
So we have the Pats cooperating (nobody is saying otherwise) and no evidence whatsoever other than off weights.
We have evidence that refs did the weigh in and handled the balls hundreds of times during the game.
We have a motive for false accusations by the Colts.
We have Rogers on video saying he routinely attempts to cheat without any discipline handed down.
We have two teams caught live on tv cheating with their balls receiving only a warning.
At this point I think the most likely scenario is that a time traveller came back in time with underinflated balls, switched them to give the Pats an advantage......theeeeennnnn made the call to the sports writer to help the Pats get caught......because he knnnoooowwwws in two weeks.....an undesireable outcome will occur.
It's the most likely explanation. Connect the dots. We have a terminator in our midst. Everyone keep an eye out for someone that looks a little like this....
(http://i0.wp.com/unrealitytv.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/summer-glau-terminator.jpg)
-
Let's ignore the question of whether or not the Patriots actually did anything and ask this hypothetical question:
Assume that a team made an intentional effort to change the pressure in footballs after they have been checked. (I'm not sure why people are assuming that would have to mean someone sneaked in with a needle to tamper with each ball individually and not something like trading one sack of balls for another.) What should be the penalty?
Ideally, your answer should be the same as it would be if Ballghazi had never come up, but let's be honest, that's not going to be true for everyone.
lol at ballghazi. I guess foxnews will have to get in on that story.
-
Let's ignore the question of whether or not the Patriots actually did anything and ask this hypothetical question:
Assume that a team made an intentional effort to change the pressure in footballs after they have been checked. (I'm not sure why people are assuming that would have to mean someone sneaked in with a needle to tamper with each ball individually and not something like trading one sack of balls for another.) What should be the penalty?
Ideally, your answer should be the same as it would be if Ballghazi had never come up, but let's be honest, that's not going to be true for everyone.
I think the better question is, why isn't there already a planned penalty in place for this sort of action? It's pretty black and white - either a team deflated the balls or they didn't. They should already know what the punishment is.
But if I were speaking from a Patriot-hater point of view, I would say that they shouldn't be able to play in this super bowl, they should vacate all previous super bowls, and BB/Brady should get the death penalty.
-
So it's not against the rules but the nfl is going to punish them for breaking the rules... ??? YES taking the balls and removing air 2 lbs below the legal amount after the refs have checked them is against the rules. Keep rationalizing and break forum rules with personal insults. Right from the school of Bellicheat.
As long as you can prove conclusively that this is exactly what happened, I'm with you. Sadly, so far we've seen absolutely no evidence anyone has "removed air" from the footballs, and I've given you at least one other plausible scenario where the same result can be achieved without tampering with the balls illegally. But of course "Bellicheat" must have cheated, because he's "Bellicheat". That's the type of logic of the modern Internet man.
It is a fact that he has cheated in the past. It is a fact that they were 2 lbs less at halftime after being checked at beginning. Only Pats staff touched them in between. Not hard to make that leap. That being said, the biggest issue is what we're teaching kids. It's okay to cheat if you don't get caught, but if you do you'll just get a slap on the wrist. Integrity and honesty are no longer demanded by the masses. It's sad and that's becoming an issue in society. Many, like the other recent poster, just want you to let it be and tell you to teach your kids what you want. Silence is acceptance. You teach your kids by standing up and speaking out.
-
So it's not against the rules but the nfl is going to punish them for breaking the rules... ??? YES taking the balls and removing air 2 lbs below the legal amount after the refs have checked them is against the rules. Keep rationalizing and break forum rules with personal insults. Right from the school of Bellicheat.
As long as you can prove conclusively that this is exactly what happened, I'm with you. Sadly, so far we've seen absolutely no evidence anyone has "removed air" from the footballs, and I've given you at least one other plausible scenario where the same result can be achieved without tampering with the balls illegally. But of course "Bellicheat" must have cheated, because he's "Bellicheat". That's the type of logic of the modern Internet man.
It is a fact that he has cheated in the past. It is a fact that they were 2 lbs less at halftime after being checked at beginning. Only Pats staff touched them in between. Not hard to make that leap. That being said, the biggest issue is what we're teaching kids. It's okay to cheat if you don't get caught, but if you do you'll just get a slap on the wrist. Integrity and honesty are no longer demanded by the masses. It's sad and that's becoming an issue in society. Many, like the other recent poster, just want you to let it be and tell you to teach your kids what you want. Silence is acceptance. You teach your kids by standing up and speaking out.
Are you a liberal? 8)
-
Let's ignore the question of whether or not the Patriots actually did anything and ask this hypothetical question:
Assume that a team made an intentional effort to change the pressure in footballs after they have been checked. (I'm not sure why people are assuming that would have to mean someone sneaked in with a needle to tamper with each ball individually and not something like trading one sack of balls for another.) What should be the penalty?
Ideally, your answer should be the same as it would be if Ballghazi had never come up, but let's be honest, that's not going to be true for everyone.
Perhaps the Pats can just tell Rodger Goodell that they hired someone to do an internal investigation and they found no evidence of wrong doing. trying to prove Bill and Tom knew about those footballs is kinda like trying to find out if someone knew a tape existed eh Rodger? :)
all kidding aside. this is not nearly as bad as the whole spygate thing and they were fined the max and docked a first rounder I believe. So I would probably still fine the max amount but maybe take a later round pick away instead of a first rounder. Thats if Im judging based on this incident alone, which it probably should be instead of making a judgement on this regimes history as well.
-
Assume that a team made an intentional effort to change the pressure in footballs after they have been checked. (I'm not sure why people are assuming that would have to mean someone sneaked in with a needle to tamper with each ball individually and not something like trading one sack of balls for another.) What should be the penalty?
Um, maybe because the officiating crew places their individual physical mark on each inspected ball, and check for that mark on every ball they spot in game? :P
Also, the potential penalty has been spelled out in the rules: includes but not limited to a $25,000 fine. Which of course means it's perfectly appropriate to, I don't know, throw the Patriots organization out of football, because that punishment is fully commensurate to the alleged crime.
-
So it's not against the rules but the nfl is going to punish them for breaking the rules... ??? YES taking the balls and removing air 2 lbs below the legal amount after the refs have checked them is against the rules. Keep rationalizing and break forum rules with personal insults. Right from the school of Bellicheat.
As long as you can prove conclusively that this is exactly what happened, I'm with you. Sadly, so far we've seen absolutely no evidence anyone has "removed air" from the footballs, and I've given you at least one other plausible scenario where the same result can be achieved without tampering with the balls illegally. But of course "Bellicheat" must have cheated, because he's "Bellicheat". That's the type of logic of the modern Internet man.
It is a fact that he has cheated in the past. It is a fact that they were 2 lbs less at halftime after being checked at beginning. Only Pats staff touched them in between. Not hard to make that leap. That being said, the biggest issue is what we're teaching kids. It's okay to cheat if you don't get caught, but if you do you'll just get a slap on the wrist. Integrity and honesty are no longer demanded by the masses. It's sad and that's becoming an issue in society. Many, like the other recent poster, just want you to let it be and tell you to teach your kids what you want. Silence is acceptance. You teach your kids by standing up and speaking out.
Are you really depending on Athletes to be a role model to your kids ? That is ludicrous
-
So it's not against the rules but the nfl is going to punish them for breaking the rules... ??? YES taking the balls and removing air 2 lbs below the legal amount after the refs have checked them is against the rules. Keep rationalizing and break forum rules with personal insults. Right from the school of Bellicheat.
As long as you can prove conclusively that this is exactly what happened, I'm with you. Sadly, so far we've seen absolutely no evidence anyone has "removed air" from the footballs, and I've given you at least one other plausible scenario where the same result can be achieved without tampering with the balls illegally. But of course "Bellicheat" must have cheated, because he's "Bellicheat". That's the type of logic of the modern Internet man.
It is a fact that he has cheated in the past. It is a fact that they were 2 lbs less at halftime after being checked at beginning. Only Pats staff touched them in between. Not hard to make that leap. That being said, the biggest issue is what we're teaching kids. It's okay to cheat if you don't get caught, but if you do you'll just get a slap on the wrist. Integrity and honesty are no longer demanded by the masses. It's sad and that's becoming an issue in society. Many, like the other recent poster, just want you to let it be and tell you to teach your kids what you want. Silence is acceptance. You teach your kids by standing up and speaking out.
Right, but I also don't want my kid to be a finger pointing, excuse making, cry baby who focuses on minor issues of other kids, while not paying attention to his own ability to do his job.
-
So it's not against the rules but the nfl is going to punish them for breaking the rules... ??? YES taking the balls and removing air 2 lbs below the legal amount after the refs have checked them is against the rules. Keep rationalizing and break forum rules with personal insults. Right from the school of Bellicheat.
As long as you can prove conclusively that this is exactly what happened, I'm with you. Sadly, so far we've seen absolutely no evidence anyone has "removed air" from the footballs, and I've given you at least one other plausible scenario where the same result can be achieved without tampering with the balls illegally. But of course "Bellicheat" must have cheated, because he's "Bellicheat". That's the type of logic of the modern Internet man.
It is a fact that he has cheated in the past. It is a fact that they were 2 lbs less at halftime after being checked at beginning. Only Pats staff touched them in between. Not hard to make that leap. That being said, the biggest issue is what we're teaching kids. It's okay to cheat if you don't get caught, but if you do you'll just get a slap on the wrist. Integrity and honesty are no longer demanded by the masses. It's sad and that's becoming an issue in society. Many, like the other recent poster, just want you to let it be and tell you to teach your kids what you want. Silence is acceptance. You teach your kids by standing up and speaking out.
Soooooo....the thing to teach our kids here is how to rush to judgement without evidence and convict people in the court of the media.
Nope.
Dear media. You are not a court. You will never be a court. You have never been a court. Your opinion is irrelevant.
-
So it's not against the rules but the nfl is going to punish them for breaking the rules... ??? YES taking the balls and removing air 2 lbs below the legal amount after the refs have checked them is against the rules. Keep rationalizing and break forum rules with personal insults. Right from the school of Bellicheat.
As long as you can prove conclusively that this is exactly what happened, I'm with you. Sadly, so far we've seen absolutely no evidence anyone has "removed air" from the footballs, and I've given you at least one other plausible scenario where the same result can be achieved without tampering with the balls illegally. But of course "Bellicheat" must have cheated, because he's "Bellicheat". That's the type of logic of the modern Internet man.
It is a fact that he has cheated in the past. It is a fact that they were 2 lbs less at halftime after being checked at beginning. Only Pats staff touched them in between. Not hard to make that leap. That being said, the biggest issue is what we're teaching kids. It's okay to cheat if you don't get caught, but if you do you'll just get a slap on the wrist. Integrity and honesty are no longer demanded by the masses. It's sad and that's becoming an issue in society. Many, like the other recent poster, just want you to let it be and tell you to teach your kids what you want. Silence is acceptance. You teach your kids by standing up and speaking out.
Are you really depending on Athletes to be a role model to your kids ? That is ludicrous
Nope, but if you don't think kids look up to athletes you're not being honest. I teach my kids morals and sadly have another example of what not to do. That includes the Pats actions, but also many in here dismissing their cheating as not a big deal.
-
So it's not against the rules but the nfl is going to punish them for breaking the rules... ??? YES taking the balls and removing air 2 lbs below the legal amount after the refs have checked them is against the rules. Keep rationalizing and break forum rules with personal insults. Right from the school of Bellicheat.
As long as you can prove conclusively that this is exactly what happened, I'm with you. Sadly, so far we've seen absolutely no evidence anyone has "removed air" from the footballs, and I've given you at least one other plausible scenario where the same result can be achieved without tampering with the balls illegally. But of course "Bellicheat" must have cheated, because he's "Bellicheat". That's the type of logic of the modern Internet man.
It is a fact that he has cheated in the past. It is a fact that they were 2 lbs less at halftime after being checked at beginning. Only Pats staff touched them in between. Not hard to make that leap. That being said, the biggest issue is what we're teaching kids. It's okay to cheat if you don't get caught, but if you do you'll just get a slap on the wrist. Integrity and honesty are no longer demanded by the masses. It's sad and that's becoming an issue in society. Many, like the other recent poster, just want you to let it be and tell you to teach your kids what you want. Silence is acceptance. You teach your kids by standing up and speaking out.
Are you really depending on Athletes to be a role model to your kids ? That is ludicrous
Nope, but if you don't think kids look up to athletes you're not being honest. I teach my kids morals and sadly have another example of what not to do. That includes the Pats actions, but also many in here dismissing their cheating as not a big deal.
The Pats are like maybe 200 people. Give us one name of one person that knowingly cheated and the evidence.
-
So it's not against the rules but the nfl is going to punish them for breaking the rules... ??? YES taking the balls and removing air 2 lbs below the legal amount after the refs have checked them is against the rules. Keep rationalizing and break forum rules with personal insults. Right from the school of Bellicheat.
As long as you can prove conclusively that this is exactly what happened, I'm with you. Sadly, so far we've seen absolutely no evidence anyone has "removed air" from the footballs, and I've given you at least one other plausible scenario where the same result can be achieved without tampering with the balls illegally. But of course "Bellicheat" must have cheated, because he's "Bellicheat". That's the type of logic of the modern Internet man.
It is a fact that he has cheated in the past. It is a fact that they were 2 lbs less at halftime after being checked at beginning. Only Pats staff touched them in between. Not hard to make that leap. That being said, the biggest issue is what we're teaching kids. It's okay to cheat if you don't get caught, but if you do you'll just get a slap on the wrist. Integrity and honesty are no longer demanded by the masses. It's sad and that's becoming an issue in society. Many, like the other recent poster, just want you to let it be and tell you to teach your kids what you want. Silence is acceptance. You teach your kids by standing up and speaking out.
Are you really depending on Athletes to be a role model to your kids ? That is ludicrous
Nope, but if you don't think kids look up to athletes you're not being honest. I teach my kids morals and sadly have another example of what not to do. That includes the Pats actions, but also many in here dismissing their cheating as not a big deal.
wonderful. You sound like a good parent who's able to take the time to teach your kid what's right and wrong. So what exactly is your problem then? I know there's certainly a lot worst things going on in the world then a controversy over a football. I'm sure your kid will be fine.
-
The problem is with nobody available to have done the deflating and the entire episode caught on 47 NFL cameras we now have to endorse the theory that a magic deflation needle left the book depository headed downward at an angle of 17 degrees. It entered Bill Belichik's hand and then was raised up, left his hand hung in mid air for 1.3 seconds, where it continued onward to the 12 footballs, made a dramatic left turn where it now entered Tom Brady's hand, made a dramatic u turn to reinflate one football, then entered the vicinity of the refs, but they never saw it, because it was invisible.
Now that's one magic needle. There had to be a second deflater.
-
I think that there's a difference between breaking a rule and cheating. In every game, rules are broken to get a competitive advantage...for example, holding. A player may hold another player in an attempt to get a better result. If they are caught, they are penalized. Is that considered "cheating"? Nope. In Deflategate, a rule was broken and they should be penalized. But, how can it be called cheating if they did better with the inflated balls in the second half?? Is it proven that under-inflated balls give a team an advantage? Obviously not. It's just a personal preference. It's not like a corked bat or doctored baseball which would have a positive impact in most (if not all) cases. Can you cheat when you do something that is not proven to actually help you win?!?!? This is a witchhunt. Brad Johnson, former QB for Tampa admitted that he paid someone to scuff the footballs at the Super Bowl. If that was Brady who said that, the world would explode.
-
So it's not against the rules but the nfl is going to punish them for breaking the rules... ??? YES taking the balls and removing air 2 lbs below the legal amount after the refs have checked them is against the rules. Keep rationalizing and break forum rules with personal insults. Right from the school of Bellicheat.
As long as you can prove conclusively that this is exactly what happened, I'm with you. Sadly, so far we've seen absolutely no evidence anyone has "removed air" from the footballs, and I've given you at least one other plausible scenario where the same result can be achieved without tampering with the balls illegally. But of course "Bellicheat" must have cheated, because he's "Bellicheat". That's the type of logic of the modern Internet man.
It is a fact that he has cheated in the past. It is a fact that they were 2 lbs less at halftime after being checked at beginning. Only Pats staff touched them in between. Not hard to make that leap. That being said, the biggest issue is what we're teaching kids. It's okay to cheat if you don't get caught, but if you do you'll just get a slap on the wrist. Integrity and honesty are no longer demanded by the masses. It's sad and that's becoming an issue in society. Many, like the other recent poster, just want you to let it be and tell you to teach your kids what you want. Silence is acceptance. You teach your kids by standing up and speaking out.
Soooooo....the thing to teach our kids here is how to rush to judgement without evidence and convict people in the court of the media.
Nope.
Dear media. You are not a court. You will never be a court. You have never been a court. Your opinion is irrelevant.
A free and open media is exactly what forces society's most powerful institutions to be as honest as they possibly can be/are willing to. Media is not a court but rather a generator for public discourse. Without media Ray Rice would be playing in the NFL this year. Without media we likely would never have learned about the Saints intentionally trying to injure players.
Like it or not, your favorite team is part of that spotlight. Deal with it. It doesn't mean your team is "targeted," it means your team is being held accountable. The reality is that the Pats are consistently one of the most liked teams in the league: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/mid/1508/ArticleId/1506/Default.aspx
If you want to talk about broken rules, how about analyzing the NFL's push to protect quarterbacks and create electrifying offenses, which has allowed older, immobile quarterbacks like Brady and Peyton Manning to prolong their respective careers despite growing increasingly unable to efficiently air the ball out down the football field? And how that has restricted a team's ability to keep great defenses together and put offense-oriented teams like New England at an advantage that couldn't have been anticipated just 10-15 years ago?
Until then, stop whining about the media's "witchhunt," or whatever Pats fans are calling it, for evidence of wrongdoing. I believe it was you who mentioned hypocrisy earlier, but I could be wrong. Either way, this is the general thought process of Pats fans, who feel the league is out to get their team and make them work harder than other teams for a Super Bowl ring. And nothing could be more hypocritical than that, as the Pats have been one of the most easily identifiable beneficiaries of the uptempo, QB-driven league that the NFL has only just recently created.
-
I wonder why media schools schools teach journalistic standards and ethics, when we could just have... you know, "free media". Not everyone with a keyboard and Internet access is a journalist, and not everyone employed by a media is a good one. Just saying.
-
So it's not against the rules but the nfl is going to punish them for breaking the rules... ??? YES taking the balls and removing air 2 lbs below the legal amount after the refs have checked them is against the rules. Keep rationalizing and break forum rules with personal insults. Right from the school of Bellicheat.
As long as you can prove conclusively that this is exactly what happened, I'm with you. Sadly, so far we've seen absolutely no evidence anyone has "removed air" from the footballs, and I've given you at least one other plausible scenario where the same result can be achieved without tampering with the balls illegally. But of course "Bellicheat" must have cheated, because he's "Bellicheat". That's the type of logic of the modern Internet man.
It is a fact that he has cheated in the past. It is a fact that they were 2 lbs less at halftime after being checked at beginning. Only Pats staff touched them in between. Not hard to make that leap. That being said, the biggest issue is what we're teaching kids. It's okay to cheat if you don't get caught, but if you do you'll just get a slap on the wrist. Integrity and honesty are no longer demanded by the masses. It's sad and that's becoming an issue in society. Many, like the other recent poster, just want you to let it be and tell you to teach your kids what you want. Silence is acceptance. You teach your kids by standing up and speaking out.
Soooooo....the thing to teach our kids here is how to rush to judgement without evidence and convict people in the court of the media.
Nope.
Dear media. You are not a court. You will never be a court. You have never been a court. Your opinion is irrelevant.
A free and open media is exactly what forces society's most powerful institutions to be as honest as they possibly can be/are willing to. Media is not a court but rather a generator for public discourse. Without media Ray Rice would be playing in the NFL this year. Without media we likely would never have learned about the Saints intentionally trying to injure players.
Like it or not, your favorite team is part of that spotlight. Deal with it. It doesn't mean your team is "targeted," it means your team is being held accountable. The reality is that the Pats are consistently one of the most liked teams in the league: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/mid/1508/ArticleId/1506/Default.aspx
If you want to talk about broken rules, how about analyzing the NFL's push to protect quarterbacks and create electrifying offenses, which has allowed older, immobile quarterbacks like Brady and Peyton Manning to prolong their respective careers despite growing increasingly unable to efficiently air the ball out down the football field? And how that has restricted a team's ability to keep great defenses together and put offense-oriented teams like New England at an advantage that couldn't have been anticipated just 10-15 years ago?
Until then, stop whining about the media's "witchhunt," or whatever Pats fans are calling it, for evidence of wrongdoing. I believe it was you who mentioned hypocrisy earlier, but I could be wrong. Either way, this is the general thought process of Pats fans, who feel the league is out to get their team and make them work harder than other teams for a Super Bowl ring. And nothing could be more hypocritical than that, as the Pats have been one of the most easily identifiable beneficiaries of the uptempo, QB-driven league that the NFL has only just recently created.
Noooooo.....Peyton Manning couldn't beat the Pats so they changed the rules about defensive contact, then did it again. Peyton basically has to have receivers that can't be touched. They did change the rules for Brady after his ACL that you couldn't hit them below the knees or something.
We already had 38 year old QBs in this league (John Elway) and 40 year olds (Favre and Warren Moon) and QBs that were this age (Dan Marino, Steve Young) that may very well have had a little more in them.
This just has to do with the Colts being babies and the media needing to sell papers. Nothing more.
-
I wonder why media schools schools teach journalistic standards and ethics, when we could just have... you know, "free media". Not everyone with a keyboard and Internet access is a journalist, and not everyone employed by a media is a good one. Just saying.
The only people who criticize free media are those who act as if they have to read and believe everything journalists say.
You don't have to read articles about this if it's going to confront your biases, but some of us are interested in determining whether or not the Pats did something wrong. Apparently, that's a serious crime in NE.
-
I wonder why media schools schools teach journalistic standards and ethics, when we could just have... you know, "free media". Not everyone with a keyboard and Internet access is a journalist, and not everyone employed by a media is a good one. Just saying.
The only people who criticize free media are those who act as if they have to read and believe everything journalists say.
You don't have to read articles about this if it's going to confront your biases, but some of us are interested in determining whether or not the Pats did something wrong. Apparently, that's a serious crime in NE.
I don't criticize free media. I just want to remind people that media, just like the rest of the world, has plenty of people who are not that good at what they do. Oh, and some of them have biases, too.
-
So it's not against the rules but the nfl is going to punish them for breaking the rules... ??? YES taking the balls and removing air 2 lbs below the legal amount after the refs have checked them is against the rules. Keep rationalizing and break forum rules with personal insults. Right from the school of Bellicheat.
As long as you can prove conclusively that this is exactly what happened, I'm with you. Sadly, so far we've seen absolutely no evidence anyone has "removed air" from the footballs, and I've given you at least one other plausible scenario where the same result can be achieved without tampering with the balls illegally. But of course "Bellicheat" must have cheated, because he's "Bellicheat". That's the type of logic of the modern Internet man.
It is a fact that he has cheated in the past. It is a fact that they were 2 lbs less at halftime after being checked at beginning. Only Pats staff touched them in between. Not hard to make that leap. That being said, the biggest issue is what we're teaching kids. It's okay to cheat if you don't get caught, but if you do you'll just get a slap on the wrist. Integrity and honesty are no longer demanded by the masses. It's sad and that's becoming an issue in society. Many, like the other recent poster, just want you to let it be and tell you to teach your kids what you want. Silence is acceptance. You teach your kids by standing up and speaking out.
Soooooo....the thing to teach our kids here is how to rush to judgement without evidence and convict people in the court of the media.
Nope.
Dear media. You are not a court. You will never be a court. You have never been a court. Your opinion is irrelevant.
A free and open media is exactly what forces society's most powerful institutions to be as honest as they possibly can be/are willing to. Media is not a court but rather a generator for public discourse. Without media Ray Rice would be playing in the NFL this year. Without media we likely would never have learned about the Saints intentionally trying to injure players.
Like it or not, your favorite team is part of that spotlight. Deal with it. It doesn't mean your team is "targeted," it means your team is being held accountable. The reality is that the Pats are consistently one of the most liked teams in the league: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/mid/1508/ArticleId/1506/Default.aspx
If you want to talk about broken rules, how about analyzing the NFL's push to protect quarterbacks and create electrifying offenses, which has allowed older, immobile quarterbacks like Brady and Peyton Manning to prolong their respective careers despite growing increasingly unable to efficiently air the ball out down the football field? And how that has restricted a team's ability to keep great defenses together and put offense-oriented teams like New England at an advantage that couldn't have been anticipated just 10-15 years ago?
Until then, stop whining about the media's "witchhunt," or whatever Pats fans are calling it, for evidence of wrongdoing. I believe it was you who mentioned hypocrisy earlier, but I could be wrong. Either way, this is the general thought process of Pats fans, who feel the league is out to get their team and make them work harder than other teams for a Super Bowl ring. And nothing could be more hypocritical than that, as the Pats have been one of the most easily identifiable beneficiaries of the uptempo, QB-driven league that the NFL has only just recently created.
Lol. ;D A witch hunt in New England? How original (sarcasm). ;) ::) ;D
-
So it's not against the rules but the nfl is going to punish them for breaking the rules... ??? YES taking the balls and removing air 2 lbs below the legal amount after the refs have checked them is against the rules. Keep rationalizing and break forum rules with personal insults. Right from the school of Bellicheat.
As long as you can prove conclusively that this is exactly what happened, I'm with you. Sadly, so far we've seen absolutely no evidence anyone has "removed air" from the footballs, and I've given you at least one other plausible scenario where the same result can be achieved without tampering with the balls illegally. But of course "Bellicheat" must have cheated, because he's "Bellicheat". That's the type of logic of the modern Internet man.
It is a fact that he has cheated in the past. It is a fact that they were 2 lbs less at halftime after being checked at beginning. Only Pats staff touched them in between. Not hard to make that leap. That being said, the biggest issue is what we're teaching kids. It's okay to cheat if you don't get caught, but if you do you'll just get a slap on the wrist. Integrity and honesty are no longer demanded by the masses. It's sad and that's becoming an issue in society. Many, like the other recent poster, just want you to let it be and tell you to teach your kids what you want. Silence is acceptance. You teach your kids by standing up and speaking out.
Soooooo....the thing to teach our kids here is how to rush to judgement without evidence and convict people in the court of the media.
Nope.
Dear media. You are not a court. You will never be a court. You have never been a court. Your opinion is irrelevant.
A free and open media is exactly what forces society's most powerful institutions to be as honest as they possibly can be/are willing to. Media is not a court but rather a generator for public discourse. Without media Ray Rice would be playing in the NFL this year. Without media we likely would never have learned about the Saints intentionally trying to injure players.
Like it or not, your favorite team is part of that spotlight. Deal with it. It doesn't mean your team is "targeted," it means your team is being held accountable. The reality is that the Pats are consistently one of the most liked teams in the league: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/mid/1508/ArticleId/1506/Default.aspx
If you want to talk about broken rules, how about analyzing the NFL's push to protect quarterbacks and create electrifying offenses, which has allowed older, immobile quarterbacks like Brady and Peyton Manning to prolong their respective careers despite growing increasingly unable to efficiently air the ball out down the football field? And how that has restricted a team's ability to keep great defenses together and put offense-oriented teams like New England at an advantage that couldn't have been anticipated just 10-15 years ago?
Until then, stop whining about the media's "witchhunt," or whatever Pats fans are calling it, for evidence of wrongdoing. I believe it was you who mentioned hypocrisy earlier, but I could be wrong. Either way, this is the general thought process of Pats fans, who feel the league is out to get their team and make them work harder than other teams for a Super Bowl ring. And nothing could be more hypocritical than that, as the Pats have been one of the most easily identifiable beneficiaries of the uptempo, QB-driven league that the NFL has only just recently created.
I guess you doesn't understand how the media works.
How many news on Josh McNary colts linebacker, who accused of rape and battery?
Why is nobody mentioning that Ray Lewis has a shady past, when he critisizing Brady?
Why are we not hearing more about Suggs, that he poured bleach on a woman?
Why is that people act like they have evidence that the pats do something not in the rules?
If no evidence, that it was on purpose somebody by the pats, then why not wait to judge?
I guarantee you these are not the first balls to not measure properly in an nfl game.
BTW it was not any bearings on the outcome, everybody knows it. the colts are below a notch by the pats.
Who's your team?
-
So it's not against the rules but the nfl is going to punish them for breaking the rules... ??? YES taking the balls and removing air 2 lbs below the legal amount after the refs have checked them is against the rules. Keep rationalizing and break forum rules with personal insults. Right from the school of Bellicheat.
As long as you can prove conclusively that this is exactly what happened, I'm with you. Sadly, so far we've seen absolutely no evidence anyone has "removed air" from the footballs, and I've given you at least one other plausible scenario where the same result can be achieved without tampering with the balls illegally. But of course "Bellicheat" must have cheated, because he's "Bellicheat". That's the type of logic of the modern Internet man.
It is a fact that he has cheated in the past. It is a fact that they were 2 lbs less at halftime after being checked at beginning. Only Pats staff touched them in between. Not hard to make that leap. That being said, the biggest issue is what we're teaching kids. It's okay to cheat if you don't get caught, but if you do you'll just get a slap on the wrist. Integrity and honesty are no longer demanded by the masses. It's sad and that's becoming an issue in society. Many, like the other recent poster, just want you to let it be and tell you to teach your kids what you want. Silence is acceptance. You teach your kids by standing up and speaking out.
Soooooo....the thing to teach our kids here is how to rush to judgement without evidence and convict people in the court of the media.
Nope.
Dear media. You are not a court. You will never be a court. You have never been a court. Your opinion is irrelevant.
A free and open media is exactly what forces society's most powerful institutions to be as honest as they possibly can be/are willing to. Media is not a court but rather a generator for public discourse. Without media Ray Rice would be playing in the NFL this year. Without media we likely would never have learned about the Saints intentionally trying to injure players.
Like it or not, your favorite team is part of that spotlight. Deal with it. It doesn't mean your team is "targeted," it means your team is being held accountable. The reality is that the Pats are consistently one of the most liked teams in the league: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/mid/1508/ArticleId/1506/Default.aspx
If you want to talk about broken rules, how about analyzing the NFL's push to protect quarterbacks and create electrifying offenses, which has allowed older, immobile quarterbacks like Brady and Peyton Manning to prolong their respective careers despite growing increasingly unable to efficiently air the ball out down the football field? And how that has restricted a team's ability to keep great defenses together and put offense-oriented teams like New England at an advantage that couldn't have been anticipated just 10-15 years ago?
Until then, stop whining about the media's "witchhunt," or whatever Pats fans are calling it, for evidence of wrongdoing. I believe it was you who mentioned hypocrisy earlier, but I could be wrong. Either way, this is the general thought process of Pats fans, who feel the league is out to get their team and make them work harder than other teams for a Super Bowl ring. And nothing could be more hypocritical than that, as the Pats have been one of the most easily identifiable beneficiaries of the uptempo, QB-driven league that the NFL has only just recently created.
Thank you for the lesson on free media. It sounds like you passed your college exam on that one.
-
So it's not against the rules but the nfl is going to punish them for breaking the rules... ??? YES taking the balls and removing air 2 lbs below the legal amount after the refs have checked them is against the rules. Keep rationalizing and break forum rules with personal insults. Right from the school of Bellicheat.
As long as you can prove conclusively that this is exactly what happened, I'm with you. Sadly, so far we've seen absolutely no evidence anyone has "removed air" from the footballs, and I've given you at least one other plausible scenario where the same result can be achieved without tampering with the balls illegally. But of course "Bellicheat" must have cheated, because he's "Bellicheat". That's the type of logic of the modern Internet man.
It is a fact that he has cheated in the past. It is a fact that they were 2 lbs less at halftime after being checked at beginning. Only Pats staff touched them in between. Not hard to make that leap. That being said, the biggest issue is what we're teaching kids. It's okay to cheat if you don't get caught, but if you do you'll just get a slap on the wrist. Integrity and honesty are no longer demanded by the masses. It's sad and that's becoming an issue in society. Many, like the other recent poster, just want you to let it be and tell you to teach your kids what you want. Silence is acceptance. You teach your kids by standing up and speaking out.
Soooooo....the thing to teach our kids here is how to rush to judgement without evidence and convict people in the court of the media.
Nope.
Dear media. You are not a court. You will never be a court. You have never been a court. Your opinion is irrelevant.
A free and open media is exactly what forces society's most powerful institutions to be as honest as they possibly can be/are willing to. Media is not a court but rather a generator for public discourse. Without media Ray Rice would be playing in the NFL this year. Without media we likely would never have learned about the Saints intentionally trying to injure players.
Like it or not, your favorite team is part of that spotlight. Deal with it. It doesn't mean your team is "targeted," it means your team is being held accountable. The reality is that the Pats are consistently one of the most liked teams in the league: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/mid/1508/ArticleId/1506/Default.aspx
If you want to talk about broken rules, how about analyzing the NFL's push to protect quarterbacks and create electrifying offenses, which has allowed older, immobile quarterbacks like Brady and Peyton Manning to prolong their respective careers despite growing increasingly unable to efficiently air the ball out down the football field? And how that has restricted a team's ability to keep great defenses together and put offense-oriented teams like New England at an advantage that couldn't have been anticipated just 10-15 years ago?
Until then, stop whining about the media's "witchhunt," or whatever Pats fans are calling it, for evidence of wrongdoing. I believe it was you who mentioned hypocrisy earlier, but I could be wrong. Either way, this is the general thought process of Pats fans, who feel the league is out to get their team and make them work harder than other teams for a Super Bowl ring. And nothing could be more hypocritical than that, as the Pats have been one of the most easily identifiable beneficiaries of the uptempo, QB-driven league that the NFL has only just recently created.
Noooooo.....Peyton Manning couldn't beat the Pats so they changed the rules about defensive contact, then did it again. Peyton basically has to have receivers that can't be touched. They did change the rules for Brady after his ACL that you couldn't hit them below the knees or something.
We already had 38 year old QBs in this league (John Elway) and 40 year olds (Favre and Warren Moon) and QBs that were this age (Dan Marino, Steve Young) that may very well have had a little more in them.
This just has to do with the Colts being babies and the media needing to sell papers. Nothing more.
Hmm, just like when the NBA changed the rules after Jordan and Phil whined about the physicality of the bad boys which was a big reason why Chicago beat Detroit in 1991? It's interesting who the different leagues select as their golden boys, isn't it? In the NFL of today, it's obviously Peyton Manning and Brady, and in the NBA it was Jordan from day one, in addition to Kareem and Magic, ,etc. I don't understand how Detroit was allowed to get away with maiming our players and even those of the Lakers without the league coming down on them, but MJ cries and Stern's instantly to the rescue? ::) How many times did they step on McHale's broken foot and try to take Bird out of the game by taking his head off, throwing him on the floor, as well as just hitting him? I just - ugh.
-
this story is really a full-blown witch hunt.
rodgers says he over-inflates footballs and it's seen as funny, a joke. guys put sticky stuff on their gloves, no-one cares. the colts crank up the temps in their building so that the opposing team has cramps, no-one cares. vikings are cooking their football in an oven, no penalty. colts crank up fake noise over the loudspeakers, pats fans aren't whining. the dolphins are stealing the pats signs, no big issue. guys take PEDs all the time, no-one is calling for a team to lose draft picks. brad johnson says he paid off the ball boys at the super bowl to doctor the balls and it receives zero mention from the national media.
there's a million things going on in this sport that aren't completely on the level. opposing football teams usually keep their mouths shut publicly, because they don't want to be the next ones getting nailed. the "crime" here is only important because of the team involved.
the fans and media have hyped this up, largely due to their hatred of belichick.
and BB is certainly not innocent here; the NFL likely warned him after the incident with the colts earlier this season, and he wen ahead and continued doing it anyways. he is unyielding, which can be a strength but in this case has led to embarrassment.
BB should probably face some punishment just for defying the warnings of league. but as a whole to suggest this is some sort of legitimate competitive advantage for the pats is sour grapes at best, this is laughable as far as controversies go.
There will be NO need for sour grapes because Russell Wilson and the Seahawks are going destroy the N.E. CHEATERS!!!!!! Mark it down. When was the last time the CHEATERS won it all???
lol, did you know that pete carroll, head coach of the seahawks, used to coach matt leinart back at USC?
matt leinart put out a tweet today: "Every team tampers with the footballs. Ask any Qb In the league, this is ridiculous!!"
how much you want to bet that pete carroll has allowed players on his team to alter the football?
and besides, a football that's been deflated from 12.5 PSI to 10.5 PSI feels almost exactly the same, some guys on the radio were blind testing footballs at different pressures and could barely tell them apart. try it yourself and see if you think it's really "cheating."
this is like batters in MLB using pine tar. you're not supposed to do it, but anyone who knows the sport knows it's rampant and doesn't really affect the game.
and i'll repeat what i and others have correctly maintained - if this were another team (like the chargers with the sticky towels) then the media and fans wouldn't care, and it would go away.
-
Corking a 32-ounce baseball bat will drop its weight down to maybe 30 ounces, so I'm not going to assume that a seemingly small difference doesn't have an effect. Obviously, teams and quarterbacks think it does have an effect.
-
Weren't the Showtime Era Lakers notorious for overinflating their basketballs because they thought long rebounds would help with their fastbreak game?
As far as this goes, it's sounding more and more definitive that the Patriots deliberately underinflated the balls. The game was such a blowout that there's no way it mattered to the outcome, but it's still cheating, albeit of a kind I think is more common than most.
Yeah. Ironically, I read that in The Jordan Rules, lol. ;D The Patriots aren't the only team that is guilty of spying on their opponent. During the first two games of the 1991 NBA Finals, iirc, the Bulls had cameras and microphones fixed on LA's bench. Isn't it interesting that that is never mentioned in the Jordan mythology, lol? ;) ::) Hmm. I mean, they already switched networks in 90-91 to NBC and had his buddy Ahmad Rashad on the sidelines (in addition to others, as well, like Jim Gray, although that was later on). Seriously, how many butt-sniffers did he need? Sorry, I'm allergic to bullsh1t.
-
According to the just completed news conference, BB says (1) he knows nothing about this, and (2) that they have balls inflated to 12.5psi, which is the lowest limit. Makes sense, then, that some of the balls end up being deflated below the allowable limit when they come out into the cold. Doesn't explain how one or more balls is at 10.5 psi, but so far its not clear how many balls were at that level.
-
According to the just completed news conference, BB says (1) he knows nothing about this, and (2) that they have balls inflated to 12.5psi, which is the lowest limit. Makes sense, then, that some of the balls end up being deflated below the allowable limit when they come out into the cold. Doesn't explain how one or more balls is at 10.5 psi, but so far its not clear how many balls were at that level.
I think he gave it away when he volunteered that he didn't know anything until these last couple of days about how the ball boy got the balls down to the field from the referees office via elevator and all those other questions being asked.
The ball boy does apparently go in the elevator at Foxboro with the balls, which presumably would have been when he could had done his deed.
It was a really strange detail for him to have brought up otherwise.
-
Smart play by the Pats, Brady becomes the fall guy and the league can't do anything to him because he is protected by the union. Well thought out plan by Bill, Tom and Robert....
Pats will still get fined but by taking this route it will minimize the damage for the organization...
-
According to the just completed news conference, BB says (1) he knows nothing about this, and (2) that they have balls inflated to 12.5psi, which is the lowest limit. Makes sense, then, that some of the balls end up being deflated below the allowable limit when they come out into the cold. Doesn't explain how one or more balls is at 10.5 psi, but so far its not clear how many balls were at that level.
IF they were really at that level -- still no official statement on it. Also, in the example that Belichick gave, the differences were smaller by an order of 10. Wouldn't it be fun if they got the story wrong, and it was a difference of .2 PSI rather than 2 PSI? :P
-
According to the just completed news conference, BB says (1) he knows nothing about this, and (2) that they have balls inflated to 12.5psi, which is the lowest limit. Makes sense, then, that some of the balls end up being deflated below the allowable limit when they come out into the cold. Doesn't explain how one or more balls is at 10.5 psi, but so far its not clear how many balls were at that level.
IF they were really at that level -- still no official statement on it. Also, in the example that Belichick gave, the differences were smaller by an order of 10. Wouldn't it be fun if they got the story wrong, and it was a difference of .2 PSI rather than 2 PSI? :P
LOL. I wouldn't want to be a crow on the day that news breaks...
But, in fairness, I doubt that's the case. The NFL would have an incentive to "re-leak" the correct amount.
-
from Donald Trump
Just watched @Patriots Bill Belichick’s news conference. He did a great job—smart, concise, truthful!
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/558282995233460224
So, I guess that means it's a wrap on this whole deflategate thing, right?
-
from Donald Trump
Just watched @Patriots Bill Belichick’s news conference. He did a great job—smart, concise, truthful!
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/558282995233460224
So, I guess that means it's a wrap on this whole deflategate thing, right?
I'm waiting for 4pm to see what Tom has to say about his balls ;)
-
According to the just completed news conference, BB says (1) he knows nothing about this, and (2) that they have balls inflated to 12.5psi, which is the lowest limit. Makes sense, then, that some of the balls end up being deflated below the allowable limit when they come out into the cold. Doesn't explain how one or more balls is at 10.5 psi, but so far its not clear how many balls were at that level.
I think he gave it away when he volunteered that he didn't know anything until these last couple of days about how the ball boy got the balls down to the field from the referees office via elevator and all those other questions being asked.
The ball boy does apparently go in the elevator at Foxboro with the balls, which presumably would have been when he could had done his deed.
It was a really strange detail for him to have brought up otherwise.
I'm not sure there's time to deflate 11 footballs over the course of an elevator ride.
-
According to the just completed news conference, BB says (1) he knows nothing about this, and (2) that they have balls inflated to 12.5psi, which is the lowest limit. Makes sense, then, that some of the balls end up being deflated below the allowable limit when they come out into the cold. Doesn't explain how one or more balls is at 10.5 psi, but so far its not clear how many balls were at that level.
I think he gave it away when he volunteered that he didn't know anything until these last couple of days about how the ball boy got the balls down to the field from the referees office via elevator and all those other questions being asked.
The ball boy does apparently go in the elevator at Foxboro with the balls, which presumably would have been when he could had done his deed.
It was a really strange detail for him to have brought up otherwise.
I'm not sure there's time to deflate 11 footballs over the course of an elevator ride.
We certainly know there's not enough time to deflate 12.
-
According to the just completed news conference, BB says (1) he knows nothing about this, and (2) that they have balls inflated to 12.5psi, which is the lowest limit. Makes sense, then, that some of the balls end up being deflated below the allowable limit when they come out into the cold. Doesn't explain how one or more balls is at 10.5 psi, but so far its not clear how many balls were at that level.
ya know how you check a football's PSI?
By letting some air out.
What if a Ref with wet cold hands & no reading glasses gets a little heavy handed with the needle trying to read the gauge? Now they are all well under, so he swaps in the fresh 12 balls. NFL official at the game gets wind of the swap & wants to know why. Conversation overheard, story immediately leaked, snowball rolls downhill.
Knowing balls were at the min PSI three hours earlier in a warm room; isn't that a more likely scenario than a sneaky ballboy in an elevator with a hidden needle carrying out coordinated tactic?
-
According to the just completed news conference, BB says (1) he knows nothing about this, and (2) that they have balls inflated to 12.5psi, which is the lowest limit. Makes sense, then, that some of the balls end up being deflated below the allowable limit when they come out into the cold. Doesn't explain how one or more balls is at 10.5 psi, but so far its not clear how many balls were at that level.
ya know how you check a football's PSI?
By letting some air out.
What if a Ref with wet cold hands & no reading glasses gets a little heavy handed with the needle trying to read the gauge? Now they are all well under, so he swaps in the fresh 12 balls. NFL official at the game gets wind of the swap & wants to know why. Conversation overheard, story immediately leaked, snowball rolls downhill.
Knowing balls were at the min PSI three hours earlier in a warm room; isn't that a more likely scenario than a sneaky ballboy in an elevator with a hidden needle carrying out coordinated tactic?
Then the ref and the official would've come out at the NFL's behest and explained it at the start of this controversy, right? If not, then why not? What's the motive?
-
According to the just completed news conference, BB says (1) he knows nothing about this, and (2) that they have balls inflated to 12.5psi, which is the lowest limit. Makes sense, then, that some of the balls end up being deflated below the allowable limit when they come out into the cold. Doesn't explain how one or more balls is at 10.5 psi, but so far its not clear how many balls were at that level.
ya know how you check a football's PSI?
By letting some air out.
What if a Ref with wet cold hands & no reading glasses gets a little heavy handed with the needle trying to read the gauge? Now they are all well under, so he swaps in the fresh 12 balls. NFL official at the game gets wind of the swap & wants to know why. Conversation overheard, story immediately leaked, snowball rolls downhill.
Knowing balls were at the min PSI three hours earlier in a warm room; isn't that a more likely scenario than a sneaky ballboy in an elevator with a hidden needle carrying out coordinated tactic?
Then the ref and the official would've come out at the NFL's behest and explained it at the start of this controversy, right? If not, then why not? What's the motive?
You didn't know? The NFL has it out for its second richest franchise!
-
Right. It is definitely in the interest of media outlets to talk about this (which is why they're still talking about it, to the disgust of us all), but it is certainly not in the NFL's interest to allow any kind of questions about potential impropriety in the games to continue if they can avoid it.
Now, the fact remains that this is a stupidly minor infraction that's being blown out of proportion by both sides, but the idea that the NFL could've taken steps to avoid the national conversation and didn't is just silly.
-
I am sure other people have said this, I am not interested enough to read the 21 pages of this thread. I just am really disappointed that there has been pretty much no discussion of the actual football teams and 90% of NFL coverage for the super bowl is on this topic.
From everything I have read the most likely penalty that would happen would be draft picks taken and a fine. I have not read a story saying there is a chance of players being suspended or anything, so why not just deal with this after the super bowl? They can drop the hammer on the patriots then if they want (multiple first rounds picks, 10 million dollars etc). If the deflate whatever is not going to impact the super bowl itself can we have some analysis of the patriots run game against the seattle defense? An analysis of why Wilson threw 4 picks against the Packers. What is the weather projection for the game? What is the status of Richard Sherman's arm? With the season ending injury to their 3rd best receiver, does the seahawks already average pass offense have more issues? Who will revis cover? I realize there is still a little over a week until the game, but this is all stuff that I would be way more interested in.
-
I am sure other people have said this, I am not interested enough to read the 21 pages of this thread. I just am really disappointed that there has been pretty much no discussion of the actual football teams and 90% of NFL coverage for the super bowl is on this topic.
From everything I have read the most likely penalty that would happen would be draft picks taken and a fine. I have not read a story saying there is a chance of players being suspended or anything, so why not just deal with this after the super bowl? They can drop the hammer on the patriots then if they want (multiple first rounds picks, 10 million dollars etc). If the deflate whatever is not going to impact the super bowl itself can we have some analysis of the patriots run game against the seattle defense? An analysis of why Wilson threw 4 picks against the Packers. What is the weather projection for the game? What is the status of Richard Sherman's arm? With the season ending injury to their 3rd best receiver, does the seahawks already average pass offense have more issues? Who will revis cover? I realize there is still a little over a week until the game, but this is all stuff that I would be way more interested in.
But then what would you click on next Monday?
-
I am sure other people have said this, I am not interested enough to read the 21 pages of this thread. I just am really disappointed that there has been pretty much no discussion of the actual football teams and 90% of NFL coverage for the super bowl is on this topic.
From everything I have read the most likely penalty that would happen would be draft picks taken and a fine. I have not read a story saying there is a chance of players being suspended or anything, so why not just deal with this after the super bowl? They can drop the hammer on the patriots then if they want (multiple first rounds picks, 10 million dollars etc). If the deflate whatever is not going to impact the super bowl itself can we have some analysis of the patriots run game against the seattle defense? An analysis of why Wilson threw 4 picks against the Packers. What is the weather projection for the game? What is the status of Richard Sherman's arm? With the season ending injury to their 3rd best receiver, does the seahawks already average pass offense have more issues? Who will revis cover? I realize there is still a little over a week until the game, but this is all stuff that I would be way more interested in.
It's actually debatable whether or not I'd rather hear this stuff vs. ESPN providing their typical garbage analysis .
-
I am sure other people have said this, I am not interested enough to read the 21 pages of this thread. I just am really disappointed that there has been pretty much no discussion of the actual football teams and 90% of NFL coverage for the super bowl is on this topic.
From everything I have read the most likely penalty that would happen would be draft picks taken and a fine. I have not read a story saying there is a chance of players being suspended or anything, so why not just deal with this after the super bowl? They can drop the hammer on the patriots then if they want (multiple first rounds picks, 10 million dollars etc). If the deflate whatever is not going to impact the super bowl itself can we have some analysis of the patriots run game against the seattle defense? An analysis of why Wilson threw 4 picks against the Packers. What is the weather projection for the game? What is the status of Richard Sherman's arm? With the season ending injury to their 3rd best receiver, does the seahawks already average pass offense have more issues? Who will revis cover? I realize there is still a little over a week until the game, but this is all stuff that I would be way more interested in.
But then what would you click on next Monday?
what are you talking about? I would be reading about the game that happened and then presumably this investigation if I cared about it.
-
I am sure other people have said this, I am not interested enough to read the 21 pages of this thread. I just am really disappointed that there has been pretty much no discussion of the actual football teams and 90% of NFL coverage for the super bowl is on this topic.
From everything I have read the most likely penalty that would happen would be draft picks taken and a fine. I have not read a story saying there is a chance of players being suspended or anything, so why not just deal with this after the super bowl? They can drop the hammer on the patriots then if they want (multiple first rounds picks, 10 million dollars etc). If the deflate whatever is not going to impact the super bowl itself can we have some analysis of the patriots run game against the seattle defense? An analysis of why Wilson threw 4 picks against the Packers. What is the weather projection for the game? What is the status of Richard Sherman's arm? With the season ending injury to their 3rd best receiver, does the seahawks already average pass offense have more issues? Who will revis cover? I realize there is still a little over a week until the game, but this is all stuff that I would be way more interested in.
As Koz mentioned earlier, the stipulated penalty for this infraction is a $25,000 fine plus other possible penalties as the league deems necessary. In the NFL world, $25,000 is peanuts. And that's an appropriate number here, because—as I and others have said—this is a minor infraction comparable with driving 50 in a 45 zone. Draft picks? Millions or even hundreds of thousands of dollars? Ridiculous. Especially considering numerous other teams have "tampered" with the football (on film, even) and received no punishment.
-
I am sure other people have said this, I am not interested enough to read the 21 pages of this thread. I just am really disappointed that there has been pretty much no discussion of the actual football teams and 90% of NFL coverage for the super bowl is on this topic.
From everything I have read the most likely penalty that would happen would be draft picks taken and a fine. I have not read a story saying there is a chance of players being suspended or anything, so why not just deal with this after the super bowl? They can drop the hammer on the patriots then if they want (multiple first rounds picks, 10 million dollars etc). If the deflate whatever is not going to impact the super bowl itself can we have some analysis of the patriots run game against the seattle defense? An analysis of why Wilson threw 4 picks against the Packers. What is the weather projection for the game? What is the status of Richard Sherman's arm? With the season ending injury to their 3rd best receiver, does the seahawks already average pass offense have more issues? Who will revis cover? I realize there is still a little over a week until the game, but this is all stuff that I would be way more interested in.
As Koz mentioned earlier, the stipulated penalty for this infraction is a $25,000 fine plus other possible penalties as the league deems necessary. In the NFL world, $25,000 is peanuts. And that's an appropriate number here, because—as I and others have said—this is a minor infraction comparable with driving 50 in a 45 zone. Draft picks? Millions or even hundreds of thousands of dollars? Ridiculous. Especially considering numerous other teams have "tampered" with the football (on film, even) and received no punishment.
I don't think that will actually happen, my point was it is really a bummer we can't read anything about the matchup or players involved at this point. Heck it would be really interesting to read an interview from Blount on how he went from walking off the field for the steelers to running for 150 in the AFC championship. That is an unprecedented move. Are there are any key players that plan to retire if their teams win? How about a comparison of the players from the last time new england won a super bowl versus now? How about last year's seattle team versus this years? Maybe an interview with Browner comparing playing for the two secondaries. I get covering the deflate gate for a day or two, but it is Thursday afternoon now and I have not seen really any stories on grantland, espn or elsewhere discussing the actual game.
-
curious to hear Brady presser at 4.
My best guess is that the pats inflated the balls a bit under the acceptable range before handing them to the refs for testing. The refs did a feel test, not a meter test, and accepted them, and they went ahead and used them until the Colts objected in the 2nd quarter. The fact that they had less pressure than the Colts balls just means that the Pats (Brady) likes a less pressured ball. Seems like the entire inspection requirement diminishes any possible fine. I am assuming that there is no proof of tampering after the balls were inspected by the refs before the game.
Are the refs under the rules required to actually test the balls with a pressure gauge, or do they just look/feel them to make sure they seem okay? This is a pretty important question and can help better explain why the ball pressure was different between the Colts balls and the Pats balls. Based on all that i have read, there seems to be an unwritten agreement among quarterbacks and refs that the balls are usually accepted by the refs without too much inspection. If that is the case, why should the Pats be penalized at all??
-
I am sure other people have said this, I am not interested enough to read the 21 pages of this thread. I just am really disappointed that there has been pretty much no discussion of the actual football teams and 90% of NFL coverage for the super bowl is on this topic.
From everything I have read the most likely penalty that would happen would be draft picks taken and a fine. I have not read a story saying there is a chance of players being suspended or anything, so why not just deal with this after the super bowl? They can drop the hammer on the patriots then if they want (multiple first rounds picks, 10 million dollars etc). If the deflate whatever is not going to impact the super bowl itself can we have some analysis of the patriots run game against the seattle defense? An analysis of why Wilson threw 4 picks against the Packers. What is the weather projection for the game? What is the status of Richard Sherman's arm? With the season ending injury to their 3rd best receiver, does the seahawks already average pass offense have more issues? Who will revis cover? I realize there is still a little over a week until the game, but this is all stuff that I would be way more interested in.
As Koz mentioned earlier, the stipulated penalty for this infraction is a $25,000 fine plus other possible penalties as the league deems necessary. In the NFL world, $25,000 is peanuts. And that's an appropriate number here, because—as I and others have said—this is a minor infraction comparable with driving 50 in a 45 zone. Draft picks? Millions or even hundreds of thousands of dollars? Ridiculous. Especially considering numerous other teams have "tampered" with the football (on film, even) and received no punishment.
I don't think that will actually happen, my point was it is really a bummer we can't read anything about the matchup or players involved at this point. Heck it would be really interesting to read an interview from Blount on how he went from walking off the field for the steelers to running for 150 in the AFC championship. That is an unprecedented move. Are there are any key players that plan to retire if their teams win? How about a comparison of the players from the last time new england won a super bowl versus now? How about last year's seattle team versus this years? Maybe an interview with Browner comparing playing for the two secondaries. I get covering the deflate gate for a day or two, but it is Thursday afternoon now and I have not seen really any stories on grantland, espn or elsewhere discussing the actual game.
Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that you wanted those harsh penalties, I was just using your comment as a springboard to discuss that topic. Anyway, you're right, it would be nice to have some actual game previews/analysis.
-
According to the just completed news conference, BB says (1) he knows nothing about this, and (2) that they have balls inflated to 12.5psi, which is the lowest limit. Makes sense, then, that some of the balls end up being deflated below the allowable limit when they come out into the cold. Doesn't explain how one or more balls is at 10.5 psi, but so far its not clear how many balls were at that level.
I think he gave it away when he volunteered that he didn't know anything until these last couple of days about how the ball boy got the balls down to the field from the referees office via elevator and all those other questions being asked.
The ball boy does apparently go in the elevator at Foxboro with the balls, which presumably would have been when he could had done his deed.
It was a really strange detail for him to have brought up otherwise.
I'm not sure there's time to deflate 11 footballs over the course of an elevator ride.
If the elevator ride is from the 3rd floor to the 1st floor, there's time to stop at the 2nd floor and swap balls out.
-
I am sure other people have said this, I am not interested enough to read the 21 pages of this thread. I just am really disappointed that there has been pretty much no discussion of the actual football teams and 90% of NFL coverage for the super bowl is on this topic.
From everything I have read the most likely penalty that would happen would be draft picks taken and a fine. I have not read a story saying there is a chance of players being suspended or anything, so why not just deal with this after the super bowl? They can drop the hammer on the patriots then if they want (multiple first rounds picks, 10 million dollars etc). If the deflate whatever is not going to impact the super bowl itself can we have some analysis of the patriots run game against the seattle defense? An analysis of why Wilson threw 4 picks against the Packers. What is the weather projection for the game? What is the status of Richard Sherman's arm? With the season ending injury to their 3rd best receiver, does the seahawks already average pass offense have more issues? Who will revis cover? I realize there is still a little over a week until the game, but this is all stuff that I would be way more interested in.
As Koz mentioned earlier, the stipulated penalty for this infraction is a $25,000 fine plus other possible penalties as the league deems necessary. In the NFL world, $25,000 is peanuts. And that's an appropriate number here, because—as I and others have said—this is a minor infraction comparable with driving 50 in a 45 zone. Draft picks? Millions or even hundreds of thousands of dollars? Ridiculous. Especially considering numerous other teams have "tampered" with the football (on film, even) and received no punishment.
Maybe it will be $25,000 per ball if any wrongdoing is found.
-
curious to hear Brady presser at 4.
My best guess is that the pats inflated the balls a bit under the acceptable range before handing them to the refs for testing. The refs did a feel test, not a meter test, and accepted them, and they went ahead and used them until the Colts objected in the 2nd quarter. The fact that they had less pressure than the Colts balls just means that the Pats (Brady) likes a less pressured ball. Seems like the entire inspection requirement diminishes any possible fine. I am assuming that there is no proof of tampering after the balls were inspected by the refs before the game.
Are the refs under the rules required to actually test the balls with a pressure gauge, or do they just look/feel them to make sure they seem okay? This is a pretty important question and can help better explain why the ball pressure was different between the Colts balls and the Pats balls. Based on all that i have read, there seems to be an unwritten agreement among quarterbacks and refs that the balls are usually accepted by the refs without too much inspection. If that is the case, why should the Pats be penalized at all??
Yep, this is an angle which hasn't gotten enough discussion. Namely that this is on referees as well.
-
The journalists in this presser are fairly useless.
-
If the elevator ride is from the 3rd floor to the 1st floor, there's time to stop at the 2nd floor and swap balls out.
You realize they're all individually marked by the officiating crew, right?
-
Brady sounds like BB
I didn't alter the balls in any way.
I was as surprised as anyone when I heard Monday morning what was happening
I wonder if he'll also get the Donald Trump shout out?
-
The idea that Brady can't tell the difference between the ball he supposedly hand-chose five hours previously, and an under-inflated ball, is laughable.
-
I am sure other people have said this, I am not interested enough to read the 21 pages of this thread. I just am really disappointed that there has been pretty much no discussion of the actual football teams and 90% of NFL coverage for the super bowl is on this topic.
From everything I have read the most likely penalty that would happen would be draft picks taken and a fine. I have not read a story saying there is a chance of players being suspended or anything, so why not just deal with this after the super bowl? They can drop the hammer on the patriots then if they want (multiple first rounds picks, 10 million dollars etc). If the deflate whatever is not going to impact the super bowl itself can we have some analysis of the patriots run game against the seattle defense? An analysis of why Wilson threw 4 picks against the Packers. What is the weather projection for the game? What is the status of Richard Sherman's arm? With the season ending injury to their 3rd best receiver, does the seahawks already average pass offense have more issues? Who will revis cover? I realize there is still a little over a week until the game, but this is all stuff that I would be way more interested in.
But then what would you click on next Monday?
what are you talking about? I would be reading about the game that happened and then presumably this investigation if I cared about it.
Your question was "why not deal with this (i.e. cover it) after the Super Bowl?" In other words, why are we not reading about things that actually have to do with the game instead. I told you why. I can explain further if I'm not being clear.
-
If the elevator ride is from the 3rd floor to the 1st floor, there's time to stop at the 2nd floor and swap balls out.
You realize they're all individually marked by the officiating crew, right?
From what I have read, they are marked with a dot, which I realize is a really difficult mark to counterfeit.
-
The idea that Brady can't tell the difference between the ball he supposedly hand-chose five hours previously, and an under-inflated ball, is laughable.
Depends on how under-inflated it is, right?
BB more or less said that the Pats like the balls at 12.5 PSI, the lowest limit.
Would Brady be able to tell the difference between a ball at 12.5 PSI and 12.2 PSI? or 12 PSI?
Yes, he probably should be able to tell the difference between 12.5 PSI and 10.5 PSI (I'm guessing on this, I'm no expert that's for sure), but it's still not clear to me whether "all" the balls were at that level, or all were below 12.5 PSI, one of which was at 10.5 PSI.
-
If the elevator ride is from the 3rd floor to the 1st floor, there's time to stop at the 2nd floor and swap balls out.
You realize they're all individually marked by the officiating crew, right?
From what I have read, they are marked with a dot, which I realize is a really difficult mark to counterfeit.
I think it varies by referee, who might put an initial or some other mark on it.
-
If the elevator ride is from the 3rd floor to the 1st floor, there's time to stop at the 2nd floor and swap balls out.
You realize they're all individually marked by the officiating crew, right?
From what I have read, they are marked with a dot, which I realize is a really difficult mark to counterfeit.
They are marked with the specific crew's individual mark which is different for every crew. In the article I read, it mentioned that the mark of one crew was an L, the first initial of the referee's wife.
-
Patriots "defense" here is pretty interesting, IMHO.
From BB and TB its been "we know nothing about this"
Which is either (a) true or (b) false. If (b), their careers are ruined. Just out and out lying and deception. Given how high the stakes are on (b).... sort of makes it seem like (a) is the more likely outcome, even if it is hard for Patriots-haters to accept.
If (a), the question then shifts to "so what, then, happened?"
And this is tossed to the NFL and the referees to deal with....
In any case, strikes me as quite different than the "spygate" stuff in which we saw BB defensive and tight lipped.
-
The NFL has apparently taken this all very seriously, but, um, hasn't had time yet to contact Tom Brady. ??
-
The NFL has apparently taken this all very seriously, but, um, hasn't had time yet to contact Tom Brady. ??
They're too busy being shocked, angered, and distraught.
-
The NFL has apparently taken this all very seriously, but, um, hasn't had time yet to contact Tom Brady. ??
They're too busy being shocked, angered, and distraught.
Actually to my earlier point, it shifts the entire focus on the NFL, which has yet to make any sort of statement, other than apparently leaking some info about the balls being deflated. This is going to lead to a lot of speculation about what, exactly, the NFL is doing.
-
Also, there is this out there today:
http://mmqb.si.com/2015/01/22/deflategate-video-how-nfl-officials-check-game-ball-pressure/
Including the following:
The balls would be in the officials’ possession until just minutes before the start of the game, at which point they would hand to ball boys on each side of the field. For balls to be tampered with, it would most likely have to take place on the field during the game.
-
The NFL has apparently taken this all very seriously, but, um, hasn't had time yet to contact Tom Brady. ??
They're too busy being shocked, angered, and distraught.
Or too busy previewing Super Bowl ads, which are way more entertaining than the anti-Patriots drivel oozing from so many people's pores these days.
-
NFL Live is destroying Brady.
This whole thing is getting ridiculous.
-
NFL Live is destroying Brady.
This whole thing is getting ridiculous.
"Is getting"? When wasn't it?
-
NFL Live is destroying Brady.
This whole thing is getting ridiculous.
Just how he likes it. Chip. On. Shoulder.
-
NFL Live is destroying Brady.
This whole thing is getting ridiculous.
"Is getting"? When wasn't it?
Well the fact that Marc Brunell seemed choked up after Tom's presser because he was so disappointed is pretty ridiculous.
-
My wife works with FBI trained investigators/interrogators, they say brady was telling the truth after watching
-
My wife works with FBI trained investigators/interrogators, they say brady was telling the truth after watching
I wonder if the FBI trained investigators/interrogators in Indy, Denver, or Seattle feel the same way? ;)
-
The funniest part is local and national media keep claiming this "isn't a big deal", but they beat the horse to death, dug it back up, and are continuing to beat it.
Just drop the whole dang thing if it's not a big deal.
-
Gotta waterboard Brady just to be sure.
-
My wife works with FBI trained investigators/interrogators, they say brady was telling the truth after watching
I wonder if the FBI trained investigators/interrogators in Indy, Denver, or Seattle feel the same way? ;)
Ha, not sure,
-
NFL Live is destroying Brady.
This whole thing is getting ridiculous.
"Is getting"? When wasn't it?
Well the fact that Marc Brunell seemed choked up after Tom's presser because he was so disappointed is pretty ridiculous.
Baltimore's Chris Canty says this situation should be treated on the same level as PEDs, and Troy Aikman says the Patriots should be punished more severely than Sean Payton was for the Saints' bounty system (though Aikman seems to be factoring in "repeat offender" status for the Pats). All of it ridiculous.
-
personally, i find this whole thing funny. granted im not a big football fan. but this is the type of stuff that will go down in folklore, kind of like red. Bill really does not give a [dang] and does his thing, lol.
from the spygate south park episode :)
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/61/6174da88247f86dc5836e814f924aaddf82ad1a584a679f5fdddea9eaf0b19f1.jpg)
-
Mark Brunell. Priceless.
https://vine.co/v/OIpznA1DpXL
-
NFL Live is destroying Brady.
This whole thing is getting ridiculous.
Those guys on the show sounded so salty..
But what do you expect from Brady's contemporaries. Especially one who lost to the pats in the Super Bowl
-
NFL Live is destroying Brady.
This whole thing is getting ridiculous.
Those guys on the show sounded so salty..
But what do you expect from Brady's contemporaries. Especially one who lost to the pats in the Super Bowl
In all fairness, Aikman retired before Tom Brady was a NFL starter.
-
The idea that Brady can't tell the difference between the ball he supposedly hand-chose five hours previously, and an under-inflated ball, is laughable.
Roy, in my opinion, your distaste for the patriots is really impacting your comments on this subject. The truth is there really isn't enough information out there right now to decide if anything is laughable. We have been given such limited information that anything is really still in play at this point. Like another user said we don't know if most of the balls were 12.2, 11.5 or 10.5.
Surprised given your background and normal discussion of things that you would take such a strong position with the level of info that is out there at the moment.
As I mentioned earlier also disappointing how little focus there is on the game at the moment.
-
The idea that Brady can't tell the difference between the ball he supposedly hand-chose five hours previously, and an under-inflated ball, is laughable.
Roy, in my opinion, your distaste for the patriots is really impacting your comments on this subject. The truth is there really isn't enough information out there right now to decide if anything is laughable. We have been given such limited information that anything is really still in play at this point. Like another user said we don't know if most of the balls were 12.2, 11.5 or 10.5.
Surprised given your background and normal discussion of things that you would take such a strong position with the level of info that is out there at the moment.
As I mentioned earlier also disappointing how little focus there is on the game at the moment.
The report was 2 PSI. If that's accurate, it's laughable.
I agree that I'd like the focus to be on the game, but let's be real: the idea that an Indy equipment manager could tell the ball was under-inflated, but Tom Brady couldn't, is silly.
-
Mark Brunell. Priceless.
https://vine.co/v/OIpznA1DpXL
Mark Brunell lost 9 million dollars on a whattaburger...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056421/How-Mark-Brunell-blew-50million-dollars-failed-investments.html
-
The NFL has apparently taken this all very seriously, but, um, hasn't had time yet to contact Tom Brady. ??
They're too busy being shocked, angered, and distraught.
Or too busy previewing Super Bowl ads, which are way more entertaining than the anti-Patriots drivel oozing from so many people's pores these days.
Actually the NFL is busy analyzing Marshawn Lynch's every hand movement toward his private parts, what his shoes look like, and how long he spent with reporters. A player who should be held up by the league as one of the best examples of on the field effort, and off the field charity has become their whipping boy. I'll bet that within 1 week, deflate gate has calmed down and Lynch will be fined for the transgression of ignoring reporters questions.
-
The idea that Brady can't tell the difference between the ball he supposedly hand-chose five hours previously, and an under-inflated ball, is laughable.
Roy, in my opinion, your distaste for the patriots is really impacting your comments on this subject. The truth is there really isn't enough information out there right now to decide if anything is laughable. We have been given such limited information that anything is really still in play at this point. Like another user said we don't know if most of the balls were 12.2, 11.5 or 10.5.
Surprised given your background and normal discussion of things that you would take such a strong position with the level of info that is out there at the moment.
As I mentioned earlier also disappointing how little focus there is on the game at the moment.
The report was 2 PSI. If that's accurate, it's laughable.
I agree that I'd like the focus to be on the game, but let's be real: the idea that an Indy equipment manager could tell the ball was under-inflated, but Tom Brady couldn't, is silly.
Agreed, but per the guy that picked off brady, he also couldn't tell the ball was deflated
-
Mark Brunell. Priceless.
https://vine.co/v/OIpznA1DpXL
Mark Brunell lost 9 million dollars on a whattaburger...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056421/How-Mark-Brunell-blew-50million-dollars-failed-investments.html
Oh wow, at first I thought it was like investing in the start up of Whataburger or like a big expansion of the chain. But no, it was one store. What a terrible investment
-
NFL Live is destroying Brady.
This whole thing is getting ridiculous.
"Is getting"? When wasn't it?
Well the fact that Marc Brunell seemed choked up after Tom's presser because he was so disappointed is pretty ridiculous.
Baltimore's Chris Canty says this situation should be treated on the same level as PEDs, and Troy Aikman says the Patriots should be punished more severely than Sean Payton was for the Saints' bounty system (though Aikman seems to be factoring in "repeat offender" status for the Pats). All of it ridiculous.
Oh sheesh. Seriously, deflategate is no where in the same solar system as PED or a bounty system. I am embarrassed that Aikman is even saying that.
As much as I hate to admit it here on Celticsblog, I am a phins fan, and thus I am not always the biggest pats fan, but this whole thing is completely overboard. The pats completely dominated the colts, and I can't see how it had any impact whatsoever on that game.
IF there is actual PROOF that the Pats did something to deflate the balls, then yeah, give them a fine or whatever. Has the NFL actually released an actual report yet? A draft pick seems to be too much for the crime, but no matter what Goodell will do whatever he thinks makes himself look good.
Honestly, the NFL and the refs need to be held accountable as well. Why do they allow the balls out of their control anyways, even for a few minutes?
-
The idea that Brady can't tell the difference between the ball he supposedly hand-chose five hours previously, and an under-inflated ball, is laughable.
Roy, in my opinion, your distaste for the patriots is really impacting your comments on this subject. The truth is there really isn't enough information out there right now to decide if anything is laughable. We have been given such limited information that anything is really still in play at this point. Like another user said we don't know if most of the balls were 12.2, 11.5 or 10.5.
Surprised given your background and normal discussion of things that you would take such a strong position with the level of info that is out there at the moment.
As I mentioned earlier also disappointing how little focus there is on the game at the moment.
The report was 2 PSI. If that's accurate, it's laughable.
I agree that I'd like the focus to be on the game, but let's be real: the idea that an Indy equipment manager could tell the ball was under-inflated, but Tom Brady couldn't, is silly.
My understanding was that there could be anywhere from 1-11 balls that were at that level and they were used in the first half. I may have missed some facts, but at this point from everything I have read I don't know:
1) If all of those balls were used.
2) What levels the under inflated balls were at (were they all 10.5) were most of them 12?
3) How much weather can impact football
Like I said earlier if the patriots did really cheat and pop these balls to gain an advantage then punish them to the fullest extent of what is in the rule book. At this point, I don't feel like I know enough. I also know the super bowl is 10 days away and the only thing I have heard is a short update that Sherman and another injured Seahawk are expected to play.
-
The idea that Brady can't tell the difference between the ball he supposedly hand-chose five hours previously, and an under-inflated ball, is laughable.
Roy, in my opinion, your distaste for the patriots is really impacting your comments on this subject. The truth is there really isn't enough information out there right now to decide if anything is laughable. We have been given such limited information that anything is really still in play at this point. Like another user said we don't know if most of the balls were 12.2, 11.5 or 10.5.
Surprised given your background and normal discussion of things that you would take such a strong position with the level of info that is out there at the moment.
As I mentioned earlier also disappointing how little focus there is on the game at the moment.
The report was 2 PSI. If that's accurate, it's laughable.
I agree that I'd like the focus to be on the game, but let's be real: the idea that an Indy equipment manager could tell the ball was under-inflated, but Tom Brady couldn't, is silly.
Unless of course the Indy equipment manager had a pressure gauge. And provided the report was accurate. And since none of us has ever handled neither an 11 PSI nor a 14 PSI ball, we're all talking out of our rear ends. Still waiting for the official NFL statement on this.
-
The idea that Brady can't tell the difference between the ball he supposedly hand-chose five hours previously, and an under-inflated ball, is laughable.
Roy, in my opinion, your distaste for the patriots is really impacting your comments on this subject. The truth is there really isn't enough information out there right now to decide if anything is laughable. We have been given such limited information that anything is really still in play at this point. Like another user said we don't know if most of the balls were 12.2, 11.5 or 10.5.
Surprised given your background and normal discussion of things that you would take such a strong position with the level of info that is out there at the moment.
As I mentioned earlier also disappointing how little focus there is on the game at the moment.
The report was 2 PSI. If that's accurate, it's laughable.
I agree that I'd like the focus to be on the game, but let's be real: the idea that an Indy equipment manager could tell the ball was under-inflated, but Tom Brady couldn't, is silly.
Agreed, but per the guy that picked off brady, he also couldn't tell the ball was deflated
He's a DB, though; he doesn't handle the ball that often. A control freak like Brady knows if the balls he hand-selected hours ago have changed.
-
Honestly, the NFL and the refs need to be held accountable as well. Why do they allow the balls out of their control anyways, even for a few minutes?
It's proper procedure, and it's written in the NFL rulebook. I still find the notion that someone on the Patriots staff sat somewhere with a bag of balls and let air out of them ridiculous, though.
-
He's a DB, though; he doesn't handle the ball that often. A control freak like Brady knows if the balls he hand-selected hours ago have changed.
Roy, this line of reasoning just isn't working.
The officials handle game balls every week, they handled both Pats and Colts ball for the entire half, and they too didn't notice anything and had to be tipped off by the opposition.
-
NFL Live is destroying Brady.
This whole thing is getting ridiculous.
"Is getting"? When wasn't it?
Well the fact that Marc Brunell seemed choked up after Tom's presser because he was so disappointed is pretty ridiculous.
Baltimore's Chris Canty says this situation should be treated on the same level as PEDs, and Troy Aikman says the Patriots should be punished more severely than Sean Payton was for the Saints' bounty system (though Aikman seems to be factoring in "repeat offender" status for the Pats). All of it ridiculous.
Oh sheesh. Seriously, deflategate is no where in the same solar system as PED or a bounty system. I am embarrassed that Aikman is even saying that.
As much as I hate to admit it here on Celticsblog, I am a phins fan, and thus I am not always the biggest pats fan, but this whole thing is completely overboard. The pats completely dominated the colts, and I can't see how it had any impact whatsoever on that game.
IF there is actual PROOF that the Pats did something to deflate the balls, then yeah, give them a fine or whatever. Has the NFL actually released an actual report yet? A draft pick seems to be too much for the crime, but no matter what Goodell will do whatever he thinks makes himself look good.
Honestly, the NFL and the refs need to be held accountable as well. Why do they allow the balls out of their control anyways, even for a few minutes?
Im with canty on this, the pats should get the same penalty as Ray lewis for using deer antler spray. nothing
-
A drop of 2-3 psi isn't going to be discernible. You could do a blind test and I bet people wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
One of the things driving me nuts on Twitter right now is the inability of several media people to know the difference between pounds & pounds per square inch.
A 2-3 lb difference? You can definitely know a difference. 2-3 psi? I highly, highly, highly doubt it.
Now, I 'm not saying the Pats are off the hook here by any means but this whole thing about being able to feel the difference in a couple psi seems like pure nonsense to me.
-
The idea that Brady can't tell the difference between the ball he supposedly hand-chose five hours previously, and an under-inflated ball, is laughable.
Roy, in my opinion, your distaste for the patriots is really impacting your comments on this subject. The truth is there really isn't enough information out there right now to decide if anything is laughable. We have been given such limited information that anything is really still in play at this point. Like another user said we don't know if most of the balls were 12.2, 11.5 or 10.5.
Surprised given your background and normal discussion of things that you would take such a strong position with the level of info that is out there at the moment.
As I mentioned earlier also disappointing how little focus there is on the game at the moment.
The report was 2 PSI. If that's accurate, it's laughable.
I agree that I'd like the focus to be on the game, but let's be real: the idea that an Indy equipment manager could tell the ball was under-inflated, but Tom Brady couldn't, is silly.
Agreed, but per the guy that picked off brady, he also couldn't tell the ball was deflated
He's a DB, though; he doesn't handle the ball that often. A control freak like Brady knows if the balls he hand-selected hours ago have changed.
To me there are a number of unanswered questions that are keeping us from knowing enough to have solid opinions on things like this.
What is the normal PSI range of balls in a game day bag? Is it +/-0.1, or +/-1.0, or something else? How if at all does that change under ordinary circumstances over the course of a game?
What was the range of balls in the bag at issue? (We know one ball was 12.5+, but not much else about the range of others, except that - believing the reports so far - at least one was 10.5 or so).
What ball or balls did Brady throw with? The least inflated? The most inflated? Something in between? A mix?
Could Brady tell the difference in ordinary circumstances between a ball at 12.5 when dry, and that same ball deflated to something that might be 2.0, but could be less, when the ball is cold and wet?
Etc.
-
A drop of 2-3 psi isn't going to be discernible. You could do a blind test and I bet people wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
One of the things driving me nuts on Twitter right now is the inability of several media people to know the difference between pounds & pounds per square inch.
A 2-3 lb difference? You can definitely know a difference. 2-3 psi? I highly, highly, highly doubt it.
Now, I 'm not saying the Pats are off the hook here by any means but this whole thing about being able to feel the difference in a couple psi seems like pure nonsense to me.
From most of the non-Patriots-affiliated stories I've read, this isn't true. I haven't tested it, but most QBs seem to have a preference on inflation pressure. Also from what I've read, a 10.5 PSI has some minor give, while a 12.5 or higher inflated ball had none
-
A drop of 2-3 psi isn't going to be discernible. You could do a blind test and I bet people wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
One of the things driving me nuts on Twitter right now is the inability of several media people to know the difference between pounds & pounds per square inch.
A 2-3 lb difference? You can definitely know a difference. 2-3 psi? I highly, highly, highly doubt it.
Now, I 'm not saying the Pats are off the hook here by any means but this whole thing about being able to feel the difference in a couple psi seems like pure nonsense to me.
From most of the non-Patriots-affiliated stories I've read, this isn't true. I haven't tested it, but most QBs seem to have a preference on inflation pressure. Also from what I've read, a 10.5 PSI has some minor give, while a 12.5 or higher inflated ball had none
I know its another pats source haha but
Tom E. Curran
?@tomecurran Even a football inflated to 10.5 PSI is very firm and can only be pushed in with a pretty good effort.
-
I just find Aikman's comments appalling. His thought that deflating footballs should yield a higher penalty compared to having an almost team-wide bounty system that targeted players with the goal of taking them down hard is concerning. That didn't hurt the integrity of the NFL nearly as much as underinflated balls has :|
-
I know its another pats source haha but
Tom E. Curran
?@tomecurran Even a football inflated to 10.5 PSI is very firm and can only be pushed in with a pretty good effort.
Most posters here are probably girly-men who need help squeezing a lemon, but Tom Brady is a manly man who doesn't need to give a good effort to push in the ball. When he squeezes the Charmin, it bursts into flames.
-
I just find Aikman's comments appalling. His thought that deflating footballs should yield a higher penalty compared to having an almost team-wide bounty system that targeted players with the goal of taking them down hard is concerning. That didn't hurt the integrity of the NFL nearly as much as underinflated balls has :|
Aikman probably secretly thinks that bounties should be permitted and punishing that is part of the feminization of America.
-
A drop of 2-3 psi isn't going to be discernible. You could do a blind test and I bet people wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
One of the things driving me nuts on Twitter right now is the inability of several media people to know the difference between pounds & pounds per square inch.
A 2-3 lb difference? You can definitely know a difference. 2-3 psi? I highly, highly, highly doubt it.
Now, I 'm not saying the Pats are off the hook here by any means but this whole thing about being able to feel the difference in a couple psi seems like pure nonsense to me.
From most of the non-Patriots-affiliated stories I've read, this isn't true. I haven't tested it, but most QBs seem to have a preference on inflation pressure. Also from what I've read, a 10.5 PSI has some minor give, while a 12.5 or higher inflated ball had none
I know its another pats source haha but
Tom E. Curran
?@tomecurran Even a football inflated to 10.5 PSI is very firm and can only be pushed in with a pretty good effort.
So unless you're trying to consciously push it in to great degree, you're probably not going to notice a difference. A QB goes for grip so they would seem to be much more cognizant of the conforms of the laces and grip. Unless a ball is egregiously under-inflated (much outside the ranges that are being reported), then, most likely, they're not going to notice a small PSI change like that.
I would think punters/kickers would be more inclined to test the heck out of a ball in the manner that Curran was describing.
-
I would think punters/kickers would be more inclined to test the heck out of a ball in the manner that Curran was describing.
Kickers use new balls that are straight out of the box and not provided by the teams.
-
I would think punters/kickers would be more inclined to test the heck out of a ball in the manner that Curran was describing.
Kickers use new balls that are straight out of the box and not provided by the teams.
Yeah, and do you see them trying to warp the hell out of the ball before they put it on the tee before kickoffs?
-
Belichick who is one of the most prepared coaches in the history of the game has no clue about game ball procedures?? Brady who is one of the most prepared QB's of all time couldn't tell a difference in the footballs being 2lbs lighter and had no clue why in the start of the second half a ref ran in and took the ball and replaced it? They know the NFL doesn't have concrete proof of how it happened unless someone is willing to talk. Knowing this they both hold a press conference and play ignorant.
It had zero outcome on the game but teams must be getting tired of the Patriots pulling crap like this. This hurts their credabilty and taints their team when it wasn't even needed.
-
It could be some great gamesmanship to get Seattle to waste time trying to figure out other ways the Patriots might cheat instead of preparing for the game.
-
Belichick who is one of the most prepared coaches in the history of the game has no clue about game ball procedures?? Brady who is one of the most prepared QB's of all time couldn't tell a difference in the footballs being 2lbs lighter and had no clue why in the start of the second half a ref ran in and took the ball and replaced it? They know the NFL doesn't have concrete proof of how it happened unless someone is willing to talk. Knowing this they both hold a press conference and play ignorant.
It had zero outcome on the game but teams must be getting tired of the Patriots pulling crap like this. This hurts their credabilty and taints their team when it wasn't even needed.
in the words of richard sherman, you mad bruh?
-
LOL I have no idea why this is even an issue still.
Amazing.
-
LOL I have no idea why this is even an issue still.
Because no one cares about the Pro Bowl.
-
Belichick who is one of the most prepared coaches in the history of the game has no clue about game ball procedures?? Brady who is one of the most prepared QB's of all time couldn't tell a difference in the footballs being 2lbs lighter and had no clue why in the start of the second half a ref ran in and took the ball and replaced it? They know the NFL doesn't have concrete proof of how it happened unless someone is willing to talk. Knowing this they both hold a press conference and play ignorant.
It had zero outcome on the game but teams must be getting tired of the Patriots pulling crap like this. This hurts their credabilty and taints their team when it wasn't even needed.
it's not 2lbs difference, it's 2 psi difference , which is the equivalent of the weight of a dollar bill
-
Sensational media at its finest.
The refs were presented with balls and didn't do their due diligence in measuring the air. It's that simple, I think.
-
Belichick who is one of the most prepared coaches in the history of the game has no clue about game ball procedures?? Brady who is one of the most prepared QB's of all time couldn't tell a difference in the footballs being 2lbs lighter and had no clue why in the start of the second half a ref ran in and took the ball and replaced it? They know the NFL doesn't have concrete proof of how it happened unless someone is willing to talk. Knowing this they both hold a press conference and play ignorant.
It had zero outcome on the game but teams must be getting tired of the Patriots pulling crap like this. This hurts their credabilty and taints their team when it wasn't even needed.
it's not 2lbs difference, it's 2 psi difference , which is the equivalent of the weight of a dollar bill
The general public not understanding this distinction is a big part of the problem.
-
LOL I have no idea why this is even an issue still.
Because no one cares about the Pro Bowl.
TP.
-
LOL I have no idea why this is even an issue still.
Because no one cares about the Pro Bowl.
TP.
TP x 2. That might be the best post in this whole thread.
-
The idea that Brady can't tell the difference between the ball he supposedly hand-chose five hours previously, and an under-inflated ball, is laughable.
Well, he straightfaced said he could not tell the difference between the properly inflated balls used in the second half and the ones used in the first half. Do you think he is lying about that as well?
-
The idea that Brady can't tell the difference between the ball he supposedly hand-chose five hours previously, and an under-inflated ball, is laughable.
Well, he straightfaced said he could not tell the difference between the properly inflated balls used in the second half and the ones used in the first half. Do you think he is lying about that as well?
Why wouldn't he? I'm sure he's not anxious for his organization to lose draft picks.
People straight-faced lie all the time.
I also think it's funny that Brady says that he prefers 12.5 psi, rather than 13.5-psi, because of the difference in grip. So, he obviously thinks there's a difference between 1.0 psi. And yet, we're expected to believe the talking point that there's no real difference, or that Brady couldn't tell the difference, of 2.0 psi?
-
NFL Live is destroying Brady.
This whole thing is getting ridiculous.
"Is getting"? When wasn't it?
Well the fact that Marc Brunell seemed choked up after Tom's presser because he was so disappointed is pretty ridiculous.
Baltimore's Chris Canty says this situation should be treated on the same level as PEDs, and Troy Aikman says the Patriots should be punished more severely than Sean Payton was for the Saints' bounty system (though Aikman seems to be factoring in "repeat offender" status for the Pats). All of it ridiculous.
Tom is about to pass Troy in Super Bowl wins, what do you expect?
-
Mark Brunell: "I did not believe what Tom had to say. Those balls were deflated. Somebody had to do it. I don't believe there's an equipment manager in the NFL that would, on his own initiative, deflate a ball without the starting QB's approval ... That football is our livelihood. If you don't feel good about throwing that ball? Your success on the football field can suffer from that."
Jerome Bettis: "I'm so disappointed because I thought this was a perfect opportunity for Tom Brady to go and say 'You know what? I made a mistake. I blew it. It's on me. I'll take the blame here, and this will go away.' He didn't do that ... I'm disappointed in you, Tom Brady."
Brian Dawkins: "This is unbelievable. For you not to know what you touch every play? ... The equipment manager is being thrown under the bus now. Now he's the guy. Now he's the one responsible. He took it upon himself to doctor up the balls when nobody else knew about it? That hard [to believe]."
http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/12212777/tom-brady-new-england-patriots-says-alter-footballs
I'll admit I have barely followed this stuff, because I think it's stupid.
But these comments here, by former players, are disappointing.
At "least" wait until the league has done it's investigation....WOW.
Tell you what, ESPN...banish Tom Brady and Coach Bellichik to Washington...we'll put them to good use there, lol.
Pierre Garcon and Desean Jackson would LOVE that kind of discipline ;D
-
The idea that Brady can't tell the difference between the ball he supposedly hand-chose five hours previously, and an under-inflated ball, is laughable.
Roy, in my opinion, your distaste for the patriots is really impacting your comments on this subject. The truth is there really isn't enough information out there right now to decide if anything is laughable. We have been given such limited information that anything is really still in play at this point. Like another user said we don't know if most of the balls were 12.2, 11.5 or 10.5.
Surprised given your background and normal discussion of things that you would take such a strong position with the level of info that is out there at the moment.
As I mentioned earlier also disappointing how little focus there is on the game at the moment.
The report was 2 PSI. If that's accurate, it's laughable.
I agree that I'd like the focus to be on the game, but let's be real: the idea that an Indy equipment manager could tell the ball was under-inflated, but Tom Brady couldn't, is silly.
Did not realize you were an expert of how different 10 psi football feels from a regulation one. I read experts say it is not noticeable. Why didn't the refs pick it up if it were. Your comments that it is laughable are without foundation, counselor.
-
The idea that Brady can't tell the difference between the ball he supposedly hand-chose five hours previously, and an under-inflated ball, is laughable.
Roy, in my opinion, your distaste for the patriots is really impacting your comments on this subject. The truth is there really isn't enough information out there right now to decide if anything is laughable. We have been given such limited information that anything is really still in play at this point. Like another user said we don't know if most of the balls were 12.2, 11.5 or 10.5.
Surprised given your background and normal discussion of things that you would take such a strong position with the level of info that is out there at the moment.
As I mentioned earlier also disappointing how little focus there is on the game at the moment.
The report was 2 PSI. If that's accurate, it's laughable.
I agree that I'd like the focus to be on the game, but let's be real: the idea that an Indy equipment manager could tell the ball was under-inflated, but Tom Brady couldn't, is silly.
Did not realize you were an expert of how different 10 psi football feels from a regulation one. I read experts say it is not noticeable. Why didn't the refs pick it up if it were. Your comments that it is laughable are without foundation, counselor.
Tom Brady himself says he can tell the difference of 1.0 psi, but he can't tell the difference between 2.0 psi? Strange.
-
The idea that Brady can't tell the difference between the ball he supposedly hand-chose five hours previously, and an under-inflated ball, is laughable.
Roy, in my opinion, your distaste for the patriots is really impacting your comments on this subject. The truth is there really isn't enough information out there right now to decide if anything is laughable. We have been given such limited information that anything is really still in play at this point. Like another user said we don't know if most of the balls were 12.2, 11.5 or 10.5.
Surprised given your background and normal discussion of things that you would take such a strong position with the level of info that is out there at the moment.
As I mentioned earlier also disappointing how little focus there is on the game at the moment.
The report was 2 PSI. If that's accurate, it's laughable.
I agree that I'd like the focus to be on the game, but let's be real: the idea that an Indy equipment manager could tell the ball was under-inflated, but Tom Brady couldn't, is silly.
Did not realize you were an expert of how different 10 psi football feels from a regulation one. I read experts say it is not noticeable. Why didn't the refs pick it up if it were. Your comments that it is laughable are without foundation, counselor.
Tom Brady himself says he can tell the difference of 1.0 psi, but he can't tell the difference between 2.0 psi? Strange.
Roy, again, you are saying things that are not based on the available evidence or facts. The only thing I have read is that one of the patriots 11 deflated balls was as low as 10.5 (with the possibility of more being at this level or the possibility that the remaining balls had more pressure). We simply do not know from anything i have seen reported anywhere.
So we really don't know:
1) If the majority of the other balls were like this
2) if the 10.5 ball (or balls) was actually used and for how many plays
Ive been on this board (and its previous incarnations) going back to the ugly days and I can't really recall seeing you jump the gun on a topic like this before. I will have to go back and read your take on the ferguson stuff to compare.
-
The idea that Brady can't tell the difference between the ball he supposedly hand-chose five hours previously, and an under-inflated ball, is laughable.
Roy, in my opinion, your distaste for the patriots is really impacting your comments on this subject. The truth is there really isn't enough information out there right now to decide if anything is laughable. We have been given such limited information that anything is really still in play at this point. Like another user said we don't know if most of the balls were 12.2, 11.5 or 10.5.
Surprised given your background and normal discussion of things that you would take such a strong position with the level of info that is out there at the moment.
As I mentioned earlier also disappointing how little focus there is on the game at the moment.
The report was 2 PSI. If that's accurate, it's laughable.
I agree that I'd like the focus to be on the game, but let's be real: the idea that an Indy equipment manager could tell the ball was under-inflated, but Tom Brady couldn't, is silly.
Did not realize you were an expert of how different 10 psi football feels from a regulation one. I read experts say it is not noticeable. Why didn't the refs pick it up if it were. Your comments that it is laughable are without foundation, counselor.
Tom Brady himself says he can tell the difference of 1.0 psi, but he can't tell the difference between 2.0 psi? Strange.
Didn't say he can tell the difference, says he prefers it at 12.5. Could be just psychological. I dunno, I just seriously doubt he is bald faced lying about this. If he is, there is someone who will be able to contradict his position. We will find out eventually.
-
The idea that Brady can't tell the difference between the ball he supposedly hand-chose five hours previously, and an under-inflated ball, is laughable.
Roy, in my opinion, your distaste for the patriots is really impacting your comments on this subject. The truth is there really isn't enough information out there right now to decide if anything is laughable. We have been given such limited information that anything is really still in play at this point. Like another user said we don't know if most of the balls were 12.2, 11.5 or 10.5.
Surprised given your background and normal discussion of things that you would take such a strong position with the level of info that is out there at the moment.
As I mentioned earlier also disappointing how little focus there is on the game at the moment.
The report was 2 PSI. If that's accurate, it's laughable.
I agree that I'd like the focus to be on the game, but let's be real: the idea that an Indy equipment manager could tell the ball was under-inflated, but Tom Brady couldn't, is silly.
Did not realize you were an expert of how different 10 psi football feels from a regulation one. I read experts say it is not noticeable. Why didn't the refs pick it up if it were. Your comments that it is laughable are without foundation, counselor.
Tom Brady himself says he can tell the difference of 1.0 psi, but he can't tell the difference between 2.0 psi? Strange.
Roy, again, you are saying things that are not based on the available evidence or facts. The only thing I have read is that one of the patriots 11 deflated balls was as low as 10.5 (with the possibility of more being at this level or the possibility that the remaining balls had more pressure). We simply do not know from anything i have seen reported anywhere.
So we really don't know:
1) If the majority of the other balls were like this
2) if the 10.5 ball (or balls) was actually used and for how many plays
Ive been on this board (and its previous incarnations) going back to the ugly days and I can't really recall seeing you jump the gun on a topic like this before. I will have to go back and read your take on the ferguson stuff to compare.
It's probably a result of dozens of pages of Patriots' fans insulting my intelligence. ;)
First it was the weather, that only affected the Patriots' balls, not Indy's. Now, it's that Brady can tell 1.0 psi differences because of the "grip", while fans argue that there's no difference in 2.0 psi.
-
Now are we sure the colts balls did not change at all in terms of PSI or that they were still legal? If they filled at the top of the allowed spectrum, they could dip and still be legal. To be honest I would find it hard to believe that they were exactly the same.
-
I dunno, I just seriously doubt he is bald faced lying about this. .
I guess you're more trusting than I am.
Dozens of sterorids users bald-faced lied. Hell, the President of the United States looked straight into the camera and bald-faced lied about something that he could be directly contradicted on.
People lie all the time, and they fool some people with those lies all of the time, too.
-
I dunno, I just seriously doubt he is bald faced lying about this. .
Dozens of sterorids users bald-faced lied.
So you're against the Seahawks, too? Are you just going to skip watching the Super Bowl or just go to a party and be social for it?
-
I dunno, I just seriously doubt he is bald faced lying about this. .
Dozens of sterorids users bald-faced lied.
So you're against the Seahawks, too? Are you just going to skip watching the Super Bowl or just go to a party and be social for it?
I posted earlier in the thread about this. I think it's ridiculous that only the Pats are treated as villains, with all the PED users on Seattle (coupled with their coach's numerous violations at USC, multiple offseason / practice violations, etc.)
There are no clean organizations here. However, to pretend that the Pats didn't cheat and get caught, while bending over backwards to make excuses, isn't my style.
-
I dunno, I just seriously doubt he is bald faced lying about this. .
I guess you're more trusting than I am.
Dozens of sterorids users bald-faced lied. Hell, the President of the United States looked straight into the camera and bald-faced lied about something that he could be directly contradicted on.
People lie all the time, and they fool some people with those lies all of the time, too.
A cynical perspective would be that people lie all the time. Truthful analysis would likely reveal that people lie some of the time. I know you weren't being literal, however, people who always presume conspiracy or presume the worst whenever they hear something potentially scandalous are correct only some of the time. It's important to remember that when conspiracy theorists and scandal chasers come up empty, we tend not to hear much about it. When they strike gold, it's all we hear. Sometimes Bill and Tom tell the truth. Nixon, Clinton and Bush told the truth sometimes too.
I am always amazed when people are so certain of others' veracity and intent. I always feel clueless at this stage of the game.
-
So now DQwell Jackson, who intercepted Brady, and according to multiple "news" reports was the one who tipped off the Colts equipment guy that the ball was deflated is saying that he never did. That he never noticed a difference.
This whole thing gets stranger by the hour. The possibility that this will end badly for certain "rumor mongers news reporters" grows and grows....
-
FWIW now D'Qwell Jackson says he didn't notice anything odd about the ball. This throws some cold water on the "how can a linebacker touch it once and notice something funny, while Brady never did" line of argument.
http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/12213533/dqwell-jackson-indianapolis-colts-says-one-noticed-ball-was-inflated?ex_cid=espnapi_public
We still need more facts, but at least this is a direct quote from someone.
Edit: though the article says he "didn't notice weight" of the ball. Come on, ESPN.
-
We still need more facts, but at least this is a direct quote from someone.
True. In fact, we are so bereft of facts, that it is painful.
-
FWIW now D'Qwell Jackson says he didn't notice anything odd about the ball. This throws some cold water on the "how can a linebacker touch it once and notice something funny, while Brady never did" line of argument.
http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/12213533/dqwell-jackson-indianapolis-colts-says-one-noticed-ball-was-inflated?ex_cid=espnapi_public
We still need more facts, but at least this is a direct quote from someone.
Edit: though the article says he "didn't notice weight" of the ball. Come on, ESPN.
So there is still no actual evidence and the person who the story hinged around is saying that the story as presented is false. The Patriots are going to be "very annoyed" and are going to play "with a fire in their bellies" [note: I know this site is super G rated so I am censoring myself]. I am now starting to be glad that this happened.
The only thing we know for sure is that the Colts whine whenever anything doesn't go their way and their owner is a sleaze bag. Also, most sports analysts are reactionary "blowhards."
-
I notice nobody in New England or the NFL wants to hire Louis Freeh to look into this thing.
-
A lot of the outrage reminds me of this:
http://strongtakes.com/2014/10/michael-sam-cut-and-absolutely-no-one-cares/
-
We still need more facts, but at least this is a direct quote from someone.
True. In fact, we are so bereft of facts, that it is painful.
Yeah, I think that's the key thing. Outside of Mort's "leaks" report, there really isn't anything out there and the stuff he reported hasn't been corroborated by the NFL. So this one report really has fueled this media hellstorm we're witnessing and almost everything continues to be speculative four days after the game. NFL remains to be quiet here and it's amazing to consider that Brady said he hasn't talked to anyone there.
What the heck is going on in the league office right now?
-
The story with DQwell is interesting:
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000462315/article/dqwell-jackson-footballs-didnt-change-outcome
Apparently late in the 1st half the Patriots were using the Colts footballs.
Jackson does, however, recall one interesting moment during the first half that has something to do with the latest controversy. He recalls, during a television timeout, there was an especially long delay that prompted him to approach an official.
The game official mentioned something about their efforts to locate a usable football. Shortly after, Jackson noticed that the Patriots were using the Colts' footballs late in the first half.
-
Wondering to what extent Seattle will taunt the Pats and Brady -- calling them "cheaters" during the game. Sounds juvenile and potentially counterproductive but I bet some Seahawks will believe that the word will get under Pats' skin and in their heads -- throwing them off their game.
It's easy to suggest that this would just burn more fire in the competitive bellies of NE players, but I'm not so sure that it won't hit home -- this controversy potentially cuts deep with regard to the Pats place in NFL history. This is something that truly can throw a team off.
-
Wondering to what extent Seattle will taunt the Pats and Brady -- calling them "cheaters" during the game. Sounds juvenile and potentially counterproductive but I bet some Seahawks will believe that the word will get under Pats' skin and in their heads -- throwing them off their game.
It's easy to suggest that this would just burn more fire in the competitive bellies of NE players, but I'm not so sure that it won't hit home -- this controversy potentially cuts deep with regard to the Pats place in NFL history. This is something that truly can throw a team off.
I think the Patriots are usually ultra-focused, and for better or for worse, they've been through this before (Spygate, the controversy over taping the Rams practice, etc.) I don't think it will affect their game much.
-
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/21/report-nfl-planned-to-inspect-patriots-football-before-dqwell-jackson-interception/
Even juicier, it's now being reported in light of D'Qwell's comments that the league was going to (allegedly) check the Pats' balls at the half anyways, because the Colts thought they were doing it before. Further, they were doing based on info that the Colts gave them in November.
So that means that the NFL knew since November and didn't check the balls in any game leading up to it? Why not?
That every report that listed D'Qwell as the tattle tale was inaccurate and nobody mentioned this because why?
It also means that the fact that the Colts' balls were inflated is now meaningless, since they planned this ahead of time.
Even more, why didn't D'Qwell know? The players weren't told to look out for it?
The whole thing is falling apart.
-
And look, the temperature of the November game was 31 degrees in Indy, which is even colder than the Playoff game.
http://www.colts.com/fanzone/contests-and-promotions/weatherchallenge.html
-
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/21/report-nfl-planned-to-inspect-patriots-football-before-dqwell-jackson-interception/
Even juicier, it's now being reported in light of D'Qwell's comments that the league was going to (allegedly) check the Pats' balls at the half anyways, because the Colts thought they were doing it before. Further, they were doing based on info that the Colts gave them in November.
So that means that the NFL knew since November and didn't check the balls in any game leading up to it? Why not?
That every report that listed D'Qwell as the tattle tale was inaccurate and nobody mentioned this because why?
It also means that the fact that the Colts' balls were inflated is now meaningless, since they planned this ahead of time.
Even more, why didn't D'Qwell know? The players weren't told to look out for it?
The whole thing is falling apart.
Not sure whether this helps or hurts. I mean, if the Colts felt the balls were flat last time, and the Ravens did too, and then they ended up being flat this time, it means the Pats could have been doing something all along.
-
And look, the temperature of the November game was 31 degrees in Indy, which is even colder than the Playoff game.
http://www.colts.com/fanzone/contests-and-promotions/weatherchallenge.html
Colts play in a retractable roof stadium.
-
You can see ESPN trying so hard to keep this story alive and they're just failing and making themselves look so desperate and worthless by the second.
Bring evidence or go home.
-
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/21/report-nfl-planned-to-inspect-patriots-football-before-dqwell-jackson-interception/
Even juicier, it's now being reported in light of D'Qwell's comments that the league was going to (allegedly) check the Pats' balls at the half anyways, because the Colts thought they were doing it before. Further, they were doing based on info that the Colts gave them in November.
So that means that the NFL knew since November and didn't check the balls in any game leading up to it? Why not?
That every report that listed D'Qwell as the tattle tale was inaccurate and nobody mentioned this because why?
It also means that the fact that the Colts' balls were inflated is now meaningless, since they planned this ahead of time.
Even more, why didn't D'Qwell know? The players weren't told to look out for it?
The whole thing is falling apart.
Not sure whether this helps or hurts. I mean, if the Colts felt the balls were flat last time, and the Ravens did too, and then they ended up being flat this time, it means the Pats could have been doing something all along.
Um, yeah, except the "reported" Ravens' concerns with the balls are about the balls used on kickoffs, which are not ever touched by the Patriots. So, that's one we just need to chalk up to sour grapes.
http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/1/21/7864957/patriots-deflated-kicking-balls-ravens-colts
-
To sum up the last several days:
(1) The NFL is investigating deflated balls. The NFL has confirmed this.
(2) The NFL has confirmed nothing else, other than (1)
(3) It was initially reported that DQwell Jackson (who intercepted Brady) handed the ball over to the equipment guy because the ball felt flat. This turned out to be a false report. DQwell now says he noticed nothing odd about the ball he intercepted, but did notice the referees swapping out Pats balls for Colts balls.
(4) There was a leaked report that 11 of 12 patriots balls were deflated, by as much as 2 psi. It is not clear if all were 2 psi below the 12.5 psi minimum, or some, or one. Keeping (3) in mind, it is also not clear that any of these balls were ever used in the game. The NFL hasn't confirmed this in any case.
(5) During a press conference, BB denies knowing anything.
(6) During a press conference, TB denies knowing anything.
(7) TB says he has yet to be contacted by the NFL.
(8) The NFL did say early on (Monday or so) that they hoped to wrap up in a few days.
(9) There has been a ton of innuendo and speculation by the popular press.
I think that about sums it up.
-
You can see ESPN trying so hard to keep this story alive and they're just failing and making themselves look so desperate and worthless by the second.
Bring evidence or go home.
It's not just ESPN, though. Apparently, all three of the major network news shows led off with this, and at least some of the networks broke from their regular programing to show the Brady news conference.
The hype machine is in overdrive, over an issue that didn't make an ounce of difference in the game. I suspect the Pats cheated, and I think they should be punished and the rules should be changed, but this has been blown out of proportion. I understand why it's a hot topic in New England, but elsewhere I don't see why this is such scintillating news.
-
I've lost whatever respect I had left for ESPN.
Their primary story on this thing, as of right now, leads with this gem:
Under his oversized ski cap, Tom Brady could not hide from the fact he was convicting himself in the court of public opinion. The quarterback of the New England Patriots admitted that footballs pumped up to 12.5 pounds per square inch are "a perfect fit for me," yet swore he did not notice a difference in the AFC Championship Game when the balls weighed two pounds lighter.
http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/12213363/tom-brady-tale-hold-weight
-
ESPN just posted a real good piece of crap from Ian O'Connor (http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/12213363/tom-brady-tale-hold-weight), which includes these over-the-top nuggets:
If the NFL finds in the coming days that Brady did have something to do with altering the 11 Patriots footballs ... then Commissioner Roger Goodell needs to bench him for the Super Bowl.
Oh yeah? You think Goodell's gonna bench one of the game's most popular players in the biggest game of the year? That would be great for ratings.
He (Brady) looked and sounded weak and in desperate need of a tuck rule, though he said his friends need not worry.
Ah, yes, another old saw of Pats haters everywhere.
Someday pro football will be about pro football again.
Funny how that Vikings-Panthers game in November was "all about pro football" and not at all about the guys illegally warming up balls on the sideline. On live TV.
Truth is, somebody did something to those footballs, and the man who threw 35 passes for the winners had to know he was playing with illegal balls in the first half.
Yet the referees, who touched those footballs at least as many times as Brady and should be just as familiar with the proper air pressure of a football, apparently didn't notice a thing. Huh.
And these gems from the sidebar:
Mark Brunell: If you don't feel good about throwing that ball? Your success on the football field can suffer from that."
Right, so if a QB doesn't feel good about throwing a ball in the 12.5–13.5 psi range, he shouldn't have to. Stupid rule. Get rid of it.
Jerome Bettis: "I'm so disappointed because I thought this was a perfect opportunity for Tom Brady to go and say 'You know what? I made a mistake. I blew it. It's on me. I'll take the blame here, and this will go away.' He didn't do that ... I'm disappointed in you, Tom Brady."
Yes, Jerome, you're as "distraught" and "angry" about this as the NFL is. Give me a break. This isn't a point-shaving scandal. This is going 50 in a 45. Minor infraction at worst. Get over it. And I strongly suspect that if Brady is guilty and DID admit it, people wouldn't be forgiving.
-
I've lost whatever respect I had left for ESPN.
Their primary story on this thing, as of right now, leads with this gem:
Under his oversized ski cap, Tom Brady could not hide from the fact he was convicting himself in the court of public opinion. The quarterback of the New England Patriots admitted that footballs pumped up to 12.5 pounds per square inch are "a perfect fit for me," yet swore he did not notice a difference in the AFC Championship Game when the balls weighed two pounds lighter.
http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/12213363/tom-brady-tale-hold-weight
That one got past both the reporter and the editor?
I think the NFL would be more entertaining if the league made them play with a 12.5 pound ball, though.
-
Now are we sure the colts balls did not change at all in terms of PSI or that they were still legal? If they filled at the top of the allowed spectrum, they could dip and still be legal. To be honest I would find it hard to believe that they were exactly the same.
You aren't the only one who would find it hard to believe, any scientist, anyone who has lived in cold weather, anyone who knows the least bit about physics, and pretty much every rational adult human in the educated world can tell you a ball will deflate as the temperature decreases.
For those unable to do the math, someone already did it and it was 1.2 psi from room temp to game start temp. That would be assuming the balls were kept in a 72 degree room, which they may or may not have been.
Since Brady likes 12.5 I think you could assume the Patriots submitted balls around 12.5psi. So at least the balls would be down to 11.3 psi assuming they were properly checked. Arron Rogers said he tries to slip overinflated balls by the refs because they don't always check well, maybe the Patriots submitted balls between 12 and 13. Every time you check the balls a little air comes out. They were checked at least twice. It isn't the least bit shocking some of the balls might have been close to 10.5 and nothing nefarious was going on.
As for the Colt's balls, I don't know how much air they lost and neither does anyone else posting on here. Anyone who says, "the Colts balls didn't lose any air" are flat out lying. Unless they filled their balls outside in the cold, their footballs lost pressure. Maybe the Colts fill their footballs to 13.5 and ended just below 12.5 or maybe they were never even checked.
I'd believe the above is what happened before I'd believe some ball boy was letting air out of the balls on the sidelines in front of any number of people and cameras minutes before kickoff.
-
I've lost whatever respect I had left for ESPN.
Their primary story on this thing, as of right now, leads with this gem:
Under his oversized ski cap, Tom Brady could not hide from the fact he was convicting himself in the court of public opinion. The quarterback of the New England Patriots admitted that footballs pumped up to 12.5 pounds per square inch are "a perfect fit for me," yet swore he did not notice a difference in the AFC Championship Game when the balls weighed two pounds lighter.
http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/12213363/tom-brady-tale-hold-weight
Yeah, really bad "reporting".
Part of the issue is that there is no evidence that Brady actually played with underweight balls, so when he says he didn't notice a difference, that could be because, um, there wasn't.
Again, D. Jackson says an official told him that the Pats balls were swapped for the Colts balls. If the Colts balls felt "normal" (I'm correct on this, right? No one is alleging that the Colts balls were below weight, right?), then Brady wouldn't have noticed a difference... right?
Of course, Brady would have presumably noticed the refs swapping balls. But, in any case, the larger point is that there is, at this point, not a whole lot of info, and instead a huge, huge, huge amount of speculation.
-
I've lost whatever respect I had left for ESPN.
Their primary story on this thing, as of right now, leads with this gem:
Under his oversized ski cap, Tom Brady could not hide from the fact he was convicting himself in the court of public opinion. The quarterback of the New England Patriots admitted that footballs pumped up to 12.5 pounds per square inch are "a perfect fit for me," yet swore he did not notice a difference in the AFC Championship Game when the balls weighed two pounds lighter.
http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/12213363/tom-brady-tale-hold-weight
That one got past both the reporter and the editor?
I think the NFL would be more entertaining if the league made them play with a 12.5 pound ball, though.
Those didn't just make it past the editor. They are the first two sentences of the article.
I'm ready for SportsMediaGate. Someone's been falsifying journalism degrees.
-
Now are we sure the colts balls did not change at all in terms of PSI or that they were still legal? If they filled at the top of the allowed spectrum, they could dip and still be legal. To be honest I would find it hard to believe that they were exactly the same.
You aren't the only one who would find it hard to believe, any scientist, anyone who has lived in cold weather, anyone who knows the least bit about physics, and pretty much every rational adult human in the educated world can tell you a ball will deflate as the temperature decreases.
For those unable to do the math, someone already did it and it was 1.2 psi from room temp to game start temp. That would be assuming the balls were kept in a 72 degree room, which they may or may not have been.
Since Brady likes 12.5 I think you could assume the Patriots submitted balls around 12.5psi. So at least the balls would be down to 11.3 psi assuming they were properly checked. Arron Rogers said he tries to slip overinflated balls by the refs because they don't always check well, maybe the Patriots submitted balls between 12 and 13. Every time you check the balls a little air comes out. They were checked at least twice. It isn't the least bit shocking some of the balls might have been close to 10.5 and nothing nefarious was going on.
As for the Colt's balls, I don't know how much air they lost and neither does anyone else posting on here. Anyone who says, "the Colts balls didn't lose any air" are flat out lying. Unless they filled their balls outside in the cold, their footballs lost pressure. Maybe the Colts fill their footballs to 13.5 and ended just below 12.5 or maybe they were never even checked.
I'd believe the above is what happened before I'd believe some ball boy was letting air out of the balls on the sidelines in front of any number of people and cameras minutes before kickoff.
But... then you're saying there's no scandal?
That's scandalous!
-
Wondering to what extent Seattle will taunt the Pats and Brady -- calling them "cheaters" during the game. Sounds juvenile and potentially counterproductive but I bet some Seahawks will believe that the word will get under Pats' skin and in their heads -- throwing them off their game.
It's easy to suggest that this would just burn more fire in the competitive bellies of NE players, but I'm not so sure that it won't hit home -- this controversy potentially cuts deep with regard to the Pats place in NFL history. This is something that truly can throw a team off.
I guess that is why you are neurotic guy. The Hawks have their own motivations getting fined for phantom crotch grabs. I doubt the Pats get thrown off much. Seattle will be royally p---ed meanwhile also dealing with the fines and the idea that they were lucky.(They were).
-
I've lost whatever respect I had left for ESPN.
Their primary story on this thing, as of right now, leads with this gem:
Under his oversized ski cap, Tom Brady could not hide from the fact he was convicting himself in the court of public opinion. The quarterback of the New England Patriots admitted that footballs pumped up to 12.5 pounds per square inch are "a perfect fit for me," yet swore he did not notice a difference in the AFC Championship Game when the balls weighed two pounds lighter.
http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/12213363/tom-brady-tale-hold-weight
You made it further than me. As soon as I saw that the writer was from ESPN New York I stopped reading
-
Venting:
I'm so angry about all this. I was looking forward to talk about what this game means to Bill and Tom's legacy, recapping the AFC championship, previewing the Super Bowl... Instead it's all about this nonsense. A sensational, blood thirsty media lead by the absolutely shameless ESPN. Can anyone there even call themselves "journalists" or "reporters" anymore? Because it is false advertising. They are click-bait, ratings hungry, entertainers.
-
I love how people are still talking about balls, lol. ;D
-
Venting:
I'm so angry about all this. I was looking forward to talk about what this game means to Bill and Tom's legacy, recapping the AFC championship, previewing the Super Bowl... Instead it's all about this nonsense. A sensational, blood thirsty media lead by the absolutely shameless ESPN. Can anyone there even call themselves "journalists" or "reporters" anymore? Because it is false advertising. They are click-bait, ratings hungry, entertainers.
Dude, you're a Celtics fan. Shouldn't you already know this, lol? ;D
Sidebar - has all of this left you feeling quite 'deflated,' about the Patriots, lol? ;) ::) ;D (Groan). I know, I know - these don't even qualify as horrible jokes, haha. I'm just trying to lighten the mood.
In other news, I loved it when Putin stole Kraft's superbowl ring, ahaha. ;D
-
Fans of a big-market team with a martyr complex remind me of Laker fans who think the league does everything it can to screw them.
-
If this settles down and the Pats win, SNL could probably break its all-time ratings record by having Brady as a guest and just having him work the word "balls" into every skit.
It would be capped off of course by him reprising today's presser, but as quarterback Tom Schweddy.
-
reggie miller and grant hill were talking tonight on TNT about how they used to deflate basketballs before NBA games. marv albert said doc rivers admitted to him to doing the same thing while playing for the hawks.
this whole controversy is a giant joke, and is only important to small-minded football fans who hate the patriots and really have no clue about the sort of things that really go on in sports.
this isn't about honestly, the "integrity of the game", or cheating.
it's a witch hunt by armchair moralists who don't realize that athletes are obsessive and make minor adjustments to equipment when they're technically not supposed to.
it's not a big deal.
and anybody who thinks BB and TFB are the antichrist should not be a celtics fan, red auerbach was 100x worse.
-
one more thing... how do we know for sure the refs ever even really checked the pressure of the balls before the game? i wouldn't be surprised at all if they stamped them without using a gauge, which would explain why aaron rodgers submits them when they're over-inflated, presumably they don't always check.
i wonder if the ref who stamped them would admit if he'd never actually checked them?
another facet of this is that the league rules state that there's a $25,000 fine for this offense, with the possibility of more punishment being levied.
$25,000? that's chump change in this league, and it implies that the league isn't that concerned about it.
but since the commissioner's office botched its handling of the ray rice scandal, and because everyone hates the pats... well, now it's a huge deal?
-
I viewed the Brady presser performance, and it was excruciating to see someone lie in such an obvious manner. There is a lot of venting going on here by (mostly) diehard Patriots fans, but even Kraft's own guy, Goodell, is going to have to bring the hammer down on the Pats in the form of rescinding of draft picks.
Tom Brady must be the world's worst poker player - can anyone get me an invite to his home game? :-)
-
Fans of a big-market team with a martyr complex remind me of Laker fans who think the league does everything it can to screw them.
Those exist?
-
I viewed the Brady presser performance, and it was excruciating to see someone lie in such an obvious manner. There is a lot of venting going on here by (mostly) diehard Patriots fans, but even Kraft's own guy, Goodell, is going to have to bring the hammer down on the Pats in the form of rescinding of draft picks.
Tom Brady must be the world's worst poker player - can anyone get me an invite to his home game? :-)
Yeah, you could see the corners of his mouth curl up whenever he told an especially big one.
-
FWIW Penn State fans are calling Pats fans hypocrites for portraying Brady as a golden boy that's just too good to cheat. When Dan LeBatard said something to the effect "It's too bad we can just tear down a perfect 15 year career with so little evidence" they were kind of like "Oh really? Not a lot of due process to destroy a perfect career? Tell me about it".
-
Venting:
I'm so angry about all this. I was looking forward to talk about what this game means to Bill and Tom's legacy, recapping the AFC championship, previewing the Super Bowl... Instead it's all about this nonsense. A sensational, blood thirsty media lead by the absolutely shameless ESPN. Can anyone there even call themselves "journalists" or "reporters" anymore? Because it is false advertising. They are click-bait, ratings hungry, entertainers.
Not being snarky, but what's stopping you? You don't have to talk about what ESPN's talking about.
-
I viewed the Brady presser performance, and it was excruciating to see someone lie in such an obvious manner. There is a lot of venting going on here by (mostly) diehard Patriots fans, but even Kraft's own guy, Goodell, is going to have to bring the hammer down on the Pats in the form of rescinding of draft picks.
Tom Brady must be the world's worst poker player - can anyone get me an invite to his home game? :-)
Yeah, you could see the corners of his mouth curl up whenever he told an especially big one.
Actually not true, per most post earlier my wife watched the press conference with three trained FBI investigators, they all said no signs of lying based on their training.
(http://memecrunch.com/meme/3XVBZ/but-that-s-none-of-my-business/image.png)
-
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/22/nfl-investigators-have-visited-browns-over-in-game-texting/
When is the national media going to descend on Cleveland over text-gate? oh wait, there not because the entire league is jealous of them? hmmm
-
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/22/nfl-investigators-have-visited-browns-over-in-game-texting/
When is the national media going to descend on Cleveland over text-gate? oh wait, there not because the entire league is jealous of them? hmmm
If the Browns were in the Super Bowl, I'm sure the media would be all over them, although maybe not to this extent. Similarly, if the Pats had lost last week, the media scrutiny would be less, although I'm sure there would be some due to Spygate, etc.
-
I must admit, that was one of the funnier press conferences I have listened to. Completely pointless, but funny.
Got to love the headlines though.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B8CJu5UCQAAnd49.jpg:small)
-
reggie miller and grant hill were talking tonight on TNT about how they used to deflate basketballs before NBA games. marv albert said doc rivers admitted to him to doing the same thing while playing for the hawks.
this whole controversy is a giant joke, and is only important to small-minded football fans who hate the patriots and really have no clue about the sort of things that really go on in sports.
this isn't about honestly, the "integrity of the game", or cheating.
it's a witch hunt by armchair moralists who don't realize that athletes are obsessive and make minor adjustments to equipment when they're technically not supposed to.
it's not a big deal.
and anybody who thinks BB and TFB are the antichrist should not be a celtics fan, red auerbach was 100x worse.
It would appear to be pretty important to the small-minded Patriots fans with persecution complexes, too.
-
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/22/nfl-investigators-have-visited-browns-over-in-game-texting/
When is the national media going to descend on Cleveland over text-gate? oh wait, there not because the entire league is jealous of them? hmmm
If the Browns were in the Super Bowl, I'm sure the media would be all over them, although maybe not to this extent. Similarly, if the Pats had lost last week, the media scrutiny would be less, although I'm sure there would be some due to Spygate, etc.
Right, so this is much more about being a good team than the actual infringement of the rules
-
Also Roy, not sure if this has been posted yet, but a NON patriots source on ball firmness :)
The MMQB @theMMQB
· 17h 17 hours ago
Again, from our informal test, diff between 12.5 and 10.5 psi is practically imperceptible. 10.5 definitely not soft.
-
Also Roy, not sure if this has been posted yet, but a NON patriots source on ball firmness :)
The MMQB @theMMQB
· 17h 17 hours ago
Again, from our informal test, diff between 12.5 and 10.5 psi is practically imperceptible. 10.5 definitely not soft.
That's Peter King trying to help the NFL make a non-issue out of it now that it's Friday. :D
-
Also for what its worth, this guy does some of the best draft analysis not working for ESPN or a major network, he has been at the senior bowl all week
Mike Loyko ?@NEPD_Loyko · 8m8 minutes ago ? Mobile, AL
Mark Brunell's segment just came on TV and about 20 scouts including NE laughing out loud and making fun of him for crying.
-
Finally, just to throw it out there. Guy has 105K followers so maybe he knows something?
Sharks of Vegas @SharksOfVegas
· 10h 10 hours ago
BREAKING - Our source has CONFIRMED there will be NO penalties imposed on the Patriots by the NFL in the wake of deflategate.
Sharks of Vegas @SharksOfVegas
· 10h 10 hours ago
Official announcement is expected sometime over the weekend. NFL simply has no "proof" the Patriots themselves tampered with the balls.
Sharks of Vegas @SharksOfVegas
· 10h 10 hours ago
NFL is not saying the balls were not tampered with, just that there is very little evidence against the Patriots.
Sharks of Vegas @SharksOfVegas
· 1h 1 hour ago
At this point, the NFL is delaying action in hopes of more information. They can't punish the Patriots with current info.
-
Also Roy, not sure if this has been posted yet, but a NON patriots source on ball firmness :)
The MMQB @theMMQB
· 17h 17 hours ago
Again, from our informal test, diff between 12.5 and 10.5 psi is practically imperceptible. 10.5 definitely not soft.
"Practically imperceptible" and "imperceptible" aren't equivalent.
Similarly, "not soft" doesn't equal "not softer".
-
Also Roy, not sure if this has been posted yet, but a NON patriots source on ball firmness :)
The MMQB @theMMQB
· 17h 17 hours ago
Again, from our informal test, diff between 12.5 and 10.5 psi is practically imperceptible. 10.5 definitely not soft.
"Practically imperceptible" and "imperceptible" aren't equivalent.
Similarly, "not soft" doesn't equal "not softer".
haha ok. I mean I guess to me, if a guy who is only trying to tell the difference between a 12.5 and 10.5 psi ball thinks its practically imperceptible, it would be imperceptible for a guy who is trying to throw the ball with linemen bearing down on him or trying to catch a ball while protecting himself from impending doom from a safety.
-
Also Roy, not sure if this has been posted yet, but a NON patriots source on ball firmness :)
The MMQB @theMMQB
· 17h 17 hours ago
Again, from our informal test, diff between 12.5 and 10.5 psi is practically imperceptible. 10.5 definitely not soft.
"Practically imperceptible" and "imperceptible" aren't equivalent.
Similarly, "not soft" doesn't equal "not softer".
haha ok. I mean I guess to me, if a guy who is only trying to tell the difference between a 12.5 and 10.5 psi ball thinks its practically imperceptible, it would be imperceptible for a guy who is trying to throw the ball with linemen bearing down on him or trying to catch a ball while protecting himself from impending doom from a safety.
Again, Brady himself acknowledged that he likes a 12.5 ball -- rather than 13.5 -- because of the grip.
How can anybody then argue that he can't tell the difference between a 12.5 ball and a 10.5 ball?
If Peter King could detect a difference (which he did), then why wouldn't the guy who meticulously selected the game balls earlier that day be able to tell?
Pats fans need to make up their minds: is this a case of "everyone is looking for an edge, and QBs do this all the time, so it's no big deal" or is it "Tom Brady, Golden Boy, would never bend the rules or lie to the media"?
-
Jemele Hill @jemelehill
· 16h 16 hours ago
Ironic: Every week, fans complain about how incompetent the officials are. Now suddenly they're incapable of making mistakes. OK.
Jemele Hill @jemelehill
· 17h 17 hours ago
Seriously ... Has anyone considered the fact that MAYBE the official who measured the footballs didn't do his job properly?
-
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/22/nfl-investigators-have-visited-browns-over-in-game-texting/
When is the national media going to descend on Cleveland over text-gate? oh wait, there not because the entire league is jealous of them? hmmm
If the Browns were in the Super Bowl, I'm sure the media would be all over them, although maybe not to this extent. Similarly, if the Pats had lost last week, the media scrutiny would be less, although I'm sure there would be some due to Spygate, etc.
That is laughable.
-
Also Roy, not sure if this has been posted yet, but a NON patriots source on ball firmness :)
The MMQB @theMMQB
· 17h 17 hours ago
Again, from our informal test, diff between 12.5 and 10.5 psi is practically imperceptible. 10.5 definitely not soft.
"Practically imperceptible" and "imperceptible" aren't equivalent.
Similarly, "not soft" doesn't equal "not softer".
haha ok. I mean I guess to me, if a guy who is only trying to tell the difference between a 12.5 and 10.5 psi ball thinks its practically imperceptible, it would be imperceptible for a guy who is trying to throw the ball with linemen bearing down on him or trying to catch a ball while protecting himself from impending doom from a safety.
It'd be imperceptible in the course of the game when the QB is simply going through the motions of getting the ball snapped to him and trying to either hand it off or get it out of his hands ASAP, IMO. They're not taking the time to grip it and play around with it in between plays. There's a possibility they could pick up on it while on the sideline but even I would doubt that Also, keep in mind that the referees had no clue in the first half that the balls they were spotting were under-inflated.
If someone can actually notice a 2 psi difference, good for them because my guess is that its close [dang] near impossible unless you're consciously being told there is a difference or are consciously looking for a difference.
-
Jemele Hill @jemelehill
· 16h 16 hours ago
Ironic: Every week, fans complain about how incompetent the officials are. Now suddenly they're incapable of making mistakes. OK.
Jemele Hill @jemelehill
· 17h 17 hours ago
Seriously ... Has anyone considered the fact that MAYBE the official who measured the footballs didn't do his job properly?
Now you're getting desperate, citing Jemele Hill. ;)
-
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/22/nfl-investigators-have-visited-browns-over-in-game-texting/
When is the national media going to descend on Cleveland over text-gate? oh wait, there not because the entire league is jealous of them? hmmm
If the Browns were in the Super Bowl, I'm sure the media would be all over them, although maybe not to this extent. Similarly, if the Pats had lost last week, the media scrutiny would be less, although I'm sure there would be some due to Spygate, etc.
That is laughable.
Yeah, I'm starting to buy into the "persecution complex" argument a bit.
-
Also Roy, not sure if this has been posted yet, but a NON patriots source on ball firmness :)
The MMQB @theMMQB
· 17h 17 hours ago
Again, from our informal test, diff between 12.5 and 10.5 psi is practically imperceptible. 10.5 definitely not soft.
"Practically imperceptible" and "imperceptible" aren't equivalent.
Similarly, "not soft" doesn't equal "not softer".
haha ok. I mean I guess to me, if a guy who is only trying to tell the difference between a 12.5 and 10.5 psi ball thinks its practically imperceptible, it would be imperceptible for a guy who is trying to throw the ball with linemen bearing down on him or trying to catch a ball while protecting himself from impending doom from a safety.
Again, Brady himself acknowledged that he likes a 12.5 ball -- rather than 13.5 -- because of the grip.
How can anybody then argue that he can't tell the difference between a 12.5 ball and a 10.5 ball?
If Peter King could detect a difference (which he did), then why wouldn't the guy who meticulously selected the game balls earlier that day be able to tell?
Pats fans need to make up their minds: is this a case of "everyone is looking for an edge, and QBs do this all the time, so it's no big deal" or is it "Tom Brady, Golden Boy, would never bend the rules or lie to the media"?
I think there is another option, which is the compilations of facts leading me to dismiss the whole thing
1. Its not a big deal because the supposed advantage gained is immaterial
2. the media is blowing it out of proportion
3. there is no evidence that the patriots did anything wrong
4. the supposed whistleblower said he didn't notice anything wrong with the football and wasn't the whistleblower
5. Its annoying that the patriots get an extra level of scrutiny because they are good and consistently succeeding in a league that is designed to promote parody
-
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/22/nfl-investigators-have-visited-browns-over-in-game-texting/
When is the national media going to descend on Cleveland over text-gate? oh wait, there not because the entire league is jealous of them? hmmm
If the Browns were in the Super Bowl, I'm sure the media would be all over them, although maybe not to this extent. Similarly, if the Pats had lost last week, the media scrutiny would be less, although I'm sure there would be some due to Spygate, etc.
That is laughable.
There's certainly a media double standard here. If this was the Jacksonville Jaguars heading into the Super Bowl, the outrage (both real & faux) wouldn't nearly be as much.
Pats lost the benefit of the doubt with Spygate. That put a target on Belichick as well as his career tug of war with the media and he sets himself up as a person that's always ripe for the picking. Add in the team's success over the past 15 years and the often accompanied contempt for success and you have yourself a formula for exaggerated outrage and the idea of tearing down success.
Pats brought it up themselves with Spygate among other things no doubt, but there is certainly a double standard here with the media too.
-
Jemele Hill @jemelehill
· 16h 16 hours ago
Ironic: Every week, fans complain about how incompetent the officials are. Now suddenly they're incapable of making mistakes. OK.
Jemele Hill @jemelehill
· 17h 17 hours ago
Seriously ... Has anyone considered the fact that MAYBE the official who measured the footballs didn't do his job properly?
Now you're getting desperate, citing Jemele Hill. ;)
She raises a legitimate point. Why didn't the refs detect the underinflated balls? It is there job to enforce the rule. What possible explanation can you give that does not undermine your position that Brady could have detected the difference during the game. There are so many possibilities of what could have happened here, some of which would find Brady and the Pats blameless. Am surprised that you, who by and large one of the smartest, most impartial, members, of this Blog, would just assume the worst about Brady and the Pats.
Unless you enjoy tweaking Pats fans. Then I get it, but am disappointed in you.
-
It's funny that everyone who is trying to dismiss this story has made impassioned arguments about why "It's not even a big deal, guys!" which has the net effect of keeping the story alive. It's like watching a child try to take the baseball home after an out because "I don't want to play anymore," and drawing even more attention to the out in the process.
Anyway, via deadspin. I laughed:
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--KPPWD73H--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/xhhtvpzeijlibqmrvc73.png)
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--5Y6jiH4b--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/iofx0tpxxqz6fiaixsby.png)
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--6POhWuyV--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/pmcalp2pdehuehpd7gqe.png)
http://deadspin.com/a-nation-divided-1681328140
-
It's funny that everyone who is trying to dismiss this story has made impassioned arguments about why "It's not even a big deal, guys!" which has the net effect of keeping the story alive. It's like watching a child try to take the baseball home after an out because "I don't want to play anymore," and drawing even more attention to the out in the process.
Anyway, via deadspin. I laughed:
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--KPPWD73H--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/xhhtvpzeijlibqmrvc73.png)
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--5Y6jiH4b--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/iofx0tpxxqz6fiaixsby.png)
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--6POhWuyV--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/pmcalp2pdehuehpd7gqe.png)
http://deadspin.com/a-nation-divided-1681328140
So what you're saying is that sports fans are rational beings? ;)
-
Also Roy, not sure if this has been posted yet, but a NON patriots source on ball firmness :)
The MMQB @theMMQB
· 17h 17 hours ago
Again, from our informal test, diff between 12.5 and 10.5 psi is practically imperceptible. 10.5 definitely not soft.
"Practically imperceptible" and "imperceptible" aren't equivalent.
Similarly, "not soft" doesn't equal "not softer".
haha ok. I mean I guess to me, if a guy who is only trying to tell the difference between a 12.5 and 10.5 psi ball thinks its practically imperceptible, it would be imperceptible for a guy who is trying to throw the ball with linemen bearing down on him or trying to catch a ball while protecting himself from impending doom from a safety.
Again, Brady himself acknowledged that he likes a 12.5 ball -- rather than 13.5 -- because of the grip.
How can anybody then argue that he can't tell the difference between a 12.5 ball and a 10.5 ball?
If Peter King could detect a difference (which he did), then why wouldn't the guy who meticulously selected the game balls earlier that day be able to tell?
Pats fans need to make up their minds: is this a case of "everyone is looking for an edge, and QBs do this all the time, so it's no big deal" or is it "Tom Brady, Golden Boy, would never bend the rules or lie to the media"?
Roy, your point is well taken, but I think the argument is that its one thing when before a game a QB is toying around with the balls, practicing with them, gripping them, throwing them, inspecting them, trying to detect little differences. But, it is then quite a different thing when in the heat of the game the ball is snapped to the QB, who either hands it off immediately or takes less than two seconds to pass to the ball. The weight and feel of the ball in the hand at that point is probably the last thing the QB is thinking of.
In addition, there's also no evidence that Brady ever used one of the deflated balls (there was a report of officials swapping out Pats balls for Colts balls), and its also not clear how underinflated the balls really were. The NFL will hopefully clear up these two points at some point soon (ie, which balls were played with and what the actual inflation was of all the balls).
Again, your point is well taken, and there is a lot of ex-post justification going on in this thread by Pats fans, myself included. But just want to point out why Brady's statements are not necessarily inconsistent, at least at this point in time given how little we know.
-
1. Its not a big deal because the supposed advantage gained is immaterial
I agree. Theoretically, this could make a difference, but it clearly didn't in the Colts game.
2. the media is blowing it out of proportion
Agreed. I think that's due to it being the lead up to the Super Bowl, along with the Patriots' history of cheating, but this isn't something that should be leading off the national evening news.
3. there is no evidence that the patriots did anything wrong
I disagree with you there. Circumstantial evidence is evidence. If only a couple of balls had been deflated, or if the Colts balls had been deflated, I'd agree. Based on what we've heard so far, though, I think that it's not that hard to follow the logic chain.
4. the supposed whistleblower said he didn't notice anything wrong with the football and wasn't the whistleblower
I see this as irrelevant. It's sloppy reporting by the media, but does it make a difference who pointed out the deflation?
5. Its annoying that the patriots get an extra level of scrutiny because they are good and consistently succeeding in a league that is designed to promote parody
Doesn't Spygate play a role here, along with some of the other unproven allegations (like the Patriots taping the Rams' practice, and knowing their calls put in place the week before the game)?
-
It's funny that everyone who is trying to dismiss this story has made impassioned arguments about why "It's not even a big deal, guys!" which has the net effect of keeping the story alive. It's like watching a child try to take the baseball home after an out because "I don't want to play anymore," and drawing even more attention to the out in the process.
Anyway, via deadspin. I laughed:
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--KPPWD73H--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/xhhtvpzeijlibqmrvc73.png)
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--5Y6jiH4b--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/iofx0tpxxqz6fiaixsby.png)
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--6POhWuyV--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/pmcalp2pdehuehpd7gqe.png)
http://deadspin.com/a-nation-divided-1681328140
Connecticut, you traitors....
-
It's funny that everyone who is trying to dismiss this story has made impassioned arguments about why "It's not even a big deal, guys!" which has the net effect of keeping the story alive. It's like watching a child try to take the baseball home after an out because "I don't want to play anymore," and drawing even more attention to the out in the process.
Anyway, via deadspin. I laughed:
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--KPPWD73H--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/xhhtvpzeijlibqmrvc73.png)
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--5Y6jiH4b--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/iofx0tpxxqz6fiaixsby.png)
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--6POhWuyV--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/pmcalp2pdehuehpd7gqe.png)
http://deadspin.com/a-nation-divided-1681328140
Connecticut, you traitors....
I liked one of the comments, "NE you poor Edited for profanity. Please do not do it again.s, even the oceans are against you"
-
1. Its not a big deal because the supposed advantage gained is immaterial
I agree. Theoretically, this could make a difference, but it clearly didn't in the Colts game.
2. the media is blowing it out of proportion
Agreed. I think that's due to it being the lead up to the Super Bowl, along with the Patriots' history of cheating, but this isn't something that should be leading off the national evening news.
3. there is no evidence that the patriots did anything wrong
I disagree with you there. Circumstantial evidence is evidence. If only a couple of balls had been deflated, or if the Colts balls had been deflated, I'd agree. Based on what we've heard so far, though, I think that it's not that hard to follow the logic chain.
4. the supposed whistleblower said he didn't notice anything wrong with the football and wasn't the whistleblower
I see this as irrelevant. It's sloppy reporting by the media, but does it make a difference who pointed out the deflation?
5. Its annoying that the patriots get an extra level of scrutiny because they are good and consistently succeeding in a league that is designed to promote parody
Doesn't Spygate play a role here, along with some of the other unproven allegations (like the Patriots taping the Rams' practice, and knowing their calls put in place the week before the game)?
Roy, if you grant that the media got it wrong in point 4, then can't you also consider that the media got it wrong on point 3? We are still waiting on confirmation from the NFL about how many balls were deflated and by how much.
-
It's funny that everyone who is trying to dismiss this story has made impassioned arguments about why "It's not even a big deal, guys!" which has the net effect of keeping the story alive. It's like watching a child try to take the baseball home after an out because "I don't want to play anymore," and drawing even more attention to the out in the process.
To me, it seems that Pats haters and those insisting that this is a huge deal and worthy of the death penalty are the ones keeping it alive.
-
It's funny that everyone who is trying to dismiss this story has made impassioned arguments about why "It's not even a big deal, guys!" which has the net effect of keeping the story alive. It's like watching a child try to take the baseball home after an out because "I don't want to play anymore," and drawing even more attention to the out in the process.
Anyway, via deadspin. I laughed:
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--KPPWD73H--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/xhhtvpzeijlibqmrvc73.png)
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--5Y6jiH4b--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/iofx0tpxxqz6fiaixsby.png)
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--6POhWuyV--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/pmcalp2pdehuehpd7gqe.png)
http://deadspin.com/a-nation-divided-1681328140
So what you're saying is that sports fans are rational beings? ;)
No, he's saying all those small-time local bookies in Revere should fly to Seattle for a couple of days.
-
1. Its not a big deal because the supposed advantage gained is immaterial
I agree. Theoretically, this could make a difference, but it clearly didn't in the Colts game.
2. the media is blowing it out of proportion
Agreed. I think that's due to it being the lead up to the Super Bowl, along with the Patriots' history of cheating, but this isn't something that should be leading off the national evening news.
3. there is no evidence that the patriots did anything wrong
I disagree with you there. Circumstantial evidence is evidence. If only a couple of balls had been deflated, or if the Colts balls had been deflated, I'd agree. Based on what we've heard so far, though, I think that it's not that hard to follow the logic chain.
4. the supposed whistleblower said he didn't notice anything wrong with the football and wasn't the whistleblower
I see this as irrelevant. It's sloppy reporting by the media, but does it make a difference who pointed out the deflation?
5. Its annoying that the patriots get an extra level of scrutiny because they are good and consistently succeeding in a league that is designed to promote parody
Doesn't Spygate play a role here, along with some of the other unproven allegations (like the Patriots taping the Rams' practice, and knowing their calls put in place the week before the game)?
Roy, if you grant that the media got it wrong in point 4, then can't you also consider that the media got it wrong on point 3? We are still waiting on confirmation from the NFL about how many balls were deflated and by how much.
On that I agree. If it turns out that 11 of the 12 balls were minorly non-conforming -- i.e., nowhere near the 2.0 psi that has been reported -- then I'll give the Pats the benefit of the doubt, and I think the league needs to, too.
I think that's unlikely -- this story has been out there for days, and the NFL has a vested interest in squashing the story if there's nothing to it -- but if it happens, then I'll concee the point.
-
It's funny that everyone who is trying to dismiss this story has made impassioned arguments about why "It's not even a big deal, guys!" which has the net effect of keeping the story alive. It's like watching a child try to take the baseball home after an out because "I don't want to play anymore," and drawing even more attention to the out in the process.
To me, it seems that Pats haters and those insisting that this is a huge deal and worthy of the death penalty are the ones keeping it alive.
It's both sides, and it's awful. At least it's friday, so we can look forward to the issue going to bed as the actual analysis starts to get rolled out.
-
It's funny that everyone who is trying to dismiss this story has made impassioned arguments about why "It's not even a big deal, guys!" which has the net effect of keeping the story alive. It's like watching a child try to take the baseball home after an out because "I don't want to play anymore," and drawing even more attention to the out in the process.
To me, it seems that Pats haters and those insisting that this is a huge deal and worthy of the death penalty are the ones keeping it alive.
It's both sides, and it's awful. At least it's friday, so we can look forward to the issue going to bed as the actual analysis starts to get rolled out.
\
It's definitely both sides. It's horrible.
Maybe the NFL will follow their M.O. and do a Friday 5pm news drop tonight. Wouldn't put it past them.
-
Mike Reiss has a nice summary of things here: http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4776939/piecing-it-all-together-on-deflated-footballs
I think his take is very reasonable. At this point, following the news conferences by TB and BB, its on the NFL to make a statement of some sort. BB, TB and the Patriots are having their reputations trashed by national media, all on a few tidbits of leaked but not verified information.
FOXBOROUGH, Mass. -- On Wednesday, we produced an "all thoughts in one place" entry on the topic of the New England Patriots and underinflated footballs. Two days later, after hearing from Bill Belichick and Tom Brady, let's do it again.
Still many unanswered questions. Despite a rush to judgment in some circles, there is incomplete information to analyze. This is the challenge of the 24/7 news cycle. Unfortunately, that hasn't stopped some from publicly questioning the integrity of Brady, which from this viewpoint, has crossed the line based on the credible information available.
Following up on Schefter's words. On Thursday morning, ESPN.com NFL Insider Adam Schefter said the following on "SportsCenter": "My understanding is that the league has had a tough time getting somebody to substantiate everything. Now, the footballs are the footballs. We have the evidence and they've found that some of the footballs were underinflated or deflated. But to figure out the process, who's responsible, why this happened, my understanding is that it's been difficult for the league to ascertain those facts so far. ... I think the feeling all week long has been that it may be until after the Super Bowl that we have any announcement of any discipline, if there is any that does come forward in this particular case."
Focus shifts to the NFL. The league is not commenting on its "review" at this point. Brady said Thursday that the league has not contacted him, which is somewhat curious. From this viewpoint, that's the obvious place where the focus should now shift. By acknowledging their "review" and investigation in the first place, the NFL has given this story a tidal wave of momentum over the last five days. Some more information and transparency from the NFL on what they have, what they're looking for, and their process (pregame, during the game, postgame) would add critical context to the discussion at a time when personal reputations and the brand of one of its franchises are at stake. That is, unless the NFL likes the idea that talk of deflated footballs is leading national network newscasts and adds an element of drama in the build-up to Super Bowl XLIX.
Belichick's news conference. The way Belichick approached his Thursday news conference was a surprise. The feeling here was that he would open by talking about the Seahawks, the great challenge they present, and then mention something at the end of the opening statement about the deflated footballs and how he can't comment based on a league investigation. That would have been consistent with his approach in most situations like these. Instead, he was detailed and addressed the issue head-on. It felt like he put all his cards on the table.
Brady's news conference. The general sense from this viewpoint was that media members felt like Brady was going to "fall on the sword" during his news conference. When he didn't, that led to a negative backlash in some circles. While everyone is searching for answers, that doesn't seem fair. The first question asked to this reporter in a radio interview on Thursday night was, "Do you believe Brady?" The answer: In 15 years covering Brady, there has been no reason to question his integrity. We should wait for some more information, specifically from the NFL, before we jump to this level of discussion.
A big disappointment. That sums up any personal feelings here. Also, it's time for the NFL to step up. If the Patriots are found guilty of any wrongdoing, hold them accountable and let's move on to talk about the game. If there is no evidence of wrongdoing at this point, say it, mention that the review is ongoing, and let's move on to talk about the game.
-
ESPN has taken down mortensen's initial report about this whole thing
-
ESPN has taken down mortensen's initial report about this whole thing
As in retracted or taken off their website. How did you gain this knowledge?
-
ESPN has taken down mortensen's initial report about this whole thing
How so?
http://espn.go.com/boston/story/_/id/12202450/nfl-says-new-england-patriots-had-inflated-footballs-afc-championship-game
-
ESPN has taken down mortensen's initial report about this whole thing
As in retracted or taken off their website. How did you gain this knowledge?
Ahh never mind its just been archived so its not easy to find anymore. some stuff floating around on twitter
-
Roy H. if ESPN did have to retract, like the Herald during Spygate, is there any type of civil litigation that the Patriots could pursue?
-
ESPN has taken down mortensen's initial report about this whole thing
As in retracted or taken off their website. How did you gain this knowledge?
Ahh never mind its just been archived so its not easy to find anymore. some stuff floating around on twitter
"Old News Story replaced by Newer News Stories" doesn't quite have the conspiratorial ring you're looking for?
-
ESPN has taken down mortensen's initial report about this whole thing
As in retracted or taken off their website. How did you gain this knowledge?
Ahh never mind its just been archived so its not easy to find anymore. some stuff floating around on twitter
"Old News Story replaced by Newer News Stories" doesn't quite have the conspiratorial ring you're looking for?
well too be fair, two separate people that I follow, one from 98.5 and one from a nfl draft site both said they couldn't find it anymore and said they thought it had been removed, one of those people then retweeted which I saw later a follower who pointed out it had been archived
-
Roy H. if ESPN did have to retract, like the Herald during Spygate, is there any type of civil litigation that the Patriots could pursue?
I don't practice defamation law, but it's my understanding that the Patriots and the members of the organization would be construed as public figures. With public figures, a plaintiff generally needs to prove more than just negligence. Rather, there needs to be proof that the publisher knew that the report it was making was false, or that the publisher recklessly regarded proper procedures in publishing the truth.
Publishing information from a reliable source that turns out to be false generally wouldn't be defamation.
-
ESPN has taken down mortensen's initial report about this whole thing
As in retracted or taken off their website. How did you gain this knowledge?
Ahh never mind its just been archived so its not easy to find anymore. some stuff floating around on twitter
"Old News Story replaced by Newer News Stories" doesn't quite have the conspiratorial ring you're looking for?
well too be fair, two separate people that I follow, one from 98.5 and one from a nfl draft site both said they couldn't find it anymore and said they thought it had been removed, one of those people then retweeted which I saw later a follower who pointed out it had been archived
Maybe you should start being more skeptical of those guys. ;) It literally took me less than 3 seconds to find the article on google.
God, I hate twitter.
-
ESPN has taken down mortensen's initial report about this whole thing
As in retracted or taken off their website. How did you gain this knowledge?
Ahh never mind its just been archived so its not easy to find anymore. some stuff floating around on twitter
"Old News Story replaced by Newer News Stories" doesn't quite have the conspiratorial ring you're looking for?
well too be fair, two separate people that I follow, one from 98.5 and one from a nfl draft site both said they couldn't find it anymore and said they thought it had been removed, one of those people then retweeted which I saw later a follower who pointed out it had been archived
Maybe you should start being more skeptical of those guys. ;) It literally took me less than 3 seconds to find the article on google.
God, I hate twitter.
I wanted it to be true Roy. Im biased
-
ESPN has taken down mortensen's initial report about this whole thing
As in retracted or taken off their website. How did you gain this knowledge?
Ahh never mind its just been archived so its not easy to find anymore. some stuff floating around on twitter
"Old News Story replaced by Newer News Stories" doesn't quite have the conspiratorial ring you're looking for?
well too be fair, two separate people that I follow, one from 98.5 and one from a nfl draft site both said they couldn't find it anymore and said they thought it had been removed, one of those people then retweeted which I saw later a follower who pointed out it had been archived
Maybe you should start being more skeptical of those guys. ;) It literally took me less than 3 seconds to find the article on google.
God, I hate twitter.
I wanted it to be true Roy. Im biased
Haha. Well, the standard of you sharing stuff on CelticsBlog should be a bit lower than somebody from a radio station stating it as a fact on twitter.
-
The refs were presented with balls and didn't do their due diligence in measuring the air. It's that simple, I think.
One of the major reasons I went with this theory is because of what Aaron Rogers said about over-inflating his footballs. The way he said it, suggested that sometimes he can sneak it by the refs who might just do a feel test instead of going the whole 9 yards with a gauge. Again, I think that's exactly what happened here. Brady presented his slightly under-inflated footballs to the refs, they gave it a feel test, and then said, "Good to go". Much to do about nothing.
Among the many people who had contact with the Patriots pigskin used in Sunday's AFC championship ? which were reportedly underinflated ? were the ball boys. And one former ball boy (who did not take part in Sunday's match) told NBC News that his goal was always to prepare the ball to the quarterback's preference and hope they passed inspection, and that it would have been very difficult to tamper with them afterward.
Eric Kester, who was a ball boy for the Chicago Bears in 2003, says he can't speculate about the controversy dubbed "Deflate-Gate," but he remembers how the preparation worked ? starting with the delivery of factory-fresh balls a few days before a game.
"We would then work with the quarterbacks to customize the balls to their liking. This involved scrubbing them with stiff horsehair brushes to rub off the leather's slippery silicone sheen, and occasionally inflating or deflating the balls a very small amount, which I believe is legal to a degree. Quarterbacks are very particular about the way a ball feels in their hand, and we worked meticulously to match their particular preferences," Kester said.
Two hours before kickoff, he would bring the balls to the referees' locker room for inspection.
"I recall them having a pressure gauge in the locker room, but most often they just squeezed the balls, turned them over in their hands a few times each, and inspected the laces. I don't recall them ever rejecting one of our balls," he said.
"My thought process was, 'Let's get the balls exactly the way our quarterback wants them, and if the refs reject one or two before the game, no big deal. But there's no harm giving them our ideal balls and hoping they make it through inspection.'"
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/super-bowl-xlix/deflate-gate-nfl-ball-boys-perspective-preparing-footballs-n290801
-
ESPN has taken down mortensen's initial report about this whole thing
As in retracted or taken off their website. How did you gain this knowledge?
Ahh never mind its just been archived so its not easy to find anymore. some stuff floating around on twitter
"Old News Story replaced by Newer News Stories" doesn't quite have the conspiratorial ring you're looking for?
well too be fair, two separate people that I follow, one from 98.5 and one from a nfl draft site both said they couldn't find it anymore and said they thought it had been removed, one of those people then retweeted which I saw later a follower who pointed out it had been archived
Maybe you should start being more skeptical of those guys. ;) It literally took me less than 3 seconds to find the article on google.
God, I hate twitter.
I wanted it to be true Roy. Im biased
Haha. Well, the standard of you sharing stuff on CelticsBlog should be a bit lower than somebody from a radio station stating it as a fact on twitter.
BREAKING: Admin encourages low standards when posting on CelticsBlog forum.
-
ESPN has taken down mortensen's initial report about this whole thing
As in retracted or taken off their website. How did you gain this knowledge?
Ahh never mind its just been archived so its not easy to find anymore. some stuff floating around on twitter
"Old News Story replaced by Newer News Stories" doesn't quite have the conspiratorial ring you're looking for?
well too be fair, two separate people that I follow, one from 98.5 and one from a nfl draft site both said they couldn't find it anymore and said they thought it had been removed, one of those people then retweeted which I saw later a follower who pointed out it had been archived
Maybe you should start being more skeptical of those guys. ;) It literally took me less than 3 seconds to find the article on google.
God, I hate twitter.
I wanted it to be true Roy. Im biased
Haha. Well, the standard of you sharing stuff on CelticsBlog should be a bit lower than somebody from a radio station stating it as a fact on twitter.
BREAKING: Admin encourages low standards when posting on CelticsBlog forum.
In fairness, ESPN has really done the lion's share of bar-lowering. Let's give credit where credit is due.
I did noticed that ESPN has fixed their current lead article on the subject, which until recently trumpeted the fact that the footballs "weighed two pounds less" as its smoking gun.
-
ESPN has taken down mortensen's initial report about this whole thing
As in retracted or taken off their website. How did you gain this knowledge?
Ahh never mind its just been archived so its not easy to find anymore. some stuff floating around on twitter
"Old News Story replaced by Newer News Stories" doesn't quite have the conspiratorial ring you're looking for?
well too be fair, two separate people that I follow, one from 98.5 and one from a nfl draft site both said they couldn't find it anymore and said they thought it had been removed, one of those people then retweeted which I saw later a follower who pointed out it had been archived
Maybe you should start being more skeptical of those guys. ;) It literally took me less than 3 seconds to find the article on google.
God, I hate twitter.
I wanted it to be true Roy. Im biased
Haha. Well, the standard of you sharing stuff on CelticsBlog should be a bit lower than somebody from a radio station stating it as a fact on twitter.
BREAKING: Admin encourages low standards when posting on CelticsBlog forum.
In fairness, ESPN has really done the lion's share of bar-lowering. Let's give credit where credit is due.
I did noticed that ESPN has fixed their current lead article on the subject, which until recently trumpeted the fact that the footballs "weighed two pounds less" as its smoking gun.
The echo chamber has been working overtime since Monday there.
The NFL Live spot with Bettis, Brunell, & Dawkins might take the cake.
EDIT: Actually, the more that I think about it, Kornheiser comparing Belichick to Whitey Bulger takes the cake.
-
Interesting read from the perspective of a ball boy for the Bears.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/super-bowl-xlix/deflate-gate-nfl-ball-boys-perspective-preparing-footballs-n290801
Two hours before kickoff, he would bring the balls to the referees' locker room for inspection.
"I recall them having a pressure gauge in the locker room, but most often they just squeezed the balls, turned them over in their hands a few times each, and inspected the laces. I don't recall them ever rejecting one of our balls," he said.
-
Interesting read from the perspective of a ball boy for the Bears.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/super-bowl-xlix/deflate-gate-nfl-ball-boys-perspective-preparing-footballs-n290801
Two hours before kickoff, he would bring the balls to the referees' locker room for inspection.
"I recall them having a pressure gauge in the locker room, but most often they just squeezed the balls, turned them over in their hands a few times each, and inspected the laces. I don't recall them ever rejecting one of our balls," he said.
Just posted this. "Hello this thing on?"
-
Interesting read from the perspective of a ball boy for the Bears.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/super-bowl-xlix/deflate-gate-nfl-ball-boys-perspective-preparing-footballs-n290801
Two hours before kickoff, he would bring the balls to the referees' locker room for inspection.
"I recall them having a pressure gauge in the locker room, but most often they just squeezed the balls, turned them over in their hands a few times each, and inspected the laces. I don't recall them ever rejecting one of our balls," he said.
Just posted this. "Hello this thing on?"
Haha my god im the worst!
-
Interesting read from the perspective of a ball boy for the Bears.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/super-bowl-xlix/deflate-gate-nfl-ball-boys-perspective-preparing-footballs-n290801
Two hours before kickoff, he would bring the balls to the referees' locker room for inspection.
"I recall them having a pressure gauge in the locker room, but most often they just squeezed the balls, turned them over in their hands a few times each, and inspected the laces. I don't recall them ever rejecting one of our balls," he said.
This is from 2003, hence before the rule was passed that allowed teams to bring in their own balls.
-
Interesting read from the perspective of a ball boy for the Bears.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/super-bowl-xlix/deflate-gate-nfl-ball-boys-perspective-preparing-footballs-n290801
Two hours before kickoff, he would bring the balls to the referees' locker room for inspection.
"I recall them having a pressure gauge in the locker room, but most often they just squeezed the balls, turned them over in their hands a few times each, and inspected the laces. I don't recall them ever rejecting one of our balls," he said.
This is from 2003, hence before the rule was passed that allowed teams to bring in their own balls.
Also another article that uses "two pounds" instead of "two pounds per square inch".
-
Clearly its credentials are unimpeachable.
-
3. there is no evidence that the patriots did anything wrong
I disagree with you there. Circumstantial evidence is evidence. If only a couple of balls had been deflated, or if the Colts balls had been deflated, I'd agree. Based on what we've heard so far, though, I think that it's not that hard to follow the logic chain.
For all we know, the Colts balls may have been inflated to 13.5 before the game, and Pats balls to 12.5. It IS possible for both balls to have lost about 1 PSI, in which case Pats balls could be non-conforming, while Colts balls would still be conforming. Given that the media has already gotten the whistleblower wrong, there's no guarantee they got the amounts right. We're talking about people who could't figure out that a football (13 to 15 oz in weight) cannot be "two pounds lighter" from deflation.
On a separate note, there's also the possibility that the Pats inflate their game balls in a manner to make sure they'll lose some pressure when they go outside on cold days (which I think may be a reason why they haven't been fully forthcoming in describing the exact process of preparing their game balls). Is this an actual wrongdoing? It doesn't involve any tampering with the footballs after they have been approved by the officials.
-
Also another article that uses "two pounds" instead of "two pounds per square inch".
That's not really a problem to me unless it's abundantly clear that the author believes a deflated football will be 2 lbs lighter in weight.
-
Also another article that uses "two pounds" instead of "two pounds per square inch".
That's not really a problem to me unless it's abundantly clear that the author believes a deflated football will be 2 lbs lighter in weight.
It's just a pet peeve of mine that I've seen out there in several media reports. Its a BIG difference.
-
On a separate note, there's also the possibility that the Pats inflate their game balls in a manner to make sure they'll lose some pressure when they go outside on cold days (which I think may be a reason why they haven't been fully forthcoming in describing the exact process of preparing their game balls). Is this an actual wrongdoing? It doesn't involve any tampering with the footballs after they have been approved by the officials.
To state the obvious, whether it is seen as wrongdoing or not will depend on whether you like the Patriots or not.
-
On a separate note, there's also the possibility that the Pats inflate their game balls in a manner to make sure they'll lose some pressure when they go outside on cold days (which I think may be a reason why they haven't been fully forthcoming in describing the exact process of preparing their game balls). Is this an actual wrongdoing? It doesn't involve any tampering with the footballs after they have been approved by the officials.
To state the obvious, whether it is seen as wrongdoing or not will depend on whether you like the Patriots or not.
What? It's almost certainly wrongdoing. Whether or not it deserves sanctioning is another matter entirely.
-
On a separate note, there's also the possibility that the Pats inflate their game balls in a manner to make sure they'll lose some pressure when they go outside on cold days (which I think may be a reason why they haven't been fully forthcoming in describing the exact process of preparing their game balls). Is this an actual wrongdoing? It doesn't involve any tampering with the footballs after they have been approved by the officials.
To state the obvious, whether it is seen as wrongdoing or not will depend on whether you like the Patriots or not.
Of course. But to me, once previously approved balls hit the field, the refs are in charge. If they determine a ball has become nonconforming, they must replace it or bring it to conforming level.
-
On a separate note, there's also the possibility that the Pats inflate their game balls in a manner to make sure they'll lose some pressure when they go outside on cold days (which I think may be a reason why they haven't been fully forthcoming in describing the exact process of preparing their game balls). Is this an actual wrongdoing? It doesn't involve any tampering with the footballs after they have been approved by the officials.
To state the obvious, whether it is seen as wrongdoing or not will depend on whether you like the Patriots or not.
What? It's almost certainly wrongdoing. Whether or not it deserves sanctioning is another matter entirely.
Oh, it is? The rulebook says that the sole authority on whether a ball is conforming is the officiating crew -- this is true at inspection, and over the course of the game. Now you're randomly instilling additional due diligence on the team? On what grounds? If balls have not been tampered with after approval, there is no violation. At least not the way the rulebook is written right now.
-
On the lighter side,
Terry Hendrix, an inmate in a Colorado correctional facility, has filed an $88 billion — that's billion with a "B" — lawsuit against the NFL over the reversal [on Dez Bryant's catch against Green Bay]. The total figure is $88,987,654,321.88, with both 88s presumably a reference to Bryant's uniform number.
In his handwritten petition, Hendrix, a prisoner at Fremont Correctional Center in Cańon City, Colorado, seeks the money for reasons including but not limited to "for but not limited to: negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and also wreckless [sic] disregard."
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/prisoner-sues-nfl-for--88-billion-over-dez-bryant-s-overturned-catch-154343589.html
-
On a separate note, there's also the possibility that the Pats inflate their game balls in a manner to make sure they'll lose some pressure when they go outside on cold days (which I think may be a reason why they haven't been fully forthcoming in describing the exact process of preparing their game balls). Is this an actual wrongdoing? It doesn't involve any tampering with the footballs after they have been approved by the officials.
To state the obvious, whether it is seen as wrongdoing or not will depend on whether you like the Patriots or not.
What? It's almost certainly wrongdoing. Whether or not it deserves sanctioning is another matter entirely.
Oh, it is? The rulebook says that the sole authority on whether a ball is conforming is the officiating crew -- this is true at inspection, and over the course of the game. Now you're randomly instilling additional due diligence on the team? On what grounds? If balls have not been tampered with after approval, there is no violation. At least not the way the rulebook is written right now.
Also known as the "it's only a crime if you get caught" mantra.
-
Also known as the "it's only a crime if you get caught" mantra.
As opposed to beating the hell of out a football in a commercial dryer, which is apparently just fine.
-
Some people thought the Celtics were cheating because they had a dead spot on the floor. People will twist facts and believe what they want to believe. The whole thing is silly.
-
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/01/bill-belichick-deflategate-tom-brady-super-bowl-press-conference-blame
The incompetence of national media is really pathetic sometimes. ::)
-
One question I have is...Did the refs actually check the psi of every ball or did they just do a Charmin squeeze test and say that they passed inspection?
-
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/01/bill-belichick-deflategate-tom-brady-super-bowl-press-conference-blame
The incompetence of national media is really pathetic sometimes. ::)
It's not as bad as another story on that site...
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/01/patriots-deflate-ball-super-bowl-disqualified-penalties-sanctions
Just a bunch of speculation and nonsense. None of the refs could tell that the balls were underinflated and even D'Qwell Jackson said that he didn't notice any difference in the football.
-
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/01/bill-belichick-deflategate-tom-brady-super-bowl-press-conference-blame
The incompetence of national media is really pathetic sometimes. ::)
It's not as bad as another story on that site...
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/01/patriots-deflate-ball-super-bowl-disqualified-penalties-sanctions
Just a bunch of speculation and nonsense. None of the refs could tell that the balls were underinflated and even D'Qwell Jackson said that he didn't notice any difference in the football.
Same author. Why am I not surprised he thinks that the balls were "found to be two-to-three pounds lighter". ::)
-
The refs were presented with balls and didn't do their due diligence in measuring the air. It's that simple, I think.
One of the major reasons I went with this theory is because of what Aaron Rogers said about over-inflating his footballs. The way he said it, suggested that sometimes he can sneak it by the refs who might just do a feel test instead of going the whole 9 yards with a gauge. Again, I think that's exactly what happened here. Brady presented his slightly under-inflated footballs to the refs, they gave it a feel test, and then said, "Good to go". Much to do about nothing.
Among the many people who had contact with the Patriots pigskin used in Sunday's AFC championship ? which were reportedly underinflated ? were the ball boys. And one former ball boy (who did not take part in Sunday's match) told NBC News that his goal was always to prepare the ball to the quarterback's preference and hope they passed inspection, and that it would have been very difficult to tamper with them afterward.
Eric Kester, who was a ball boy for the Chicago Bears in 2003, says he can't speculate about the controversy dubbed "Deflate-Gate," but he remembers how the preparation worked ? starting with the delivery of factory-fresh balls a few days before a game.
"We would then work with the quarterbacks to customize the balls to their liking. This involved scrubbing them with stiff horsehair brushes to rub off the leather's slippery silicone sheen, and occasionally inflating or deflating the balls a very small amount, which I believe is legal to a degree. Quarterbacks are very particular about the way a ball feels in their hand, and we worked meticulously to match their particular preferences," Kester said.
Two hours before kickoff, he would bring the balls to the referees' locker room for inspection.
"I recall them having a pressure gauge in the locker room, but most often they just squeezed the balls, turned them over in their hands a few times each, and inspected the laces. I don't recall them ever rejecting one of our balls," he said.
"My thought process was, 'Let's get the balls exactly the way our quarterback wants them, and if the refs reject one or two before the game, no big deal. But there's no harm giving them our ideal balls and hoping they make it through inspection.'"
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/super-bowl-xlix/deflate-gate-nfl-ball-boys-perspective-preparing-footballs-n290801
I agree. This is the crux of the issue. I have not read a single published report in which the NFL confirmed that the refs tested the PSI of each ball before the game.
It is not the obligation of the team presenting the balls to the refs to guaranty that they are between 12.5 and 13.5 psi. It is the obligation of the refs to ensure that they are. The team (i.e., the QB), picks out the balls he wants to use and hands them over to the refs for pre-testing before the game.
If anyone can point me to a published report that the PSI levels were tested before this game, please send me a link. I could not find any.
For those who don't believe Tom (Roy, etc.), if the NFL comes forward and says that the refs did not actually test the PSI levels before the game, would that change your view on whether or not it was likely that Brady was lying? Is Brady culpable if he approved a ball for use that was under inflated, if the protocol was not followed before the game of testing its PSI level? Legitimate question, I feel. I feel Mort's report on the balls lacked much important information, particularly this factor, and the fact that the NFL has remained silent about this issue (and has not even contacted Brady) makes me feel that the entire process of ball protection may not have been properly followed before the game.
-
Some people thought the Celtics were cheating because they had a dead spot on the floor. People will twist facts and believe what they want to believe. The whole thing is silly.
Or would turn up the heat in visitors' locker room, e.g., 1984 vs. Lakers. It's cheating, but since it is not governed by any rules in a league rule book, it does not get the same attention.
-
And out goes that theory:
According to an NFL source with direct knowledge of the situation, referee Walt Anderson inspected all 24 of the Patriots? footballs with a pressure gauge supplied by the league, as well as all 24 footballs from the Colts. All 48 footballs were found to be within the allowable range of 12.5-13.5 pounds per square inch.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/01/23/report-patriots-footballs-passed-pre-game-inspection-by-officials-deflategate/
-
My new theory.
The calibration of the machine used to test the footballs was off. Haha. Am I reaching?
This becomes a much bigger story if Bill Bellichick and Tom Brady are lying...
-
Everyone is doing it.
http://goo.gl/E953g7
-
And out goes that theory:
According to an NFL source with direct knowledge of the situation, referee Walt Anderson inspected all 24 of the Patriots? footballs with a pressure gauge supplied by the league, as well as all 24 footballs from the Colts. All 48 footballs were found to be within the allowable range of 12.5-13.5 pounds per square inch.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/01/23/report-patriots-footballs-passed-pre-game-inspection-by-officials-deflategate/
Also of note from this article:
Once the footballs were approved for game use, they remained in the locker room until about 10 minutes prior to kickoff, at which point the officials handed the footballs to the ballboys on each team.
-
I stand corrected. According to NFL site, the PSI levels were tested before the game.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/21/source-footballs-were-properly-checked-before-colts-patriots-game/
-
The NFL's statement on this:
While the evidence thus far supports the conclusion that footballs that were under-inflated were used by the Patriots in the first half, the footballs were properly inflated for the second half and confirmed at the conclusion of the game to have remained properly inflated. The goals of the investigation will be to determine the explanation for why footballs used in the game were not in compliance with the playing rules and specifically whether any noncompliance was the result of deliberate action. We have not made any judgments on these points and will not do so until we have concluded our investigation and considered all of the relevant evidence.
http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4776987/nfls-statement-on-patriots-investigation
-
The fun continues:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/23/nfl-issues-statement-on-deflategate-investigation/
So they've interviewed 40 people and neither of them was named Tom Brady. Can't say I'm impressed.
I was, however, hoping to see more about the specific levels of (under)inflation.
-
Finally the NFL speaks and not just in a whisper to ESPN.
-
The fun continues:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/23/nfl-issues-statement-on-deflategate-investigation/
So they've interviewed 40 people and neither of them was named Tom Brady. Can't say I'm impressed.
I was, however, hoping to see more about the specific levels of (under)inflation.
The best part is in the comments, where someone does the math.
What does it say about the collective iq of the American public, spending two weeks threshing over what could be explained with 5 minutes of arithmetic?
P = nRT/V
The change in pressure is thus proportional to the change in temperature,
The 75 degree locker room has an absolute temperature of 297o K
The 40 degree playing field has an absolute temperature of 283o K
The change in temperature of 14o K will thus cause a drop in pressure of 14/297 = 4.7%.
To translate this into a pressure change we must recall that football pressure is measured in gauge pressure, relative to the atmospheric pressure of 15 psi. So the absolute pressure within a football pumped to 13 psi is 13 +15 = 28psi absolute. The 4.7% drop applied to the absolute pressure gives a drop of 1.32 psi. Thus, the pressure within the football at game time will be only 13 -1.32 = 11.68 psi and thus well below regulation gauge pressure of 12.5-13.5psi. If they were just at 12.5psi to start they would be down by 1.3psi to 11.2psi by game time. And of course, a little pressure is lost every time you stick a needle in to check the pressure. Some guy on TV did this calculation but I think he forgot about absolute pressure vs gauge pressure and underestimated it.
It thus seems highly likely that the Patriots equipment manager checked all 12 balls in a warm locker room and they lost pressure merely by cooling off on the field. In addition, the cold rain would have accelerated the heat transfer out of the balls. Finally, if the indoor inflation air was very humid, there would be an additional loss of pressure due to water vapor condensation on the inside of the bladder as the temperature of the football dropped.
-
Finally the NFL speaks and not just in a whisper to ESPN.
Well, the NFL speaks, but doesn't say much.
-
The fun continues:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/23/nfl-issues-statement-on-deflategate-investigation/
So they've interviewed 40 people and neither of them was named Tom Brady. Can't say I'm impressed.
I was, however, hoping to see more about the specific levels of (under)inflation.
The best part is in the comments, where someone does the math.
What does it say about the collective iq of the American public, spending two weeks threshing over what could be explained with 5 minutes of arithmetic?
P = nRT/V
The change in pressure is thus proportional to the change in temperature,
The 75 degree locker room has an absolute temperature of 297o K
The 40 degree playing field has an absolute temperature of 283o K
The change in temperature of 14o K will thus cause a drop in pressure of 14/297 = 4.7%.
To translate this into a pressure change we must recall that football pressure is measured in gauge pressure, relative to the atmospheric pressure of 15 psi. So the absolute pressure within a football pumped to 13 psi is 13 +15 = 28psi absolute. The 4.7% drop applied to the absolute pressure gives a drop of 1.32 psi. Thus, the pressure within the football at game time will be only 13 -1.32 = 11.68 psi and thus well below regulation gauge pressure of 12.5-13.5psi. If they were just at 12.5psi to start they would be down by 1.3psi to 11.2psi by game time. And of course, a little pressure is lost every time you stick a needle in to check the pressure. Some guy on TV did this calculation but I think he forgot about absolute pressure vs gauge pressure and underestimated it.
It thus seems highly likely that the Patriots equipment manager checked all 12 balls in a warm locker room and they lost pressure merely by cooling off on the field. In addition, the cold rain would have accelerated the heat transfer out of the balls. Finally, if the indoor inflation air was very humid, there would be an additional loss of pressure due to water vapor condensation on the inside of the bladder as the temperature of the football dropped.
Yes, but you need to add that while the Pats balls might have been at 12.5 initially, the Colts balls were likely at 13.5 initially. That way you can account for the Colts balls dropping in pressure but still remaining in the appropriate range.
-
The best part is in the comments, where someone does the math.
What does it say about the collective iq of the American public, spending two weeks threshing over what could be explained with 5 minutes of arithmetic?
I'm still in shock over the fact that the five days from Sunday to Friday somehow constitutes two weeks. Looks like we can't count, either! ;)
-
The fun continues:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/23/nfl-issues-statement-on-deflategate-investigation/
So they've interviewed 40 people and neither of them was named Tom Brady. Can't say I'm impressed.
I was, however, hoping to see more about the specific levels of (under)inflation.
The best part is in the comments, where someone does the math.
What does it say about the collective iq of the American public, spending two weeks threshing over what could be explained with 5 minutes of arithmetic?
P = nRT/V
The change in pressure is thus proportional to the change in temperature,
The 75 degree locker room has an absolute temperature of 297o K
The 40 degree playing field has an absolute temperature of 283o K
The change in temperature of 14o K will thus cause a drop in pressure of 14/297 = 4.7%.
To translate this into a pressure change we must recall that football pressure is measured in gauge pressure, relative to the atmospheric pressure of 15 psi. So the absolute pressure within a football pumped to 13 psi is 13 +15 = 28psi absolute. The 4.7% drop applied to the absolute pressure gives a drop of 1.32 psi. Thus, the pressure within the football at game time will be only 13 -1.32 = 11.68 psi and thus well below regulation gauge pressure of 12.5-13.5psi. If they were just at 12.5psi to start they would be down by 1.3psi to 11.2psi by game time. And of course, a little pressure is lost every time you stick a needle in to check the pressure. Some guy on TV did this calculation but I think he forgot about absolute pressure vs gauge pressure and underestimated it.
It thus seems highly likely that the Patriots equipment manager checked all 12 balls in a warm locker room and they lost pressure merely by cooling off on the field. In addition, the cold rain would have accelerated the heat transfer out of the balls. Finally, if the indoor inflation air was very humid, there would be an additional loss of pressure due to water vapor condensation on the inside of the bladder as the temperature of the football dropped.
It says that everyone needs to go back to middle school? In addition to measuring temperature measured in Kelvins, pressure is measured in Pascals (which makes a difference when you're trying to equalize on percentage growth). Adjusting the calculations accordingly will make for a 1.75 PSI drop in the calculation cited in the forums.
-
Kraft's statement on NFL
http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4776995/robert-kraft-statement-on-investigation
note the "during the three days they were here." I find it odd that the NFL interviewed 40 people, was actually at the Patriots facility for three days, but now is gone, and haven't contacted Tom Brady.
-
Kraft's statement on NFL
http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4776995/robert-kraft-statement-on-investigation
note the "during the three days they were here." I find it odd that the NFL interviewed 40 people, was actually at the Patriots facility for three days, but now is gone, and haven't contacted Tom Brady.
It baffles my mind that they wouldn't interview Brady.
-
And out goes that theory:
According to an NFL source with direct knowledge of the situation, referee Walt Anderson inspected all 24 of the Patriots? footballs with a pressure gauge supplied by the league, as well as all 24 footballs from the Colts. All 48 footballs were found to be within the allowable range of 12.5-13.5 pounds per square inch.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/01/23/report-patriots-footballs-passed-pre-game-inspection-by-officials-deflategate/
How about this: Can anyone verify that Walt Anderson is telling the truth? I'm not saying he's lying, but did anyone witness him testing the balls? Maybe he messed up and is now lying to cover up his mistake.
-
And out goes that theory:
According to an NFL source with direct knowledge of the situation, referee Walt Anderson inspected all 24 of the Patriots? footballs with a pressure gauge supplied by the league, as well as all 24 footballs from the Colts. All 48 footballs were found to be within the allowable range of 12.5-13.5 pounds per square inch.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/01/23/report-patriots-footballs-passed-pre-game-inspection-by-officials-deflategate/
How about this: Can anyone verify that Walt Anderson is telling the truth? I'm not saying he's lying, but did anyone witness him testing the balls? Maybe he messed up and is now lying to cover up his mistake.
Lol.
-
Kraft's statement on NFL
http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4776995/robert-kraft-statement-on-investigation
note the "during the three days they were here." I find it odd that the NFL interviewed 40 people, was actually at the Patriots facility for three days, but now is gone, and haven't contacted Tom Brady.
It baffles my mind that they wouldn't interview Brady.
Maybe they're going to try to whitewash things again, like they did with Ray Rice. :P
-
Kraft's statement on NFL
http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4776995/robert-kraft-statement-on-investigation
note the "during the three days they were here." I find it odd that the NFL interviewed 40 people, was actually at the Patriots facility for three days, but now is gone, and haven't contacted Tom Brady.
It baffles my mind that they wouldn't interview Brady.
Maybe they're going to try to whitewash things again, like they did with Ray Rice. :P
Are they done interviewing people?
Yeah and everyone says that the NFL is blowing this out of proportion this to get "clicks" but I don't really see why they'd do that. You want people clicking on articles about how entertaining football is and how they should watch it and spend money on it, not that one of the teams playing for the championship is cheating. That would NOT turn me on to a sport.
-
Correct -- the NFL isn't pushing this. Media outlets who don't want to start Super Bowl coverage until this monday are doing it.
-
Correct -- the NFL isn't pushing this. Media outlets who don't want to start Super Bowl coverage until this monday are doing it.
But the NFL actually stopped a game to check the pressure of a football before the media knew anything was going on, and now they've interviewed 40 people. The media is eating this up, but only in response to what the NFL is doing.
The NFL is clearly trying to give the Colts (and the other non-Patriot teams) the impression that they are doing due diligence on any cheating allegations. Still not sure if they want to find anything or not though.
-
Correct -- the NFL isn't pushing this. Media outlets who don't want to start Super Bowl coverage until this monday are doing it.
But the NFL actually stopped a game to check the pressure of a football before the media knew anything was going on, and now they've interviewed 40 people. The media is eating this up, but only in response to what the NFL is doing.
The NFL is clearly trying to give the Colts (and the other non-Patriot teams) the impression that they are doing due diligence on any cheating allegations. Still not sure if they want to find anything or not though.
That's not what they did really. They simply swapped out a ball.
-
I am pretty happy that basically the group that looks like the bad guys here is clearly the media. They look incompetent, biased, petty, unknowledgable, etc.
They are seriously shooting themselves in the foot here.
-
Correct -- the NFL isn't pushing this. Media outlets who don't want to start Super Bowl coverage until this monday are doing it.
The NFL is clearly trying to give the fans the impression that they are doing due diligence on any cheating allegations. Still not sure if they want to find anything or not though.
Fixed that for you. ;)
-
Correct -- the NFL isn't pushing this. Media outlets who don't want to start Super Bowl coverage until this monday are doing it.
The NFL is clearly trying to give the fans the impression that they are doing due diligence on any cheating allegations. Still not sure if they want to find anything or not though.
Fixed that for you. ;)
Um no, if the colts had complained and they'd just said "who cares shut up" then the only way there is any fan/media uproar is if the colts use the fans and media to leverage the nfl into doing something.
This started before the fans or media knew anything and the only 3 parties who knew anything were the Pats (if they actually were deflating balls), the Colts and the NFL. One of those parties WANTED the fans to know about this. Which one do you think it is?
-
Correct -- the NFL isn't pushing this. Media outlets who don't want to start Super Bowl coverage until this monday are doing it.
The NFL is clearly trying to give the fans the impression that they are doing due diligence on any cheating allegations. Still not sure if they want to find anything or not though.
Fixed that for you. ;)
Um no, if the colts had complained and they'd just said "who cares shut up" then the only way there is any fan/media uproar is if the colts use the fans and media to leverage the nfl into doing something.
This started before the fans or media knew anything and the only 3 parties who knew anything were the Pats (if they actually were deflating balls), the Colts and the NFL. One of those parties WANTED the fans to know about this. Which one do you think it is?
You could add the Baltimore Ravens to that mix if you believe Jay Glazer's report from earlier this week.
-
The Pats are going to need an obscure rule guy going forward whose job it will be to help the staff find things to accuse the other team of. We think they might have caffein in their gatorade. We think the microphone in the QBs helmet might be too loud. We think they aren't using a regulation tee. Stuff like that.
Never accuse back. Always accuse first.
-
The fun continues:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/23/nfl-issues-statement-on-deflategate-investigation/
So they've interviewed 40 people and neither of them was named Tom Brady. Can't say I'm impressed.
I was, however, hoping to see more about the specific levels of (under)inflation.
The best part is in the comments, where someone does the math.
What does it say about the collective iq of the American public, spending two weeks threshing over what could be explained with 5 minutes of arithmetic?
P = nRT/V
The change in pressure is thus proportional to the change in temperature,
The 75 degree locker room has an absolute temperature of 297o K
The 40 degree playing field has an absolute temperature of 283o K
The change in temperature of 14o K will thus cause a drop in pressure of 14/297 = 4.7%.
To translate this into a pressure change we must recall that football pressure is measured in gauge pressure, relative to the atmospheric pressure of 15 psi. So the absolute pressure within a football pumped to 13 psi is 13 +15 = 28psi absolute. The 4.7% drop applied to the absolute pressure gives a drop of 1.32 psi. Thus, the pressure within the football at game time will be only 13 -1.32 = 11.68 psi and thus well below regulation gauge pressure of 12.5-13.5psi. If they were just at 12.5psi to start they would be down by 1.3psi to 11.2psi by game time. And of course, a little pressure is lost every time you stick a needle in to check the pressure. Some guy on TV did this calculation but I think he forgot about absolute pressure vs gauge pressure and underestimated it.
It thus seems highly likely that the Patriots equipment manager checked all 12 balls in a warm locker room and they lost pressure merely by cooling off on the field. In addition, the cold rain would have accelerated the heat transfer out of the balls. Finally, if the indoor inflation air was very humid, there would be an additional loss of pressure due to water vapor condensation on the inside of the bladder as the temperature of the football dropped.
TP, that was very informative.
Where did you get that quote? Seems like this is the most logical explanation of what happened.
-
Sort of feels like the league wants to avoid having to make a ruling before the Super Bowl.
-
Correct -- the NFL isn't pushing this. Media outlets who don't want to start Super Bowl coverage until this monday are doing it.
The NFL is clearly trying to give the fans the impression that they are doing due diligence on any cheating allegations. Still not sure if they want to find anything or not though.
Fixed that for you. ;)
Um no, if the colts had complained and they'd just said "who cares shut up" then the only way there is any fan/media uproar is if the colts use the fans and media to leverage the nfl into doing something.
This started before the fans or media knew anything and the only 3 parties who knew anything were the Pats (if they actually were deflating balls), the Colts and the NFL. One of those parties WANTED the fans to know about this. Which one do you think it is?
You could add the Baltimore Ravens to that mix if you believe Jay Glazer's report from earlier this week.
As a Ravens fan I've followed their reaction closely. This was the latest bit of news:
Canty disputed a CBS Sports report that the Ravens believe the kicking balls used in the Ravens' Jan. 10 playoff loss at New England were underinflated, and coach John Harbaugh said Wednesday that the Ravens "didn't notice anything" about the condition of Patriots' footballs used in that same game.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12210318/chris-canty-baltimore-ravens-says-new-england-patriots-habitual-line-steppers
-
Correct -- the NFL isn't pushing this. Media outlets who don't want to start Super Bowl coverage until this monday are doing it.
The NFL is clearly trying to give the fans the impression that they are doing due diligence on any cheating allegations. Still not sure if they want to find anything or not though.
Fixed that for you. ;)
Um no, if the colts had complained and they'd just said "who cares shut up" then the only way there is any fan/media uproar is if the colts use the fans and media to leverage the nfl into doing something.
This started before the fans or media knew anything and the only 3 parties who knew anything were the Pats (if they actually were deflating balls), the Colts and the NFL. One of those parties WANTED the fans to know about this. Which one do you think it is?
You could add the Baltimore Ravens to that mix if you believe Jay Glazer's report from earlier this week.
As a Ravens fan I've followed their reaction closely. This was the latest bit of news:
Canty disputed a CBS Sports report that the Ravens believe the kicking balls used in the Ravens' Jan. 10 playoff loss at New England were underinflated, and coach John Harbaugh said Wednesday that the Ravens "didn't notice anything" about the condition of Patriots' footballs used in that same game.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12210318/chris-canty-baltimore-ravens-says-new-england-patriots-habitual-line-steppers
Canty is disputing the CBS report. I'm talking about Jay Glazer (Fox Sports) who reported that the Ravens tipped off the Colts.
-
In a nutshell, no-one really wants to own up to pointing a finger, do they?
-
The fun continues:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/23/nfl-issues-statement-on-deflategate-investigation/
So they've interviewed 40 people and neither of them was named Tom Brady. Can't say I'm impressed.
I was, however, hoping to see more about the specific levels of (under)inflation.
The best part is in the comments, where someone does the math.
What does it say about the collective iq of the American public, spending two weeks threshing over what could be explained with 5 minutes of arithmetic?
P = nRT/V
The change in pressure is thus proportional to the change in temperature,
The 75 degree locker room has an absolute temperature of 297o K
The 40 degree playing field has an absolute temperature of 283o K
The change in temperature of 14o K will thus cause a drop in pressure of 14/297 = 4.7%.
To translate this into a pressure change we must recall that football pressure is measured in gauge pressure, relative to the atmospheric pressure of 15 psi. So the absolute pressure within a football pumped to 13 psi is 13 +15 = 28psi absolute. The 4.7% drop applied to the absolute pressure gives a drop of 1.32 psi. Thus, the pressure within the football at game time will be only 13 -1.32 = 11.68 psi and thus well below regulation gauge pressure of 12.5-13.5psi. If they were just at 12.5psi to start they would be down by 1.3psi to 11.2psi by game time. And of course, a little pressure is lost every time you stick a needle in to check the pressure. Some guy on TV did this calculation but I think he forgot about absolute pressure vs gauge pressure and underestimated it.
It thus seems highly likely that the Patriots equipment manager checked all 12 balls in a warm locker room and they lost pressure merely by cooling off on the field. In addition, the cold rain would have accelerated the heat transfer out of the balls. Finally, if the indoor inflation air was very humid, there would be an additional loss of pressure due to water vapor condensation on the inside of the bladder as the temperature of the football dropped.
TP, that was very informative.
Where did you get that quote? Seems like this is the most logical explanation of what happened.
Thats all very scientific and all but why then were the Colts balls not deflated?
-
Thats all very scientific and all but why then were the Colts balls not deflated?
1. Could have been inflated in a colder room (or outside) to begin with.
2. Could have been inflated to max pressure.
3. Some combination of 1. and 2.
-
The fun continues:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/23/nfl-issues-statement-on-deflategate-investigation/
So they've interviewed 40 people and neither of them was named Tom Brady. Can't say I'm impressed.
I was, however, hoping to see more about the specific levels of (under)inflation.
The best part is in the comments, where someone does the math.
What does it say about the collective iq of the American public, spending two weeks threshing over what could be explained with 5 minutes of arithmetic?
P = nRT/V
The change in pressure is thus proportional to the change in temperature,
The 75 degree locker room has an absolute temperature of 297o K
The 40 degree playing field has an absolute temperature of 283o K
The change in temperature of 14o K will thus cause a drop in pressure of 14/297 = 4.7%.
To translate this into a pressure change we must recall that football pressure is measured in gauge pressure, relative to the atmospheric pressure of 15 psi. So the absolute pressure within a football pumped to 13 psi is 13 +15 = 28psi absolute. The 4.7% drop applied to the absolute pressure gives a drop of 1.32 psi. Thus, the pressure within the football at game time will be only 13 -1.32 = 11.68 psi and thus well below regulation gauge pressure of 12.5-13.5psi. If they were just at 12.5psi to start they would be down by 1.3psi to 11.2psi by game time. And of course, a little pressure is lost every time you stick a needle in to check the pressure. Some guy on TV did this calculation but I think he forgot about absolute pressure vs gauge pressure and underestimated it.
It thus seems highly likely that the Patriots equipment manager checked all 12 balls in a warm locker room and they lost pressure merely by cooling off on the field. In addition, the cold rain would have accelerated the heat transfer out of the balls. Finally, if the indoor inflation air was very humid, there would be an additional loss of pressure due to water vapor condensation on the inside of the bladder as the temperature of the football dropped.
TP, that was very informative.
Where did you get that quote? Seems like this is the most logical explanation of what happened.
thanks back at ya.
it came from the comments section on kozlodoev's NFL page link above, just some fan who remembers high school physics.
I'll be interesting to see if the NFL's investigators also get around to sharing their math, or stick with the un-founded accusation thing.
Thats all very scientific and all but why then were the Colts balls not deflated?
The Pats admitted their balls started at the minimum, 12.5psi. Do we know what the starting PSI was of the Colts ball?
We also don't know the relative humidity of either locker rooms at the time of inflation, another legitimate variable to the physics involved.
-
Thats all very scientific and all but why then were the Colts balls not deflated?
1. Could have been inflated in a colder room (or outside) to begin with.
2. Could have been inflated to max pressure.
3. Some combination of 1. and 2.
Or 4.) they were ratting on the Patriots since November and figured this would be when the NFL would look into their accusations, so they went out of their way to make sure their balls were up to code that week
-
A very basic back-of-the-envelope math in Excel shows that accounting solely for temperature changes (so assuming constant humidity), if the temperature on the field was 50F, a ball inflated to 13.5 will still be at regulation pressure if it was inflated at temperatures of 68.5F or cooler.
Correspondingly, a ball that was inflated to 12.5 will lose 1 PSI if it were inflated at 69.25 degrees, and 2 PSI if it were inflated at 90F.
My point is that I can easily see the Pats taking the ball inflation process to, say, an 80F laundry room, which is likely to result in about a 1.5 PSI drop in game conditions -- something that is technically not against the letter of the law, but to which the team will never admit publicly.
-
Correct -- the NFL isn't pushing this. Media outlets who don't want to start Super Bowl coverage until this monday are doing it.
The NFL is clearly trying to give the fans the impression that they are doing due diligence on any cheating allegations. Still not sure if they want to find anything or not though.
Fixed that for you. ;)
Um no, if the colts had complained and they'd just said "who cares shut up" then the only way there is any fan/media uproar is if the colts use the fans and media to leverage the nfl into doing something.
This started before the fans or media knew anything and the only 3 parties who knew anything were the Pats (if they actually were deflating balls), the Colts and the NFL. One of those parties WANTED the fans to know about this. Which one do you think it is?
It was the Colts. We know this, because we know the chain of operations in this case:
http://www.newsday.com/sports/football/super-bowl/nfl-opens-patriots-deflated-football-probe-after-afc-championship-win-1.9821346
According to a person familiar with the background of the matter, the Colts first noticed something unusual after an interception by Colts linebacker D’Qwell Jackson in the second quarter. Jackson gave the ball to a member of the Colts' equipment staff, who noticed the ball seemed underinflated and then notified coach Chuck Pagano.
General manager Ryan Grigson was notified in the press box, and he contacted Mike Kensil, NFL director of football operations. Kensil then told the on-field officials at halftime, when the Patriots led 17-7.
And we know that The NFL did not leak the infomation to a local Indianapolis reporter, WTHR's Bob Kravitz, who was the first one to share it with the general public:
https://twitter.com/bkravitz/status/557053826415755265
Out of your three groups, which one seems the most likely to share that info with that reporter? If you don't answer the Colts, you might want to stop playing football, as your brain may already be showing signs of damage. :)
-
It was the Colts. We know this, because we know the chain of operations in this case:
http://www.newsday.com/sports/football/super-bowl/nfl-opens-patriots-deflated-football-probe-after-afc-championship-win-1.9821346
According to a person familiar with the background of the matter, the Colts first noticed something unusual after an interception by Colts linebacker D’Qwell Jackson in the second quarter. Jackson gave the ball to a member of the Colts' equipment staff, who noticed the ball seemed underinflated and then notified coach Chuck Pagano.
General manager Ryan Grigson was notified in the press box, and he contacted Mike Kensil, NFL director of football operations. Kensil then told the on-field officials at halftime, when the Patriots led 17-7.
And we know that The NFL did not leak the infomation to a local Indianapolis reporter, WTHR's Bob Kravitz, who was the first one to share it with the general public:
https://twitter.com/bkravitz/status/557053826415755265
Out of your three groups, which one seems the most likely to share that info with that reporter? If you don't answer the Colts, you might want to stop playing football, as your brain may already be showing signs of damage. :)
I'm saying it was the Colts. I'm saying the Colts thought the Pats were cheating so the told the NFL and leveraged the public and now the NFL is at least giving the impression that they are doing something about it for the sake of the team that is pressuring them.
This should be in direct contradiction to your point that this was all just manufactured by the media so they can manufacture fan outrage.
A very basic back-of-the-envelope math in Excel shows that accounting solely for temperature changes (so assuming constant humidity), if the temperature on the field was 50F, a ball inflated to 13.5 will still be at regulation pressure if it was inflated at temperatures of 68.5F or cooler.
Correspondingly, a ball that was inflated to 12.5 will lose 1 PSI if it were inflated at 69.25 degrees, and 2 PSI if it were inflated at 90F.
My point is that I can easily see the Pats taking the ball inflation process to, say, an 80F laundry room, which is likely to result in about a 1.5 PSI drop in game conditions -- something that is technically not against the letter of the law, but to which the team will never admit publicly.
Based on what we know now I think this is most likely what happened.
-
It was the Colts. We know this, because we know the chain of operations in this case:
http://www.newsday.com/sports/football/super-bowl/nfl-opens-patriots-deflated-football-probe-after-afc-championship-win-1.9821346
According to a person familiar with the background of the matter, the Colts first noticed something unusual after an interception by Colts linebacker D’Qwell Jackson in the second quarter. Jackson gave the ball to a member of the Colts' equipment staff, who noticed the ball seemed underinflated and then notified coach Chuck Pagano.
General manager Ryan Grigson was notified in the press box, and he contacted Mike Kensil, NFL director of football operations. Kensil then told the on-field officials at halftime, when the Patriots led 17-7.
And we know that The NFL did not leak the infomation to a local Indianapolis reporter, WTHR's Bob Kravitz, who was the first one to share it with the general public:
https://twitter.com/bkravitz/status/557053826415755265
Out of your three groups, which one seems the most likely to share that info with that reporter? If you don't answer the Colts, you might want to stop playing football, as your brain may already be showing signs of damage. :)
I'm saying it was the Colts. I'm saying the Colts thought the Pats were cheating so the told the NFL and leveraged the public and now the NFL is at least giving the impression that they are doing something about it for the sake of the team that is pressuring them.
This should be in direct contradiction to your point that this was all just manufactured by the media so they can manufacture fan outrage.
Sorry, I misunderstood, but the NFL isn't making things public to placate the Colts. It's a fundamental mistake to think so on your part.
-
Sorry, I misunderstood, but the NFL isn't making things public to placate the Colts. It's a fundamental mistake to think so on your part.
No I think the NFL is openly and (ostensibly) thoroughly investigating this to placate the Colts. Not to placate the fans.
-
Yeah, I'm aware that you think that. That's the fundamental mistake I was referring to. ;D
It appears we've reached "yes it is/no it isn't," though, so I'll give you a TP and look forward to a deflategate free weekend. Cheers!
-
ESPN is really dumb. They start sportscenter saying someone stole 2 lbs of air from the football. That's your lead anchor ESPN, good to know they know what they are talking about ........
-
ESPN is really dumb. They start sportscenter saying someone stole 2 lbs of air from the football. That's your lead anchor ESPN, good to know they know what they are talking about ........
The sad thing is that it seems as if ESPN started going south as far as Sports Journalism - as soon as Stuart Scott started getting sick and lessening his appearances.
I remember the days when he and Rich Eisen just reported on Sports and facts...not controversy and rumors. Those days are long gone :(
Sure - Mr. Scott was very dramatic...lively, whatever. But it just seemed to me he had a lot of credence to his reporting.
-
ESPN is really dumb. They start sportscenter saying someone stole 2 lbs of air from the football. That's your lead anchor ESPN, good to know they know what they are talking about ........
The sad thing is that it seems as if ESPN started going south as far as Sports Journalism - as soon as Stuart Scott started getting sick and lessening his appearances.
I remember the days when he and Rich Eisen just reported on Sports and facts...not controversy and rumors. Those days are long gone :(
Sure - Mr. Scott was very dramatic...lively, whatever. But it just seemed to me he had a lot of credence to his reporting.
Funny you should mention Scott, because I was just thinking about him. His early death was unfortunate, but I never liked his anchoring style—over the top, and I always felt that he was trying to be funny (like many earlier SC anchors such as Kilborn) but just wasn't.
-
ESPN is really dumb. They start sportscenter saying someone stole 2 lbs of air from the football. That's your lead anchor ESPN, good to know they know what they are talking about ........
The sad thing is that it seems as if ESPN started going south as far as Sports Journalism - as soon as Stuart Scott started getting sick and lessening his appearances.
I remember the days when he and Rich Eisen just reported on Sports and facts...not controversy and rumors. Those days are long gone :(
Sure - Mr. Scott was very dramatic...lively, whatever. But it just seemed to me he had a lot of credence to his reporting.
Funny you should mention Scott, because I was just thinking about him. His early death was unfortunate, but I never liked his anchoring style—over the top, and I always felt that he was trying to be funny (like many earlier SC anchors such as Kilborn) but just wasn't.
I remember Stuart as being as trailblazer...he paved the way for the Shaq's, Charles, etc - to be comfortable on TV speaking the way they wanted. Stuart was bold...he was comfortable in his own skin back during a time in TV when that wasn't looked at fondly.
And he didn't do The Decision.
And I just don't remember him in the middle of mess like DeflateGate and others, lol.
As bold as his style was, he always had a sense of realness to it - unlike the stuff we're seeing with DeflateGate.
-
ESPN is really dumb. They start sportscenter saying someone stole 2 lbs of air from the football. That's your lead anchor ESPN, good to know they know what they are talking about ........
The sad thing is that it seems as if ESPN started going south as far as Sports Journalism - as soon as Stuart Scott started getting sick and lessening his appearances.
I remember the days when he and Rich Eisen just reported on Sports and facts...not controversy and rumors. Those days are long gone :(
Sure - Mr. Scott was very dramatic...lively, whatever. But it just seemed to me he had a lot of credence to his reporting.
Funny you should mention Scott, because I was just thinking about him. His early death was unfortunate, but I never liked his anchoring style—over the top, and I always felt that he was trying to be funny (like many earlier SC anchors such as Kilborn) but just wasn't.
I remember Stuart as being as trailblazer...he paved the way for the Shaq's, Charles, etc - to be comfortable on TV speaking the way they wanted. Stuart was bold...he was comfortable in his own skin back during a time in TV when that wasn't looked at fondly.
And he didn't do The Decision.
And I just don't remember him in the middle of mess like DeflateGate and others, lol.
As bold as his style was, he always had a sense of realness to it - unlike the stuff we're seeing with DeflateGate.
He definitely wasn't a sensationalist—as you said, he wasn't part of the The Decision or any other junk like that. I just didn't think he was funny.
-
ESPN is really dumb. They start sportscenter saying someone stole 2 lbs of air from the football. That's your lead anchor ESPN, good to know they know what they are talking about ........
The sad thing is that it seems as if ESPN started going south as far as Sports Journalism - as soon as Stuart Scott started getting sick and lessening his appearances.
I remember the days when he and Rich Eisen just reported on Sports and facts...not controversy and rumors. Those days are long gone :(
Sure - Mr. Scott was very dramatic...lively, whatever. But it just seemed to me he had a lot of credence to his reporting.
Funny you should mention Scott, because I was just thinking about him. His early death was unfortunate, but I never liked his anchoring style—over the top, and I always felt that he was trying to be funny (like many earlier SC anchors such as Kilborn) but just wasn't.
I remember Stuart as being as trailblazer...he paved the way for the Shaq's, Charles, etc - to be comfortable on TV speaking the way they wanted. Stuart was bold...he was comfortable in his own skin back during a time in TV when that wasn't looked at fondly.
And he didn't do The Decision.
And I just don't remember him in the middle of mess like DeflateGate and others, lol.
As bold as his style was, he always had a sense of realness to it - unlike the stuff we're seeing with DeflateGate.
He definitely wasn't a sensationalist—as you said, he wasn't part of the The Decision or any other junk like that. I just didn't think he was funny.
He was a complete hack, just like every other anchor on ESPN. They try to be funny , but come off as phony morons .
-
ESPN is really dumb. They start sportscenter saying someone stole 2 lbs of air from the football. That's your lead anchor ESPN, good to know they know what they are talking about ........
The sad thing is that it seems as if ESPN started going south as far as Sports Journalism - as soon as Stuart Scott started getting sick and lessening his appearances.
I remember the days when he and Rich Eisen just reported on Sports and facts...not controversy and rumors. Those days are long gone :(
Sure - Mr. Scott was very dramatic...lively, whatever. But it just seemed to me he had a lot of credence to his reporting.
Funny you should mention Scott, because I was just thinking about him. His early death was unfortunate, but I never liked his anchoring style—over the top, and I always felt that he was trying to be funny (like many earlier SC anchors such as Kilborn) but just wasn't.
I remember Stuart as being as trailblazer...he paved the way for the Shaq's, Charles, etc - to be comfortable on TV speaking the way they wanted. Stuart was bold...he was comfortable in his own skin back during a time in TV when that wasn't looked at fondly.
And he didn't do The Decision.
And I just don't remember him in the middle of mess like DeflateGate and others, lol.
As bold as his style was, he always had a sense of realness to it - unlike the stuff we're seeing with DeflateGate.
He definitely wasn't a sensationalist—as you said, he wasn't part of the The Decision or any other junk like that. I just didn't think he was funny.
He was a complete hack, just like every other anchor on ESPN. They try to be funny , but come off as phony morons .
I thought some of them were funny—Craig Kilborn and Dan Patrick, for example (at least, I did when I was in college 16+ years ago; don't know if I'd still find them funny). Scott, however, just aggravated me with his urban lingo and his one eyebrow cocked high.
-
ESPN is really dumb. They start sportscenter saying someone stole 2 lbs of air from the football. That's your lead anchor ESPN, good to know they know what they are talking about ........
The sad thing is that it seems as if ESPN started going south as far as Sports Journalism - as soon as Stuart Scott started getting sick and lessening his appearances.
I remember the days when he and Rich Eisen just reported on Sports and facts...not controversy and rumors. Those days are long gone :(
Sure - Mr. Scott was very dramatic...lively, whatever. But it just seemed to me he had a lot of credence to his reporting.
Funny you should mention Scott, because I was just thinking about him. His early death was unfortunate, but I never liked his anchoring style—over the top, and I always felt that he was trying to be funny (like many earlier SC anchors such as Kilborn) but just wasn't.
I remember Stuart as being as trailblazer...he paved the way for the Shaq's, Charles, etc - to be comfortable on TV speaking the way they wanted. Stuart was bold...he was comfortable in his own skin back during a time in TV when that wasn't looked at fondly.
And he didn't do The Decision.
And I just don't remember him in the middle of mess like DeflateGate and others, lol.
As bold as his style was, he always had a sense of realness to it - unlike the stuff we're seeing with DeflateGate.
He definitely wasn't a sensationalist—as you said, he wasn't part of the The Decision or any other junk like that. I just didn't think he was funny.
He was a complete hack, just like every other anchor on ESPN. They try to be funny , but come off as phony morons .
LOL I certainly don't remember him like that. Don't get his STYLE confused with the drivel that's ESPN at the moment.
But at the heart of deflategate is JEALOUSY.
The former players (Bettis, etc, etc) that are throwing Brady and NE under the bus are just jealous.
The Patriots have been perennial contenders for the last 15 years it seems. That is a LONG time of dominance. Even the years when NE exited early, there was always a sense that Brady and Co "could" be playing in Feb.
That period of dominance has evidently bred some haters, lol.....and a lot of sensationalism and wanting to see someone fail like Brady.
Get over it, haters...I'm a lifelong Redskins Fan, and The Patriots have been the symbol of contention for the last 15 years. Hopefully WE can do the same here, soon.
-
ESPN is really dumb. They start sportscenter saying someone stole 2 lbs of air from the football. That's your lead anchor ESPN, good to know they know what they are talking about ........
The sad thing is that it seems as if ESPN started going south as far as Sports Journalism - as soon as Stuart Scott started getting sick and lessening his appearances.
I remember the days when he and Rich Eisen just reported on Sports and facts...not controversy and rumors. Those days are long gone :(
Sure - Mr. Scott was very dramatic...lively, whatever. But it just seemed to me he had a lot of credence to his reporting.
Funny you should mention Scott, because I was just thinking about him. His early death was unfortunate, but I never liked his anchoring style—over the top, and I always felt that he was trying to be funny (like many earlier SC anchors such as Kilborn) but just wasn't.
I remember Stuart as being as trailblazer...he paved the way for the Shaq's, Charles, etc - to be comfortable on TV speaking the way they wanted. Stuart was bold...he was comfortable in his own skin back during a time in TV when that wasn't looked at fondly.
And he didn't do The Decision.
And I just don't remember him in the middle of mess like DeflateGate and others, lol.
As bold as his style was, he always had a sense of realness to it - unlike the stuff we're seeing with DeflateGate.
He definitely wasn't a sensationalist—as you said, he wasn't part of the The Decision or any other junk like that. I just didn't think he was funny.
He was a complete hack, just like every other anchor on ESPN. They try to be funny , but come off as phony morons .
I thought some of them were funny—Craig Kilborn and Dan Patrick, for example (at least, I did when I was in college 16+ years ago; don't know if I'd still find them funny). Scott, however, just aggravated me with his urban lingo and his one eyebrow cocked high.
Stewart Scott's style was basically just copying Will Smith's Fresh Prince character/persona .
-
ESPN is really dumb. They start sportscenter saying someone stole 2 lbs of air from the football. That's your lead anchor ESPN, good to know they know what they are talking about ........
The sad thing is that it seems as if ESPN started going south as far as Sports Journalism - as soon as Stuart Scott started getting sick and lessening his appearances.
I remember the days when he and Rich Eisen just reported on Sports and facts...not controversy and rumors. Those days are long gone :(
Sure - Mr. Scott was very dramatic...lively, whatever. But it just seemed to me he had a lot of credence to his reporting.
Funny you should mention Scott, because I was just thinking about him. His early death was unfortunate, but I never liked his anchoring style—over the top, and I always felt that he was trying to be funny (like many earlier SC anchors such as Kilborn) but just wasn't.
I remember Stuart as being as trailblazer...he paved the way for the Shaq's, Charles, etc - to be comfortable on TV speaking the way they wanted. Stuart was bold...he was comfortable in his own skin back during a time in TV when that wasn't looked at fondly.
And he didn't do The Decision.
And I just don't remember him in the middle of mess like DeflateGate and others, lol.
As bold as his style was, he always had a sense of realness to it - unlike the stuff we're seeing with DeflateGate.
He definitely wasn't a sensationalist—as you said, he wasn't part of the The Decision or any other junk like that. I just didn't think he was funny.
He was a complete hack, just like every other anchor on ESPN. They try to be funny , but come off as phony morons .
I thought some of them were funny—Craig Kilborn and Dan Patrick, for example (at least, I did when I was in college 16+ years ago; don't know if I'd still find them funny). Scott, however, just aggravated me with his urban lingo and his one eyebrow cocked high.
Stewart Scott's style was basically just copying Will Smith's Fresh Prince character/persona .
Will Smith is a Comedian...Stuart Scott was a Sports Journalist - and one of the best.
He was comfortable in his own skin at a time when it wasn't cool to do so on TV. Still not cool, in some circles.
Stuart brought flavor....gotta have flavor with what you see/eat. If not, it's boring.
Flavor is not fake either...it brings the food/journalism - to life.
-
ESPN is really dumb. They start sportscenter saying someone stole 2 lbs of air from the football. That's your lead anchor ESPN, good to know they know what they are talking about ........
The sad thing is that it seems as if ESPN started going south as far as Sports Journalism - as soon as Stuart Scott started getting sick and lessening his appearances.
I remember the days when he and Rich Eisen just reported on Sports and facts...not controversy and rumors. Those days are long gone :(
Sure - Mr. Scott was very dramatic...lively, whatever. But it just seemed to me he had a lot of credence to his reporting.
Funny you should mention Scott, because I was just thinking about him. His early death was unfortunate, but I never liked his anchoring style—over the top, and I always felt that he was trying to be funny (like many earlier SC anchors such as Kilborn) but just wasn't.
I remember Stuart as being as trailblazer...he paved the way for the Shaq's, Charles, etc - to be comfortable on TV speaking the way they wanted. Stuart was bold...he was comfortable in his own skin back during a time in TV when that wasn't looked at fondly.
And he didn't do The Decision.
And I just don't remember him in the middle of mess like DeflateGate and others, lol.
As bold as his style was, he always had a sense of realness to it - unlike the stuff we're seeing with DeflateGate.
He definitely wasn't a sensationalist—as you said, he wasn't part of the The Decision or any other junk like that. I just didn't think he was funny.
He was a complete hack, just like every other anchor on ESPN. They try to be funny , but come off as phony morons .
wow.. just wow...
-
ESPN is really dumb. They start sportscenter saying someone stole 2 lbs of air from the football. That's your lead anchor ESPN, good to know they know what they are talking about ........
The sad thing is that it seems as if ESPN started going south as far as Sports Journalism - as soon as Stuart Scott started getting sick and lessening his appearances.
I remember the days when he and Rich Eisen just reported on Sports and facts...not controversy and rumors. Those days are long gone :(
Sure - Mr. Scott was very dramatic...lively, whatever. But it just seemed to me he had a lot of credence to his reporting.
Funny you should mention Scott, because I was just thinking about him. His early death was unfortunate, but I never liked his anchoring style—over the top, and I always felt that he was trying to be funny (like many earlier SC anchors such as Kilborn) but just wasn't.
I remember Stuart as being as trailblazer...he paved the way for the Shaq's, Charles, etc - to be comfortable on TV speaking the way they wanted. Stuart was bold...he was comfortable in his own skin back during a time in TV when that wasn't looked at fondly.
And he didn't do The Decision.
And I just don't remember him in the middle of mess like DeflateGate and others, lol.
As bold as his style was, he always had a sense of realness to it - unlike the stuff we're seeing with DeflateGate.
He definitely wasn't a sensationalist—as you said, he wasn't part of the The Decision or any other junk like that. I just didn't think he was funny.
He was a complete hack, just like every other anchor on ESPN. They try to be funny , but come off as phony morons .
wow.. just wow...
what's to wow? It's just my opinion . Does everyone need to think Scott was great ? Not happy he died or anything , but I wasn't a fan.
-
Scott, however, just aggravated me with his urban lingo and his one eyebrow cocked high.
Are you white?
-
Ugh, I hate when people are insinuating racism when they just plain don't like the work that someone has done
-
BUT back on topic: I'm not fond of how the NFL is handling this
They seem like they will wait until after the Super Bowl to make a decision
If they do wait, they shouldn't do any investigation until after the game
Too many distractions. The NFL probably would like the Seahawks to win. (I know, I am biased, ha ;) )
-
ESPN is really dumb. They start sportscenter saying someone stole 2 lbs of air from the football. That's your lead anchor ESPN, good to know they know what they are talking about ........
The sad thing is that it seems as if ESPN started going south as far as Sports Journalism - as soon as Stuart Scott started getting sick and lessening his appearances.
I remember the days when he and Rich Eisen just reported on Sports and facts...not controversy and rumors. Those days are long gone :(
Sure - Mr. Scott was very dramatic...lively, whatever. But it just seemed to me he had a lot of credence to his reporting.
Funny you should mention Scott, because I was just thinking about him. His early death was unfortunate, but I never liked his anchoring style—over the top, and I always felt that he was trying to be funny (like many earlier SC anchors such as Kilborn) but just wasn't.
I remember Stuart as being as trailblazer...he paved the way for the Shaq's, Charles, etc - to be comfortable on TV speaking the way they wanted. Stuart was bold...he was comfortable in his own skin back during a time in TV when that wasn't looked at fondly.
And he didn't do The Decision.
And I just don't remember him in the middle of mess like DeflateGate and others, lol.
As bold as his style was, he always had a sense of realness to it - unlike the stuff we're seeing with DeflateGate.
He definitely wasn't a sensationalist—as you said, he wasn't part of the The Decision or any other junk like that. I just didn't think he was funny.
He was a complete hack, just like every other anchor on ESPN. They try to be funny , but come off as phony morons .
wow.. just wow...
what's to wow? It's just my opinion . Does everyone need to think Scott was great ? Not happy he died or anything , but I wasn't a fan.
You don't need to like him or think he was a good journalist. Maybe I have different viewpoints, but it just doesn't seem very respectable to call someone a complete hack that came off as a phony moron like two weeks after he died tragically young from cancer. There are people that are still really heavily grieving his loss and would probably be respectful to hold in that kind of negative stuff for at least a bit longer. Again just my opinion
-
Ugh, I hate when people are insinuating racism when they just plain don't like the work that someone has done
Because 'urban lingo' is used so often to describe the vernacular of white people. ::)
-
The Pats are going to need an obscure rule guy going forward whose job it will be to help the staff find things to accuse the other team of. We think they might have caffein in their gatorade. We think the microphone in the QBs helmet might be too loud. We think they aren't using a regulation tee. Stuff like that.
Never accuse back. Always accuse first.
Places to start:
Anyone texting? (Browns)
http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2015/01/nfl_is_investigating_report_th.html
Anyone too close to the sidelines? (Steelers)
http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2013/11/28/5156106/mike-tomlin-kinda-interferes-with-jacoby-jones-kickoff-return-from
-
Scott, however, just aggravated me with his urban lingo and his one eyebrow cocked high.
Are you white?
I am indeed white, and if you're insinuating I'm racist, I'll thank you not to do so. Do I like the way some black people talk? No. Do I like ebonics? No. Does that make me racist? No.
-
Ugh, I hate when people are insinuating racism when they just plain don't like the work that someone has done
Because 'urban lingo' is used so often to describe the vernacular of white people. ::)
I don't always love Terry Bradshaw's speech. I must be racist towards Louisianans.
-
Ugh, I hate when people are insinuating racism when they just plain don't like the work that someone has done
Because 'urban lingo' is used so often to describe the vernacular of white people. ::)
You seem to be equating the use of "urban" with racism, and I think that's unfair.
-
ESPN is really dumb. They start sportscenter saying someone stole 2 lbs of air from the football. That's your lead anchor ESPN, good to know they know what they are talking about ........
The sad thing is that it seems as if ESPN started going south as far as Sports Journalism - as soon as Stuart Scott started getting sick and lessening his appearances.
I remember the days when he and Rich Eisen just reported on Sports and facts...not controversy and rumors. Those days are long gone :(
Sure - Mr. Scott was very dramatic...lively, whatever. But it just seemed to me he had a lot of credence to his reporting.
Funny you should mention Scott, because I was just thinking about him. His early death was unfortunate, but I never liked his anchoring style—over the top, and I always felt that he was trying to be funny (like many earlier SC anchors such as Kilborn) but just wasn't.
I remember Stuart as being as trailblazer...he paved the way for the Shaq's, Charles, etc - to be comfortable on TV speaking the way they wanted. Stuart was bold...he was comfortable in his own skin back during a time in TV when that wasn't looked at fondly.
And he didn't do The Decision.
And I just don't remember him in the middle of mess like DeflateGate and others, lol.
As bold as his style was, he always had a sense of realness to it - unlike the stuff we're seeing with DeflateGate.
He definitely wasn't a sensationalist—as you said, he wasn't part of the The Decision or any other junk like that. I just didn't think he was funny.
He was a complete hack, just like every other anchor on ESPN. They try to be funny , but come off as phony morons .
wow.. just wow...
what's to wow? It's just my opinion . Does everyone need to think Scott was great ? Not happy he died or anything , but I wasn't a fan.
Yeah, I always thought that he was an obnoxious prick who hated the Celtics (even more so than most of the other horrible anchors at espn, imo). I couldn't stand him. Now, admittedly, I hit mute every time I saw him talking on TV, so I don't know what this 'urban lingo' was, lol, never mind the eye brow thing, but why is a guy celebrated for making 'booyah' and 'have some' catchphrases? I don't know anything about the guy as a person, but as a 'reporter,' I found him to be quite the moron. The same goes for John Buccigross, with his stupid impression of Bob Sheppard introducing Derek Jeter at Yankee Stadium, and Neil Everett. The latter even said, on a live broadcast after we had just 'lost' game 2 of the 2012 ecf against the Heat, that Pierce, who had fouled out, had left the bench to 'go look for a/his wheelchair,' iirc. :o Yeah, I knew that they hated us, but that's just insulting, and I haven't missed espn one bit since I stopped watching said network 2-3 years ago. They're a joke.
-
I want to chime in on some of the technical talk. I am an engineer with an advanced degree and my work involves applications of the ideal gas laws and law of partial pressures (both fundamental building blocks of applied thermodynamics). The previous analyses are correct based on my understanding but there is a little more nuance that you can consider.
What the analysis above focused on is the change in pressure inside the ball when there is a change in the temperature outside the ball. Absolutely correct that the air inside will achieve thermal equilibrium with the ambient temperature outside the ball and the change in pressure will be roughly proportional to the change in temperature just how described (I say roughly because no real gas will behave exactly as an ideal gas but in this case, close enough for approximations).
It is also possible to manipulate the pressure inside the ball by taking advantage of the fact that the temperature of a gas will increase with an increase in pressure. When a ball is pumped up (pressure increased) that action will immediately increase the temperature according to the same ratios that the pressure changes as a result of temperature change.
So immediately after a ball is pumped up to say 12.5 psig (the g referring to gage pressure), the air inside the ball will be hotter than the ambient air (ambient air is at a pressure of 0 psig so it increases in temperature when squeezed to 12.5 psig and will increase the temperature of the air in the ball when mixed with whatever air is already in the ball and at ambient temperature). If the ref checked the pressure shortly after that (before it cooled), the pressure would be fine but the temperature inside the ball would be still warmer (maybe 10F warmer than ambient, depending on how much air was added). Then when taken outside, the pressure would reduce even further than predicted above.
Now I recognize that this does not explain why the Pats balls were soft and the Colts balls were not but it illustrates how a knowledgeable and devious person could manipulate the pressure in the balls without tampering with the balls after the refs inspected them.
One other point, someone said that moisture could condense out and impact pressure. This is true but the partial pressure of the water in the air at 70F say 30% RH is only about 0.25 psia. This is the total amount that the partial pressure of the water vapor contributes to the total pressure of 14.7 psia of the air-water mixture (atmospheric pressure). So even if half the water condensed out, it would make only a miniscule of difference per Dalton’s Law of Partial Pressures.
Wow, Celtics and Thermodynamics talk in the same place, a little slice of heaven for me. As for my theory of what really went on?, I think the trainers and maybe others figured out a way to manipulate the pressure in the balls without actually "tampering" with them after the refs inspected them. So is this breaking any rules, maybe not technically (good luck to the NFL trying to prove it anyway) but certainly it is circumventing the intent of the rules.
-
As for my theory of what really went on?, I think the trainers and maybe others figured out a way to manipulate the pressure in the balls without actually "tampering" with them after the refs inspected them. So is this breaking any rules, maybe not technically (good luck to the NFL trying to prove it anyway) but certainly it is circumventing the intent of the rules.
TP for the great science. I think your version quoted above as a possible explanation is about right. It is the one that seems the most likely -- certainly much more likely than a ball boy frantically sticking a pin in each ball while in the elevator.
-
I just made this one to express my feelings about the state of the NFL. I just want to enjoy the flippin' games without feeling guilty.
(https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/8434650112/h1AD419A9/)
-
As for my theory of what really went on?, I think the trainers and maybe others figured out a way to manipulate the pressure in the balls without actually "tampering" with them after the refs inspected them. So is this breaking any rules, maybe not technically (good luck to the NFL trying to prove it anyway) but certainly it is circumventing the intent of the rules.
TP for the great science. I think your version quoted above as a possible explanation is about right. It is the one that seems the most likely -- certainly much more likely than a ball boy frantically sticking a pin in each ball while in the elevator.
Also, the beauty of this , if true, is that the media went to great pains to point out that while all QBs have their strange rituals with balls prior to the game , including wire brushes, oil, water, blow driers etc, it's fine. What's not fine is manipulating the balls after the fact.
What Eli does to his footballs is okay because it's prior to measurement, right? So, whatever is done to footballs prior to measurement is okay, right?
-
As for my theory of what really went on?, I think the trainers and maybe others figured out a way to manipulate the pressure in the balls without actually "tampering" with them after the refs inspected them. So is this breaking any rules, maybe not technically (good luck to the NFL trying to prove it anyway) but certainly it is circumventing the intent of the rules.
TP for the great science. I think your version quoted above as a possible explanation is about right. It is the one that seems the most likely -- certainly much more likely than a ball boy frantically sticking a pin in each ball while in the elevator.
Also, the beauty of this , if true, is that the media went to great pains to point out that while all QBs have their strange rituals with balls prior to the game , including wire brushes, oil, water, blow driers etc, it's fine. What's not fine is manipulating the balls after the fact.
What Eli does to his footballs is okay because it's prior to measurement, right? So, whatever is done to footballs prior to measurement is okay, right?
Exactly. What I described above is something anyone with a basic understanding of Thermo could figure out. You could even pump up the balls right in front of the Refs (leaving them a little hot) and they wouldn't even suspect that there was any manipulation going on.
-
I want to chime in on some of the technical talk. I am an engineer with an advanced degree and my work involves applications of the ideal gas laws and law of partial pressures (both fundamental building blocks of applied thermodynamics). The previous analyses are correct based on my understanding but there is a little more nuance that you can consider.
What the analysis above focused on is the change in pressure inside the ball when there is a change in the temperature outside the ball. Absolutely correct that the air inside will achieve thermal equilibrium with the ambient temperature outside the ball and the change in pressure will be roughly proportional to the change in temperature just how described (I say roughly because no real gas will behave exactly as an ideal gas but in this case, close enough for approximations).
It is also possible to manipulate the pressure inside the ball by taking advantage of the fact that the temperature of a gas will increase with an increase in pressure. When a ball is pumped up (pressure increased) that action will immediately increase the temperature according to the same ratios that the pressure changes as a result of temperature change.
So immediately after a ball is pumped up to say 12.5 psig (the g referring to gage pressure), the air inside the ball will be hotter than the ambient air (ambient air is at a pressure of 0 psig so it increases in temperature when squeezed to 12.5 psig and will increase the temperature of the air in the ball when mixed with whatever air is already in the ball and at ambient temperature). If the ref checked the pressure shortly after that (before it cooled), the pressure would be fine but the temperature inside the ball would be still warmer (maybe 10F warmer than ambient, depending on how much air was added). Then when taken outside, the pressure would reduce even further than predicted above.
Now I recognize that this does not explain why the Pats balls were soft and the Colts balls were not but it illustrates how a knowledgeable and devious person could manipulate the pressure in the balls without tampering with the balls after the refs inspected them.
One other point, someone said that moisture could condense out and impact pressure. This is true but the partial pressure of the water in the air at 70F say 30% RH is only about 0.25 psia. This is the total amount that the partial pressure of the water vapor contributes to the total pressure of 14.7 psia of the air-water mixture (atmospheric pressure). So even if half the water condensed out, it would make only a miniscule of difference per Dalton’s Law of Partial Pressures.
Wow, Celtics and Thermodynamics talk in the same place, a little slice of heaven for me. As for my theory of what really went on?, I think the trainers and maybe others figured out a way to manipulate the pressure in the balls without actually "tampering" with them after the refs inspected them. So is this breaking any rules, maybe not technically (good luck to the NFL trying to prove it anyway) but certainly it is circumventing the intent of the rules.
Thanks, Vermont Celtic. I love reading about this stuff.
The discrepancy in ball pressure between the Colt footballs and the Pats footballs will have to await further factual information. For example, is it not conceivable that Tom Brady selected balls at the low end of acceptable range (12.5) while Luck selected balls in the higher end (13.5), which could go toward explaining why the tested Pats balls fell below but the Colt footballs stayed within range. Did the Colt balls continue to test out at 13.5 during the game? Or closer to 12.5? And what range did the Pats' footballs test at during the game? Did 11 of the 12 balls test out at 10.5, which is what Chris Mortensen reported, or did it range from just under 12.5 to 10.5? I have heard there are conflicting reports on this. Sure wish the NFL would clarify this point.
Also just learned that the initial report from an Indy reporter, that this all got triggered by an interception in the 2nd quarter, in which the incriminating ball was turned over, is incorrect. Reports now state that the corrected balls were switched into the game BEFORE the interception. This does not affect the scientific analysis you astutely provided. But it does underscore how much misinformation and speculation is floating around.
I think the League is correct to take their time to analyze all the facts before they make any final determination, and I certainly hope that the Pats are exonerated. If it means letting the Patriots twist in the wind throughout the build up to the Super Bowl, well, I think that is okay too, kind of an additional payback on behalf of the disgruntled masses for the perception that Spygate was inadequately punished back in '07. The great irony, of course, could be if the accusations serve to motivate the team into even higher levels of performance, not at all outside the realm of possibility. And let's face it: if the Pats were to trounce the Seahawks, the mass of skeptics will be lining up the excuses as to how it could have happened, leaving off the list any suggestion that they are, in fact, a really, really good team.
-
A very basic back-of-the-envelope math in Excel shows that accounting solely for temperature changes (so assuming constant humidity), if the temperature on the field was 50F, a ball inflated to 13.5 will still be at regulation pressure if it was inflated at temperatures of 68.5F or cooler.
Correspondingly, a ball that was inflated to 12.5 will lose 1 PSI if it were inflated at 69.25 degrees, and 2 PSI if it were inflated at 90F.
My point is that I can easily see the Pats taking the ball inflation process to, say, an 80F laundry room, which is likely to result in about a 1.5 PSI drop in game conditions -- something that is technically not against the letter of the law, but to which the team will never admit publicly.
They may not admit to it publicly, but if true, it will come out in the NFL investigation. And if true, would result in some punishment, and continue to cast the Pats organization as cheaters. I hope you are wrong about the trainers inserting excessively hot air into the balls. I actually doubt that happened, as it would require Belichick's knowledge and input, and he came across quite sincerely in his presser about not having any knowledge of this.
-
Belichick is p---ED he is dropping bombs right now. Shame on the NFL and the media and all the haters
-
This is awesome.
-
Best press conference ever, I feel bad for the seahawks
-
Bill telling off a reporter for spygate questions. Awesome
-
Best press conference ever, I feel bad for the seahawks
BB going ham. He's about to throw someone out of the club like gronk. Love it, love it
-
quote from rob Bradford on WEEI, "This was a middle finger to the league over this whole thing"
Pretty much
-
So Jacked right now. That's our coach!
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD3Uhu9a5Ag
-
Tom E. Curran @tomecurran
My own kid just texted, "Hope you enjoyed that roast session Bill gave you..."
L m a o
-
AMAZING
Basically, Bill's message to the media and league today: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mz1siP7pItc
Bad language^
-
I actually was going to just enjoy the SuperBowl and not have to cheer for anyone.
But after this mess?
No offense to Russell Wilson...I hope he wins many championships...I really like him as a player and person.
But I'd be pleased if Brady and Co wins next Sunday, just to rub it in the faces of the haters...not so much to beat SEA....just amazing the grilling that NE has taken in all of this, LOL.
You'd think that NE was becoming the Football Yankees...WOW.....just the hate/jealousy from former players on ESPN...the ESPN sensationalism....
And I'm a lifelong Redskins fan.
-
Today's press conference:
http://www.patriots.com/media-center/videos/Belichick-124-We-feel-like-we-followed-the-rules/d607eb23-2f67-4da5-aedc-b8bfba8d4c11
-
long time Redskins fan here too.
The Patriots is my favorite team in the AFL, but I also like Seahawks because Pete Carroll coached at my alma mater USC. I am conflicted about who I want to win the Super Bowl at this time.
Don't know if I will settle on a team to win so I will just enjoy the game, and probably see what happens.
-
Today's press conference:
http://www.patriots.com/media-center/videos/Belichick-124-We-feel-like-we-followed-the-rules/d607eb23-2f67-4da5-aedc-b8bfba8d4c11
Thanks so much for the link! I've been looking for it.
That kind of hustle deserves a tommy point!
-
Today's press conference:
http://www.patriots.com/media-center/videos/Belichick-124-We-feel-like-we-followed-the-rules/d607eb23-2f67-4da5-aedc-b8bfba8d4c11
I have no doubts Pats fans will eat this stuff up. Belichick's rant against the media will play well in NE.
But to outsiders, like myself, it's just further proof the guy is a pompous jackass. Fantastic coach, but also a cheater and a ego-centric db.
-
Today's press conference:
http://www.patriots.com/media-center/videos/Belichick-124-We-feel-like-we-followed-the-rules/d607eb23-2f67-4da5-aedc-b8bfba8d4c11
I have no doubts Pats fans will eat this stuff up. Belichick's rant against the media will play well in NE.
But to outsiders, like myself, it's just further proof the guy is a pompous jackass. Fantastic coach, but also a cheater and a ego-centric db.
The media just dragged his name through the mud with no evidence for a week now on one of the biggest weeks of his life. Imagine if someone did that to you over something you take a lot of pride in. But yeah, so pompous
-
Wow. Tommie Curran seems to have some deafness and comprehension issues.
-
Today's press conference:
http://www.patriots.com/media-center/videos/Belichick-124-We-feel-like-we-followed-the-rules/d607eb23-2f67-4da5-aedc-b8bfba8d4c11
I have no doubts Pats fans will eat this stuff up. Belichick's rant against the media will play well in NE.
But to outsiders, like myself, it's just further proof the guy is a pompous jackass. Fantastic coach, but also a cheater and a ego-centric db.
The media just dragged his name through the mud with no evidence for a week now on one of the biggest weeks of his life. Imagine if someone did that to you over something you take a lot of pride in. But yeah, so pompous
Haha, right?
How dare the man defend himself and his professional pride!?
-
Once the NFL "investigation" concludes I expect a lot of "reporters" and "journalists" to wear clown outfits and apologize for condemning him before he was found guilty with no proof. Won't happen, but I already don't respect these guys so there we go.
-
Dear media....please handle yourselves with a little dignity next time.
-
Thank you Bill for slapping some sense into the rest of the sports world. The Pats organization is owed an apology for this nonsense.
-
Today's press conference:
http://www.patriots.com/media-center/videos/Belichick-124-We-feel-like-we-followed-the-rules/d607eb23-2f67-4da5-aedc-b8bfba8d4c11
I have no doubts Pats fans will eat this stuff up. Belichick's rant against the media will play well in NE.
But to outsiders, like myself, it's just further proof the guy is a pompous jackass. Fantastic coach, but also a cheater and a ego-centric db.
They hate us because they ain't us. Success breeds jealousy.
Do you call the Indy organization "cheaters" because they piped in crowd noise? Or the 49ers "cheaters" because they broke salary cap rules??
Do you consider the Celtics organization to be "cheaters" because they had a dead spot in the floor and did cute tricks like spiking up the temperature???
Just want to see if you are consistent or if your opinion is biased.
-
Great Presser.
What BB suggested was that in "preparing" the footballs as allowed, their tests showed that the balls could later lose 1.5 lbs. of pressure. He described "preparing" as adjusting the exterior feel of the footballs.
Maybe the Pats filled the footballs rapidly with an automatic device at 72 degrees. Maybe they then "prepared" them by rubbing the exterior with some kind of strap or cloth with some grit to it that improves the feel. I'm imagining something like a shoe shine. The temperature of the ball increases and so does the pressure. They give the balls to Brady and the refs to approve, and tell the refs to set the pressure at 12.5, which the refs do. Later the pressure of the footballs sinks as the heated exterior cools and as the air inside the ball reaches the outer temperature (50 degrees).
From Belichik's description of preparing footballs and their internal tests showing a later loss of pressure, this seems like a logical conclusion from his press conference.
This again would be within the letter of the rules (and even the spirit) since "preparing" the exterior feel of the footballs was explicitly allowed.
In any event, the whole circus is and was a complete non-issue.
With 32 teams, 97% or so of all fans are not going to be Patriot fans. (Maybe our percentage is higher, but you get the point.) When you're in the Super Bowl 6 times in 14 years, 9 AFC title games, 12 Division titles, other fans and owners are going to be more than a little sick of you, and they're going to jump on every little thing.
I don't think the taping was a big deal. I don't think this is a big deal.
Brain injuries, murder and other felonies, battering women, intentionally injuring opponents, steroids and other medical treatments that can result in permanent harm -- those are serious issues.
The taping and the ball pressure is, comparatively speaking, nothing. Give the Pats a slap on the wrist if you must, but get on with the game and stop enabling the jealous losers and media hacks who play to the public opinion of the vast majority of fans who support other (less successful) teams.
-
Case. Closed.
-
Great Presser.
What BB suggested was that in "preparing" the footballs as allowed, their tests showed that the balls could later lose 1.5 lbs. of pressure. He described "preparing" as adjusting the exterior feel of the footballs.
Maybe the Pats filled the footballs rapidly with an automatic device at 72 degrees. Maybe they then "prepared" them by rubbing the exterior with some kind of strap or cloth with some grit to it that improves the feel. I'm imagining something like a shoe shine. The temperature of the ball increases and so does the pressure. They give the balls to Brady and the refs to approve, and tell the refs to set the pressure at 12.5, which the refs do. Later the pressure of the footballs sinks as the heated exterior cools and as the air inside the ball reaches the outer temperature (50 degrees).
From Belichik's description of preparing footballs and their internal tests showing a later loss of pressure, this seems like a logical conclusion from his press conference.
This again would be within the letter of the rules (and even the spirit) since "preparing" the exterior feel of the footballs was explicitly allowed.
In any event, the whole circus is and was a complete non-issue.
With 32 teams, 97% or so of all fans are not going to be Patriot fans. (Maybe our percentage is higher, but you get the point.) When you're in the Super Bowl 6 times in 14 years, 9 AFC title games, 12 Division titles, other fans and owners are going to be more than a little sick of you, and they're going to jump on every little thing.
I don't think the taping was a big deal. I don't think this is a big deal.
Brain injuries, murder and other felonies, battering women, intentionally injuring opponents, steroids and other medical treatments that can result in permanent harm -- those are serious issues.
The taping and the ball pressure is, comparatively speaking, nothing. Give the Pats a slap on the wrist if you must, but get on with the game and stop enabling the jealous losers and media hacks who play to the public opinion of the vast majority of fans who support other (less successful) teams.
Hold on, dude. You're speaking way too much reason and logic here. ;D
-
Today's press conference:
http://www.patriots.com/media-center/videos/Belichick-124-We-feel-like-we-followed-the-rules/d607eb23-2f67-4da5-aedc-b8bfba8d4c11
I have no doubts Pats fans will eat this stuff up. Belichick's rant against the media will play well in NE.
But to outsiders, like myself, it's just further proof the guy is a pompous jackass. Fantastic coach, but also a cheater and a ego-centric db.
The media just dragged his name through the mud with no evidence for a week now on one of the biggest weeks of his life. Imagine if someone did that to you over something you take a lot of pride in. But yeah, so pompous
This is 100% what bill was talking about when he talked about things the league should also look at. He was solo p---ed
-
Today's press conference:
http://www.patriots.com/media-center/videos/Belichick-124-We-feel-like-we-followed-the-rules/d607eb23-2f67-4da5-aedc-b8bfba8d4c11
I have no doubts Pats fans will eat this stuff up. Belichick's rant against the media will play well in NE.
But to outsiders, like myself, it's just further proof the guy is a pompous jackass. Fantastic coach, but also a cheater and a ego-centric db.
TP. At times it can be funny to watch/hear, but in this instance, Bill's aggressive attack on journalists and critics of the Pats is tired and annoying.
-
Today's press conference:
http://www.patriots.com/media-center/videos/Belichick-124-We-feel-like-we-followed-the-rules/d607eb23-2f67-4da5-aedc-b8bfba8d4c11
I have no doubts Pats fans will eat this stuff up. Belichick's rant against the media will play well in NE.
But to outsiders, like myself, it's just further proof the guy is a pompous jackass. Fantastic coach, but also a cheater and a ego-centric db.
TP. At times it can be funny to watch/hear, but in this instance, Bill's aggressive attack on journalists and critics of the Pats is tired and annoying.
as opposed to talking heads on ESPN and CNN aggressively attacking Bill comparing him to Whitey Bulger, Ailkmen(who brady is about to pass in super bowl rings) saying this is worse than bounty gate and they should be punished more severely? They are clearly trying to make a huge story out of it.
Seriously, CNN has spent a huge majority of the last week covering this story. ESPN has their head anchor saying "someone stole 2lbs of air out of the footballs " . Either they are just plain stupid, or are trying to make a huge story out of this for ratings .
-
Patriot haters won't be satisfied until Belichick is burned at the stakes.
He's gonna try and win another championship or two, but he'll retire soon enough guys. Don't worry.
-
Today's press conference:
http://www.patriots.com/media-center/videos/Belichick-124-We-feel-like-we-followed-the-rules/d607eb23-2f67-4da5-aedc-b8bfba8d4c11
I have no doubts Pats fans will eat this stuff up. Belichick's rant against the media will play well in NE.
But to outsiders, like myself, it's just further proof the guy is a pompous jackass. Fantastic coach, but also a cheater and a ego-centric db.
TP. At times it can be funny to watch/hear, but in this instance, Bill's aggressive attack on journalists and critics of the Pats is tired and annoying.
as opposed to talking heads on ESPN and CNN aggressively attacking Bill comparing him to Whitey Bulger, Ailkmen(who brady is about to pass in super bowl rings) saying this is worse than bounty gate and they should be punished more severely? They are clearly trying to make a huge story out of it.
Seriously, CNN has spent a huge majority of the last week covering this story. ESPN has their head anchor saying "someone stole 2lbs of air out of the footballs " . Either they are just plain stupid, or are trying to make a huge story out of this for ratings .
Bill is the aggressor now? Now that's pretty funny.
-
Today's press conference:
http://www.patriots.com/media-center/videos/Belichick-124-We-feel-like-we-followed-the-rules/d607eb23-2f67-4da5-aedc-b8bfba8d4c11
I have no doubts Pats fans will eat this stuff up. Belichick's rant against the media will play well in NE.
But to outsiders, like myself, it's just further proof the guy is a pompous jackass. Fantastic coach, but also a cheater and a ego-centric db.
The media just dragged his name through the mud with no evidence for a week now on one of the biggest weeks of his life. Imagine if someone did that to you over something you take a lot of pride in. But yeah, so pompous
This is 100% what bill was talking about when he talked about things the league should also look at. He was solo p---ed
the more this drags on, the more Goodell looks like a fool. Wonder if the other owners are making him give the Patriots a hard time, twisting in the wind. Jealousy is a female dog.
-
i just think that it's telling that when reggie miller and grant hill were on TNT the other night talking about how they used to deflate basketballs it's "cute" and "funny." the same for then the chargers were putting stick-um on their gloves a couple years back and then were fined by the league, that story went basically untouched by the media, at most it probably gave a few people a chuckle.
same with baseball players and hockey players messing with equipment.
but all of a sudden the pats allegedly do it and it's the apocalypse.
but, of course, the pats have a "history" of cheating. like when they were videotaping other teams' signals from the sidelines. of course back then it was 100% LEGAL, and only became illegal in the first game of the 2007 season, when BB defied goodell's league memo and had a guy doing it out in the open. the pats paid a huge penalty for what was a tiny infraction, BB should have been smart and just had someone in the stands do it instead.
and no-one mentions that the jets were the first ones caught TAPING THE PATS SIGNS, which probably started the whole mess. and BB and mangini of course had beef after mangini left the pats to go to an arch-rival, which is likely why he ratted BB out. mangini has since expressed regret at the whole situation, which became much bigger than he'd intended.
this whole "pats cheat" thing isn't about the "integrity of the game;" it's about people who have a beef with the admittedly unpleasant BB, and people who are jealous of the pats success.
some say the pats are losing credibility as winners; i say the whiners out there are losing credibility as fans or experts.
-
Today's press conference:
http://www.patriots.com/media-center/videos/Belichick-124-We-feel-like-we-followed-the-rules/d607eb23-2f67-4da5-aedc-b8bfba8d4c11
I have no doubts Pats fans will eat this stuff up. Belichick's rant against the media will play well in NE.
But to outsiders, like myself, it's just further proof the guy is a pompous jackass. Fantastic coach, but also a cheater and a ego-centric db.
The media just dragged his name through the mud with no evidence for a week now on one of the biggest weeks of his life. Imagine if someone did that to you over something you take a lot of pride in. But yeah, so pompous
This is 100% what bill was talking about when he talked about things the league should also look at. He was solo p---ed
the more this drags on, the more Goodell looks like a fool. Wonder if the other owners are making him give the Patriots a hard time, twisting in the wind. Jealousy is a female dog.
this fake concern about the "integrity of the game" is pathetic and should be embarrassing to these hypocrites.
the owners didn't seem to care about the integrity of the game when they trotted out a bunch of amateur officials to officiate a $10B league, all over a dispute of $1M.
-
I think Wetzel's column sums the BB presser up nicely.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/-bill-belichick-doubles-down-on-patriots--innocence-in-deflate-gate--dares-nfl-to-prove-him-wrong-225504102.html
Regardless of innocence or not (which BB and Pats fans are convinced of, regardless of whether others are or not), BB is doubling down and says he's convinced the Pats did nothing wrong, spent a bunch of hours this week running "tests" and believes these tests can account for what happened on Sunday, and he's done with it. It literally was a blast at the NFL.
-
Oh, and Fox Sports has now turned this all into a joke, using words like bizarre to describe the past week....
http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/new-england-patriots-bill-belichick-deflategate-super-bowl-012415
This is no longer front line news. People are now on to things..
-
Bill Nye the Science Guy has apparently said that BB's explanation doesn't make sense (http://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2015/1/25/7887055/bill-nye-bill-belichick-science-deflategate).
Or do you think he is biased because he worked for Boeing in Seattle, which was also where he did his TV show?
-
The Pats won by some many points that I doubt deflated balls made a difference. Their gameplan and talent was better.
Great example of a media running with a story and blowing it out of proportion not that we have not seen that in the news all the time.
-
It's kind of like complaining about possible vote fraud that didn't affect the results in an election that wasn't that close.
-
Bill Nye the Science Guy has apparently said that BB's explanation doesn't make sense (http://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2015/1/25/7887055/bill-nye-bill-belichick-science-deflategate).
Or do you think he is biased because he worked for Boeing in Seattle, which was also where he did his TV show?
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/25/bill-nye-says-bill-belichick-made-no-sense/
Another group went out and recreated the conditions with actual balls and found that they deflated by an average of 1.8 psi per game. Bill Nye is an entertainer who is talking out of his ass and making the Patriots look bad on conjecture. There is nothing here other than a witch hunt
-
This story isn't going to go away because people are interested.
According to ProFootballTalk (https://twitter.com/ProFootballTalk/status/559374083767275521):
I've never gotten more emails from readers than I have this week, and they were all strongly in one camp or the other on #DeflateGate.
-
Michael Naughton — the chair of Boston College’s physics department — has gone on the record to state that, “it’s not possible for weather NOT to have played a role,” in Ball-ghazi.
Say you inflate the ball to 12.5 PSI — the NFL minimum — in a room at 70 degrees, and then used the ball outside where it was 50 degrees. That 12.5 PSI would eventually become 11.5 PSI. If you inflate the ball to 12.5 PSI in an even warmer room where it was, say, 80 degrees, and then played outdoors at 40 degrees, that 12.5 PSI would become 10.5 PSI — a drop of two PSIs.
http://nesn.com/2015/01/boston-college-professor-weather-had-to-play-role-in-deflategate/
-
Do they use space heaters on the sidelines so that even if they are not directly trying to heat the balls the ambient temperature where the balls are kept would be significantly higher than 40 degrees?
-
Michael Naughton — the chair of Boston College’s physics department — has gone on the record to state that, “it’s not possible for weather NOT to have played a role,” in Ball-ghazi.
Say you inflate the ball to 12.5 PSI — the NFL minimum — in a room at 70 degrees, and then used the ball outside where it was 50 degrees. That 12.5 PSI would eventually become 11.5 PSI. If you inflate the ball to 12.5 PSI in an even warmer room where it was, say, 80 degrees, and then played outdoors at 40 degrees, that 12.5 PSI would become 10.5 PSI — a drop of two PSIs.
http://nesn.com/2015/01/boston-college-professor-weather-had-to-play-role-in-deflategate/
I guess the real story should be that the Colts were using balls that defied physics, haha. Same thing with that 12th Patriots ball.
-
Michael Naughton — the chair of Boston College’s physics department — has gone on the record to state that, “it’s not possible for weather NOT to have played a role,” in Ball-ghazi.
Say you inflate the ball to 12.5 PSI — the NFL minimum — in a room at 70 degrees, and then used the ball outside where it was 50 degrees. That 12.5 PSI would eventually become 11.5 PSI. If you inflate the ball to 12.5 PSI in an even warmer room where it was, say, 80 degrees, and then played outdoors at 40 degrees, that 12.5 PSI would become 10.5 PSI — a drop of two PSIs.
http://nesn.com/2015/01/boston-college-professor-weather-had-to-play-role-in-deflategate/
I guess the real story should be that the Colts were using balls that defied physics, haha. Same thing with that 12th Patriots ball.
Hahahahahaha!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vxHkAQRQUQ
-
I guess the real story should be that the Colts were using balls that defied physics, haha. Same thing with that 12th Patriots ball.
You understand that Colts' footballs may or have may have been inflated to more than 12.5 and may or may not have been deflated indoors?
A pundit (NY Post, IIRC) today morning was criticizing Belichick for "not providing conclusive evidence that noone on the Patriots tampered with the footballs". After this, I guess there's no winning in the court of public opinion.
-
I guess the real story should be that the Colts were using balls that defied physics, haha. Same thing with that 12th Patriots ball.
You understand that Colts' footballs may or have may have been deflated to more than 12.5 and may or may not have been deflated indoors?
A pundit (NY post, IIRC) today morning was criticizing Belichick for "not providing conclusive evidence that noone on the Patriots tampered with the footballs". After this, I guess there's no winning this in the court of public opinion.
Bingo.
-
Bill Nye the Science Guy has apparently said that BB's explanation doesn't make sense (http://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2015/1/25/7887055/bill-nye-bill-belichick-science-deflategate).
Or do you think he is biased because he worked for Boeing in Seattle, which was also where he did his TV show?
Bill Nye thinks belief in evolution is necessary in order to have "engineers that can build stuff," so I don't give any weight to what he says.
As for footballs, anyone (such as myself) who grew up in a cold-weather state knows that taking a well-inflated football out into a cold environment will result in a loss of air pressure (though it may take quite a while for the air-pressure loss to become so great as to be noticeable by feel). We never took psi measurements, of course, but I can well imagine a 12.5 psi football dropping to the "criminal" level of 11.5 or even 10.5 in cold conditions. And since 2 psi is equivalent to the weight of a dollar bill, it's unlikely that anyone would notice the loss in air pressure just by feeling the football (as evidenced by the on-field game officials apparently not noticing anything off with New England's footballs).
-
I guess the real story should be that the Colts were using balls that defied physics, haha. Same thing with that 12th Patriots ball.
You understand that Colts' footballs may or have may have been inflated to more than 12.5 and may or may not have been deflated indoors?
Um so did they not rub them or were they checked somewhere with a different temperature than where the pats balls were checked?
-
Bill Nye the Science Guy has apparently said that BB's explanation doesn't make sense (http://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2015/1/25/7887055/bill-nye-bill-belichick-science-deflategate).
Or do you think he is biased because he worked for Boeing in Seattle, which was also where he did his TV show?
Bill Nye thinks belief in evolution is necessary in order to have "engineers that can build stuff," so I don't give any weight to what he says.
As for footballs, anyone (such as myself) who grew up in a cold-weather state knows that taking a well-inflated football out into a cold environment will result in a loss of air pressure (though it may take quite a while for the air-pressure loss to become so great as to be noticeable by feel). We never took psi measurements, of course, but I can well imagine a 12.5 psi football dropping to the "criminal" level of 11.5 or even 10.5 in cold conditions. And since 2 psi is equivalent to the weight of a dollar bill, it's unlikely that anyone would notice the loss in air pressure just by feeling the football (as evidenced by the on-field game officials apparently not noticing anything off with New England's footballs).
And a Pittsburgh science think tank was able to replicate what Belichick suggested happened. Whoops.
“We took 12 brand new authentic NFL footballs and exposed them to the different elements they would have experienced throughout the game.’?ť said Healy, a masters student in mechanical engineering at Carnegie Mellon. “Out of the 12 footballs we tested, we found that on average, footballs dropped 1.8 PSI when being exposed to dropping temperatures and wet conditions.”
“During testing, 12 brand new footballs were inflated to 12.5 PSI in a 75 degree Fahrenheit room. This was to imitate the indoor conditions where the referees would have tested the footballs 2 hours and 15 minutes before kickoff. The footballs were then moved to a 50 degree Fahrenheit environment to simulate the temperatures that were experienced throughout the game. In addition, the footballs were dampened to replicate the rainy conditions.”
http://itiswhatitis.weei.com/sports/newengland/football/patriots/2015/01/25/bill-nye-science-guy-claims-bill-belichick-doesnt-make-any-sense-in-explanation/
-
Bill Nye is the Dr Oz of science right now.
-
Doesn't ESPN have a whole bit about sports science? Can't they test it and replicate the loss of PSI? Of course they can, and probably did but they don't want to let a good story go without beating it to death a couple more weeks.
-
Michael Naughton — the chair of Boston College’s physics department — has gone on the record to state that, “it’s not possible for weather NOT to have played a role,” in Ball-ghazi.
Say you inflate the ball to 12.5 PSI — the NFL minimum — in a room at 70 degrees, and then used the ball outside where it was 50 degrees. That 12.5 PSI would eventually become 11.5 PSI. If you inflate the ball to 12.5 PSI in an even warmer room where it was, say, 80 degrees, and then played outdoors at 40 degrees, that 12.5 PSI would become 10.5 PSI — a drop of two PSIs.
http://nesn.com/2015/01/boston-college-professor-weather-had-to-play-role-in-deflategate/
I guess the real story should be that the Colts were using balls that defied physics, haha. Same thing with that 12th Patriots ball.
I haven't followed this story overly closely, but where and when did they do the measurement? Was it on the field or was it in the locker room?
Also, you'd think the guys who were writing these articles would go to the trouble to figure out what they're talking about. It's high school level stuff.
I don't think that anyone will ever know the full story about what happened. That doesn't really start with the Pats though. How was the initial inspection done? Do the people really measure the pressure in each ball? It's possible, but not definite. In soccer (for instance) the referees frequently inspect the game ball by picking it up and squeezing it to see if it's inflated properly.
Were the footballs checked with gauges before the game? That's the assumption, but I wouldn't bet the bank on it. It's more likely that the balls were slightly underinflated to start with than they were later deflated.
-
Doesn't ESPN have a whole bit about sports science? Can't they test it and replicate the loss of PSI? Of course they can, and probably did but they don't want to let a good story go without beating it to death a couple more weeks.
Their sports science segment was up for about 15 minutes before they pulled it
Luckily it can still be found on youtube
-
Doesn't ESPN have a whole bit about sports science? Can't they test it and replicate the loss of PSI? Of course they can, and probably did but they don't want to let a good story go without beating it to death a couple more weeks.
And here it is!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ_S8F3mKFE
-
I can't believe they wasted a whole segment without actually testing the loss of PSI in changing temperatures, which is really the only thing that maters. ESPN should be ashamed.
-
I can't believe they wasted a whole segment without actually testing the loss of PSI in changing temperatures, which is really the only thing that maters. ESPN should be ashamed.
This is a pretty worthless segment. The most important question isn't whether it provides an advantage or not, it's whether pressure loss can occur without tampering after the balls are improved.
-
Bill Nye the Science Guy has apparently said that BB's explanation doesn't make sense (http://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2015/1/25/7887055/bill-nye-bill-belichick-science-deflategate).
Or do you think he is biased because he worked for Boeing in Seattle, which was also where he id his TV show?
He finished his bit with "Go Seahawks", so I'm guessing he's fully impartial.
http://time.com/3681707/bill-nye-science-guy-deflategate/
-
Michael Naughton — the chair of Boston College’s physics department — has gone on the record to state that, “it’s not possible for weather NOT to have played a role,” in Ball-ghazi.
Say you inflate the ball to 12.5 PSI — the NFL minimum — in a room at 70 degrees, and then used the ball outside where it was 50 degrees. That 12.5 PSI would eventually become 11.5 PSI. If you inflate the ball to 12.5 PSI in an even warmer room where it was, say, 80 degrees, and then played outdoors at 40 degrees, that 12.5 PSI would become 10.5 PSI — a drop of two PSIs.
http://nesn.com/2015/01/boston-college-professor-weather-had-to-play-role-in-deflategate/
I guess the real story should be that the Colts were using balls that defied physics, haha. Same thing with that 12th Patriots ball.
Don't let the absence of facts get in the way of your jokes, Roy. What was the PSI of the Colts balls when measured by the refs? Did Luck select the same PSI level as Brady, or closer to 13.5? Did they rub them down right before handing them over to the refs? What did they measure at when tested? Exactly the same as the pre-game measurement? When were they tested? In the same climate as when the Pats balls were tested? Did 11/12 Pats balls drop from 12.5 to 10.5? Or did they drop below 12.5 to as low as 10.5. There simply are too many unanswered questions to deduce that the Pats purposely deflated the balls. Let me know when Roger Goodell texts you the answers. The only person who has made any reasonable effort to get to the bottom of what happened, and disclose his findings, was Bill Belichick, who happens to be preparing for a Super Bowl.
-
Anyone watching the pre-pro bowl coverage?
Man, there are some salty former players. I honestly can't believe that more people are upset with this than the head hunting from New Orleans
-
Michael Naughton — the chair of Boston College’s physics department — has gone on the record to state that, “it’s not possible for weather NOT to have played a role,” in Ball-ghazi.
Say you inflate the ball to 12.5 PSI — the NFL minimum — in a room at 70 degrees, and then used the ball outside where it was 50 degrees. That 12.5 PSI would eventually become 11.5 PSI. If you inflate the ball to 12.5 PSI in an even warmer room where it was, say, 80 degrees, and then played outdoors at 40 degrees, that 12.5 PSI would become 10.5 PSI — a drop of two PSIs.
http://nesn.com/2015/01/boston-college-professor-weather-had-to-play-role-in-deflategate/
I guess the real story should be that the Colts were using balls that defied physics, haha. Same thing with that 12th Patriots ball.
Don't let the absence of facts get in the way of your jokes, Roy. What was the PSI of the Colts balls when measured by the refs? Did Luck select the same PSI level as Brady, or closer to 13.5? Did they rub them down right before handing them over to the refs? What did they measure at when tested? Exactly the same as the pre-game measurement? When were they tested? In the same climate as when the Pats balls were tested? Did 11/12 Pats balls drop from 12.5 to 10.5? Or did they drop below 12.5 to as low as 10.5. There simply are not too many unanswered questions to deduce that the Pats purposely deflated the balls. Let me know when Roger Goodell texts you the answers. The only person who has made any reasonable effort to get to the bottom of what happened, and disclose his findings, was Bill Belichick, who happens to be preparing for a Super Bowl.
I posted a related set of questions about 20 pages back, along with the same point about how you can't draw a conclusion without answers to them, and the point was ignored then. Don't expect it to be given any consideration now.
-
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/25/nfl-bears-plenty-of-blame-for-deflategate/
NFL bears plenty of blame for #DeflateGate
At this point, it’s unclear whether the NFL will find any evidence to support the suspicion that someone from the Patriots deliberately caused footballs to lose air pressure. If the NFL fails to find a proverbial smoking gun, that alone could become a different kind of smoking gun.
Even if (and at this point it could be a big if) the league finds proof of foul play, was it really worth it? The NFL has tarnished its own shield by painting a Super Bowl participant as a cheater without clear evidence of cheating. As noted on Friday, some believe that former Commissioners (such as Paul Tagliabue) would have addressed complaints coming from teams like the Colts regarding underinflated footballs not by trying to lay a trap for the Patriots, but by letting the Patriots know that the league office is paying attention to the situation, and that if there’s any funny business happening it needs to stop, now. Instead, the league office opted to try to catch the Patriots red handed.
But what has the NFL really found? As one league source has explained it to PFT, the football intercepted by Colts linebacker D’Qwell Jackson was roughly two pounds under the 12.5 PSI minimum. The other 10 balls that reportedly were two pounds under may have been, as the source explained it, closer to one pound below 12.5 PSI.
The NFL has yet to share specific information regarding the PSI measurements of the balls that were confiscated and measured at halftime. Which has allowed the perception of cheating to linger, fueled by the confirmation from Friday that the NFL found underinflated balls, but that the NFL still doesn’t know how they came to be that way.
“The goals of the investigation will be to determine the explanation for why footballs used in the game were not in compliance with the playing rules and specifically whether any noncompliance was the result of deliberate action,” the league said. “We have not made any judgments on these points and will not do so until we have concluded our investigation and considered all of the relevant evidence.”
Regardless of how hard or easy it could be or should be to get to the truth, the NFL owes it to the Patriots and the league to get there, quickly. Instead, the premier American sporting event apparently will be played under a dark cloud, and anything other than an eventual finding of cheating will seem anticlimactic and contrived. Even if the conclusion is regarded as legitimate, it won’t undo the damage that the Patriots and the NFL will have suffered during this bizarre period of pending allegations that have not yet been proven.
So at a time when the league office is still reeling from an insufficient investigation in the Ray Rice case, the league office now faces even more criticism for a clumsy sting operation that possibly will end up being a swing and a miss. Surely, much of that criticism will be directed privately at the league office from the Patriots.
Complicating matters for the NFL is that the bat initially was swung by Mike Kensil, a former employee of the Jets with a reputation among the Patriots for being an agitator. (Kensil’s father, Jim, served as president of the Jets for 10 years from the late 1970s to the late 1980s.) And so on the same day that the tampering charges filed by the Patriots against the Jets over Darrelle Revis became the latest chapter in a longstanding feud between the franchises, the tentacles of acrimony between the two franchises found a way to erupt into a brouhaha unlike many the NFL ever has seen.
The NFL never should have let this specific situation get to that point. Even if the league deemed it proper to lay a trap, they should have realized the challenges of actually making a trap work. In this case, it appears that they didn’t.
The tide is turning.
-
Anyone watching the pre-pro bowl coverage?
Man, there are some salty former players. I honestly can't believe that more people are upset with this than the head hunting from New Orleans
A lot of the former players speaking out against the patriots should donate their brains to Harvard.
-
This new news that 10 out of 12 balls being closer to 11.5 psi should probably spell the end of Chris mortenson. What a fraud
-
This new news that 10 out of 12 balls being closer to 11.5 psi should probably spell the end of Chris mortenson. What a fraud
like just about everyone on that network
-
why cant this just be handled like the weigh-in for boxing. If you make weight at the weigh in then it does not matter what weight you actually fight at after the weigh in.
In this case the balls are weighed before the game and after that there should be two ball officials that guard the balls during the game.
-
Jeez I basically assumed that the 11 out of 12 balls thing was real because how could you falsely report an actual measurement that someone made. There's clearly too many people with an ax to grind with the patriots to trust the allegations.
why cant this just be handled like the weigh-in for boxing. If you make weight at the weigh in then it does not matter what weight you actually fight at after the weigh in.
In this case the balls are weighed before the game and after that there should be two ball officials that guard the balls during the game.
Because you there isn't a pump you can use to make an athlete gain 30 pounds of muscle in a day or 2.
-
Just in case ESPN tries to pull a Chad Ford on us:
http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/12202450/nfl-says-new-england-patriots-had-inflated-footballs-afc-championship-game
The NFL has found that 11 of the New England Patriots' 12 game balls were inflated significantly below the NFL's requirements, league sources involved and familiar with the investigation of Sunday's AFC Championship Game told ESPN.
The investigation found the footballs were inflated 2 pounds per square inch below what's required by NFL regulations during the Pats' 45-7 victory over the Indianapolis Colts, according to sources.
-
So maybe the only ball that was around 2 psi under was in the possession of the Colts. hmmmm...
Why isn't the NFL coming out and saying what the inflation was instead of letting things get reported incorrectly. Give us the [dang] facts! First is was a Colt's player who noticed the ball. Then he denies it. Then it was the Colts equipment guy, who is totally believable, then it wasn't him but the Ravens. Then the Ravens say it wasn't them. Now maybe its the Jets. It was all the balls but one were 2psi low, now maybe just one the Colts had in their possession. No information on the Colt's balls, only that they say they weren't under inflated.
Why isn't the Ref involved talking? Did he add air to the balls? Did he take air out to get it to 12.5? What kind of guage was used, was it tested. Has the NFL tested the temperature difference?
There is a complete absence of facts and only stories that conflict with each other and yet people seem to be perfectly willing to convict the Patriots, Bilicheck, and Brady on that feeble reporting. Sad.
-
Jeez I basically assumed that the 11 out of 12 balls thing was real because how could you falsely report an actual measurement that someone made.
I'll add that I thought the number was valid because 1) Mortensen is generally reliable, 2) if the report was wrong, the league allowed one of its Super Bowl teams to get its name dragged through the mud for a week without saying anything.
I just don't get that. Maybe it's the "there's no such thing as bad publicity" angle, but at some point isn't the perception that your best teams are blatantly cheating bad for business?
Now, this won't be settled until the actual numbers are released, but I'm certainly a lot more skeptical of the media firestorm if the "11 of 12 balls were 2.0 psi off" thing was overblown.
-
Just in case ESPN tries to pull a Chad Ford on us:
http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/12202450/nfl-says-new-england-patriots-had-inflated-footballs-afc-championship-game
The NFL has found that 11 of the New England Patriots' 12 game balls were inflated significantly below the NFL's requirements, league sources involved and familiar with the investigation of Sunday's AFC Championship Game told ESPN.
The investigation found the footballs were inflated 2 pounds per square inch below what's required by NFL regulations during the Pats' 45-7 victory over the Indianapolis Colts, according to sources.
does this mean that they were inflated 2psi lower when the refs checked them ? or in the first half ?
Because if the refs checked them and knew they were already low this would look really bad for the Pats and the NFL for knowingly letting play go on with balls that weren't regulation .
-
why cant this just be handled like the weigh-in for boxing. If you make weight at the weigh in then it does not matter what weight you actually fight at after the weigh in.
In this case the balls are weighed before the game and after that there should be two ball officials that guard the balls during the game.
I'll take it a step further: There is no need for, nor should there be, any psi requirements other than "Is the football inflated enough to pass it?" If the answer to that question is yes, then that's the end of the story. Who cares if one team likes the football firmer and others softer? If each team is allowed to do what it wants, then no team has a competitive advantage over another. There are so many possible variables—climate, personal preference, ball prep, the fact that no two footballs are identical to begin with—that having a "12.5 to 13.5 psi" requirement, or any other requirement along that line, is silly.
-
This new news that 10 out of 12 balls being closer to 11.5 psi should probably spell the end of Chris mortenson. What a fraud
Not to mention the Colts' equipment manager. Why is the ball that was turned over to him following the interception (which the intercepter found nothing wrong with) the one ball that was 10.5 psi, while the others were 11.5 psi?
The "chain of custody" of the evidence might explain why this particular ball is the outlier. Did the equipment manager test the ball? Did he deflate the ball, to make the Pats look bad? Probably not, but this is the ridiculous line of speculation that the Patriots have been facing since this joke of a scandal emerged after the shellacking of the Colts. I felt bad at the end of the game for the Pats running up the score. Now I wish they hadn't taken a knee at the end, and scored a final touchdown.
One final thought: Has anyone bothered to interview Andrew Luck on his PSI preference?
-
Jeez I basically assumed that the 11 out of 12 balls thing was real because how could you falsely report an actual measurement that someone made.
I'll add that I thought the number was valid because 1) Mortensen is generally reliable, 2) if the report was wrong, the league allowed one of its Super Bowl teams to get its name dragged through the mud for a week without saying anything.
I just don't get that. Maybe it's the "there's no such thing as bad publicity" angle, but at some point isn't the perception that your best teams are blatantly cheating bad for business?
Now, this won't be settled until the actual numbers are released, but I'm certainly a lot more skeptical of the media firestorm if the "11 of 12 balls were 2.0 psi off" thing was overblown.
Ya I still have no idea what the NFL as a whole has to gain from this. People do love villains, but it's not like the NFL is short on those.
-
Jeez I basically assumed that the 11 out of 12 balls thing was real because how could you falsely report an actual measurement that someone made.
I'll add that I thought the number was valid because 1) Mortensen is generally reliable, 2) if the report was wrong, the league allowed one of its Super Bowl teams to get its name dragged through the mud for a week without saying anything.
I just don't get that. Maybe it's the "there's no such thing as bad publicity" angle, but at some point isn't the perception that your best teams are blatantly cheating bad for business?
Now, this won't be settled until the actual numbers are released, but I'm certainly a lot more skeptical of the media firestorm if the "11 of 12 balls were 2.0 psi off" thing was overblown.
Ya I still have no idea what the NFL as a whole has to gain from this. People do love villains, but it's not like the NFL is short on those.
I don't think it was as instrumental as that. I think the NFL didn't want to botch things like they did with Ray Rice. So they are taking a very cautious and closed lip approach to this one. But from a timing point of view (given Super Bowl next week), the closed lip approach has led to this being blown out of proportion and ultimately (I'm guessing) very bad PR for the NFL.
-
Jeez I basically assumed that the 11 out of 12 balls thing was real because how could you falsely report an actual measurement that someone made.
I'll add that I thought the number was valid because 1) Mortensen is generally reliable, 2) if the report was wrong, the league allowed one of its Super Bowl teams to get its name dragged through the mud for a week without saying anything.
I just don't get that. Maybe it's the "there's no such thing as bad publicity" angle, but at some point isn't the perception that your best teams are blatantly cheating bad for business?
Now, this won't be settled until the actual numbers are released, but I'm certainly a lot more skeptical of the media firestorm if the "11 of 12 balls were 2.0 psi off" thing was overblown.
Ya I still have no idea what the NFL as a whole has to gain from this. People do love villains, but it's not like the NFL is short on those.
I don't think it was as instrumental as that. I think the NFL didn't want to botch things like they did with Ray Rice. So they are taking a very cautious and closed lip approach to this one. But from a timing point of view (given Super Bowl next week), the closed lip approach has led to this being blown out of proportion and ultimately (I'm guessing) very bad PR for the NFL.
You want to be in front of the story. The NFL let it fester for days before they came out with a statement that they could have made on day 1. If Mortenson got the story from an NFL executive (vs the colts or some other team), then they are directly responsible for tarnishing their own product. This is a major corporate screwup no matter what.
-
I don't think it was as instrumental as that. I think the NFL didn't want to botch things like they did with Ray Rice. So they are taking a very cautious and closed lip approach to this one. But from a timing point of view (given Super Bowl next week), the closed lip approach has led to this being blown out of proportion and ultimately (I'm guessing) very bad PR for the NFL.
I think that the league's stuck in a bad position on this. I think they're stuck investigating a rule violation when they don't particularly enforce the rule normally. I doubt that they really accurately measure the psi in the balls before the game and it's a little late in the story line to admit that.
-
Tom Curren on NESN saying that the one ball that was 2 lbs under was the one that the Colts had in their possession from the interception.
-
Tom Curren on NESN saying that the one ball that was 2 lbs under was the one that the Colts had in their possession from the interception.
if this is true than either mortensen or his source needs to lose their job, this sounds like an outright hatchet job against the pats.
and it's strange that the ball the colts intercepted would be the lowest one. maybe it was the rain? maybe it was a setup by irsay, maybe they deflated it themselves, the rumors suggest they might have been planning this. the colts are so pathetic that at this point i could almost see that happening.
speaking of irsay
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2014/10/17/jim-irsay-dui-arrest-video-released/17433323/
-
Dear media....you...should...shut...up...now.
-
This new news is AMAZING. While I'm upset that the Patriots may eventually end up losing the Super Bowl because of this nonsense, I am psyched that all these 'experts' (and the NFL office) are going to end up looking super-foolish. In Belichick/Brady I trust. I never had any doubt guys!
-
While I'm upset that the Patriots may eventually end up losing the Super Bowl because of this nonsense...
If anything, I think the Pats are more likely to win due to this. They're best when they play with a chip on their shoulder.
-
While I'm upset that the Patriots may eventually end up losing the Super Bowl because of this nonsense...
If anything, I think the Pats are more likely to win due to this. They're best when they play with a chip on their shoulder.
Don't you see, it is a conspiracy to help the Patriots? ;)
Wetzel has an interesting piece today about rumors that this was all a botched sting operation by the NFL
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/did-nfl-run-sting-operation-on-patriots-to-trigger-deflate-gate--051258575.html
I'm not sure what to make of it. Normally I think Wetzel does pretty good work, but this past week he's been one of those that swings wildly from deflategate storyline to storyline.
-
While I'm upset that the Patriots may eventually end up losing the Super Bowl because of this nonsense...
If anything, I think the Pats are more likely to win due to this. They're best when they play with a chip on their shoulder.
Don't you see, it is a conspiracy to help the Patriots? ;)
Wetzel has an interesting piece today about rumors that this was all a botched sting operation by the NFL
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/did-nfl-run-sting-operation-on-patriots-to-trigger-deflate-gate--051258575.html
I'm not sure what to make of it. Normally I think Wetzel does pretty good work, but this past week he's been one of those that swings wildly from deflategate storyline to storyline.
I really hope the Pats shut every one up!
-
Thornton is killing it today again :)
http://thornography.weei.com/sports/boston/2015/01/26/bulletin-board-fodder-richard-sherman-jets-players-question-patriots-integrity/
-
While I'm upset that the Patriots may eventually end up losing the Super Bowl because of this nonsense...
If anything, I think the Pats are more likely to win due to this. They're best when they play with a chip on their shoulder.
Don't you see, it is a conspiracy to help the Patriots? ;)
Wetzel has an interesting piece today about rumors that this was all a botched sting operation by the NFL
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/did-nfl-run-sting-operation-on-patriots-to-trigger-deflate-gate--051258575.html
I'm not sure what to make of it. Normally I think Wetzel does pretty good work, but this past week he's been one of those that swings wildly from deflategate storyline to storyline.
Wouldn't shock me. This league office has bungled item after item since Goodell took over as commissioner. Can't remember who wrote it but was reading yesterday that if this thing was going on under Rozelle or Tagliabue, the course of action most likely would've been the league telling the organization to "Knock if off" when the problem first was presented rather than trying to set a trap or catch someone in the act. Another thing to keep in mind is that there are reports that the guy leading the NFL investigation is a former Jets employee who was there during the whole Parcells/Belichick "I resign as HC of the NYJ" debacle back in 2000.
The NFL certainly isn't doing itself any favors right now but it's the media storm that has really been the worst thing to rise out of this. People had their minds already made up when Mort's report came out early last week. Doesn't matter that it sounds like some of his info was offbase or just flat out wrong. Once that report came out, it was game on as far as the media & football fans were concerned. (ESPN looking the absolute worst of the bunch)
-
Thornton is killing it today again :)
http://thornography.weei.com/sports/boston/2015/01/26/bulletin-board-fodder-richard-sherman-jets-players-question-patriots-integrity/
LOVE this paragraph:
Richard Sherman is smart enough to have gone to Stanford. Nick Mangold is a bright, articulate guy. Sheldon Richardson is … also a person. So I could point out the obvious to them. I could mention that Sherman’s team has basically been the Cheattle Cheathawks over Peter Carroll’s tenure, leading the NFL in drug suspensions and getting fined $300,000 for holding illegal practices. I could ask Mangold what else has been “amiss” over the years besides pointing a camera at the Jets sidelines from somewhere other than the approved camera-pointing area back when he was in high school. Or take a swipe at Richardson by mentioning if the Jets ain’t going 4-12 with controversy, they ain’t going 4-12.
-
Jeez I basically assumed that the 11 out of 12 balls thing was real because how could you falsely report an actual measurement that someone made.
I'll add that I thought the number was valid because 1) Mortensen is generally reliable, 2) if the report was wrong, the league allowed one of its Super Bowl teams to get its name dragged through the mud for a week without saying anything.
I just don't get that. Maybe it's the "there's no such thing as bad publicity" angle, but at some point isn't the perception that your best teams are blatantly cheating bad for business?
Now, this won't be settled until the actual numbers are released, but I'm certainly a lot more skeptical of the media firestorm if the "11 of 12 balls were 2.0 psi off" thing was overblown.
Ya I still have no idea what the NFL as a whole has to gain from this. People do love villains, but it's not like the NFL is short on those.
And that's exactly why the NFL is making a show of doing something about a non-issue: so the fans don't think that the league is as dumb as it is. The ladt thing the NFL wants is for 2015 to be another 2014, as far as PR goes.
-
This is why I am a NBA/Celtics fan. The NFL is a joke, beating of women and Domestic violence, a good portion of its players current and former will have major brain damage, they are basically selling gladiator games to foolish people.
The NFL just degraded its most important weekend and allowed the Public Relations wing of the NFL, ESPN, to thrash one of its most important and lucrative products Tom Brady.
And they did it to avoid all the uncomfortable questions regarding head trauma, the 1985 bears cannot walk and think, the many members of their league currently in domestic violence cases and the overall poor management of the entire league.
Nothing surprises me with the NFL, they would kill a child if they could make money.
-
I agree with about half of that.
-
This is why I am a NBA/Celtics fan. The NFL is a joke, beating of women and Domestic violence, a good portion of its players current and former will have major brain damage, they are basically selling gladiator games to foolish people.
The NFL just degraded its most important weekend and allowed the Public Relations wing of the NFL, ESPN, to thrash one of its most important and lucrative products Tom Brady.
And they did it to avoid all the uncomfortable questions regarding head trauma, the 1985 bears cannot walk and think, the many members of their league currently in domestic violence cases and the overall poor management of the entire league.
Nothing surprises me with the NFL, they would kill a child if they could make money.
Robert Parish ?
There are scumbags in the NBA too ....
-
ProFootballTalk @ProFootballTalk ? 7m 7 minutes ago
Just had a very interesting phone call about #DeflateGate. Waiting for one more call. Stay tuned.
-
This is why I am a NBA/Celtics fan. The NFL is a joke, beating of women and Domestic violence, a good portion of its players current and former will have major brain damage, they are basically selling gladiator games to foolish people.
The NFL just degraded its most important weekend and allowed the Public Relations wing of the NFL, ESPN, to thrash one of its most important and lucrative products Tom Brady.
And they did it to avoid all the uncomfortable questions regarding head trauma, the 1985 bears cannot walk and think, the many members of their league currently in domestic violence cases and the overall poor management of the entire league.
Nothing surprises me with the NFL, they would kill a child if they could make money.
Not sure about that last sentence, there. But, for many of the reasons you list above, my wife no longer watches or cares about football. As a Pats fan, hard for me to step away...
-
As crazy as it sounds (and I had never heard of them before this thing), the Twitter account "Sharks of Vegas" has been on top of this #DeflateGate thing and been nailing a lot of news & items of note.
-
As crazy as it sounds (and I had never heard of them before this thing), the Twitter account "Sharks of Vegas" has been on top of this #DeflateGate thing and been nailing a lot of news & items of note.
Mike Kensil story?
-
As crazy as it sounds (and I had never heard of them before this thing), the Twitter account "Sharks of Vegas" has been on top of this #DeflateGate thing and been nailing a lot of news & items of note.
Mike Kensil story?
That's the latest but they seemed to have been ahead of the game on a lot of the stuff that has come out post Mort report.
-
ProFootballTalk @ProFootballTalk ? 7m 7 minutes ago
Just had a very interesting phone call about #DeflateGate. Waiting for one more call. Stay tuned.
Yes?
-
https://twitter.com/SharksOfVegas/status/559404286988533760
BREAKING -Source CONFIRMS NFL Investigation is more about the officials than the Patriots.
-
https://twitter.com/SharksOfVegas/status/559404286988533760
BREAKING -Source CONFIRMS NFL Investigation is more about the officials than the Patriots.
FINALLY!
As it should be
Thanks for the link! :D TP
-
This is why I am a NBA/Celtics fan. The NFL is a joke, beating of women and Domestic violence, a good portion of its players current and former will have major brain damage, they are basically selling gladiator games to foolish people.
The NFL just degraded its most important weekend and allowed the Public Relations wing of the NFL, ESPN, to thrash one of its most important and lucrative products Tom Brady.
And they did it to avoid all the uncomfortable questions regarding head trauma, the 1985 bears cannot walk and think, the many members of their league currently in domestic violence cases and the overall poor management of the entire league.
Nothing surprises me with the NFL, they would kill a child if they could make money.
Robert Parish ?
There are scumbags in the NBA too ....
True, but there seems to be more true scumbags in the NFL. Every year there is some kind of serious issue regarding domestic violence and steroids
Some people say that the NBA is full of thugs. I personally believe the NBA is full of stoner ballers. Most of whom wouldn't hurt a fly in real life
-
This thing just keeps taking turn after turn.... (From PFT)
Report: NFL investigation has “zeroed in” on Patriots locker room attendant
Posted by Josh Alper on January 26, 2015, 3:34 PM EST
Bill Belichick Blinds NFL WIth Science On Deflategate
Last week, the NFL released a statement saying they were continuing their investigation into under-inflated footballs used by the Patriots during their AFC Championship game victory over the Colts to determine if the deflation was “the result of deliberate action” by the Patriots.
Coach Bill Belichick and quarterback Tom Brady both denied any knowledge of what happened and Belichick offered up an explanation via scientific experimentation on Saturday, but Jay Glazer of FOX Sports reports that the league has “zeroed in” on a team employee in their investigation.
Per Glazer, the league has interviewed a Patriots locker room attendant who allegedly took footballs from the officials locker room after they had been inspected and approved “to another area on way to field” before the start of the game. There’s reportedly video of this attendant with the balls, although Glazer adds that the league’s investigators are “still gauging” if the attendant, called a “strong person of interest,” had anything to do with the deflation.
The Patriots are on their way to Arizona right now. If anyone’s betting on the first question Belichick gets asked after arrival, it would probably be unwise to bet on anything other than Glazer’s report.
-
Bill Nye the Science Guy has apparently said that BB's explanation doesn't make sense (http://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2015/1/25/7887055/bill-nye-bill-belichick-science-deflategate).
Or do you think he is biased because he worked for Boeing in Seattle, which was also where he id his TV show?
He finished his bit with "Go Seahawks", so I'm guessing he's fully impartial.
http://time.com/3681707/bill-nye-science-guy-deflategate/
Quick. There's only one way to deal with this. Someone's gotta get Neil DeGrasse Tyson on the Pats payroll to say it makes total sense.
-
Bill Nye the Science Guy has apparently said that BB's explanation doesn't make sense (http://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2015/1/25/7887055/bill-nye-bill-belichick-science-deflategate).
Or do you think he is biased because he worked for Boeing in Seattle, which was also where he did his TV show?
I know - isn't it awesome, lol? ;D The Patriots getting slammed by Bill Nye the Science Guy. Ahaha. ;D I always watched his show on PBS when I was a kid, even though I've never been a 'science guy,' haha. ;) ::) ;D I just liked how he made everything fun, as opposed to falling asleep in class while learning about plants and sh1t, lol. ;D There's only so much photosynthesis that I can take, lol ;D, and yet we still had to learn about it every. Single. ****g. Year. Ugh.
-
Bill Nye the Science Guy has apparently said that BB's explanation doesn't make sense (http://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2015/1/25/7887055/bill-nye-bill-belichick-science-deflategate).
Or do you think he is biased because he worked for Boeing in Seattle, which was also where he id his TV show?
He finished his bit with "Go Seahawks", so I'm guessing he's fully impartial.
http://time.com/3681707/bill-nye-science-guy-deflategate/
Quick. There's only one way to deal with this. Someone's gotta get Neil DeGrasse Tyson on the Pats payroll to say it makes total sense.
Oh dear god, not Neil DeGrasse Tyson, lol. ;D
(http://newsthatmattersnot.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Classroom.jpg)
-
Bill Nye the Science Guy has apparently said that BB's explanation doesn't make sense (http://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2015/1/25/7887055/bill-nye-bill-belichick-science-deflategate).
Or do you think he is biased because he worked for Boeing in Seattle, which was also where he id his TV show?
He finished his bit with "Go Seahawks", so I'm guessing he's fully impartial.
http://time.com/3681707/bill-nye-science-guy-deflategate/
Quick. There's only one way to deal with this. Someone's gotta get Neil DeGrasse Tyson on the Pats payroll to say it makes total sense.
Too late.
https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/559814692936237057
-
Neil deGrasse Tyson (https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/559814692936237057):
For the Patriots to blame a change in temperature for 15% lower-pressures, requires balls to be inflated with 125-degree air.
-
Here we go:
JayGlazer
@JayGlazer
Breaking news: sources tell @FOXSports the NFL has zeroed in on a locker room attendant w Patriots who allegedly took balls from officials locker room to another area on way to field. Sources say they have interviewed him and additionally have video. Still gauging if any wrong doing occurred with him but he is strong person of interest
Somewhere earlier in this thread I suggested that Belichick had given the tip off by referring to video, the elevator, etc., in his first press conference.
-
Bill Nye the Science Guy has apparently said that BB's explanation doesn't make sense (http://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2015/1/25/7887055/bill-nye-bill-belichick-science-deflategate).
Or do you think he is biased because he worked for Boeing in Seattle, which was also where he id his TV show?
He finished his bit with "Go Seahawks", so I'm guessing he's fully impartial.
http://time.com/3681707/bill-nye-science-guy-deflategate/
There's no such thing as being 'fully impartial,' nor do 'facts' even exist anymore. It used to be said that numbers don't lie, but that's crap, as well, because anyone can manipulate an experiment or the data that comes from it, so you can't rely on numbers or statistics to make your point. As a general rule, whenever I see politicians on opposite sides of the aisle citing numbers, I automatically tune both of them out, no matter which one I may support, because the truth is likely somewhere in the middle. I think that people see Bill Nye as someone who is completely removed from the situation in this case, so that's why he would be seen as being 'fully impartial.' Plus, he could have said 'go seahawks' simply because he doesn't like cheaters, I don't know, lol. ;D
-
Here we go:
JayGlazer
@JayGlazer
Breaking news: sources tell @FOXSports the NFL has zeroed in on a locker room attendant w Patriots who allegedly took balls from officials locker room to another area on way to field. Sources say they have interviewed him and additionally have video. Still gauging if any wrong doing occurred with him but he is strong person of interest
Somewhere earlier in this thread I suggested that Belichick had given the tip off by referring to video, the elevator, etc., in his first press conference.
(http://img.pandawhale.com/post-33745-What-No-way-gif-Jason-Segel-Ba-IF15.gif)
-
Here we go:
JayGlazer
@JayGlazer
Breaking news: sources tell @FOXSports the NFL has zeroed in on a locker room attendant w Patriots who allegedly took balls from officials locker room to another area on way to field. Sources say they have interviewed him and additionally have video. Still gauging if any wrong doing occurred with him but he is strong person of interest
Somewhere earlier in this thread I suggested that Belichick had given the tip off by referring to video, the elevator, etc., in his first press conference.
https://twitter.com/AlbertBreer/status/559835275141349376
Statement from investigator Ted Wells on DeflateGate: "I expect the investigation to take at least several more weeks."
Why so long? They already have the culprit.
-
Already knew this. Obviously someone brought the balls out to the field and that person would be the prime suspect.
There is no way Belicheck didnt know about this video before his press conference, I guarantee he's seen it. It is almost 100% nothing, most likely a video of the guy with the bag of balls walking down a hallway or something.
-
Neil deGrasse Tyson (https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/559814692936237057):
For the Patriots to blame a change in temperature for 15% lower-pressures, requires balls to be inflated with 125-degree air.
Science is just jealous of the Patriots success.
-
Already knew this. Obviously someone brought the balls out to the field and that person would be the prime suspect.
There is no way Belicheck didnt know about this video before his press conference, I guarantee he's seen it. It is almost 100% nothing, most likely a video of the guy with the bag of balls walking down a hallway or something.
Are you kidding me? He's a "strong person of interest."
#NFLclustersomething
-
Already knew this. Obviously someone brought the balls out to the field and that person would be the prime suspect.
There is no way Belicheck didnt know about this video before his press conference, I guarantee he's seen it. It is almost 100% nothing, most likely a video of the guy with the bag of balls walking down a hallway or something.
Are you kidding me? He's a "strong person of interest."
#NFLclustersomething
#NFLwillgivemediasomethingtorunwith
-
Kraft must be thrilled with the weather. Deflate-gate is no longer the lead story on the news.
-
Neil deGrasse Tyson (https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/559814692936237057):
For the Patriots to blame a change in temperature for 15% lower-pressures, requires balls to be inflated with 125-degree air.
Science is just jealous of the Patriots success.
Where was the media when other teams were violating the laws of physics?
-
Neil deGrasse Tyson (https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/559814692936237057):
For the Patriots to blame a change in temperature for 15% lower-pressures, requires balls to be inflated with 125-degree air.
Okay, so some of these physics experts need to give back their degrees, because they're reaching opposite conclusions.
Any truth to the rumor that the Patriots have hired global warming deniers to go on record for them? ;)
-
Supposedly, the attendant was one of the 40 people interviewed last week.
So now you have Glazer's report and Ted Wells from the NFL comes out and says this is still going to take weeks? Something doesn't add up here.
-
Already knew this. Obviously someone brought the balls out to the field and that person would be the prime suspect.
There is no way Belicheck didnt know about this video before his press conference, I guarantee he's seen it. It is almost 100% nothing, most likely a video of the guy with the bag of balls walking down a hallway or something.
Are you kidding me? He's a "strong person of interest."
#NFLclustersomething
Uhhh yeah. If you are running an investigation on whether someone tampered with and lowered the psi of footballs, the strong person of interest would obviously be the person who brought them out pregame. Every team has a guy that does it. This isn't some huge new revelation. It would virtually have to be him unless you think the Patriots did it on-field which is ridiculous and impossible to do without getting caught.
-
Neil deGrasse Tyson (https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/559814692936237057):
For the Patriots to blame a change in temperature for 15% lower-pressures, requires balls to be inflated with 125-degree air.
Science is just jealous of the Patriots success.
Where was the media when other teams were violating the laws of physics?
I assume he ran his calculations with the assumption that the ball's psi deflated 2 pounds. Report today (or maybe it was yesterday) said it was closer to 1.
But who cares anyways, is there some nfl by-law saying you cannot inflate the balls with a high temperature air? Sure it would be rule bending and probably result in a fine but I don't think it's technically against the rules.
-
If the ball boy is seen taking the balls into another room and then coming out 15 minutes later it looks bad, obviously. If he says he didn't touch the balls and there is no video inside that room then I don't think you can penalize anyone.
But if the video shows that... it will be enough for the court of public opinion to agree that they must have cheated.
Hopefully Bill had already seen all the videos before his last press conference, he wouldn't have gotten all sciency if the video showed anything remotely close to cheating.
-
Neil deGrasse Tyson (https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/559814692936237057):
For the Patriots to blame a change in temperature for 15% lower-pressures, requires balls to be inflated with 125-degree air.
Considering that the pressure didn't change by 15% (it was more like 7%), he clearly forgot that Gage pressure =/= absolute pressure, so I don't trust the rest of his math there
-
Why so long? They already have the culprit.
Maybe they want to avoid punishing anyone until after the Super Bowl, just in case someone like Brady or Belichick turns out to be sufficiently involved that the league would look bad if it didn't suspend him for at least the next game.
-
Already knew this. Obviously someone brought the balls out to the field and that person would be the prime suspect.
There is no way Belicheck didnt know about this video before his press conference, I guarantee he's seen it. It is almost 100% nothing, most likely a video of the guy with the bag of balls walking down a hallway or something.
Are you kidding me? He's a "strong person of interest."
#NFLclustersomething
Uhhh yeah. If you are running an investigation on whether someone tampered with and lowered the psi of footballs, the strong person of interest would obviously be the person who brought them out pregame. Every team has a guy that does it. This isn't some huge new revelation. It would virtually have to be him unless you think the Patriots did it on-field which is ridiculous and impossible to do without getting caught.
So a "strong person of interest" doesn't mean much? Someone's trying to convey that it does.
If they have this guy on tape doctoring the footballs, why is this investigation going to take several weeks more. Can't be that the NFL doesn't want to damage their product before the SB because they already have.
-
Why Belichek's Science Adds Up
The change in absolute pressure is not from 12.5psi to 10.5psi, or 19%. It is from 12.5psi + the pressure of the atmosphere to 10.5 + atmosphere, or 8%. This difference is plausible given the weather conditions of the day. If the pressure was measured at 45 degrees F (280K) and 10.5psi, and inflated initially to 12.5psi, if no air was let out the initial temperature only has to be 280K*1.08=302K, or 84 degrees F. This is a plausible initial temp given that the ball had been rubbed vigorously in a 70F environment. Additionally, the act of measuring pressure itself is known to lose air; the more times the pressure was measured, the worse the estimates would have been.
Why Wouldn't the Colts' Balls, and the Pats' kicking ball, have been Underinflated?
There are several reasons this could be.
-Their initial pressure was closer to 13.5 than to 12.5
-They were not heated due to vigorous rubbing
-They were at a different temperature when they were measured
Results are consistent with this story:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/24/basic-physics-may-defeat-deflategate.html
-
Already knew this. Obviously someone brought the balls out to the field and that person would be the prime suspect.
There is no way Belicheck didnt know about this video before his press conference, I guarantee he's seen it. It is almost 100% nothing, most likely a video of the guy with the bag of balls walking down a hallway or something.
Are you kidding me? He's a "strong person of interest."
#NFLclustersomething
Uhhh yeah. If you are running an investigation on whether someone tampered with and lowered the psi of footballs, the strong person of interest would obviously be the person who brought them out pregame. Every team has a guy that does it. This isn't some huge new revelation. It would virtually have to be him unless you think the Patriots did it on-field which is ridiculous and impossible to do without getting caught.
So a "strong person of interest" doesn't mean much? Someone's trying to convey that it does.
If they have this guy on tape doctoring the footballs, why is this investigation going to take several weeks more. Can't be that the NFL doesn't want to damage their product before the SB because they already have.
Well, the league obviously needs more time to 'study' the effects that temperature has on the pressure of their balls (sarcasm). ::) ;D It's just the usual stalling tactic that Goodell uses, just like the time that he said that they needed more time to 'study' the effect concussions have on players. ::) He's just hoping that everyone will watch the game and forget about this whole thing, and then about two weeks later a little snippet of a report will come out with the result and by then everyone will have already forgotten all about it. Sigh. The government operates the same way.
-
Why so long? They already have the culprit.
Maybe they want to avoid punishing anyone until after the Super Bowl, just in case someone like Brady or Belichick turns out to be sufficiently involved that the league would look bad if it didn't suspend him for at least the next game.
The NFL keeps talking about the integrity of the game. If the NFL has either TB or BB dead to rights, they should suspend them. To do otherwise would not make a lot of sense and would create a bigger mess if the NEP win.
The NFL does not have anything is my guess.
-
I wonder if the "source" of this Glazer report is the same as the one who leaked stuff to Mort last week.
Interested to see what direction this whole Mike Kensil thing goes.
-
Neil deGrasse Tyson (https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/559814692936237057):
For the Patriots to blame a change in temperature for 15% lower-pressures, requires balls to be inflated with 125-degree air.
Okay, so some of these physics experts need to give back their degrees, because they're reaching opposite conclusions.
Any truth to the rumor that the Patriots have hired global warming deniers to go on record for them? ;)
They were already hired by ESPN.
-
Let's see what all of these "locker room attendant" stories are using as their source. Oh look, it's one tweet:
Breaking news: sources tell @FOXSports the NFL has zeroed in on a locker room attendant w Patriots who allegedly took balls from officials locker room to another area on way to field. Sources say they have interviewed him and additionally have video. Still gauging if any wrong doing occurred with him but he is strong person of interest
So let's see, "sources" who are not at the NFL say that the NFL is investigating the locker room attendant who "allegedly" handles the game balls? And they still are gauging if any wrong doing happened even after a video tape and an interview? Please put out one piece of non-circumstantial evidence if you want to keep this story going. Please, just one.
-
The fact that the NFL source describes the ballboy as a "person of interest" tends to further inflame the theory, that a bad act was involved, rather than the weather. "Person of interest" is a term of art used in a criminal investigation, when investigators have a suspect, but don't yet have enough evidence to get an arrest warrant (probable cause). It's funny they would use this term, showing they are totally looking at this as a criminal investigation, rather than an investigation into what the heck happened.
-
Why so long? They already have the culprit.
Maybe they want to avoid punishing anyone until after the Super Bowl, just in case someone like Brady or Belichick turns out to be sufficiently involved that the league would look bad if it didn't suspend him for at least the next game.
The NFL keeps talking about the integrity of the game. If the NFL has either TB or BB dead to rights, they should suspend them. To do otherwise would not make a lot of sense and would create a bigger mess if the NEP win.
It may not make sense to you, but I'd argue that the NFL does a lot of things that don't make a lot of sense. In this case, though, I think the league is interested in the short-term goal of not having to suspend anyone before the Super Bowl while making it look like they are properly investigating this matter. If they delay, there's a chance that Seattle wins and there's a chance that the investigation does not result in any punishment. In the absence of a smoking gun, it is typical corporate behavior to try and defer things and hope they go away.
Just because the league talks about the integrity of the game, that doesn't mean it is actually a priority.
-
The fact that the NFL source describes the ballboy as a "person of interest" tends to further inflame the theory, that a bad act was involved, rather than the weather. "Person of interest" is a term of art used in a criminal investigation, when investigators have a suspect, but don't yet have enough evidence to get an arrest warrant (probable cause). It's funny they would use this term, showing they are totally looking at this as a criminal investigation, rather than an investigation into what the heck happened.
It is worth pointing out, of course, that this is not a criminal investigation.
-
Why so long? They already have the culprit.
Maybe they want to avoid punishing anyone until after the Super Bowl, just in case someone like Brady or Belichick turns out to be sufficiently involved that the league would look bad if it didn't suspend him for at least the next game.
The NFL keeps talking about the integrity of the game. If the NFL has either TB or BB dead to rights, they should suspend them. To do otherwise would not make a lot of sense and would create a bigger mess if the NEP win.
It may not make sense to you, but I'd argue that the NFL does a lot of things that don't make a lot of sense. In this case, though, I think the league is interested in the short-term goal of not having to suspend anyone before the Super Bowl while making it look like they are properly investigating this matter. If they delay, there's a chance that Seattle wins and there's a chance that the investigation does not result in any punishment. In the absence of a smoking gun, it is typical corporate behavior to try and defer things and hope they go away.
Just because the league talks about the integrity of the game, that doesn't mean it is actually a priority.
Very bad risk management to take a chance on the Patriots losing. If the Patriots win and the NFL knew the Patriots were guilty, that will create a s-storm. The NFL's management hasn't been great under Goodell, but I'd have to assume they were idiots of the highest order to conclude they would sit on evidence that would convict the NEP.
Kraft is doubling down as I type this.
-
Wow, go get them Bob. Wants an apology if the NFL screwed up and is attacking the leaks. Strong backing of TB and BB.
-
Bob Kraft now speaking out strong against the investigation as well. Incredibly bold for the team. If they are bluffing its an awfully big gamble.
-
Neil deGrasse Tyson (https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/559814692936237057):
For the Patriots to blame a change in temperature for 15% lower-pressures, requires balls to be inflated with 125-degree air.
Okay, so some of these physics experts need to give back their degrees, because they're reaching opposite conclusions.
Any truth to the rumor that the Patriots have hired global warming deniers to go on record for them? ;)
He might have to give his back. As Jim said, it's been pointed out in numerous places that Tyson might be confusing atmospheric and gauge pressure.
http://www.avclub.com/article/neil-degrasse-tyson-bungles-science-deflate-gate-s-214373
If so, the embarrassments continue. It'd be a bummer for me...I *like* Tyson.
-
Neil deGrasse Tyson (https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/559814692936237057):
For the Patriots to blame a change in temperature for 15% lower-pressures, requires balls to be inflated with 125-degree air.
Okay, so some of these physics experts need to give back their degrees, because they're reaching opposite conclusions.
Any truth to the rumor that the Patriots have hired global warming deniers to go on record for them? ;)
He might have to give his back. As Jim said, it's been pointed out in numerous places that Tyson might be confusing atmospheric and gauge pressure.
http://www.avclub.com/article/neil-degrasse-tyson-bungles-science-deflate-gate-s-214373
If so, the embarrassments continue. It'd be a bummer for me...I *like* Tyson.
I think he's pompous, so I'd be happy to see him mix up a (seemingly) simple concept.
-
Neil deGrasse Tyson (https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/559814692936237057):
For the Patriots to blame a change in temperature for 15% lower-pressures, requires balls to be inflated with 125-degree air.
Okay, so some of these physics experts need to give back their degrees, because they're reaching opposite conclusions.
Any truth to the rumor that the Patriots have hired global warming deniers to go on record for them? ;)
He might have to give his back. As Jim said, it's been pointed out in numerous places that Tyson might be confusing atmospheric and gauge pressure.
http://www.avclub.com/article/neil-degrasse-tyson-bungles-science-deflate-gate-s-214373
If so, the embarrassments continue. It'd be a bummer for me...I *like* Tyson.
I think he's pompous, so I'd be happy to see him mix up a (seemingly) simple concept.
He is, a bit. That said, we're all flying blind here to say the least, so I don't want to throw him under the bus without more evidence about how he got his numbers. That would be COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS.
-
Kraft wants an apology from NFL if no evidence against Pats.
Also
I’??m disappointed in the way this entire matter has been handled, and reported upon. We expect hard facts, as opposed to circumstantial leaked evidence to draw the conclusion of this investigation.
So true.
More here:
http://itiswhatitis.weei.com/sports/newengland/football/patriots/2015/01/26/robert-kraft-defends-patriots-says-nfl-should-apologize-if-league-finds-them-not-guilty-of-any-wrongdoing/
-
A couple observations here.......
Science is ignoring the possibility of a divine miracle ....I TOLD you Tim Tebow would help us!
Also....the scientists may seem to know some forms of science but probably not psychology. What did Bill Belichick say? He said "You're welcome to try it yourself". So let's see it. Let's see the "scientists" Bill Bye and Neil DeGrasse Tyson do these experiments. Let's see the astrophysicist do the football experiments (when he gets done talking about GMOs or whatever scientific issue du jour pops up) and prove Bill wrong. Let's see them fly to New England and show everyone how it's done.
So their genius theory is that Bill Belichick and the Pats did all sorts of experiments (or didn't do them), then called a press conference and went to the mat over easily refutable science. Yeah. Ok. When can the Pats coaching staff take over for Bill Nye and Neil TD? After the Super Bowl?
They're not just better at football. They're better at ....everything. New England. We don't just think we're better than you. We know it.
-
Kraft's press conference:
http://now.nfl.com/?icampaign=nflnow-main_nav_bar-nfl-videos
-
Why so long? They already have the culprit.
Maybe they want to avoid punishing anyone until after the Super Bowl, just in case someone like Brady or Belichick turns out to be sufficiently involved that the league would look bad if it didn't suspend him for at least the next game.
The NFL keeps talking about the integrity of the game. If the NFL has either TB or BB dead to rights, they should suspend them. To do otherwise would not make a lot of sense and would create a bigger mess if the NEP win.
It may not make sense to you, but I'd argue that the NFL does a lot of things that don't make a lot of sense. In this case, though, I think the league is interested in the short-term goal of not having to suspend anyone before the Super Bowl while making it look like they are properly investigating this matter. If they delay, there's a chance that Seattle wins and there's a chance that the investigation does not result in any punishment. In the absence of a smoking gun, it is typical corporate behavior to try and defer things and hope they go away.
Just because the league talks about the integrity of the game, that doesn't mean it is actually a priority.
Very bad risk management to take a chance on the Patriots losing. If the Patriots win and the NFL knew the Patriots were guilty, that will create a s-storm. The NFL's management hasn't been great under Goodell, but I'd have to assume they were idiots of the highest order to conclude they would sit on evidence that would convict the NEP.
Kraft is doubling down as I type this.
I'm suggesting they want to slow down the pace of the investigation so they won't know for sure whether there is solid evidence until after the Super Bowl.
If the Patriots win and they turn out to be guilty of something, the line will be that it didn't affect that game or the Super Bowl.
Who remembers Gary Hart? "Follow me around. I don't care." Someone boldly denying an allegation isn't evidence that the allegation isn't false.
-
Why so long? They already have the culprit.
Maybe they want to avoid punishing anyone until after the Super Bowl, just in case someone like Brady or Belichick turns out to be sufficiently involved that the league would look bad if it didn't suspend him for at least the next game.
The NFL keeps talking about the integrity of the game. If the NFL has either TB or BB dead to rights, they should suspend them. To do otherwise would not make a lot of sense and would create a bigger mess if the NEP win.
It may not make sense to you, but I'd argue that the NFL does a lot of things that don't make a lot of sense. In this case, though, I think the league is interested in the short-term goal of not having to suspend anyone before the Super Bowl while making it look like they are properly investigating this matter. If they delay, there's a chance that Seattle wins and there's a chance that the investigation does not result in any punishment. In the absence of a smoking gun, it is typical corporate behavior to try and defer things and hope they go away.
Just because the league talks about the integrity of the game, that doesn't mean it is actually a priority.
Very bad risk management to take a chance on the Patriots losing. If the Patriots win and the NFL knew the Patriots were guilty, that will create a s-storm. The NFL's management hasn't been great under Goodell, but I'd have to assume they were idiots of the highest order to conclude they would sit on evidence that would convict the NEP.
Kraft is doubling down as I type this.
I'm suggesting they want to slow down the pace of the investigation so they won't know for sure whether there is solid evidence until after the Super Bowl.
If the Patriots win and they turn out to be guilty of something, the line will be that it didn't affect that game or the Super Bowl.
Who remembers Gary Hart? "Follow me around. I don't care." Someone boldly denying an allegation isn't evidence that the allegation isn't false.
I'm with LC. The league should have approached it this way from the get-go, too. "We will be doubly vigilant up to and during the Super Bowl, so you don't need to worry about any issues of 'integrity' there. We will take our time with the investigation. Any penalties will be commensurate to the violation and can be imposed in the off season and next year. Meanwhile we ask all players, team and league officials and members of the media to refrain from baseless speculation, and turn their attention to enjoying the sporting event of the year."
-
I'm with these guys^ but it's hardly the sporting event of the year.
-
I'm with these guys^ but it's hardly the sporting event of the year.
Their words, not mine.
-
As a culture we need to stop referring to things as (insert situation)gate. Dude we're gonna have a wicked snowgate tomorrow. I blewout my freakin hammy shovelin my driveway dood. Talk about hammygate. I swear ta gawd if I don't get my dunkins in the mornin I'll cause a coffeegate.
-
Why so long? They already have the culprit.
Maybe they want to avoid punishing anyone until after the Super Bowl, just in case someone like Brady or Belichick turns out to be sufficiently involved that the league would look bad if it didn't suspend him for at least the next game.
The NFL keeps talking about the integrity of the game. If the NFL has either TB or BB dead to rights, they should suspend them. To do otherwise would not make a lot of sense and would create a bigger mess if the NEP win.
It may not make sense to you, but I'd argue that the NFL does a lot of things that don't make a lot of sense. In this case, though, I think the league is interested in the short-term goal of not having to suspend anyone before the Super Bowl while making it look like they are properly investigating this matter. If they delay, there's a chance that Seattle wins and there's a chance that the investigation does not result in any punishment. In the absence of a smoking gun, it is typical corporate behavior to try and defer things and hope they go away.
Just because the league talks about the integrity of the game, that doesn't mean it is actually a priority.
Very bad risk management to take a chance on the Patriots losing. If the Patriots win and the NFL knew the Patriots were guilty, that will create a s-storm. The NFL's management hasn't been great under Goodell, but I'd have to assume they were idiots of the highest order to conclude they would sit on evidence that would convict the NEP.
Kraft is doubling down as I type this.
I'm suggesting they want to slow down the pace of the investigation so they won't know for sure whether there is solid evidence until after the Super Bowl.
If the Patriots win and they turn out to be guilty of something, the line will be that it didn't affect that game or the Super Bowl.
Who remembers Gary Hart? "Follow me around. I don't care." Someone boldly denying an allegation isn't evidence that the allegation isn't false.
I'm with LC. The league should have approached it this way from the get-go, too. "We will be doubly vigilant up to and during the Super Bowl, so you don't need to worry about any issues of 'integrity' there. We will take our time with the investigation. Any penalties will be commensurate to the violation and can be imposed in the off season and next year. Meanwhile we ask all players, team and league officials and members of the media to refrain from baseless speculation, and turn their attention to enjoying the sporting event of the year."
The NFL has the tape now of the "strong person of interest." Patriots win the SB and the tape nails them, the NFL isn't going to have any credibility. "We took our time to watch the tape?" Good luck with that. The NFL is taking a lot of flack already. They can't sit on the tape if it's the smoking gun.
Thus, unless I assume they're dumb as rocks, the NFL doesn't have a smoking gun in the tape.
-
The NFL has the tape now of the "strong person of interest." Patriots win the SB and the tape nails them, the NFL isn't going to have any credibility. "We took our time to watch the tape?" Good luck with that. The NFL is taking a lot of flack already. They can't sit on the tape if it's the smoking gun.
Thus, unless I assume they're dumb as rocks, the NFL doesn't have a smoking gun in the tape.
Baby steps. At least they will have watched the tape this time.
-
As a culture we need to stop referring to things as (insert situation)gate. Dude we're gonna have a wicked snowgate tomorrow. I blewout my freakin hammy shovelin my driveway dood. Talk about hammygate. I swear ta gawd if I don't get my dunkins in the mornin I'll cause a coffeegate.
I got locked out the gate to my house. Gategate
-
As a culture we need to stop referring to things as (insert situation)gate. Dude we're gonna have a wicked snowgate tomorrow. I blewout my freakin hammy shovelin my driveway dood. Talk about hammygate. I swear ta gawd if I don't get my dunkins in the mornin I'll cause a coffeegate.
I got locked out the gate to my house. Gategate
i forgot to brush my teeth...... colgate!
-
The NFL has the tape now of the "strong person of interest." Patriots win the SB and the tape nails them, the NFL isn't going to have any credibility. "We took our time to watch the tape?" Good luck with that. The NFL is taking a lot of flack already. They can't sit on the tape if it's the smoking gun.
Thus, unless I assume they're dumb as rocks, the NFL doesn't have a smoking gun in the tape.
Baby steps. At least they will have watched the tape this time.
Yeah, the NFL doesn't do so well with tapes. First, they destroyed the Spy Gate one. Strike 1. Then, they didn't watch the Ray Rice one. Strike 2. Now, they're going to just sit on this one.
For all the blundering, though, it's not harming the bottom line, so why should they change?
-
As a culture we need to stop referring to things as (insert situation)gate. Dude we're gonna have a wicked snowgate tomorrow. I blewout my freakin hammy shovelin my driveway dood. Talk about hammygate. I swear ta gawd if I don't get my dunkins in the mornin I'll cause a coffeegate.
I got locked out the gate to my house. Gategate
Melting snow is flooding the gate to my office. Watergate-gate.
(The funny part about that lame joke? The thought that snow will be melting any time soon.)
-
As a culture we need to stop referring to things as (insert situation)gate. Dude we're gonna have a wicked snowgate tomorrow. I blewout my freakin hammy shovelin my driveway dood. Talk about hammygate. I swear ta gawd if I don't get my dunkins in the mornin I'll cause a coffeegate.
I got locked out the gate to my house. Gategate
i forgot to brush my teeth...... colgate!
tommy points to the both of ya's for bringing a smile to me face. (read as an irish pirate)
-
As a culture we need to stop referring to things as (insert situation)gate. Dude we're gonna have a wicked snowgate tomorrow. I blewout my freakin hammy shovelin my driveway dood. Talk about hammygate. I swear ta gawd if I don't get my dunkins in the mornin I'll cause a coffeegate.
I got locked out the gate to my house. Gategate
i forgot to brush my teeth...... colgate!
Just spilt my drink... Watergate!
Edit: Darn, Roy beat me to it
-
From what I've seen, it looks like the other room that the balls were taken into was the bathroom.
For a short amount of time.
Can't a ballboy pee before the game without being "a person of interest"?
-
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/26/video-shows-employee-taking-24-balls-into-bathroom/
On Monday, Jay Glazer of FOX Sports added the next new big piece of news in #DeflateGate, reporting that the NFL has interviewed a locker room attendant who allegedly took footballs from the officials’ locker room after they had been inspected and approved “to another area on way to field” before the start of the game.
PFT can now contribute additional details to that story.
First, per a league source, the other “area on way to field” is a bathroom. The bathroom consists of one toilet and one sink and a door that locks from the inside.
Second, according to the same source, the person carried two bags of balls into the bathroom: the 12 balls to be used by the Patriots and the 12 balls to be used by the Colts.
Third, from the same source, the evidence comes from a surveillance video that was discovered by the Patriots and given to the NFL early in the investigation.
Fourth, again from the same source, the video shows the employee in the bathroom for approximately 90 seconds.
Could the employee have fished 12 balls out of a fairly large bag, deflated each of them by two pounds, put them back into the bag, and exited the bathroom in roughly 90 seconds? That question will surely become the centerpiece of the next red state/blue state debate between folks who have determined that the Patriots have done something wrong and those who are staunchly defending the franchise.
And, yes, the photo accompanying this story was taken inside one of the bathrooms at Gillette Stadium. When NBC broadcast the Ravens-Patriots playoff game from Foxboro on January 10, Florio Jr. demanded pictures from the venue. Since he didn’t specify where he wanted them from, I took one inside the bathroom and texted it to him.
He didn’t think it was funny.
That's not much of a smoking gun.
-
The NFL has the tape now of the "strong person of interest." Patriots win the SB and the tape nails them, the NFL isn't going to have any credibility. "We took our time to watch the tape?" Good luck with that. The NFL is taking a lot of flack already. They can't sit on the tape if it's the smoking gun.
Thus, unless I assume they're dumb as rocks, the NFL doesn't have a smoking gun in the tape.
Baby steps. At least they will have watched the tape this time.
Yeah, the NFL doesn't do so well with tapes. First, they destroyed the Spy Gate one. Strike 1. Then, they didn't watch the Ray Rice one. Strike 2. Now, they're going to just sit on this one.
For all the blundering, though, it's not harming the bottom line, so why should they change?
Kraft was Goodell's chief backer and I think unarguably the most influential owner in the NFL. Goodell's already on thin ice and Kraft's not happy.
-
Congratulations, NFL. You have a surveillance video of a "person of interest" taking a p---.
::) ::) ::)
What a train wreck...
-
"Urinategate"
Mike Giardi
-
"Urinategate"
Mike Giardi
or mastergate
-
"Urinategate"
Mike Giardi
Tom E Curran: "There's clearly a leak involved here".
;D ;D ;D
-
As a culture we need to stop referring to things as (insert situation)gate. Dude we're gonna have a wicked snowgate tomorrow. I blewout my freakin hammy shovelin my driveway dood. Talk about hammygate. I swear ta gawd if I don't get my dunkins in the mornin I'll cause a coffeegate.
I believe that Jon Stewart has addressed this issue, lol, although I haven't seen it myself. The one I really hate is 'ballghazi.' Really, guys? ::)
-
Congratulations, NFL. You have a surveillance video of a "person of interest" taking a p---.
::) ::) ::)
What a train wreck...
It's been done before. As you can see, the culprit already has a track record of such behavior (sarcasm), lol. ;) ::) ;D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyAAwCu-Lu4
-
As a culture we need to stop referring to things as (insert situation)gate. Dude we're gonna have a wicked snowgate tomorrow. I blewout my freakin hammy shovelin my driveway dood. Talk about hammygate. I swear ta gawd if I don't get my dunkins in the mornin I'll cause a coffeegate.
I believe that Jon Stewart has addressed this issue, lol, although I haven't seen it myself. The one I really hate is 'ballghazi.' Really, guys? ::)
i'd say "ballghazi" is about as close as it gets to a perfect description.
two witch hunts orchestrated for political reasons based on little evidence.
the benghazi investigation/final report made the accusers look like hateful fools, and this one will too.
-
As a culture we need to stop referring to things as (insert situation)gate. Dude we're gonna have a wicked snowgate tomorrow. I blewout my freakin hammy shovelin my driveway dood. Talk about hammygate. I swear ta gawd if I don't get my dunkins in the mornin I'll cause a coffeegate.
I believe that Jon Stewart has addressed this issue, lol, although I haven't seen it myself. The one I really hate is 'ballghazi.' Really, guys? ::)
i'd say "ballghazi" is about as close as it gets to a perfect description.
two witch hunts orchestrated for political reasons based on little evidence.
the benghazi investigation/final report made the accusers look like hateful fools, and this one will too.
Honestly, I just got tired of hearing about anything to do with benghazi, lol. 'D
-
As a culture we need to stop referring to things as (insert situation)gate. Dude we're gonna have a wicked snowgate tomorrow. I blewout my freakin hammy shovelin my driveway dood. Talk about hammygate. I swear ta gawd if I don't get my dunkins in the mornin I'll cause a coffeegate.
I believe that Jon Stewart has addressed this issue, lol, although I haven't seen it myself. The one I really hate is 'ballghazi.' Really, guys? ::)
i'd say "ballghazi" is about as close as it gets to a perfect description.
two witch hunts orchestrated for political reasons based on little evidence.
the benghazi investigation/final report made the accusers look like hateful fools, and this one will too.
Honestly, I just got tired of hearing about anything to do with benghazi, lol. 'D
fair enough! ;)
-
Omfg!!! #UrinateGate this has gotta be the funniest thing ever. What a bunch of pathetic losers the NFL has turned into, this is all about the money, they will break every advertising record this year, I wish they could tell me how much they will make off this one game, it must be astronomical...
-
WAIT!!!! I FIGURED OUT HOW THEY DID IT!!!!
people are just ASSUMING that the bathroom was EMPTY when the ballboy was there.
in reality, TB12, BB, garoppolo, drew bledsoe, bob kraft and the shooter from the grassy knoll were all waiting inside, needles/gauges in hand.
it was a full-on 90-second deflation party!!!!
-
The only thing missing is the "i too deflated a ball" tshirt
-
If I was Kraft, I'd be peeved too. That's multiple leaks that make his organization look bad. Both, seemingly, coming from the NFL.
That press conference certainly sounded like he was going all in that the Pats are innocent of any wrongdoing. Awfully ballsy thing to do if you're lying.
-
Omfg!!! #UrinateGate this has gotta be the funniest thing ever. What a bunch of pathetic losers the NFL has turned into, this is all about the money, they will break every advertising record this year, I wish they could tell me how much they will make off this one game, it must be astronomical...
Hoenstly, I'm trying to get people over for a super bowl party sort of last minute but most people are not interested in either team this year. It's pretty annoying considering the Pats didn't do anything and to explain it in person is kind of weird. I'm all down for breaking down every point on the internet, don't get me wrong.....
-
If I was Kraft, I'd be peeved too. That's multiple leaks that make his organization look bad. Both, seemingly, coming from the NFL.
That press conference certainly sounded like he was going all in that the Pats are innocent of any wrongdoing. Awfully ballsy thing to do if you're lying.
Yeah, but people do it all the time (see Lance Armstrong, Roger Clemens, etc.). Kraft didn't come off credible at all. In fact no one has come off as credible for the Patriots. (For the record, I am not a Patriots, Colts, or Seahawks fan so I could really care less about this from that perspective).
-
If I was Kraft, I'd be peeved too. That's multiple leaks that make his organization look bad. Both, seemingly, coming from the NFL.
That press conference certainly sounded like he was going all in that the Pats are innocent of any wrongdoing. Awfully ballsy thing to do if you're lying.
Yeah, but people do it all the time (see Lance Armstrong, Roger Clemens, etc.). Kraft didn't come off credible at all. In fact no one has come off as credible for the Patriots. (For the record, I am not a Patriots, Colts, or Seahawks fan so I could really care less about this from that perspective).
Sure, people do it all the time. There are also plenty of people who actually have been innocent. Now, I have no idea how this thing will settle when everything is said & done but to have the head coach have two press conferences about it, the starting QB have one, and now the owner? All denying any guilt? If they are actually guilty, this is one helluva leap of faith to be taking.
However, you are an admitted Ravens fan, right? Might be a little skewed, don't you you think?
EDIT: And, full disclosure, I do root for the Pats. Like to think I'm more level headed than a lot of Pats fans out there right now but I do root for them.
-
Sure, people do it all the time. There are also plenty of people who actually have been innocent. Now, I have no idea how this thing will settle when everything is said & done but to have the head coach have two press conferences about it, the starting QB have one, and now the owner? All denying any guilt? If they are actually guilty, this is one helluva leap of faith to be taking.
Yeah, it would be ballsy. It could be all are telling the truth, or one or more is lying (or, in Kraft's case, perhaps telling the truth as he knows it).
I think it's impossible to tell from press conferences. People lie all the time, regardless of the risk. Let's say Belichek did it: what are his options? Stay silent, and everybody assumes guilt. Admit it, and his legacy is trashed. Or lie, and hope the league buys into it. Of course, he'd say the same thing if he was innocent, as well. It's just so hard to tell.
I don't think we can apply logic in terms of "why lie, when it would really suck if he got caught", though. The most striking example to me was Bill Clinton, who lied directly and unequivocally to the American people (as well as under oath), despite huge potential consequences.
-
Sure, people do it all the time. There are also plenty of people who actually have been innocent. Now, I have no idea how this thing will settle when everything is said & done but to have the head coach have two press conferences about it, the starting QB have one, and now the owner? All denying any guilt? If they are actually guilty, this is one helluva leap of faith to be taking.
Yeah, it would be ballsy. It could be all are telling the truth, or one or more is lying (or, in Kraft's case, perhaps telling the truth as he knows it).
I think it's impossible to tell from press conferences. People lie all the time, regardless of the risk. Let's say Belichek did it: what are his options? Stay silent, and everybody assumes guilt. Admit it, and his legacy is trashed. Or lie, and hope the league buys into it. Of course, he'd say the same thing if he was innocent, as well. It's just so hard to tell.
I don't think we can apply logic in terms of "why lie, when it would really suck if he got caught", though. The most striking example to me was Bill Clinton, who lied directly and unequivocally to the American people (as well as under oath), despite huge potential consequences.
True & I think what we're seeing with reactions is that people's minds have been made up one way or another since the news broke last week.
And, besides a couple of leaks, the NFL has been quiet on the subject. It's just amazing that this thing continues to drag out now 9 days later and Ted Wells is saying it probably will go on for several weeks.
-
I am incredulous that the NFL has chosen to drag this as much as they have. If they have (1) video of the balls taken from the officials' locker room to the field with a loo stopover, (2) the feed from 47 or so cameras on the field during the game, and (3) a plausible alternative scenario that can easily be replicated, they should be close to done.
The bottom line is that it appears that the balls can pretty much be tracked from inspection to the game. Will the NFL will be trying to convince us that one dude was able to doctor 12 footballs in 90 seconds in a bathroom (for the record, that's 7.5 secs per ball, not accounting for taking them out of the zipper bag and putting them back in)?!
-
I think we can all agree on one thing. Regardless of if the Patriots did it, knew about it, or didn't do it at all and are completely innocent, someone at the NFL offices wants to make the Patriots look badly by selectively leaking information, some reportedly wrong, (or maybe not the NFL won't say,) that makes the Patriots look guilty. Someone is intentionally and willfully trying to hurt the franchise, Mr. Kraft, and the value of the Patriots in the League Offices. Let that sink in for a minute.
This is why I'd now question even the facts when they do come out. If the NFL came right out and said, hey ball #1 was inflated to X at halftime, ball #2 was Y, and so on and so on for all the balls on both the Colts and Patriots I'd have had no choice but to believe them. The Ref should have come out right away and said, "hey I inflated or deflated each ball to X, I used this gauge, the balls weren't noticeably warm or cold for either team," but now it seems like he is in the witness protection program. I don't trust anything the NFL says from here on out. This has been horribly mismanaged. Did the NFL let the Patriots play with under inflated footballs for the first half of the AFC Championship game? If they did, it can't be a big deal or the NFL has literally no credibility. If it isn't a big deal... what the heck is going on with a special investigator and a months long investigation planned.
I've been a big supporter of Goodell, but now whatever way this turns out, I think the NFL needs to be cleaned out, starting with a new commissioner.
-
Sure, people do it all the time. There are also plenty of people who actually have been innocent. Now, I have no idea how this thing will settle when everything is said & done but to have the head coach have two press conferences about it, the starting QB have one, and now the owner? All denying any guilt? If they are actually guilty, this is one helluva leap of faith to be taking.
Yeah, it would be ballsy. It could be all are telling the truth, or one or more is lying (or, in Kraft's case, perhaps telling the truth as he knows it).
I think it's impossible to tell from press conferences. People lie all the time, regardless of the risk. Let's say Belichek did it: what are his options? Stay silent, and everybody assumes guilt. Admit it, and his legacy is trashed. Or lie, and hope the league buys into it. Of course, he'd say the same thing if he was innocent, as well. It's just so hard to tell.
I don't think we can apply logic in terms of "why lie, when it would really suck if he got caught", though. The most striking example to me was Bill Clinton, who lied directly and unequivocally to the American people (as well as under oath), despite huge potential consequences.
True & I think what we're seeing with reactions is that people's minds have been made up one way or another since the news broke last week.
And, besides a couple of leaks, the NFL has been quiet on the subject. It's just amazing that this thing continues to drag out now 9 days later and Ted Wells is saying it probably will go on for several weeks.
Major problem to have people familiar with an investigation leaking information to the media. It happens, but it's never good and Goodell has been damaged by this. The NFL should have been in front of this and they should have speaking in one voice and not in whispers to ESPN and others.
-
I am incredulous that the NFL has chosen to drag this as much as they have. If they have (1) video of the balls taken from the officials' locker room to the field with a loo stopover, (2) the feed from 47 or so cameras on the field during the game, and (3) a plausible alternative scenario that can easily be replicated, they should be close to done.
The bottom line is that it appears that the balls can pretty much be tracked from inspection to the game. Will the NFL will be trying to convince us that one dude was able to doctor 12 footballs in 90 seconds in a bathroom (for the record, that's 7.5 secs per ball, not accounting for taking them out of the zipper bag and putting them back in)?!
TP
-
This is why I'd now question even the facts when they do come out. If the NFL came right out and said, hey ball #1 was inflated to X at halftime, ball #2 was Y, and so on and so on for all the balls on both the Colts and Patriots I'd have had no choice but to believe them. The Ref should have come out right away and said, "hey I inflated or deflated each ball to X, I used this gauge, the balls weren't noticeably warm or cold for either team," but now it seems like he is in the witness protection program. I don't trust anything the NFL says from here on out. This has been horribly mismanaged. Did the NFL let the Patriots play with under inflated footballs for the first half of the AFC Championship game? If they did, it can't be a big deal or the NFL has literally no credibility. If it isn't a big deal... what the heck is going on with a special investigator and a months long investigation planned.
What? we know what happened in regards to the disccovery of the ball. I've already quoted this once:
According to a person familiar with the background of the matter, the Colts first noticed something unusual after an interception by Colts linebacker D’Qwell Jackson in the second quarter. Jackson gave the ball to a member of the Colts' equipment staff, who noticed the ball seemed underinflated and then notified coach Chuck Pagano.
General manager Ryan Grigson was notified in the press box, and he contacted Mike Kensil, NFL director of football operations. Kensil then told the on-field officials at halftime, when the Patriots led 17-7.
http://www.newsday.com/sports/football/super-bowl/nfl-opens-patriots-deflated-football-probe-after-afc-championship-win-1.9821346
-
The bottom line is that it appears that the balls can pretty much be tracked from inspection to the game. Will the NFL will be trying to convince us that one dude was able to doctor 12 footballs in 90 seconds in a bathroom (for the record, that's 7.5 secs per ball, not accounting for taking them out of the zipper bag and putting them back in)?!
Apparently, at least one source is saying that that's actually plausible.
So can 12 (or in this case 11) footballs be deflated in that amount of time? One league source with extensive knowledge and experience in the NFL believes that 90 seconds provides enough time to do it — especially if the type of bag allowed the valves to be accessed without individually removing them. (The bag in the photo, for example, has a large zipper that when open permits quick access to the balls.)
The source called it as “easy” thing to do. “Needle in each ball for a couple of seconds,” the source said.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/27/can-a-bag-of-footballs-be-deflated-in-90-seconds/
This is absurd at this point.
-
(http://www.theplace2.ru/archive/robert_downey_jr/img/2008_tropic_thunder_-1.jpg)
-
This is absurd at this point.
You bet.
-
This is why I'd now question even the facts when they do come out. If the NFL came right out and said, hey ball #1 was inflated to X at halftime, ball #2 was Y, and so on and so on for all the balls on both the Colts and Patriots I'd have had no choice but to believe them. The Ref should have come out right away and said, "hey I inflated or deflated each ball to X, I used this gauge, the balls weren't noticeably warm or cold for either team," but now it seems like he is in the witness protection program. I don't trust anything the NFL says from here on out. This has been horribly mismanaged. Did the NFL let the Patriots play with under inflated footballs for the first half of the AFC Championship game? If they did, it can't be a big deal or the NFL has literally no credibility. If it isn't a big deal... what the heck is going on with a special investigator and a months long investigation planned.
What? we know what happened in regards to the disccovery of the ball. I've already quoted this once:
According to a person familiar with the background of the matter, the Colts first noticed something unusual after an interception by Colts linebacker D’Qwell Jackson in the second quarter. Jackson gave the ball to a member of the Colts' equipment staff, who noticed the ball seemed underinflated and then notified coach Chuck Pagano.
General manager Ryan Grigson was notified in the press box, and he contacted Mike Kensil, NFL director of football operations. Kensil then told the on-field officials at halftime, when the Patriots led 17-7.
http://www.newsday.com/sports/football/super-bowl/nfl-opens-patriots-deflated-football-probe-after-afc-championship-win-1.9821346
This version has already been called into question:
Reports have emerged during the past week that NFL teams, including the Colts, complained during the regular season and perhaps playoffs about the Patriots using underinflated footballs. Fox Sports' Jay Glazer reported that in response to those complaints, the league always planned on checking New England's footballs at halftime. ESPN's Ed Werder reiterated that suggestion on Twitter on Sunday.
When told of suspected cheating by #Pats, #NFL tried to catch them in act rather than reminding them of rules. Is something wrong with that?
— Ed Werder (@Edwerderespn) January 25, 2015
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/did-nfl-run-sting-operation-on-patriots-to-trigger-deflate-gate--051258575.html
-
Mortenson was just on weei , some points he made
My reactions in parenthesis
- Colts didn't complain after the november game, waited until the day of AFC Championships. Before games teams write down things for the refs to look out for (formations,substitutions, etc).
- He originally reported that 11 of 12 balls were 2 psi under, but it has since been reported that is not correct and that 10 of the balls were closer to 1 psi under
( very curious if the one 2psi under was the ball brought to the indy equipment guy)
- He kept asking why the colts balls were not under and the pats were . He says the colts like their balls at the lower end of the legal psi.
(I think you have to ask if the colts balls were filled out in the cold , while the pats were filled inside . Also do the colts keep their game balls near a heater or anything ? Do they rub the balls down that generates heat like the Pats say they did?)
-
If I was Kraft, I'd be peeved too. That's multiple leaks that make his organization look bad. Both, seemingly, coming from the NFL.
That press conference certainly sounded like he was going all in that the Pats are innocent of any wrongdoing. Awfully ballsy thing to do if you're lying.
Yeah, but people do it all the time (see Lance Armstrong, Roger Clemens, etc.). Kraft didn't come off credible at all. In fact no one has come off as credible for the Patriots. (For the record, I am not a Patriots, Colts, or Seahawks fan so I could really care less about this from that perspective).
Sure, people do it all the time. There are also plenty of people who actually have been innocent. Now, I have no idea how this thing will settle when everything is said & done but to have the head coach have two press conferences about it, the starting QB have one, and now the owner? All denying any guilt? If they are actually guilty, this is one helluva leap of faith to be taking.
However, you are an admitted Ravens fan, right? Might be a little skewed, don't you you think?
EDIT: And, full disclosure, I do root for the Pats. Like to think I'm more level headed than a lot of Pats fans out there right now but I do root for them.
I am a Ravens fan, but again I don't think that has much to do with this situation.
I just don't find it as credible. I mean if the Colts defensive player on an interception could immediately tell something was wrong with the ball, how the hell did none of the Patriots know this.
Brady looks especially bad. At one point saying he can't tell the difference, but at another saying he likes a softer ball. Well which is it?
-
This is why I'd now question even the facts when they do come out. If the NFL came right out and said, hey ball #1 was inflated to X at halftime, ball #2 was Y, and so on and so on for all the balls on both the Colts and Patriots I'd have had no choice but to believe them. The Ref should have come out right away and said, "hey I inflated or deflated each ball to X, I used this gauge, the balls weren't noticeably warm or cold for either team," but now it seems like he is in the witness protection program. I don't trust anything the NFL says from here on out. This has been horribly mismanaged. Did the NFL let the Patriots play with under inflated footballs for the first half of the AFC Championship game? If they did, it can't be a big deal or the NFL has literally no credibility. If it isn't a big deal... what the heck is going on with a special investigator and a months long investigation planned.
What? we know what happened in regards to the disccovery of the ball. I've already quoted this once:
According to a person familiar with the background of the matter, the Colts first noticed something unusual after an interception by Colts linebacker D’Qwell Jackson in the second quarter. Jackson gave the ball to a member of the Colts' equipment staff, who noticed the ball seemed underinflated and then notified coach Chuck Pagano.
General manager Ryan Grigson was notified in the press box, and he contacted Mike Kensil, NFL director of football operations. Kensil then told the on-field officials at halftime, when the Patriots led 17-7.
http://www.newsday.com/sports/football/super-bowl/nfl-opens-patriots-deflated-football-probe-after-afc-championship-win-1.9821346
This has been refuted... Jackson, the colts player, denied it himself.
-
If I was Kraft, I'd be peeved too. That's multiple leaks that make his organization look bad. Both, seemingly, coming from the NFL.
That press conference certainly sounded like he was going all in that the Pats are innocent of any wrongdoing. Awfully ballsy thing to do if you're lying.
Yeah, but people do it all the time (see Lance Armstrong, Roger Clemens, etc.). Kraft didn't come off credible at all. In fact no one has come off as credible for the Patriots. (For the record, I am not a Patriots, Colts, or Seahawks fan so I could really care less about this from that perspective).
Sure, people do it all the time. There are also plenty of people who actually have been innocent. Now, I have no idea how this thing will settle when everything is said & done but to have the head coach have two press conferences about it, the starting QB have one, and now the owner? All denying any guilt? If they are actually guilty, this is one helluva leap of faith to be taking.
However, you are an admitted Ravens fan, right? Might be a little skewed, don't you you think?
EDIT: And, full disclosure, I do root for the Pats. Like to think I'm more level headed than a lot of Pats fans out there right now but I do root for them.
I am a Ravens fan, but again I don't think that has much to do with this situation.
I just don't find it as credible. I mean if the Colts defensive player on an interception could immediately tell something was wrong with the ball, how the hell did none of the Patriots know this.
Brady looks especially bad. At one point saying he can't tell the difference, but at another saying he likes a softer ball. Well which is it?
The colts player already said he didn't know or say that the ball was softer or anything , and it didn't come from him .
(http://katchop.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/ray-lewis-antlers-copy.jpg)
-
I just don't find it as credible. I mean if the Colts defensive player on an interception could immediately tell something was wrong with the ball, how the hell did none of the Patriots know this.
You're a bit behind on the material here. D'Quell Jackson has already denied noticing anything out of the ordinary with the ball. Also, it's worth noting that the officiating crew handled all balls for the entire first half without any concerns.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/colts/2015/01/22/colts-jackson-says-he-noticed-nothing-wrong-with-football/22179117/
-
If I was Kraft, I'd be peeved too. That's multiple leaks that make his organization look bad. Both, seemingly, coming from the NFL.
That press conference certainly sounded like he was going all in that the Pats are innocent of any wrongdoing. Awfully ballsy thing to do if you're lying.
Yeah, but people do it all the time (see Lance Armstrong, Roger Clemens, etc.). Kraft didn't come off credible at all. In fact no one has come off as credible for the Patriots. (For the record, I am not a Patriots, Colts, or Seahawks fan so I could really care less about this from that perspective).
People do it -- ie when you're in deep, may as well go deeper in the hopes that you aren't found out.
But, on the margin, BB, TB and Kraft all vehemently denying anything moves the needle closer to "the Pats did nothing wrong" , at least in my book. If instead they were all "no comment" I'd be more prone to think they were hiding something.
The broader point with Kraft's speech is that the media has been totally ridiculous about all of this: seizing on the very slimmest whispers of different rumors, blowing them out of proportion, mis-reporting things, etc. At this point, I honestly don't know why anyone would knowingly choose to believe a rumor, especially one coming out of ESPN.
-
Mortenson was just on weei , some points he made
My reactions in parenthesis
- Colts didn't complain after the november game, waited until the day of AFC Championships. Before games teams write down things for the refs to look out for (formations,substitutions, etc).
- He originally reported that 11 of 12 balls were 2 psi under, but it has since been reported that is not correct and that 10 of the balls were closer to 1 psi under
( very curious if the one 2psi under was the ball brought to the indy equipment guy)
- He kept asking why the colts balls were not under and the pats were . He says the colts like their balls at the lower end of the legal psi.
(I think you have to ask if the colts balls were filled out in the cold , while the pats were filled inside . Also do the colts keep their game balls near a heater or anything ? Do they rub the balls down that generates heat like the Pats say they did?)
If Mortenson reported all the balls were 2psi low, and now only one was and the others close to 1psi low, either he can't understand basic conversations or his source is lying to him, feeding him info that makes the Patriots look bad. Either way, the guy's credibility is dead to me if the 1psi thing turns out to be accurate, which amazingly we still don't know, which just makes the NFL look worse and worse.
How can the NFL just sit by and let all this false information out there, and some of it contradicts itself so it has to be false that makes the Patriots look guilty. If I were Kraft I'd demand Goodell resign after this. This could seriously cost Kraft tens of millions of dollars in the value of his brand, maybe hundreds of millions. Not just the Patriots Team value but lost merchandising and if the distractions cost him a Super Bowl, which could never be determined, could that even have a money value on it?
And now you have these insidious leaks coming out like, the attendant, whatever that is, took the balls into a one room bathroom that locks.... wait for it.... FROM THE INSIDE! GUILTY! He didn't go to the bathroom in a restroom that locked from the outside... nooooooo he went to one that locked on the inside. I ask you, is that the actions of a man who is deflating his bladder or his balls? I think we all know.
By the way, bathrooms that lock from the outside are called prison cells.
-
The bottom line is that it appears that the balls can pretty much be tracked from inspection to the game. Will the NFL will be trying to convince us that one dude was able to doctor 12 footballs in 90 seconds in a bathroom (for the record, that's 7.5 secs per ball, not accounting for taking them out of the zipper bag and putting them back in)?!
Apparently, at least one source is saying that that's actually plausible.
So can 12 (or in this case 11) footballs be deflated in that amount of time? One league source with extensive knowledge and experience in the NFL believes that 90 seconds provides enough time to do it — especially if the type of bag allowed the valves to be accessed without individually removing them. (The bag in the photo, for example, has a large zipper that when open permits quick access to the balls.)
The source called it as “easy” thing to do. “Needle in each ball for a couple of seconds,” the source said.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/27/can-a-bag-of-footballs-be-deflated-in-90-seconds/
This is absurd at this point.
i think the trolls are underestimating how uncomfortable it would be bending over in a bathroom with a needle in one hand, taking out the football with the other hand, turning/holding/stabilizing the football with the same hand, then getting that needle in that little hole and deflating to the perfect amount, all in a few seconds.
anybody who has used footballs knows that they're tricky to handle, especially with one hand.
and the fact that people are quibbling over a few seconds of deflation or 1 PSI or weather factors or whatever just proves how stupid this whole debate is.
-
The bottom line is that it appears that the balls can pretty much be tracked from inspection to the game. Will the NFL will be trying to convince us that one dude was able to doctor 12 footballs in 90 seconds in a bathroom (for the record, that's 7.5 secs per ball, not accounting for taking them out of the zipper bag and putting them back in)?!
Apparently, at least one source is saying that that's actually plausible.
So can 12 (or in this case 11) footballs be deflated in that amount of time? One league source with extensive knowledge and experience in the NFL believes that 90 seconds provides enough time to do it — especially if the type of bag allowed the valves to be accessed without individually removing them. (The bag in the photo, for example, has a large zipper that when open permits quick access to the balls.)
The source called it as “easy” thing to do. “Needle in each ball for a couple of seconds,” the source said.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/27/can-a-bag-of-footballs-be-deflated-in-90-seconds/
This is absurd at this point.
All of those discussions assume that the balls were properly inflated (and measured to be properly inflated) to begin with. While I haven't followed the story as closely as many, unless the NFL has stated that the balls had their PSI measured with a gauge before the game, you can't assume that happened. It's much more likely the balls were never fully inflated than they were fully inflated and then deflated.
-
The bottom line is that it appears that the balls can pretty much be tracked from inspection to the game. Will the NFL will be trying to convince us that one dude was able to doctor 12 footballs in 90 seconds in a bathroom (for the record, that's 7.5 secs per ball, not accounting for taking them out of the zipper bag and putting them back in)?!
Apparently, at least one source is saying that that's actually plausible.
So can 12 (or in this case 11) footballs be deflated in that amount of time? One league source with extensive knowledge and experience in the NFL believes that 90 seconds provides enough time to do it — especially if the type of bag allowed the valves to be accessed without individually removing them. (The bag in the photo, for example, has a large zipper that when open permits quick access to the balls.)
The source called it as “easy” thing to do. “Needle in each ball for a couple of seconds,” the source said.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/27/can-a-bag-of-footballs-be-deflated-in-90-seconds/
This is absurd at this point.
that article was the stupidest thing I have read on this issue to date and seems like it should be on the onion. Is this like James Bond working on a bomb? Ok 90 seconds bag on floor, hold 3 seconds. Switch, hold 3 seconds switch, hold 3 seconds, switch, hold 4 seconds switch, oh darn gotta find the gauge this has too much air. God no, 44 left this whole thing is going to blow up in my face. Switch, hold, switch hold... ahhh i am not going to get the last ball! Ok 11 in 90, Move Move Move!
-
Mortenson was just on weei , some points he made
My reactions in parenthesis
- Colts didn't complain after the november game, waited until the day of AFC Championships. Before games teams write down things for the refs to look out for (formations,substitutions, etc).
- He originally reported that 11 of 12 balls were 2 psi under, but it has since been reported that is not correct and that 10 of the balls were closer to 1 psi under
( very curious if the one 2psi under was the ball brought to the indy equipment guy)
- He kept asking why the colts balls were not under and the pats were . He says the colts like their balls at the lower end of the legal psi.
(I think you have to ask if the colts balls were filled out in the cold , while the pats were filled inside . Also do the colts keep their game balls near a heater or anything ? Do they rub the balls down that generates heat like the Pats say they did?)
A thought that just occurred to me: How do we know the Colts didn't mess with the ball that allegedly started this whole thing?
-
The bottom line is that it appears that the balls can pretty much be tracked from inspection to the game. Will the NFL will be trying to convince us that one dude was able to doctor 12 footballs in 90 seconds in a bathroom (for the record, that's 7.5 secs per ball, not accounting for taking them out of the zipper bag and putting them back in)?!
Apparently, at least one source is saying that that's actually plausible.
So can 12 (or in this case 11) footballs be deflated in that amount of time? One league source with extensive knowledge and experience in the NFL believes that 90 seconds provides enough time to do it — especially if the type of bag allowed the valves to be accessed without individually removing them. (The bag in the photo, for example, has a large zipper that when open permits quick access to the balls.)
The source called it as “easy” thing to do. “Needle in each ball for a couple of seconds,” the source said.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/27/can-a-bag-of-footballs-be-deflated-in-90-seconds/
This is absurd at this point.
All of those discussions assume that the balls were properly inflated (and measured to be properly inflated) to begin with. While I haven't followed the story as closely as many, unless the NFL has stated that the balls had their PSI measured with a gauge before the game, you can't assume that happened. It's much more likely the balls were never fully inflated than they were fully inflated and then deflated.
Bingo. I don't think the referees ever used a gauge. They probably felt them, gave the thumbs up, and went on their way.
Wouldn't surprise me if the Pats had the balls inflated near the minimum to begin with. The Colts, aware of this supposed sting/trap operation, had theirs inflated to or near the maximum allowance.
-
Very interesting article that certainly doesn't paint the Patriots in a very good light.
Makes it look like this isn't just an issue for this season.
http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2015/the-new-england-patriots-mysteriously-became-fumble-proof-in-2007
-
If I was Kraft, I'd be peeved too. That's multiple leaks that make his organization look bad. Both, seemingly, coming from the NFL.
That press conference certainly sounded like he was going all in that the Pats are innocent of any wrongdoing. Awfully ballsy thing to do if you're lying.
Yeah, but people do it all the time (see Lance Armstrong, Roger Clemens, etc.). Kraft didn't come off credible at all. In fact no one has come off as credible for the Patriots. (For the record, I am not a Patriots, Colts, or Seahawks fan so I could really care less about this from that perspective).
lance, roger, bonds etc were all taking major PEDs and never would have never been harassed for something as minor as this. some of those drugs lance was taking that increase blood oxygen levels are actually life-threatening, your body can overheat, causing death. bonds and clemens were so jacked up on steroids that their body types changed.
the ball pressure thing is more equivalent to if bonds had used illegal batting gloves or lance wore an illegal knee brace or something stupid like that. the league would tell them to stop doing it, the media would ignore it, and then it would be forgotten.
if this is the worst thing the patriots have (possibly) done, then that's pretty tame, the vikings and panthers were caught illegally tampering with balls this year and got no penalty, and the story didn't even really make the news.
-
Very interesting article that certainly doesn't paint the Patriots in a very good light.
Makes it look like this isn't just an issue for this season.
http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2015/the-new-england-patriots-mysteriously-became-fumble-proof-in-2007
Wouldn't a better statistic be receptions vs. targets?
The whole argument is that the ball is inflated (Rodgers) or deflated (Brady) because of QB preference for throwing the ball. This is the first I've seen about there being some preference on the part of the running back....
-
Very interesting article that certainly doesn't paint the Patriots in a very good light.
Makes it look like this isn't just an issue for this season.
http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2015/the-new-england-patriots-mysteriously-became-fumble-proof-in-2007
Wouldn't a better statistic be receptions vs. targets?
The whole argument is that the ball is inflated (Rodgers) or deflated (Brady) because of QB preference for throwing the ball. This is the first I've seen about there being some preference on the part of the running back....
Following that line of thought, shouldn't Green Bay and Rogers in particular lead the league in fumbling since whatever year we can put it to make it look like they do?
-
Very interesting article that certainly doesn't paint the Patriots in a very good light.
Makes it look like this isn't just an issue for this season.
http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2015/the-new-england-patriots-mysteriously-became-fumble-proof-in-2007
Wouldn't a better statistic be receptions vs. targets?
The whole argument is that the ball is inflated (Rodgers) or deflated (Brady) because of QB preference for throwing the ball. This is the first I've seen about there being some preference on the part of the running back....
Following that line of thought, shouldn't Green Bay and Rogers in particular lead the league in fumbling since whatever year we can put it to make it look like they do?
Right. The ball in GB is overinflated, so it is harder to hold onto, so the RBs fumble more. Should be an outlier if the "theory" is correct.
-
Very interesting article that certainly doesn't paint the Patriots in a very good light.
Makes it look like this isn't just an issue for this season.
http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2015/the-new-england-patriots-mysteriously-became-fumble-proof-in-2007
Wouldn't a better statistic be receptions vs. targets?
The whole argument is that the ball is inflated (Rodgers) or deflated (Brady) because of QB preference for throwing the ball. This is the first I've seen about there being some preference on the part of the running back....
Following that line of thought, shouldn't Green Bay and Rogers in particular lead the league in fumbling since whatever year we can put it to make it look like they do?
No no guys it is great research. Someone wrote it and it has numbers. Fool proof
-
Very interesting article that certainly doesn't paint the Patriots in a very good light.
Makes it look like this isn't just an issue for this season.
http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2015/the-new-england-patriots-mysteriously-became-fumble-proof-in-2007
Wouldn't a better statistic be receptions vs. targets?
The whole argument is that the ball is inflated (Rodgers) or deflated (Brady) because of QB preference for throwing the ball. This is the first I've seen about there being some preference on the part of the running back....
Following that line of thought, shouldn't Green Bay and Rogers in particular lead the league in fumbling since whatever year we can put it to make it look like they do?
No no guys it is great research. Someone wrote it and it has numbers. Fool proof
+1
and if you don't protect the ball on this team you don't play. not hard to understand, it's a visible strategy you can see in their style of play. a lot of teams, like, say, the san diego chargers take big risks trying to get extra yards and risk fumbles. this is one of the reasons why the chargers look like chokers and the pats look so clutch. their style prohibits them from making risky, game-killing plays.
brady also has tons of touches but doesn't run much, takes few sacks, and knows exactly when to get rid of the football. he could get more yards if he wanted to, but he knows how valuable it is to protect the ball.
-
Very interesting article that certainly doesn't paint the Patriots in a very good light.
Makes it look like this isn't just an issue for this season.
http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2015/the-new-england-patriots-mysteriously-became-fumble-proof-in-2007
Wouldn't a better statistic be receptions vs. targets?
The whole argument is that the ball is inflated (Rodgers) or deflated (Brady) because of QB preference for throwing the ball. This is the first I've seen about there being some preference on the part of the running back....
Nah, too much noise in receiver ability/quality of throw etc. There's some noise involved with different players having different fumble tendencies - a secondary analysis tracking the players over time instead of just the team would've helped a lot to argue against this - but receptions have a lot more volatility since it's much harder to catch a ball then just hold on to it. It's a much more equal baseline for comparison, though like everything else it's imperfect.
My bigger beef is they initially just looked at fumbles lost, and the numbers don't appear as strong when you look at overall fumbles, though there's still a gap there when compared to other non-dome teams.
EDIT: Some folks with some stats knowledge in the comments are bringing up some criticisms as well.
-
Very interesting article that certainly doesn't paint the Patriots in a very good light.
Makes it look like this isn't just an issue for this season.
http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2015/the-new-england-patriots-mysteriously-became-fumble-proof-in-2007
Wouldn't a better statistic be receptions vs. targets?
The whole argument is that the ball is inflated (Rodgers) or deflated (Brady) because of QB preference for throwing the ball. This is the first I've seen about there being some preference on the part of the running back....
Less inflated balls would be easier to get a good grip on, leading to more receptions and fewer fumbles.
-
Very interesting article that certainly doesn't paint the Patriots in a very good light.
Makes it look like this isn't just an issue for this season.
http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2015/the-new-england-patriots-mysteriously-became-fumble-proof-in-2007
Wait, a coach that has on multiple occasions sat his best running back (Ridley) due to fumbles and that is known to despise turnovers has a team that fumbles less than other teams? No way!
-
This is why I'd now question even the facts when they do come out. If the NFL came right out and said, hey ball #1 was inflated to X at halftime, ball #2 was Y, and so on and so on for all the balls on both the Colts and Patriots I'd have had no choice but to believe them. The Ref should have come out right away and said, "hey I inflated or deflated each ball to X, I used this gauge, the balls weren't noticeably warm or cold for either team," but now it seems like he is in the witness protection program. I don't trust anything the NFL says from here on out. This has been horribly mismanaged. Did the NFL let the Patriots play with under inflated footballs for the first half of the AFC Championship game? If they did, it can't be a big deal or the NFL has literally no credibility. If it isn't a big deal... what the heck is going on with a special investigator and a months long investigation planned.
What? we know what happened in regards to the disccovery of the ball. I've already quoted this once:
According to a person familiar with the background of the matter, the Colts first noticed something unusual after an interception by Colts linebacker D’Qwell Jackson in the second quarter. Jackson gave the ball to a member of the Colts' equipment staff, who noticed the ball seemed underinflated and then notified coach Chuck Pagano.
General manager Ryan Grigson was notified in the press box, and he contacted Mike Kensil, NFL director of football operations. Kensil then told the on-field officials at halftime, when the Patriots led 17-7.
http://www.newsday.com/sports/football/super-bowl/nfl-opens-patriots-deflated-football-probe-after-afc-championship-win-1.9821346
This has been refuted... Jackson, the colts player, denied it himself.
Wrong. Jackson said that he didn't feel the ball was deflated, which is a very different thing. Read it again:
Jackson gave the ball to a member of the Colts' equipment staff, who noticed the ball seemed underinflated and then notified coach Chuck Pagano.
The fact that Jackson was trying to keep the ball as a souvenir is irrelevant, because the equipment staff manager was the one who noticed it was soft.
-
Sure, people do it all the time. There are also plenty of people who actually have been innocent. Now, I have no idea how this thing will settle when everything is said & done but to have the head coach have two press conferences about it, the starting QB have one, and now the owner? All denying any guilt? If they are actually guilty, this is one helluva leap of faith to be taking.
Yeah, it would be ballsy. It could be all are telling the truth, or one or more is lying (or, in Kraft's case, perhaps telling the truth as he knows it).
I think it's impossible to tell from press conferences. People lie all the time, regardless of the risk. Let's say Belichek did it: what are his options? Stay silent, and everybody assumes guilt. Admit it, and his legacy is trashed. Or lie, and hope the league buys into it. Of course, he'd say the same thing if he was innocent, as well. It's just so hard to tell.
I don't think we can apply logic in terms of "why lie, when it would really suck if he got caught", though. The most striking example to me was Bill Clinton, who lied directly and unequivocally to the American people (as well as under oath), despite huge potential consequences.
The Pats have a track record for cheating, no more than most other teams in the NFL, I would argue. They do not have a track record for lying. Don't confuse the two.
-
Very interesting article that certainly doesn't paint the Patriots in a very good light.
Makes it look like this isn't just an issue for this season.
http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2015/the-new-england-patriots-mysteriously-became-fumble-proof-in-2007
Wait, a coach that has on multiple occasions sat his best running back (Ridley) due to fumbles and that is known to despise turnovers has a team that fumbles less than other teams? No way!
Agreed, that article is really dumb. What it does show is that the Pats are good at preventing fumbles. What it doesn't show, even remotely a little bit, is that the cause is deflated footballs. In particular:
-Is there any evidence that deflated balls cause less fumbles?
-Is there no other explanation (for example, coaches' priorities) for the disparity?
-
I am incredulous that the NFL has chosen to drag this as much as they have. If they have (1) video of the balls taken from the officials' locker room to the field with a loo stopover, (2) the feed from 47 or so cameras on the field during the game, and (3) a plausible alternative scenario that can easily be replicated, they should be close to done.
The bottom line is that it appears that the balls can pretty much be tracked from inspection to the game. Will the NFL will be trying to convince us that one dude was able to doctor 12 footballs in 90 seconds in a bathroom (for the record, that's 7.5 secs per ball, not accounting for taking them out of the zipper bag and putting them back in)?!
Good thing he didn't take a dump.
-
If I was Kraft, I'd be peeved too. That's multiple leaks that make his organization look bad. Both, seemingly, coming from the NFL.
That press conference certainly sounded like he was going all in that the Pats are innocent of any wrongdoing. Awfully ballsy thing to do if you're lying.
Yeah, but people do it all the time (see Lance Armstrong, Roger Clemens, etc.). Kraft didn't come off credible at all. In fact no one has come off as credible for the Patriots. (For the record, I am not a Patriots, Colts, or Seahawks fan so I could really care less about this from that perspective).
Sure, people do it all the time. There are also plenty of people who actually have been innocent. Now, I have no idea how this thing will settle when everything is said & done but to have the head coach have two press conferences about it, the starting QB have one, and now the owner? All denying any guilt? If they are actually guilty, this is one helluva leap of faith to be taking.
However, you are an admitted Ravens fan, right? Might be a little skewed, don't you you think?
EDIT: And, full disclosure, I do root for the Pats. Like to think I'm more level headed than a lot of Pats fans out there right now but I do root for them.
I am a Ravens fan, but again I don't think that has much to do with this situation.
I just don't find it as credible. I mean if the Colts defensive player on an interception could immediately tell something was wrong with the ball, how the hell did none of the Patriots know this.
Brady looks especially bad. At one point saying he can't tell the difference, but at another saying he likes a softer ball. Well which is it?
Sorry, I lost you at "I am a Ravens fan..."
-
I am incredulous that the NFL has chosen to drag this as much as they have. If they have (1) video of the balls taken from the officials' locker room to the field with a loo stopover, (2) the feed from 47 or so cameras on the field during the game, and (3) a plausible alternative scenario that can easily be replicated, they should be close to done.
The bottom line is that it appears that the balls can pretty much be tracked from inspection to the game. Will the NFL will be trying to convince us that one dude was able to doctor 12 footballs in 90 seconds in a bathroom (for the record, that's 7.5 secs per ball, not accounting for taking them out of the zipper bag and putting them back in)?!
Good thing he didn't take a dump.
Yea if he was trying to take a dump while delflating balls all in 90 seconds that would have gotten really messy.
-
Very interesting article that certainly doesn't paint the Patriots in a very good light.
Makes it look like this isn't just an issue for this season.
http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2015/the-new-england-patriots-mysteriously-became-fumble-proof-in-2007
This article is not interesting. It is an insult to anyone (apparently not you) who has any idea how hard the Pats work at minimizing fumbles. Not just in practices. Punishing players (e.g. Ridley) who dare to lose possession just once.
-
Very interesting article that certainly doesn't paint the Patriots in a very good light.
Makes it look like this isn't just an issue for this season.
http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2015/the-new-england-patriots-mysteriously-became-fumble-proof-in-2007
I guess the writer of this article hasn't seen Stephen Ridley play.
-
Very interesting article that certainly doesn't paint the Patriots in a very good light.
Makes it look like this isn't just an issue for this season.
http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2015/the-new-england-patriots-mysteriously-became-fumble-proof-in-2007
This article is not interesting. It is an insult to anyone (apparently not you) who has any idea how hard the Pats work at minimizing fumbles. Not just in practices. Punishing players (e.g. Ridley) who dare to lose possession just once.
yea the comments on that article are more interesting then the article itself.
-
If I was Kraft, I'd be peeved too. That's multiple leaks that make his organization look bad. Both, seemingly, coming from the NFL.
That press conference certainly sounded like he was going all in that the Pats are innocent of any wrongdoing. Awfully ballsy thing to do if you're lying.
Yeah, but people do it all the time (see Lance Armstrong, Roger Clemens, etc.). Kraft didn't come off credible at all. In fact no one has come off as credible for the Patriots. (For the record, I am not a Patriots, Colts, or Seahawks fan so I could really care less about this from that perspective).
lance, roger, bonds etc were all taking major PEDs and never would have never been harassed for something as minor as this. some of those drugs lance was taking that increase blood oxygen levels are actually life-threatening, your body can overheat, causing death. bonds and clemens were so jacked up on steroids that their body types changed.
the ball pressure thing is more equivalent to if bonds had used illegal batting gloves or lance wore an illegal knee brace or something stupid like that. the league would tell them to stop doing it, the media would ignore it, and then it would be forgotten.
if this is the worst thing the patriots have (possibly) done, then that's pretty tame, the vikings and panthers were caught illegally tampering with balls this year and got no penalty, and the story didn't even really make the news.
This is a point I've brought up a couple times, and I don't know why the Patriots haven't brought it up. Brady, Belichick, Kraft, and every other Patriots defender should be demanding to know how the Vikings AND the Panthers could break the rules ON NATIONAL TV and not get punished, or investigated, or publicly excoriated. This ball-heating incident was such a nonevent, in fact, that I didn't hear about it until AFTER the Patriots kerfuffle. Ridiculous.
-
If I was Kraft, I'd be peeved too. That's multiple leaks that make his organization look bad. Both, seemingly, coming from the NFL.
That press conference certainly sounded like he was going all in that the Pats are innocent of any wrongdoing. Awfully ballsy thing to do if you're lying.
Yeah, but people do it all the time (see Lance Armstrong, Roger Clemens, etc.). Kraft didn't come off credible at all. In fact no one has come off as credible for the Patriots. (For the record, I am not a Patriots, Colts, or Seahawks fan so I could really care less about this from that perspective).
lance, roger, bonds etc were all taking major PEDs and never would have never been harassed for something as minor as this. some of those drugs lance was taking that increase blood oxygen levels are actually life-threatening, your body can overheat, causing death. bonds and clemens were so jacked up on steroids that their body types changed.
the ball pressure thing is more equivalent to if bonds had used illegal batting gloves or lance wore an illegal knee brace or something stupid like that. the league would tell them to stop doing it, the media would ignore it, and then it would be forgotten.
if this is the worst thing the patriots have (possibly) done, then that's pretty tame, the vikings and panthers were caught illegally tampering with balls this year and got no penalty, and the story didn't even really make the news.
This is a point I've brought up a couple times, and I don't know why the Patriots haven't brought it up. Brady, Belichick, Kraft, and every other Patriots defender should be demanding to know how the Vikings AND the Panthers could break the rules ON NATIONAL TV and not get punished, or investigated, or publicly excoriated. This ball-heating incident was such a nonevent, in fact, that I didn't hear about it until AFTER the Patriots kerfuffle. Ridiculous.
Why should they? Pointing the fingers at other teams and saying "they're doing it too" or whatever just comes across as trying to deflect attention away.
Addressing this thing head on and professing innocence is a much better approach then whining about teams' questionable tactics.
-
Very interesting article that certainly doesn't paint the Patriots in a very good light.
Makes it look like this isn't just an issue for this season.
http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2015/the-new-england-patriots-mysteriously-became-fumble-proof-in-2007
This article is not interesting. It is an insult to anyone (apparently not you) who has any idea how hard the Pats work at minimizing fumbles. Not just in practices. Punishing players (e.g. Ridley) who dare to lose possession just once.
I think you'd have a hard time convincing people that BB cares significantly more about reducing turnovers than other coaches do, or that he cares significantly more about reducing turnovers than he did prior to 2007.
Shouldn't the league supply all of the footballs, and shouldn't both teams play with the same footballs? They're setting themselves up for issues like this.
-
If I was Kraft, I'd be peeved too. That's multiple leaks that make his organization look bad. Both, seemingly, coming from the NFL.
That press conference certainly sounded like he was going all in that the Pats are innocent of any wrongdoing. Awfully ballsy thing to do if you're lying.
Yeah, but people do it all the time (see Lance Armstrong, Roger Clemens, etc.). Kraft didn't come off credible at all. In fact no one has come off as credible for the Patriots. (For the record, I am not a Patriots, Colts, or Seahawks fan so I could really care less about this from that perspective).
lance, roger, bonds etc were all taking major PEDs and never would have never been harassed for something as minor as this. some of those drugs lance was taking that increase blood oxygen levels are actually life-threatening, your body can overheat, causing death. bonds and clemens were so jacked up on steroids that their body types changed.
the ball pressure thing is more equivalent to if bonds had used illegal batting gloves or lance wore an illegal knee brace or something stupid like that. the league would tell them to stop doing it, the media would ignore it, and then it would be forgotten.
if this is the worst thing the patriots have (possibly) done, then that's pretty tame, the vikings and panthers were caught illegally tampering with balls this year and got no penalty, and the story didn't even really make the news.
This is a point I've brought up a couple times, and I don't know why the Patriots haven't brought it up. Brady, Belichick, Kraft, and every other Patriots defender should be demanding to know how the Vikings AND the Panthers could break the rules ON NATIONAL TV and not get punished, or investigated, or publicly excoriated. This ball-heating incident was such a nonevent, in fact, that I didn't hear about it until AFTER the Patriots kerfuffle. Ridiculous.
Why should they? Pointing the fingers at other teams and saying "they're doing it too" or whatever just comes across as trying to deflect attention away.
Addressing this thing head on and professing innocence is a much better approach then whining about teams' questionable tactics.
Just seems like an obvious thing that someone would point out at some point: "Wait, you're enforcing this rule? After we saw the Vikings and Panthers heating up balls on the sidelines, we didn't think the NFL cared about this rule anymore."
-
If I was Kraft, I'd be peeved too. That's multiple leaks that make his organization look bad. Both, seemingly, coming from the NFL.
That press conference certainly sounded like he was going all in that the Pats are innocent of any wrongdoing. Awfully ballsy thing to do if you're lying.
Yeah, but people do it all the time (see Lance Armstrong, Roger Clemens, etc.). Kraft didn't come off credible at all. In fact no one has come off as credible for the Patriots. (For the record, I am not a Patriots, Colts, or Seahawks fan so I could really care less about this from that perspective).
lance, roger, bonds etc were all taking major PEDs and never would have never been harassed for something as minor as this. some of those drugs lance was taking that increase blood oxygen levels are actually life-threatening, your body can overheat, causing death. bonds and clemens were so jacked up on steroids that their body types changed.
the ball pressure thing is more equivalent to if bonds had used illegal batting gloves or lance wore an illegal knee brace or something stupid like that. the league would tell them to stop doing it, the media would ignore it, and then it would be forgotten.
if this is the worst thing the patriots have (possibly) done, then that's pretty tame, the vikings and panthers were caught illegally tampering with balls this year and got no penalty, and the story didn't even really make the news.
This is a point I've brought up a couple times, and I don't know why the Patriots haven't brought it up. Brady, Belichick, Kraft, and every other Patriots defender should be demanding to know how the Vikings AND the Panthers could break the rules ON NATIONAL TV and not get punished, or investigated, or publicly excoriated. This ball-heating incident was such a nonevent, in fact, that I didn't hear about it until AFTER the Patriots kerfuffle. Ridiculous.
Why should they? Pointing the fingers at other teams and saying "they're doing it too" or whatever just comes across as trying to deflect attention away.
Addressing this thing head on and professing innocence is a much better approach then whining about teams' questionable tactics.
I agree, but if they supplied the balls and the balls were under-inflated, it's going to be hard to convince too many people of your innocence.
-
If I was Kraft, I'd be peeved too. That's multiple leaks that make his organization look bad. Both, seemingly, coming from the NFL.
That press conference certainly sounded like he was going all in that the Pats are innocent of any wrongdoing. Awfully ballsy thing to do if you're lying.
Yeah, but people do it all the time (see Lance Armstrong, Roger Clemens, etc.). Kraft didn't come off credible at all. In fact no one has come off as credible for the Patriots. (For the record, I am not a Patriots, Colts, or Seahawks fan so I could really care less about this from that perspective).
lance, roger, bonds etc were all taking major PEDs and never would have never been harassed for something as minor as this. some of those drugs lance was taking that increase blood oxygen levels are actually life-threatening, your body can overheat, causing death. bonds and clemens were so jacked up on steroids that their body types changed.
the ball pressure thing is more equivalent to if bonds had used illegal batting gloves or lance wore an illegal knee brace or something stupid like that. the league would tell them to stop doing it, the media would ignore it, and then it would be forgotten.
if this is the worst thing the patriots have (possibly) done, then that's pretty tame, the vikings and panthers were caught illegally tampering with balls this year and got no penalty, and the story didn't even really make the news.
This is a point I've brought up a couple times, and I don't know why the Patriots haven't brought it up. Brady, Belichick, Kraft, and every other Patriots defender should be demanding to know how the Vikings AND the Panthers could break the rules ON NATIONAL TV and not get punished, or investigated, or publicly excoriated. This ball-heating incident was such a nonevent, in fact, that I didn't hear about it until AFTER the Patriots kerfuffle. Ridiculous.
Why should they? Pointing the fingers at other teams and saying "they're doing it too" or whatever just comes across as trying to deflect attention away.
Addressing this thing head on and professing innocence is a much better approach then whining about teams' questionable tactics.
Just seems like an obvious thing that someone would point out at some point: "Wait, you're enforcing this rule? After we saw the Vikings and Panthers heating up balls on the sidelines, we didn't think the NFL cared about this rule anymore."
The Vikings & Panthers were heating up balls. The Patriots are alleged to have under-inflated footballs.
Two different things.
-
If I was Kraft, I'd be peeved too. That's multiple leaks that make his organization look bad. Both, seemingly, coming from the NFL.
That press conference certainly sounded like he was going all in that the Pats are innocent of any wrongdoing. Awfully ballsy thing to do if you're lying.
Yeah, but people do it all the time (see Lance Armstrong, Roger Clemens, etc.). Kraft didn't come off credible at all. In fact no one has come off as credible for the Patriots. (For the record, I am not a Patriots, Colts, or Seahawks fan so I could really care less about this from that perspective).
lance, roger, bonds etc were all taking major PEDs and never would have never been harassed for something as minor as this. some of those drugs lance was taking that increase blood oxygen levels are actually life-threatening, your body can overheat, causing death. bonds and clemens were so jacked up on steroids that their body types changed.
the ball pressure thing is more equivalent to if bonds had used illegal batting gloves or lance wore an illegal knee brace or something stupid like that. the league would tell them to stop doing it, the media would ignore it, and then it would be forgotten.
if this is the worst thing the patriots have (possibly) done, then that's pretty tame, the vikings and panthers were caught illegally tampering with balls this year and got no penalty, and the story didn't even really make the news.
This is a point I've brought up a couple times, and I don't know why the Patriots haven't brought it up. Brady, Belichick, Kraft, and every other Patriots defender should be demanding to know how the Vikings AND the Panthers could break the rules ON NATIONAL TV and not get punished, or investigated, or publicly excoriated. This ball-heating incident was such a nonevent, in fact, that I didn't hear about it until AFTER the Patriots kerfuffle. Ridiculous.
Why should they? Pointing the fingers at other teams and saying "they're doing it too" or whatever just comes across as trying to deflect attention away.
Addressing this thing head on and professing innocence is a much better approach then whining about teams' questionable tactics.
I agree, but if they supplied the balls and the balls were under-inflated, it's going to be hard to convince too many people of your innocence.
Well, yeah. That's pretty apparent. I don't think you're going to see anyone argue with that.
-
If I was Kraft, I'd be peeved too. That's multiple leaks that make his organization look bad. Both, seemingly, coming from the NFL.
That press conference certainly sounded like he was going all in that the Pats are innocent of any wrongdoing. Awfully ballsy thing to do if you're lying.
Yeah, but people do it all the time (see Lance Armstrong, Roger Clemens, etc.). Kraft didn't come off credible at all. In fact no one has come off as credible for the Patriots. (For the record, I am not a Patriots, Colts, or Seahawks fan so I could really care less about this from that perspective).
lance, roger, bonds etc were all taking major PEDs and never would have never been harassed for something as minor as this. some of those drugs lance was taking that increase blood oxygen levels are actually life-threatening, your body can overheat, causing death. bonds and clemens were so jacked up on steroids that their body types changed.
the ball pressure thing is more equivalent to if bonds had used illegal batting gloves or lance wore an illegal knee brace or something stupid like that. the league would tell them to stop doing it, the media would ignore it, and then it would be forgotten.
if this is the worst thing the patriots have (possibly) done, then that's pretty tame, the vikings and panthers were caught illegally tampering with balls this year and got no penalty, and the story didn't even really make the news.
This is a point I've brought up a couple times, and I don't know why the Patriots haven't brought it up. Brady, Belichick, Kraft, and every other Patriots defender should be demanding to know how the Vikings AND the Panthers could break the rules ON NATIONAL TV and not get punished, or investigated, or publicly excoriated. This ball-heating incident was such a nonevent, in fact, that I didn't hear about it until AFTER the Patriots kerfuffle. Ridiculous.
Why should they? Pointing the fingers at other teams and saying "they're doing it too" or whatever just comes across as trying to deflect attention away.
Addressing this thing head on and professing innocence is a much better approach then whining about teams' questionable tactics.
Just seems like an obvious thing that someone would point out at some point: "Wait, you're enforcing this rule? After we saw the Vikings and Panthers heating up balls on the sidelines, we didn't think the NFL cared about this rule anymore."
The Vikings & Panthers were heating up balls. The Patriots are alleged to have under-inflated footballs.
Two different things.
Different, yes, but both illegal according to the letter of the law. How can one be the subject of intense scrutiny and the other gets ignored?
-
If I was Kraft, I'd be peeved too. That's multiple leaks that make his organization look bad. Both, seemingly, coming from the NFL.
That press conference certainly sounded like he was going all in that the Pats are innocent of any wrongdoing. Awfully ballsy thing to do if you're lying.
Yeah, but people do it all the time (see Lance Armstrong, Roger Clemens, etc.). Kraft didn't come off credible at all. In fact no one has come off as credible for the Patriots. (For the record, I am not a Patriots, Colts, or Seahawks fan so I could really care less about this from that perspective).
lance, roger, bonds etc were all taking major PEDs and never would have never been harassed for something as minor as this. some of those drugs lance was taking that increase blood oxygen levels are actually life-threatening, your body can overheat, causing death. bonds and clemens were so jacked up on steroids that their body types changed.
the ball pressure thing is more equivalent to if bonds had used illegal batting gloves or lance wore an illegal knee brace or something stupid like that. the league would tell them to stop doing it, the media would ignore it, and then it would be forgotten.
if this is the worst thing the patriots have (possibly) done, then that's pretty tame, the vikings and panthers were caught illegally tampering with balls this year and got no penalty, and the story didn't even really make the news.
This is a point I've brought up a couple times, and I don't know why the Patriots haven't brought it up. Brady, Belichick, Kraft, and every other Patriots defender should be demanding to know how the Vikings AND the Panthers could break the rules ON NATIONAL TV and not get punished, or investigated, or publicly excoriated. This ball-heating incident was such a nonevent, in fact, that I didn't hear about it until AFTER the Patriots kerfuffle. Ridiculous.
Why should they? Pointing the fingers at other teams and saying "they're doing it too" or whatever just comes across as trying to deflect attention away.
Addressing this thing head on and professing innocence is a much better approach then whining about teams' questionable tactics.
Just seems like an obvious thing that someone would point out at some point: "Wait, you're enforcing this rule? After we saw the Vikings and Panthers heating up balls on the sidelines, we didn't think the NFL cared about this rule anymore."
The Vikings & Panthers were heating up balls. The Patriots are alleged to have under-inflated footballs.
Two different things.
Different, yes, but both illegal according to the letter of the law. How can one be the subject of intense scrutiny and the other gets ignored?
Because there is a glaring double standard when it comes to the New England Patriots & a lot of other teams in the NFL. Also, this is coming off a conference title game with the team advancing to the Super Bowl. The other incidents occurred in the middle of the regular season
I've mentioned this before, if this was the Jacksonville Jaguars, you're not seeing nearly the same amount of media outrage. But because it's Belichick & Brady and the Patriots, you get the witch hunt here.
Spygate & sustained success brought that about. The first reason can be justified because the Pats brought that upon themselves & the latter is a lot of contempt rooted in jealousy.
-
I agree, but if they supplied the balls and the balls were under-inflated, it's going to be hard to convince too many people of your innocence.
Except the officials are responsible for air pressure in all balls, so for all practical purposes they supplied them.
-
If I was Kraft, I'd be peeved too. That's multiple leaks that make his organization look bad. Both, seemingly, coming from the NFL.
That press conference certainly sounded like he was going all in that the Pats are innocent of any wrongdoing. Awfully ballsy thing to do if you're lying.
Yeah, but people do it all the time (see Lance Armstrong, Roger Clemens, etc.). Kraft didn't come off credible at all. In fact no one has come off as credible for the Patriots. (For the record, I am not a Patriots, Colts, or Seahawks fan so I could really care less about this from that perspective).
lance, roger, bonds etc were all taking major PEDs and never would have never been harassed for something as minor as this. some of those drugs lance was taking that increase blood oxygen levels are actually life-threatening, your body can overheat, causing death. bonds and clemens were so jacked up on steroids that their body types changed.
the ball pressure thing is more equivalent to if bonds had used illegal batting gloves or lance wore an illegal knee brace or something stupid like that. the league would tell them to stop doing it, the media would ignore it, and then it would be forgotten.
if this is the worst thing the patriots have (possibly) done, then that's pretty tame, the vikings and panthers were caught illegally tampering with balls this year and got no penalty, and the story didn't even really make the news.
This is a point I've brought up a couple times, and I don't know why the Patriots haven't brought it up. Brady, Belichick, Kraft, and every other Patriots defender should be demanding to know how the Vikings AND the Panthers could break the rules ON NATIONAL TV and not get punished, or investigated, or publicly excoriated. This ball-heating incident was such a nonevent, in fact, that I didn't hear about it until AFTER the Patriots kerfuffle. Ridiculous.
Why should they? Pointing the fingers at other teams and saying "they're doing it too" or whatever just comes across as trying to deflect attention away.
Addressing this thing head on and professing innocence is a much better approach then whining about teams' questionable tactics.
Just seems like an obvious thing that someone would point out at some point: "Wait, you're enforcing this rule? After we saw the Vikings and Panthers heating up balls on the sidelines, we didn't think the NFL cared about this rule anymore."
The Vikings & Panthers were heating up balls. The Patriots are alleged to have under-inflated footballs.
Two different things.
Different, yes, but both illegal according to the letter of the law. How can one be the subject of intense scrutiny and the other gets ignored?
Unless the Ball Boy who didn't know there was going to be an investigation and routinely deflated 12 balls uniformly in under 90 seconds - not just his fastest time but routinely did this - then the Patriots didn't do anything. They maybe submitted the balls underinflated, but if they did, it means that the game officials okayed them for use. Either way, the Patriots are going to be cleared in the near future. Attacking other teams would look like they're basically professing guilt at a time when they need to just hunker down. They already have had their reputation destroyed by this and they most likely didn't even do anything, it's so frustrating
-
Spygate & sustained success brought that about. The first reason can be justified because the Pats brought that upon themselves & the latter is a lot of contempt rooted in jealousy.
I can't imagine any other logical reason that will lead to the sustained propagation of this narrative. Not in the presence of these (poached off some dude's post on TB's facebook page):
I have a question about the Patriots’ so-called “culture of cheating” that I would love an answer to from any other fans or media member:
To date, the Patriots were caught breaking one rule in their history, and that was a technical violation regarding WHERE teams are permitted to film from. That is it. That is the extent of the their “cheating.” So why does that qualify as a culture of cheating?
Why don’t the Broncos have a culture of cheating because of their salary cap violations that helped them win two super bowls?
Why don’t the Jets or Steelers have a culture of cheating because of their coaches and players on the sideline intentionally interfering with play on the field?
Why don’t the Seahawks have a culture of cheating based on the seemingly systemic program of PED use by their franchise, or because their coach was chased out of college football for cheating?
Why don’t the Browns have a culture of cheating for illegally communicating with the sideline during games?
Why don’t the Saints have a culture of cheating for illegally setting up a bounty system?
Why don’t the Colts have a culture of cheating for illegally piping in crowd noise while the opposing team is on offense?
Why don’t the Lions have a culture of cheating for repeatedly trying to injure opposing players while they are laying on the ground after plays?
Why don’t the Ravens have a culture of CRIME after harboring and covering up for a murderer, a drug trafficker and a wife beater?
Why do only the Patriots have a “culture of cheating?”
-
Because there is a glaring double standard when it comes to the New England Patriots & a lot of other teams in the NFL. Also, this is coming off a conference title game with the team advancing to the Super Bowl. The other incidents occurred in the middle of the regular season
I've mentioned this before, if this was the Jacksonville Jaguars, you're not seeing nearly the same amount of media outrage. But because it's Belichick & Brady and the Patriots, you get the witch hunt here.
Spygate & sustained success brought that about. The first reason can be justified because the Pats brought that upon themselves & the latter is a lot of contempt rooted in jealousy.
I don't really follow the NFL closely, but I've seen a very, very strong undercurrent both before and since this controversy that a lot of people around the league - not just fans - believe the Patriots have been systematically bending and breaking rules in a lot more ways than the ones they've been caught/alleged to be doing. Whether it's accurate or not, based in jealousy or not, or a double standard or not, I can't say, but the impression seems to be very present when people think about the organization.
-
Quetzalcoatl and Donoghus: I get what you're saying about whining and deflecting—that would look bad, so it should be avoided. Fine.
I also get that the Pats have a huge target on their backs because of Brady, Belichick, and extended success.
But this is clearly a double standard, postseason or not. The Pats are being lambasted because they allegedly broke a rule that shouldn't even exist, and that the NFL has never seemed much inclined to enforce, and that is no more serious a violation than warming up balls on the sideline during a game on national TV.
-
Quetzalcoatl and Donoghus: I get what you're saying about whining and deflecting—that would look bad, so it should be avoided. Fine.
I also get that the Pats have a huge target on their backs because of Brady, Belichick, and extended success.
But this is clearly a double standard, postseason or not. The Pats are being lambasted because they allegedly broke a rule that shouldn't even exist, and that the NFL has never seemed much inclined to enforce, and that is no more serious a violation than warming up balls on the sideline during a game on national TV.
Well, I think its a rule that should exist. The parameters can certainly be worked out a bit (chain of custody of the balls, room temp to fill the balls, etc...) but I think there should be a minimum air pressure requirement for a football. Like others have mentioned, the more deflated the ball, the easier it is to grip onto & catch. In this instance, the difference has been compared to the weight of a dollar bill. People aren't noticing that unless they're consciously looking for it, IMO.
I will agree that the media is making a mountain out of a molehill, though and the NFL isn't doing itself any favors with the leaks and relative silence on the matter.
-
I hope this NFL investigation gets to the important questions, like; is 90 seconds long enough to urinate AND properly wash your hands afterwards? Does Brady prefer a ball with a little bit of pee on it? What about, did the ball boy dribble a little on the colt's footballs? Did the guy sprinkle and if so, was he a sweetie and wipe the seatie? These are the things the NFL should be investigating.
-
If I was Kraft, I'd be peeved too. That's multiple leaks that make his organization look bad. Both, seemingly, coming from the NFL.
That press conference certainly sounded like he was going all in that the Pats are innocent of any wrongdoing. Awfully ballsy thing to do if you're lying.
Yeah, but people do it all the time (see Lance Armstrong, Roger Clemens, etc.). Kraft didn't come off credible at all. In fact no one has come off as credible for the Patriots. (For the record, I am not a Patriots, Colts, or Seahawks fan so I could really care less about this from that perspective).
lance, roger, bonds etc were all taking major PEDs and never would have never been harassed for something as minor as this. some of those drugs lance was taking that increase blood oxygen levels are actually life-threatening, your body can overheat, causing death. bonds and clemens were so jacked up on steroids that their body types changed.
the ball pressure thing is more equivalent to if bonds had used illegal batting gloves or lance wore an illegal knee brace or something stupid like that. the league would tell them to stop doing it, the media would ignore it, and then it would be forgotten.
if this is the worst thing the patriots have (possibly) done, then that's pretty tame, the vikings and panthers were caught illegally tampering with balls this year and got no penalty, and the story didn't even really make the news.
This is a point I've brought up a couple times, and I don't know why the Patriots haven't brought it up. Brady, Belichick, Kraft, and every other Patriots defender should be demanding to know how the Vikings AND the Panthers could break the rules ON NATIONAL TV and not get punished, or investigated, or publicly excoriated. This ball-heating incident was such a nonevent, in fact, that I didn't hear about it until AFTER the Patriots kerfuffle. Ridiculous.
Why should they? Pointing the fingers at other teams and saying "they're doing it too" or whatever just comes across as trying to deflect attention away.
Addressing this thing head on and professing innocence is a much better approach then whining about teams' questionable tactics.
Just seems like an obvious thing that someone would point out at some point: "Wait, you're enforcing this rule? After we saw the Vikings and Panthers heating up balls on the sidelines, we didn't think the NFL cared about this rule anymore."
The Vikings & Panthers were heating up balls. The Patriots are alleged to have under-inflated footballs.
Two different things.
Different, yes, but both illegal according to the letter of the law. How can one be the subject of intense scrutiny and the other gets ignored?
Because there is a glaring double standard when it comes to the New England Patriots & a lot of other teams in the NFL. Also, this is coming off a conference title game with the team advancing to the Super Bowl. The other incidents occurred in the middle of the regular season
I've mentioned this before, if this was the Jacksonville Jaguars, you're not seeing nearly the same amount of media outrage. But because it's Belichick & Brady and the Patriots, you get the witch hunt here.
Spygate & sustained success brought that about. The first reason can be justified because the Pats brought that upon themselves & the latter is a lot of contempt rooted in jealousy.
If its the Jaguars you're not watching it unfold during the AFC title game anyway. ;)
-
Quetzalcoatl and Donoghus: I get what you're saying about whining and deflecting—that would look bad, so it should be avoided. Fine.
I also get that the Pats have a huge target on their backs because of Brady, Belichick, and extended success.
But this is clearly a double standard, postseason or not. The Pats are being lambasted because they allegedly broke a rule that shouldn't even exist, and that the NFL has never seemed much inclined to enforce, and that is no more serious a violation than warming up balls on the sideline during a game on national TV.
Well, I think its a rule that should exist. The parameters can certainly be worked out a bit (chain of custody of the balls, room temp to fill the balls, etc...) but I think there should be a minimum air pressure requirement for a football. Like others have mentioned, the more deflated the ball, the easier it is to grip onto & catch. In this instance, the difference has been compared to the weight of a dollar bill. People aren't noticing that unless they're consciously looking for it, IMO.
I will agree that the media is making a mountain out of a molehill, though and the NFL isn't doing itself any favors with the leaks and relative silence on the matter.
I should clarify what I mean by "this rule shouldn't even exist."
I'm referring not to chain of custody, but to the "12.5–13.5 psi" rule. Every football fan knows that a ball has to have a certain minimum inflation to be usable, and that the whole "softer equals better grip" idea can be taken only so far—I mean, no quarterback is going to be able to throw a football that's literally inflated only halfway, like a flat tire. So maybe there should be a minimum, but that's probably lower than 12.5 psi. As long as it meets that low standard, let each QB have it the way he wants. I mean, imagine if MLB was so narrow as to say that bats could be only 33–34 ounces and only 36–37 inches long. In other words, MLB allows a lot of latitude with the tools of the trade, whereas the NFL doesn't.
-
I agree, but if they supplied the balls and the balls were under-inflated, it's going to be hard to convince too many people of your innocence.
Except the officials are responsible for air pressure in all balls, so for all practical purposes they supplied them.
I'm not sure "didn't inspect them closely enough to realize they weren't within spec" and "supplied them" mean the same thing. I've been saying all along that the officials probably didn't check the balls all that closely, and the (likely) erroneous assumption that they did led to the assumption that the Pats deflated the balls, but I don't think the Patriots were overly concerned about whether the balls they supplied met the minimum psi level.
-
If its the Jaguars you're not watching it unfold during the AFC title game anyway. ;)
The Carolina Panthers were pretty much caught red-handed tampering with balls during their game with the Vikings this season, and all that came out of this was a "warning" :P
http://espn.go.com/blog/minnesota-vikings/post/_/id/11218/nfl-aware-of-game-ball-incident-during-panthers-vikings
-
I agree, but if they supplied the balls and the balls were under-inflated, it's going to be hard to convince too many people of your innocence.
Except the officials are responsible for air pressure in all balls, so for all practical purposes they supplied them.
I'm not sure "didn't inspect them closely enough to realize they weren't within spec" and "supplied them" mean the same thing. I've been saying all along that the officials probably didn't check the balls all that closely, and the (likely) erroneous assumption that they did led to the assumption that the Pats deflated the balls, but I don't think the Patriots were overly concerned about whether the balls they supplied met the minimum psi level.
Doesn't matter. The rulebook explicitly points out the officiating crew as a SOLE judge of whether game balls are conforming. Officials are in possession of a pressure gauge and a pump, and -- as shown in the video that has been making the rounds in 2013 -- are expected to measure and inflate/deflate balls as a part of the standard procedure of preparing them for kickoff.
Note that Belichick mentioned, in passing, that the Pats provide the balls to the officials and tell them they'd like them at 12.5. I found that bit particularly interesting, because it lines up with what was on that video: the officiating crew pretty much sets the pressure of the footballs, and teams may as well provide completely deflated balls for what it's worth.
-
I agree, but if they supplied the balls and the balls were under-inflated, it's going to be hard to convince too many people of your innocence.
Except the officials are responsible for air pressure in all balls, so for all practical purposes they supplied them.
I'm not sure "didn't inspect them closely enough to realize they weren't within spec" and "supplied them" mean the same thing. I've been saying all along that the officials probably didn't check the balls all that closely, and the (likely) erroneous assumption that they did led to the assumption that the Pats deflated the balls, but I don't think the Patriots were overly concerned about whether the balls they supplied met the minimum psi level.
Doesn't matter. The rulebook explicitly points out the officiating crew as a SOLE judge of whether game balls are conforming. Officials are in possession of a pressure gauge and a pump, and -- as shown in the video that has been making the rounds in 2013 -- are expected to measure and inflate/deflate balls as a part of the standard procedure of preparing them for kickoff.
Note that Belichick mentioned, in passing, that the Pats provide the balls to the officials and tell them they'd like them at 12.5. I found that bit particularly interesting, because it lines up with what was on that video: the officiating crew pretty much sets the pressure of the footballs, and teams may as well provide completely deflated balls for what it's worth.
Yeah, this seems strange to me, too. And Aaron Rodgers said the refs always let air out of the balls that Green Bay supplies, and that he wishes they'd leave them alone, suggesting the Packers submit balls at a higher-than-acceptable psi—yet that seems to be okay?
-
Yeah, this seems strange to me, too. And Aaron Rodgers said the refs always let air out of the balls that Green Bay supplies, and that he wishes they'd leave them alone, suggesting the Packers submit balls at a higher-than-acceptable psi—yet that seems to be okay?
Apparently. Even though I find Discount Doublecheat to be just as tacky as Belicheat.
-
I agree, but if they supplied the balls and the balls were under-inflated, it's going to be hard to convince too many people of your innocence.
Except the officials are responsible for air pressure in all balls, so for all practical purposes they supplied them.
I'm not sure "didn't inspect them closely enough to realize they weren't within spec" and "supplied them" mean the same thing. I've been saying all along that the officials probably didn't check the balls all that closely, and the (likely) erroneous assumption that they did led to the assumption that the Pats deflated the balls, but I don't think the Patriots were overly concerned about whether the balls they supplied met the minimum psi level.
Doesn't matter. The rulebook explicitly points out the officiating crew as a SOLE judge of whether game balls are conforming. Officials are in possession of a pressure gauge and a pump, and -- as shown in the video that has been making the rounds in 2013 -- are expected to measure and inflate/deflate balls as a part of the standard procedure of preparing them for kickoff.
Note that Belichick mentioned, in passing, that the Pats provide the balls to the officials and tell them they'd like them at 12.5. I found that bit particularly interesting, because it lines up with what was on that video: the officiating crew pretty much sets the pressure of the footballs, and teams may as well provide completely deflated balls for what it's worth.
This is what baffles me and I've seen it brought up by a couple of members of the media but its somewhat flown under the radar so far (probably because the NFL remains quiet and doesn't necessarily fit the narrative being preached by much of the media) but if you buy the idea that this whole thing involved a sting, how could the NFL let their referees NOT use a pressure gauge and very well risk one of the teams playing the first half of a conference championship game with balls that could've very well not been at the minimum requirement?
In other words, you risk the integrity of the first half of a championship game in order to hope & catch a team in the act?
And to add to that, if there was a sting operation, how do you not follow the ball attendant inch for inch from the moment the balls were turned over by the referees until the moment they hit the filed?
-
I agree, but if they supplied the balls and the balls were under-inflated, it's going to be hard to convince too many people of your innocence.
Except the officials are responsible for air pressure in all balls, so for all practical purposes they supplied them.
I'm not sure "didn't inspect them closely enough to realize they weren't within spec" and "supplied them" mean the same thing. I've been saying all along that the officials probably didn't check the balls all that closely, and the (likely) erroneous assumption that they did led to the assumption that the Pats deflated the balls, but I don't think the Patriots were overly concerned about whether the balls they supplied met the minimum psi level.
Doesn't matter. The rulebook explicitly points out the officiating crew as a SOLE judge of whether game balls are conforming. Officials are in possession of a pressure gauge and a pump, and -- as shown in the video that has been making the rounds in 2013 -- are expected to measure and inflate/deflate balls as a part of the standard procedure of preparing them for kickoff.
Note that Belichick mentioned, in passing, that the Pats provide the balls to the officials and tell them they'd like them at 12.5. I found that bit particularly interesting, because it lines up with what was on that video: the officiating crew pretty much sets the pressure of the footballs, and teams may as well provide completely deflated balls for what it's worth.
If his story is that the officials inflated the balls to the pressure level that he requested then he's done a pretty poor job of getting that fact out.
-
I agree, but if they supplied the balls and the balls were under-inflated, it's going to be hard to convince too many people of your innocence.
Except the officials are responsible for air pressure in all balls, so for all practical purposes they supplied them.
I'm not sure "didn't inspect them closely enough to realize they weren't within spec" and "supplied them" mean the same thing. I've been saying all along that the officials probably didn't check the balls all that closely, and the (likely) erroneous assumption that they did led to the assumption that the Pats deflated the balls, but I don't think the Patriots were overly concerned about whether the balls they supplied met the minimum psi level.
Doesn't matter. The rulebook explicitly points out the officiating crew as a SOLE judge of whether game balls are conforming. Officials are in possession of a pressure gauge and a pump, and -- as shown in the video that has been making the rounds in 2013 -- are expected to measure and inflate/deflate balls as a part of the standard procedure of preparing them for kickoff.
Note that Belichick mentioned, in passing, that the Pats provide the balls to the officials and tell them they'd like them at 12.5. I found that bit particularly interesting, because it lines up with what was on that video: the officiating crew pretty much sets the pressure of the footballs, and teams may as well provide completely deflated balls for what it's worth.
If his story is that the officials inflated the balls to the pressure level that he requested then he's done a pretty poor job of getting that fact out.
I disagree completely that was one of the main takeaways from his Saturday press conference.
-
If his story is that the officials inflated the balls to the pressure level that he requested then he's done a pretty poor job of getting that fact out.
Following proper procedure, the officials have to make sure that all balls are conforming. Therefore every single ball should have been adjusted to be at least 12.5. It stands to reason that if the Pats have a preferred PSI within the conforming range, they'd set it to that. But in any case, it's standard procedure for the officials to have all the necessary tools and to actively use them in the process. And they are responsible that the balls that exit their locker room are conforming.
This has been documented way before Deflategate came along, perhaps it's worth reposting the video here (it's from 2013):
http://mmqb.si.com/2015/01/22/deflategate-video-how-nfl-officials-check-game-ball-pressure/
-
I agree, but if they supplied the balls and the balls were under-inflated, it's going to be hard to convince too many people of your innocence.
Except the officials are responsible for air pressure in all balls, so for all practical purposes they supplied them.
I'm not sure "didn't inspect them closely enough to realize they weren't within spec" and "supplied them" mean the same thing. I've been saying all along that the officials probably didn't check the balls all that closely, and the (likely) erroneous assumption that they did led to the assumption that the Pats deflated the balls, but I don't think the Patriots were overly concerned about whether the balls they supplied met the minimum psi level.
Doesn't matter. The rulebook explicitly points out the officiating crew as a SOLE judge of whether game balls are conforming. Officials are in possession of a pressure gauge and a pump, and -- as shown in the video that has been making the rounds in 2013 -- are expected to measure and inflate/deflate balls as a part of the standard procedure of preparing them for kickoff.
Note that Belichick mentioned, in passing, that the Pats provide the balls to the officials and tell them they'd like them at 12.5. I found that bit particularly interesting, because it lines up with what was on that video: the officiating crew pretty much sets the pressure of the footballs, and teams may as well provide completely deflated balls for what it's worth.
If his story is that the officials inflated the balls to the pressure level that he requested then he's done a pretty poor job of getting that fact out.
I thought he did a decent job getting this out in the press conference. I think the media, on the other hand, has done a poor job of reporting on things like this, preferring instead to spin insinuation after insinuation.
At least this is the case for ESPN.
ESPN, by the way, stands for Extremely Sucky at rePorting the News.
-
Very interesting article that certainly doesn't paint the Patriots in a very good light.
Makes it look like this isn't just an issue for this season.
http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2015/the-new-england-patriots-mysteriously-became-fumble-proof-in-2007
This article is not interesting. It is an insult to anyone (apparently not you) who has any idea how hard the Pats work at minimizing fumbles. Not just in practices. Punishing players (e.g. Ridley) who dare to lose possession just once.
I think you'd have a hard time convincing people that BB cares significantly more about reducing turnovers than other coaches do, or that he cares significantly more about reducing turnovers than he did prior to 2007.
Shouldn't the league supply all of the footballs, and shouldn't both teams play with the same footballs? They're setting themselves up for issues like this.
Yes of course the league should just supply the balls.
My point is that Belichick does a better job of coaching away turnovers, most other coaches pay lip service, but how many of them sit their best RB after one fumble? Frankly, I sometimes think Belichick goes overboard with his messages (e.g.., Jonah Gray benching), but when I read stats about Pats fumbling less, I attribute it to superior coaching and player selection, not having PSI levels down 1 point.
-
I agree, but if they supplied the balls and the balls were under-inflated, it's going to be hard to convince too many people of your innocence.
Except the officials are responsible for air pressure in all balls, so for all practical purposes they supplied them.
I'm not sure "didn't inspect them closely enough to realize they weren't within spec" and "supplied them" mean the same thing. I've been saying all along that the officials probably didn't check the balls all that closely, and the (likely) erroneous assumption that they did led to the assumption that the Pats deflated the balls, but I don't think the Patriots were overly concerned about whether the balls they supplied met the minimum psi level.
Doesn't matter. The rulebook explicitly points out the officiating crew as a SOLE judge of whether game balls are conforming. Officials are in possession of a pressure gauge and a pump, and -- as shown in the video that has been making the rounds in 2013 -- are expected to measure and inflate/deflate balls as a part of the standard procedure of preparing them for kickoff.
Note that Belichick mentioned, in passing, that the Pats provide the balls to the officials and tell them they'd like them at 12.5. I found that bit particularly interesting, because it lines up with what was on that video: the officiating crew pretty much sets the pressure of the footballs, and teams may as well provide completely deflated balls for what it's worth.
If his story is that the officials inflated the balls to the pressure level that he requested then he's done a pretty poor job of getting that fact out.
I recall he made clear in the Saturday news conference that he did not know what level they actually inflated them, just that they requested 12.5.
-
So if I am understanding this correctly (and please forgive me if I am stating the obvious), for the Patriots to have done something wrong, Tom Brady would have had to instruct an equipment manager to sneak the footballs into the bathroom after they'd been approved by the officials to then reduce the PSI in each football by about 1 to 2 PSI.
The statement above is based on the assumption that the Pats can deliver footballs to the officials that are not in compliance with PSI requirements and it is up to the officials to finalize the acceptance of the footballs. Further assumption is that if the officials were to approve a football that is out of compliance, it is the official, not the Patriots, who would be responsible.
It would not surprise me at all if Tom and the Pats deliver footballs to the officials that are below the required PSI. In fact, if the point is that the teams have discretion regarding getting the footballs the way they want them, I would be surprised if the Pats, or any team, are focused on PSI as opposed to simply trying to get the footballs to match their quarterback's preferences.
It would surprise me a lot if Tom (and I am assuming it could be no one other than Tom) would surrupticiously conspire with an equipment manager to do something so obviously against the rules -- and something that could so easily be detected or determined -- either by someone catching him in that act, or via an investigation. If Brady did this, he should be severely reprimanded -- not only for the wrongness of it, but for manipulating an equipment manager to act on his request. I do not believe it happened.
This has been a disgusting display of piling onto a rumor and I am jacked and pumped for this game even more than before.
-
Good rebuttal to the "Pats must be cheating because the don't fumble enough" allegation (fumblegate??)
http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-those-statistics-about-the-patriots-fumbles-are-mos-1681805710
-
Yeah, this seems strange to me, too. And Aaron Rodgers said the refs always let air out of the balls that Green Bay supplies, and that he wishes they'd leave them alone, suggesting the Packers submit balls at a higher-than-acceptable psi—yet that seems to be okay?
There's a difference between submitting balls that may have more pressure than allowed and tampering with the balls after they have been checked. One is following established procedure, the other is attempting to circumvent procedure.
-
Because there is a glaring double standard when it comes to the New England Patriots & a lot of other teams in the NFL. Also, this is coming off a conference title game with the team advancing to the Super Bowl. The other incidents occurred in the middle of the regular season
I've mentioned this before, if this was the Jacksonville Jaguars, you're not seeing nearly the same amount of media outrage. But because it's Belichick & Brady and the Patriots, you get the witch hunt here.
Spygate & sustained success brought that about. The first reason can be justified because the Pats brought that upon themselves & the latter is a lot of contempt rooted in jealousy.
If there is a double standard, it's not the Patriots vs the rest of the league, it's big market and marquee teams vs other teams. Maybe there would be less media outrage if this were Jacksonville, but there would probably be similar scrutiny if it were the Cowboys or the Jets.
-
Good rebuttal to the "Pats must be cheating because the don't fumble enough" allegation (fumblegate??)
http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-those-statistics-about-the-patriots-fumbles-are-mos-1681805710
TP. The most informative part of the post are the two charts near the bottom which the rebutted put together: fumbles per 100 rushes and fumbles per 100 receptions, which is where I would have started. Not surprisingly, NE is low on both lists. But so are other teams, notably GB. In short, the sharpfootballanalysis stuff is garbage.
-
ha, ha, ha...i never watch american football. i was curious what this thread was and clicked on it.
56 pages dedicated to footballs that are underinflated? ha, ha...i will never again complain about how trivial celtics' thread are.
carry on guys. ;D
-
Because there is a glaring double standard when it comes to the New England Patriots & a lot of other teams in the NFL. Also, this is coming off a conference title game with the team advancing to the Super Bowl. The other incidents occurred in the middle of the regular season
I've mentioned this before, if this was the Jacksonville Jaguars, you're not seeing nearly the same amount of media outrage. But because it's Belichick & Brady and the Patriots, you get the witch hunt here.
Spygate & sustained success brought that about. The first reason can be justified because the Pats brought that upon themselves & the latter is a lot of contempt rooted in jealousy.
If there is a double standard, it's not the Patriots vs the rest of the league, it's big market and marquee teams vs other teams. Maybe there would be less media outrage if this were Jacksonville, but there would probably be similar scrutiny if it were the Cowboys or the Jets.
i strongly disagree with this, nobody cares about the jets except for new yorkers, and the cowboys are seen as buffoons, people would just laugh at both of those teams and then forget. the media members are humans too, and they're largely influenced not only by their own bias, but by the perceptions of the fans; catering to those fans generates viewers and web page hits (remember tebow mania?). and a lot of media people are remarkably unprofessional, hines ward is a perfect example, he's basically a childish fan posing as an analyst, and his coverage of the pats is pathetic.
as for the pats, their seemingly endless run of excellence and their image as a clean-cut, disciplined team have a lot to do with the scrutiny, a lot of people want to "expose" them as phonies.
this is likely in large part to the media's never-ending slobber-fest over BB's brilliance and the "patriot way", which is partially deserved but certainly goes over the top, a-la-brett favre. you can bet someone like hines ward got tired about hearing it a long time ago.
brady's good looks and model wife don't help, he doesn't cast the same fake "everyman" image that peyton manages so well, and, from the beginning, brady has been the winner, while peyton has been the underdog.
BB's surly attitude and vindictive nature also have made him a lot of enemies.
and then there's spygate, which some people still think was some sort of huge conspiracy and cover-up.
i really think the pats are a special case here.
-
Good rebuttal to the "Pats must be cheating because the don't fumble enough" allegation (fumblegate??)
http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-those-statistics-about-the-patriots-fumbles-are-mos-1681805710
TP. The most informative part of the post are the two charts near the bottom which the rebutted put together: fumbles per 100 rushes and fumbles per 100 receptions, which is where I would have started. Not surprisingly, NE is low on both lists. But so are other teams, notably GB. In short, the sharpfootballanalysis stuff is garbage.
yep. the manning-era colts also had fumble rates even lower than the pats. so i guess manning was cheating too. (in all seriousness manning actually strikes me as super-OCD, so i really wouldn't be surprised if they actually are bending some rules. i just wouldn't make a federal case out of it.)
really with the fumble thing i think it boils down to teams having good coaching, good offensive players, and also when teams are capable of putting up a lot of points they don't need to take as many risks; a lot of fumbles come as a receiver is fighting for extra yards.
-
Good rebuttal to the "Pats must be cheating because the don't fumble enough" allegation (fumblegate??)
http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-those-statistics-about-the-patriots-fumbles-are-mos-1681805710
That made my head hurt. From reading that. I'm not sure which party (the original post or the rebuttal) was more foolish. I'd hope that a college professor (let alone two of them) would be thoroughly embarrassed to have anyone read that. Two of the main rebuttals seem to be the use of ALL CAPS or the fact that one of his graphs didn't start from 0 (like you don't see that in about half of the graphs you see). I feel for the kids that have those guys for teachers.
-
Good rebuttal to the "Pats must be cheating because the don't fumble enough" allegation (fumblegate??)
http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-those-statistics-about-the-patriots-fumbles-are-mos-1681805710
That made my head hurt. From reading that. I'm not sure which party (the original post or the rebuttal) was more foolish. I'd hope that a college professor (let alone two of them) would be thoroughly embarrassed to have anyone read that. Two of the main rebuttals seem to be the use of ALL CAPS or the fact that one of his graphs didn't start from 0 (like you don't see that in about half of the graphs you see). I feel for the kids that have those guys for teachers.
The original "analysis" is pretty much a piece of worthless turd, so yes, the caps are warranted. And the rebuttal is mostly appropriate from what I can see. The snarky tone is a little abrasive, though (I know, look who's talking :P).
Also, the fact that you see a ton of graphs that do not start from zero doesn't mean that they aren't misleading. They are.
-
ha, ha, ha...i never watch american football. i was curious what this thread was and clicked on it.
56 pages dedicated to footballs that are underinflated? ha, ha...i will never again complain about how trivial celtics' thread are.
carry on guys. ;D
Ditto, lol. ;D I don't know about you, but I've thoroughly enjoyed seeing grown men talk about balls for the past week, ahaha. ;D
-
Yeah, this seems strange to me, too. And Aaron Rodgers said the refs always let air out of the balls that Green Bay supplies, and that he wishes they'd leave them alone, suggesting the Packers submit balls at a higher-than-acceptable psi—yet that seems to be okay?
There's a difference between submitting balls that may have more pressure than allowed and tampering with the balls after they have been checked. One is following established procedure, the other is attempting to circumvent procedure.
Yeah. Apples and oranges. GB is playing by the rules while hoping to get lucky.
-
Quetzalcoatl and Donoghus: I get what you're saying about whining and deflecting—that would look bad, so it should be avoided. Fine.
I also get that the Pats have a huge target on their backs because of Brady, Belichick, and extended success.
But this is clearly a double standard, postseason or not. The Pats are being lambasted because they allegedly broke a rule that shouldn't even exist, and that the NFL has never seemed much inclined to enforce, and that is no more serious a violation than warming up balls on the sideline during a game on national TV.
Well, I think its a rule that should exist. The parameters can certainly be worked out a bit (chain of custody of the balls, room temp to fill the balls, etc...) but I think there should be a minimum air pressure requirement for a football. Like others have mentioned, the more deflated the ball, the easier it is to grip onto & catch. In this instance, the difference has been compared to the weight of a dollar bill. People aren't noticing that unless they're consciously looking for it, IMO.
I will agree that the media is making a mountain out of a molehill, though and the NFL isn't doing itself any favors with the leaks and relative silence on the matter.
I should clarify what I mean by "this rule shouldn't even exist."
I'm referring not to chain of custody, but to the "12.5–13.5 psi" rule. Every football fan knows that a ball has to have a certain minimum inflation to be usable, and that the whole "softer equals better grip" idea can be taken only so far—I mean, no quarterback is going to be able to throw a football that's literally inflated only halfway, like a flat tire. So maybe there should be a minimum, but that's probably lower than 12.5 psi. As long as it meets that low standard, let each QB have it the way he wants. I mean, imagine if MLB was so narrow as to say that bats could be only 33–34 ounces and only 36–37 inches long. In other words, MLB allows a lot of latitude with the tools of the trade, whereas the NFL doesn't.
I agree. While I consider the Patriots one of the more cutthroat franchises out there whose ethics are pretty much just win = good, I find the PSI minimum silly if teams are using their own balls. There may be a psychological benefit to certain players for under-inflated balls, but I don't see there being a material advantage. In fact, I see a material (but negligible) disadvantage due to the slower traveling ball when underinflated.
-
NFL has retained NYC firm Paul Weiss attorneys, who have reached out to Columbia University Physics department, to discuss atmospheric influences on PSI.
The good news in this report is that the NFL is at least looking into this angle of explanation.
Hoping the NYC bias does not rub off on the attorneys and scientists!!!
-
Interesting new info per Mike Reiss (seriously, one of the best)
http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4777441/learning-more-on-how-referees-test-and-document-football-air-pressure
Of note:
1. The referees "gauged" the footballs before the game, whatever that means.
2. The referees checked two balls (if I understand correctly), and one was fine, one was underinflated.
3. They couldn't tell the difference between the two balls; the balls felt more or less the same.
Not sure what to make of all this. It seems to question the notion that there were a bunch of underinflated balls. It seems to call into question the idea that you should be able to tell the difference between inflated and underinflated balls (if the refs are looking for a difference and cant really tell a difference, then it would be hard for a player to notice much of a difference during a game). It is also really unclear what the refs did or didn't do prior to the game. Doesn't sound like there's a paper trail of some sort (ie, balls could have been underinflated to begin with, which would shift blame more on the refs, not the Pats).
-
Interesting new info per Mike Reiss (seriously, one of the best)
http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4777441/learning-more-on-how-referees-test-and-document-football-air-pressure
Of note:
1. The referees "gauged" the footballs before the game, whatever that means.
2. The referees checked two balls (if I understand correctly), and one was fine, one was underinflated.
As I understood the article, the refs filled every ball to a 13, and then tested a couple at some point? Very unclear to me.
3. They couldn't tell the difference between the two balls; the balls felt more or less the same.
To be fair, the quote was that you couldn't tell the difference unless "you actually sat there and tried to squeeze the thing". So, it seems like he's acknowledging that there's a difference, just that you're not going to notice it through casual handling. Does a QB throwing a ball or a WR catching one work at a higher level than casual handling, though?
I'm more confused now than I've ever been. I originally thought teams inflated their own balls, and then they were checked. Then, I thought I read that the refs did it, but that teams could select their preferences. Now, this is suggesting that every ball was pumped to 13 PSI.
Also, if this is so unimportant as to not be documented, then it's stupid to make this big of a deal out of it, period. If the NFL wants precision, it should do things the right way.
-
Bill said, in his saturday press conference, that the balls were given to the refs with a 12.5 psi request. So I assume that's the ref's job based on BB saying that multiple times.
-
Interesting new info per Mike Reiss (seriously, one of the best)
http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4777441/learning-more-on-how-referees-test-and-document-football-air-pressure
Of note:
1. The referees "gauged" the footballs before the game, whatever that means.
2. The referees checked two balls (if I understand correctly), and one was fine, one was underinflated.
As I understood the article, the refs filled every ball to a 13, and then tested a couple at some point? Very unclear to me.
3. They couldn't tell the difference between the two balls; the balls felt more or less the same.
To be fair, the quote was that you couldn't tell the difference unless "you actually sat there and tried to squeeze the thing". So, it seems like he's acknowledging that there's a difference, just that you're not going to notice it through casual handling. Does a QB throwing a ball or a WR catching one work at a higher level than casual handling, though?
I'm more confused now than I've ever been. I originally thought teams inflated their own balls, and then they were checked. Then, I thought I read that the refs did it, but that teams could select their preferences. Now, this is suggesting that every ball was pumped to 13 PSI.
Also, if this is so unimportant as to not be documented, then it's stupid to make this big of a deal out of it, period. If the NFL wants precision, it should do things the right way.
Roy, agreed on all counts. I meant to insert a "really", as in the refs couldn't really tell the difference between the balls. I think the broader point is thta it is not that easy to thell the difference between 12.5 PSI and, say 11 PSI.
In any case, I think it is the NFL (and media that rushed to judgement) that is going to come out of this looking bad. There was also the bizarre HGH testing of Earl Thomas today. I guess to "even things up" and show that the NFL doesn't have any favorites, or something like that...
-
In any case, I think it is the NFL (and media that rushed to judgement) that is going to come out of this looking bad. There was also the bizarre HGH testing of Earl Thomas today. I guess to "even things up" and show that the NFL doesn't have any favorites, or something like that...
The worst thing about this is that these are two legitimately excellent, exciting teams. Both started slow, and have been lights out for most of the season. There are dozens of awesome story lines, and yet we've heard basically none of them (and that's with a lot of us in the New England market!)
-
The NY Times and Politifact now both have articles explaining that the weather could be solely responsible for the drop in pressure of the footballs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/30/sports/football/deflation-experiments-show-patriots-may-have-science-on-their-side-after-all.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=2
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jan/29/bill-belichick/factchecking-bill-belichick-deflategate/
-
Good rebuttal to the "Pats must be cheating because the don't fumble enough" allegation (fumblegate??)
http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-those-statistics-about-the-patriots-fumbles-are-mos-1681805710
That made my head hurt. From reading that. I'm not sure which party (the original post or the rebuttal) was more foolish. I'd hope that a college professor (let alone two of them) would be thoroughly embarrassed to have anyone read that. Two of the main rebuttals seem to be the use of ALL CAPS or the fact that one of his graphs didn't start from 0 (like you don't see that in about half of the graphs you see). I feel for the kids that have those guys for teachers.
Oh, jeez. They are writing that article for Deadspin, not an academic journal. They even state they are going Fire Joe Morgan on it, hence the levity. I like you but your complaint there is absurd and off base by a wild degree. They clearly lay out how the data chosen is wrong and how the analysis falters as well. The "think of the children" complaint here is a fine icing on the cake.
-
GO PATRIOTS
As a Croat i'm very proud that the greatest coach in history got croatian roots, Bill Belichick (or Beli?i? in Croatian). Bill's grandpa and grandma are from Croatia, same goes to Rob Ninkovich (Ninkovi?).
Did you know that grandparents of Pete Carroll are also Croats (from mother side)? Same as chief referee of Superbowl Bill Vinovich (Vinovi?).
Also, John Havlicek mother was Croat, dad Chech. Mother of Spurs coach Gregg Popovich. Grandparents of Celtics great Kevin McHale are also Croats. Same for Lakers great George Mikan and his brother Ed who played for Celtics, Rockets great Rudy Tomjanovich and Bullets great Jack Marin. Andrew Bogut parents are Croats who moved to Australia. NFL coach Nick Saban and player David Diehl.
MLB greats Roger Maris and Johnny Damon. Actors John Malkovich and Jenna Elfman. R.E.M. singer Michael Stipe. Nirvana basist Krist Novoselich...
Sorry to bother you...
GO PATS. Go Beli?i?, go Brady
-
Come on man, the only relevant Croat around is Dino. ;D
-
What? You forget all-time Celtics greats Stojko Vrankovic, Zan Tabak and Bruno Sundov ;D ;D ;D
-
GO PATRIOTS
As a Croat i'm very proud that the greatest coach in history got croatian roots, Bill Belichick (or Beli?i? in Croatian). Bill's grandpa and grandma are from Croatia, same goes to Rob Ninkovich (Ninkovi?).
Did you know that grandparents of Pete Carroll are also Croats (from mother side)? Same as chief referee of Superbowl Bill Vinovich (Vinovi?).
Also, John Havlicek mother was Croat, dad Chech. Mother of Spurs coach Gregg Popovich. Grandparents of Celtics great Kevin McHale are also Croats. Same for Lakers great George Mikan and his brother Ed who played for Celtics, Rockets great Rudy Tomjanovich and Bullets great Jack Marin. Andrew Bogut parents are Croats who moved to Australia. NFL coach Nick Saban and player David Diehl.
MLB greats Roger Maris and Johnny Damon. Actors John Malkovich and Jenna Elfman. R.E.M. singer Michael Stipe. Nirvana basist Krist Novoselich...
Sorry to bother you...
GO PATS. Go Beli?i?, go Brady
strange that you would list all those people and not mention the greatest croatian of them all,
Serious Sam Stone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAWgQowUqU4
-
GO PATRIOTS
As a Croat i'm very proud that the greatest coach in history got croatian roots, Bill Belichick (or Beli?i? in Croatian). Bill's grandpa and grandma are from Croatia, same goes to Rob Ninkovich (Ninkovi?).
Did you know that grandparents of Pete Carroll are also Croats (from mother side)? Same as chief referee of Superbowl Bill Vinovich (Vinovi?).
Also, John Havlicek mother was Croat, dad Chech. Mother of Spurs coach Gregg Popovich. Grandparents of Celtics great Kevin McHale are also Croats. Same for Lakers great George Mikan and his brother Ed who played for Celtics, Rockets great Rudy Tomjanovich and Bullets great Jack Marin. Andrew Bogut parents are Croats who moved to Australia. NFL coach Nick Saban and player David Diehl.
MLB greats Roger Maris and Johnny Damon. Actors John Malkovich and Jenna Elfman. R.E.M. singer Michael Stipe. Nirvana basist Krist Novoselich...
Sorry to bother you...
GO PATS. Go Beli?i?, go Brady
http://www.naturalheightgrowth.com/2013/03/18/the-tallest-people-in-the-world-appear-to-be-from-croatia-and-serbia-specifically-dalmatia-and-the-dinaric-alps/
-
Shake it off, bro.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bce3of0UmGM
PS Wish someone would use this song to create a better video than this one. It looks like it was pieced together in 90 seconds, in the Pats' bathroom. Don't like the cut aways to James Franco, cringe-worthy. And video of Ridley? Really??
-
Anybody else secretly (or not so secretly) hoping for an absolute train wreck at Goodell's state of the league address today?
-
Anybody else secretly (or not so secretly) hoping for an absolute train wreck at Goodell's state of the league address today?
If you're doing it secretly, you're not doing a good job.
-
Anybody else secretly (or not so secretly) hoping for an absolute train wreck at Goodell's state of the league address today?
If you're doing it secretly, you're not doing a good job.
Hence, the parentheses.
-
Interesting story ---
Did you know that the Patriots hired a Team Chaplain in 2013?
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12250363/patriots-love-deflategate
-
Tom E Curran bringing his A-game today:
http://www.csnne.com/article/curran-goodell-deflategate-stance-shows-hes-fraud
-
Tom E Curran bringing his A-game today:
http://www.csnne.com/article/curran-goodell-deflategate-stance-shows-hes-fraud
Tom E Curran never brings his A-game. He doesn't have one.
-
Tom E Curran bringing his A-game today:
http://www.csnne.com/article/curran-goodell-deflategate-stance-shows-hes-fraud
Tom E Curran never brings his A-game. He doesn't have one.
You're confusing him with Dennis and Callahan :P
-
Shake it off, bro.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bce3of0UmGM
PS Wish someone would use this song to create a better video than this one. It looks like it was pieced together in 90 seconds, in the Pats' bathroom. Don't like the cut aways to James Franco, cringe-worthy. And video of Ridley? Really??
The words 'shake it off' and 'bro' should never be in the same sentence, let alone in this particular order. Why is taylor swift even mentioned at all on this blog? There should be a penalty for posting about her, lol. ;D Why is that 'song' ::) so popular, anyway? It's garbage. I literally can't even right now. ;D The only way we could put her crap to good use would be to use it on the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. They'll crack so fast it won't even be funny, lol. ;D
-
Tom E Curran bringing his A-game today:
http://www.csnne.com/article/curran-goodell-deflategate-stance-shows-hes-fraud
Tom E Curran never brings his A-game. He doesn't have one.
You're confusing him with Dennis and Callahan :P
Dennis and Callahan deserve that burn
Although you probably went easy on them
-
Bill said, in his saturday press conference, that the balls were given to the refs with a 12.5 psi request. So I assume that's the ref's job based on BB saying that multiple times.
I'm now curious with the ridiculous media uproar: if you have your balls at 12.5 PSI to start the game and it's a cold day out, are you in violation if they drop to 11.5 due to weather conditions? Is 12.5 now essentially an illegal psi to have since it's almost always going to drop?
This whole thing is ridiculous
-
Tom E Curran bringing his A-game today:
http://www.csnne.com/article/curran-goodell-deflategate-stance-shows-hes-fraud
Yeah. That was a good read. There's no question that Goodell has done an absolutely awful job as commish the past 12 months. A regular CEO of a publicly traded company would lose his or her job over the repeated mishandlings
-
From Joe Montana:
“I mean, it’s easy to figure out who did it,” Montana told The Boston Globe. “Did Tom do it? No, but Tom likes the balls that way, obviously, or you wouldn’t have 11 of them that way without him complaining, because as a quarterback, you know how you like the ball. If it doesn’t feel like that, something is wrong. It’s a stupid thing to even be talking about because they shouldn’t have the rule anyway. If you want to see the game played at the best, everybody has a different grip, everybody likes a different feel."
The bolded part is my favorite—there obviously has to be a minimum inflation for the ball to be useable, but after that, let QBs do what they want.
-
Shake it off, bro.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bce3of0UmGM
PS Wish someone would use this song to create a better video than this one. It looks like it was pieced together in 90 seconds, in the Pats' bathroom. Don't like the cut aways to James Franco, cringe-worthy. And video of Ridley? Really??
The words 'shake it off' and 'bro' should never be in the same sentence, let alone in this particular order. Why is taylor swift even mentioned at all on this blog? There should be a penalty for posting about her, lol. ;D Why is that 'song' ::) so popular, anyway? It's garbage. I literally can't even right now. ;D The only way we could put her crap to good use would be to use it on the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. They'll crack so fast it won't even be funny, lol. ;D
Got me, LOL.
I hated to admit it, but I must say her song fits how I feel about all the hate towards the Pats.
-
Shake it off, bro.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bce3of0UmGM
PS Wish someone would use this song to create a better video than this one. It looks like it was pieced together in 90 seconds, in the Pats' bathroom. Don't like the cut aways to James Franco, cringe-worthy. And video of Ridley? Really??
The words 'shake it off' and 'bro' should never be in the same sentence, let alone in this particular order. Why is taylor swift even mentioned at all on this blog? There should be a penalty for posting about her, lol. ;D Why is that 'song' ::) so popular, anyway? It's garbage. I literally can't even right now. ;D The only way we could put her crap to good use would be to use it on the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. They'll crack so fast it won't even be funny, lol. ;D
Got me, LOL.
I hated to admit it, but I must say her song fits how I feel about all the hate towards the Pats.
I mean, no one has 'haters' at 25. ::) The whole concept is beyond ridiculous to me. It's mind numbing to hear, believe me. Whenever it's on the radio or that other one 'blank space' comes on I start to feel like a zombie. I guess that she was trying to make fun of herself with the latter, but it didn't work, imo. The whole concept of having a 'blank space,' which is what becomes of my mind whenever I hear it, on which to write someone's name sounds like she's assigning you a table at a restaurant. Does she give you one of those timers that blink red and vibrate (oh, that sounds dirty, lol ;D) to tell you when you're ready to be seated? What's the protocol, here?
-
Rappaport now reporting 1 football 2 psi under other 11 just a tick under 12.5
-
Rappaport now reporting 1 football 2 psi under other 11 just a tick under 12.5
Every time the media rereports something they fudged up the first time they lose even more credibility in my mind. Tell Rappaport we said "moooooo"
-
Rappaport now reporting 1 football 2 psi under other 11 just a tick under 12.5
Every time the media rereports something they fudged up the first time they lose even more credibility in my mind. Tell Rappaport we said "moooooo"
Just goes to show you this was a whole lot of nothing from the very beginning and has been perpetuated by pats hate/jealousy
-
Apparently the lone ball that was 2 psi under was the intercepted ball and in the Colts custody prior to being turned over to the nfl. Would not shock me if that dirtbag owner of the Colts instructed to have the ball deflated
-
Frame-up. I called it first.
-
Apparently the lone ball that was 2 psi under was the intercepted ball and in the Colts custody prior to being turned over to the nfl. Would not shock me if that dirtbag owner of the Colts instructed to have the ball deflated
Pats should be given the Indy 1st rd pick next year, Indy fined 1 million dollars.
Total scumbag franchise lead by scumbag owner .
Goodell should have to physically kiss bill and tom's behind while presenting the Lombardi trophy tonight
Goodell sure know how to let this thing continue, great advertising hours for the superbowl....
-
Shake it off, bro.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bce3of0UmGM
PS Wish someone would use this song to create a better video than this one. It looks like it was pieced together in 90 seconds, in the Pats' bathroom. Don't like the cut aways to James Franco, cringe-worthy. And video of Ridley? Really??
The words 'shake it off' and 'bro' should never be in the same sentence, let alone in this particular order. Why is taylor swift even mentioned at all on this blog? There should be a penalty for posting about her, lol. ;D Why is that 'song' ::) so popular, anyway? It's garbage. I literally can't even right now. ;D The only way we could put her crap to good use would be to use it on the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. They'll crack so fast it won't even be funny, lol. ;D
+1
aside from the gitmo bit. they've probably already tried that.
-
Rappaport now reporting 1 football 2 psi under other 11 just a tick under 12.5
If that's true...
1. The media should be absolutely ashamed for botching this so much;
2. The NFL should have gotten out in front of this within 24 hours and said "this looks like a non-story, but we're doing our due-diligence";
3. The NFL / refs need to start using more precise measurements / logging for ball pressure, if this is a big deal;
4. I'm still not sure where the science falls on this. Heck, if we listen to all the stories out there, the balls should have deflated *more* than a tick under 12.5. None of it makes a lot of sense.
-
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000466783/article/more-details-on-the-investigation-of-patriots-deflated-footballs
For much of the past two weeks, the Patriots have faced questions about whether they used deliberately deflated footballs in the AFC title game win over the Colts, eventually leading the NFL to tap Ted Wells to launch an investigation that will take several more weeks.
While owner Robert Kraft and every other member of the Patriots have declared innocence, Commissioner Roger Goodell said Friday that, "we have made no judgments" thus far.
But over the course of the last two weeks, multiple sources have shed light on the situation surrounding the Patriots, their 12 game-day footballs, and deflation. Here is what they've said:
>> Prior to the game, a game-day worker employed by the Patriots, a man described as elderly, took two bags of 12 footballs (one bag from each team) into the restroom near the referees' room in Gillette Stadium. The man was in the room for 98 seconds. When he exited the room, he took the balls to the field. There is video of the man entering and exiting the bathroom, but it's unclear if there is a clear shot inside the restroom.
>> That the man entered the restroom prior to walking with the footballs onto the field was discovered by the Patriots, and video footage was quickly turned over to Ted Wells for his investigation.
>> When coach Bill Belichick and Tom Brady were told there were questions about the footballs, both were incredulous. Belichick indicated privately what he said publicly: That he had little knowledge of what went into pregame footballs. Brady told someone close to him that he works on the footballs all week, then has no idea what happens to them on gameday.
>> Eleven of the 12 footballs used in the first half were judged by the officials to be under the minimum of 12.5 PSI, but just one was two pounds under. Many of them were just a few ticks under the minimum.
>> Many of the footballs used in the AFC title game, which all have Walt Anderson's initials on them, were returned to circulation among the rest of the Patriots game-day footballs. Because Anderson was the referee for two other Patriots games this season, there are more than 30 footballs with his initials in the team's possession. It appears the league has the football D'Qwell Jackson intercepted and took to the sidelines to ultimately hand over to his equipment staff.
So an elderly guy who works on game days only was put in charge of assuring that the Patriots cheating conspiracy was executed perfectly. Unbelievable.
-
What he said on air was one at 2psi under, a few at 1 psi under and the rest a tick under 12.5. If this is true, which how could we know, you can't trust the NFL at all these days, then they have been really negligent for letting this get this far.
-
Frame-up. I called it first.
after the Superbowl is over the Patriots should file defamation charges against the Colts and some members of the media imo
-
4. I'm still not sure where the science falls on this. Heck, if we listen to all the stories out there, the balls should have deflated *more* than a tick under 12.5. None of it makes a lot of sense.
There are way too many moving parts here. First, apparently it's not necessary that all balls are the same pressure. Then, the loss of pressure would depend on many factors, including the temperature at which they were inflated, humidity differences, and also how much a ball was handled .
-
There's one thing I don't understand: how do all these numbers get thrown around, when ball pressure wasn't logged. The conclusion it's either hearsay, or they're talking to folks from the officiating crew.
-
There's one thing I don't understand: how do all these numbers get thrown around, when ball pressure wasn't logged. The conclusion it's either hearsay, or they're talking to folks from the officiating crew.
I'm guessing they are referring to halftime psi measures, considering the pregame psi's were never recorded.
-
Frame-up. I called it first.
after the Superbowl is over the Patriots should file defamation charges against the Colts and some members of the media imo
They really should just to make a statement
-
Frame-up. I called it first.
after the Superbowl is over the Patriots should file defamation charges against the Colts and some members of the media imo
They really should just to make a statement
Exactly. I don't expect them to gain anything else out of it, but it's totally worth it to make a statement.
-
Supposedly the ball that was significantly under was the only Patriots ball in the Colts' possession...how about that
-
What he said on air was one at 2psi under, a few at 1 psi under and the rest a tick under 12.5. If this is true, which how could we know, you can't trust the NFL at all these days, then they have been really negligent for letting this get this far.
Chris Mortensen's initial report that 11/12 balls were 2 pounds under was the horse out of the barn. Everyone has pretty much ignored the amended reports. He got the story wrong, and should be held accountable for this. At a minimum, he should go on the record to say that he was given wrong information, or reported it incorrectly. The Pats haters are just ignoring these updates, including the consensus of the science community (and good ol' common sense) that weather affects ball pressure. Anyone growing up in New England with an outdoor basketball hoop can attest to this!!!
-
What he said on air was one at 2psi under, a few at 1 psi under and the rest a tick under 12.5. If this is true, which how could we know, you can't trust the NFL at all these days, then they have been really negligent for letting this get this far.
Chris Mortensen's initial report that 11/12 balls were 2 pounds under was the horse out of the barn. Everyone has pretty much ignored the amended reports. He got the story wrong, and should be held accountable for this. At a minimum, he should go on the record to say that he was given wrong information, or reported it incorrectly. The Pats haters are just ignoring these updates, including the consensus of the science community (and good ol' common sense) that weather affects ball pressure. Anyone growing up in New England with an outdoor basketball hoop can attest to this!!!
I've been pounding this drum the last two weeks, and few people seem to give it any attention. TP.
-
Shake it off, bro.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bce3of0UmGM
PS Wish someone would use this song to create a better video than this one. It looks like it was pieced together in 90 seconds, in the Pats' bathroom. Don't like the cut aways to James Franco, cringe-worthy. And video of Ridley? Really??
The words 'shake it off' and 'bro' should never be in the same sentence, let alone in this particular order. Why is taylor swift even mentioned at all on this blog? There should be a penalty for posting about her, lol. ;D Why is that 'song' ::) so popular, anyway? It's garbage. I literally can't even right now. ;D The only way we could put her crap to good use would be to use it on the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. They'll crack so fast it won't even be funny, lol. ;D
+1
aside from the gitmo bit. they've probably already tried that.
Hmm, perhaps you're right, although it's my belief that Taylor Swift's crap can turn anyone insane, lol. ;D I suppose if her stuff doesn't work that they could always use 'booty' or 'anaconda,' lol. ;D Not even the KGB could have come up with that, ahaha. ;D
-
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000466783/article/more-details-on-the-investigation-of-patriots-deflated-footballs
For much of the past two weeks, the Patriots have faced questions about whether they used deliberately deflated footballs in the AFC title game win over the Colts, eventually leading the NFL to tap Ted Wells to launch an investigation that will take several more weeks.
While owner Robert Kraft and every other member of the Patriots have declared innocence, Commissioner Roger Goodell said Friday that, "we have made no judgments" thus far.
But over the course of the last two weeks, multiple sources have shed light on the situation surrounding the Patriots, their 12 game-day footballs, and deflation. Here is what they've said:
>> Prior to the game, a game-day worker employed by the Patriots, a man described as elderly, took two bags of 12 footballs (one bag from each team) into the restroom near the referees' room in Gillette Stadium. The man was in the room for 98 seconds. When he exited the room, he took the balls to the field. There is video of the man entering and exiting the bathroom, but it's unclear if there is a clear shot inside the restroom.
>> That the man entered the restroom prior to walking with the footballs onto the field was discovered by the Patriots, and video footage was quickly turned over to Ted Wells for his investigation.
>> When coach Bill Belichick and Tom Brady were told there were questions about the footballs, both were incredulous. Belichick indicated privately what he said publicly: That he had little knowledge of what went into pregame footballs. Brady told someone close to him that he works on the footballs all week, then has no idea what happens to them on gameday.
>> Eleven of the 12 footballs used in the first half were judged by the officials to be under the minimum of 12.5 PSI, but just one was two pounds under. Many of them were just a few ticks under the minimum.
>> Many of the footballs used in the AFC title game, which all have Walt Anderson's initials on them, were returned to circulation among the rest of the Patriots game-day footballs. Because Anderson was the referee for two other Patriots games this season, there are more than 30 footballs with his initials in the team's possession. It appears the league has the football D'Qwell Jackson intercepted and took to the sidelines to ultimately hand over to his equipment staff.
So an elderly guy who works on game days only was put in charge of assuring that the Patriots cheating conspiracy was executed perfectly. Unbelievable.
98 seconds? Wow, is this the post office where they time your bathroom breaks, lol? ;D Do they have the millisecond count, as well? Either way - fascinating, please, tell me more (sarcasm)! ::) ;D
-
I heard ESPN believes they have solved the mystery of Jack the Ripper. According to anonymous sources it was Bill Belichick.
-
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000466783/article/more-details-on-the-investigation-of-patriots-deflated-footballs
For much of the past two weeks, the Patriots have faced questions about whether they used deliberately deflated footballs in the AFC title game win over the Colts, eventually leading the NFL to tap Ted Wells to launch an investigation that will take several more weeks.
While owner Robert Kraft and every other member of the Patriots have declared innocence, Commissioner Roger Goodell said Friday that, "we have made no judgments" thus far.
But over the course of the last two weeks, multiple sources have shed light on the situation surrounding the Patriots, their 12 game-day footballs, and deflation. Here is what they've said:
>> Prior to the game, a game-day worker employed by the Patriots, a man described as elderly, took two bags of 12 footballs (one bag from each team) into the restroom near the referees' room in Gillette Stadium. The man was in the room for 98 seconds. When he exited the room, he took the balls to the field. There is video of the man entering and exiting the bathroom, but it's unclear if there is a clear shot inside the restroom.
>> That the man entered the restroom prior to walking with the footballs onto the field was discovered by the Patriots, and video footage was quickly turned over to Ted Wells for his investigation.
>> When coach Bill Belichick and Tom Brady were told there were questions about the footballs, both were incredulous. Belichick indicated privately what he said publicly: That he had little knowledge of what went into pregame footballs. Brady told someone close to him that he works on the footballs all week, then has no idea what happens to them on gameday.
>> Eleven of the 12 footballs used in the first half were judged by the officials to be under the minimum of 12.5 PSI, but just one was two pounds under. Many of them were just a few ticks under the minimum.
>> Many of the footballs used in the AFC title game, which all have Walt Anderson's initials on them, were returned to circulation among the rest of the Patriots game-day footballs. Because Anderson was the referee for two other Patriots games this season, there are more than 30 footballs with his initials in the team's possession. It appears the league has the football D'Qwell Jackson intercepted and took to the sidelines to ultimately hand over to his equipment staff.
So an elderly guy who works on game days only was put in charge of assuring that the Patriots cheating conspiracy was executed perfectly. Unbelievable.
98 seconds? Wow, is this the post office where they time your bathroom breaks, lol? ;D Do they have the millisecond count, as well? Either way - fascinating, please, tell me more (sarcasm)! ::) ;D
I love the fact that its an elderly guy who works only on game days. Not quite the smoking gun everyone was hoping for.
-
it looks like #textgate is now, finally, getting some play
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/browns-having-great-offseason--now-in-trouble-for-texting-controversy-181040554.html
Boy, the Browns have had a terrible week, haven't they?
-
I don't think I'll EVER forget this
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O-wpDVWlP0A
-
Well, guess what's back in the news, courtesy of ESPN:
http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/12283485/hall-famer-charles-haley-says-four-super-bowl-titles-tainted-cheat-tom-brady-new-england-patriots?ex_cid=espnapi_public
-
Well, guess what's back in the news, courtesy of ESPN:
http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/12283485/hall-famer-charles-haley-says-four-super-bowl-titles-tainted-cheat-tom-brady-new-england-patriots?ex_cid=espnapi_public
hata's gotta hate ;)
-
Haley played for those Cowboys teams that was getting guys caught with a kilo of coke and hookers every other week while saying "Jesus Jesus" He can be ignored.
-
Well, guess what's back in the news, courtesy of ESPN:
http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/12283485/hall-famer-charles-haley-says-four-super-bowl-titles-tainted-cheat-tom-brady-new-england-patriots?ex_cid=espnapi_public
Well, he was teammates with Montana so it shouldn't come as much of a surprise. Although, the whole "cheating" is just tired & pathetic at this point. Of course, we are also talking about the ramblings of Charles Haley is is absolutely nuts & a loose cannon if you believe the stories about him.
-
Well, guess what's back in the news, courtesy of ESPN:
http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/12283485/hall-famer-charles-haley-says-four-super-bowl-titles-tainted-cheat-tom-brady-new-england-patriots?ex_cid=espnapi_public
Well, he was teammates with Montana so it shouldn't come as much of a surprise. Although, the whole "cheating" is just tired & pathetic at this point. Of course, we are also talking about the ramblings of Charles Haley is is absolutely nuts & a loose cannon if you believe the stories about him.
Shame on espn for posting the ramblings of a loose cannon loser as a news story. They have become a tabloid nowadays. I hope the Patroits and Brady sue them
-
I hate the absurdity of this. I love the absurdity of this.
ESPN loves the theatre of it and fanning the flames until the fire is out.
I love feeling that this is 100% horse manure, and am excited for further vindication. There are exactly ZERO real facts in this "case".
-
This is an awesome tongue & cheek article response to what the Indy media was flaming a few weeks back.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/02/05/hurley-failed-deflategate-accusations-means-its-time-for-irsay-pagano-to-be-banned-from-nfl/
-
This is an awesome tongue & cheek article response to what the Indy media was flaming a few weeks back.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/02/05/hurley-failed-deflategate-accusations-means-its-time-for-irsay-pagano-to-be-banned-from-nfl/
Heads up - that's a funny story but my anti-virus went off when I clicked on that link. Zedo can be pretty nasty to remove so make sure you're up to date before you click on random shady links like....cbslocal.com
Anyways, he KILLS Bob Kravitz in this piece. It's amazing
-
Haley played for those Cowboys teams that was getting guys caught with a kilo of coke and hookers every other week while saying "Jesus Jesus" He can be ignored.
Agreed. I'm so over all of this. I lost so much respect for some former NFL players the last 2 weeks. And Marcellus Wiley is an imbecile, saying the Patriots Superbowl wins should have asterisks because they're cheaters. All these guys played on teams where players were using PEDs or messing with the salary cap or recording play call signals just like the Patriots did. It comes off as straight up jealousy.
-
This is an awesome tongue & cheek article response to what the Indy media was flaming a few weeks back.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/02/05/hurley-failed-deflategate-accusations-means-its-time-for-irsay-pagano-to-be-banned-from-nfl/
very funny read, and so true.
-
I don't think I'll EVER forget this
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O-wpDVWlP0A
I realize I'm probably the last person in the world to see this, but what a sanctimonious piece of crap Mark Brunell has turned out to be. Is he serious with this reaction? Let's assume he really doesn't believe Brady, and finds it offensive how he gained a competitive advantage and took no responsibility for it. He's what, 45 years old? Is this how he always gets when he suspects someone of lying? Is this the most offensive thing he's ever been exposed to in his life? I would think not. It can't be worse than realizing he blew a 50 million dollar fortune.
Maybe this is just what the majority of non-Pats fans wanted to see. They want to see someone indignant, fine. I could do without the crocodile tears though. That was just cringeworthy.
(http://cdn.meme.am/instances/400x/31914460.jpg)
-
How's the outrage over those other cheating scandals going these days? Time to ban some teams and suspend some head coaches, right?
http://thornography.weei.com/sports/boston/2015/02/05/this-week-in-real-nfl-cheating-scandals/
-
This is an awesome tongue & cheek article response to what the Indy media was flaming a few weeks back.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/02/05/hurley-failed-deflategate-accusations-means-its-time-for-irsay-pagano-to-be-banned-from-nfl/
TP. Just proves my frame-up theory. NFL needs to explain how the one ball that the Colts had was the the real statistical anomaly. I have a theory on that too.
#Irsaysuckedtheball
-
I don't think I'll EVER forget this
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O-wpDVWlP0A
I realize I'm probably the last person in the world to see this, but what a sanctimonious piece of crap Mark Brunell has turned out to be. Is he serious with this reaction? Let's assume he really doesn't believe Brady, and finds it offensive how he gained a competitive advantage and took no responsibility for it. He's what, 45 years old? Is this how he always gets when he suspects someone of lying? Is this the most offensive thing he's ever been exposed to in his life? I would think not. It can't be worse than realizing he blew a 50 million dollar fortune.
Maybe this is just what the majority of non-Pats fans wanted to see. They want to see someone indignant, fine. I could do without the crocodile tears though. That was just cringeworthy.
Deadspin nailed this pretty well:
http://deadspin.com/mark-brunell-almost-cries-over-deflated-balls-1681235859
Mark Brunell Almost Cries Over Deflated Balls
Samer Kalaf
Filed to: ballghazi
This is what we get for having two weeks before the Super Bowl. Stern questions at press conferences over the size and firmness of balls. Unironic tweets explicitly comparing the NFL's investigations to actual police work, despite the fact that last September, we received a big lesson about why it's unwise to hold up Roger Goodell and the league to the standard of an actual justice system. Mark Brunell choking up on ESPN and suggesting that maybe Tom Brady—gasp—isn't telling the truth. About his balls.
It's about integrity. In balls. There's a tremor in Mark Brunell's voice as he tells the rest of the panel, "I just didn't believe what Tom Brady has to say." Do me a favor: If you watch this video and find yourself genuinely touched by Brunell's thoughts, please throw away every electronic device you have and move to the most remote part of whatever country you live in.
-
I find it interesting that deflategate was front page news on ESPN for a week. Fortunately, now that it turns out that 10 of the 11 were barely deflated and the only truly "deflated" one was the one that the Colts handled, they're issuing a retraction and apologizing for calling the Patriots cheaters. Oh, wait...
Mike
-
I find it interesting that deflategate was front page news on ESPN for a week. Fortunately, now that it turns out that 10 of the 11 were barely deflated and the only truly "deflated" one was the one that the Colts handled, they're issuing a retraction and apologizing for calling the Patriots cheaters. Oh, wait...
I've seen progress, though. All of a sudden some headlines talking about Haley refer to "alleged cheating". Oops.
-
It just keeps getting better these days...
‘I’m going to be point blank, I feel like it’s cheating,” Rice told Rome on January 22. “Because you have an edge up on your opponent and its unfortunate that it happened. I’m not saying the outcome of the game would have been different or anything like that because they got beat 45-7, but they still had an edge.”
In that same interview, Rice added, “I’ve played in cold weather, I know how hard the football is and you can grip the leather [if deflated] just a little bit better.”
When it comes to playing football in any conditions, the challenge becomes not only throwing it but catching it. And in the ESPN segment narrated by Jim Trotter, Rice nonchalantly made a stunning (in hindsight) confession: Rice put stickum on his gloves.
“I know this might be a little illegal, guys, but you put a little spray, a little stickum on them, to make sure that texture is a little sticky,” Rice said, laughing.
It wasn’t a little illegal, it was a lot illegal. As explained in the ESPN feature, gloves were introduced to football after the NFL decided to outlaw the stuff that guys like Fred Biletnikoff and Lester Hayes (pictured) would spread copiously on their hands, and elsewhere. Rice admitted in the feature that he enhanced the surface of gloves approved for use in the NFL with a substance that would make it easier to catch the ball.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/06/rice-admits-to-illegal-use-of-stickum/
-
It just keeps getting better these days...
‘I’m going to be point blank, I feel like it’s cheating,” Rice told Rome on January 22. “Because you have an edge up on your opponent and its unfortunate that it happened. I’m not saying the outcome of the game would have been different or anything like that because they got beat 45-7, but they still had an edge.”
In that same interview, Rice added, “I’ve played in cold weather, I know how hard the football is and you can grip the leather [if deflated] just a little bit better.”
When it comes to playing football in any conditions, the challenge becomes not only throwing it but catching it. And in the ESPN segment narrated by Jim Trotter, Rice nonchalantly made a stunning (in hindsight) confession: Rice put stickum on his gloves.
“I know this might be a little illegal, guys, but you put a little spray, a little stickum on them, to make sure that texture is a little sticky,” Rice said, laughing.
It wasn’t a little illegal, it was a lot illegal. As explained in the ESPN feature, gloves were introduced to football after the NFL decided to outlaw the stuff that guys like Fred Biletnikoff and Lester Hayes (pictured) would spread copiously on their hands, and elsewhere. Rice admitted in the feature that he enhanced the surface of gloves approved for use in the NFL with a substance that would make it easier to catch the ball.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/06/rice-admits-to-illegal-use-of-stickum/
Wow, I guess that Montana's out of the running for GOAT, since his star wide receiver cheated.
Fortunately, Brady won't have that problem: He rarely had a star receiver to throw to.
Mike
-
Wow, I guess that Montana's out of the running for GOAT, since his star wide receiver cheated.
Wait, I thought Rice was GOAT. Oops...
-
Wow, I guess that Montana's out of the running for GOAT, since his star wide receiver cheated.
Wait, I thought Rice was GOAT. Oops...
This is what I don't understand. You're pretty much universally acclaimed as the "greatest WR of all time" and in the conversation for "greatest football player of all-time". You've won 3 Super Bowls and own almost every WR record in the book.
Why do you act so petty? Is it because another organization is in the dynasty discussion? Is it because of the Tuck Rule game when you were playing for Oakland and trying to get that 4th ring? What exactly is it? There's clearly an ax to grind here and we're seeing it. The sad thing is that he's throwing rocks in glasshouses and comes across as just a petty, jealous ex-jock.
Now its coming out that he's a hypocrite. Should've kept his mouth shut.
-
Wow, I guess that Montana's out of the running for GOAT, since his star wide receiver cheated.
Wait, I thought Rice was GOAT. Oops...
This is what I don't understand. You're pretty much universally acclaimed as the "greatest WR of all time" and in the conversation for "greatest football player of all-time". You've won 3 Super Bowls and own almost every WR record in the book.
Why do you act so petty? Is it because another organization is in the dynasty discussion? Is it because of the Tuck Rule game when you were playing for Oakland and trying to get that 4th ring? What exactly is it? There's clearly an ax to grind here and we're seeing it. The sad thing is that he's throwing rocks in glasshouses and comes across as just a petty, jealous ex-jock.
Now its coming out that he's a hypocrite. Should've kept his mouth shut.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/98/4e/57/984e576ae9c87321af5cc7c3efa28fc5.jpg)
Not really a dynasty comp necessarily, but still....
-
I don't think a deflated would have much effect in football
I saw khan academy scientific explanation that concluded that it had no significant effect
-
Greatest WRs of All Time:
1. Jerry Rice*
2. ...
-
Curran: Hiding behind ‘integrity’, NFL loses dignity
http://www.csnne.com/new-england-patriots/curran-hiding-behind-integrity-nfl-loses-dignity
The NFL screwed up royally and the clustersomething keeps getting worse.
-
It just keeps getting better these days...
‘I’m going to be point blank, I feel like it’s cheating,” Rice told Rome on January 22. “Because you have an edge up on your opponent and its unfortunate that it happened. I’m not saying the outcome of the game would have been different or anything like that because they got beat 45-7, but they still had an edge.”
In that same interview, Rice added, “I’ve played in cold weather, I know how hard the football is and you can grip the leather [if deflated] just a little bit better.”
When it comes to playing football in any conditions, the challenge becomes not only throwing it but catching it. And in the ESPN segment narrated by Jim Trotter, Rice nonchalantly made a stunning (in hindsight) confession: Rice put stickum on his gloves.
“I know this might be a little illegal, guys, but you put a little spray, a little stickum on them, to make sure that texture is a little sticky,” Rice said, laughing.
It wasn’t a little illegal, it was a lot illegal. As explained in the ESPN feature, gloves were introduced to football after the NFL decided to outlaw the stuff that guys like Fred Biletnikoff and Lester Hayes (pictured) would spread copiously on their hands, and elsewhere. Rice admitted in the feature that he enhanced the surface of gloves approved for use in the NFL with a substance that would make it easier to catch the ball.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/06/rice-admits-to-illegal-use-of-stickum/
Wow
Thanks for the link
Thats nuts that he would ever say that
-
https://twitter.com/JerryRice:
I apologize ppl after doing my research about stickum! The NFL banned this in 1981. All players did it! #equalplayingfield
-
https://twitter.com/JerryRice:
I apologize ppl after doing my research about stickum! The NFL banned this in 1981. All players did it! #equalplayingfield
#hypocrite
-
Hurley from CBS kills it with this article: http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/02/05/hurley-failed-deflategate-accusations-means-its-time-for-irsay-pagano-to-be-banned-from-nfl/
Prompting Kravitz to write a (sort of) mea culpa on DeflateGate: http://www.wthr.com/story/28071580/kravitz-a-sort-of-mea-culpa-on-deflategate
The two actually go back and forth a bit on Twitter. Hurley really killed it with that article, those who have been following DeflateGate closely will appreciate it.
-
Still waiting for that apology, Roger.
Mike
-
Hurley from CBS kills it with this article: http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/02/05/hurley-failed-deflategate-accusations-means-its-time-for-irsay-pagano-to-be-banned-from-nfl/
Prompting Kravitz to write a (sort of) mea culpa on DeflateGate: http://www.wthr.com/story/28071580/kravitz-a-sort-of-mea-culpa-on-deflategate
The two actually go back and forth a bit on Twitter. Hurley really killed it with that article, those who have been following DeflateGate closely will appreciate it.
Great article from Hurley. He absolutely SLAMMED Kravitz and Doyel. TP for the link.
-
Hurley from CBS kills it with this article: http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/02/05/hurley-failed-deflategate-accusations-means-its-time-for-irsay-pagano-to-be-banned-from-nfl/
Prompting Kravitz to write a (sort of) mea culpa on DeflateGate: http://www.wthr.com/story/28071580/kravitz-a-sort-of-mea-culpa-on-deflategate
The two actually go back and forth a bit on Twitter. Hurley really killed it with that article, those who have been following DeflateGate closely will appreciate it.
No way on Earth Kravitz should get off that easy with that BS mea culpa. I get what he's saying. But this whole thing where maybe noooooboooddyyy's to blame....BS. These anonymous "sources" are full of it and the people that use them, and then get it completely wrong, have got to be held accountable. Don't give me total BS and then say "I was just breaking a story". Either reveal your lying source or you are the lying source. If your source lied to you don't protect them.
-
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/02/18/report-nfl-official-fired-for-selling-deflategate-football-for-personal-profit/
I'm beginning to believe these sports "reporters" actually really do have "sources", because it's at the point now where you couldn't make this stuff up.
-
This story is getting ridiculous by the day between the OTL report yesterday and this news today.
The league looks absolutely inept right now. This thing has been bungled every inch of the way.
It's also funny to see ESPN reporters basically contradicting other ESPN reporters during this thing.
-
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/02/18/report-nfl-official-fired-for-selling-deflategate-football-for-personal-profit/
I'm beginning to believe these sports "reporters" actually really do have "sources", because it's at the point now where you couldn't make this stuff up.
Why is this not front page news on ESPN. I don't really get the coverage of this. Generally I don't really buy it that ESPN is out to get people. A lot of FSU fans complained last season that they were targeted by ESPN and ESPN never covered negative news for the SEC teams. I didn't have a horse in the race, but now I wonder if that was true. With this story it seems really clear that ESPN is going out of their way to publish articles and stories that could potentially make the Patriots look bad, and really avoiding sharing developments that would make it appear the Patriots did nothing wrong. What is it about?
-
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/02/18/report-nfl-official-fired-for-selling-deflategate-football-for-personal-profit/
I'm beginning to believe these sports "reporters" actually really do have "sources", because it's at the point now where you couldn't make this stuff up.
Hahaha. Oh wait, that really happened? It wasn't made up by the Onion?
The OTL story is weird as well especially given that K balls are by design much harder and not soft and supple and worn in.
-
In any sport its up to the referee to check the ball to make sure its regulation. Ultimately it comes down to the refs failing to do their job - a recurring theme with the NFL. The fact that there was gamesmanship going on...so what. It's part of the sport and always has been.
The refs did check the balls, it is quite obvious that they were toyed with after they had been approved by the officiating crew. To further point out how asinine your comment is, it only took a few plays for the refs to realize that something was wrong with the footballs and they were immediately substituted in with properly inflated balls.
You know, before you start calling other comments asinine, you should take a look in the mirror. The facts keep changing, to the point that even the main stream media that was piling on the Patriots is now, finally, concluding that the NFL has no clue what it is doing regarding the footballs. To say that it is "obvious" that the balls were toyed with after approved by the officials is a statement made without following the story carefully, including the latest by Adam Schefter of ESPN, basically contradicting the story reported last night about the false ball being introduced by a Pats equipment manager.
Read and reflect.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/report--nfl-official-fired-in-deflate-gate-case-for-selling-football-205328811.html
-
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/02/18/report-nfl-official-fired-for-selling-deflategate-football-for-personal-profit/
I'm beginning to believe these sports "reporters" actually really do have "sources", because it's at the point now where you couldn't make this stuff up.
Hahaha. Oh wait, that really happened? It wasn't made up by the Onion?
The OTL story is weird as well especially given that K balls are by design much harder and not soft and supple and worn in.
http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/2015/02/18/report-nfl-officials-responsible-for-unapproved-ball-deflategate/28hQXtUCQmL04vpEihzqmO/story.html?p1=Must_Reads_hp
This is unbelievably embarrassing for the NFL and the media. There was really only 1 ball with very low psi and it turns out the NFL officials were the ones to introduce it into the game to cover up their own rule breaking actions, and they also conned each other. They need to publicly apologize for how they have handled this, and a few media personnel need to be sanctioned or sued. Total embarrassment to see that they drove the lynch mob after the Patriots with no evidence, and then it turns out the officials are the ones who broke the rules and caused the flat balls. Wow.
-
In any sport its up to the referee to check the ball to make sure its regulation. Ultimately it comes down to the refs failing to do their job - a recurring theme with the NFL. The fact that there was gamesmanship going on...so what. It's part of the sport and always has been.
The refs did check the balls, it is quite obvious that they were toyed with after they had been approved by the officiating crew. To further point out how asinine your comment is, it only took a few plays for the refs to realize that something was wrong with the footballs and they were immediately substituted in with properly inflated balls.
You know, before you start calling other comments asinine, you should take a look in the mirror. The facts keep changing, to the point that even the main stream media that was piling on the Patriots is now, finally, concluding that the NFL has no clue what it is doing regarding the footballs. To say that it is "obvious" that the balls were toyed with after approved by the officials is a statement made without following the story carefully, including the latest by Adam Schefter of ESPN, basically contradicting the story reported last night about the false ball being introduced by a Pats equipment manager.
Read and reflect.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/report--nfl-official-fired-in-deflate-gate-case-for-selling-football-205328811.html
Well done. Looks like "TheFlex" will be eating some crow with the NFL.
-
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/02/18/report-nfl-official-fired-for-selling-deflategate-football-for-personal-profit/
I'm beginning to believe these sports "reporters" actually really do have "sources", because it's at the point now where you couldn't make this stuff up.
Hahaha. Oh wait, that really happened? It wasn't made up by the Onion?
The OTL story is weird as well especially given that K balls are by design much harder and not soft and supple and worn in.
http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/2015/02/18/report-nfl-officials-responsible-for-unapproved-ball-deflategate/28hQXtUCQmL04vpEihzqmO/story.html?p1=Must_Reads_hp
This is unbelievably embarrassing for the NFL and the media. There was really only 1 ball with very low psi and it turns out the NFL officials were the ones to introduce it into the game to cover up their own rule breaking actions, and they also conned each other. They need to publicly apologize for how they have handled this, and a few media personnel need to be sanctioned or sued. Total embarrassment to see that they drove the lynch mob after the Patriots with no evidence, and then it turns out the officials are the ones who broke the rules and caused the flat balls. Wow.
If I am Bob Kraft I am going out of my way to buy that ball and hand it back to Roger Goodell on live TV and be like "Here's your ball back. You might want to interview it or something".
Then I'm going for a vote of no confidence. Roger is bad for the league and business.
-
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/02/18/report-nfl-official-fired-for-selling-deflategate-football-for-personal-profit/
I'm beginning to believe these sports "reporters" actually really do have "sources", because it's at the point now where you couldn't make this stuff up.
Why is this not front page news on ESPN. I don't really get the coverage of this. Generally I don't really buy it that ESPN is out to get people. A lot of FSU fans complained last season that they were targeted by ESPN and ESPN never covered negative news for the SEC teams. I didn't have a horse in the race, but now I wonder if that was true. With this story it seems really clear that ESPN is going out of their way to publish articles and stories that could potentially make the Patriots look bad, and really avoiding sharing developments that would make it appear the Patriots did nothing wrong. What is it about?
I really don't think that ESPN is out to get people. ESPN is after one, and only one, thing: page views. The more twists and turns the story takes, the more money they bring in.
In this case, I don't think ESPN's avoiding the issue to get the Patriots. I think that they just look so ridiculous at this point that they don't want to compound their mistakes.
Mike
-
I really don't think that ESPN is out to get people. ESPN is after one, and only one, thing: page views. The more twists and turns the story takes, the more money they bring in.
Hanlon's Razor.
Of course, it still is irresponsible journalism. Or to be precise, it's not really journalism, it leans towards run of the mill blogging. Welcome to the BuzzFeed age.
-
I really don't think that ESPN is out to get people. ESPN is after one, and only one, thing: page views. The more twists and turns the story takes, the more money they bring in.
Hanlon's Razor.
Of course, it still is irresponsible journalism. Or to be precise, it's not really journalism, it leans towards run of the mill blogging. Welcome to the BuzzFeed age.
Then they need to stop calling themselves "journalists" and "reporters" the way we all did a long time ago
-
I really don't think that ESPN is out to get people. ESPN is after one, and only one, thing: page views. The more twists and turns the story takes, the more money they bring in.
Hanlon's Razor.
Of course, it still is irresponsible journalism. Or to be precise, it's not really journalism, it leans towards run of the mill blogging. Welcome to the BuzzFeed age.
Then they need to stop calling themselves "journalists" and "reporters" the way we all did a long time ago
Probably. But if you look carefully, even web outlets of respectable news agencies have succumbed to the BuzzFeed syndrome. CNN and Huff Post are now openly using click bait titles and post boxes with headlines "from the web". It's pretty pathetic.
-
I really don't think that ESPN is out to get people. ESPN is after one, and only one, thing: page views. The more twists and turns the story takes, the more money they bring in.
Hanlon's Razor.
Of course, it still is irresponsible journalism. Or to be precise, it's not really journalism, it leans towards run of the mill blogging. Welcome to the BuzzFeed age.
Then they need to stop calling themselves "journalists" and "reporters" the way we all did a long time ago
Probably. But if you look carefully, even web outlets of respectable news agencies have succumbed to the BuzzFeed syndrome. CNN and Huff Post are now openly using click bait titles and post boxes with headlines "from the web". It's pretty pathetic.
I agree but do they constantly constantly cite anonymous sources and then mess the whole thing up? ESPN doesn't seem able to get a developing story straight with a team of futuristic engineers. Possibly because it's harder to keep track of lies and things you make up. And then when a whole team of people do that....well...you get ESPN.
-
The problem with ESPN is not that they're lying. The problem is that they seemingly ignore the basic requirement to get corroboration by two independent sources before reporting anything -- presumably because they want to get ahead of the game.
Just because someone told you something knowing they'll remain anonymous doesn't make it true. ESPN doesn't care.
-
So according to a new report, the Pats alerted the league that there was a K ball issue after their first extra point. Hmmm....funny that this fact never got "leaked" to the media during the two weeks between the title game & Super Bowl. Guess it didn't quite fit the narrative that the national media was devouring hook line & sinker.
This thing is an absolute joke & circus at this point. The seeming ineptness of the NFL right now is in full effect. Leaks left & right which killed the public perception of team, chain of custody issues, possible conflicts of interest involving league officials, league officials stealing balls....
Sure looks to me that this is a league office who can't kept their own house is order.
From PFT: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/19/patriots-alerted-nfl-to-issue-with-special-teams-ball/
Tuesday night’s confusing report from Kelly Naqi of ESPN regarding alleged efforts by the Patriots to introduce a non-special-teams football into the AFC title game was followed by Wednesday afternoon’s confusing report from Adam Schefter of ESPN regarding the termination of a league official’s employment for removing footballs from the AFC title game for private sale.
And now comes the point where we try to un-confuse the situation. (And quite possibly fail.)
Per a league source with knowledge of the situation, here’s what happened. After the opening kickoff, a league employee named Scott Miller called for the football that was used. It was the football marked “K1? by the game officials before the commencement of the contest. According to the source, video shows Miller getting the football.
It’s not unusual for footballs to be removed from play for later sale in support of charitable endeavors. Typically, however, the teams are informed of the fact that footballs will be removed — especially when the “K” balls will be taken out of service. If the team is told that a “K” ball will be removed, the equipment staff prepares multiple “K” balls for use in the game during the limited time teams have to get the new, out-of-the-box footballs ready for use.
In this specific case, the Patriots weren’t told that the ball marked K1 would be removed from play. After the Patriots scored the first touchdown of the game, the Patriots noticed on the extra-point attempt that the ball had not been prepped the same way that K1 had been prepped. So the Patriots raised the issue with the game officials, and the process commenced of trying to track down the K1 ball.
In-stadium video, according to the source, shows Miller later bringing the ball back toward the playing area. In-stadium video also shows Patriots part-time, game-day employee Jim McNally giving a football to the game officials. Video does not exist of Miller giving the football he had taken to McNally, but it’s possible to infer that Miller gave the same football to McNally that McNally then tried to give to the game officials.
Scott Miller, per the source, is the employee who was fired. It’s unclear whether the termination arose solely from the incident during the AFC title game, or whether investigation by the league unearthed other evidence of Miller removing footballs from play and selling them on the side. Predictably, the league declined PFT’s request for comment on Miller’s termination or the reasons for it.
So what does all of this mean? As it relates to the question of whether footballs intentionally were deflated by the Patriots, nothing. As it relates to whether the NFL will be able to generate sufficient proof of tampering, plenty.
As we gradually learn more about the manner in which footballs are handled, it’s becoming more clear that the NFL doesn’t secure footballs in the kind of way that would allow a presumptive finding that deflated footballs necessarily means a team employee intentionally deflated them. Apart from potential atmospheric conditions, too many people have too much access in too many different ways to the footballs to ever conclude that evidence of deflation is per se evidence of tampering.
Absent a confession or other smoking-gun evidence of tampering, the challenge for the NFL will be explaining this in a way that seems at least plausible to those inclined to believe the league office will simply brush the entire matter under the rug. Then again, some will always believe that the Patriots tampered with footballs no matter what the evidence indicates. Which means that maybe the league should have considered how hard it would be to prove tampering before pulling the pin out of the integrity-of-the-game grenade.
-
So according to a new report, the Pats alerted the league that there was a K ball issue after their first extra point. Hmmm....funny that this fact never got "leaked" to the media during the two weeks between the title game & Super Bowl. Guess it didn't quite fit the narrative that the national media was devouring hook line & sinker.
This thing is an absolute joke & circus at this point. The seeming ineptness of the NFL right now is in full effect. Leaks left & right which killed the public perception of team, chain of custody issues, possible conflicts of interest involving league officials, league officials stealing balls....
Sure looks to me that this is a league office who can't kept their own house is order.
From PFT: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/19/patriots-alerted-nfl-to-issue-with-special-teams-ball/
Tuesday night’s confusing report from Kelly Naqi of ESPN regarding alleged efforts by the Patriots to introduce a non-special-teams football into the AFC title game was followed by Wednesday afternoon’s confusing report from Adam Schefter of ESPN regarding the termination of a league official’s employment for removing footballs from the AFC title game for private sale.
And now comes the point where we try to un-confuse the situation. (And quite possibly fail.)
Per a league source with knowledge of the situation, here’s what happened. After the opening kickoff, a league employee named Scott Miller called for the football that was used. It was the football marked “K1? by the game officials before the commencement of the contest. According to the source, video shows Miller getting the football.
It’s not unusual for footballs to be removed from play for later sale in support of charitable endeavors. Typically, however, the teams are informed of the fact that footballs will be removed — especially when the “K” balls will be taken out of service. If the team is told that a “K” ball will be removed, the equipment staff prepares multiple “K” balls for use in the game during the limited time teams have to get the new, out-of-the-box footballs ready for use.
In this specific case, the Patriots weren’t told that the ball marked K1 would be removed from play. After the Patriots scored the first touchdown of the game, the Patriots noticed on the extra-point attempt that the ball had not been prepped the same way that K1 had been prepped. So the Patriots raised the issue with the game officials, and the process commenced of trying to track down the K1 ball.
In-stadium video, according to the source, shows Miller later bringing the ball back toward the playing area. In-stadium video also shows Patriots part-time, game-day employee Jim McNally giving a football to the game officials. Video does not exist of Miller giving the football he had taken to McNally, but it’s possible to infer that Miller gave the same football to McNally that McNally then tried to give to the game officials.
Scott Miller, per the source, is the employee who was fired. It’s unclear whether the termination arose solely from the incident during the AFC title game, or whether investigation by the league unearthed other evidence of Miller removing footballs from play and selling them on the side. Predictably, the league declined PFT’s request for comment on Miller’s termination or the reasons for it.
So what does all of this mean? As it relates to the question of whether footballs intentionally were deflated by the Patriots, nothing. As it relates to whether the NFL will be able to generate sufficient proof of tampering, plenty.
As we gradually learn more about the manner in which footballs are handled, it’s becoming more clear that the NFL doesn’t secure footballs in the kind of way that would allow a presumptive finding that deflated footballs necessarily means a team employee intentionally deflated them. Apart from potential atmospheric conditions, too many people have too much access in too many different ways to the footballs to ever conclude that evidence of deflation is per se evidence of tampering.
Absent a confession or other smoking-gun evidence of tampering, the challenge for the NFL will be explaining this in a way that seems at least plausible to those inclined to believe the league office will simply brush the entire matter under the rug. Then again, some will always believe that the Patriots tampered with footballs no matter what the evidence indicates. Which means that maybe the league should have considered how hard it would be to prove tampering before pulling the pin out of the integrity-of-the-game grenade.
I really, really wish that more than 1% of football fans (all of whom are Patriots fans) had been watching all of this unfold.
Even if this ends up being a case where zero blame falls on the Pats in the Wells report, I will still be hearing nonsense about cheating, for years to come, from all my friends who are fans of other teams - because the minute the first allegations came out, they said "cheaters!" and stuck their heads in the sand.
-
So according to a new report, the Pats alerted the league that there was a K ball issue after their first extra point. Hmmm....funny that this fact never got "leaked" to the media during the two weeks between the title game & Super Bowl. Guess it didn't quite fit the narrative that the national media was devouring hook line & sinker.
This thing is an absolute joke & circus at this point. The seeming ineptness of the NFL right now is in full effect. Leaks left & right which killed the public perception of team, chain of custody issues, possible conflicts of interest involving league officials, league officials stealing balls....
Sure looks to me that this is a league office who can't kept their own house is order.
From PFT: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/19/patriots-alerted-nfl-to-issue-with-special-teams-ball/
Tuesday night’s confusing report from Kelly Naqi of ESPN regarding alleged efforts by the Patriots to introduce a non-special-teams football into the AFC title game was followed by Wednesday afternoon’s confusing report from Adam Schefter of ESPN regarding the termination of a league official’s employment for removing footballs from the AFC title game for private sale.
And now comes the point where we try to un-confuse the situation. (And quite possibly fail.)
Per a league source with knowledge of the situation, here’s what happened. After the opening kickoff, a league employee named Scott Miller called for the football that was used. It was the football marked “K1? by the game officials before the commencement of the contest. According to the source, video shows Miller getting the football.
It’s not unusual for footballs to be removed from play for later sale in support of charitable endeavors. Typically, however, the teams are informed of the fact that footballs will be removed — especially when the “K” balls will be taken out of service. If the team is told that a “K” ball will be removed, the equipment staff prepares multiple “K” balls for use in the game during the limited time teams have to get the new, out-of-the-box footballs ready for use.
In this specific case, the Patriots weren’t told that the ball marked K1 would be removed from play. After the Patriots scored the first touchdown of the game, the Patriots noticed on the extra-point attempt that the ball had not been prepped the same way that K1 had been prepped. So the Patriots raised the issue with the game officials, and the process commenced of trying to track down the K1 ball.
In-stadium video, according to the source, shows Miller later bringing the ball back toward the playing area. In-stadium video also shows Patriots part-time, game-day employee Jim McNally giving a football to the game officials. Video does not exist of Miller giving the football he had taken to McNally, but it’s possible to infer that Miller gave the same football to McNally that McNally then tried to give to the game officials.
Scott Miller, per the source, is the employee who was fired. It’s unclear whether the termination arose solely from the incident during the AFC title game, or whether investigation by the league unearthed other evidence of Miller removing footballs from play and selling them on the side. Predictably, the league declined PFT’s request for comment on Miller’s termination or the reasons for it.
So what does all of this mean? As it relates to the question of whether footballs intentionally were deflated by the Patriots, nothing. As it relates to whether the NFL will be able to generate sufficient proof of tampering, plenty.
As we gradually learn more about the manner in which footballs are handled, it’s becoming more clear that the NFL doesn’t secure footballs in the kind of way that would allow a presumptive finding that deflated footballs necessarily means a team employee intentionally deflated them. Apart from potential atmospheric conditions, too many people have too much access in too many different ways to the footballs to ever conclude that evidence of deflation is per se evidence of tampering.
Absent a confession or other smoking-gun evidence of tampering, the challenge for the NFL will be explaining this in a way that seems at least plausible to those inclined to believe the league office will simply brush the entire matter under the rug. Then again, some will always believe that the Patriots tampered with footballs no matter what the evidence indicates. Which means that maybe the league should have considered how hard it would be to prove tampering before pulling the pin out of the integrity-of-the-game grenade.
I really, really wish that more than 1% of football fans (all of whom are Patriots fans) had been watching all of this unfold.
Even if this ends up being a case where zero blame falls on the Pats in the Wells report, I will still be hearing nonsense about cheating, for years to come, from all my friends who are fans of other teams - because the minute the first allegations came out, they said "cheaters!" and stuck their heads in the sand.
Just remind them that we are the Edited. Profanity and masked profanity are against forum rules and may result in discipline.n world champions and anything they say is crocodile tears
-
The problem with ESPN is not that they're lying. The problem is that they seemingly ignore the basic requirement to get corroboration by two independent sources before reporting anything -- presumably because they want to get ahead of the game.
Just because someone told you something knowing they'll remain anonymous doesn't make it true. ESPN doesn't care.
Right.
The other problem with ESPN is that they are openly biased for and against certain teams for ratings. They are anti-Patriots because they know that the Pats are not liked so they post/print scandalous "articles" because they know it will cause a stir. Deflategate was totally blown out of proportion and ESPN was a big part of it. Funny how they buried the story of Brad Johnson bribing league employees to doctor the balls before the Tampa super bowl, and the story of Jerry Rice openly admitting that he bended the rules. Personally, I don't care about either story and I don't think that they are particularly news-worthy, or cheating, or anything else. BUT, it's interesting to see how those stories are treated vs how the Patriots stories are handled.
On the flip side, it was pretty crazy that they had a separate "Heat Index" for Miami after Lebron made his decision to go to South Beach. The can't kiss Lebron's ass enough and it's sickening. But, again, they do whatever they think will generate buzz, ratings, site hits, whatever.
Overall, I just think that they should be more responsible for what they report. I don't expect Walter Cronkite, but I also don't expect accusations that are not based on any facts.
-
You really think ESPN are anti-Pats?
ESPN loves the Patriots for the same reason they loved the LeBron-led version of the Heat -- because they win while inviting controversy.
-
So according to a new report, the Pats alerted the league that there was a K ball issue after their first extra point. Hmmm....funny that this fact never got "leaked" to the media during the two weeks between the title game & Super Bowl. Guess it didn't quite fit the narrative that the national media was devouring hook line & sinker.
This thing is an absolute joke & circus at this point. The seeming ineptness of the NFL right now is in full effect. Leaks left & right which killed the public perception of team, chain of custody issues, possible conflicts of interest involving league officials, league officials stealing balls....
Sure looks to me that this is a league office who can't kept their own house is order.
From PFT: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/19/patriots-alerted-nfl-to-issue-with-special-teams-ball/
Tuesday night’s confusing report from Kelly Naqi of ESPN regarding alleged efforts by the Patriots to introduce a non-special-teams football into the AFC title game was followed by Wednesday afternoon’s confusing report from Adam Schefter of ESPN regarding the termination of a league official’s employment for removing footballs from the AFC title game for private sale.
And now comes the point where we try to un-confuse the situation. (And quite possibly fail.)
Per a league source with knowledge of the situation, here’s what happened. After the opening kickoff, a league employee named Scott Miller called for the football that was used. It was the football marked “K1? by the game officials before the commencement of the contest. According to the source, video shows Miller getting the football.
It’s not unusual for footballs to be removed from play for later sale in support of charitable endeavors. Typically, however, the teams are informed of the fact that footballs will be removed — especially when the “K” balls will be taken out of service. If the team is told that a “K” ball will be removed, the equipment staff prepares multiple “K” balls for use in the game during the limited time teams have to get the new, out-of-the-box footballs ready for use.
In this specific case, the Patriots weren’t told that the ball marked K1 would be removed from play. After the Patriots scored the first touchdown of the game, the Patriots noticed on the extra-point attempt that the ball had not been prepped the same way that K1 had been prepped. So the Patriots raised the issue with the game officials, and the process commenced of trying to track down the K1 ball.
In-stadium video, according to the source, shows Miller later bringing the ball back toward the playing area. In-stadium video also shows Patriots part-time, game-day employee Jim McNally giving a football to the game officials. Video does not exist of Miller giving the football he had taken to McNally, but it’s possible to infer that Miller gave the same football to McNally that McNally then tried to give to the game officials.
Scott Miller, per the source, is the employee who was fired. It’s unclear whether the termination arose solely from the incident during the AFC title game, or whether investigation by the league unearthed other evidence of Miller removing footballs from play and selling them on the side. Predictably, the league declined PFT’s request for comment on Miller’s termination or the reasons for it.
So what does all of this mean? As it relates to the question of whether footballs intentionally were deflated by the Patriots, nothing. As it relates to whether the NFL will be able to generate sufficient proof of tampering, plenty.
As we gradually learn more about the manner in which footballs are handled, it’s becoming more clear that the NFL doesn’t secure footballs in the kind of way that would allow a presumptive finding that deflated footballs necessarily means a team employee intentionally deflated them. Apart from potential atmospheric conditions, too many people have too much access in too many different ways to the footballs to ever conclude that evidence of deflation is per se evidence of tampering.
Absent a confession or other smoking-gun evidence of tampering, the challenge for the NFL will be explaining this in a way that seems at least plausible to those inclined to believe the league office will simply brush the entire matter under the rug. Then again, some will always believe that the Patriots tampered with footballs no matter what the evidence indicates. Which means that maybe the league should have considered how hard it would be to prove tampering before pulling the pin out of the integrity-of-the-game grenade.
I really, really wish that more than 1% of football fans (all of whom are Patriots fans) had been watching all of this unfold.
Even if this ends up being a case where zero blame falls on the Pats in the Wells report, I will still be hearing nonsense about cheating, for years to come, from all my friends who are fans of other teams - because the minute the first allegations came out, they said "cheaters!" and stuck their heads in the sand.
Just remind them that we are the ****n world champions and anything they say is crocodile tears
Oh, I do. But these are otherwise reasonable people and it's maddening.
I suppose there are enough other topics I've written off discussing with some people. What's one more.
I do know one guy who works in the same office as Ted Wells. I'm hopeful he'll read the report with a reasonably neutral eye.
-
Trying to reason with other football team's fans about the Patriots(or really any team but their's) is like trying to argue politics on a Facebook public page.
-
You really think ESPN are anti-Pats?
ESPN loves the Patriots for the same reason they loved the LeBron-led version of the Heat -- because they win while inviting controversy.
Not the network per se. They love the eyeballs. However, they do employ more than their fair share of analysts that have had an ax to grind with the organization for years. Those voices have been, by far, the loudest throughout this whole controversy.
-
You really think ESPN are anti-Pats?
ESPN loves the Patriots for the same reason they loved the LeBron-led version of the Heat -- because they win while inviting controversy.
Correction
ESPN hates the Patriots for the same reason they loved the LeBron-led version of the Heat -- because they win while inviting controversy.
Is it really news worthy that guys like Ray Lewis or Charles Haley call the Patriots "cheaters". Why is that an article on their site? Answer...because they know that it will generate a reaction.
So, to answer your first question.....YES I think that ESPN is anti-Patriots. Deflategate is the proof of that. That last "Outside The Lines" story was an absolute joke but they ran with it. I don't see that type of "investigative journalism" for any other team. If Jerry Rice was a Patriot, it would be all over ESPN. That story was buried faster than Ray Lewis' murder victim.
How about this...There were reports that only 1 ball was deflated and the rest were a "tick" under regulation. Where was that on ESPN?!?!? Funny how they neglected to report that. Or how about a retraction on the story that D'Qwell Jackson gave the ball to the coaches because he noticed that it didn't feel right. Jackson admitted that he couldn't tell the difference but that didn't get a sniff on the sports leader.
I really don't want to sound like a nutty Patriots fan / conspiracy theorist, but I am really tired of all the negative press that has been generated over something as stupid as Deflategate. Besides being a nutty Pats fan, I really enjoyed this Super Bowl Championship because it was a giant F U to all the haters.
-
The beat goes on.
http://thornography.weei.com/sports/boston/2015/02/19/colts-gm-ryan-grigson-contradicts-nfl-deflategate-was-sting-operation/
Grigson just confirms what we've suspected all along, that this was not a dispute that arose during the AFC Championship.
I just can't believe that the NFL would lie about something this small to our faces. I feel like that "Say it ain't so, Joe" little kid that's surely dead by now.
-
For the reasons described in this Report, and after a comprehensive investigation, we have concluded that, in connection with the AFC Championship Game, it is more probable than not that New England Patriots personnel participated in violations of the Playing Rules and were involved in a deliberate effort to circumvent the rules. In particular, we have concluded that it is more probable than not that Jim McNally (the Officials Locker Room attendant for the Patriots) and John Jastremski (an equipment assistant for the Patriots) participated in a deliberate effort to release air from Patriots game balls after the balls were examined by the referee. Based on the evidence, it also is our view that it is more probable than not that Tom Brady (the quarterback for the Patriots) was at least generally aware of the inappropriate activities of McNally and Jastremski involving the release of air from Patriots game balls.
[...]
We do not believe that the evidence establishes that any other Patriots personnel participated in or had knowledge of the violation of the Playing Rules or the deliberate effort to circumvent the rules described in this Report. In particular, we do not believe there was any wrongdoing or knowledge of wrongdoing by Patriots ownership, Patriots Head Coach Bill Belichick or any other Patriots coach in the matters investigated. We also do not believe there was any wrongdoing or knowledge of wrongdoing by Patriots Head Equipment Manager Dave Schoenfeld.
http://deadspin.com/wells-report-patriots-likely-deflated-balls-on-purpose-1702593820
Ż\_('o')_/Ż
-
For those folks without legal training or knowledge, "more probable than not" means nothing beyond "at least 50.00000000000000001%" likelihood.
It's a very low bar of proof. To spend weeks and weeks and thousands of dollars in an investigation and come forward with "more probable than not," and nothing more specific than that, is pretty weak.
Especially, "more probable than not" that Brady was "at least generally aware" (itself an extremely vague description) is essentially meaningless.
-
So they found that:
1) Pats told the refs Brady wanted balls at 12.5
2) Colts apparently targeted 13 PSI
3) After being measured by 2 separate officials, 3 of the 4 Colts balls tested at halftime measured below 12.5 PSI (!)
I'm unsure how after that they would expect any Patriots ball to be inflated within the limits. What a monumental waste of time.
-
Correct^ but I saw this and figured y'all would like some closure on the matter.
-
Did you guys read the text messages in the report? It actually seems pretty close to a smoking gun. I am a pats fan and thought this was all nonsense and was dead until I read this. I actually think Brady will get suspended.
-
I definitely don't think that Brady will get suspended for this. The NFL would prefer that everyone forget that it ever happened. They have crab legs to watch for now.
-
"More likely than not."
"At least generally aware."
Are you serious? They paid people for this crap?
-
Did you guys read the text messages in the report? It actually seems pretty close to a smoking gun. I am a pats fan and thought this was all nonsense and was dead until I read this. I actually think Brady will get suspended.
Yeah. But it seems that it was mostly Brady and the eq guys. Belichick and Kraft must be livid ;D
Regardless, given the actual measurements at half-time, I still believe this was a waste of time. Also, I can all but laugh about the claims of "statistical significance" given that one of the data sets contains 4 (four) observation points. Really...
-
My guess is fines to the franchise and major suspensions for Patriots middle men who play no major role with how the team plays on the field.
Suspending Brady would be an extreme move, though I'm sure the majority of people will want him to get suspended (and Belichick, too). The findings just don't seem definitive enough to support suspending a team's best player, for even a single game.
-----
Similar to Spygate, the issue with this whole controversy is that there's no discussion about the degree to which these supposedly nefarious practices by the Patriots are standard practice around the league.
Let's say it is well known and true that Brady prefers his footballs to be a little underinflated, and that the equipment staff indulges him on this.
OK. So what about Aaron Rodgers? Peyton Manning? Russell Wilson? Ben Roethlisberger?
You telling me that Brady's the only QB in the league who has particular preferences about how his footballs are inflated (or deflated), and it's only the Patriots who try to indulge their franchise QB?
Yeah, right.
-
at halftime when the two refs apparently measured the patriots balls they differed by approximated 4% with some measurements differing by as much as .45PSI
-
My guess is fines to the franchise and major suspensions for Patriots middle men who play no major role with how the team plays on the field.
Suspending Brady would be an extreme move, though I'm sure the majority of people will want him to get suspended (and Belichick, too). The findings just don't seem definitive enough to support suspending a team's best player, for even a single game.
I don't think there is any chance that Belicheck is suspended. However, I thought it was pretty weird Brady was giving a guy autographed jerseys and football and claiming he never talked to the guy. Lying to the NFL people about that could warrant a suspension. It is not the crime it is the cover up that will get him. Isn't that the saying?
-
My guess is fines to the franchise and major suspensions for Patriots middle men who play no major role with how the team plays on the field.
Suspending Brady would be an extreme move, though I'm sure the majority of people will want him to get suspended (and Belichick, too). The findings just don't seem definitive enough to support suspending a team's best player, for even a single game.
The actual content of the report seems more [dang]ing than the one-paragraph conclusion, though. I'm guessing they had to tone it down, because the evidence is largely circumstantial. On the other hand, the type of evidence available appears comparable in type and scope to what we're seeing in the Hernandez trial, so go figure...
-
My guess is fines to the franchise and major suspensions for Patriots middle men who play no major role with how the team plays on the field.
Suspending Brady would be an extreme move, though I'm sure the majority of people will want him to get suspended (and Belichick, too). The findings just don't seem definitive enough to support suspending a team's best player, for even a single game.
I don't think there is any chance that Belicheck is suspended. However, I thought it was pretty weird Brady was giving a guy autographed jerseys and football and claiming he never talked to the guy. Lying to the NFL people about that could warrant a suspension. It is not the crime it is the cover up that will get him. Isn't that the saying?
That's a fair point. If the NFL finds that Brady misled or lied to the investigators about what went on, that would be a solid ground to suspend him.
A suspension based entirely on such flimsy, circumstantial evidence, though, would be pretty weak.
-
Did you guys read the text messages in the report? It actually seems pretty close to a smoking gun. I am a pats fan and thought this was all nonsense and was dead until I read this. I actually think Brady will get suspended.
A smoking gun for what? Sounds like the refs overinflated the balls one week, and Brady got angry and got up the equipment managers' ass for it. McNally sounds like a bit of a Edited. Profanity and masked profanity are against forum rules and may result in discipline. based on his texts, but some whiny texts about his boss is far from proof of intentional wrongdoing.
-
Did you guys read the text messages in the report? It actually seems pretty close to a smoking gun. I am a pats fan and thought this was all nonsense and was dead until I read this. I actually think Brady will get suspended.
A smoking gun for what? Sounds like the refs overinflated the balls one week, and Brady got angry and got up the equipment managers' ass for it. McNally sounds like a bit of a **** based on his texts, but some whiny texts about his boss is far from proof of intentional wrongdoing.
While it is entirely plausible that the whole discussion is re: making sure the balls are not overinflated, it is at least indicative that Brady is more particular about the inflation level of game balls than he let on during the investigation...
-
Did you guys read the text messages in the report? It actually seems pretty close to a smoking gun. I am a pats fan and thought this was all nonsense and was dead until I read this. I actually think Brady will get suspended.
A smoking gun for what? Sounds like the refs overinflated the balls one week, and Brady got angry and got up the equipment managers' ass for it. McNally sounds like a bit of a **** based on his texts, but some whiny texts about his boss is far from proof of intentional wrongdoing.
Well giving the equipment manager autographed game jerseys seems very strange. He also flat out lied to the investigators about his relationship to the guy. So I think refusing to cooperate with NFL investigators is a punishable offense. To be one hundred percent clear, I am a pats fan. You can even go back to my statements earlier in this thread to see what i thought about it. I mocked the earlier reports about people thinking an elderly man in the restroom for 40 seconds was a problem. However, these texts and the full report have changed my opinion. Like others said, the stuff in the report is a lot more crazy than just the conclusions that were drawn.
-
https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/596006501635981312
Suspensions for the equipment guys and fines for Brady, Patriots. That's my guess.
-
Did you guys read the text messages in the report? It actually seems pretty close to a smoking gun. I am a pats fan and thought this was all nonsense and was dead until I read this. I actually think Brady will get suspended.
A smoking gun for what? Sounds like the refs overinflated the balls one week, and Brady got angry and got up the equipment managers' ass for it. McNally sounds like a bit of a **** based on his texts, but some whiny texts about his boss is far from proof of intentional wrongdoing.
While it is entirely plausible that the whole discussion is re: making sure the balls are not overinflated, it is at least indicative that Brady is more particular about the inflation level of game balls than he let on during the investigation...
Well, yeah, but if the bit about the ball being near 16 is true and not just an exaggeration, then I don't think you'd have to be particular to notice that difference.
-
So Brady is a cheater?
No kidding!
I wonder when Pats fans will take their heads out of the sand?
What a disgrace.
-
Did you guys read the text messages in the report? It actually seems pretty close to a smoking gun. I am a pats fan and thought this was all nonsense and was dead until I read this. I actually think Brady will get suspended.
A smoking gun for what? Sounds like the refs overinflated the balls one week, and Brady got angry and got up the equipment managers' ass for it. McNally sounds like a bit of a **** based on his texts, but some whiny texts about his boss is far from proof of intentional wrongdoing.
While it is entirely plausible that the whole discussion is re: making sure the balls are not overinflated, it is at least indicative that Brady is more particular about the inflation level of game balls than he let on during the investigation...
Well, yeah, but if the bit about the ball being near 16 is true and not just an exaggeration, then I don't think you'd have to be particular to notice that difference.
Multiple messages about this, so it seems factual.
-
So Brady is a cheater?
No kidding!
I wonder when Pats fans will take their heads out of the sand?
What a disgrace.
Thanks for providing such a concise demonstration of what the reflexive anti-Patriots reaction will be.
:)
-
For those folks without legal training or knowledge, "more probable than not" means nothing beyond "at least 50.00000000000000001%" likelihood.
It's a very low bar of proof. To spend weeks and weeks and thousands of dollars in an investigation and come forward with "more probable than not," and nothing more specific than that, is pretty weak.
Especially, "more probable than not" that Brady was "at least generally aware" (itself an extremely vague description) is essentially meaningless.
It's utterly pathetic, More probable than not? Why didn't he just say the pats Kinda sorta new what was going on. What a joke.
-
Did you guys read the text messages in the report? It actually seems pretty close to a smoking gun. I am a pats fan and thought this was all nonsense and was dead until I read this. I actually think Brady will get suspended.
A smoking gun for what? Sounds like the refs overinflated the balls one week, and Brady got angry and got up the equipment managers' ass for it. McNally sounds like a bit of a **** based on his texts, but some whiny texts about his boss is far from proof of intentional wrongdoing.
No kidding. I complain about my boss's overinflated balls all the time and nobody cares. And in my case, it's definitely true.
If, however, the NFL decides to suspend Brady, I think it's also fair to look at admitted cheaters, such as this guy:
http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/2015/02/06/jerry-rice-admits-cheating-but-still-wants-asterisk-the-patriots-for-deflategate/o7W2mlXRRpWnbczSixdNLI/story.html
Mike
-
So Brady is a cheater?
No kidding!
I wonder when Pats fans will take their heads out of the sand?
What a disgrace.
Thanks for providing such a concise demonstration of what the reflexive anti-Patriots reaction will be.
:)
Hey, I'm just calling it as it is.
Brady and his ball boy cheated and lied about it.
Deflating balls in a bathroom-lol!
-
No proof but plenty of reasons to believe it happened is basically the report.
I expect fine for the balls that were not at regulation per rule book. Patriots balls for a year are supplied by the league at Patriot cost and are not to be dockered.
-
I checked some of the balls this morn... The refs Edited. Profanity and masked profanity are against forum rules and may result in discipline.ed us...a few
of then were at almost 16
So there's a suggestion that the officials intentionally overinflated Patriots game balls? Where's the investigation in that? :P
-
Why oh why can't the Patriots just get players that rape and knock out women like everyone else? Why?
-
I just read some of the report (pages 75-90) and this actually does sound pretty suspicious. The excerpts that Deadspin chose to include in its article aren't really the most convincing parts, though.
After reading more, I do think they deflated the balls beneath the limit, and I do believe they did it at Brady's request. Having said that, I also think this whole case is still too flimsy to attach any meaningful punishment to it. I don't see anything in here that would qualify as 'proof' (and if there was, the headlines would be different right now). Just an apparent lie by Brady regarding his acquaintanceship with McNally, a series of suspicious-but-not-incriminating texts, and a lot of attempts to read between the lines.
So we'll see what happens next.
-
In addition, we believe that it was not inappropriate for the game officials to
disallow a ball of questionable authenticity into the game. We also note that the use of K-Ball #2
in the second half had no apparent adverse effect.
Very convenient argument when it suits the league. How about noting that using underinflated footballs had no apparent advantages? :)
-
Let me see if I understand. Balls were overinflated and Tom got mad. The equipment managers joked for months they would OVERINFLATE balls to punish Tom. Tom didn't talk to them for 6 months. Then the Colts cried so Tom talked to them a lot.....and this is evidence that these two guys under inflated balls and that Tom knew about it and then lied to the whole world about it?
Dear NFL....we get it. Signed Patriots fans.
-
Another interesting thing:
Blakeman's gauge measures all Pats balls about .3-.5 PSI lower than Prioleau's gauge.
Prioleau's gauge measures all but one Colts balls .3.-.5 PSI lower than Blakeman's gauge.
It doesn't make any sense.
Also filing under "things that don't make sense": the officials had time to only test 15 balls at halftime, and yet the report contends that deflation could reasonably only take a minute.
??? ??? ???
-
John Tomase @jtomase | 35 min 46 sec ago | The one thing the McNally and Jastremski texts prove incontrovertibly is I wouldn't want to spend 5 seconds with either of them. #toolboxes
Seconded.
-
We waited 3+ months for that? I'm not sure much as changed since January. With the "more probable than not" conclusion, is anyone really that swayed here?
Seems like whatever side of the fence you were in on this back in January, then you're probably on that same side today after the report release.
-
For those folks without legal training or knowledge, "more probable than not" means nothing beyond "at least 50.00000000000000001%" likelihood.
It's a very low bar of proof. To spend weeks and weeks and thousands of dollars in an investigation and come forward with "more probable than not," and nothing more specific than that, is pretty weak.
Well, it's also the same burden of proof as in almost every civil case in the entire country, and has been for hundreds of years. It's not quite as flimsy as you're suggesting. "More likely than not" means that the facts weigh in the direction of culpability.
In our legal system, damages aren't determined by how confident the finder of fact is that a plaintiff has proved his case. Once the case is proved -- whether it be 50.01% or 100.0% -- it's proved, period. Damages are what they are, and if the NFL follows that model, penalties should be the same whether there was a smoking gun or simply a likelihood of guilt.
-
The other thing that is pathetic about this is Roger Godell new what the report was pre draft and decided no draft picks would be taken away which is the only thing i give a [dang] about, Brady not getting suspended if you want fine or fire those two scrubs.
-
IMO it is more probable than not that the NFL and Roger Godell is a joke.
-
For those folks without legal training or knowledge, "more probable than not" means nothing beyond "at least 50.00000000000000001%" likelihood.
It's a very low bar of proof. To spend weeks and weeks and thousands of dollars in an investigation and come forward with "more probable than not," and nothing more specific than that, is pretty weak.
Well, it's also the same burden of proof as in almost every civil case in the entire country, and has been for hundreds of years. It's not quite as flimsy as you're suggesting. "More likely than not" means that the facts weigh in the direction of culpability.
In our legal system, damages aren't determined by how confident the finder of fact is that a plaintiff has proved his case. Once the case is proved -- whether it be 50.01% or 100.0% -- it's proved, period. Damages are what they are, and if the NFL follows that model, penalties should be the same whether there was a smoking gun or simply a likelihood of guilt.
Then again, there is a reason why the standard of proof is lower in civil cases than it is in criminal cases.
-
Another interesting thing:
Blakeman's gauge measures all Pats balls about .3-.5 PSI lower than Prioleau's gauge.
Prioleau's gauge measures all but one Colts balls .3.-.5 PSI lower than Blakeman's gauge.
It doesn't make any sense.
Also filing under "things that don't make sense": the officials had time to only test 15 balls at halftime, and yet the report contends that deflation could reasonably only take a minute.
??? ??? ???
Does the report say they only had time to measure 15 balls?
-
Another interesting thing:
Blakeman's gauge measures all Pats balls about .3-.5 PSI lower than Prioleau's gauge.
Prioleau's gauge measures all but one Colts balls .3.-.5 PSI lower than Blakeman's gauge.
It doesn't make any sense.
Also filing under "things that don't make sense": the officials had time to only test 15 balls at halftime, and yet the report contends that deflation could reasonably only take a minute.
??? ??? ???
Does the report say they only had time to measure 15 balls?
Yes, quite literally. The text stated something to the effect of "Only 4 Colts balls were measured because officials ran out of time". ::)
-
For those folks without legal training or knowledge, "more probable than not" means nothing beyond "at least 50.00000000000000001%" likelihood.
It's a very low bar of proof. To spend weeks and weeks and thousands of dollars in an investigation and come forward with "more probable than not," and nothing more specific than that, is pretty weak.
Well, it's also the same burden of proof as in almost every civil case in the entire country, and has been for hundreds of years. It's not quite as flimsy as you're suggesting. "More likely than not" means that the facts weigh in the direction of culpability.
In our legal system, damages aren't determined by how confident the finder of fact is that a plaintiff has proved his case. Once the case is proved -- whether it be 50.01% or 100.0% -- it's proved, period. Damages are what they are, and if the NFL follows that model, penalties should be the same whether there was a smoking gun or simply a likelihood of guilt.
Then again, there is a reason why the standard of proof is lower in civil cases than it is in criminal cases.
Right. When you're taking away somebody's liberty, you need higher proof, as it should be. The room for error is higher with a "more likely than not" standard.
I just object to treating the preponderance of the evidence standard almost as if it's some insubstantial standard created by the NFL to screw the Patriots.
-
So they found that:
1) Pats told the refs Brady wanted balls at 12.5
2) Colts apparently targeted 13 PSI
3) After being measured by 2 separate officials, 3 of the 4 Colts balls tested at halftime measured below 12.5 PSI (!)
I'm unsure how after that they would expect any Patriots ball to be inflated within the limits. What a monumental waste of time.
This is how I look at it: If the Vikings can get away with heating up balls—on the sidelines—during the game—IN FRONT OF NATIONAL TV CAMERAS ... then people need to shut the heck up about the Patriots.
-
Right. When you're taking away somebody's liberty, you need higher proof, as it should be. The room for error is higher with a "more likely than not" standard.
I just object to treating the preponderance of the evidence standard almost as if it's some insubstantial standard created by the NFL to screw the Patriots.
I agree with that. I just want to point out that the language is consistent with handing out fines (coincidentally, this is what the rulebook suggests, too).
-
For those folks without legal training or knowledge, "more probable than not" means nothing beyond "at least 50.00000000000000001%" likelihood.
It's a very low bar of proof. To spend weeks and weeks and thousands of dollars in an investigation and come forward with "more probable than not," and nothing more specific than that, is pretty weak.
Well, it's also the same burden of proof as in almost every civil case in the entire country, and has been for hundreds of years. It's not quite as flimsy as you're suggesting. "More likely than not" means that the facts weigh in the direction of culpability.
In our legal system, damages aren't determined by how confident the finder of fact is that a plaintiff has proved his case. Once the case is proved -- whether it be 50.01% or 100.0% -- it's proved, period. Damages are what they are, and if the NFL follows that model, penalties should be the same whether there was a smoking gun or simply a likelihood of guilt.
You're right. When it comes to civil cases, 50.000001% is sufficient to meet the burden.
My point is that however much some people may want to make of this report, the conclusions are a far cry from definitive proof that the Patriots are cheaters and that Tom Brady was in on it.
Proving your case in a civil trial is a long way away from clearly proving that the other person did something wrong.
Also, damages can depend on what was actually proven at trial and to what degree. Meeting the burden often just means that you are entitled to damages. It's then up to the jury, in many cases, to determine how far above the minimum penalty they will choose to go in penalizing the defendant.
-
We waited 3+ months for that? I'm not sure much as changed since January. With the "more probable than not" conclusion, is anyone really that swayed here?
Seems like whatever side of the fence you were in on this back in January, then you're probably on that same side today after the report release.
Yes, I agree. It more probable than not that everyone's opinion remains the same. But I've run out of time to do anything more systematic than make that statement.
-
Also, damages can depend on what was actually proven at trial and to what degree. Meeting the burden often just means that you are entitled to damages. It's then up to the jury, in many cases, to determine how far above the minimum penalty they will choose to go in penalizing the defendant.
The minimum penalty here, IIRC, is a five-digit fine...
-
I've read virtually the whole thing now.
Evidence in favor of Patriots cheating:
The guy went to the bathroom for a while with the balls
The guy took the balls and generally that doesn't happen. The very experienced ref never had a situation where they couldn't find the balls.
The guy with the balls called himself the deflator
The guys were well aware of Brady's preference for balls inflated low
They had motive
Brady wouldn't share texts or phone records with the investigators
The scientists have concluded a person had to have let air out to get to those levels
The equipment guy told the ball guy "I have a needle for ya"
Evidence against Pats cheating
There is no point anywhere where it can be seen that anyone is encouraging anyone to cheat, especially not Brady
It's common for QBs to have good relationships with equipment guys etc and give them autographs
It's common for players to talk to guys and prepare before games and the Super Bowl
The guys were actually joking about over inflating the balls because Tom is a jerk
It's possible conversations were mixed up about getting tickets for a friend
Various witnesses did say the ball guy takes the balls out from time to time
Conclusion. Tom can be a bit of a diva about his stuff and people try to make him happy. One stupid ball guy probably took things too far once.
Punishment....same as those guys that were caught on live national tv doctoring the balls against the rules....a very stern warning. Ball guy can never handle NFL balls ever again. NFL doesn't apologize to Patriots.
-
For those folks without legal training or knowledge, "more probable than not" means nothing beyond "at least 50.00000000000000001%" likelihood.
It's a very low bar of proof. To spend weeks and weeks and thousands of dollars in an investigation and come forward with "more probable than not," and nothing more specific than that, is pretty weak.
Well, it's also the same burden of proof as in almost every civil case in the entire country, and has been for hundreds of years. It's not quite as flimsy as you're suggesting. "More likely than not" means that the facts weigh in the direction of culpability.
In our legal system, damages aren't determined by how confident the finder of fact is that a plaintiff has proved his case. Once the case is proved -- whether it be 50.01% or 100.0% -- it's proved, period. Damages are what they are, and if the NFL follows that model, penalties should be the same whether there was a smoking gun or simply a likelihood of guilt.
Then again, there is a reason why the standard of proof is lower in civil cases than it is in criminal cases.
Right. When you're taking away somebody's liberty, you need higher proof, as it should be. The room for error is higher with a "more likely than not" standard.
I just object to treating the preponderance of the evidence standard almost as if it's some insubstantial standard created by the NFL to screw the Patriots.
I interpreted this whole thing as more of a criminal trial trying to catch them breaking the law than a civil trial for damages to the Colts. That's just me.
-
Also, damages can depend on what was actually proven at trial and to what degree. Meeting the burden often just means that you are entitled to damages. It's then up to the jury, in many cases, to determine how far above the minimum penalty they will choose to go in penalizing the defendant.
The minimum penalty here, IIRC, is a five-digit fine...
Knowing how Goodell operates, he'll go whatever direction the winds blow. Given the initial national media & public reaction to this, he'll go heavy with the penalties and chalk it up to "fair play & the integrity of the shield" or something along those lines.
No one should expect Goodell to show anything resembling consistency here.
-
The guy with the balls called himself the deflator
In May 2014 -- middle of the offseason, 4 months before the start of the 2014 season and 8 months before the AFC Championship game.
::)
-
I interpreted this whole thing as more of a criminal trial trying to catch them breaking the law than a civil trial for damages to the Colts. That's just me.
I think all NFL discipline is subject to a preponderance standard, although I could be wrong on that
EDIT: Yep.
Per a league source, the “preponderance of the evidence” standard applies in cases involving allegations of conduct that undermines the integrity of the game. That comes from the league policy manual given to every team.
That's from January.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/27/low-standard-of-proof-applies-to-deflategate/
-
The guy with the balls called himself the deflator
In May 2014 -- middle of the offseason, 4 months before the start of the 2014 season and 8 months before the AFC Championship game.
::)
True, but then later the guy said he had a needle for him and he disappeared into the bathroom for almost two minutes while the balls couldn't be found.
-
Also, damages can depend on what was actually proven at trial and to what degree. Meeting the burden often just means that you are entitled to damages. It's then up to the jury, in many cases, to determine how far above the minimum penalty they will choose to go in penalizing the defendant.
The minimum penalty here, IIRC, is a five-digit fine...
Knowing how Goodell operates, he'll go whatever direction the winds blow. Given the initial national media & public reaction to this, he'll go heavy with the penalties and chalk it up to "fair play & the integrity of the shield" or something along those lines.
No one should expect Goodell to show anything resembling consistency here.
Very true there. It's hard to respect somebody who gives a decision, sees it's unpopular, and then increases the punishment after the fact, with no new allegations.
-
I interpreted this whole thing as more of a criminal trial trying to catch them breaking the law than a civil trial for damages to the Colts. That's just me.
I think all NFL discipline is subject to a preponderance standard, although I could be wrong on that
EDIT: Yep.
Per a league source, the “preponderance of the evidence” standard applies in cases involving allegations of conduct that undermines the integrity of the game. That comes from the league policy manual given to every team.
That's from January.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/27/low-standard-of-proof-applies-to-deflategate/
Darn it. I wonder if there are any rules about consistency of enforcement. They caught two other teams on national tv breaking rules and they got nothing. Here they say "Well. They probably did it" and are going to get punished. Way to go NFL. Way to go.
-
The guy with the balls called himself the deflator
In May 2014 -- middle of the offseason, 4 months before the start of the 2014 season and 8 months before the AFC Championship game.
::)
True, but then later the guy said he had a needle for him and he disappeared into the bathroom for almost two minutes while the balls couldn't be found.
Also, one game day crew allegedly inflated game balls to 16 PSI. Context.
Also, if Brady was ticked off about this, it seems they weren't deflating balls at that point -- otherwise there wouldn't have been a 16 PSI ball in play.
There are also multiple other inconsistencies -- e.g. the report suggests that deflation has been discussed for months, yet also states this was the first time McNally took the balls out of the officials locker room on his own. ::)
-
When Anderson and other members of the officiating crew were preparing to
leave the Officials Locker Room to head to the field for the start of the game, the
game balls could not be located. It was the first time in Anderson?s nineteen
years as an NFL official that he could not locate the game balls at the start of a
game.
Walt Anderson refereed Broncos-Patriots, a home game that too place just a week after some of the texts that supposedly discuss ball deflation were exchanged. Just saying.
-
I interpreted this whole thing as more of a criminal trial trying to catch them breaking the law than a civil trial for damages to the Colts. That's just me.
I think all NFL discipline is subject to a preponderance standard, although I could be wrong on that
EDIT: Yep.
Per a league source, the “preponderance of the evidence” standard applies in cases involving allegations of conduct that undermines the integrity of the game. That comes from the league policy manual given to every team.
That's from January.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/27/low-standard-of-proof-applies-to-deflategate/
Darn it. I wonder if there are any rules about consistency of enforcement. They caught two other teams on national tv breaking rules and they got nothing. Here they say "Well. They probably did it" and are going to get punished. Way to go NFL. Way to go.
This is, of course, the time honored tradition of saying "but he/she/they did this too!" in the face of potential punishment.
-
I interpreted this whole thing as more of a criminal trial trying to catch them breaking the law than a civil trial for damages to the Colts. That's just me.
I think all NFL discipline is subject to a preponderance standard, although I could be wrong on that
EDIT: Yep.
Per a league source, the “preponderance of the evidence” standard applies in cases involving allegations of conduct that undermines the integrity of the game. That comes from the league policy manual given to every team.
That's from January.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/27/low-standard-of-proof-applies-to-deflategate/
Darn it. I wonder if there are any rules about consistency of enforcement. They caught two other teams on national tv breaking rules and they got nothing. Here they say "Well. They probably did it" and are going to get punished. Way to go NFL. Way to go.
This is, of course, the time honored tradition of saying "but he/she/they did this too!" in the face of potential punishment.
Well yeah. That matters. Consistency and the punishment fitting the crime...definitely. I totally own that. I want the Pats treated the same as anyone else for the same crime. No apologies there.
-
This is, of course, the time honored tradition of saying "but he/she/they did this too!" in the face of potential punishment.
We discussed this ad nauseam before anything was established on the case, too.
-
The guy with the balls called himself the deflator
In May 2014 -- middle of the offseason, 4 months before the start of the 2014 season and 8 months before the AFC Championship game.
::)
True, but then later the guy said he had a needle for him and he disappeared into the bathroom for almost two minutes while the balls couldn't be found.
Also, one game day crew allegedly inflated game balls to 16 PSI. Context.
Also, if Brady was ticked off about this, it seems they weren't deflating balls at that point -- otherwise there wouldn't have been a 16 PSI ball in play.
There are also multiple other inconsistencies -- e.g. the report suggests that deflation has been discussed for months, yet also states this was the first time McNally took the balls out of the officials locker room on his own. ::)
True. It's definitely not a perfect report. And it's just not true that the league was totally unaware or anything like that. The Colts definitely got what they wanted here for being tatle tales.
-
Jets got 100K fine for tampering with our guy. I'd accept a 100K fine. I'd want Brady to appeal it, but the Jets clearly clearly broke the rule in front of the world. They just sorta THINK Brady did something. So maybe a 75K fine or a 50K fine. Maybe a stern warning. Maybe 25K seeing as how they had already received the warning.
Too bad that being tatle tales is being rewarded in the league these days. The Pats need to get into that game. Everything from the other team's socks to their kicking tees to their gatorade. Everything. If you can't beat em join em.
It would also be fun if the Pats propose rules changes because they aren't good enough to deal with a rule as is the way the Ravens do. How many times have they changed the rules on the Pats now? 3 times?
-
Kinda too bad the ball guy at first said he went straight to the field, then said he went to the bathroom and used the urinal, except that the bathroom doesn't have a urinal.
-
IMHO.....Brady either needs to completely own this or he needs to fight it big big big time, but then he has to explain why he wouldn't give them access to his texts and email and calls.
Leaning towards thinking he should own it.
YOU'RE [dang] RIGHT I ORDERD THE CODE RED!
-
Kinda too bad the ball guy at first said he went straight to the field, then said he went to the bathroom and used the urinal, except that the bathroom doesn't have a urinal.
These details are Larry Craig-esque, lol ;D.
-
The guy with the balls called himself the deflator
In May 2014 -- middle of the offseason, 4 months before the start of the 2014 season and 8 months before the AFC Championship game.
::)
True, but then later the guy said he had a needle for him and he disappeared into the bathroom for almost two minutes while the balls couldn't be found.
Even with context, sentences like these are gold, lol ;D. I'm not picking on you, btw.
-
Did you guys read the text messages in the report? It actually seems pretty close to a smoking gun. I am a pats fan and thought this was all nonsense and was dead until I read this. I actually think Brady will get suspended.
A smoking gun for what? Sounds like the refs overinflated the balls one week, and Brady got angry and got up the equipment managers' ass for it. McNally sounds like a bit of a **** based on his texts, but some whiny texts about his boss is far from proof of intentional wrongdoing.
No kidding. I complain about my boss's overinflated balls all the time and nobody cares. And in my case, it's definitely true.
If, however, the NFL decides to suspend Brady, I think it's also fair to look at admitted cheaters, such as this guy:
http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/2015/02/06/jerry-rice-admits-cheating-but-still-wants-asterisk-the-patriots-for-deflategate/o7W2mlXRRpWnbczSixdNLI/story.html
Mike
Lol, TP ;D. You don't happen to work for this guy, by any chance, do you (sarcasm)? Ahaha ;D.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KSMeK38f9E
-
Now I haven't taken the time to read through all 200 pages (if you include the appendix), but just listening to all of the coverage locally, Brady comes out looking pretty bad in this. Putting pieces together, it looks like he's been doing this for awhile which in turn means every denial he made in that infamous press conference and since then was all a bold faced lie.
Now having said all that, I'll still go to my grave saying that this whole PSI in footballs debate is something that not even the league themselves took seriously until the Colts complained. There's the section in the report about how Tom was upset that the PSI was inflated to 16 by the refs before the Thursday night game against the Jets which is way past the allowed range. To me this shows that not even the refs really care about PSI. In my opinion, I think when the Colts filed their complaint to the league, the league said "really?...this is what you're complaining about right now?...well I guess we HAVE to look into it because you're asking, but really, who cares?"
For everyone's sanity though, because ESPN is full of former players-turned analysts that have an agenda against the Patriots, I would avoid the world wide leader for the rest of this week, because all they'll do is blow this WAY out of proportion and tear the Pats apart which anyone in their right mind knows is nonsense. You basically have to take your own opinion and run with it, because it feels like half of the experts think it's an advantage, while the other half thinks it's not. Nobody can agree on anything.
-
I've read virtually the whole thing now.
Evidence in favor of Patriots cheating:
The guy went to the bathroom for a while with the balls
The guy took the balls and generally that doesn't happen. The very experienced ref never had a situation where they couldn't find the balls.
The guy with the balls called himself the deflator
The guys were well aware of Brady's preference for balls inflated low
They had motive
Brady wouldn't share texts or phone records with the investigators
The scientists have concluded a person had to have let air out to get to those levels
The equipment guy told the ball guy "I have a needle for ya"
Evidence against Pats cheating
There is no point anywhere where it can be seen that anyone is encouraging anyone to cheat, especially not Brady
It's common for QBs to have good relationships with equipment guys etc and give them autographs
It's common for players to talk to guys and prepare before games and the Super Bowl
The guys were actually joking about over inflating the balls because Tom is a jerk
It's possible conversations were mixed up about getting tickets for a friend
Various witnesses did say the ball guy takes the balls out from time to time
Conclusion. Tom can be a bit of a diva about his stuff and people try to make him happy. One stupid ball guy probably took things too far once.
Punishment....same as those guys that were caught on live national tv doctoring the balls against the rules....a very stern warning. Ball guy can never handle NFL balls ever again. NFL doesn't apologize to Patriots.
Outstanding, lol ;D - TP.
-
Kinda too bad the ball guy at first said he went straight to the field, then said he went to the bathroom and used the urinal, except that the bathroom doesn't have a urinal.
These details are Larry Craig-esque, lol ;D.
More like Leisure Suit Larry, I'd say.
-
.
-
From FiveThirtyEight:
But one question I had was how clear it is that Brady wanted the balls UNDER 12.5 psi vs. as close to the minimum as possible. He seems to have complained about the balls in the Jets game, but those seem to have been inflated well over 12.5.
Is there any clear indication of Brady asking for the balls to be less than the minimum? From everything I've seen and heard, it definitely sounds like Brady relayed a message that the balls had been overinflated and that they needed to be fixed for the next time out. But beyond that, what has been shown by this report?
-
So... Can anyone explain to me who deflated the Colts balls?
-
So... Can anyone explain to me who deflated the Colts balls?
GOD
-
Keyword: Assuming
"In addition, the average pressure drop of the Patriots game balls exceeded the average pressure drop of the Colts balls by 0.45 to 1.02 psi, depending on various possible assumptions regarding the gauges used, and assuming an initial pressure of 12.5 psi for the Patriots balls and 13.0 psi for the Colts balls."
https://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/investigative-and-expert-reports-re-footballs-used-during-afc-championsh.pdf
So... Why are we *assuming* this? You mean to tell me the NFL doesn't even record the PSI levels to start the game?
-
Felger and Maz were suggesting maybe Brady should have or should just own this thing.
To me if I'm him and I cheated I'm keeping my mouth shut. If I didn't I'm saying "I can be a bit of a diva with my stuff. I can be pretty demanding about what I like. But I do not and did not EVER tell ANYONE to cheat and I never would". And then maybe you appeal.
-
Sports radio pointing out that others have in the past accused the firm exponent of doing some pretty shady scientific work in the past to help clients with very sticky situations....for example they have helped tobacco firms say that second hand smoke doesn't cause cancer. However a leading Princeton physicist has verified the findings. Sorta forces Pats fans to suggest the Princeton guy is a Jets fan or something
-
Radio callers and personalities pointing out that the ref Anderson never actually recorded the psi levels before the game. The pre game psi levels reported come from his memory and what the teams reported that they try to inflate their balls to.
A former investigator called in and made the point "This makes no sense whatsoever. The Colts call them and say 'Hey. We think this could happen'. They say 'Ok. We're on it.' then the balls go completely missing and this normally calm ref is freakin out and then they finally find the balls with the Patriots ball guy and the ref says 'Oh good' and never rechecks the balls? Never recorded the psi levels? What on Earth is that? If you are working a club and you get actionable intelligence a guy with a red shirt is gonna show up and may want to kill someone he hates and you see him an hour later you don't just let him in. You have to check him and pat him down. The NFL is taking no responsibility at all for a pretty serious lapse here and they expect us to just buy that".
Some people making the case that the NFL has been caught in a lie here making the case that they didn't do anything in a biased way, but actually they initiated everything and gave the Pats extra scrutiny because of a call by the Colts. So basically the NFL was doing the Colts bidding, but are saying they did everything in an unbiased way just the way they would normally, but that's not really true.
-
Brady and the Pats have a legit case to file a defamation lawsuit against the NFL imo.
-
IMHO.....Brady either needs to completely own this or he needs to fight it big big big time, but then he has to explain why he wouldn't give them access to his texts and email and calls.
Leaning towards thinking he should own it.
YOU'RE [dang] RIGHT I ORDERD THE CODE RED!
Hahahaha.
-
Keyword: Assuming
"In addition, the average pressure drop of the Patriots game balls exceeded the average pressure drop of the Colts balls by 0.45 to 1.02 psi, depending on various possible assumptions regarding the gauges used, and assuming an initial pressure of 12.5 psi for the Patriots balls and 13.0 psi for the Colts balls."
https://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/investigative-and-expert-reports-re-footballs-used-during-afc-championsh.pdf
So... Why are we *assuming* this? You mean to tell me the NFL doesn't even record the PSI levels to start the game?
It's all sketchy to me.
-
I absolutely can not wait till this time next year when the Pats are polishing their fifth Super Bowl trophy and the league finishes a months long investigation into whether the Patriots were all wearing regulation laces in their cleats.
-
Gronk has weighed in with his typical genius style.
http://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2015/5/6/8563257/rob-gronkowski-deflategate-deez-nuts-video
-
I absolutely can not wait till this time next year when the Pats are polishing their fifth Super Bowl trophy and the league finishes a months long investigation into whether the Patriots were all wearing regulation laces in their cleats.
They should probably get a better defense first.
-
For what it's worth, there's also this:
"If I were Toyota, I wouldn't have picked somebody like Exponent to do analysis," said Stanton Glantz, a cardiologist at UC San Francisco who runs a database on the tobacco industry that contains thousands of pages of Exponent research arguing, among other things, that secondhand smoke does not cause cancer. "I would have picked a firm with more of a reputation of neutrality."
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/18/business/la-fi-toyota-exponent18-2010feb18
-
*more probable than not*
Thanks a lot NFL
You really cleared up this situation
::) x a million
-
One factor that the Wells report ignores is the amount of time that passed between measuring the Pats footballs vs. the Colts. This is an important factor because the pressure returns very quickly. I read about an experiment that was done back in January about balls taken from a 70 degree room to a 40 degree temperature outside and the balls dropped 1.5 psi as expected. But after just 15 minutes in the 70 degree room, the psi had adjusted back.
We know the Patriots footballs were measure first and only 4 Colts balls were measured as they ran out of time. We also know the officials locker room was just over 70 degrees. So, if the Patriots footballs were measured on average of just 5 minutes or so earlier, that could explain the entire difference between each team's footballs.
Edit: Upon reading further, I see that the Exponent report does address this and determines that it does not account for the full difference. The problem I have with this is that this determination assumes they have perfect information to the times each team's balls were measured. By their own calculations if the time disparity is just two minutes longer than their assumptions, then their calculations would account for the entire difference between the two sets of balls. Just two minutes of an estimated timeframe provided by the referees would change their conclusion entirely.
-
One factor that the Wells report ignores is the amount of time that passed between measuring the Pats footballs vs. the Colts.
They didn't, though. It's in the Exponent paper, I think.
-
I'm glad to see that Brady and his agent are finally firing back:
http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/2015/05/07/tom-brady-agent-accuses-nfl-sting-operation-deflategate/zedRZzXRnTTY0Qc5n6ToeL/story.html?p1=ClickedOnBreakingNewsBox
I really do believe they have a case for a defamation lawsuit against the NFL , and should go ahead and file charges
Also, once again, as they do in all 'news' stories, the media jumps into accusatory mode against Brady and the Pats without reading all the facts and making unbiased representations of the news.
-
As a relatively unbiased observer, watching the shots get lobbed back and forth between pats fans and those who are not is pretty fantastic.
-
As a relatively unbiased observer, watching the shots get lobbed back and forth between pats fans and those who are not is pretty fantastic.
I really do wonder how this would've gone down & what this whole thing would've been like if it involved, say, the Jacksonville Jaguars instead.
-
As a relatively unbiased observer, watching the shots get lobbed back and forth between pats fans and those who are not is pretty fantastic.
I really do wonder how this would've gone down & what this whole thing would've been like if it involved, say, the Jacksonville Jaguars instead.
The Jaguars? In the playoffs?
(http://doubtfulnewscom.c.presscdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/OH-YOU-alien.jpg)
-
As a relatively unbiased observer, watching the shots get lobbed back and forth between pats fans and those who are not is pretty fantastic.
I really do wonder how this would've gone down & what this whole thing would've been like if it involved, say, the Jacksonville Jaguars instead.
No need to wonder -- it already went down when some ... less significant teams were caught heating up game balls on the sidelines. I hadn't heard of that until Deflategate first blew up, so there's your answer.
Also, I love this bit from pg 86 on the report:
I just measured some of the balls. They supposed to
be 13 lbs... They were like 16. Felt like bricks
In fact, the only thing this report has established conclusively is that Jastremski and McNally think game balls should be at 12.5 or 13 PSI.
-
As a relatively unbiased observer, watching the shots get lobbed back and forth between pats fans and those who are not is pretty fantastic.
We're there for you! ;)
1) I have to admit that I hadn't read enough of the report to realize that the law firm had an existing relationship with the NFL. I agree that it would be very difficult for the firm to be independent.
2) While I understand that Brady has denied the allegations in the past, this is the first official statement since the verdict. I really would have felt a lot better if it had included something along the lines of, "My client continues to deny all knowledge of footballs being deflated and has never instructed staff members to deflate the balls below regulation limits, etc. etc." In other words, let's have an outright refutation of the decision rather than "My client was really polite and it wasn't fair."
Oh, the lawyer also needs to learn how to use that apostrophe in the second sentence. And commas, for that matter. Who writes these things?
Mike
-
Interesting tidbit from SI's Don Banks; Wells report cost the NFL an estimated $5 million according to one source.
That's insane.
-
As a relatively unbiased observer, watching the shots get lobbed back and forth between pats fans and those who are not is pretty fantastic.
I really do wonder how this would've gone down & what this whole thing would've been like if it involved, say, the Jacksonville Jaguars instead.
Definitely would not be a story. The Pats are a team that has enjoyed more success than any other franchise in the league in the last decade or two, and they constantly push the boundaries of what is acceptable under the rules.
Is it any surprise that opposing teams (and fanbases) are eager to catch the Pats bending (or arguably outright breaking) the rules at every turn? Even if what the Pats are doing is done, to a lesser or greater extent, by numerous other franchises?
(https://38.media.tumblr.com/947e85cb80368df09ee14958c5582591/tumblr_mmh8cq4E5H1qksk74o1_250.gif)
-
I'm glad to see that Brady and his agent are finally firing back:
http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/2015/05/07/tom-brady-agent-accuses-nfl-sting-operation-deflategate/zedRZzXRnTTY0Qc5n6ToeL/story.html?p1=ClickedOnBreakingNewsBox
I really do believe they have a case for a defamation lawsuit against the NFL , and should go ahead and file charges
Also, once again, as they do in all 'news' stories, the media jumps into accusatory mode against Brady and the Pats without reading all the facts and making unbiased representations of the news.
Brady won't. It would be a distraction to him and the Patriots. He doesn't want that. He will make a bland vanilla statement, move on, and hopefully put together his best year yet.
-
When the Patriots are sitting on 10 wins with a few weeks left in the regular season 6-7 months from now, #DeflateGate will be in the rear view mirror.
But, for fanbases of teams that get beaten by the Pats, it will always remain close at hand, just like Spygate.
-
When the Patriots are sitting on 10 wins with a few weeks left in the regular season 6-7 months from now, #DeflateGate will be in the rear view mirror.
But, for fanbases of teams that get beaten by the Pats, it will always remain close at hand, just like Spygate.
As a Patriots fan it is tiresome to hear how people think all their victories are invalidated due to cheating.
At this point I don't care, what happens as long as their aren't sanctions that inhibit our ability to win, now and in the future.
A suspension or loss of picks coming from the findings of a report would upset me. Reading through the report it seems that they thought the Pats were guilty before looking into the case.
-
Interesting tidbit from SI's Don Banks; Wells report cost the NFL an estimated $5 million according to one source.
That's insane.
something something wrong line of work something something
-
Interesting tidbit from SI's Don Banks; Wells report cost the NFL an estimated $5 million according to one source.
That's insane.
something something wrong line of work something something
Pretty much. No wonder this thing dragged out 103 days or whatever it was. Billable hours, man!
-
Reading through the report it seems that they thought the Pats were guilty before looking into the case.
Agreed. The report suits the league's needs, which is to sate the majority of people who feel the Pats are unrepentant cheaters who need to be taken down a peg.
It makes the league look good to take a tough stance on the issue and punish the Pats, though it'll have to be in a way that doesn't destroy the Pats' on field product.
-
When the Patriots are sitting on 10 wins with a few weeks left in the regular season 6-7 months from now, #DeflateGate will be in the rear view mirror.
But, for fanbases of teams that get beaten by the Pats, it will always remain close at hand, just like Spygate.
As a Patriots fan it is tiresome to hear how people think all their victories are invalidated due to cheating.
At this point I don't care, what happens as long as their aren't sanctions that inhibit our ability to win, now and in the future.
A suspension or loss of picks coming from the findings of a report would upset me. Reading through the report it seems that they thought the Pats were guilty before looking into the case.
Oh there's no doubt in my mind that Ted Wells and the league made the pre-conclusion that they were already guilty and then conducted the investigation with the mindset of "ok, let's go find what we can to prove that they're guilty"...but what's unfortunate is that while it may not be right, they still found them guilty. Much like spygate, it may not be that much of a competitive advantage, but the fact is they still did it and got caught and so all those anti-Patriot jihadists have all the ammo they need from here on out.
This is why it's pointless to argue with them on it. If somebody gives you crap about the Pats, just immediately take it to the bigger picture and ask "ok, switch the positions, say it's your team that did all this...would you rather have 4 'tainted' super bowls in which you can debate the level of taintedness, or no super bowls at all?" Personally, I'll still take the rings, even with all the schtuff that's come with it.
-
A take so hot you could melt steel beams.
-
You let me down, Tommy.
As a lifelong Redskins fan I defended you AND the NE Patriots when this broke.
You were the chosen one ;D
Consider this payback for that 52-7 drubbing you gave my Redskins back in 2007.
You should be suspended for the season ;D
-
By the way, the report indicates that Ref Walt was able to reproduce the PSI of each of the balls measured at halftime from memory (it was NOT recorded), but couldn't recall whether the Patriots presented 12 or 13 balls for approval prior to the game.
Seem legit. ::)
-
As a relatively unbiased observer, watching the shots get lobbed back and forth between pats fans and those who are not is pretty fantastic.
I really do wonder how this would've gone down & what this whole thing would've been like if it involved, say, the Jacksonville Jaguars instead.
Definitely would not be a story. The Pats are a team that has enjoyed more success than any other franchise in the league in the last decade or two, and they constantly push the boundaries of what is acceptable under the rules.
Is it any surprise that opposing teams (and fanbases) are eager to catch the Pats bending (or arguably outright breaking) the rules at every turn? Even if what the Pats are doing is done, to a lesser or greater extent, by numerous other franchises?
(https://38.media.tumblr.com/947e85cb80368df09ee14958c5582591/tumblr_mmh8cq4E5H1qksk74o1_250.gif)
Hey, c'mon, think about all the ruckus that ESPN cooked up over #CrowdnoiseGate in Atlanta. I mean, wasn't that on the news every night? Oh, wait...
Mike
-
My bro has convinced me it may be in the best interests of the Pats to have Brady suspended for maybe 3 games. Inevitably Garapalo will tear it up and the Pats can trade him for a first rounder. Unfortunately it is likely Belichik would pick some unneeded player from Rutgers that nobody has ever heard of.
-
You should be suspended for the season ;D
I think TB will be fined $100k. He might be suspended for one game. The NFL wants to appear "tough" so they'll perhaps suspend him. But they can't really suspend him for more than a game given the lack of hard evidence. The NFL certainly won't suspend him for a long period of time like half a season or a whole season. The reason for this is simple. It raises the probability that TB fires back with a defamation suit. That's the last thing the NFL wants. The NFL wants everything about this season in the rear view mirror.
-
"In sum, the data did not provide a basis for us to determine with absolute certainty whether there was or was not tampering as the analysis of such data ultimately is dependent upon assumptions and information that is not certain."
- Page 228, Article 13
See how fun it is to take quotes that support your side?
-
Pretty sure Tom Brady used Hillary Clinton's private email server to surreptitiously coordinate plans for deflating footballs.
-
Not an american football fan but the nfl hired Exponent and that is messed up. Not surprised at all though.
-
One factor that the Wells report ignores is the amount of time that passed between measuring the Pats footballs vs. the Colts. This is an important factor because the pressure returns very quickly. I read about an experiment that was done back in January about balls taken from a 70 degree room to a 40 degree temperature outside and the balls dropped 1.5 psi as expected. But after just 15 minutes in the 70 degree room, the psi had adjusted back.
We know the Patriots footballs were measure first and only 4 Colts balls were measured as they ran out of time. We also know the officials locker room was just over 70 degrees. So, if the Patriots footballs were measured on average of just 5 minutes or so earlier, that could explain the entire difference between each team's footballs.
Edit: Upon reading further, I see that the Exponent report does address this and determines that it does not account for the full difference. The problem I have with this is that this determination assumes they have perfect information to the times each team's balls were measured. By their own calculations if the time disparity is just two minutes longer than their assumptions, then their calculations would account for the entire difference between the two sets of balls. Just two minutes of an estimated timeframe provided by the referees would change their conclusion entirely.
TP
the funny thing about the PSI thing is that it's not nearly as simple as some are making it out to be.
anderson claims the colts balls were around 13 PSI, and the pats were 12.5 before the game.
at halftime, the refs measure the 12 pats balls, which according to their graph average 11.3, and then they measure just 4 of the colts' balls, which average 12.5. so, if the refs' original measurements were accurate, the colts balls lost around .5 PSI and the pats' balls lost around 1.2 PSI.
the .7 difference in lost PSI between the 2 teams' balls looks a bit suspicious.
but there could be legit reasons:
-as knuckleballer notes above, there was a time difference from when the two teams' balls were measured. that time could have warmed the colts' balls a bit more than the pats', raising their PSI as a result.
- did the refs use the same gauge for both teams when they first measured the balls? they had 2 different gauges, and there was a consistent .4 PSI difference between the 2 gauges. that is "huge", at least in terms of this silly story.
-only 4 colts balls were tested. what if those balls were the ones warm and safe in the bag, and hadn't been exposed to the elements? those 4 could be outliers, we'll never know if the rest were lower or not. and the pats certainly had their balls on the field a lot more than the colts did in the first half, so it stands to reason their balls might be a bit wetter and cooler.
-what if the colts balls at the start of the game were 13.5, and not 13.0. as anderson suggests? what if he made a mistake? that would account for most of the .7 differential in lost PSI. the refs also made a blatant error in one of the readings they logged for one of the colts' balls (the footnotes admit as much). keep in mind there's only a .7 PSI difference between the amount of air both teams' balls lost. a lot is riding on the refs' having not been negligent or made mistakes.
-as others have noted, Exponent Inc, the lab hired by the NFL, is extremely shady, and according to an LA times report is basically a shill for big businesses to put out scientific propaganda that makes them look good. not exactly the most credible lab to be using for such an "important" investigation.
in closing, there's plenty of reason to doubt the league's "scientific" conclusions; sadly for the pats, the text messages are much harder to explain. without those texts, i think the pats easily beat the rap. goes to show that, in this digital age, be careful what you do. some of it (or all?) sticks forever.
-
I wonder if exponent took into account Gronk spiking the ball
-
The stigma, of course, isn't good for the Pats.
But giving Jimmy G. a couple of starts could be very good for the Pats: they get to see more of what they have in him as Brady's successor and he gets valuable experience, which could be especially relevant if Brady goes down this season. Meanwhile, Old Man Brady gets a little less wear and tear on the year. And the team should actually be good enough to end up at the top of the AFC even without Brady in there for a couple of games.
-
You should be suspended for the season ;D
I think TB will be fined $100k. He might be suspended for one game. The NFL wants to appear "tough" so they'll perhaps suspend him. But they can't really suspend him for more than a game given the lack of hard evidence. The NFL certainly won't suspend him for a long period of time like half a season or a whole season. The reason for this is simple. It raises the probability that TB fires back with a defamation suit. That's the last thing the NFL wants. The NFL wants everything about this season in the rear view mirror.
I agree with you, but there's no way Brady sues the NFL. He knows which way his bread is buttered.
-
I have to say, the statement released by Tom Brady's agent, about why they chose not to hand over his phone etc, actually made sense.
He made the point that Brady is part of the player's association, unlike the two ball attendants, and his decision to volunteer his private information to the league office absent a subpoena could set a precedent for other players in the future.
I also tend to agree with the assertion that the Wells Report comes across like it began with a certain conclusion -- i.e. the Pats did wrong and it wasn't the NFL's fault -- and did whatever was necessary to try and reach that conclusion. If Brady and his reps felt that was the case from the beginning, what was really to be gained by cooperating?
Jackie Mac may be right that Brady should have been more upfront from the start about what did or did not happen. Simply saying something along the lines of what I think actually happened:
"I have a preference for how I want the ball to be prepared, how I want it to feel in my hand when I go to throw in game. I communicate that to the ball guys to do their best to get the balls that way. I never told anybody to break any rules. Sometimes the way the balls are given to us, they're a lot different than how I like them, and the ball guys know that. If any rules were broken by the ball prep, I want to apologize for that. It was never my intention. I respect the integrity of the game."
But then again, with the Super Bowl coming up, why take the risk, however tiny, that admitting even that could affect the team's chances to win. I'm sure Brady would prefer to get suspended for a few games to start this next season, 4th Super Bowl in hand.
-
I saw on Twitter from some NFL Insider, I forget who exactly, but he said the Pats play the Colts game 5, and that would be a perfect 'return game' for Brady, so he's expecting maybe 4 games.
-
I'm guessing 8 games, but wouldn't be surprised with 4 or 6. I think more than 8 or less than 4 are very unlikely to happen.
-
I'm guessing 8 games, but wouldn't be surprised with 4 or 6. I think more than 8 or less than 4 are very unlikely to happen.
You really think the NFL is going to basically torpedo the Pats' season?
That would be a pretty major punishment. Totally undermine the Pats' chance at defending their title. Probably prevent one of the biggest and most successful teams in the league from getting back to the playoffs.
Sure, the Pats would still have Brady for half the season, and they're a talented team. But I think the division is strong enough that starting Jimmy G for 8 games would sink the Pats. The Bills won 9 games last year and missed the playoffs.
-
I'm guessing 8 games, but wouldn't be surprised with 4 or 6. I think more than 8 or less than 4 are very unlikely to happen.
You really think the NFL is going to basically torpedo the Pats' season?
That would be a pretty major punishment. Totally undermine the Pats' chance at defending their title. Probably prevent one of the biggest and most successful teams in the league from getting back to the playoffs.
Sure, the Pats would still have Brady for half the season, and they're a talented team. But I think the division is strong enough that starting Jimmy G for 8 games would sink the Pats. The Bills won 9 games last year and missed the playoffs.
I think they are are going to send a strong message, especially since it looks like this type of cheating has been going on a long time (it wasn't just the Colts game). And this is after all the team that is always skating that fine line between legal and not legal activities for 20 years. Brady was intimately involved here and is going to take the fall for the whole organization.
-
I'm guessing 8 games, but wouldn't be surprised with 4 or 6. I think more than 8 or less than 4 are very unlikely to happen.
You really think the NFL is going to basically torpedo the Pats' season?
That would be a pretty major punishment. Totally undermine the Pats' chance at defending their title. Probably prevent one of the biggest and most successful teams in the league from getting back to the playoffs.
Sure, the Pats would still have Brady for half the season, and they're a talented team. But I think the division is strong enough that starting Jimmy G for 8 games would sink the Pats. The Bills won 9 games last year and missed the playoffs.
I think they are are going to send a strong message, especially since it looks like this type of cheating has been going on a long time (it wasn't just the Colts game). And this is after all the team that is always skating that fine line between legal and not legal activities for 20 years. Brady was intimately involved here and is going to take the fall for the whole organization.
Yeah, except the Pats are also kind of the class of the league in terms of running things the way the league would want things to be run (organization first, players second). So I don't think the league really wants to make the Pats into this pariah organization. Brady is also one of the icons of the league, so same deal.
This isn't like when the Saints were getting punished. And "game integrity" is a much less explosive public relations issue for the NFL than domestic violence or player safety are and were.
I think the NFL has to take a relatively strong stance here, if only because that's the position they've put themselves in with this Wells Report. That said, I just can't imagine them doing to the Pats what they did to the Saints, which was basically, "You are going to have a lost year this year. Forget about having a successful season. Your team will not be relevant this year, except as a cautionary tale."
That's why I believe they'll fine Brady and suspend him for a couple of games. Four at most. Enough to make the Pats sweat and perhaps cause the division race to be a little more interesting. But not enough to totally undermine their season. The NFL isn't going to kill one of the last 3 or 4 seasons of one of their greatest and most beloved players ever.
-
I'm guessing 8 games, but wouldn't be surprised with 4 or 6. I think more than 8 or less than 4 are very unlikely to happen.
You really think the NFL is going to basically torpedo the Pats' season?
That would be a pretty major punishment. Totally undermine the Pats' chance at defending their title. Probably prevent one of the biggest and most successful teams in the league from getting back to the playoffs.
Sure, the Pats would still have Brady for half the season, and they're a talented team. But I think the division is strong enough that starting Jimmy G for 8 games would sink the Pats. The Bills won 9 games last year and missed the playoffs.
+about a million
When it comes to the choice of making a statement or making a dollar, the NFL has consistently chosen the latter, even in the face of significant public pressure. Two games, tops.
Mike
-
I think there's two stories here with the possible punishment.
With Brady, I was initially thinking a large fine....but it's clear now that the league wanted to listen to public opinion first before laying down a sentence. And if he doesn't get AT LEAST a 1 game suspension, there will be an absolute mutiny amongst the rest of the league and NFL fan bases. Personally, I'm mentally preparing for at least 1 game gone for Brady, and with the team having a week 4 bye this season, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if he's gone for the first 3 games and then comes back after the bye.
Now as for the organization, I also expect a punishment of a big fine, maybe even a draft pick because of their unwillingness to fully cooperate with the investigation. Not allowing another interview with McNally I think is huge, Brady not willing to give his phone I think is huge.
The more days go by, the more I get depressed about this. It's really an unfortunate situation and much like spygate, it was something that didn't have to be done. Regardless now of what Brady does for the rest of his career...I hate to say it, but outside of New England, it's over for him. Regardless of what happens now, public opinion has decided: he's a cheater, his integrity is damaged, and fans and the majority of former players think much less of him now.
-
Like I mentioned earlier in this thread, who the heck knows with this league office? Their precedents are all over place. Heck, look at Ray Rice's initial 2 game suspension. This Goodell/Vincent regime has proven to show very little or no consistency in their rulings over the years. They certainly seem to let the public whims play a part in their decision making. Sit back & wait to gauge public reaction and the media reaction, then act accordingly.
A fine is certain. To me, I can't imagine anything more than a two game suspension at worst but who knows. The NFL failed to nip this in the butt back in January and allowed this thing to turn into a full blown media circus. I really think in the grand scheme of things looking back on NFL history that this is a misdemeanor. It just happened to get blown up because of the way it was initially handled back in January and has continued to snowball.
Who knows with Goodell, though? He's tried to play "tough guy" before but he's also been less than stringent in handling some incidents also.
"More probable than not" with no smoking gun? I can't see Brady getting suspended half a season for that.
-
I'm guessing 8 games, but wouldn't be surprised with 4 or 6. I think more than 8 or less than 4 are very unlikely to happen.
You really think the NFL is going to basically torpedo the Pats' season?
That would be a pretty major punishment. Totally undermine the Pats' chance at defending their title. Probably prevent one of the biggest and most successful teams in the league from getting back to the playoffs.
Sure, the Pats would still have Brady for half the season, and they're a talented team. But I think the division is strong enough that starting Jimmy G for 8 games would sink the Pats. The Bills won 9 games last year and missed the playoffs.
I think they are are going to send a strong message, especially since it looks like this type of cheating has been going on a long time (it wasn't just the Colts game). And this is after all the team that is always skating that fine line between legal and not legal activities for 20 years. Brady was intimately involved here and is going to take the fall for the whole organization.
Calm down there John Birch.
He'll get a slap on the wrist.
-
I'm guessing 8 games, but wouldn't be surprised with 4 or 6. I think more than 8 or less than 4 are very unlikely to happen.
You really think the NFL is going to basically torpedo the Pats' season?
That would be a pretty major punishment. Totally undermine the Pats' chance at defending their title. Probably prevent one of the biggest and most successful teams in the league from getting back to the playoffs.
Sure, the Pats would still have Brady for half the season, and they're a talented team. But I think the division is strong enough that starting Jimmy G for 8 games would sink the Pats. The Bills won 9 games last year and missed the playoffs.
I think they are are going to send a strong message, especially since it looks like this type of cheating has been going on a long time (it wasn't just the Colts game). And this is after all the team that is always skating that fine line between legal and not legal activities for 20 years. Brady was intimately involved here and is going to take the fall for the whole organization.
Calm down there John Birch.
He'll get a slap on the wrist.
That's what I initially thought, but do you realize what kind of an uproar a slap on the wrist would cause? Not only will Brady be continued to be called a cheater, but the entire football community will claim that the Patriots have Goodell in their back pocket. With all of the negative stories that happened this past season, not giving Brady AT LEAST a one game suspension will look pretty bad on the part of the league front office. People really need to start preparing for Brady to be gone at least one game, maybe even as many as 3. Now if we start getting into 8+ game suspension territory, THEN I think we're getting a little overboard. Greg Hardy got 10 games and the last thing the league wants is for people to make the argument that what Brady did is just as bad as what Greg Hardy did
-
Jarringly graphic video evidence of an actual crime = 2 game suspension
"More probable than not" that a guy played some role in skirting a rule that the league has historically placed very little emphasis on actually enforcing = 8 games
That would be insane.
-
I'd be shocked if the NFL chooses to suspend Brady over a report which has exactly zero hard evidence that he was directly instructing anyone to alter game balls so that they're not conforming to specifications. Not to mention that the "evidence" of the magnitude to which said balls were underinflated is based on a bunch of numbers a ref produced off the top of his head.
I don't think this can stand at all.
-
Jarringly graphic video evidence of an actual crime = 2 game suspension
"More probable than not" that a guy played some role in skirting a rule that the league has historically placed very little emphasis on actually enforcing = 8 games
That would be insane.
Yeah, it doesn't make sense at all.
-
Jarringly graphic video evidence of an actual crime = 2 game suspension
"More probable than not" that a guy played some role in skirting a rule that the league has historically placed very little emphasis on actually enforcing = 8 games
That would be insane.
This. For all we know, the extent of Brady's involvement could have been that one night he yelled at Jastremski that he "never wants to play with a bleep-ing watermelon inflated to 16 PSI ever again".
-
NFL can do whatever it wants, I think it was unwise for him to taunt them or dare them. I bet they call his bluff and give him a few games off. But the league, does not need due process to hammer a guy.
-
I'm guessing 8 games, but wouldn't be surprised with 4 or 6. I think more than 8 or less than 4 are very unlikely to happen.
You really think the NFL is going to basically torpedo the Pats' season?
That would be a pretty major punishment. Totally undermine the Pats' chance at defending their title. Probably prevent one of the biggest and most successful teams in the league from getting back to the playoffs.
Sure, the Pats would still have Brady for half the season, and they're a talented team. But I think the division is strong enough that starting Jimmy G for 8 games would sink the Pats. The Bills won 9 games last year and missed the playoffs.
I think they are are going to send a strong message, especially since it looks like this type of cheating has been going on a long time (it wasn't just the Colts game). And this is after all the team that is always skating that fine line between legal and not legal activities for 20 years. Brady was intimately involved here and is going to take the fall for the whole organization.
Calm down there John Birch.
He'll get a slap on the wrist.
That's what I initially thought, but do you realize what kind of an uproar a slap on the wrist would cause? Not only will Brady be continued to be called a cheater, but the entire football community will claim that the Patriots have Goodell in their back pocket. With all of the negative stories that happened this past season, not giving Brady AT LEAST a one game suspension will look pretty bad on the part of the league front office. People really need to start preparing for Brady to be gone at least one game, maybe even as many as 3. Now if we start getting into 8+ game suspension territory, THEN I think we're getting a little overboard. Greg Hardy got 10 games and the last thing the league wants is for people to make the argument that what Brady did is just as bad as what Greg Hardy did
No. the NFL (sometimes correctly) assumes that it's fans are stupid and don't care about anything that doesn't happen on the field. They give exactly no craps about what the fans thinks about the integrity of the game, because they know that the fans won't stop watching. This is happening in May -- they'll fine him some arbitrary amount and then nudge ESPN to ramp up the 'ITS ALMOST PRESEASON' stories and no one will say anything about it again.
-
NFL can do whatever it wants, I think it was unwise for him to taunt them or dare them. I bet they call his bluff and give him a few games off. But the league, does not need due process to hammer a guy.
He doesn't have to do anything. The NFLPA will handle a lot of that stuff -- I don't see them being too hot about a player being thrown out over a vague report that failed to conclusively establish not only how he was involved, but also what the extent of the actual transgression was.
-
Jarringly graphic video evidence of an actual crime = 2 game suspension
"More probable than not" that a guy played some role in skirting a rule that the league has historically placed very little emphasis on actually enforcing = 8 games
That would be insane.
This. For all we know, the extent of Brady's involvement could have been that one night he yelled at Jastremski that he "never wants to play with a bleep-ing watermelon inflated to 16 PSI ever again".
Yup. And even if he did ask for the balls to be deflated, let's not forget the magnitude of the "crime." He isn't exactly Ray Rice. Making a "statement" would be the equivalent of someone making a big deal about a parking ticket.
Mike
-
No. the NFL (sometimes correctly) assumes that it's fans are stupid and don't care about anything that doesn't happen on the field. They give exactly no craps about what the fans thinks about the integrity of the game, because they know that the fans won't stop watching. This is happening in May -- they'll fine him some arbitrary amount and then nudge ESPN to ramp up the 'ITS ALMOST PRESEASON' stories and no one will say anything about it again.
There's also the consideration that the NFL will look monumentally stupid if they (allegedly) spent $5 million on a report in order to fine a player $100,000 and force a franchise to dismiss two low-level employees.
But then again, they already made their bed when they ordered an investigation of this magnitude over something that carries a minimal fine of $25,000 as per their own rulebook.
-
He doesn't have to do anything. The NFLPA will handle a lot of that stuff
I think he should have just kept quiet or denied it. The agent and him, almost threw down the gauntlet to the NFL, we will see how it goes.
McNally: Tom sucks...im going make that next ball a $%&#@@ balloon
Jastremski: Talked to him last night. He actually brought you up and said you must have a lot of stress trying to get them done...
Jastremski: I told him it was. He was right though...
Jastremski: I checked some of the balls this morn... The refs %#@$ed us...a few of then were at almost 16
Warning original link with profane language.
https://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/2015/05/06/read-the-texts-that-suggest-tom-brady-knew-about-deflategate/RvOL44sKCsjUnG6IlSrLGJ/story.html
https://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/2015/05/06/mean-texts-what-patriots-employees-said-about-tom-brady/5TAehtMZo1zKRLuK51UtjI/story.html
They have their phones, do they even need Brady's with text like this stuff.
The NFL does not have a judicial system. They have a commissioner. Personally, I think every player does what he can to get an edge. I think this whole thing was blown out of control. But I absolutely think he might get suspended for a game or two.
-
He doesn't have to do anything. The NFLPA will handle a lot of that stuff
I think he should have just kept quiet or denied it. The agent and him, almost threw down the gauntlet to the NFL, we will see how it goes.
McNally: Tom sucks...im going make that next ball a $%&#@@ balloon
Jastremski: Talked to him last night. He actually brought you up and said you must have a lot of stress trying to get them done...
Jastremski: I told him it was. He was right though...
Jastremski: I checked some of the balls this morn... The refs %#@$ed us...a few of then were at almost 16
Warning original link with profane language.
https://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/2015/05/06/read-the-texts-that-suggest-tom-brady-knew-about-deflategate/RvOL44sKCsjUnG6IlSrLGJ/story.html
https://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/2015/05/06/mean-texts-what-patriots-employees-said-about-tom-brady/5TAehtMZo1zKRLuK51UtjI/story.html
They have their phones, do they even need Brady's with text like this stuff.
The NFL does not have a judicial system. They have a commissioner. Personally, I think every player does what he can to get an edge. I think this whole thing was blown out of control. But I absolutely think he might get suspended for a game or two.
So because Jastremski said Brady may have said something that makes it "more probable than not" that Brady was involved? I could have made a guess that Brady is generally involved in what goes on with his footballs, but I thought the goal of the report was to provide proof of tampering.
Otherwise, we could argue the league should be disciplining Aaron Rodgers for supplying nonconforming balls to officials. *shrug*
Not to mention that the league is brazenly trying to play both sides of the coin: on one hand, it brushes aside the fact that an NFL employee pretty much stole the kicking ball, which according to Gostkowski was the best-prepared K ball in the game -- by saying that using the K2 ball obviously didn't affect game performance. Yet, Wells curiously fails to apply the same standard when it was eye-pokingly evident that the level of inflation of the game balls didn't have any effect on the Pats performance that game.
The standard of fact evaluation used by Ted Wells seems somewhat inconsistent there.
-
Jeff Howe just tweeted that a ruling might come as early as this afternoon. The ol' Friday 5pm EST news dump? The NFL would never do that. ::)
Jeff Howe
?@jeffphowe
Source close to the Deflategate investigation believes a disciplinary ruling could be made as early as this afternoon.
-
I'm guessing 8 games, but wouldn't be surprised with 4 or 6. I think more than 8 or less than 4 are very unlikely to happen.
You really think the NFL is going to basically torpedo the Pats' season?
That would be a pretty major punishment. Totally undermine the Pats' chance at defending their title. Probably prevent one of the biggest and most successful teams in the league from getting back to the playoffs.
Sure, the Pats would still have Brady for half the season, and they're a talented team. But I think the division is strong enough that starting Jimmy G for 8 games would sink the Pats. The Bills won 9 games last year and missed the playoffs.
I think they are are going to send a strong message, especially since it looks like this type of cheating has been going on a long time (it wasn't just the Colts game). And this is after all the team that is always skating that fine line between legal and not legal activities for 20 years. Brady was intimately involved here and is going to take the fall for the whole organization.
Calm down there John Birch.
He'll get a slap on the wrist.
That's what I initially thought, but do you realize what kind of an uproar a slap on the wrist would cause? Not only will Brady be continued to be called a cheater, but the entire football community will claim that the Patriots have Goodell in their back pocket. With all of the negative stories that happened this past season, not giving Brady AT LEAST a one game suspension will look pretty bad on the part of the league front office. People really need to start preparing for Brady to be gone at least one game, maybe even as many as 3. Now if we start getting into 8+ game suspension territory, THEN I think we're getting a little overboard. Greg Hardy got 10 games and the last thing the league wants is for people to make the argument that what Brady did is just as bad as what Greg Hardy did
No. the NFL (sometimes correctly) assumes that it's fans are stupid and don't care about anything that doesn't happen on the field. They give exactly no craps about what the fans thinks about the integrity of the game, because they know that the fans won't stop watching. This is happening in May -- they'll fine him some arbitrary amount and then nudge ESPN to ramp up the 'ITS ALMOST PRESEASON' stories and no one will say anything about it again.
With all due respect, I think you're so wrong about this. You have to start thinking about this in a post-Ray Rice era. The NFL is trying to reshape its image after a season of bad story after bad story. There's no way they can handle the backlash of just a fine after the year they had. And you say no one will say anything about it again...once again, wrong. They may not say anything about it in July and August, but once game 1 roles around and the entire nation has eyes on the NFL opener, and they see Tom Brady starting, once again the conversation comes back up, "how could they only fine him? how was he not suspended?"
-
The same way they still talk about Spygate, right? Which has an oh-so-measurable effect on the NFL's bottom line. ::)
The NFL would love it if people are still talking about #DeflateGate on opening day. That means they're not talking about concussions, or Jameis Winston being an (alleged) rapist, or Adrian Peterson beating children, or Darren Sharper not being allowed into the hall of fame because he's an actual rapist. The NFL is salivating over the idea of fans like you arguing about whether or not Brady's Super Bowl wins are tarnished because of an overinflated football, rather than the fact that the sport actively destroys peoples lives.
That is what it means to the league in a post Ray-Rice world. Trust me on this. Not that I blame you for overinflating the importance of things the Patriots do on a Boston sports forum, of course. :)
-
The same way they still talk about Spygate, right? Which has an oh-so-measurable effect on the NFL's bottom line. ::)
The NFL would love it if people are still talking about #DeflateGate on opening day. That means they're not talking about concussions, or Jameis Winston being an (alleged) rapist, or Adrian Peterson beating children, or Darren Sharper not being allowed into the hall of fame because he's an actual rapist. The NFL is salivating over the idea of fans like you arguing about whether or not Brady's Super Bowl wins are tarnished because of an overinflated football, rather than the fact that the sport actively destroys peoples lives.
That is what it means to the league in a post Ray-Rice world. Trust me on this.
We clearly will never see eye to eye on this, and according to Jeff Howe, we might find out as soon as this afternoon who's right. My guess is a suspension for the season opener, with as many as 3 games being on the table. You clearly think he'll only get fined. I guess we'll just have to wait and see who's right.
And you can't make the argument that they would rather have fans talk about cheating over concussions and bad guys in the league...they don't want ANY of it. They want it all to go away. If they only fine him, it won't go away.
-
You actually think the NFL is going to take Tom Brady off the field for as many as three games for this? Do you think LeBron is going to sign with the Celtics this offseason, too?
No really one cares about DeflateGate except for irate Boston fans who think the world is out to get the Patriots.
I would also ask you to consider your logic here, as to which draws more attention to the impropriety: Brady off the field for Game 1 because of a suspension, or Brady on the field having payed a fine?
The answer, for those of you playing at home, is Brady off the field.
-
The same way they still talk about Spygate, right? Which has an oh-so-measurable effect on the NFL's bottom line. ::)
The NFL would love it if people are still talking about #DeflateGate on opening day. That means they're not talking about concussions, or Jameis Winston being an (alleged) rapist, or Adrian Peterson beating children, or Darren Sharper not being allowed into the hall of fame because he's an actual rapist. The NFL is salivating over the idea of fans like you arguing about whether or not Brady's Super Bowl wins are tarnished because of an overinflated football, rather than the fact that the sport actively destroys peoples lives.
That is what it means to the league in a post Ray-Rice world. Trust me on this.
We clearly will never see eye to eye on this, and according to Jeff Howe, we might find out as soon as this afternoon who's right. My guess is a suspension for the season opener, with as many as 3 games being on the table. You clearly think he'll only get fined. I guess we'll just have to wait and see who's right.
And you can't make the argument that they would rather have fans talk about cheating over concussions and bad guys in the league...they don't want ANY of it. They want it all to go away. If they only fine him, it won't go away.
Between one or the other, the NFL definitely would rather have gamesmanship issues be out there than stuff like rapes, concussions, and domestic abuse. A thousand times over.
Judging by how this league office has operated, staying in the news cycle is huge. NFL is basically in the news 12 months of year now. It's May and NFL news is all over mainstream national news. And its something really minor & less serious than issues of rape, concussions, and domestic abuse.
-
You actually think the NFL is going to take Tom Brady off the field for as many as three games for this? Do you think LeBron is going to sign with the Celtics this offseason, too?
No really one cares about DeflateGate except for irate Boston fans who think the world is out to get the Patriots.
I would also ask you to consider your logic here, as to which draws more attention to the impropriety: Brady off the field for Game 1 because of a suspension, or Brady on the field having payed a fine?
The answer, for those of you playing at home, is Brady off the field.
Or national media pundits who salivate at the prospect of taking shots at the organization any chance they get. This has been like Xmas morning for them. And a lot of them have contributed to the ridiculous amount of media exposure on this. It keeps churning & churning.
That isn't happening if this is the Jacksonville Jaguars.
-
Yeah, sorry for being unclear: no one really cares about the outcome of Deflategate except for Boston fans.
For everyone else it's something to shoot the breeze about on a slow week. If you cover the NFL, you're stoked on this because it beats the hell out of talking about Collins to the Cowboys or whatever.
-
Yeah, sorry for being unclear: no one really cares about the outcome of Deflategate except for Boston fans.
For everyone else it's something to shoot the breeze about on a slow week. If you cover the NFL, you're stoked on this because it beats the hell out of talking about Collins to the Cowboys or whatever.
Boy, we clearly are on different planets with this. You really think nobody outside of New England cares about the outcome of this? If he only gets a fine, watch what happens...people outside of New England will certainly care.
And to say this is just something to shoot the breeze about on a slow week in May? We're talking about the star quarterback of arguably the premiere franchise in the most popular league in the country being labeled a cheater by the NFL community. The same guy who has been to more super bowls than any other quarterback ever, 4 rings, 3 super bowl mvps, 2 league mvps, and was now in the same conversation as Joe Montana as being the best at the most important position in the league.
I wouldn't call this "something to shoot the breeze about on a slow week." You're way underselling this.
-
Yeah, sorry for being unclear: no one really cares about the outcome of Deflategate except for Boston fans.
For everyone else it's something to shoot the breeze about on a slow week. If you cover the NFL, you're stoked on this because it beats the hell out of talking about Collins to the Cowboys or whatever.
It was on the front page of cnn.com yesterday for what that is worth and Jim Rome spent most of his morning talking about the outcome and whether he will get suspended (only sports radio that is on when i drive in to work). ESPN just posted that Bovada (which is the biggest sports betting site there is) posted a prop on whether Brady will get suspended and for how many games (you can say over or under 3.5 games). So there really isn't any way you can argue that only boston people care about this in light of those facts.
-
He doesn't have to do anything. The NFLPA will handle a lot of that stuff
I think he should have just kept quiet or denied it. The agent and him, almost threw down the gauntlet to the NFL, we will see how it goes.
McNally: Tom sucks...im going make that next ball a $%&#@@ balloon
Jastremski: Talked to him last night. He actually brought you up and said you must have a lot of stress trying to get them done...
Jastremski: I told him it was. He was right though...
Jastremski: I checked some of the balls this morn... The refs %#@$ed us...a few of then were at almost 16
Warning original link with profane language.
https://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/2015/05/06/read-the-texts-that-suggest-tom-brady-knew-about-deflategate/RvOL44sKCsjUnG6IlSrLGJ/story.html
https://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/2015/05/06/mean-texts-what-patriots-employees-said-about-tom-brady/5TAehtMZo1zKRLuK51UtjI/story.html
They have their phones, do they even need Brady's with text like this stuff.
The NFL does not have a judicial system. They have a commissioner. Personally, I think every player does what he can to get an edge. I think this whole thing was blown out of control. But I absolutely think he might get suspended for a game or two.
So because Jastremski said Brady may have said something that makes it "more probable than not" that Brady was involved? I could have made a guess that Brady is generally involved in what goes on with his footballs, but I thought the goal of the report was to provide proof of tampering.
Otherwise, we could argue the league should be disciplining Aaron Rodgers for supplying nonconforming balls to officials. *shrug*
Not to mention that the league is brazenly trying to play both sides of the coin: on one hand, it brushes aside the fact that an NFL employee pretty much stole the kicking ball, which according to Gostkowski was the best-prepared K ball in the game -- by saying that using the K2 ball obviously didn't affect game performance. Yet, Wells curiously fails to apply the same standard when it was eye-pokingly evident that the level of inflation of the game balls didn't have any effect on the Pats performance that game.
The standard of fact evaluation used by Ted Wells seems somewhat inconsistent there.
Do you think those two ball boys were making it up? They sent those texts knowing this would blow up and they could maybe frame Tom Brady in 8 months time? If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, and quacks like a duck it's a dang duck. I hate the Patriots, but I don't necessarily think this is a big deal, but Brady cheated and the league can't really take that too lightly.
This almost reminds me of Tiger Woods' drop at the Masters a few years ago. Dropped it a yard back because it got him exactly to his yardage he wanted. Something that probably happens more often than not, but because it's Tiger Woods, and because it's technically cheating Augsta had to do something.
-
Yeah, sorry for being unclear: no one really cares about the outcome of Deflategate except for Boston fans.
For everyone else it's something to shoot the breeze about on a slow week. If you cover the NFL, you're stoked on this because it beats the hell out of talking about Collins to the Cowboys or whatever.
Boy, we clearly are on different planets with this. You really think nobody outside of New England cares about the outcome of this? If he only gets a fine, watch what happens...people outside of New England will certainly care.
And to say this is just something to shoot the breeze about on a slow week in May? We're talking about the star quarterback of arguably the premiere franchise in the most popular league in the country being labeled a cheater by the NFL community. The same guy who has been to more super bowls than any other quarterback ever, 4 rings, 3 super bowl mvps, 2 league mvps, and was now in the same conversation as Joe Montana as being the best at the most important position in the league.
I wouldn't call this "something to shoot the breeze about on a slow week." You're way underselling this.
I'm putting it in it's proper context to the NFL and to the people who cover the NFL as someone who's job it is, in part, to cover the NFL. You, on the other hand, are clearly a Patriots fan, and are attaching way too much importance to this.
If this was something that actually mattered, like Steroids, PEDs, or him going full Hernandez on one of the ball inflaters I'd agree with you. As it stands, it's much ado about nothing.
If he only gets a fine the resident Skip Baylesses will have something to get huffy about, which is what they want. No one's invalidating Brady's career over a text message.
What will almost certainly happen is that the NFLPA will argue it regardless of what the outcome actually is, and Brady will wind up missing an insignificant amount of time at most and, ultimately, no one will care. That is what I mean by "the outcome," not about whether Jim Rome is talking about it or not (because who actually cares about Jim Rome beyond morons and mouthbreathers and Mrs. Jim Rome?)
-
Yeah, sorry for being unclear: no one really cares about the outcome of Deflategate except for Boston fans.
For everyone else it's something to shoot the breeze about on a slow week. If you cover the NFL, you're stoked on this because it beats the hell out of talking about Collins to the Cowboys or whatever.
Boy, we clearly are on different planets with this. You really think nobody outside of New England cares about the outcome of this? If he only gets a fine, watch what happens...people outside of New England will certainly care.
And to say this is just something to shoot the breeze about on a slow week in May? We're talking about the star quarterback of arguably the premiere franchise in the most popular league in the country being labeled a cheater by the NFL community. The same guy who has been to more super bowls than any other quarterback ever, 4 rings, 3 super bowl mvps, 2 league mvps, and was now in the same conversation as Joe Montana as being the best at the most important position in the league.
I wouldn't call this "something to shoot the breeze about on a slow week." You're way underselling this.
I'm putting it in it's proper context to the NFL and to the people who cover the NFL as someone who's job it is, in part, to cover the NFL. You, on the other hand, are clearly a Patriots fan, and are attaching way too much importance to this.
If this was something that actually mattered, like Steroids, PEDs, or him going full Hernandez on one of the ball inflaters I'd agree with you. As it stands, it's much ado about nothing.
If he only gets a fine the resident Skip Baylesses will have something to get huffy about, which is what they want. No one's invalidating Brady's career over a text message.
What will almost certainly happen is that the NFLPA will argue it regardless of what the outcome actually is, and Brady will wind up missing an insignificant amount of time at most and, ultimately, no one will care.
I've seen multiple people question Tom Brady's legacy based on the findings of this report. You're way wrong on this saying it's just New England fans that care. Most issues go away anyway. We don't hear much about Peterson anymore, we don't hear much about the Saints 'targeting' issue anymore. Problems will go away, and this will too, but to say only New Englanders care are out this is totally wrong.
-
I'm guessing 31 team fanbases will be p*ssed if Brady gets only a fine while one fanbase will be livid if he gets suspended. Football fans are definitely keeping an eye on this.
-
You actually think the NFL is going to take Tom Brady off the field for as many as three games for this? Do you think LeBron is going to sign with the Celtics this offseason, too?
No really one cares about DeflateGate except for irate Boston fans who think the world is out to get the Patriots.
I would also ask you to consider your logic here, as to which draws more attention to the impropriety: Brady off the field for Game 1 because of a suspension, or Brady on the field having payed a fine?
The answer, for those of you playing at home, is Brady off the field.
Or national media pundits who salivate at the prospect of taking shots at the organization any chance they get. This has been like Xmas morning for them. And a lot of them have contributed to the ridiculous amount of media exposure on this. It keeps churning & churning.
That isn't happening if this is the Jacksonville Jaguars.
This.
This isn't the first time somebody has tampered with the air pressure of the footballs beyond the legal limit. We've had QBs admit to doing it in the past. But nobody mentions that, because nobody cares about the crime itself.
It's only a story because it's the Patriots. New England is the villain of the NFL - it's a successful franchise and it has been caught cheating in the past. ESPN will gleefully turn into TMZ if it has an opportunity to say the words "Brady" and "cheater" in the same sentence.
This isn't even about deflating balls anymore. It's about Darth Vader doing Darth Vader things, and we know he's guilty because he's Darth Vader. The crime, at this point, is irrelevant.
-
Yeah, sorry for being unclear: no one really cares about the outcome of Deflategate except for Boston fans.
For everyone else it's something to shoot the breeze about on a slow week. If you cover the NFL, you're stoked on this because it beats the hell out of talking about Collins to the Cowboys or whatever.
Boy, we clearly are on different planets with this. You really think nobody outside of New England cares about the outcome of this? If he only gets a fine, watch what happens...people outside of New England will certainly care.
And to say this is just something to shoot the breeze about on a slow week in May? We're talking about the star quarterback of arguably the premiere franchise in the most popular league in the country being labeled a cheater by the NFL community. The same guy who has been to more super bowls than any other quarterback ever, 4 rings, 3 super bowl mvps, 2 league mvps, and was now in the same conversation as Joe Montana as being the best at the most important position in the league.
I wouldn't call this "something to shoot the breeze about on a slow week." You're way underselling this.
I'm putting it in it's proper context to the NFL and to the people who cover the NFL as someone who's job it is, in part, to cover the NFL. You, on the other hand, are clearly a Patriots fan, and are attaching way too much importance to this.
If this was something that actually mattered, like Steroids, PEDs, or him going full Hernandez on one of the ball inflaters I'd agree with you. As it stands, it's much ado about nothing.
If he only gets a fine the resident Skip Baylesses will have something to get huffy about, which is what they want. No one's invalidating Brady's career over a text message.
What will almost certainly happen is that the NFLPA will argue it regardless of what the outcome actually is, and Brady will wind up missing an insignificant amount of time at most and, ultimately, no one will care.
I've seen multiple people question Tom Brady's legacy based on the findings of this report. You're way wrong on this saying it's just New England fans that care. Most issues go away anyway. We don't hear much about Peterson anymore, we don't hear much about the Saints 'targeting' issue anymore. Problems will go away, and this will too, but to say only New Englanders care are out this is totally wrong.
What will almost certainly happen is that the NFLPA will argue it regardless of what the outcome actually is, and Brady will wind up missing an insignificant amount of time at most and, ultimately, no one will care. That is what I mean by "the outcome," not about whether Jim Rome is talking about it or not (because who actually cares about Jim Rome beyond morons and mouthbreathers and Mrs. Jim Rome?)
-
Another interesting question. Will this keep Tom Brady out of the hall of fame? Barry Bonds was never proven to do steroids, but he probably won't get in.
-
Yeah, sorry for being unclear: no one really cares about the outcome of Deflategate except for Boston fans.
For everyone else it's something to shoot the breeze about on a slow week. If you cover the NFL, you're stoked on this because it beats the hell out of talking about Collins to the Cowboys or whatever.
Boy, we clearly are on different planets with this. You really think nobody outside of New England cares about the outcome of this? If he only gets a fine, watch what happens...people outside of New England will certainly care.
And to say this is just something to shoot the breeze about on a slow week in May? We're talking about the star quarterback of arguably the premiere franchise in the most popular league in the country being labeled a cheater by the NFL community. The same guy who has been to more super bowls than any other quarterback ever, 4 rings, 3 super bowl mvps, 2 league mvps, and was now in the same conversation as Joe Montana as being the best at the most important position in the league.
I wouldn't call this "something to shoot the breeze about on a slow week." You're way underselling this.
I'm putting it in it's proper context to the NFL and to the people who cover the NFL as someone who's job it is, in part, to cover the NFL. You, on the other hand, are clearly a Patriots fan, and are attaching way too much importance to this.
If this was something that actually mattered, like Steroids, PEDs, or him going full Hernandez on one of the ball inflaters I'd agree with you. As it stands, it's much ado about nothing.
If he only gets a fine the resident Skip Baylesses will have something to get huffy about, which is what they want. No one's invalidating Brady's career over a text message.
You sure about that?...Cause it sure sounds that way to me, not with everyone, but I hear a growing crowd doing just that.
First of all, stop mentioning PEDs and steroids. In today's world, nobody cares about that stuff anymore. Now the domestic violence stuff, criminal records, yes I agree with you. I also agree with you, when you step back and look at this, we're talking about a little air being taken out of a football. I see that, you see that, others do too, it's ridiculous the story has gotten this big. But the fact is, it DID get this big. When it first happened in January and when the Wells report first came out, it was the lead story on every national news station, it was the headline on CNN, Fox News, BBC. So whether you want to admit it or not, the general public finds this to be a massive story...albeit a different kind of massive story since we're talking about in game cheating, but a massive story nonetheless.
-
Another interesting question. Will this keep Tom Brady out of the hall of fame? Barry Bonds was never proven to do steroids, but he probably won't get in.
No.
-
I'm guessing 31 team fanbases will be p*ssed if Brady gets only a fine while one fanbase will be livid if he gets suspended. Football fans are definitely keeping an eye on this.
Football fans are keeping an eye on this because it's May and the national outlets have to talk about something that isn't draft related.
Like Atzar just said, no one really cares based on the crime. They care because it's a chance to get all hand-wringy and TMZ over the patriots. If you actually think this has any bearing on Brady's status as a player you're way overestimating it.
Another interesting question. Will this keep Tom Brady out of the hall of fame? Barry Bonds was never proven to do steroids, but he probably won't get in.
Absolutely not. This is the sort of equivocation that makes me roll my eyes and weep for humanity.
Yeah, sorry for being unclear: no one really cares about the outcome of Deflategate except for Boston fans.
For everyone else it's something to shoot the breeze about on a slow week. If you cover the NFL, you're stoked on this because it beats the hell out of talking about Collins to the Cowboys or whatever.
Boy, we clearly are on different planets with this. You really think nobody outside of New England cares about the outcome of this? If he only gets a fine, watch what happens...people outside of New England will certainly care.
And to say this is just something to shoot the breeze about on a slow week in May? We're talking about the star quarterback of arguably the premiere franchise in the most popular league in the country being labeled a cheater by the NFL community. The same guy who has been to more super bowls than any other quarterback ever, 4 rings, 3 super bowl mvps, 2 league mvps, and was now in the same conversation as Joe Montana as being the best at the most important position in the league.
I wouldn't call this "something to shoot the breeze about on a slow week." You're way underselling this.
I'm putting it in it's proper context to the NFL and to the people who cover the NFL as someone who's job it is, in part, to cover the NFL. You, on the other hand, are clearly a Patriots fan, and are attaching way too much importance to this.
If this was something that actually mattered, like Steroids, PEDs, or him going full Hernandez on one of the ball inflaters I'd agree with you. As it stands, it's much ado about nothing.
If he only gets a fine the resident Skip Baylesses will have something to get huffy about, which is what they want. No one's invalidating Brady's career over a text message.
You sure about that?...Cause it sure sounds that way to me, not with everyone, but I hear a growing crowd doing just that.
First of all, stop mentioning PEDs and steroids. In today's world, nobody cares about that stuff anymore. Now the domestic violence stuff, criminal records, yes I agree with you. I also agree with you, when you step back and look at this, we're talking about a little air being taken out of a football. I see that, you see that, others do too, it's ridiculous the story has gotten this big. But the fact is, it DID get this big. When it first happened in January and when the Wells report first came out, it was the lead story on every national news station, it was the headline on CNN, Fox News, BBC. So whether you want to admit it or not, the general public finds this to be a massive story...albeit a different kind of massive story since we're talking about in game cheating, but a massive story nonetheless.
The general public finds the slop fed in front of them to be a massive story. This is true for all sorts of journalism, not just sports. It was a headline because people love to talk about it. we're still talking about it because it's an easy hit-generator (you'll notice that I bumped this thread with little more than a quote and a guy making a face).
But please, tell me more about how sports coverage works. I'm very interested to hear your perspective on it.
-
Another interesting question. Will this keep Tom Brady out of the hall of fame? Barry Bonds was never proven to do steroids, but he probably won't get in.
No.
No way. It's more like somebody using pine tar or illegally curving their hockey stick too much.
Some idiot voter down the line will use this to justify voting against Brady (at least on the first ballot), but he'll sail into the Hall.
-
Yeah, sorry for being unclear: no one really cares about the outcome of Deflategate except for Boston fans.
For everyone else it's something to shoot the breeze about on a slow week. If you cover the NFL, you're stoked on this because it beats the hell out of talking about Collins to the Cowboys or whatever.
It was on the front page of cnn.com yesterday for what that is worth and Jim Rome spent most of his morning talking about the outcome and whether he will get suspended (only sports radio that is on when i drive in to work). ESPN just posted that Bovada (which is the biggest sports betting site there is) posted a prop on whether Brady will get suspended and for how many games (you can say over or under 3.5 games). So there really isn't any way you can argue that only boston people care about this in light of those facts.
I am not trying to be a jerk by reposting this, and if nobody honestly cares that is fine and I won't raise it again. However, I dont know how we can debate whether people outside new england care about this with the above mentioned things.
-
then I will requote myself for (what will be) a third time, then:
What will almost certainly happen is that the NFLPA will argue it regardless of what the outcome actually is, and Brady will wind up missing an insignificant amount of time at most and, ultimately, no one will care. That is what I mean by "the outcome," not about whether Jim Rome is talking about it or not (because who actually cares about Jim Rome beyond morons and mouthbreathers and Mrs. Jim Rome?)
Bovada will take bets on anything. that's the whole point of Vegas and/or gambling.
This is a relative nonstory that is getting massive amounts of attention because it's the NFL, in may, and a popular team to boot. It has zero resonance on Brady's career beyond whatever useless drivel will be pumped out on sports radio over the next few hours.
We'll all forget about it when Tebow gets caught with some hookers and blow in an NYC gay bar. Trust me.
-
I live outside of NE people want to see him fry for this, I kind of root for the Pats as my Celtics love bleeds over and pro wise I don't have a decent team in Ohio.
-
The general public finds the slop fed in front of them to be a massive story. This is true for all sorts of journalism, not just sports. It was a headline because people love to talk about it. we're still talking about it because it's an easy hit-generator (you'll notice that I bumped this thread with little more than a quote and a guy making a face).
But please, tell me more about how sports coverage works. I'm very interested to hear your perspective on it.
I don't get your point. Are you saying that this is only a big story because it's the Patriots and it's May?
1) There are many teams that this would be an issue for. Saints, Giants, Cowboys, Seahawks, and maybe a few more. Also, the Pats may be covered more now because they've been caught in a mess like this before.
2) This was a story since it happened, which was right in the middle of the playoffs, it's being rejuvenated now because the report was just finalized. So, naturally, it's going to be talked about now.
-
You remove a reply from its context and then wonder why the point is unclear?
I think I'll just spectate this thread, because it's fairly clear that I'm screaming at a wall.
-
You remove a reply from its context and then wonder why the point is unclear?
I think I'll just spectate this thread, because it's fairly clear that I'm screaming at a wall.
You've said a few times it's only a story because it's May. That point is just inaccurate .
-
Do you think those two ball boys were making it up? They sent those texts knowing this would blow up and they could maybe frame Tom Brady in 8 months time? If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, and quacks like a duck it's a dang duck. I hate the Patriots, but I don't necessarily think this is a big deal, but Brady cheated and the league can't really take that too lightly.
I don't think anyone in the organization was trying to frame Brady. I think there is precious little in this report that establishes
(1) what EXACTLY was done, and
(2) what Brady's involvement was.
What's not being discussed enough is that the Ted Wells has made a fool of himself by ordering "statistical analysis" of a clearly flawed data set which is too small for inference to boot. It's downright comical that they're talking about "statistically significant difference" between sample means where one of the samples consists of 3 or 4 observations.
-
You remove a reply from its context and then wonder why the point is unclear?
I think I'll just spectate this thread, because it's fairly clear that I'm screaming at a wall.
You've said a few times it's only a story because it's May. That point is just inaccurate .
If that's what you're taking from my posts then perhaps you should brush up on your reading comprehension skills, or I should deliver my points more clearly. Since I can't control the former, I'll try to go for the latter:
This story is not a big deal. The coverage it's receiving is, in large part, because of when it's coming up. We saw this the first time the story came up: it was a talking point for the week between the AFC Championship Game and the Super Bowl. Once the Super Bowl coverage started, nobody cared. The difference now is that there's nothing else to talk about until training camp opens.
For shorthand, I used "it's May." to describe this phenomenon. Clearly that was too much of a leap to make for some CBers, and I apologize for my overestimation.
-
This report is like the gift that keeps on giving. Why would McNally refer to himself as "the deflator" in May when Jastremski only offers to "get him his needle" in October? How was he deflating balls in the middle of the offseason anyhow?
-
then I will requote myself for (what will be) a third time, then:
What will almost certainly happen is that the NFLPA will argue it regardless of what the outcome actually is, and Brady will wind up missing an insignificant amount of time at most and, ultimately, no one will care. That is what I mean by "the outcome," not about whether Jim Rome is talking about it or not (because who actually cares about Jim Rome beyond morons and mouthbreathers and Mrs. Jim Rome?)
Bovada will take bets on anything. that's the whole point of Vegas and/or gambling.
This is a relative nonstory that is getting massive amounts of attention because it's the NFL, in may, and a popular team to boot. It has zero resonance on Brady's career beyond whatever useless drivel will be pumped out on sports radio over the next few hours.
We'll all forget about it when Tebow gets caught with some hookers and blow in an NYC gay bar. Trust me.
I missed your earlier comment on it. When the threads get a lot of blocked up quotes from different people it can be a little hard to follow. I apologize for that.
-
It's all good dude.
TBH I'm sure some of my saltiness on having to pay attention to this hashtagged monstrosity when I'm pretty sick of it (if you couldn't tell :P ) is rubbing off on this thread. Sorry all!
-
Andrew Brandt expects a 4 game suspension. http://mmqb.si.com/2015/05/07/wells-report-deflategate-patriots-andrew-brandt/ (http://mmqb.si.com/2015/05/07/wells-report-deflategate-patriots-andrew-brandt/)
-
From the league and team perspective, this strikes at the watchword of the commissioner’s office—integrity—
Because when I think Roger Goodell, I think integrity.
-
Now its sounding like no punishment will be rendered until next week.
-
It's all good dude.
TBH I'm sure some of my saltiness on having to pay attention to this hashtagged monstrosity when I'm pretty sick of it (if you couldn't tell :P ) is rubbing off on this thread. Sorry all!
I am sad how much attention has been paid to the story to. It says a lot about our country when there are murders, terrorists in action all over the world and a new case of ebola and the front page story of our most famous "news" page was about airs in a football...
-
Andrew Brandt expects a 4 game suspension. http://mmqb.si.com/2015/05/07/wells-report-deflategate-patriots-andrew-brandt/ (http://mmqb.si.com/2015/05/07/wells-report-deflategate-patriots-andrew-brandt/)
That's what I'm predicting. At least half of the suspension will be for the failure to cooperate with the investigation.
-
SUSPENDED FOREVER FOR REFUSING TO RESPECT THE GAME.
-
Andrew Brandt expects a 4 game suspension. http://mmqb.si.com/2015/05/07/wells-report-deflategate-patriots-andrew-brandt/ (http://mmqb.si.com/2015/05/07/wells-report-deflategate-patriots-andrew-brandt/)
That's what I'm predicting. At least half of the suspension will be for the failure to cooperate with the investigation.
There's no way this can stand. I'll be surprised if he misses a game.
-
SUSPENDED FOREVER FOR REFUSING TO RESPECT THE GAME.
We must protect the integrity of the shield!
-
Andrew Brandt expects a 4 game suspension. http://mmqb.si.com/2015/05/07/wells-report-deflategate-patriots-andrew-brandt/ (http://mmqb.si.com/2015/05/07/wells-report-deflategate-patriots-andrew-brandt/)
That's what I'm predicting. At least half of the suspension will be for the failure to cooperate with the investigation.
There's no way this can stand. I'll be surprised if he misses a game.
Why can't it stand?
-
Because in six months the league is going to be best served by having Brady on the field.
Now, that said, this MMQB news is disappointing because Peter King and co. are basically open-faced shills for the league, and if Goodell and company think that they have to fine/suspend Brady in order to keep up appearances then it's hard to argue with, since the offense pretty obviously doesn't warrant any sort of suspension (and certainly not twice as long as Ray Rice's initial assault suspension).
-
Andrew Brandt expects a 4 game suspension. http://mmqb.si.com/2015/05/07/wells-report-deflategate-patriots-andrew-brandt/ (http://mmqb.si.com/2015/05/07/wells-report-deflategate-patriots-andrew-brandt/)
That's what I'm predicting. At least half of the suspension will be for the failure to cooperate with the investigation.
There's no way this can stand. I'll be surprised if he misses a game.
Why can't it stand?
Because the punishment is entirely incongruous to the alleged violation, and because the report completely fails to establish that Brady orchestrated anything. Yeah, he gave his staffers signed gear, and talked to them after the accusations were levied. Which part of that would be unusual or incriminating, again?
Any major suspension here would be lip service by the league, and will be inherently unable to stand to NFLPA appeal.
-
Andrew Brandt expects a 4 game suspension. http://mmqb.si.com/2015/05/07/wells-report-deflategate-patriots-andrew-brandt/ (http://mmqb.si.com/2015/05/07/wells-report-deflategate-patriots-andrew-brandt/)
That's what I'm predicting. At least half of the suspension will be for the failure to cooperate with the investigation.
There's no way this can stand. I'll be surprised if he misses a game.
Why can't it stand?
It can not stand!
-
Andrew Brandt expects a 4 game suspension. http://mmqb.si.com/2015/05/07/wells-report-deflategate-patriots-andrew-brandt/ (http://mmqb.si.com/2015/05/07/wells-report-deflategate-patriots-andrew-brandt/)
That's what I'm predicting. At least half of the suspension will be for the failure to cooperate with the investigation.
There's no way this can stand. I'll be surprised if he misses a game.
Why can't it stand?
Because the punishment is entirely incongruous to the alleged violation, and because the report completely fails to establish that Brady orchestrated anything. Yeah, he gave his staffers signed gear, and talked to them after the accusations were levied. Which part of that would be unusual or incriminating, again?
Any major suspension here would be lip service by the league, and will be inherently unable to stand to NFLPA appeal.
Since when has the league cared about incongruity? They suspend guys for 10+ games for stuff that didn't even take place on the field. Here, the finding of rule breaking occurred on the field. It doesn't matter if you like the findings or not; they are what they are, and they seem to have been fairly reached. Plus, there's no doubt that Brady didn't cooperate with the investigation, which is in and of itself a violation of the rules.
-
It gets worse, Oberman wants him suspended for a year. Not that it means anything.
http://www.rantsports.com/videos/?video_id=34589&league=1&utm_campaign=RantSportsFB&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=referral
If that happened and I was Tom Brady, I would retire a champion
-
Andrew Brandt expects a 4 game suspension. http://mmqb.si.com/2015/05/07/wells-report-deflategate-patriots-andrew-brandt/ (http://mmqb.si.com/2015/05/07/wells-report-deflategate-patriots-andrew-brandt/)
That's what I'm predicting. At least half of the suspension will be for the failure to cooperate with the investigation.
There's no way this can stand. I'll be surprised if he misses a game.
Why can't it stand?
Because the punishment is entirely incongruous to the alleged violation, and because the report completely fails to establish that Brady orchestrated anything. Yeah, he gave his staffers signed gear, and talked to them after the accusations were levied. Which part of that would be unusual or incriminating, again?
Any major suspension here would be lip service by the league, and will be inherently unable to stand to NFLPA appeal.
Since when has the league cared about incongruity? They suspend guys for 10+ games for stuff that didn't even take place on the field. Here, the finding of rule breaking occurred on the field. It doesn't matter if you like the findings or not; they are what they are, and they seem to have been fairly reached. Plus, there's no doubt that Brady didn't cooperate with the investigation, which is in and of itself a violation of the rules.
Yeah, I think it will be 8 actually wouldn't be surprised at 4 or 6 though. I can't see more than 8 and would honestly be a bit surprised if it was less than 4. I think they league is going to send a very clear message that rule breaking will not be tolerated. Especially long term rule breaking with intent, especially from a franchise that always treads the line between legal and illegal. Couple that with Brady's failure to cooperate, and I'm going with 8 games.
-
This was the hottest of hot sports takes I saw the other day. Can't say I'm too surprised. If there much doubt why he's not employed by CBS anymore?
shannon sharpe @ShannonSharpe · May 6
Brady must be suspended for minimum of 2-4 gms, Belichick gets 1 yr and tm loses 1st rd draft pick 2016-17. Tm gets fined the max.
-
I think some people here are forgetting that Brady is the face of e NFL, 8 game's is literally bad for business.
-
Since when has the league cared about incongruity? They suspend guys for 10+ games for stuff that didn't even take place on the field. Here, the finding of rule breaking occurred on the field. It doesn't matter if you like the findings or not; they are what they are, and they seem to have been fairly reached. Plus, there's no doubt that Brady didn't cooperate with the investigation, which is in and of itself a violation of the rules.
They don't seem to be fairly reached at all. If they were fairly reached, they'd conclude that even though Patriots balls were below spec at halftime, this didn't seem to have affected game performance. They did exactly this when they investigated the disappearance of the K1 ball. It's within the same report.
As far as how the findings relate to Brady, all you have with respect to his alleged involvement is hearsay. As for cooperating with the investigation and equipment violations, I give you this story from 2012:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-11-07/sports/sns-rt-us-nfl-chargers-finebre8a705v-20121107_1_towels-san-diego-chargers-nfl
-
there are now whispers it could be a lifetime ban without eligibility for the hall of fame.
-
there are now whispers it could be a lifetime ban without eligibility for the hall of fame.
And he's going to be dragged over hot coals while being whipped.
-
, all you have with respect to his alleged involvement is hearsay.
This is not court, you seem to have trouble grasping that this is the NFL with their own rules. There is no due process, they have an internal investigation and the commissioner rules.
Just ask, how Ray Rice, how lawsuit against them went. They have a code of conduct you break it and they can hammer you, not handing over the phone is a violation.
-
, all you have with respect to his alleged involvement is hearsay.
This is not court, you seem to have trouble grasping that this is the NFL with their own rules. There is no due process, they have an internal investigation and the commissioner rules.
Just ask, how Ray Rice, how lawsuit against them went. They have a code of conduct you break it and they can hammer you, not handing over the phone is a violation.
Yeah, the NFL pretty much is at their own liberty when it comes to suspensions & fines it renders. It certainly hasn't let what's occurred in court hinder how they handle issues.
The cooperation thing is what the NFL will ultimately use as its crutch for rendering punishment on Brady. Although, I'm not so sure the punishment will be as severe as some others have suggested.
-
there are now whispers it could be a lifetime ban without eligibility for the hall of fame.
And he's going to be dragged over hot coals while being whipped.
Then tarred, feathered, and quartered on the Boston Common. ::)
-
, all you have with respect to his alleged involvement is hearsay.
This is not court, you seem to have trouble grasping that this is the NFL with their own rules. There is no due process, they have an internal investigation and the commissioner rules.
Just ask, how Ray Rice, how lawsuit against them went. They have a code of conduct you break it and they can hammer you, not handing over the phone is a violation.
Yeah, the NFL pretty much is at their own liberty when it comes to suspensions & fines it renders. It certainly hasn't let what's occurred in court hinder how they handle issues.
The cooperation thing is what the NFL will ultimately use as its crutch for rendering punishment on Brady. Although, I'm not so sure the punishment will be as severe as some others have suggested.
The league can do what they want. The question is how much they'll be able to get by the NFLPA.
-
there are now whispers it could be a lifetime ban without eligibility for the hall of fame.
And he's going to be dragged over hot coals while being whipped.
Then tarred, feathered, and quartered on the Boston Common. ::)
And will henceforth be known as Tom "Cheater McCheatyson Not As Good As Peyton Manning" Brady in all official NFL literature.
-
I'm guessing 8 games, but wouldn't be surprised with 4 or 6. I think more than 8 or less than 4 are very unlikely to happen.
Rothlisburger got 4 to 6 for raping a woman. So for Tom to generally know about 2 other guys probably doing something....yup. 8 games for sure. That's our NFL
-
Andrew Brandt expects a 4 game suspension. http://mmqb.si.com/2015/05/07/wells-report-deflategate-patriots-andrew-brandt/ (http://mmqb.si.com/2015/05/07/wells-report-deflategate-patriots-andrew-brandt/)
That's what I'm predicting. At least half of the suspension will be for the failure to cooperate with the investigation.
There's no way this can stand. I'll be surprised if he misses a game.
Why can't it stand?
Because the punishment is entirely incongruous to the alleged violation, and because the report completely fails to establish that Brady orchestrated anything. Yeah, he gave his staffers signed gear, and talked to them after the accusations were levied. Which part of that would be unusual or incriminating, again?
Any major suspension here would be lip service by the league, and will be inherently unable to stand to NFLPA appeal.
Since when has the league cared about incongruity? They suspend guys for 10+ games for stuff that didn't even take place on the field. Here, the finding of rule breaking occurred on the field. It doesn't matter if you like the findings or not; they are what they are, and they seem to have been fairly reached. Plus, there's no doubt that Brady didn't cooperate with the investigation, which is in and of itself a violation of the rules.
He sat with them for 8 hours I thought. That is definitely a form of cooperation
-
Andrew Brandt expects a 4 game suspension. http://mmqb.si.com/2015/05/07/wells-report-deflategate-patriots-andrew-brandt/ (http://mmqb.si.com/2015/05/07/wells-report-deflategate-patriots-andrew-brandt/)
That's what I'm predicting. At least half of the suspension will be for the failure to cooperate with the investigation.
There's no way this can stand. I'll be surprised if he misses a game.
Why can't it stand?
Because the punishment is entirely incongruous to the alleged violation, and because the report completely fails to establish that Brady orchestrated anything. Yeah, he gave his staffers signed gear, and talked to them after the accusations were levied. Which part of that would be unusual or incriminating, again?
Any major suspension here would be lip service by the league, and will be inherently unable to stand to NFLPA appeal.
Since when has the league cared about incongruity? They suspend guys for 10+ games for stuff that didn't even take place on the field. Here, the finding of rule breaking occurred on the field. It doesn't matter if you like the findings or not; they are what they are, and they seem to have been fairly reached. Plus, there's no doubt that Brady didn't cooperate with the investigation, which is in and of itself a violation of the rules.
He sat with them for 8 hours I thought. That is definitely a form of cooperation
He lied to them and refused to turn over his phone / emails.
I hear the "suspending Brady would harm the image of the game argument". I don't buy it. The league suspended an MVP for a year. Plus, I think Goddell's ego comes into play here: the league spent $5 million on an investigation, and Brady attempted to undercut that investigation. There will be consequences.
-
I don't blame Brady for giving up his cell phone one bit. The problem is that the NFL is gonna nail him for that under the "lack of cooperation" argument.
If the ultimate result of the report is "more probable than not" with no real tangible evidence, I'm just not sure the league would nail the guy to the wall with 4 or 8 game suspensions. Certainly not a season suspension. Also, this is a gamesmanship issue overblown by a media crapstorm heavy built with circumstantial evidence and not a violent act against another human being (or dog).
-
He lied to them and refused to turn over his phone / emails.
He did? I'm curious where you got this, since despite interviewing Brady for 8 hours, the report barely mentions what he said during that time (hashtag SeemsLegit).
-
Andrew Brandt expects a 4 game suspension. http://mmqb.si.com/2015/05/07/wells-report-deflategate-patriots-andrew-brandt/ (http://mmqb.si.com/2015/05/07/wells-report-deflategate-patriots-andrew-brandt/)
That's what I'm predicting. At least half of the suspension will be for the failure to cooperate with the investigation.
There's no way this can stand. I'll be surprised if he misses a game.
Why can't it stand?
Because the punishment is entirely incongruous to the alleged violation, and because the report completely fails to establish that Brady orchestrated anything. Yeah, he gave his staffers signed gear, and talked to them after the accusations were levied. Which part of that would be unusual or incriminating, again?
Any major suspension here would be lip service by the league, and will be inherently unable to stand to NFLPA appeal.
Since when has the league cared about incongruity? They suspend guys for 10+ games for stuff that didn't even take place on the field. Here, the finding of rule breaking occurred on the field. It doesn't matter if you like the findings or not; they are what they are, and they seem to have been fairly reached. Plus, there's no doubt that Brady didn't cooperate with the investigation, which is in and of itself a violation of the rules.
He sat with them for 8 hours I thought. That is definitely a form of cooperation
He lied to them and refused to turn over his phone / emails.
I hear the "suspending Brady would harm the image of the game argument". I don't buy it. The league suspended an MVP for a year. Plus, I think Goddell's ego comes into play here: the league spent $5 million on an investigation, and Brady attempted to undercut that investigation. There will be consequences.
What lie did he tell and where is it written that he is required to hand over his e-mails and texts?
What piece of evidence indicates he knew balls were being tampered with? What piece of evidence even states with any confidence the balls were tampered with at all? I have a tough time getting past this statement by Exponent, “In sum, the data did not provide a basis for us to determine with absolute certainty whether there was or was not tampering as the analysis of such data ultimately is dependent upon assumptions and information that is not certain.” They don't even know if the balls were even tampered with.
They're trying to prosecute people when they don't even know if a crime actually occured. Maybe it's my bias, but I find that bizarre.
-
David Stern must be getting a kick out of how poorly Goodell handled this whole thing.... and everything else.
Mk
-
I'm guessing 8 games, but wouldn't be surprised with 4 or 6. I think more than 8 or less than 4 are very unlikely to happen.
Rothlisburger got 4 to 6 for raping a woman. So for Tom to generally know about 2 other guys probably doing something....yup. 8 games for sure. That's our NFL
Eja, once again you the man. Thanks for putting it all in perspective. Call Brady's law firm and use that as exhibit a in Tom's defense. A plus eja...
-
He lied to them and refused to turn over his phone / emails.
He did? I'm curious where you got this, since despite interviewing Brady for 8 hours, the report barely mentions what he said during that time (hashtag SeemsLegit).
He denied knowing the deflator, which clearly wasn't true.
-
Andrew Brandt expects a 4 game suspension. http://mmqb.si.com/2015/05/07/wells-report-deflategate-patriots-andrew-brandt/ (http://mmqb.si.com/2015/05/07/wells-report-deflategate-patriots-andrew-brandt/)
That's what I'm predicting. At least half of the suspension will be for the failure to cooperate with the investigation.
There's no way this can stand. I'll be surprised if he misses a game.
Why can't it stand?
Because the punishment is entirely incongruous to the alleged violation, and because the report completely fails to establish that Brady orchestrated anything. Yeah, he gave his staffers signed gear, and talked to them after the accusations were levied. Which part of that would be unusual or incriminating, again?
Any major suspension here would be lip service by the league, and will be inherently unable to stand to NFLPA appeal.
Since when has the league cared about incongruity? They suspend guys for 10+ games for stuff that didn't even take place on the field. Here, the finding of rule breaking occurred on the field. It doesn't matter if you like the findings or not; they are what they are, and they seem to have been fairly reached. Plus, there's no doubt that Brady didn't cooperate with the investigation, which is in and of itself a violation of the rules.
He sat with them for 8 hours I thought. That is definitely a form of cooperation
He lied to them and refused to turn over his phone / emails.
I hear the "suspending Brady would harm the image of the game argument". I don't buy it. The league suspended an MVP for a year. Plus, I think Goddell's ego comes into play here: the league spent $5 million on an investigation, and Brady attempted to undercut that investigation. There will be consequences.
the last time the pats cooperated with an investigation, they lost a first-round draft pick. and that was just for shooting film from an illegal position.
goodell let that situation spiral out of control, and the pats took a hammering for a pretty minor offense.
fast-forward eight years, and goodell is on the hot seat, and needs a scapegoat to crucify to cover for his other mistakes.
what incentive is there for the pats to cooperate at all?
the san diego chargers were passing around a towel with stickum on it a couple years ago, and REFUSED TO HAND THE TOWEL OVER. all they got was a fine. and the media barely even covered it.
this is a witch hunt.
-
Andrew Brandt expects a 4 game suspension. http://mmqb.si.com/2015/05/07/wells-report-deflategate-patriots-andrew-brandt/ (http://mmqb.si.com/2015/05/07/wells-report-deflategate-patriots-andrew-brandt/)
That's what I'm predicting. At least half of the suspension will be for the failure to cooperate with the investigation.
There's no way this can stand. I'll be surprised if he misses a game.
Why can't it stand?
Because the punishment is entirely incongruous to the alleged violation, and because the report completely fails to establish that Brady orchestrated anything. Yeah, he gave his staffers signed gear, and talked to them after the accusations were levied. Which part of that would be unusual or incriminating, again?
Any major suspension here would be lip service by the league, and will be inherently unable to stand to NFLPA appeal.
Since when has the league cared about incongruity? They suspend guys for 10+ games for stuff that didn't even take place on the field. Here, the finding of rule breaking occurred on the field. It doesn't matter if you like the findings or not; they are what they are, and they seem to have been fairly reached. Plus, there's no doubt that Brady didn't cooperate with the investigation, which is in and of itself a violation of the rules.
He sat with them for 8 hours I thought. That is definitely a form of cooperation
He lied to them and refused to turn over his phone / emails.
I hear the "suspending Brady would harm the image of the game argument". I don't buy it. The league suspended an MVP for a year. Plus, I think Goddell's ego comes into play here: the league spent $5 million on an investigation, and Brady attempted to undercut that investigation. There will be consequences.
What lie did he tell and where is it written that he is required to hand over his e-mails and texts?
What piece of evidence indicates he knew balls were being tampered with? What piece of evidence even states with any confidence the balls were tampered with at all? I have a tough time getting past this statement by Exponent, “In sum, the data did not provide a basis for us to determine with absolute certainty whether there was or was not tampering as the analysis of such data ultimately is dependent upon assumptions and information that is not certain.” They don't even know if the balls were even tampered with.
They're trying to prosecute people when they don't even know if a crime actually occured. Maybe it's my bias, but I find that bizarre.
You understand that even "beyond reasonable doubt" isn't "100% certainty", right? Under the standard the NFL and players agreed to, guilt was found.
The NFL rule book states that players and teams have to cooperate with investigations.
-
He lied to them and refused to turn over his phone / emails.
He did? I'm curious where you got this, since despite interviewing Brady for 8 hours, the report barely mentions what he said during that time (hashtag SeemsLegit).
He denied knowing the deflator, which clearly wasn't true.
You don't know that's not true. The guy only works home game days, that's 8 days a year as the officials locker room attendant when Brady clearly has other things on his mind.
-
Andrew Brandt expects a 4 game suspension. http://mmqb.si.com/2015/05/07/wells-report-deflategate-patriots-andrew-brandt/ (http://mmqb.si.com/2015/05/07/wells-report-deflategate-patriots-andrew-brandt/)
That's what I'm predicting. At least half of the suspension will be for the failure to cooperate with the investigation.
There's no way this can stand. I'll be surprised if he misses a game.
Why can't it stand?
Because the punishment is entirely incongruous to the alleged violation, and because the report completely fails to establish that Brady orchestrated anything. Yeah, he gave his staffers signed gear, and talked to them after the accusations were levied. Which part of that would be unusual or incriminating, again?
Any major suspension here would be lip service by the league, and will be inherently unable to stand to NFLPA appeal.
Since when has the league cared about incongruity? They suspend guys for 10+ games for stuff that didn't even take place on the field. Here, the finding of rule breaking occurred on the field. It doesn't matter if you like the findings or not; they are what they are, and they seem to have been fairly reached. Plus, there's no doubt that Brady didn't cooperate with the investigation, which is in and of itself a violation of the rules.
He sat with them for 8 hours I thought. That is definitely a form of cooperation
He lied to them and refused to turn over his phone / emails.
I hear the "suspending Brady would harm the image of the game argument". I don't buy it. The league suspended an MVP for a year. Plus, I think Goddell's ego comes into play here: the league spent $5 million on an investigation, and Brady attempted to undercut that investigation. There will be consequences.
I guess I get that he doesn't have a right to plead the 5th without consequences, it's just that if they say he was generally aware of other guys probably breaking rules I guess they have to say since he sat with them for 8 hours and didn't give them all his stuff on demand like they're his father or something that means he sorta most likely probably pretty much didn't cooperate the way he was really supposed to. This is like the teacher that think they've caught a kid in the act of something, but didn't really and they just punish them anyway despite the kid saying he didn't do it. The grade A student by the way. The Honor Society kid. Way to go NFL.
-
Andrew Brandt expects a 4 game suspension. http://mmqb.si.com/2015/05/07/wells-report-deflategate-patriots-andrew-brandt/ (http://mmqb.si.com/2015/05/07/wells-report-deflategate-patriots-andrew-brandt/)
That's what I'm predicting. At least half of the suspension will be for the failure to cooperate with the investigation.
There's no way this can stand. I'll be surprised if he misses a game.
Why can't it stand?
Because the punishment is entirely incongruous to the alleged violation, and because the report completely fails to establish that Brady orchestrated anything. Yeah, he gave his staffers signed gear, and talked to them after the accusations were levied. Which part of that would be unusual or incriminating, again?
Any major suspension here would be lip service by the league, and will be inherently unable to stand to NFLPA appeal.
Since when has the league cared about incongruity? They suspend guys for 10+ games for stuff that didn't even take place on the field. Here, the finding of rule breaking occurred on the field. It doesn't matter if you like the findings or not; they are what they are, and they seem to have been fairly reached. Plus, there's no doubt that Brady didn't cooperate with the investigation, which is in and of itself a violation of the rules.
He sat with them for 8 hours I thought. That is definitely a form of cooperation
He lied to them and refused to turn over his phone / emails.
I hear the "suspending Brady would harm the image of the game argument". I don't buy it. The league suspended an MVP for a year. Plus, I think Goddell's ego comes into play here: the league spent $5 million on an investigation, and Brady attempted to undercut that investigation. There will be consequences.
What lie did he tell and where is it written that he is required to hand over his e-mails and texts?
What piece of evidence indicates he knew balls were being tampered with? What piece of evidence even states with any confidence the balls were tampered with at all? I have a tough time getting past this statement by Exponent, “In sum, the data did not provide a basis for us to determine with absolute certainty whether there was or was not tampering as the analysis of such data ultimately is dependent upon assumptions and information that is not certain.” They don't even know if the balls were even tampered with.
They're trying to prosecute people when they don't even know if a crime actually occured. Maybe it's my bias, but I find that bizarre.
You understand that even "beyond reasonable doubt" isn't "100% certainty", right? Under the standard the NFL and players agreed to, guilt was found.
The NFL rule book states that players and teams have to cooperate with investigations.
It does not state that Brady has to hand over his e-mails and texts. And while the report finds guilt, there are so many flaws that you could write a book about them.
-
About the cell phone, chances are more probable than not that he has naughty slash nude photos of the most famous models of all time, his wife. I would rather upset Roger dodger, than my uber rich ultra hot wife. Who dare disagree.
-
About the cell phone, chances are more probable than not that he has naughty slash nude photos of the most famous models of all time, his wife. I would rather upset Roger dodger, than my uber rich ultra hot wife. Who dare disagree.
If Brady or his wife take their kids to a park, it is all over the tabloids, not even just American tabloids. There's no way he should have given over his texts and e-mails when the NFL was leaking info like a sieve. It's not like he was being investigated for a crime and there is no reliable evidence that the balls were even tampered with at all.
-
He lied to them and refused to turn over his phone / emails.
He did? I'm curious where you got this, since despite interviewing Brady for 8 hours, the report barely mentions what he said during that time (hashtag SeemsLegit).
He denied knowing the deflator, which clearly wasn't true.
Other than what Jastremski says, there is in fact little evidence in the report that he did.
-
He lied to them and refused to turn over his phone / emails.
He did? I'm curious where you got this, since despite interviewing Brady for 8 hours, the report barely mentions what he said during that time (hashtag SeemsLegit).
He denied knowing the deflator, which clearly wasn't true.
Other than what Jastremski says, there is in fact little evidence in the report that he did.
\
Which its very possible Jastremski was lying. Its pretty clear McNally wasn't getting much love from brady which is why he had to keep asking Jastremski for shoes. Jastremski may have just been trying to butter him up
-
Here's the thing, though. The report is done. It's in. Finished.
Unless the investigation is somehow reopened (not gonna happen), the NFL is now going to take their report into their own hands and act accordingly based on their own collective bargaining agreement and whatever other by-laws are used by them.
Goodell & Vincent are going to rule on this thing by their terms. Which is the scary thing. Even if the report is flimsy, it's done. They're going to use it to make their using. Based on prior precedents, some sort of punishment is going to be handed down.
-
Swinging the Ginger Hammer.
The problem, for me, is that Goodell and company use the various hot takes to determine where public opinion lies before determining their verdicts. This sort of wraps into what Donoghus was saying earlier -- this doesn't happen if it's the Jaguars.
For example, there's no way in hell that Olbermann's yearlong ban is enforced, but the league office totally read that story.
-
Which its very possible Jastremski was lying. Its pretty clear McNally wasn't getting much love from brady which is why he had to keep asking Jastremski for shoes. Jastremski may have just been trying to butter him up
The fact is that we don't know what precisely was asked from Jastremski. Everyone seems to be assuming that Brady has asked him to make sure that balls are deflated to below specification after they're approved by the officials, which is an awfully huge leap based on what's out there.
It's certainly a possible scenario, but it's equally possible that Jastremski was just asked to make sure the balls don't "suck" come game time.
-
Here's the thing, though. The report is done. It's in. Finished.
Unless the investigation is somehow reopened (not gonna happen), the NFL is now going to take their report into their own hands and act accordingly based on their own collective bargaining agreement and whatever other by-laws are used by them.
Goodell & Vincent are going to rule on this thing by their terms. Which is the scary thing. Even if the report is flimsy, it's done. They're going to use it to make their using. Based on prior precedents, some sort of punishment is going to be handed down.
Sure, but prior precedents include a $20,000 fine for using a Stickum towel, and a warning for tampering with game balls using heaters. And yet, somehow we're taking about multi-game suspensions and bans. ::) ::) ::)
-
Swinging the Ginger Hammer.
It's really amazing when you compare him to Adam Silver. It's like night & day.
Heck, this guy has made Gary Bettman look good. That's no easy task!
-
Here's the thing, though. The report is done. It's in. Finished.
Unless the investigation is somehow reopened (not gonna happen), the NFL is now going to take their report into their own hands and act accordingly based on their own collective bargaining agreement and whatever other by-laws are used by them.
Goodell & Vincent are going to rule on this thing by their terms. Which is the scary thing. Even if the report is flimsy, it's done. They're going to use it to make their using. Based on prior precedents, some sort of punishment is going to be handed down.
Sure, but prior precedents include a $20,000 fine for using a Stickum towel, and a warning for tampering with game balls using heaters. And yet, somehow we're taking about multi-game suspensions and bans. ::) ::) ::)
True but when has this regime shown any sort of consistency in regards to punishments?
They seem to measure public outcry then act accordingly. It's a joke.
-
Here's the thing, though. The report is done. It's in. Finished.
Unless the investigation is somehow reopened (not gonna happen), the NFL is now going to take their report into their own hands and act accordingly based on their own collective bargaining agreement and whatever other by-laws are used by them.
Goodell & Vincent are going to rule on this thing by their terms. Which is the scary thing. Even if the report is flimsy, it's done. They're going to use it to make their using. Based on prior precedents, some sort of punishment is going to be handed down.
And Brady and the players union can challenge any punishment that is handed down. Based on the comments from Brady's lawyer/agent, if any significant punishment is handed down, this will not be over. It will, however, get much more interesting.
-
Here's the thing, though. The report is done. It's in. Finished.
Unless the investigation is somehow reopened (not gonna happen), the NFL is now going to take their report into their own hands and act accordingly based on their own collective bargaining agreement and whatever other by-laws are used by them.
Goodell & Vincent are going to rule on this thing by their terms. Which is the scary thing. Even if the report is flimsy, it's done. They're going to use it to make their using. Based on prior precedents, some sort of punishment is going to be handed down.
And Brady and the players union can challenge any punishment that is handed down. Based on the comments from Brady's lawyer/agent, if any significant punishment is handed down, this will not be over. It will, however, get much more interesting.
The NFLPA is pretty weak in regards to appealing punishments. Or at least, they have been, historically.
-
Which its very possible Jastremski was lying. Its pretty clear McNally wasn't getting much love from brady which is why he had to keep asking Jastremski for shoes. Jastremski may have just been trying to butter him up
The fact is that we don't know what precisely was asked from Jastremski. Everyone seems to be assuming that Brady has asked him to make sure that balls are deflated to below specification after they're approved by the officials, which is an awfully huge leap based on what's out there.
It's certainly a possible scenario, but it's equally possible that Jastremski was just asked to make sure the balls don't "suck" come game time.
If you read that full conversation, Brady was upset about some of the balls being over inflated. Jastremski tested them and found some to be 16 psi and specifically told McNally they should have been 13 and to make sure that the officials don't overinflate them. A few days later as part of that extended conversation, Jastremski relayed that Brady wanted them to be 12.5 and that they should print off a page of the rulebook and show it to the refs if they try to inflate them past that. That was the jist of the conversation. The rest was friendly banter from which Wells cherry picked specific texts which he inferred nefarious behavior. The part where Jastremsk specifically stated the balls should have been 13, contradicted any of those inferences, but Wells just glossed over that.
-
Here's the thing, though. The report is done. It's in. Finished.
Unless the investigation is somehow reopened (not gonna happen), the NFL is now going to take their report into their own hands and act accordingly based on their own collective bargaining agreement and whatever other by-laws are used by them.
Goodell & Vincent are going to rule on this thing by their terms. Which is the scary thing. Even if the report is flimsy, it's done. They're going to use it to make their using. Based on prior precedents, some sort of punishment is going to be handed down.
And Brady and the players union can challenge any punishment that is handed down. Based on the comments from Brady's lawyer/agent, if any significant punishment is handed down, this will not be over. It will, however, get much more interesting.
The NFLPA is pretty weak in regards to appealing punishments. Or at least, they have been, historically.
I'm not sure, but you are probably right. This is a unique case though.
-
Totally -- just in general, the NFL just has a pretty ironclad grip on their workers, which is why they have non-guaranteed contracts and the like.
Which is particularly problematic in a situation like this, where it's informally known that every single team does stuff like this: punters paying the ball boys to rough the balls up before games, the infamous Rodgers overinflation/Minny heating the balls up, etc.
-
Here's the thing, though. The report is done. It's in. Finished.
Unless the investigation is somehow reopened (not gonna happen), the NFL is now going to take their report into their own hands and act accordingly based on their own collective bargaining agreement and whatever other by-laws are used by them.
Goodell & Vincent are going to rule on this thing by their terms. Which is the scary thing. Even if the report is flimsy, it's done. They're going to use it to make their using. Based on prior precedents, some sort of punishment is going to be handed down.
Sure, but prior precedents include a $20,000 fine for using a Stickum towel, and a warning for tampering with game balls using heaters. And yet, somehow we're taking about multi-game suspensions and bans. ::) ::) ::)
Exactly. TP. For me, this is what this entire situation boils down to. Several other teams have broken rules equivalent to going 5 mph over the speed limit and were penalized accordingly, but when the Patriots go 5 mph over the speed limit, people start acting like Brady beat up Giselle.
-
Which is particularly problematic in a situation like this, where it's informally known that every single team does stuff like this: punters paying the ball boys to rough the balls up before games, the infamous Rodgers overinflation/Minny heating the balls up, etc.
Sorry, but that in particular is probably not true. Kicking balls arrive factory sealed, and teams have allotted time before the game to beat them up as much as they can. All within standard procedure.
-
About the cell phone, chances are more probable than not that he has naughty slash nude photos of the most famous models of all time, his wife. I would rather upset Roger dodger, than my uber rich ultra hot wife. Who dare disagree.
That's probably why they wanted his phone.
-
Which is particularly problematic in a situation like this, where it's informally known that every single team does stuff like this: punters paying the ball boys to rough the balls up before games, the infamous Rodgers overinflation/Minny heating the balls up, etc.
Sorry, but that in particular is probably not true. Kicking balls arrive factory sealed, and teams have allotted time before the game to beat them up as much as they can. All within standard procedure.
That's sourced information. I could have been lied to, of course.
-
Which is particularly problematic in a situation like this, where it's informally known that every single team does stuff like this: punters paying the ball boys to rough the balls up before games, the infamous Rodgers overinflation/Minny heating the balls up, etc.
Sorry, but that in particular is probably not true. Kicking balls arrive factory sealed, and teams have allotted time before the game to beat them up as much as they can. All within standard procedure.
That's sourced information. I could have been lied to, of course.
The K ball rules are relatively new, I think (coincide with the Brady/Manning game ball rule change). I just don't see how paying a ball boy to rough up the K balls fits into the timeline.
-
Oh, ok, no it doesn't apply directly to this story-- that was an example of the various ways that NFL teams all break/have broken this rule over the years.
Roy brought up pine tar earlier in the thread, and to me that's a great corollary to this, in both severity and commonality.
-
About the cell phone, chances are more probable than not that he has naughty slash nude photos of the most famous models of all time, his wife. I would rather upset Roger dodger, than my uber rich ultra hot wife. Who dare disagree.
That's probably why they wanted his phone.
Similarly, although Tom Brady appeared for a requested interview and answered questions voluntarily, he declined to make available any documents or electronic information (including text messages and emails) that we requested, even though those requests were limited to the subject matter of our investigation (such as messages concerning the preparation of game balls, air pressure of balls, inflation of balls or deflation of balls) and we offered to allow Brady’s counsel to screen and control the production so that it would be limited strictly to responsive materials and would not involve our taking possession of Brady’s telephone or other electronic devices.
-
Oh, ok, no it doesn't apply directly to this story-- that was an example of the various ways that NFL teams all break/have broken this rule over the years.
Roy brought up pine tar earlier in the thread, and to me that's a great corollary to this, in both severity and commonality.
I fully concur that teams probably attempt all sorts of tactics to squeeze an edge. Many of them get away with a finger wag and a minor fine.
-
Oh, ok, no it doesn't apply directly to this story-- that was an example of the various ways that NFL teams all break/have broken this rule over the years.
Roy brought up pine tar earlier in the thread, and to me that's a great corollary to this, in both severity and commonality.
I fully concur that teams probably attempt all sorts of tactics to squeeze an edge. Many of them get away with a finger wag and a minor fine.
I don't get the pine tar thing either. I think the rule states that pine tar can't be used beyond 18 inches from the knob of the bat, but what possible advantage could hitters get from pine tar being used that far down the bat anyway? They don't hold the bat down there. And pine tar coming in contact with the ball is not going to help the hitter hit better. But I digress.
-
About the cell phone, chances are more probable than not that he has naughty slash nude photos of the most famous models of all time, his wife. I would rather upset Roger dodger, than my uber rich ultra hot wife. Who dare disagree.
That's probably why they wanted his phone.
Similarly, although Tom Brady appeared for a requested interview and answered questions voluntarily, he declined to make available any documents or electronic information (including text messages and emails) that we requested, even though those requests were limited to the subject matter of our investigation (such as messages concerning the preparation of game balls, air pressure of balls, inflation of balls or deflation of balls) and we offered to allow Brady’s counsel to screen and control the production so that it would be limited strictly to responsive materials and would not involve our taking possession of Brady’s telephone or other electronic devices.
Do you think that if Brady and his lawyer chose messages concerning the preparation of game balls and air pressure and provided them to Wells and that those messages did not indicate any guilt on his part, that it would have made any difference? We would be in the same position we are now because there is no way Wells could know if they carefully ignored incriminating messages. Personally, I think that is an odd statement for Wells to make. He either had access to all his messages or he didn't.
Politics aside, this is the same criticism people are making of Hillary and her e-mails. It's useless if the accused gets to pick and choose which messages to release.
That is a lose/lose proposition for Brady and I'm sure that Wells is smart enough to understand that. Frankly, I think that is a troublesome statement for an independent party to make as incriminating evidence.
-
About the cell phone, chances are more probable than not that he has naughty slash nude photos of the most famous models of all time, his wife. I would rather upset Roger dodger, than my uber rich ultra hot wife. Who dare disagree.
That's probably why they wanted his phone.
Similarly, although Tom Brady appeared for a requested interview and answered questions voluntarily, he declined to make available any documents or electronic information (including text messages and emails) that we requested, even though those requests were limited to the subject matter of our investigation (such as messages concerning the preparation of game balls, air pressure of balls, inflation of balls or deflation of balls) and we offered to allow Brady’s counsel to screen and control the production so that it would be limited strictly to responsive materials and would not involve our taking possession of Brady’s telephone or other electronic devices.
Do you think that if Brady and his lawyer chose messages concerning the preparation of game balls and air pressure and provided them to Wells and that those messages did not indicate any guilt on his part, that it would have made any difference? We would be in the same position we are now because there is no way Wells could know if they carefully ignored incriminating messages. Personally, I think that is an odd statement for Wells to make. He either had access to all his messages or he didn't.
Politics aside, this is the same criticism people are making of Hillary and her e-mails. It's useless if the accused gets to pick and choose which messages to release.
That is a lose/lose proposition for Brady and I'm sure that Wells is smart enough to understand that. Frankly, I think that is an odd statement for an independent party to make as incriminating evidence.
If Brady had turned over the requested emails, I think that Wells would have taken Brady's attorney at his word, and the report would have been silent about non-compliance. Now, if the turned over materials didn't include the text messages gotten from the two training staff employees, there might have been follow up and repercussions, but if Brady's attorney gave everything, I doubt it would be an issue.
-
About the cell phone, chances are more probable than not that he has naughty slash nude photos of the most famous models of all time, his wife. I would rather upset Roger dodger, than my uber rich ultra hot wife. Who dare disagree.
That's probably why they wanted his phone.
Similarly, although Tom Brady appeared for a requested interview and answered questions voluntarily, he declined to make available any documents or electronic information (including text messages and emails) that we requested, even though those requests were limited to the subject matter of our investigation (such as messages concerning the preparation of game balls, air pressure of balls, inflation of balls or deflation of balls) and we offered to allow Brady’s counsel to screen and control the production so that it would be limited strictly to responsive materials and would not involve our taking possession of Brady’s telephone or other electronic devices.
Do you think that if Brady and his lawyer chose messages concerning the preparation of game balls and air pressure and provided them to Wells and that those messages did not indicate any guilt on his part, that it would have made any difference? We would be in the same position we are now because there is no way Wells could know if they carefully ignored incriminating messages. Personally, I think that is an odd statement for Wells to make. He either had access to all his messages or he didn't.
Politics aside, this is the same criticism people are making of Hillary and her e-mails. It's useless if the accused gets to pick and choose which messages to release.
That is a lose/lose proposition for Brady and I'm sure that Wells is smart enough to understand that. Frankly, I think that is an odd statement for an independent party to make as incriminating evidence.
If Brady had turned over the requested emails, I think that Wells would have taken Brady's attorney at his word, and the report would have been silent about non-compliance. Now, if the turned over materials didn't include the text messages gotten from the two training staff employees, there might have been follow up and repercussions, but if Brady's attorney gave everything, I doubt it would be an issue.
I don't understand. How could Wells know if Brady and his lawyer gave over everything? We don't even know if Brady had any electronic messages on this subject at all prior to Jan 19 and Wells already had those texts received by Jastremski.
-
That is a lose/lose proposition for Brady and I'm sure that Wells is smart enough to understand that. Frankly, I think that is an odd statement for an independent party to make as incriminating evidence.
If you think THAT is an odd statement, you should take a glance at the Jonathan Martin report, where Ted Wells is playing a shrink, football pundit, and legal expert all at the same time. This should quickly address any illusions about his "independence".
If Brady had turned over the requested emails, I think that Wells would have taken Brady's attorney at his word, and the report would have been silent about non-compliance. Now, if the turned over materials didn't include the text messages gotten from the two training staff employees, there might have been follow up and repercussions, but if Brady's attorney gave everything, I doubt it would be an issue.
All communication "limited" to the preparation of game balls. That's awfully broad.
-
That is a lose/lose proposition for Brady and I'm sure that Wells is smart enough to understand that. Frankly, I think that is an odd statement for an independent party to make as incriminating evidence.
If you think THAT is an odd statement, you should take a glance at the Jonathan Martin report, where Ted Wells is playing a shrink, football pundit, and legal expert all at the same time. This should quickly address any illusions about his "independence".
If Brady had turned over the requested emails, I think that Wells would have taken Brady's attorney at his word, and the report would have been silent about non-compliance. Now, if the turned over materials didn't include the text messages gotten from the two training staff employees, there might have been follow up and repercussions, but if Brady's attorney gave everything, I doubt it would be an issue.
All communication "limited" to the preparation of game balls. That's awfully broad.
The thing that bothered me about the Incognito/Martin report is that is I lived in a fraternity house for three years and heard that kind of banter (maybe not quite that bad, but close) on a daily basis between friends. There's a saying that when men socialize, they insult each other, but don't mean it. While women compliment each other, but don't mean it. The reality is, the closer guys are, the crueler and cruder those insults become particularly in a fraternity house or a football locker room.
-
The thing that bothered me about the Incognito/Martin report is that is I lived in a fraternity house for three years and heard that kind of banter (maybe not quite that bad, but close) on a daily basis between friends. There's a saying that when men socialize, they insult each other, but don't mean it. While women compliment each other, but don't mean it. The reality is, the closer guys are, the crueler and cruder those insults become particularly in a fraternity house or a football locker room.
That, and the general tone was clearly out of line. One paragraph he's making football evaluations, the next he's prescribing appropriate workplace procedures or assessing Martin's mental state. Not something I expect in an independent investigation looking to establish fact.
-
The thing that bothered me about the Incognito/Martin report is that is I lived in a fraternity house for three years and heard that kind of banter (maybe not quite that bad, but close) on a daily basis between friends. There's a saying that when men socialize, they insult each other, but don't mean it. While women compliment each other, but don't mean it. The reality is, the closer guys are, the crueler and cruder those insults become particularly in a fraternity house or a football locker room.
That, and the general tone was clearly out of line. One paragraph he's making football evaluations, the next he's prescribing appropriate workplace procedures or assessing Martin's mental state. Not something I expect in an independent investigation looking to establish fact.
Back to the Deflategate case, Wells listened to McNally and Jastremski's explanation about the needle reference which they claim to be a running joke about when Jastremski only provided McNally one needle for both a gauge and an air pump which he provided to the refs making it awkward for them. Wells declared that as more probable than not as not true. How on Earth can he make that determination? It's a perfectly reasonable explanation, but somehow he has the ability to see into the hearts and minds of two men he just met and determine that they are both lying and the truth must be something sinister? Seriously? Are we really expected to believe that is the determination of someone without an agenda?
-
About the cell phone, chances are more probable than not that he has naughty slash nude photos of the most famous models of all time, his wife. I would rather upset Roger dodger, than my uber rich ultra hot wife. Who dare disagree.
That's probably why they wanted his phone.
Similarly, although Tom Brady appeared for a requested interview and answered questions voluntarily, he declined to make available any documents or electronic information (including text messages and emails) that we requested, even though those requests were limited to the subject matter of our investigation (such as messages concerning the preparation of game balls, air pressure of balls, inflation of balls or deflation of balls) and we offered to allow Brady’s counsel to screen and control the production so that it would be limited strictly to responsive materials and would not involve our taking possession of Brady’s telephone or other electronic devices.
I think he would have said "This is incomplete. I need your phone", because either you have a guy's phone or you don't.
-
It sounds to me like Brady's camp felt like the report was going to come out against them one way or another, so it wasn't going to help them any by handing over e-mails and text messages, etc. Why take on the headache with little to gain and much to lose?
-
It sounds to me like Brady's camp felt like the report was going to come out against them one way or another, so it wasn't going to help them any by handing over e-mails and text messages, etc. Why take on the headache with little to gain and much to lose?
Well, if he was innocent, there wasn't much to lose, was there? And, by not complying, he was directly breaking NFL rules.
-
It sounds to me like Brady's camp felt like the report was going to come out against them one way or another, so it wasn't going to help them any by handing over e-mails and text messages, etc. Why take on the headache with little to gain and much to lose?
Well, if he was innocent, there wasn't much to lose, was there? And, by not complying, he was directly breaking NFL rules.
Exactly. The fact that he didn't fully comply with the investigation I think is going to hurt him more than the actual act of deflating footballs. Considering they can't get him dead to rights on the actual ball deflation, if the league is going to get a suspension out of this in any way, it will be because he didn't turn over his phone and fully cooperate.
-
It sounds to me like Brady's camp felt like the report was going to come out against them one way or another, so it wasn't going to help them any by handing over e-mails and text messages, etc. Why take on the headache with little to gain and much to lose?
Well, if he was innocent, there wasn't much to lose, was there? And, by not complying, he was directly breaking NFL rules.
On the radio today they made the case that essentially he was trying to prove a negative and that this is essentially possible. He would have had to provide a bunch of texts that would have had to say stuff like "Hey guys. I just want to remind you to make sure the balls are NOT below 12.5 psi for the game tomorrow". Even then Wells would have just been like "A HA! Why would you need to send them reminders for that unless you knew they were planning to do it and had done it in the past. This is the most incriminating evidence yet".
I just don't see the possibility that it could have helped him in any way.
-
It sounds to me like Brady's camp felt like the report was going to come out against them one way or another, so it wasn't going to help them any by handing over e-mails and text messages, etc. Why take on the headache with little to gain and much to lose?
Well, if he was innocent, there wasn't much to lose, was there? And, by not complying, he was directly breaking NFL rules.
Exactly. The fact that he didn't fully comply with the investigation I think is going to hurt him more than the actual act of deflating footballs. Considering they can't get him dead to rights on the actual ball deflation, if the league is going to get a suspension out of this in any way, it will be because he didn't turn over his phone and fully cooperate.
Hasn't the Supreme Court ruled that cops can't even take your phone from you without a warrant? But the NFL is going to be allowed to go through the player's phones? No way. This league is a leak machine. The NFLPA would fight that and win.
-
It sounds to me like Brady's camp felt like the report was going to come out against them one way or another, so it wasn't going to help them any by handing over e-mails and text messages, etc. Why take on the headache with little to gain and much to lose?
Well, if he was innocent, there wasn't much to lose, was there? And, by not complying, he was directly breaking NFL rules.
I don't know. From what I've heard and read, there's a sentiment that in today's day and age, as a celebrity you shouldn't hand over your private texts and e-mails unless you really have to. Even if, as Wells claims, Brady and his attorney could have screened what was and was not handed over, there might have been concerns about Brady's privacy being compromised.
All for what? To be able to say he complied in an investigation that he and his agent believed was a hatchet job from the start?
Also, as I posted earlier in the thread, it rings true to me that Brady would consider his role as a prominent member of the NFLPA in setting a bad precedent handing over personal devices / communications without an official court request.
-
It sounds to me like Brady's camp felt like the report was going to come out against them one way or another, so it wasn't going to help them any by handing over e-mails and text messages, etc. Why take on the headache with little to gain and much to lose?
Well, if he was innocent, there wasn't much to lose, was there? And, by not complying, he was directly breaking NFL rules.
Exactly. The fact that he didn't fully comply with the investigation I think is going to hurt him more than the actual act of deflating footballs. Considering they can't get him dead to rights on the actual ball deflation, if the league is going to get a suspension out of this in any way, it will be because he didn't turn over his phone and fully cooperate.
Hasn't the Supreme Court ruled that cops can't even take your phone from you without a warrant? But the NFL is going to be allowed to go through the player's phones? No way. This league is a leak machine. The NFLPA would fight that and win.
Collectively bargained contract rights are treated vastly differently than constitutional rights in criminal settings. By not complying with the investigation, Brady violated the personal conduct policy of his employer. Legally, there's no way he gets around that.
-
It sounds to me like Brady's camp felt like the report was going to come out against them one way or another, so it wasn't going to help them any by handing over e-mails and text messages, etc. Why take on the headache with little to gain and much to lose?
Well, if he was innocent, there wasn't much to lose, was there? And, by not complying, he was directly breaking NFL rules.
Exactly. The fact that he didn't fully comply with the investigation I think is going to hurt him more than the actual act of deflating footballs. Considering they can't get him dead to rights on the actual ball deflation, if the league is going to get a suspension out of this in any way, it will be because he didn't turn over his phone and fully cooperate.
Hasn't the Supreme Court ruled that cops can't even take your phone from you without a warrant? But the NFL is going to be allowed to go through the player's phones? No way. This league is a leak machine. The NFLPA would fight that and win.
This isn't the law. The NFL is a privately owned company so they can handle their business any way they want. And their rulebook states that any type of non-compliance to assist in any kind of investigation is in direct violation of their rules. So if they want to search your phone and you opt not to give it to them, that, by the letter of the NFL law, punishable.
-
It sounds to me like Brady's camp felt like the report was going to come out against them one way or another, so it wasn't going to help them any by handing over e-mails and text messages, etc. Why take on the headache with little to gain and much to lose?
Well, if he was innocent, there wasn't much to lose, was there? And, by not complying, he was directly breaking NFL rules.
Exactly. The fact that he didn't fully comply with the investigation I think is going to hurt him more than the actual act of deflating footballs. Considering they can't get him dead to rights on the actual ball deflation, if the league is going to get a suspension out of this in any way, it will be because he didn't turn over his phone and fully cooperate.
Hasn't the Supreme Court ruled that cops can't even take your phone from you without a warrant? But the NFL is going to be allowed to go through the player's phones? No way. This league is a leak machine. The NFLPA would fight that and win.
This isn't the law. The NFL is a privately owned company so they can handle their business any way they want. And their rulebook states that any type of non-compliance to assist in any kind of investigation is in direct violation of their rules. So if they want to search your phone and you opt not to give it to them, that, by the letter of the NFL law, punishable.
I am well aware that this isn't the law. It is beyond obvious Tom hasn't gotten anything even remotely resembling a fair trial. I get that the NFL has attempted to keep all the control, but I am glad Tom stood up for himself and said "Hell no you don't get my phone".
Is Tom Brady the first player ever to be told to hand his phone over? Other than I assume the Browns who had that texting thing?
Anyway if the NFL is going to suspend Brady for not handing over his phone, then let's see it. Let's see how that goes. Sorry everyone. You don't get to see Brady play because he didn't hand over his phone and we sorta think he probably knew someone was most likely cheating on his behalf.
This league is a joke and Goodell passed Bud Selig for worst commissioner of all time a while ago.
-
It sounds to me like Brady's camp felt like the report was going to come out against them one way or another, so it wasn't going to help them any by handing over e-mails and text messages, etc. Why take on the headache with little to gain and much to lose?
Well, if he was innocent, there wasn't much to lose, was there? And, by not complying, he was directly breaking NFL rules.
Exactly. The fact that he didn't fully comply with the investigation I think is going to hurt him more than the actual act of deflating footballs. Considering they can't get him dead to rights on the actual ball deflation, if the league is going to get a suspension out of this in any way, it will be because he didn't turn over his phone and fully cooperate.
Hasn't the Supreme Court ruled that cops can't even take your phone from you without a warrant? But the NFL is going to be allowed to go through the player's phones? No way. This league is a leak machine. The NFLPA would fight that and win.
This isn't the law. The NFL is a privately owned company so they can handle their business any way they want. And their rulebook states that any type of non-compliance to assist in any kind of investigation is in direct violation of their rules. So if they want to search your phone and you opt not to give it to them, that, by the letter of the NFL law, punishable.
I am well aware that this isn't the law. It is beyond obvious Tom hasn't gotten anything even remotely resembling a fair trial. I get that the NFL has attempted to keep all the control, but I am glad Tom stood up for himself and said "Hell no you don't get my phone".
Is Tom Brady the first player ever to be told to hand his phone over? Other than I assume the Browns who had that texting thing?
Anyway if the NFL is going to suspend Brady for not handing over his phone, then let's see it. Let's see how that goes. Sorry everyone. You don't get to see Brady play because he didn't hand over his phone and we sorta think he probably knew someone was most likely cheating on his behalf.
This league is a joke and Goodell passed Bud Selig for worst commissioner of all time a while ago.
There actually is precedent with the San Diego Chargers in 2012. They were found to be putting a sticky substance on their game towels and then rubbing footballs with the towels. The ref caught them, and asked them turn the towel in, but instead the Chargers refused and initially tried to hide the towels. No suspensions were given and the Chargers were fined only $20,000.
So while it's technically two different situations, and it happened during a time where the league office wasn't as under the microscope that it's under now, it'll be interesting the path they choose
-
It sounds to me like Brady's camp felt like the report was going to come out against them one way or another, so it wasn't going to help them any by handing over e-mails and text messages, etc. Why take on the headache with little to gain and much to lose?
Well, if he was innocent, there wasn't much to lose, was there? And, by not complying, he was directly breaking NFL rules.
Exactly. The fact that he didn't fully comply with the investigation I think is going to hurt him more than the actual act of deflating footballs. Considering they can't get him dead to rights on the actual ball deflation, if the league is going to get a suspension out of this in any way, it will be because he didn't turn over his phone and fully cooperate.
Hasn't the Supreme Court ruled that cops can't even take your phone from you without a warrant? But the NFL is going to be allowed to go through the player's phones? No way. This league is a leak machine. The NFLPA would fight that and win.
This isn't the law. The NFL is a privately owned company so they can handle their business any way they want. And their rulebook states that any type of non-compliance to assist in any kind of investigation is in direct violation of their rules. So if they want to search your phone and you opt not to give it to them, that, by the letter of the NFL law, punishable.
I am well aware that this isn't the law. It is beyond obvious Tom hasn't gotten anything even remotely resembling a fair trial. I get that the NFL has attempted to keep all the control, but I am glad Tom stood up for himself and said "Hell no you don't get my phone".
Is Tom Brady the first player ever to be told to hand his phone over? Other than I assume the Browns who had that texting thing?
Anyway if the NFL is going to suspend Brady for not handing over his phone, then let's see it. Let's see how that goes. Sorry everyone. You don't get to see Brady play because he didn't hand over his phone and we sorta think he probably knew someone was most likely cheating on his behalf.
This league is a joke and Goodell passed Bud Selig for worst commissioner of all time a while ago.
There actually is precedent with the San Diego Chargers in 2012. They were found to be putting a sticky substance on a towel and then rubbing that towel with a football. The ref caught them, and asked them turn the towel in, but instead the Chargers refused and initially tried to hide the towel. No suspensions were given and the Chargers were fined only $20,000.
So while it's technically two different situations, it'll be interesting to see how consistent the league is with former rulings like this.
The reason the rulings will be different is that nobody cares when a worthless team like the Chargers cheat. Nobody cares when anybody cheats at something fairly immaterial unless it's the Patriots. You will see. First it was Spygate where the Pats were following the rule as written, while other teams were doing it. Now they're getting this because they probably kinda sorta maybe did it, while other teams are being caught on live national tv and other players are openly admitting to it.
Boston sports get fudged on frequently because Boston sports are tremendously superior to the sports of other cities. This is the only place they can win against Boston...the court of public envy. I would call it the court of public opinion but it's not opinion.
This is why I look down on the sports scene of so many other cities. Tell em again how terrible the Patriots a...OH THEY SCORED ANOTHER TOUCHDOWN!
I'm hearing people say Brady shouldn't be allowed in the Hall of Fame, but I have said for years if he wants to be around the best that ever played all he has to do is call over his old teammates for a ring cleaning party. The rest of the league is pathetic and will be for a while.
I predict it will get more pathetic too. This won't stop. They will find whatever stupid thing you have never heard of to try to beat the Patriots the only way they can. Their cleats were too sharp. Their pads were made of a substance that was too hard. Boo hoo.
They don't even need proof anymore.
They have changed the rules on the Pats like 3 times. If you're the Ravens you don't try to figure out what the Pats do and counter it. You go to the rules committee to change the rule because it's the only place you can beat the Pats.
Honestly I'm starting to like it. Makes winning a lot more satisfying.
-
I think he belongs in the HOF and I think Pete Rose does as well but what they did was night and day and nothing has been proved on Brady though I think the NFL will still come after him.
-
Tom Brady was found guilty of being "generally aware of the inappropriate activities ... involving the release of air from Patriots game balls,"
That means that he was not found guilty of being "specifically aware" of the inappropriate activities.
So my conclusion is that Brady probably said something like this to his subordinates McNally and Jastremski: "Listen guys, you know exactly how I like my footcbals...GET THEM THE WAY I LIKE THEM".
This is different from huddling them up and saying, "Listen guys, here's the plan -- see that bathroom over there? After the refs OK the footballs, I want you to...."
I am guiessing that the actual PSI was never disussed by Brady, but that the implication was that he liked the balls on the low side of the legal range and that it was McNally and Jastremski's job to get it there. I am certain that they took Brady's instructions to mean -- "find a way" or "no matter what, get it done".
In my opinin this DOES implicate Brady as compicit in the deflation of the footballs, since McNally/Jastremski were following the spirit of his directive. It does not make him guilty of INSTRUCTIONG his guys to deflate AFTER the refs approval or instructing them to deflate below the legal limit -- but makes him generally complicit in the conspiracy.
Since Brady can plausibly claim that he never instructed the guys to deflate UNDER the legal limit, and he can plausibly claim that he never instructed them to covertly deflate after refs approval, I think his role is slightly mitigated. Thus, he is "generally aware" of the inappropriate activities -- but not specifically aware of the extent to which the guys went to in order please their very powerful boss.
As a person who used his power to play a key role in the process ("get the footballs the way I want them"), Brady should be fined. I'll say $100,000.
As the perptrators of the crime, and as adults who are capable of making adult decisions even in the face of a demand of a "boss", McNally and Jastremski should be fired. McNally and Jastremski chose to take the directive too far by releasing air below the legal limits and doing so after the refs approval -- knowingly circumventing the rules.
The Patriots organization conspired, in effect, to circumvent the rules and is responsible for the violation even though there is no evidence that Kraft or Bill had any knowledge of the circumstances. The organization should forfeit their 2016 3rd round draft pick and be fined $500.000.
-
The NFL just needs to be honest and explain the typical NFL standard and the different standards they hold the Patriots to so everyone knows what to shoot for.
-
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/myers-roger-goodell-suspend-tom-brady-deflategate-article-1.2215881
So it's only one report, but according to the New York Times, Brady's definitely being suspended. The league office 100% buys into the Wells Report and will suspend him for both cheating, and failure to fully comply with the investigation Now it's just matter of how many games. Can't say I didn't see this coming.
Now it doesn't mean this story is over by any means. Given the media tour his agent has gone on, you have to assume Brady will appeal. So whatever amount of games we initially hear, there's always the chance that it gets knocked down by a game or two. As Patriots fans, the only thing left to hang on to is that something happens similar to the Jonathan Vilma case in Bountygate, where he was initially suspended for the season, appealed it, won his appeal by the start of the season...but then oddly enough Goodell was able to bypass the appeal somehow (which I'm still confused about) and still suspend him for the year. But then it took former commish Tagliabue to step in and review it and vacate Goodell's ruling (which I also don't understand how he had the authority to do it, but he did)...and Vilma ended up missing 5 games, but only because of injury.
A lot of things need to go right for something similar to this to happen again. But just like the Patriots already are, as fans, I think it's time to get on board and prepare for the worst.
-
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/myers-roger-goodell-suspend-tom-brady-deflategate-article-1.2215881
So it's only one report, but according to the New York Times, Brady's definitely being suspended. The league office 100% buys into the Wells Report and will suspend him for both cheating, and failure to fully comply with the investigation Now it's just matter of how many games. Can't say I didn't see this coming.
First of all, the New York Daily News is not the New York Times... in pretty much the same way in which the Washington Generals are not the Washington Wizards. And second, Goodell already said he's not handing the suspension, so I guess they have to get their sources straight?
-
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/myers-roger-goodell-suspend-tom-brady-deflategate-article-1.2215881
So it's only one report, but according to the New York Times, Brady's definitely being suspended. The league office 100% buys into the Wells Report and will suspend him for both cheating, and failure to fully comply with the investigation Now it's just matter of how many games. Can't say I didn't see this coming.
First of all, the New York Daily News is not the New York Times.. in pretty much the same way in which the Washington Generals are not the Washington Wizards. And second, Goodell already said he's not handing the suspension, so I guess they have to get their sources straight?
Wups, I meant New York Daily News, my bad on that one. As for Goodell not handling the suspension...do you really believe that? I get that he said Troy Vincent will handle it, but I think everyone is in agreement that's just an attempt by Goodell to cover his behind. Because regardless of what the suspension turns out to be, there's going to be a contingent of fans unhappy with it, so Goodell now has the out of "well don't blame me, I wasn't the one who handed it out". But the fact is, the buck always ultimately stops with Goodell in these cases and the praise or blame will always go to him
-
Pats great Bruschi supporting NE :)
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12852559/don-shula-takes-shot-new-england-patriots-says-miami-dolphins-deflate-balls
But Shula taking a shot at you all LOL
DAVIE, Fla. -- Hall of Famer Don Shula, the winningest head coach in NFL history, took a not-so-subtle shot at the New England Patriots and their latest "Deflategate" controversy on Saturday.
"Our record in those 50 years was always done with a lot of class, a lot of dignity, a lot of doing it the right way. We didn't deflate any balls."
Hall of Fame coach Don Shula
Serving as a guest of honor at the Miami Dolphins' 50th season celebration, Shula praised how the organization developed its football tradition "the right way," while slighting the rival Patriots.
"Our record in those 50 years was always done with a lot of class, a lot of dignity, a lot of doing it the right way," Shula said during his speech. "We didn't deflate any balls."
Shula was asked after his speech by the local media to elaborate on his Patriots comment.
"I coached for 33 years and I've never once in that 33-year period of time ever even talked or heard anyone talk about the air in the football," Shula said. "So I'm not going to start talking about the air in the football."
Shula declined to comment whether New England's latest cheating scandal tarnishes the Patriots' legacy of four Super Bowl championships in the past 14 years.
This is not the first time Shula has had disparaging remarks about the Patriots. He also was critical of the Patriots in the past during New England's initial "Spygate" controversy.
I'll just dedicate this song to NE:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zof07-6LOyE ;D :)
"Kick em when they up, kick em when they down" LOL
-
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/myers-roger-goodell-suspend-tom-brady-deflategate-article-1.2215881
So it's only one report, but according to the New York Times, Brady's definitely being suspended. The league office 100% buys into the Wells Report and will suspend him for both cheating, and failure to fully comply with the investigation Now it's just matter of how many games. Can't say I didn't see this coming.
First of all, the New York Daily News is not the New York Times... in pretty much the same way in which the Washington Generals are not the Washington Wizards. And second, Goodell already said he's not handing the suspension, so I guess they have to get their sources straight?
ok, at SOME point in my life, i'm going to use that whole washington wizards/washington generals line
And i'll do my best to attribute it to the great kozlodoev
But for now, a TP to you sir
-
The NFL just needs to be honest and explain the typical NFL standard and the different standards they hold the Patriots to so everyone knows what to shoot for.
Some people can't stand greatness
Dead serious
-
The NFL just needs to be honest and explain the typical NFL standard and the different standards they hold the Patriots to so everyone knows what to shoot for.
Some people can't stand greatness
Dead serious
It's funny to see the lengths some people will go to to justify, excuse or dismiss cheating.
-
Does everyone know that the Colts had 4 deflated balls according to the wells report. There were two separate tests of the four balls. One guy had all 4 balls under for the Colts the other guy had one ball under. And they said they only had time to measure four balls. So do you suspend Luck too?
-
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.2212666!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_400/balls1.jpg
-
The NFL just needs to be honest and explain the typical NFL standard and the different standards they hold the Patriots to so everyone knows what to shoot for.
Some people can't stand greatness
Dead serious
It's funny to see the lengths some people will go to to justify, excuse or dismiss cheating.
How about this -- it's a league full of teams that bend the rules, work around the rules, and outright break the rules, all the time.
I am confident that fiddling with the inflation of the footballs was one of many underhanded things that both teams did to try and gain an edge in the AFC Championship game. I am also confident that it had a pretty minor impact on the outcome of the game.
I am confident that behavior like that happens all the time, regardless of which team in the league we're talking about, and that some of the things we don't know about would make #DeflateGate seem laughable by comparison.
So I guess that's why it just seems ridiculous to me to act like this deflating balls thing, on its own, stands as this grave indictment of the Patriots specifically, and tarnishes their accomplishments.
It's a league of cheaters.
www.yourteamcheats.com
That does not mean the Pats shouldn't be punished, by the way. Punish them. Punish Brady. But the punishment should fit the crime, in terms of the impact the crime had on the vaunted "integrity of the game," and in light of the regime of rules enforcement, which is a total joke.
-
http://wp.me/p14QSB-9LLj
Referee Walt Anderson didn’t clearly recall which gauge he used to set the pressure in the Patriots balls at 12.5 PSI before the game. Page 52 of the Wells report reveals that it was Anderson’s “best recollection” that he used before the game the gauge with the logo and the longer, crooked needle. In other words, Anderson recalls using the gauge before the game that, based on the halftime measurements, leads to a finding of no tampering.
-
http://wp.me/p14QSB-9LLj
Referee Walt Anderson didn’t clearly recall which gauge he used to set the pressure in the Patriots balls at 12.5 PSI before the game. Page 52 of the Wells report reveals that it was Anderson’s “best recollection” that he used before the game the gauge with the logo and the longer, crooked needle. In other words, Anderson recalls using the gauge before the game that, based on the halftime measurements, leads to a finding of no tampering.
Even if Anderson was mistaken about which gauge he used, the balls would still only be a few tenths under pressure and that is using a lot of guesses and assumptions as data points with no range given for margin of error. A few tenths is nothing. The refs' gauges aren't even in sync more accurately than that.
The Colts raised this issue because of the earlier game in Indy. McNally was a thousand miles away for that game. The ball intercepted by the Colts was measured by their equipment manager at 11.45 psi which is precisely where it should have been given the temperature.
So why did the NFL open up a 5 million dollar investigation? This was never about balls being one or two psi under inflated as reported.
Now we are left with guesses at pregame and half time locker room temperatures, guessing at which gauges were used, relying on refs hurrying to gauge footballs and trying to estimate exactly what they did and when as just two minutes are crucial to the results, trying to simulate the wetness of balls in that game's conditions and its effects, studying the effects of rubbing footballs, deciphering text messages, analyzing pee breaks, among other nonsense.
In the end we are left with no answers, but with ruined reputations.
-
Okay, Shula. I'm sure there were ZERO players on your teams who did steroids.
-
The NFL just needs to be honest and explain the typical NFL standard and the different standards they hold the Patriots to so everyone knows what to shoot for.
Some people can't stand greatness
Dead serious
It's funny to see the lengths some people will go to to justify, excuse or dismiss cheating.
so where do you draw the line?
Do you think the celts were cheaters for pumping heat through the opponents locker room?
Or for knowing about dead spots on the court?
There's cheating and CHEATING
P.S. Granath can't stand the pats' greatness
-
Adam Schefter reporting discipline expected to come soon, this week at some point..."imminent" is the word he used and that the "vibe" he's gotten from speaking to his sources is that it's a foregone conclusion Brady will be suspended for "some length of time"
Schefter is rarely wrong so you can pretty much take this to the bank. I keep hearing the growing comparison to PEDs...PEDs are considered to be a competitive advantage and a punishment for a first timer is 4 games. What Brady is technically accused of can also be considered a "competitive advantage" so I don't think this argument is that out of this world.
My final prediction is that it will initially be 4 games, but Brady will appeal, and without definitive evidence, the league will shave off a game...so 3 games, then the Pats have the week 4 bye, and then he's back for week 5.
-
I would love to see what happens if this got in the hands of an independent arbitrator.
From PFT: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/11/nflpa-hopes-kraft-pushes-for-neutral-arbitration/
-
Adam Schefter reporting discipline expected to come soon, this week at some point..."imminent" is the word he used and that the "vibe" he's gotten from speaking to his sources is that it's a foregone conclusion Brady will be suspended for "some length of time"
Schefter is rarely wrong so you can pretty much take this to the bank. I keep hearing the growing comparison to PEDs...PEDs are considered to be a competitive advantage and a punishment for a first timer is 4 games. What Brady is technically accused of can also be considered a "competitive advantage" so I don't think this argument is that out of this world.
My final prediction is that it will initially be 4 games, but Brady will appeal, and without definitive evidence, the league will shave off a game...so 3 games, then the Pats have the week 4 bye, and then he's back for week 5.
You trust Schefter after the Dez Bryant Tapes That Weren't? Also, I thought "nobody cared" about PEDs anymore, so we weren't allowed to make that comparison. :P
Anyway, predictions: Brady gets 2 games (not because he should, but because the NFL has effectively backed itself into a corner) and a big fine. The Pats get a big fine. The games get appealed, the fines stand.
-
Adam Schefter reporting discipline expected to come soon, this week at some point..."imminent" is the word he used and that the "vibe" he's gotten from speaking to his sources is that it's a foregone conclusion Brady will be suspended for "some length of time"
Schefter is rarely wrong so you can pretty much take this to the bank. I keep hearing the growing comparison to PEDs...PEDs are considered to be a competitive advantage and a punishment for a first timer is 4 games. What Brady is technically accused of can also be considered a "competitive advantage" so I don't think this argument is that out of this world.
My final prediction is that it will initially be 4 games, but Brady will appeal, and without definitive evidence, the league will shave off a game...so 3 games, then the Pats have the week 4 bye, and then he's back for week 5.
You trust Schefter after the Dez Bryant Tapes That Weren't? Also, I thought "nobody cared" about PEDs anymore, so we weren't allowed to make that comparison. :P
Anyway, predictions: Brady gets 2 games (not because he should, but because the NFL has effectively backed itself into a corner) and a big fine. The Pats get a big fine. The games get appealed, the fines stand.
Fair point about the Dez Bryant tapes, but it's not like every "insider" is 100% right all the time. Schefter is pretty close to it though.
By "nobody cares about PEDs", I meant the fans. Fans will get upset because they get caught and then miss games, but the actual act of PEDs usually brings a shrug and a "so what? 90% of the league is most likely on PEDs anyway"...but fans, for whatever reason, absolutely care about the deflation of footballs.
Good attempt at cornering me though, but you failed.
-
I'm not trying to corner you. Hence the emoji.
-
#Prediction
1. The NFL will rule on Tuesday
2. This is the outcome:
- Brady suspended for 4 games and fined $500K
- The NE Patriots are fined $500K and a 6th round pick
- Bill Belichick $50K, just because
3. Brady and his representatives will declare war on Thursday
4. The resulting details and fallout from the real story will dwarf #DeflateGate, #BullyGate, Ray Rice, #SpyGate, #BountyGate, and #Watergate.
Mk
-
Guess -- Brady suspended 2 games, he appeals and it gets reduced to 1.
Pats & Brady get substantial fines, the ball attendants get suspended for a year, and Pats lose a 4th round draft pick.
On 98.5 just now, they made a solid point (don't say THAT often) ---
If the NFL was running a sting to catch the Pats, what does that say about the crime? You don't run a sting unless you think the crime itself isn't that big a deal, because you're allowing it to happen.
-
I'm just curious...
What happens if we enter a world where Brady gets suspended for half of the season or the entire season and the Pats finish up as one of the worst five teams (Unlikely, I know, but it's my world and y'all are just living in it.)? Do the same people calling for Brady's head also call for the Patriots to lose their first-rounder at that points, since the Pats shouldn't be allowed to "benefit" from TB's transgressions?
FWIW, I think he's likely involved. And I think that precedent would indicate that a fine is appropriate.
Mike
-
Guess -- Brady suspended 2 games, he appeals and it gets reduced to 1.
Pats & Brady get substantial fines, the ball attendants get suspended for a year, and Pats lose a 4th round draft pick.
On 98.5 just now, they made a solid point (don't say THAT often) ---
If the NFL was running a sting to catch the Pats, what does that say about the crime? You don't run a sting unless you think the crime itself isn't that big a deal, because you're allowing it to happen.
I actually think the opposite is true. You don't run a sting unless you think the crime warrants punishment and the only to catch the crime is to allow it to happen.
-
I'm just curious...
What happens if we enter a world where Brady gets suspended for half of the season or the entire season and the Pats finish up as one of the worst five teams (Unlikely, I know, but it's my world and y'all are just living in it.)? Do the same people calling for Brady's head also call for the Patriots to lose their first-rounder at that points, since the Pats shouldn't be allowed to "benefit" from TB's transgressions?
FWIW, I think he's likely involved. And I think that precedent would indicate that a fine is appropriate.
Mike
No, I don't think so. I do think that if the Pats lose a pick, it'll probably be around their fourth-rounder. Something that has some value, but isn't totally crippling. If you're interested in sticking it to the pats fans (or playing the "everyone hates us" card), there's nearly no justification for it that stands up to anything. Its also a bad precedent to set for future impropriety, and the NFL does care about that (a little bit) if only because it's something they can get called out on later.
Say what you will about the merits of Bill Simmons, but he was absolutely right when he said that the NFL front office was waiting to hear back from the court of public opinion before they laid down a punishment. That's why (IMO) whatever suspension does happen will get appealed down.
-
I agree with the notion that's been floated around in the media that Rozelle & Tagliabue would've told the club to knock it off rather than try & run a sting operation and catch them in the act.
The league office could've avoided this whole mess & media crapstorm if it had followed what its predecessors had done. Instead, these guys are the most reactive professional sports organization I've ever seen.
-
Guess -- Brady suspended 2 games, he appeals and it gets reduced to 1.
Pats & Brady get substantial fines, the ball attendants get suspended for a year, and Pats lose a 4th round draft pick.
On 98.5 just now, they made a solid point (don't say THAT often) ---
If the NFL was running a sting to catch the Pats, what does that say about the crime? You don't run a sting unless you think the crime itself isn't that big a deal, because you're allowing it to happen.
I actually think the opposite is true. You don't run a sting unless you think the crime warrants punishment and the only to catch the crime is to allow it to happen.
This really isn't true, though. That's not how it's done in practice.
Sting operations are most commonly done with things like petty drug busts and prostitution. There's the Hollywood version, where you have an inside man in a criminal organization, or a conspiracy to rob a bank or something, but in those situations the idea is usually that you can either prevent the worst crimes from being perpetrated (e.g. murders), or you can recover stolen property.
The NFL was apparently willing to allow the vaunted "integrity of the game" to be compromised in a huge playoff game. So claiming that what they "caught" the Pats doing is so egregious in light of that seems disingenuous.
-
Guess -- Brady suspended 2 games, he appeals and it gets reduced to 1.
Pats & Brady get substantial fines, the ball attendants get suspended for a year, and Pats lose a 4th round draft pick.
On 98.5 just now, they made a solid point (don't say THAT often) ---
If the NFL was running a sting to catch the Pats, what does that say about the crime? You don't run a sting unless you think the crime itself isn't that big a deal, because you're allowing it to happen.
I actually think the opposite is true. You don't run a sting unless you think the crime warrants punishment and the only to catch the crime is to allow it to happen.
This really isn't true, though. That's not how it's done in practice.
Sting operations are most commonly done with things like petty drug busts and prostitution. There's the Hollywood version, where you have an inside man in a criminal organization, or a conspiracy to rob a bank or something, but in those situations the idea is usually that you can either prevent the worst crimes from being perpetrated (e.g. murders), or you can recover stolen property.
The NFL was apparently willing to allow the vaunted "integrity of the game" to be compromised in a huge playoff game. So claiming that what they "caught" the Pats doing is so egregious in light of that seems disingenuous.
Yeah, this is my big issue with the NFL. It's an absolute joke that they would allow something like that to happen in any NFL, nevermind, a conference championship game.
-
4 games
1st round pick in upcoming draft
4th round pick in following draft
$1 million dollars
That's getting appealed.
The 1st round pick in addition to the suspension is a joke.
My guess, it gets appealed down to 2 games and the loss of the 1st round pick gets reduced to a second.
The pick bothers me more than the suspension. This is a bigger loss in terms of draft picks than what the Saints suffered.
-
Wow, that's a MASSIVE punishment...
So either the league has more on this whole situation that they aren't saying, or being caught in a lie is what really cost them
-
That's a new record for the fine.
But, again, we'll have to see what it actually gets appealed down to.
-
What!? link please
-
4 games
1st round pick in upcoming draft
4th round pick in following draft
$1 million dollars
That's getting appealed.
The 1st round pick in addition to the suspension is a joke.
My guess, it gets appealed down to 2 games and the loss of the 1st round pick gets reduced to a second.
The pick bothers me more than the suspension. This is a bigger loss in terms of draft picks than what the Saints suffered.
That's ridiculous. 4th Rounder? Sure. $1 million? Why not. 4 games? Way too much, but we'll live. 1st Rounder? lol NOPE.
Screw the NFL, all they're doing is trying to get back on the public's good side after they royally screwed up the Ray Rice case, and the saddest part is that they're succeeding.
-
Goodell is a joke. This is so far over the top.
-
Wow.
Now the real soap opera starts.....appeals.
-
4 games
1st round pick in upcoming draft
4th round pick in following draft
$1 million dollars
That's getting appealed.
The 1st round pick in addition to the suspension is a joke.
My guess, it gets appealed down to 2 games and the loss of the 1st round pick gets reduced to a second.
The pick bothers me more than the suspension. This is a bigger loss in terms of draft picks than what the Saints suffered.
That's ridiculous. 4th Rounder? Sure. $1 million? Why not. 4 games? Way too much, but we'll live. 1st Rounder? lol NOPE.
Screw the NFL, all they're doing is trying to get back on the public's good side after they royally screwed up the Ray Rice case, and the saddest part is that they're succeeding.
You think they're succeeding? I would posit the opposite.
-
Congrats to the league, because they ensured they'll stay in the news with this story all summer long because the Pats are going to have to appeal this and fight an extended media war over it.
Guess no publicity is bad publicity.
-
Given the hit on the Patriots, I think the 4 games is fine. As I said I was expecting an 8 game suspension for Brady, but I wasn't expecting nearly as harsh a penalty on the team.
I don't think anything gets reduced.
-
4 games
1st round pick in upcoming draft
4th round pick in following draft
$1 million dollars
That's getting appealed.
The 1st round pick in addition to the suspension is a joke.
My guess, it gets appealed down to 2 games and the loss of the 1st round pick gets reduced to a second.
The pick bothers me more than the suspension. This is a bigger loss in terms of draft picks than what the Saints suffered.
That's ridiculous. 4th Rounder? Sure. $1 million? Why not. 4 games? Way too much, but we'll live. 1st Rounder? lol NOPE.
Screw the NFL, all they're doing is trying to get back on the public's good side after they royally screwed up the Ray Rice case, and the saddest part is that they're succeeding.
You think they're succeeding? I would posit the opposite.
This just reinforces my idea that this league office is a joke. They are absolutely ALL OVER THE PLACE with these punishments
-
Given the hit on the Patriots, I think the 4 games is fine. As I said I was expecting an 8 game suspension for Brady, but I wasn't expecting nearly as harsh a penalty on the team.
I don't think anything gets reduced.
There's no way an independent arbitrator upholds 4 games given the flimsy nature of the report.
Supposedly Kraft won't appeal the fine / picks, but we'll see if that stands given how draconian the penalty is.
I guess on the flip side of this, Bill often blows his first round picks, which typically end up at the end of the first round. Even with Brady missing a couple of games, that pick should still be in the 20s.
-
4 games
1st round pick in upcoming draft
4th round pick in following draft
$1 million dollars
That's getting appealed.
The 1st round pick in addition to the suspension is a joke.
My guess, it gets appealed down to 2 games and the loss of the 1st round pick gets reduced to a second.
The pick bothers me more than the suspension. This is a bigger loss in terms of draft picks than what the Saints suffered.
That's ridiculous. 4th Rounder? Sure. $1 million? Why not. 4 games? Way too much, but we'll live. 1st Rounder? lol NOPE.
Screw the NFL, all they're doing is trying to get back on the public's good side after they royally screwed up the Ray Rice case, and the saddest part is that they're succeeding.
You think they're succeeding? I would posit the opposite.
This just reinforces my idea that this league office is a joke. They are absolutely ALL OVER THE PLACE with these punishments
I'm of the belief that off the field issues that have no effect on the game should be punished far less harshly then things that actually effect the game. In fact, I wouldn't suspend any player for arrests, but that is just me.
-
Just heard that I guess Troy Vincent sent a letter to Brady explaining that the majority of his 4 game suspension is because he didn't fully cooperate with the investigation, not because of the actual infraction
-
4 games
1st round pick in upcoming draft
4th round pick in following draft
$1 million dollars
That's getting appealed.
The 1st round pick in addition to the suspension is a joke.
My guess, it gets appealed down to 2 games and the loss of the 1st round pick gets reduced to a second.
The pick bothers me more than the suspension. This is a bigger loss in terms of draft picks than what the Saints suffered.
That's ridiculous. 4th Rounder? Sure. $1 million? Why not. 4 games? Way too much, but we'll live. 1st Rounder? lol NOPE.
Screw the NFL, all they're doing is trying to get back on the public's good side after they royally screwed up the Ray Rice case, and the saddest part is that they're succeeding.
You think they're succeeding? I would posit the opposite.
Given the fact that this fiasco is completely overshadowing the Dez Bryant case, and that people suddenly trust a report that says something *probably* happened despite not believing a report earlier this year that the league office definitely didn't see the Ray Rice tape beforehand, yes
-
Given the hit on the Patriots, I think the 4 games is fine. As I said I was expecting an 8 game suspension for Brady, but I wasn't expecting nearly as harsh a penalty on the team.
I don't think anything gets reduced.
There's no way an independent arbitrator upholds 4 games given the flimsy nature of the report.
Supposedly Kraft won't appeal the fine / picks, but we'll see if that stands given how draconian the penalty is.
I guess on the flip side of this, Bill often blows his first round picks, which typically end up at the end of the first round. Even with Brady missing a couple of games, that pick should still be in the 20s.
from Andrew Brandt
To Brady: "..your failure to cooperate, refusing to produce any relevant electronic evidence despite being offered extraordinary safeguards
The failure to cooperate is the big one that is why I don't think it gets overturned.
-
4 games
1st round pick in upcoming draft
4th round pick in following draft
$1 million dollars
That's getting appealed.
The 1st round pick in addition to the suspension is a joke.
My guess, it gets appealed down to 2 games and the loss of the 1st round pick gets reduced to a second.
The pick bothers me more than the suspension. This is a bigger loss in terms of draft picks than what the Saints suffered.
That's ridiculous. 4th Rounder? Sure. $1 million? Why not. 4 games? Way too much, but we'll live. 1st Rounder? lol NOPE.
Screw the NFL, all they're doing is trying to get back on the public's good side after they royally screwed up the Ray Rice case, and the saddest part is that they're succeeding.
You think they're succeeding? I would posit the opposite.
This just reinforces my idea that this league office is a joke. They are absolutely ALL OVER THE PLACE with these punishments
I'm of the belief that off the field issues that have no effect on the game should be punished far less harshly then things that actually effect the game. In fact, I wouldn't suspend any player for arrests, but that is just me.
Yeah, I know. We saw how you were with Ray Rice.
-
-I think/know most people who aren't fans of the NFL think the league office is a joke anyway. I'm sure it's distressing to them that the fans are starting to feel the same way, but they're going about it in the wrong way (because they're morons).
Moranis: You weren't actually expecting 8 games unless you weren't thinking about the Rice thing. Someone in that iron bunker would say "we can't suspend him for that long, they'll have a field day with us."
I still think This will get appealed down, if only so the other owners don't have to deal with it.
Just heard that I guess Troy Vincent sent a letter to Brady explaining that the majority of his 4 game suspension is because he didn't fully cooperate with the investigation, not because of the actual infraction
Obviously. The crime was never the issue: it was the perceived flaunting of the Ginger Hammer. TP for calling the punishment, though.
@Jim, fair point.
-
4 games
1st round pick in upcoming draft
4th round pick in following draft
$1 million dollars
That's getting appealed.
The 1st round pick in addition to the suspension is a joke.
My guess, it gets appealed down to 2 games and the loss of the 1st round pick gets reduced to a second.
The pick bothers me more than the suspension. This is a bigger loss in terms of draft picks than what the Saints suffered.
That's ridiculous. 4th Rounder? Sure. $1 million? Why not. 4 games? Way too much, but we'll live. 1st Rounder? lol NOPE.
Screw the NFL, all they're doing is trying to get back on the public's good side after they royally screwed up the Ray Rice case, and the saddest part is that they're succeeding.
You think they're succeeding? I would posit the opposite.
This just reinforces my idea that this league office is a joke. They are absolutely ALL OVER THE PLACE with these punishments
I'm of the belief that off the field issues that have no effect on the game should be punished far less harshly then things that actually effect the game. In fact, I wouldn't suspend any player for arrests, but that is just me.
Yeah, I know. We saw how you were with Ray Rice.
I'm that way with all of the off field stuff. Didn't think Peterson should have been suspended or Hardy or any of the guys.
-
All that based on a hunch?
Imagine what would've happened it was based on facts.
-
Given the hit on the Patriots, I think the 4 games is fine. As I said I was expecting an 8 game suspension for Brady, but I wasn't expecting nearly as harsh a penalty on the team.
I don't think anything gets reduced.
There's no way an independent arbitrator upholds 4 games given the flimsy nature of the report.
Supposedly Kraft won't appeal the fine / picks, but we'll see if that stands given how draconian the penalty is.
I guess on the flip side of this, Bill often blows his first round picks, which typically end up at the end of the first round. Even with Brady missing a couple of games, that pick should still be in the 20s.
from Andrew Brandt
To Brady: "..your failure to cooperate, refusing to produce any relevant electronic evidence despite being offered extraordinary safeguards
The failure to cooperate is the big one that is why I don't think it gets overturned.
I think if an arbitrator looks at the context of how the league handles its punishments, dinging Brady 4 games for being uncooperative will seem like exactly what it is ... bullpucky.
-
-I think/know most people who aren't fans of the NFL think the league office is a joke anyway. I'm sure it's distressing to them that the fans are starting to feel the same way, but they're going about it in the wrong way (because they're morons).
Moranis: You weren't actually expecting 8 games unless you weren't thinking about the Rice thing. Someone in that iron bunker would say "we can't suspend him for that long, they'll have a field day with us."
I still think This will get appealed down, if only so the other owners don't have to deal with it.
Just heard that I guess Troy Vincent sent a letter to Brady explaining that the majority of his 4 game suspension is because he didn't fully cooperate with the investigation, not because of the actual infraction
Obviously. The crime was never the issue: it was the perceived flaunting of the Ginger Hammer. TP for calling the punishment, though.
@Jim, fair point.
I was actually expecting 8 games because I thought they were going to have Brady take the fall for the organization. I never expected the loss of a 1st and 4th round pick or a million dollar fine. Given the hit on the organization, 4 games makes sense.
I thought it would be 8 games in large part because it seemed pretty obvious to me that Brady lied and didn't fully cooperate with the league office. You have to cooperate fully. Period.
-
If Brady can't get a game shaved off from an appeal, how ironic that his first game back is at Indy...that just smells of the league trying to take advantage of ratings
-
4 games
1st round pick in upcoming draft
4th round pick in following draft
$1 million dollars
That's getting appealed.
The 1st round pick in addition to the suspension is a joke.
My guess, it gets appealed down to 2 games and the loss of the 1st round pick gets reduced to a second.
The pick bothers me more than the suspension. This is a bigger loss in terms of draft picks than what the Saints suffered.
This is absurd. This whole affair is absurd. A quarter of the season missed AND loss of picks AND a fine, when the baseline penalty for this violation is a $25,000 fine, and other teams have gotten a slap on the wrist for similar violations (Chargers, Vikings, Panthers).
Not to mention that this rule is stupid and shouldn't even exist.
-
The Steelers got less for Rothlisburger raping someone. This league is a joke. I can't wait to watch the Patriots beat everyone they play by 50 points and to see them get back their picks in a Garopalo trade after he ruins teams he plays
-
And I predict Goodell will be gone soon.
-
All that based on a hunch?
Imagine what would've happened it was based on facts.
Imagine what would've happened if they broke a rule that actually mattered.
-
If Brady can't get a game shaved off from an appeal, how ironic that his first game back is at Indy...that just smells of the league trying to take advantage of ratings
This is also a good point.
-
If Brady can't get a game shaved off from an appeal, how ironic that his first game back is at Indy...that just smells of the league trying to take advantage of ratings
Don't put this on the league. He cheated. They cheated. Again.
The league should of suspended him for the entire season and stripped 3 future first round picks. He got off easy.
-
If Brady can't get a game shaved off from an appeal, how ironic that his first game back is at Indy...that just smells of the league trying to take advantage of ratings
Don't put this on the league. He cheated. They cheated. Again.
The league should of suspended him for the entire season and stripped 3 future first round picks. He got off easy.
Then they need to suspend Aaron Rodgers the same way and they need to treat the Chargers the same way and they need to strip Brad Johnson of his Super Bowl ring and they need to treat those two teams caught on national TV doing the exact same thing the exact same way and they need to kick Jerry Rice out of the Hall of Fame and they need to punish the Jets far more severely for tampering. They cheated.
-
If Brady can't get a game shaved off from an appeal, how ironic that his first game back is at Indy...that just smells of the league trying to take advantage of ratings
This is also a good point.
Everything the league does it to take advantage of ratings and general media attention, including this absurd punishment to the defending Super Bowl Champion / one of its best known franchises / one of its most recognizable players.
-
The problem is always in the cover up.
TB doesn't make his relevant texts available and the Pats don't let Wells talk with their equipment guy a second time.
Of course, the cover up comes because they realize the penalty for what would be revealed would be even worse.
So the Jimmy G. era begins!
-
The Pats just got 20 years for a parking violation.
When I first read the penalty (on here), I seriously thought it was a joke.
Unfortunately, I was right about that joke part.
Mike
-
The Steelers got less for Rothlisburger raping someone. This league is a joke. I can't wait to watch the Patriots beat everyone they play by 50 points and to see them get back their picks in a Garopalo trade after he ruins teams he plays
Then again, the Pats didn't get anything for Hernandez murdering multiple people. I'm not really sure how the teams are responsible for their players' criminal behavior.
-
All that based on a hunch?
Imagine what would've happened it was based on facts.
Tough to get facts when the guilty party won't surrender the evidence. Brady hasn't complied from the beginning.
-
If Brady can't get a game shaved off from an appeal, how ironic that his first game back is at Indy...that just smells of the league trying to take advantage of ratings
Don't put this on the league. He cheated. They cheated. Again.
The league should of suspended him for the entire season and stripped 3 future first round picks. He got off easy.
That would assume that you attach any importance to what happens on the field as opposed to what happens off of it.
I am in the exact opposite camp as Moranis, it seems. This is a slightly deflated football that didn't change the outcome of the game at all.
This is the same stupid member-measuring stuff that the NFL loves to sell -- it's directly related to the National Guard money and the Budweiser and Ford Trucks -- but it's fundamentally an absurd overreaction to a nonevent.
-
The Steelers got less for Rothlisburger raping someone. This league is a joke. I can't wait to watch the Patriots beat everyone they play by 50 points and to see them get back their picks in a Garopalo trade after he ruins teams he plays
Then again, the Pats didn't get anything for Hernandez murdering multiple people. I'm not really sure how the teams are responsible for their players' criminal behavior.
They cut him the second he was arrested. They didn't build him a statue like those freaks in Baltimore did for Ray
-
If Brady can't get a game shaved off from an appeal, how ironic that his first game back is at Indy...that just smells of the league trying to take advantage of ratings
Don't put this on the league. He cheated. They cheated. Again.
The league should of suspended him for the entire season and stripped 3 future first round picks. He got off easy.
That would assume that you attach any importance to what happens on the field as opposed to what happens off of it.
I am in the exact opposite camp as Moranis, it seems. This is a slightly deflated football that didn't change the outcome of the game at all.
This is the same stupid member-measuring stuff that the NFL loves to sell -- it's directly related to the National Guard money and the Budweiser and Ford Trucks -- but it's fundamentally an absurd overreaction to a nonevent.
My issue is if its a nonevent, why not comply ?
-
Wow. I predicted the suspension, but the draft picks are overboard. A first and a fourth when there was no evidence that the front office knew what was going on?
-
If I'm Kraft and BB I'm going on the war path. I'm winning every game by 50 points. I'm sending out players to target players (especially Colts and Jets), I'm making all sorts of comments about Goodell's total impotence and just paying the fines, and every game I'm alerting officials about stupid minor infractions and demanding lengthy investigations for every single one.
-
The Steelers got less for Rothlisburger raping someone. This league is a joke. I can't wait to watch the Patriots beat everyone they play by 50 points and to see them get back their picks in a Garopalo trade after he ruins teams he plays
Then again, the Pats didn't get anything for Hernandez murdering multiple people. I'm not really sure how the teams are responsible for their players' criminal behavior.
They cut him the second he was arrested. They didn't build him a statue like those freaks in Baltimore did for Ray
Now you're switching teams and offenders.
(And I don't want Jimmy G. traded--he's Tommy's successor.)
-
And if I'm Brady I'm blowing off my HOF induction and the media going forward. Either you're with Brady or you're with the terrorists.
-
My issue is if its a nonevent, why not comply ?
I don't know -- it's possible that someone actually suggested that he refuse and lawyer up for the benefit of the NFLPA -- who are already a weak players union, for one.
Personally speaking, I don't believe in the "if you're innocent you shouldn't have anything to hide" line of thinking, and doubly doubt it when sports owners are involved instead of actual laws.
-
The only measure of "integrity" I identify with sports is the capacity of the sport to entertain me. If I am entertained, the sport is doing what it is supposed to do.
Generally, I am less apt to be entertained by sports that I think are farcical from a competetive standpoint. This is one of the reasons I am not entertained by baseball since we are led to believe that teams with a $200M payroll are on the same competitive playing field as those with a $40M payroll.
Despite stuckum on towels, heated footballs, deflated footballs, etc., I still view the NFL as a league that offers fair competition among its teams. And since the sport is fun to watch -- I'll watch. The fact that fans from Indiana, Miami or Seattle might think Tom Brady is a cheater means nothing to me. The fact that this might impact his "legacy" is irrelevant to me. It's an entertainment industry and football is a game. Tom Brady will learn to live just fine with his deflated legacy. If he can't, then he has deeper issues.
Is there a single person in Patriot Nation who will not root for the Pats to the exact same degree next year as it did this past year? I doubt there is even one fan who has handed in his/her Pats Fan Card. The integrity bar has been met as far as I am concerned -- they will entertain me. That's all that matters.
I am not sure there has ever been more ado about nothing.
-
Wow. I predicted the suspension, but the draft picks are overboard. A first and a fourth when there was no evidence that the front office knew what was going on?
Hard to get the evidence if the Pats don't cooperate. You're an attorney--what is the legal phrase for being permitted to draw negative inference for lack of cooperative response?
-
And if I'm Brady I'm blowing off my HOF induction and the media going forward. Either you're with Brady or you're with the terrorists.
If you were Brady, you'd give up the evidence, right ? If you were clean that is.
-
The Steelers got less for Rothlisburger raping someone. This league is a joke. I can't wait to watch the Patriots beat everyone they play by 50 points and to see them get back their picks in a Garopalo trade after he ruins teams he plays
Then again, the Pats didn't get anything for Hernandez murdering multiple people. I'm not really sure how the teams are responsible for their players' criminal behavior.
They cut him the second he was arrested. They didn't build him a statue like those freaks in Baltimore did for Ray
Now you're switching teams and offenders.
(And I don't want Jimmy G. traded--he's Tommy's successor.)
I can switch with any team because there's an NFL double standard. The Pats get one standard and the entire rest of the league get another. They can't beat the Pats on the field so they have to try to beat them in the rules committee and the discipline outcomes and the blogs and ESPN and all the other places that envious loser teams would try to beat a team like the Pats.
-
The only measure of "integrity" I identify with sports is the capacity of the sport to entertain me. If I am entertained, the sport is doing what it is supposed to do.
Generally, I am less apt to be entertained by sports that I think are farcical from a competetive standpoint. This is one of the reasons I am not entertained by baseball since we are led to believe that teams with a $200M payroll are on the same competitive playing field as those with a $40M payroll.
Despite stuckum on towels, heated footballs, deflated footballs, etc., I still view the NFL as a league that offers fair competition among its teams. And since the sport is fun to watch -- I'll watch. The fact that fans from Indiana, Miami or Seattle might think Tom Brady is a cheater means nothing to me. The fact that this might impact his "legacy" is irrelevant to me. It's an entertainment industry and football is a game. Tom Brady will learn to live just fine with his deflated legacy. If he can't, then he has deeper issues.
Is there a single person in Patriot Nation who will not root for the Pats to the exact same degree next year as it did this past year? I doubt there is even one fan who has handed in his/her Pats Fan Card. The integrity bar has been met as far as I am concerned -- they will entertain me. That's all that matters.
Good post (even if I don't really like football).
-
And if I'm Brady I'm blowing off my HOF induction and the media going forward. Either you're with Brady or you're with the terrorists.
If you were Brady, you'd give up the evidence, right ? If you were clean that is.
There is no way on Earth I'd ever give my cell phone to anyone, ESPECIALLY not Ted Wells. That league has bigger leaks than the Titanic.
-
My issue is if its a nonevent, why not comply ?
I don't know -- it's possible that someone actually suggested that he refuse and lawyer up for the benefit of the NFLPA -- who are already a weak players union, for one.
Personally speaking, I don't believe in the "if you're innocent you shouldn't have anything to hide" line of thinking, and doubly doubt it when sports owners are involved instead of actual laws.
It's not about having anything to hide, it's about cooperating. The Pats and Brady did not. They laughed it off. Now, they're not laughing.
-
Wow. I predicted the suspension, but the draft picks are overboard. A first and a fourth when there was no evidence that the front office knew what was going on?
Especially after the Wells Report had said this:
“We do not believe that the evidence establishes that any other Patriots personnel participated in or had knowledge of the violation of the Playing Rules or the deliberate effort to circumvent the rules described in this Report. In particular, we do not believe there was any wrongdoing or knowledge of wrongdoing by Patriots ownership, Patriots Head Coach Bill Belichick or any other Patriots coach in the matters investigated. We also do not believe there was any wrongdoing or knowledge of wrongdoing by Patriots Head Equipment Manager Dave Schoenfeld.”
So the league essentially took the Wells report at face value regarding Brady and then dismissed the same report when it came to the head coach/ownership?
-
My issue is if its a nonevent, why not comply ?
I don't know -- it's possible that someone actually suggested that he refuse and lawyer up for the benefit of the NFLPA -- who are already a weak players union, for one.
Personally speaking, I don't believe in the "if you're innocent you shouldn't have anything to hide" line of thinking, and doubly doubt it when sports owners are involved instead of actual laws.
It's not about having anything to hide, it's about cooperating. The Pats and Brady did not. They laughed it off. Now, they're not laughing.
That's a bit of a judgement call, I think, and oversimplifies the relationship between the players and the front office (doesn't have anything to do with the team, who nominally fall on the side of the front office, for the record)
-
Wow. I predicted the suspension, but the draft picks are overboard. A first and a fourth when there was no evidence that the front office knew what was going on?
Especially after the Wells Report had said this:
“We do not believe that the evidence establishes that any other Patriots personnel participated in or had knowledge of the violation of the Playing Rules or the deliberate effort to circumvent the rules described in this Report. In particular, we do not believe there was any wrongdoing or knowledge of wrongdoing by Patriots ownership, Patriots Head Coach Bill Belichick or any other Patriots coach in the matters investigated. We also do not believe there was any wrongdoing or knowledge of wrongdoing by Patriots Head Equipment Manager Dave Schoenfeld.”
So the league essentially took the Wells report at face value regarding Brady and then dismissed the same report when it came to the head coach/ownership?
Exactly. It's an absolute strict liability "we are punishing you for the sins of your employees" thing, which just seems like dangerous precedent. (Not that the NFL cares about consistency).
-
All that based on a hunch?
Imagine what would've happened it was based on facts.
Tough to get facts when the guilty party won't surrender the evidence. Brady hasn't complied from the beginning.
Apparently spending an entire day getting questioned isn't complying?
-
And if I'm Brady I'm blowing off my HOF induction and the media going forward. Either you're with Brady or you're with the terrorists.
If you were Brady, you'd give up the evidence, right ? If you were clean that is.
There is no way on Earth I'd ever give my cell phone to anyone, ESPECIALLY not Ted Wells. That league has bigger leaks than the Titanic.
They weren't asking for him to hand over his phone--only the relevant texts in a process that would have been managed by Brady's people.
-
All that based on a hunch?
Imagine what would've happened it was based on facts.
Tough to get facts when the guilty party won't surrender the evidence. Brady hasn't complied from the beginning.
Apparently spending an entire day getting questioned isn't complying?
Not when he won't hand over a flurry of relevant texts--and when the league just basically stated that Brady lied to them during their inquiry.
-
4 games
1st round pick in upcoming draft
4th round pick in following draft
$1 million dollars
That's getting appealed.
The 1st round pick in addition to the suspension is a joke.
My guess, it gets appealed down to 2 games and the loss of the 1st round pick gets reduced to a second.
The pick bothers me more than the suspension. This is a bigger loss in terms of draft picks than what the Saints suffered.
That's ridiculous. 4th Rounder? Sure. $1 million? Why not. 4 games? Way too much, but we'll live. 1st Rounder? lol NOPE.
Screw the NFL, all they're doing is trying to get back on the public's good side after they royally screwed up the Ray Rice case, and the saddest part is that they're succeeding.
You think they're succeeding? I would posit the opposite.
This just reinforces my idea that this league office is a joke. They are absolutely ALL OVER THE PLACE with these punishments
I'm of the belief that off the field issues that have no effect on the game should be punished far less harshly then things that actually effect the game. In fact, I wouldn't suspend any player for arrests, but that is just me.
I understand that perspective, but let me ask you if the entertainment value of watching Tom Brady is hindered more by him being "generally aware of inappropriate deflation actions" or if Tom knocked Giselle out in an elevator. Given that entertainment is the lifeblood of the sport, I'd put to you that the sport is more impacted by the domestic violence.
-
Wow. I predicted the suspension, but the draft picks are overboard. A first and a fourth when there was no evidence that the front office knew what was going on?
As F&M said, it's got to be tied to how the franchise reacted to the allegations and the ensuing investigation, or else the league has more stuff in its back pocket relating to the organization that it didn't put into the report.
-
And if I'm Brady I'm blowing off my HOF induction and the media going forward. Either you're with Brady or you're with the terrorists.
If you were Brady, you'd give up the evidence, right ? If you were clean that is.
There is no way on Earth I'd ever give my cell phone to anyone, ESPECIALLY not Ted Wells. That league has bigger leaks than the Titanic.
They weren't asking for him to hand over his phone--only the relevant texts in a process that would have been managed by Brady's people.
Do you actually trust the NFL on any level whatsoever? Do you actually trust Ted Wells? They would have said "This is incomplete" and "This isn't relevant" till they had the whole phone. They interviewed McNally like 5 times and Tom for 8 hours. This whole "Well Brady didn't cooperate" thing is a joke. Brady's privacy is worth more than 4 games.
Anything whatsoever that was even eyebrow raising would have been all over the internet in 5 minutes. It wasn't an option. Has any player ever had to hand over his phone? Incognito I believe. Players have to resist that. Next thing they'll want access to their Facebook, and they wanted his email and phone records too. They think they're the NSA. Screw them. I totally support Brady on that.
-
All that based on a hunch?
Imagine what would've happened it was based on facts.
Tough to get facts when the guilty party won't surrender the evidence. Brady hasn't complied from the beginning.
Apparently spending an entire day getting questioned isn't complying?
Not when he won't hand over a flurry of relevant texts.
If you think Brady's people were going to decide what the relevant texts were then you are very naive.
-
My issue is if its a nonevent, why not comply ?
I don't know -- it's possible that someone actually suggested that he refuse and lawyer up for the benefit of the NFLPA -- who are already a weak players union, for one.
Personally speaking, I don't believe in the "if you're innocent you shouldn't have anything to hide" line of thinking, and doubly doubt it when sports owners are involved instead of actual laws.
It's not about having anything to hide, it's about cooperating. The Pats and Brady did not. They laughed it off. Now, they're not laughing.
That's a bit of a judgement call, I think, and oversimplifies the relationship between the players and the front office (doesn't have anything to do with the team, who nominally fall on the side of the front office, for the record)
How is it a judgement call ?
Brady didn't comply with his phone, documents, & records. The Pats organization itself blocked interviews to important witnesses (Jim Mcnally, I.E.) when requested.
-
I'm on Colts fan sites letting them know who they play week 5.
-
All that based on a hunch?
Imagine what would've happened it was based on facts.
Tough to get facts when the guilty party won't surrender the evidence. Brady hasn't complied from the beginning.
Apparently spending an entire day getting questioned isn't complying?
Not when he won't hand over a flurry of relevant texts.
If you think Brady's people were going to decide what the relevant texts were then you are very naive.
Wasn't just the phone and texts. It was emails, or any electronic documents, information, records, etc. So that doesn't exactly scream innocence.
-
And if I'm Brady I'm blowing off my HOF induction and the media going forward. Either you're with Brady or you're with the terrorists.
If you were Brady, you'd give up the evidence, right ? If you were clean that is.
There is no way on Earth I'd ever give my cell phone to anyone, ESPECIALLY not Ted Wells. That league has bigger leaks than the Titanic.
They weren't asking for him to hand over his phone--only the relevant texts in a process that would have been managed by Brady's people.
Do you actually trust the NFL on any level whatsoever? Do you actually trust Ted Wells? They would have said "This is incomplete" and "This isn't relevant" till they had the whole phone. They interviewed McNally like 5 times and Tom for 8 hours. This whole "Well Brady didn't cooperate" thing is a joke. Brady's privacy is worth more than 4 games.
Anything whatsoever that was even eyebrow raising would have been all over the internet in 5 minutes. It wasn't an option. Has any player ever had to hand over his phone? Incognito I believe. Players have to resist that. Next thing they'll want access to their Facebook, and they wanted his email and phone records too. They think they're the NSA. Screw them. I totally support Brady on that.
I get it--no matter what you're blaming the league and exonerating Brady.
It's a free country but the rules of the league that has made Brady a very wealthy man apart from his wife's earnings has rules that say he should have cooperated with their process. Lying and refusing to hand over electronic evidence is not cooperating.
-
Can Kraft even appeal?
-
I'm on Colts fan sites letting them know who they play week 5.
Great ratings to be sure!!
The NFL restoring its integrity is like a bunch of hoes restoring their virginity.
-
http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/poll/conversation/_/id/4815418
-
My issue is if its a nonevent, why not comply ?
I don't know -- it's possible that someone actually suggested that he refuse and lawyer up for the benefit of the NFLPA -- who are already a weak players union, for one.
Personally speaking, I don't believe in the "if you're innocent you shouldn't have anything to hide" line of thinking, and doubly doubt it when sports owners are involved instead of actual laws.
It's not about having anything to hide, it's about cooperating. The Pats and Brady did not. They laughed it off. Now, they're not laughing.
That's a bit of a judgement call, I think, and oversimplifies the relationship between the players and the front office (doesn't have anything to do with the team, who nominally fall on the side of the front office, for the record)
How is it a judgement call ?
Brady didn't comply with his phone, documents, & records. The Pats organization itself blocked interviews to important witnesses (Jim Mcnally, I.E.) when requested.
The bolded is a judgement call. Which doesn't mean I disagree with you.
-
Also how has no one gone for the 'testicular fortitude' bit yet?
-
And if I'm Brady I'm blowing off my HOF induction and the media going forward. Either you're with Brady or you're with the terrorists.
If you were Brady, you'd give up the evidence, right ? If you were clean that is.
There is no way on Earth I'd ever give my cell phone to anyone, ESPECIALLY not Ted Wells. That league has bigger leaks than the Titanic.
They weren't asking for him to hand over his phone--only the relevant texts in a process that would have been managed by Brady's people.
Do you actually trust the NFL on any level whatsoever? Do you actually trust Ted Wells? They would have said "This is incomplete" and "This isn't relevant" till they had the whole phone. They interviewed McNally like 5 times and Tom for 8 hours. This whole "Well Brady didn't cooperate" thing is a joke. Brady's privacy is worth more than 4 games.
Anything whatsoever that was even eyebrow raising would have been all over the internet in 5 minutes. It wasn't an option. Has any player ever had to hand over his phone? Incognito I believe. Players have to resist that. Next thing they'll want access to their Facebook, and they wanted his email and phone records too. They think they're the NSA. Screw them. I totally support Brady on that.
I get it--no matter what you're blaming the league and exonerating Brady.
It's a free country but the rules of the league that has made Brady a very wealthy man apart from his wife's earnings has rules that say he should have cooperated with their process. Lying and refusing to hand over electronic evidence is not cooperating.
No. I want the double standards to end. I don't want Brady and the Pats treated worse than rapists because their true crime is being better than every other team. I want him treated the same as Aaron Rodgers and the Pats treated the same as other teams caught red handed doing the exact same thing.
-
I think the suspension is legit. Brady cheated and lied. Can't let that go unpunished.
The fine and loss of drafts picks seems a bit heavy handed, but considering this franchise has now been found guilty of cheating multiple times, the punishment was always going to be more severe. Repeat offenders always get hit harder. Still, a1st round pick is huge, and maybe a bit much.
Uninterested if Pats fans are up on arms over this. Or course they are going to be, hard to expect unbiased opinions from any fan base in such a situation.
-
I'm on Colts fan sites letting them know who they play week 5.
Great ratings to be sure!!
The NFL restoring its integrity is like a bunch of hoes restoring their virginity.
TP for the accuracy
-
And if I'm Brady I'm blowing off my HOF induction and the media going forward. Either you're with Brady or you're with the terrorists.
If you were Brady, you'd give up the evidence, right ? If you were clean that is.
There is no way on Earth I'd ever give my cell phone to anyone, ESPECIALLY not Ted Wells. That league has bigger leaks than the Titanic.
They weren't asking for him to hand over his phone--only the relevant texts in a process that would have been managed by Brady's people.
Do you actually trust the NFL on any level whatsoever? Do you actually trust Ted Wells? They would have said "This is incomplete" and "This isn't relevant" till they had the whole phone. They interviewed McNally like 5 times and Tom for 8 hours. This whole "Well Brady didn't cooperate" thing is a joke. Brady's privacy is worth more than 4 games.
Anything whatsoever that was even eyebrow raising would have been all over the internet in 5 minutes. It wasn't an option. Has any player ever had to hand over his phone? Incognito I believe. Players have to resist that. Next thing they'll want access to their Facebook, and they wanted his email and phone records too. They think they're the NSA. Screw them. I totally support Brady on that.
I get it--no matter what you're blaming the league and exonerating Brady.
It's a free country but the rules of the league that has made Brady a very wealthy man apart from his wife's earnings has rules that say he should have cooperated with their process. Lying and refusing to hand over electronic evidence is not cooperating.
I have heard a lot of people make a big deal out of Brady not turning over his phone and saying that that is and should be a big reason for his suspension. If that is the case, where is the outrage about Goskowski not getting suspended? According to the Wells report both players were questioned, both were asked to turn over their texts/emails and both refused (supposedly at the advice of the Player's Association). One is penalized and the other is not. I guess that is the same consistency that the league has shown time and time again so it makes sense...
-
All because stupid NFL executives and jealous, dumb fans don't remember sixth grade science that explains the relationship between temperature and air pressure. Unbelievable.
-
I predicted in another thread that the penalty the NFL tries to impose is going to be a bigger gate than the gate itself. I don't think that Kraft has any recourse because of his franchise agreement with the league but do you really think the other owners are going to think this is OK? Even the ones that hate Kraft (and I don't think there are too many) aren't going back Goodell on this. I predict Goodell is done. He will be forced out. He is making himself bigger than the game and that is not what the owners are going to want.
As for Brady, he is a member of a union and that union is not going to let this stand I wouldn't think. The union doesn't like Goodell already. They are going to do everything they can to make him look as bad as they can. They may not have all that much procedural recourse (any appeal is adjudicated by Goodell so what good is that) but this is an affront to players rights and I will be shocked if the NFLPA doesn't come out "swinging" (although they have been pretty quiet to date which already surprises me).
This is absolutely ridiculous when you consider they are not even sure the balls were under inflated (even Mike Florio is questioning this conclusion). This is not rational. This is Goodell getting caught up in mob mentality and being too full of himself to see it.
-
And if I'm Brady I'm blowing off my HOF induction and the media going forward. Either you're with Brady or you're with the terrorists.
If you were Brady, you'd give up the evidence, right ? If you were clean that is.
There is no way on Earth I'd ever give my cell phone to anyone, ESPECIALLY not Ted Wells. That league has bigger leaks than the Titanic.
They weren't asking for him to hand over his phone--only the relevant texts in a process that would have been managed by Brady's people.
Do you actually trust the NFL on any level whatsoever? Do you actually trust Ted Wells? They would have said "This is incomplete" and "This isn't relevant" till they had the whole phone. They interviewed McNally like 5 times and Tom for 8 hours. This whole "Well Brady didn't cooperate" thing is a joke. Brady's privacy is worth more than 4 games.
Anything whatsoever that was even eyebrow raising would have been all over the internet in 5 minutes. It wasn't an option. Has any player ever had to hand over his phone? Incognito I believe. Players have to resist that. Next thing they'll want access to their Facebook, and they wanted his email and phone records too. They think they're the NSA. Screw them. I totally support Brady on that.
I get it--no matter what you're blaming the league and exonerating Brady.
It's a free country but the rules of the league that has made Brady a very wealthy man apart from his wife's earnings has rules that say he should have cooperated with their process. Lying and refusing to hand over electronic evidence is not cooperating.
I have heard a lot of people make a big deal out of Brady not turning over his phone and saying that that is and should be a big reason for his suspension. If that is the case, where is the outrage about Goskowski not getting suspended? According to the Wells report both players were questioned, both were asked to turn over their texts/emails and both refused (supposedly at the advice of the Player's Association). One is penalized and the other is not. I guess that is the same consistency that the league has shown time and time again so it makes sense...
The difference is that Goskowski wasn't the subject of the investigation, and the Wells report said they basically dropped the request. With Brady, he actively evaded them.
-
Who will be the first in the local media to suggest this could be Jimmy G's opportunity to pull a Brady-over-Bledsoe on Brady?
Tanguay?
Anyways, big picture, this all probably doesn't matter. I've learned better than to totally count out the Pats, but I wouldn't feel great about them this year even without all the #DeflateGate nonsense because they gutted the secondary that allowed them to get back into championship caliber form in the first place.
-
I think the suspension is legit. Brady cheated and lied. Can't let that go unpunished.
The fine and loss of drafts picks seems a bit heavy handed, but considering this franchise has now been found guilty of cheating multiple times, the punishment was always going to be more severe. Repeat offenders always get hit harder. Still, a1st round pick is huge, and maybe a bit much.
Uninterested if Pats fans are up on arms over this. Or course they are going to be, hard to expect unbiased opinions from any fan base in such a situation.
I am a Pats fan, but not up in arms. Not really a big deal.
I think the opposite of your synopsis -- I agree with the league that draft picks should be taken (though a #1 is a high price). The known violation is an organization violation: with some knowledge of players, 2 employees conspired to deflate footballs after the refs had approved the balls. An organizational penalty seems appropriate to me (though I thought it would be a 3rd round pick). Brady's suspension is mainly for not cooperating with the investigation and 4 games seems very high to me. That said, Brady has 5 weeks of injury-free football and the Pats probably go at least 2-2. Can't wait for next season. Go Pats!
-
People talking about how this goes to the integrity of the game, yet they allow for the 1st half to be played even though the balls went missing, and they were warned before hand to watch out for it.
Ha this is a total sting
People are questioning Bradys HOF status, what about jerry Rice saying he used stickum throughout his career when it was banned in 1981?
-
the level to which an under-deflated ball causing all this nonsense is utter crap. esp. considering other players admit to over inflating(and Goodell says "but that's ok, even though it's still not regulation") and another team paying players to injure other players and only losing 2 2nd rnd. picks.
between the NBA and the NFL i'm not impressed with their ability to delegate and enforce rules.
I think Brady should go punch Goodell's wife on tv, he might get the suspension overturned.
-
It's all rooted in jealousy. Just be happy Pats fans that we have been able to witness a true legacy - nobody can take that away from us.
Goodell seems like a horrible person. I remember when he came into office and he was dropping the hammer left and right, people were impressed with him...and it's possible something needed to change. However, his decisions the last couple of seasons have been bizarre (to say the least) and ultimately inconsistent.
This punishment will reaffirm people's view of the Pats as cheaters, but let them continue to enjoy crappy football from their own teams. Patriots #1!
-
I'm just curious...
What happens if we enter a world where Brady gets suspended for half of the season or the entire season and the Pats finish up as one of the worst five teams (Unlikely, I know, but it's my world and y'all are just living in it.)? Do the same people calling for Brady's head also call for the Patriots to lose their first-rounder at that points, since the Pats shouldn't be allowed to "benefit" from TB's transgressions?
FWIW, I think he's likely involved. And I think that precedent would indicate that a fine is appropriate.
Mike
No, I don't think so. I do think that if the Pats lose a pick, it'll probably be around their fourth-rounder. Something that has some value, but isn't totally crippling. If you're interested in sticking it to the pats fans (or playing the "everyone hates us" card), there's nearly no justification for it that stands up to anything. Its also a bad precedent to set for future impropriety, and the NFL does care about that (a little bit) if only because it's something they can get called out on later.
Say what you will about the merits of Bill Simmons, but he was absolutely right when he said that the NFL front office was waiting to hear back from the court of public opinion before they laid down a punishment. That's why (IMO) whatever suspension does happen will get appealed down.
Guess that answers that question, huh? :'(
Mike
-
I feel like everyone who's been involved has said that a first rounder is severe and/or beyond their expectations. I don't think anyone was calling for it?
-
This is great if Jimmy keeps it together Pats might have the fire to get 19-0 this time.
-
If the NFL can go through your phone where does it stop? Going through your mail? Your car? Your amazon account? Your trash? Your home? When does an employee get to say "Heck no I'm not letting you go through my own stuff" and not get punished? Seems to me like employers now get the right to basically harass you because of hearsay. I'm glad Brady said no.
-
I'm just glad my Washington Redskins are NOT in the news this time, LOL.
Thanks Brady.
-
If the NFL can go through your phone where does it stop? Going through your mail? Your car? Your amazon account? Your trash? Your home? When does an employee get to say "Heck no I'm not letting you go through my own stuff" and not get punished? Seems to me like employers now get the right to basically harass you because of hearsay. I'm glad Brady said no.
Exactly, TP.
-
Man... this is a rough week for Simmons to go radio silent... three buzzer beaters... Brady Suspension... dude must be screaming inside.
-
My issue is if its a nonevent, why not comply ?
I don't know -- it's possible that someone actually suggested that he refuse and lawyer up for the benefit of the NFLPA -- who are already a weak players union, for one.
Personally speaking, I don't believe in the "if you're innocent you shouldn't have anything to hide" line of thinking, and doubly doubt it when sports owners are involved instead of actual laws.
It's not about having anything to hide, it's about cooperating. The Pats and Brady did not. They laughed it off. Now, they're not laughing.
That's a bit of a judgement call, I think, and oversimplifies the relationship between the players and the front office (doesn't have anything to do with the team, who nominally fall on the side of the front office, for the record)
How is it a judgement call ?
Brady didn't comply with his phone, documents, & records. The Pats organization itself blocked interviews to important witnesses (Jim Mcnally, I.E.) when requested.
This is where you and Clover have bought the ESPN hype machine and not studied the facts of the case. He was interviewed 4 times. They did not refuse a follow up interview, they granted that request 3 times! What they refused was a request for a 5th interview of a part time employee who essentially had already spent lots of time with investigators. The Pats felt a 5th interview was an excessive request. It's easy to just watch ESPN and hear that the Pats denied a follow up interview, but the facts are otherwise. How differently would you have interpreted it if it was reported as the Pats refused a request for a part time employee to be interviewed for a 5th time?
-
I'm a bit naive about punishments in the NFL. Most of the ones that gain notoriety are the domestic violence / criminal activity types. What kind of precedent is there for an independent arbitrator to uphold the penalties against Brady AND the Patriots, especially since the report seemed to let the Patriots [front office] off the hook?
Is this just big bad Goodell trying to show who is boss or is there actually a possibility that these punishments will be fully enforced?
-
The ball intercepted by the Colts was measured at 11.45. As per the ideal gas law, that ball should have measured at.... you guessed it, 11.45.
But because the NFL did not understand the ideal gas law, this whole investigation kicked off. Sure, that makes a lot of sense.
-
Man... this is a rough week for Simmons to go radio silent... three buzzer beaters... Brady Suspension... dude must be screaming inside.
I'm sure there's 15,000 words on how his trials and tribulations are exactly like a B-story on CHIPS just waiting in the wings.
-
I'm a bit naive about punishments in the NFL. Most of the ones that gain notoriety are the domestic violence / criminal activity types. What kind of precedent is there for an independent arbitrator to uphold the penalties against Brady AND the Patriots, especially since the report seemed to let the Patriots [front office] off the hook?
Is this just big bad Goodell trying to show who is boss or is there actually a possibility that these punishments will be fully enforced?
Brady can get his suspension lifted, but I don't think there is any recourse for the monetary fine or draft picks. Who knows what Goodell's agenda was or why.
-
I think the suspension is legit. Brady cheated and lied. Can't let that go unpunished.
The fine and loss of drafts picks seems a bit heavy handed, but considering this franchise has now been found guilty of cheating multiple times, the punishment was always going to be more severe. Repeat offenders always get hit harder. Still, a1st round pick is huge, and maybe a bit much.
Uninterested if Pats fans are up on arms over this. Or course they are going to be, hard to expect unbiased opinions from any fan base in such a situation.
Good post. TP.
Of course Pats fans are upset. But they've been caught cheating multiple times and their actions hurt the shield, something that Goodell has always come down hard on even with scant evidence. He suspended Ben Roethlisberger for six games - reduced to four - on an unfounded sexual assault charge where there was no physical evidence and not even probable cause to charge him. Why? Because he was a star QB and it hurt the NFL's image. He body slammed the Saints on the bounties because it looked bad with all of the concussion lawsuits going down. The timing was horrid and therefore the Saints were punished harshly. He tried to overreact on Ray Rice after the video came out (this PR disaster being largely Goodell's fault for the initial punishment not being strict enough) and tried to kick him out of the league. And now Brady and the Patriots look like they just won a Super Bowl in some small part because they knowingly broke the rules. It looks bad. Therefore, there's a stiff penalty. It's entirely consistent with his other actions. When Roger feels like the NFL brand is being damaged, his punishments are overly strict.
Of course, this is also why there is so much criticism of the NFL's disciplinary policies because they're so uneven. If it's a lesser player or team and it can be swept under the rug, the penalties aren't much. When it's a premier, Super Bowl winning franchise - the Steelers, the Patriots, the Saints, etc. - Goodell overreacts.
-
Since Brady is appealing, there's a solid chance this isn't over by a long shot. Don Yee made a fantastic point in his recent statement bringing up the fact that in multiple occasions when a player appeals a Goodell ruling with an independent arbitrator, every time the ruling gets retracted with an added statement that they think Goodell is being too abusive with his power.
Happened with Adrian Peterson, happened with Ray Rice, happened with Jonathan Vilma.
So it's not totally inconceivable that Brady could take this to an independent judge and have the majority, if not all, of this punishment be overturned
-
Since Brady is appealing, there's a solid chance this isn't over by a long shot. Don Yee made a fantastic point in his recent statement bringing up the fact that in multiple occasions when a player appeals a Goodell ruling with an independent arbitrator, every time the ruling gets retracted with an added statement that they think Goodell is being too abusive with his power.
Happened with Adrian Peterson, happened with Ray Rice, happened with Jonathan Vilma.
So it's not totally inconceivable that Brady could take this to an independent judge and have the majority, if not all, of this punishment be overturned
Don't get your hopes up.
Brady's opportunities for appeal may be limited. This isn't a violation of the negotiated union contract (aka Ray Rice being penalized twice for the same offense) or a conflict with state law (Pat Williams in Minny - a suit he ultimately lost) or Adrian Peterson's suspension (which was for non-football reasons and therefore he couldn't be suspended for more than two games). Vilma's suspension was the only one dealing with on-field activities and his suspension was reduced, not overturned. And his defamation lawsuit was thrown out.
This is also for on-the-field activities, something the NFL has sole jurisdiction over; and for failing to comply with an investigation, which is something that is required in the player's contracts. That the NFL offered to let Brady's attorney screen the texts will be seen as an attempt to compromise. I expect the suspension to get reduced to 2 games on appeal but I doubt Brady has much recourse beyond that. Judge Doty simply doesn't have much leeway here because it's for on-the-field activities, which is the same reason why Goodell could implement suspensions for head-to-head contact without the union's consent. It simply falls under his domain as commish to deal with as he sees fit.
-
So far, the ESPN.com poll has 52% saying the punishment was too excessive and 48% saying the punishment was just right or not enough. Is that about what people expected?
-
If I'm Bill B I make a killer game plan to expose the colts weakneses then share it with all their opponents next year
:D
-
Well, the only way I as a fan can protest this is to stop watching NFL games. Giving some serious thought to that. I like college football more anyway, though I admit that the NCAA is probably at least as bad as Goodell.
-
Well, the only way I as a fan can protest this is to stop watching NFL games. Giving some serious thought to that. I like college football more anyway, though I admit that the NCAA is probably at least as bad as Goodell.
While I applaud your sentiment, why would you protest this and not the Big Ben suspension, the Saints' bountygate, the Ray Rice screw up and a host of other Goodell overreaches? What makes this one special? Was it because it finally happened to your team?
It was Bountygate that turned me off from the NFL and I have no love for the Saints. It was yet another example of Goodell trying to make someone a scapegoat for his own failures as a commish. I haven't watched the Super Bowl the past two years. I never even turned on an NFL game on the TV last year. Last year was the first time that no one in my family got NFL merchandise for Christmas. And it all has to do with how the league is run.
The only sports merchandise purchased last year was a Celtics cap!
-
Well, the only way I as a fan can protest this is to stop watching NFL games. Giving some serious thought to that. I like college football more anyway, though I admit that the NCAA is probably at least as bad as Goodell.
While I applaud your sentiment, why would you protest this and not the Big Ben suspension, the Saints' bountygate, the Ray Rice screw up and a host of other Goodell overreaches? What makes this one special? Was it because it finally happened to your team?
It was Bountygate that turned me off from the NFL and I have no love for the Saints. It was yet another example of Goodell trying to make someone a scapegoat for his own failures as a commish. I haven't watched the Super Bowl the past two years. I never even turned on an NFL game on the TV last year. Last year was the first time that no one in my family got NFL merchandise for Christmas. And it all has to do with how the league is run.
The only sports merchandise purchased last year was a Celtics cap!
Those suspensions had the opposite problem, which was that they weren't long enough. Are we actually at the point now where we compare Tom Brady to a rapist (more likely than not folks...twice), and guy that knocked out his wife on video, and guys getting paid to hurt people circumventing the salary cap?
Is that really happening now? Yes. Yes it is. Which is why the rest of the league should have an asterisk next to what they do. There's just no league integrity. The only place that has it is Foxboro and they aren't angels.
-
Well, the only way I as a fan can protest this is to stop watching NFL games. Giving some serious thought to that. I like college football more anyway, though I admit that the NCAA is probably at least as bad as Goodell.
While I applaud your sentiment, why would you protest this and not the Big Ben suspension, the Saints' bountygate, the Ray Rice screw up and a host of other Goodell overreaches? What makes this one special? Was it because it finally happened to your team?
It was Bountygate that turned me off from the NFL and I have no love for the Saints. It was yet another example of Goodell trying to make someone a scapegoat for his own failures as a commish. I haven't watched the Super Bowl the past two years. I never even turned on an NFL game on the TV last year. Last year was the first time that no one in my family got NFL merchandise for Christmas. And it all has to do with how the league is run.
The only sports merchandise purchased last year was a Celtics cap!
Those suspensions had the opposite problem, which was that they weren't long enough. Are we actually at the point now where we compare Tom Brady to a rapist (more likely than not folks...twice), and guy that knocked out his wife on video, and guys getting paid to hurt people circumventing the salary cap?
Is that really happening now? Yes. Yes it is. Which is why the rest of the league should have an asterisk next to what they do. There's just no league integrity. The only place that has it is Foxboro and they aren't angels.
That your first reaction is to call someone a rapist shows how very little objectivity or clarity of thought you have. But please feel free to go on ranting illogically because it is quite amusing to see you jump at conspiracy theories.
The league is not out to get the Patriots. Foxboro is not a beautiful, unique snowflake. The Patriots have been caught cheating - again. Deal with it.
-
You know who I feel worst for in all of this?
The two scrubs from Rutgers who won't get any guaranteed draft pick money from the Pats because of those lost draft selections.
-
Since Brady is appealing, there's a solid chance this isn't over by a long shot. Don Yee made a fantastic point in his recent statement bringing up the fact that in multiple occasions when a player appeals a Goodell ruling with an independent arbitrator, every time the ruling gets retracted with an added statement that they think Goodell is being too abusive with his power.
Happened with Adrian Peterson, happened with Ray Rice, happened with Jonathan Vilma.
So it's not totally inconceivable that Brady could take this to an independent judge and have the majority, if not all, of this punishment be overturned
Don't get your hopes up.
Brady's opportunities for appeal may be limited. This isn't a violation of the negotiated union contract (aka Ray Rice being penalized twice for the same offense) or a conflict with state law (Pat Williams in Minny - a suit he ultimately lost) or Adrian Peterson's suspension (which was for non-football reasons and therefore he couldn't be suspended for more than two games). Vilma's suspension was the only one dealing with on-field activities and his suspension was reduced, not overturned. And his defamation lawsuit was thrown out.
This is also for on-the-field activities, something the NFL has sole jurisdiction over; and for failing to comply with an investigation, which is something that is required in the player's contracts. That the NFL offered to let Brady's attorney screen the texts will be seen as an attempt to compromise. I expect the suspension to get reduced to 2 games on appeal but I doubt Brady has much recourse beyond that. Judge Doty simply doesn't have much leeway here because it's for on-the-field activities, which is the same reason why Goodell could implement suspensions for head-to-head contact without the union's consent. It simply falls under his domain as commish to deal with as he sees fit.
It depends on how the suspension is worded (I haven't looked into it yet), but if it's for the deflation, then you're right. If it's for failing to render any and all requested materials to Wells, then it's a little bit greyer (but you're probably still right).
i.e. "The extent to which the club and relevant individuals cooperated with the investigation" is what's going to get argued here.
-
So far, the ESPN.com poll has 52% saying the punishment was too excessive and 48% saying the punishment was just right or not enough. Is that about what people expected?
Since everybody who is not a New England Patriots fan vehemently despises them, I would say this is better than what I expected. Being on the plus side shows just how egregious this is (so many people who dislike them think it's crap).
-
So far, the ESPN.com poll has 52% saying the punishment was too excessive and 48% saying the punishment was just right or not enough. Is that about what people expected?
Since everybody who is not a New England Patriots fan vehemently despises them, I would say this is better than what I expected. Being on the plus side shows just how egregious this is (so many people who dislike them think it's crap).
I was actually thinking the same thing. Kinda speaks to the over the top ridiculousness of the penalty if you ask me.
-
I don't have time to read all 89 pages. Can someone give me a short summary of the Wells Report? Did they find conclusive proof that the staff intentionally deflated the balls? I thought it was just speculation without any evidence. Did they find some?
-
I don't have time to read all 89 pages. Can someone give me a short summary of the Wells Report? Did they find conclusive proof that the staff intentionally deflated the balls? I thought it was just speculation without any evidence. Did they find some?
It's just speculation. There isn't even conclusive proof that the balls were even deflated. Temperature and rain, as per the report, may explain everything.
-
I don't have time to read all 89 pages. Can someone give me a short summary of the Wells Report? Did they find conclusive proof that the staff intentionally deflated the balls? I thought it was just speculation without any evidence. Did they find some?
It's just speculation. There isn't even conclusive proof that the balls were even deflated. Temperature and rain, as per the report, may explain everything.
I haven't read the actual report, but the article I just read about the Brady suspension makes it seem like there are text messages that prove the guilt of two staffers (McNally and Jastremski) and that there may have been texts from Brady that they also saw. No?
-
AInge for three, You should pipe down now. Either your with The Pats Or your with the terror people like Eja said.
-
I don't have time to read all 89 pages. Can someone give me a short summary of the Wells Report? Did they find conclusive proof that the staff intentionally deflated the balls? I thought it was just speculation without any evidence. Did they find some?
It's just speculation. There isn't even conclusive proof that the balls were even deflated. Temperature and rain, as per the report, may explain everything.
I haven't read the actual report, but the article I just read about the Brady suspension makes it seem like there are text messages that prove the guilt of two staffers (McNally and Jastremski) and that there may have been texts from Brady that they also saw. No?
No texts prove guilt. There were no texts that specifically mention tampering. There was a text message conversation between the two after a game against the Jets. Apparently, Brady was upset that some of the balls felt overinflated. Jastremski tested them the next day and found some pumped up close to 16 (12.5 to 13.5 is regulation). Jastremski pointed this out to McNally and told him that they should have been 13 and to not let the refs overinflate. A few days later Jastremski texted McNally that he spoke again with Brady and he wanted them at 12.5 and to hand a copy of the rule book to the refs if they have a problem with that. Within those conversations Jastremski and McNally had a lot of friendly banter and jokes. The most incriminating text was McNally referring to himself as the "deflator". Also there was a text about Jastremski giving McNally a needle. They explained that comment to be about Jastremskig forgetting to give him a needle earlier in the season for a pump that McNally provides to the refs. There were no actual texts from Brady until after the controversy began. He texted Jastremski to call him which Wells found suspicious and texted to Jastremski to not worry as he had done nothing wrong.
-
Pats announce their newest signing
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CExAS9oUkAEU2_E.jpg)
-
I don't have time to read all 89 pages. Can someone give me a short summary of the Wells Report? Did they find conclusive proof that the staff intentionally deflated the balls? I thought it was just speculation without any evidence. Did they find some?
It's just speculation. There isn't even conclusive proof that the balls were even deflated. Temperature and rain, as per the report, may explain everything.
I haven't read the actual report, but the article I just read about the Brady suspension makes it seem like there are text messages that prove the guilt of two staffers (McNally and Jastremski) and that there may have been texts from Brady that they also saw. No?
No texts prove guilt. There were no texts that specifically mention tampering. There was a text message conversation between the two after a game against the Jets. Apparently, Brady was upset that some of the balls felt overinflated. Jastremski tested them the next day and found some pumped up close to 16 (12.5 to 13.5 is regulation). Jastremski pointed this out to McNally and told him that they should have been 13 and to not let the refs overinflate. A few days later Jastremski texted McNally that he spoke again with Brady and he wanted them at 12.5 and to hand a copy of the rule book to the refs if they have a problem with that. Within those conversations Jastremski and McNally had a lot of friendly banter and jokes. The most incriminating text was McNally referring to himself as the "deflator". Also there was a text about Jastremski giving McNally a needle. They explained that comment to be about Jastremskig forgetting to give him a needle earlier in the season for a pump that McNally provides to the refs. There were no actual texts from Brady until after the controversy began. He texted Jastremski to call him which Wells found suspicious and texted to Jastremski to not worry as he had done nothing wrong.
TP.
I was also not trying to read all those pages either, although I got a general gist of what had occurred.
-
NFL does not have to prove guilt, this is not a judicial system it is a corporation with a code of conduct.
-
Pats announce their newest signing
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CExAS9oUkAEU2_E.jpg)
major TP
-
The most incriminating text was McNally referring to himself as the "deflator". Also there was a text about Jastremski giving McNally a needle.
The timeline is curious, though. McNally refers to himself as "the deflator" smack in the middle of the offseason (what balls would he be deflating in May 2014, I wonder?!). The needle texts don't come until October, so that part didn't make much sense.
Also, I thought that the most incriminating text was the one Brady sent to Jastremski, in which he says that Dave [Schoenfeld, Patriots equipment manager] will come to pick Jastremski's brain -- and that Dave knows "it's unrealistic he [meaning Jastremski] did it himself". So this as a minimum establishes that something was done and that Brady was at least aware after the fact.
-
The most incriminating text was McNally referring to himself as the "deflator". Also there was a text about Jastremski giving McNally a needle.
The timeline is curious, though. McNally refers to himself as "the deflator" smack in the middle of the offseason (what balls would he be deflating in May 2014, I wonder?!). The needle texts don't come until October, so that part didn't make much sense.
Also, I thought that the most incriminating text was the one Brady sent to Jastremski, in which he says that Dave [Schoenfeld, Patriots equipment manager] will come to pick Jastremski's brain -- and that Dave knows "it's unrealistic he [meaning Jastremski] did it himself". So this as a minimum establishes that something was done and that Brady was at least aware after the fact.
"FYI...Dave will be picking your brain later about it. He?s not accusing me, or anyone...trying to get to bottom of it. He knows it?s unrealistic you did it yourself..."
In Belichick's press conference, he explained how they tried to get to the bottom of how the balls were below pressure as all the ball were. They examined weather, gas laws, and how ball preparation could contribute. So, wouldn't it make sense to pick the brain of the guy who is in charge of ball preparation? So much of Wells report takes single text messages and heavily analyzes them while leaving out the greater context of the conversation.
McNally calling himself the deflator is the one thing that gives me pause. But if he was in fact deflating footballs, why was Jastremski expecting the balls to measure at 13 after the Jets game? That doesn't make sense. McNally also made jokes about blowing the balls up to the size of watermelons and rugby balls and made jokes about Spygate as if he was actively filming other teams practices and running out of tape even though tape isn't used anymore. We also know that Wells was leaving text messages out of the report that gave greater context as per this article. http://www.csnne.com/new-england-patriots/wells-report-lost-text-messages
-
I feel like everyone who's been involved has said that a first rounder is severe and/or beyond their expectations. I don't think anyone was calling for it?
Had it been just a first-rounder, I would have thought it was harsh (although I did joke upthread that, if Brady were suspended and we got a top-5 draft pick because we sucked, someone would complain that we benefited from Brady's misdeeds). The package that the NFL handed down is drop-dead astoundingly over the top. 20 years for a parking violation.
You know who I feel worst for in all of this?
The two scrubs from Rutgers who won't get any guaranteed draft pick money from the Pats because of those lost draft selections.
TP for making me laugh.
I took a quick look through my phone's text messages and, were somebody to go through them, there's a heck of a lot of room for misinterpretation. And for the guys out there: No matter how much your sister-in-law's ultrasound looks like a miniature version of Lord Voldemort, you'd be wise to keep that information to yourself. Just saying.
Mike
-
"FYI...Dave will be picking your brain later about it. He?s not accusing me, or anyone...trying to get to bottom of it. He knows it?s unrealistic you did it yourself..."
In Belichick's press conference, he explained how they tried to get to the bottom of how the balls were below pressure as all the ball were. They examined weather, gas laws, and how ball preparation could contribute. So, wouldn't it make sense to pick the brain of the guy who is in charge of ball preparation? So much of Wells report takes single text messages and heavily analyzes them while leaving out the greater context of the conversation.
I understand that. But there are some reads of this text that don't come out exactly flattering to Brady:
One read is: We know what/how happen, Schoenfeld just thinks it's unrealistic you PERSONALLY did it.
An alternative read: We're not sure what/how happened, but whatever it was it is Schoenfeld thinks it is unrealistic that YOU did it.
I leaned towards the former, but now I can easily see how it could be the latter. Humbug.
-
I feel like everyone who's been involved has said that a first rounder is severe and/or beyond their expectations. I don't think anyone was calling for it?
Had it been just a first-rounder, I would have thought it was harsh (although I did joke upthread that, if Brady were suspended and we got a top-5 draft pick because we sucked, someone would complain that we benefited from Brady's misdeeds). The package that the NFL handed down is drop-dead astoundingly over the top. 20 years for a parking violation.
The logic that someone trotted out there today morning on sports talk radio was that the team penalty is an increment above what was handed down for Spygate, and the Brady penalty is pretty much a first-offender PED discipline. It is some kind of logic, but in view of the NFL's body of work on equipment violations, it surely is excessive.
-
I feel like everyone who's been involved has said that a first rounder is severe and/or beyond their expectations. I don't think anyone was calling for it?
Had it been just a first-rounder, I would have thought it was harsh (although I did joke upthread that, if Brady were suspended and we got a top-5 draft pick because we sucked, someone would complain that we benefited from Brady's misdeeds). The package that the NFL handed down is drop-dead astoundingly over the top. 20 years for a parking violation.
The logic that someone trotted out there today morning on sports talk radio was that the team penalty is an increment above what was handed down for Spygate, and the Brady penalty is pretty much a first-offender PED discipline. It is some kind of logic, but in view of the NFL's body of work on equipment violations, it surely is excessive.
Here's what I don't get there. Spygate was a Belichick thing. And he got nailed to the wall for it back in 2007. He was absolved on any wrongdoing in the Wells report. Essentially, he had nothing to do with Deflategate. With Brady, its vice-versa with both instances.
Yet, the NFL league office decides to whack the organization anyways by yanking away a 1st rounder & 4th rounder plus the million dollar fine.
-
"FYI...Dave will be picking your brain later about it. He?s not accusing me, or anyone...trying to get to bottom of it. He knows it?s unrealistic you did it yourself..."
In Belichick's press conference, he explained how they tried to get to the bottom of how the balls were below pressure as all the ball were. They examined weather, gas laws, and how ball preparation could contribute. So, wouldn't it make sense to pick the brain of the guy who is in charge of ball preparation? So much of Wells report takes single text messages and heavily analyzes them while leaving out the greater context of the conversation.
I understand that. But there are some reads of this text that don't come out exactly flattering to Brady:
One read is: We know what/how happen, Schoenfeld just thinks it's unrealistic you PERSONALLY did it.
An alternative read: We're not sure what/how happened, but whatever it was it is Schoenfeld thinks it is unrealistic that YOU did it.
I leaned towards the former, but now I can easily see how it could be the latter. Humbug.
Another interpretation is: The balls are under pressure and we have no idea how this happened. We are now investigating. Schoenfeld is going to ask you some questions since you are the one in charge of the footballs. But don't be nervous, no one is accusing you of doing anything wrong. We are just trying to figure it out.
Personally, I think that is exactly the logical communication and steps to take when trying to solve such a mystery.
-
I feel like everyone who's been involved has said that a first rounder is severe and/or beyond their expectations. I don't think anyone was calling for it?
Had it been just a first-rounder, I would have thought it was harsh (although I did joke upthread that, if Brady were suspended and we got a top-5 draft pick because we sucked, someone would complain that we benefited from Brady's misdeeds). The package that the NFL handed down is drop-dead astoundingly over the top. 20 years for a parking violation.
The logic that someone trotted out there today morning on sports talk radio was that the team penalty is an increment above what was handed down for Spygate, and the Brady penalty is pretty much a first-offender PED discipline. It is some kind of logic, but in view of the NFL's body of work on equipment violations, it surely is excessive.
Here's what I don't get there. Spygate was a Belichick thing. And he got nailed to the wall for it back in 2007. He was absolved on any wrongdoing in the Wells report. Essentially, he had nothing to do with Deflategate. With Brady, its vice-versa with both instances.
Yet, the NFL league office decides to whack the organization anyways by yanking away a 1st rounder & 4th rounder plus the million dollar fine.
Curiously, Belichick wasn't penalized individually neither for Spygate nor right now. But that's beside the point. The repeat violator penalty here is essentially "we warned you, yet you allowed this to happen on your watch again" type of affair. Not that I find it particularly reasonable, but that's the logic.
-
"FYI...Dave will be picking your brain later about it. He?s not accusing me, or anyone...trying to get to bottom of it. He knows it?s unrealistic you did it yourself..."
In Belichick's press conference, he explained how they tried to get to the bottom of how the balls were below pressure as all the ball were. They examined weather, gas laws, and how ball preparation could contribute. So, wouldn't it make sense to pick the brain of the guy who is in charge of ball preparation? So much of Wells report takes single text messages and heavily analyzes them while leaving out the greater context of the conversation.
I understand that. But there are some reads of this text that don't come out exactly flattering to Brady:
One read is: We know what/how happen, Schoenfeld just thinks it's unrealistic you PERSONALLY did it.
An alternative read: We're not sure what/how happened, but whatever it was it is Schoenfeld thinks it is unrealistic that YOU did it.
I leaned towards the former, but now I can easily see how it could be the latter. Humbug.
Another interpretation is: The balls are under pressure and we have no idea how this happened. We are now investigating. Schoenfeld is going to ask you some questions since you are the one in charge of the footballs. But don't be nervous, no one is accusing you of doing anything wrong. We are just trying to figure it out.
Personally, I think that is exactly the logical communication and steps to take when trying to solve such a mystery.
Maybe, but it's still a curious choice of language.
-
I feel like everyone who's been involved has said that a first rounder is severe and/or beyond their expectations. I don't think anyone was calling for it?
Had it been just a first-rounder, I would have thought it was harsh (although I did joke upthread that, if Brady were suspended and we got a top-5 draft pick because we sucked, someone would complain that we benefited from Brady's misdeeds). The package that the NFL handed down is drop-dead astoundingly over the top. 20 years for a parking violation.
The logic that someone trotted out there today morning on sports talk radio was that the team penalty is an increment above what was handed down for Spygate, and the Brady penalty is pretty much a first-offender PED discipline. It is some kind of logic, but in view of the NFL's body of work on equipment violations, it surely is excessive.
Here's what I don't get there. Spygate was a Belichick thing. And he got nailed to the wall for it back in 2007. He was absolved on any wrongdoing in the Wells report. Essentially, he had nothing to do with Deflategate. With Brady, its vice-versa with both instances.
Yet, the NFL league office decides to whack the organization anyways by yanking away a 1st rounder & 4th rounder plus the million dollar fine.
Curiously, Belichick wasn't penalized individually neither for Spygate nor right now. But that's beside the point. The repeat violator penalty here is essentially "we warned you, yet you allowed this to happen on your watch again" type of affair. Not that I find it particularly reasonable, but that's the logic.
Belichick was fined $500,000 for Spygate.
-
Hey now, careful with those facts and things.
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sm5lnq
An NFL owner said in an interview with Bleacher Report that he supports the decision by Roger Goodell to hit quarterback Tom Brady and the Patriots hard over Deflategate.
"The main thing (Troy Vincent) said is true," explained the owner, who asked not to be identified, "we need to make sure everyone is following the rules. All of us. I think Roger made the right decision and my guess is the rest of the owners agree."
That part isn't surprising. This other part might not be surprising, either. Yet it was still interesting to hear. The owner said he believes (but made it clear it's just his opinion) that the relationship between Goodell and Kraft is "pretty much dead."
"I can't say for certain but it sure seems that way to me," the owner, who knows both men well, explained.
The owner added: "Some of us (owners) are waiting a little nervously to see what Robert does next."
Kraft released a statement saying: “Despite our conviction that there was no tampering with footballs, it was our intention to accept any discipline levied by the league. Today’s punishment, however, far exceeded any reasonable expectation. It was based completely on circumstantial rather than hard or conclusive evidence.
“We are humbled by the support the New England Patriots have received from our fans throughout the world. We recognize our fans’ concerns regarding the NFL’s penalties and share in their disappointment in how this one-sided investigation was handled, as well as the dismissal of the scientific evidence supported by the Ideal Gas Law in the final report. Tom Brady has our unconditional support. Our belief in him has not wavered.”
The owner did say that while he supported the harsh punishment of the Patriots--including the loss of a first round pick, Brady suspended for four games, and the team fined $1 million--he felt this signaled a new day in the NFL. Some of that is good and some of that is bad, the owner said.
"It's positive that we sent a message that cheating will not be tolerated," the owner explained. "I do think teams are looking around and saying, 'What does this all mean?' Teams are figuring it all out. But I think the bottom line is, don't cheat, and you don't have to worry about getting punished."
-
"FYI...Dave will be picking your brain later about it. He?s not accusing me, or anyone...trying to get to bottom of it. He knows it?s unrealistic you did it yourself..."
In Belichick's press conference, he explained how they tried to get to the bottom of how the balls were below pressure as all the ball were. They examined weather, gas laws, and how ball preparation could contribute. So, wouldn't it make sense to pick the brain of the guy who is in charge of ball preparation? So much of Wells report takes single text messages and heavily analyzes them while leaving out the greater context of the conversation.
I understand that. But there are some reads of this text that don't come out exactly flattering to Brady:
One read is: We know what/how happen, Schoenfeld just thinks it's unrealistic you PERSONALLY did it.
An alternative read: We're not sure what/how happened, but whatever it was it is Schoenfeld thinks it is unrealistic that YOU did it.
I leaned towards the former, but now I can easily see how it could be the latter. Humbug.
Another interpretation is: The balls are under pressure and we have no idea how this happened. We are now investigating. Schoenfeld is going to ask you some questions since you are the one in charge of the footballs. But don't be nervous, no one is accusing you of doing anything wrong. We are just trying to figure it out.
Personally, I think that is exactly the logical communication and steps to take when trying to solve such a mystery.
Maybe, but it's still a curious choice of language.
Not that I agree with that, but doesn't this text message contradict that interpretation? "You didn?t do anything wrong bud."
-
Hey now, careful with those facts and things.
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sm5lnq
An NFL owner said in an interview with Bleacher Report that he supports the decision by Roger Goodell to hit quarterback Tom Brady and the Patriots hard over Deflategate.
"The main thing (Troy Vincent) said is true," explained the owner, who asked not to be identified, "we need to make sure everyone is following the rules. All of us. I think Roger made the right decision and my guess is the rest of the owners agree."
That part isn't surprising. This other part might not be surprising, either. Yet it was still interesting to hear. The owner said he believes (but made it clear it's just his opinion) that the relationship between Goodell and Kraft is "pretty much dead."
"I can't say for certain but it sure seems that way to me," the owner, who knows both men well, explained.
The owner added: "Some of us (owners) are waiting a little nervously to see what Robert does next."[/b]
Kraft released a statement saying: “Despite our conviction that there was no tampering with footballs, it was our intention to accept any discipline levied by the league. Today’s punishment, however, far exceeded any reasonable expectation. It was based completely on circumstantial rather than hard or conclusive evidence.
“We are humbled by the support the New England Patriots have received from our fans throughout the world. We recognize our fans’ concerns regarding the NFL’s penalties and share in their disappointment in how this one-sided investigation was handled, as well as the dismissal of the scientific evidence supported by the Ideal Gas Law in the final report. Tom Brady has our unconditional support. Our belief in him has not wavered.”
The owner did say that while he supported the harsh punishment of the Patriots--including the loss of a first round pick, Brady suspended for four games, and the team fined $1 million--he felt this signaled a new day in the NFL. Some of that is good and some of that is bad, the owner said.
"It's positive that we sent a message that cheating will not be tolerated," the owner explained. "I do think teams are looking around and saying, 'What does this all mean?' Teams are figuring it all out. But I think the bottom line is, don't cheat, and you don't have to worry about getting punished."
This looks like this is going to get ugly. Clearly the team and Brady are gonna fight this to the death. And considering how they're going about this, either they're reaching Roger Clemens status where Brady is just straight-up delusional and is unwilling to admit to himself or anyone else that he did cheat...or he's innocent, and it's a case of circumstantial evidence being spun very well by a good lawyer to make him look guilty.
-
Not that I agree with that, but doesn't this text message contradict that interpretation? "You didn?t do anything wrong bud."
Why would it? Jastremski didn't tamper with any footballs, so he technically did nothing wrong.
-
This looks like this is going to get ugly. Clearly the team and Brady are gonna fight this to the death. And considering how they're going about this, either they're reaching Roger Clemens status where Brady is just straight-up delusional and is unwilling to admit to himself or anyone else that he did cheat...or he's innocent.
The message clearly isn't, "Don't cheat and you won't get punished". The message is "Don't be the Patriots, and you won't pay an arm and a leg for equipment violations that are otherwise routinely treated with a slap on the wrist".
There's an interesting middle ground in this, though. What if Brady told his equipment guys to just make sure that his footballs are never overinflated to unplayability again. That puts him in a place where he had no intention to submit or play with noncompliant balls, but probably knew what was going on.
-
This looks like this is going to get ugly. Clearly the team and Brady are gonna fight this to the death. And considering how they're going about this, either they're reaching Roger Clemens status where Brady is just straight-up delusional and is unwilling to admit to himself or anyone else that he did cheat...or he's innocent.
The message clearly isn't "Don't cheat and you won't get punished". The message is "Don't be the Patriots, and you won't pay an arm and a leg for equipment violations that are otherwise routinely treated with a slap on the wrist".
I honestly don't think the majority of this punishment is for the actual equipment violations. It seems to me like they decided to really come down hard because Brady or the team "didn't full cooperate with the investigation", plus it seems as though both Brady and McNally were caught in lies during the investigation...Brady saying he has no idea who McNally is, McNally saying he never stopped in the bathroom. It's not a good look. It still doesn't mean he's not innocent, but I really think this where the massive punishment comes from
-
Not that I agree with that, but doesn't this text message contradict that interpretation? "You didn?t do anything wrong bud."
Why would it? Jastremski didn't tamper with any footballs, so he technically did nothing wrong.
If he was a part of the scheme as Wells has determined, then he did do something wrong even if he was not technically deflating footballs himself. The stament that he did nothing wrong, implies he was not part of a scheme and therefore inncoent. And now where back to the interpretation that Shoenfeld talking to him was just about fact finding.
Doesn't our back and forth over the interpetation of a single text message show how ridiculous it is to assign guilt and deliver punishment solely over such ambiguous interpretations?
-
This looks like this is going to get ugly. Clearly the team and Brady are gonna fight this to the death. And considering how they're going about this, either they're reaching Roger Clemens status where Brady is just straight-up delusional and is unwilling to admit to himself or anyone else that he did cheat...or he's innocent.
The message clearly isn't "Don't cheat and you won't get punished". The message is "Don't be the Patriots, and you won't pay an arm and a leg for equipment violations that are otherwise routinely treated with a slap on the wrist".
I honestly don't think the majority of this punishment is for the actual equipment violations. It seems to me like they decided to really come down hard because Brady or the team "didn't full cooperate with the investigation", plus it seems as though both Brady and McNally were caught in lies during the investigation...Brady saying he has no idea who McNally is, McNally saying he never stopped in the bathroom. It's not a good look. It still doesn't mean he's not innocent, but I really think this where the massive punishment comes from
From what I understand, Brady did not deny knowing McNally. He just only knew him by his nickname "Bird" and wasn't fully aware of all his reponsibilities. The guy only works home game days afterall. Does that really constitute as a lie?
-
While it will never be proven, I still say John Harbaugh was the one who initiated all of this. He whined about the Pats creative use of the eligible/ineligible receiver rule, so Brady responded with his "study the rulebook" comment.
I know Ryan Grigson and the Colts were the ones to initially email the league about their concerns, but both Grigson and Chuck Pagano originally came from Baltimore and worked with Harbaugh. They're buddies and both hold a common disliking for the Patriots. As soon as Harbaugh heard the "study the rulebook" comment, I think that got the ball rolling on all of this.
Even the email sent by the Colts to the league specifically said "We, along with many other teams, widely believe they've been doing this for awhile." Well if it was going on for awhile, why wait so long to mention something?...That rulebook comment I really think has started all of this.
-
This looks like this is going to get ugly. Clearly the team and Brady are gonna fight this to the death. And considering how they're going about this, either they're reaching Roger Clemens status where Brady is just straight-up delusional and is unwilling to admit to himself or anyone else that he did cheat...or he's innocent.
The message clearly isn't "Don't cheat and you won't get punished". The message is "Don't be the Patriots, and you won't pay an arm and a leg for equipment violations that are otherwise routinely treated with a slap on the wrist".
I honestly don't think the majority of this punishment is for the actual equipment violations. It seems to me like they decided to really come down hard because Brady or the team "didn't full cooperate with the investigation", plus it seems as though both Brady and McNally were caught in lies during the investigation...Brady saying he has no idea who McNally is, McNally saying he never stopped in the bathroom. It's not a good look. It still doesn't mean he's not innocent, but I really think this where the massive punishment comes from
From what I understand, Brady did not deny knowing McNally. He just only knew him by his nickname "Bird". The guy only works home game days afterall. Does that really constitute as a lie?
I know Tedy Bruschi brought up the whole "Bird" nickname...but I'm pretty sure when Brady was first asked about it in this investigation, he said he had never heard of or seen him ever before in his life...and worded that way, boldfaced lie.
-
This looks like this is going to get ugly. Clearly the team and Brady are gonna fight this to the death. And considering how they're going about this, either they're reaching Roger Clemens status where Brady is just straight-up delusional and is unwilling to admit to himself or anyone else that he did cheat...or he's innocent.
The message clearly isn't, "Don't cheat and you won't get punished". The message is "Don't be the Patriots, and you won't pay an arm and a leg for equipment violations that are otherwise routinely treated with a slap on the wrist".
There's an interesting middle ground in this, though. What if Brady told his equipment guys to just make sure that his footballs are never overinflated to unplayability again. That puts him in a place where he had no intention to submit or play with noncompliant balls, but probably knew what was going on.
TP
-
This looks like this is going to get ugly. Clearly the team and Brady are gonna fight this to the death. And considering how they're going about this, either they're reaching Roger Clemens status where Brady is just straight-up delusional and is unwilling to admit to himself or anyone else that he did cheat...or he's innocent.
The message clearly isn't, "Don't cheat and you won't get punished". The message is "Don't be the Patriots, and you won't pay an arm and a leg for equipment violations that are otherwise routinely treated with a slap on the wrist".
::)
Scenario #1 - There is this giant conspiracy against the Patriots in the NFL.
Scenario #2 - Goodell thinks there is proof that Patriots cheated and that it helped them win a Super Bowl. Punishment ensues that is entirely consistent with other high profile cases.
While I'm sure #1 is the preferred way of thinking among certain deluded Patriots fans who refuse to face reality, it's #2 that is the truth.
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--6B0sFNmj--/1240594005420305993.gif)
-
Not that I agree with that, but doesn't this text message contradict that interpretation? "You didn?t do anything wrong bud."
Why would it? Jastremski didn't tamper with any footballs, so he technically did nothing wrong.
If he was a part of the scheme as Wells has determined, then he did do something wrong even if he was not technically deflating footballs himself. The stament that he did nothing wrong, implies he was not part of a scheme and therefore inncoent. And now where back to the interpretation that Shoenfeld talking to him was just about fact finding.
Doesn't our back and forth over the interpetation of a single text message show how ridiculous it is to assign guilt and deliver punishment solely over such ambiguous interpretations?
We're not talking about what the NFL determined here, we're talking about what the perception might have been. It doesn't directly imply innocence or guilt, which makes interpreting it one way or the other highly problematic.
For what we know, Brady was just trying to calm his gear guy down so he doesn't have a full-blown meltdown :P
-
This looks like this is going to get ugly. Clearly the team and Brady are gonna fight this to the death. And considering how they're going about this, either they're reaching Roger Clemens status where Brady is just straight-up delusional and is unwilling to admit to himself or anyone else that he did cheat...or he's innocent.
The message clearly isn't, "Don't cheat and you won't get punished". The message is "Don't be the Patriots, and you won't pay an arm and a leg for equipment violations that are otherwise routinely treated with a slap on the wrist".
::)
Scenario #1 - There is this giant conspiracy against the Patriots in the NFL.
Scenario #2 - Goodell thinks there is proof that Patriots cheated and that it helped them win a Super Bowl. Punishment ensues that is entirely consistent with other high profile cases.
While I'm sure #1 is the preferred way of thinking among certain deluded Patriots fans who refuse to face reality, it's #2 that is the truth.
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--6B0sFNmj--/1240594005420305993.gif)
That's cute.
-
While it will never be proven, I still say John Harbaugh was the one who initiated all of this. He whined about the Pats creative use of the eligible/ineligible receiver rule, so Brady responded with his "study the rulebook" comment.
I know Ryan Grigson and the Colts were the ones to initially email the league about their concerns, but both Grigson and Chuck Pagano originally came from Baltimore and worked with Harbaugh. They're buddies and both hold a common disliking for the Patriots. As soon as Harbaugh heard the "study the rulebook" comment, I think that got the ball rolling on all of this.
Even the email sent by the Colts to the league specifically said "We, along with many other teams, widely believe they've been doing this for awhile." Well if it was going on for awhile, why wait so long to mention something?...That rulebook comment I really think has started all of this.
ya, harbaugh was embarrassed
The sad thing is that non patriot fans won't ever give them credit for the genius (by the book) ideas they've had
-
This looks like this is going to get ugly. Clearly the team and Brady are gonna fight this to the death. And considering how they're going about this, either they're reaching Roger Clemens status where Brady is just straight-up delusional and is unwilling to admit to himself or anyone else that he did cheat...or he's innocent.
The message clearly isn't, "Don't cheat and you won't get punished". The message is "Don't be the Patriots, and you won't pay an arm and a leg for equipment violations that are otherwise routinely treated with a slap on the wrist".
::)
Scenario #1 - There is this giant conspiracy against the Patriots in the NFL.
Scenario #2 - Goodell thinks there is proof that Patriots cheated and that it helped them win a Super Bowl. Punishment ensues that is entirely consistent with other high profile cases.
While I'm sure #1 is the preferred way of thinking among certain deluded Patriots fans who refuse to face reality, it's #2 that is the truth.
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--6B0sFNmj--/1240594005420305993.gif)
consistent with other high profile cases, huh
Sure......
This punishment TOTALLY fits the crime ::)
What's your favorite nfl team, granath?
-
This looks like this is going to get ugly. Clearly the team and Brady are gonna fight this to the death. And considering how they're going about this, either they're reaching Roger Clemens status where Brady is just straight-up delusional and is unwilling to admit to himself or anyone else that he did cheat...or he's innocent.
The message clearly isn't, "Don't cheat and you won't get punished". The message is "Don't be the Patriots, and you won't pay an arm and a leg for equipment violations that are otherwise routinely treated with a slap on the wrist".
::)
Scenario #1 - There is this giant conspiracy against the Patriots in the NFL.
Scenario #2 - Goodell thinks there is proof that Patriots cheated and that it helped them win a Super Bowl. Punishment ensues that is entirely consistent with other high profile cases.
While I'm sure #1 is the preferred way of thinking among certain deluded Patriots fans who refuse to face reality, it's #2 that is the truth.
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--6B0sFNmj--/1240594005420305993.gif)
whoops, double post
-
This looks like this is going to get ugly. Clearly the team and Brady are gonna fight this to the death. And considering how they're going about this, either they're reaching Roger Clemens status where Brady is just straight-up delusional and is unwilling to admit to himself or anyone else that he did cheat...or he's innocent.
The message clearly isn't "Don't cheat and you won't get punished". The message is "Don't be the Patriots, and you won't pay an arm and a leg for equipment violations that are otherwise routinely treated with a slap on the wrist".
I honestly don't think the majority of this punishment is for the actual equipment violations. It seems to me like they decided to really come down hard because Brady or the team "didn't full cooperate with the investigation", plus it seems as though both Brady and McNally were caught in lies during the investigation...Brady saying he has no idea who McNally is, McNally saying he never stopped in the bathroom. It's not a good look. It still doesn't mean he's not innocent, but I really think this where the massive punishment comes from
From what I understand, Brady did not deny knowing McNally. He just only knew him by his nickname "Bird". The guy only works home game days afterall. Does that really constitute as a lie?
I know Tedy Bruschi brought up the whole "Bird" nickname...but I'm pretty sure when Brady was first asked about it in this investigation, he said he had never heard of or seen him ever before in his life...and worded that way, boldfaced lie.
Here's the quote: When asked specifically whether he had spoken with Jastremski about McNally on the night of the Jets game, he stated: “I didn?t know who Jim McNally was so I find it hard to believe I could bring that up.”
Brady was the last interview and Wells points out that it contradicted Jastremski's statement and Wells used this as major evidence of guilt. Well, wouldn't it be natural for the investigators to then point out this contradiction to Brady (Don Yee has even acknowledged that Brady knew him) and get his response? That part of the conversation was suspiciously missing from the report.
From the Boston Globe on this exact issue:
Christoher Grasper asks Yee "What about the testimony in the report where Tom says he doesn’t know Patriots officials locker room attendant Jim McNally and both equipment assistant John Jastremski said Tom knew him and what his job was? How do you explain that?
Yee answers "Again, if the Wells report would have put the precise testimony into the report I think that apparent contradiction could have been cleared up."
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/05/08/don-yee-discusses-tom-brady-and-wells-report/0meCGwAz3Le60yf9q6IjKP/story.html
Are you sure that is a bold faced lie?
-
This looks like this is going to get ugly. Clearly the team and Brady are gonna fight this to the death. And considering how they're going about this, either they're reaching Roger Clemens status where Brady is just straight-up delusional and is unwilling to admit to himself or anyone else that he did cheat...or he's innocent.
The message clearly isn't, "Don't cheat and you won't get punished". The message is "Don't be the Patriots, and you won't pay an arm and a leg for equipment violations that are otherwise routinely treated with a slap on the wrist".
::)
Scenario #1 - There is this giant conspiracy against the Patriots in the NFL.
Scenario #2 - Goodell thinks there is proof that Patriots cheated and that it helped them win a Super Bowl. Punishment ensues that is entirely consistent with other high profile cases.
While I'm sure #1 is the preferred way of thinking among certain deluded Patriots fans who refuse to face reality, it's #2 that is the truth.
That's very nice. I'm sure the preferred way of thinking among certain fans is that everything is just black and white. Which I'm sure works great for them -- no thinking required.
Out in the real world, however, we have some other options available. Like for example, the possibility of the presence of some sort of transgression of unknown severity, as well as the allocation of discipline that completely doesn't fit the crime.
-
consistent with other high profile cases, huh
Sure......
This punishment TOTALLY fits the crime ::)
What's your favorite nfl team, granath?
I've already mentioned that I no longer watch the NFL, in large part due to Goodell's rulings in the NFL. But yes, go back a couple of pages and you'll see my post which details that this is entirely consistent with other high profile cases in the NFL.
Note, I am not saying the punishment fit the crime. It does not. Neither did the punishment for the Saints (incredibly overboard and unjustly accused some players of participating). Or for Ben Roethlisberger (zero proof, no probable cause, no charges). Or Goodell's second try at Ray Rice (outside the boundaries of the CBA to punish someone twice). Or Adrian Peterson (again, outside the CBA). So on and so forth. What is the commonality of these cases? The Saints case was right in the middle of the concussion debacle. Big Ben is a high profile player. Ray Rice's TMZ video tape and the backlash against the paltry two game suspension. Peterson's abuse case coming on the heels of the Rice debacle. In short, the commonality is that all of these hit mainstream media.
Essentially, there's two tiers of punishment for Goodell. There's the normal suspensions and fines - the everyday comings and goings in the NFL. Then there's the ones with a lot of media scrutiny and Roger's MO is to go overboard on these to show everyone how tough he is. It makes for a very uneven system of punishment.
While we will never know whether this is true or not, I believe that if the Patriots lost the Super Bowl the punishment would have far less severe. But the "appearance" is that the Patriots cheated their way to a Super Bowl win and thus you have what was handed down yesterday. Remember when the Steelers had that coach that accidentally stepped on to the field and impacted the game. The rumor was that the Steelers were going to fined a draft pick. Only after they failed to make the playoffs was it leaked that there would be no further punishment. Had the Steelers made the playoffs, I would place a bet that they would have lost that draft pick. Why? Because the incident would have had a higher profile.
So the narrative that the NFL has two sets of rules - one for the Patriots and one for everyone else - is laughable. It's simply not the case. There ARE two sets of rules - one for high-profile media cases and one for those that aren't. It's just Roger being Roger.
-
consistent with other high profile cases, huh
Sure......
This punishment TOTALLY fits the crime ::)
What's your favorite nfl team, granath?
I've already mentioned that I no longer watch the NFL, in large part due to Goodell's rulings in the NFL. But yes, go back a couple of pages and you'll see my post which details that this is entirely consistent with other high profile cases in the NFL.
Note, I am not saying the punishment fit the crime. It does not. Neither did the punishment for the Saints (incredibly overboard and unjustly accused some players of participating). Or for Ben Roethlisberger (zero proof, no probable cause, no charges). Or Goodell's second try at Ray Rice (outside the boundaries of the CBA to punish someone twice). Or Adrian Peterson (again, outside the CBA). So on and so forth. What is the commonality of these cases? The Saints case was right in the middle of the concussion debacle. Big Ben is a high profile player. Ray Rice's TMZ video tape and the backlash against the paltry two game suspension. Peterson's abuse case coming on the heels of the Rice debacle. In short, the commonality is that all of these hit mainstream media.
Essentially, there's two tiers of punishment for Goodell. There's the normal suspensions and fines - the everyday comings and goings in the NFL. Then there's the ones with a lot of media scrutiny and Roger's MO is to go overboard on these to show everyone how tough he is. It makes for a very uneven system of punishment.
While we will never know whether this is true or not, I believe that if the Patriots lost the Super Bowl the punishment would have far less severe. But the "appearance" is that the Patriots cheated their way to a Super Bowl win and thus you have what was handed down yesterday. Remember when the Steelers had that coach that accidentally stepped on to the field and impacted the game. The rumor was that the Steelers were going to fined a draft pick. Only after they failed to make the playoffs was it leaked that there would be no further punishment. Had the Steelers made the playoffs, I would place a bet that they would have lost that draft pick. Why? Because the incident would have had a higher profile.
So the narrative that the NFL has two sets of rules - one for the Patriots and one for everyone else - is laughable. It's simply not the case. There ARE two sets of rules - one for high-profile media cases and one for those that aren't. It's just Roger being Roger.
So how did the Vikings heating up footballs on the sidelines, on national TV, not become a high-profile case of cheating? Doesn't get more blatant than that.
-
My opinion (disclaimer: I'm a huge Pats homer)
All the fines and suspensions the NFL has handed out in the past year are PR moves. The NFL does not really care about the players doing illegal things in any capacity other than the way in which it effects how their brand is viewed.
The NFL was viewed as weak in the discipline department so they needed to make an example of the next offender, to change Goodell's public opinion as lenient.
When the Colts (and potentially the Ravens too) complained of ball deflating, the NFL saw an opportunity to correct the negative view of their integrity among fans.
The NFL commissioned Ted Wells to find the Pats guilty. Even if he wasn't able to prove anything, his job was to make a case for the Patriots cheating. The Patriots didn't comply with all his requests because they knew he was unable to prove anything and thought that without concrete proof that the NFL would not be able to sanction them.
As a Patriots fan i feel that everyone who isn't a Patriots fan is anti patriots. In coming away with the most severe ruling possible on the Patriots, Goodell is able to satisfy the publics cry for blood and distract them from his failings during the Ray Rice incident (The NFL purposely ignored evidence after suspending Sean Peyton the year before because ignorance is not an excuse).
As a Pats fan I feel that the NFL should have to prove what the Pats have done in order to sanction them. More probable than not, as well as ignoring a lot of the science shouldn't be enough imo and I would feel that way if it was any team in the league under the microscope.
Goodell better not make a mistake going forward, since his biggest ally in the league is now one of his biggest enemies.
-
consistent with other high profile cases, huh
Sure......
This punishment TOTALLY fits the crime ::)
What's your favorite nfl team, granath?
I've already mentioned that I no longer watch the NFL, in large part due to Goodell's rulings in the NFL. But yes, go back a couple of pages and you'll see my post which details that this is entirely consistent with other high profile cases in the NFL.
Note, I am not saying the punishment fit the crime. It does not. Neither did the punishment for the Saints (incredibly overboard and unjustly accused some players of participating). Or for Ben Roethlisberger (zero proof, no probable cause, no charges). Or Goodell's second try at Ray Rice (outside the boundaries of the CBA to punish someone twice). Or Adrian Peterson (again, outside the CBA). So on and so forth. What is the commonality of these cases? The Saints case was right in the middle of the concussion debacle. Big Ben is a high profile player. Ray Rice's TMZ video tape and the backlash against the paltry two game suspension. Peterson's abuse case coming on the heels of the Rice debacle. In short, the commonality is that all of these hit mainstream media.
Essentially, there's two tiers of punishment for Goodell. There's the normal suspensions and fines - the everyday comings and goings in the NFL. Then there's the ones with a lot of media scrutiny and Roger's MO is to go overboard on these to show everyone how tough he is. It makes for a very uneven system of punishment.
While we will never know whether this is true or not, I believe that if the Patriots lost the Super Bowl the punishment would have far less severe. But the "appearance" is that the Patriots cheated their way to a Super Bowl win and thus you have what was handed down yesterday. Remember when the Steelers had that coach that accidentally stepped on to the field and impacted the game. The rumor was that the Steelers were going to fined a draft pick. Only after they failed to make the playoffs was it leaked that there would be no further punishment. Had the Steelers made the playoffs, I would place a bet that they would have lost that draft pick. Why? Because the incident would have had a higher profile.
So the narrative that the NFL has two sets of rules - one for the Patriots and one for everyone else - is laughable. It's simply not the case. There ARE two sets of rules - one for high-profile media cases and one for those that aren't. It's just Roger being Roger.
So how did the Vikings heating up footballs on the sidelines, on national TV, not become a high-profile case of cheating? Doesn't get more blatant than that.
Your very question is further evidence for the point I made.
Not to mention there's a big difference between unknowingly breaking a rule and purposely breaking one (and hiding it and lying about it).
-
So how did the Vikings heating up footballs on the sidelines, on national TV, not become a high-profile case of cheating? Doesn't get more blatant than that.
I think that there's a difference between ignorance of a rule, and knowing a rule and then taking steps to break it, while hiding it from detection.
The Vikings were heating their footballs up out in the open, where the officials and everyone else could see what they were doing. They probably had no intent to cheat, and it was a one time thing.
What the Patriots were found to have done is different. They surreptitiously broke the rules, and then lied about it. I think it's a different type of violation.
That said, that doesn't mean the penalty is appropriate. However, I think that intent plays a big role here.
-
Christopher Price has a really good article up on WEEI.com right now. This part stuck out at me & sorta sums up how I feel about the league office. The way the league handles things is just so arbitrary & reactionary. It's a joke.
The league dropped the report last Wednesday, and then it proceeded to stick its finger in the air and test public sentiment. When the national mob cried for blood, the NFL hit the Patriots with the biggest fine in NFL history, and Brady was hit with four games. And when the rubber hit the road, Goodell was nowhere to be found. Vincent was the one who wrote the letter.
-
you guys see this website? LOL
http://yourteamcheats.com/
-
Granath is making a pretty good point, though. A similar sentiment went up on deadspin a little while ago:
Bob Kraft has stood behind Roger Goodell through everything, even rolled over for hisSpygate punishment. (Kraft reportedly apologized to the league’s coaches and owners for how the Patriots’ actions had affected public perception of the league, which says everything.) But this appears to be the hill he will die on.
Of course Kraft, one of Goodell’s strongest allies, could have smothered this in the crib years ago. Starting from Spygate, Goodell has been allowed to wield disciplinary powers like his big swinging dick, with only the ineffectual NFLPA opposing his arbitrary and publicity-driven punishments. And not one owner has publicly stood up for another. Not when Tom Benson lost coaches, players, money, and draft picks for a ginned up bounty scandal. Not when Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder were docked $46 million in cap space for spending “too much” in a year without a salary cap. Those were apparently acceptable to Kraft—or not worth weakening the commissioner—because they didn’t concern him. (“First they came for the Saints, and I did not speak out...”) Now the chickens are roosting, and they’re here for Tom Brady, and only now does Kraft apparently see a problem with having empowered the commissioner to be judge, jury, and executioner.
http://deadspin.com/the-patriots-war-against-the-nfl-has-spilled-online-1703915895
-
So how did the Vikings heating up footballs on the sidelines, on national TV, not become a high-profile case of cheating? Doesn't get more blatant than that.
I think that there's a difference between ignorance of a rule, and knowing a rule and then taking steps to break it, while hiding it from detection.
The Vikings were heating their footballs up out in the open, where the officials and everyone else could see what they were doing. They probably had no intent to cheat, and it was a one time thing.
What the Patriots were found to have done is different. They surreptitiously broke the rules, and then lied about it. I think it's a different type of violation.
That said, that doesn't mean the penalty is appropriate. However, I think that intent plays a big role here.
So when the Kansas City Chiefs used a towel laced with a sticky substance and then refused to hand it over to a league official, that's still a different type of violation? Of course, we can't say whether there was the same level of "intent", since there was no investigation determining whether their equipment managers should be thrown out of the game; the team got a $20,000 slap on the wrist, which is suspiciously similar in scale with the $25,000 that the rules prescribe as the baseline for tampering with footballs.
-
shalise manza youngVerified account
?@shalisemyoung
Wells basically saying he would have taken printouts of pertinent texts b/t Brady & Jastremski; didn't have to take possession of TB phone
Interesting. My guess is that this is related to the fact that Jastremski's phone didn't retain any messages prior to mid-2014 -- otherwise all of Brady's texts would have been seen.
-
So how did the Vikings heating up footballs on the sidelines, on national TV, not become a high-profile case of cheating? Doesn't get more blatant than that.
I think that there's a difference between ignorance of a rule, and knowing a rule and then taking steps to break it, while hiding it from detection.
The Vikings were heating their footballs up out in the open, where the officials and everyone else could see what they were doing. They probably had no intent to cheat, and it was a one time thing.
What the Patriots were found to have done is different. They surreptitiously broke the rules, and then lied about it. I think it's a different type of violation.
That said, that doesn't mean the penalty is appropriate. However, I think that intent plays a big role here.
So when the Kansas City Chiefs used a towel laced with a sticky substance and then refused to hand it over to a league official, that's still a different type of violation? Of course, we can't say whether there was the same level of "intent", since there was no investigation determining whether their equipment managers should be thrown out of the game; the team got a $20,000 slap on the wrist, which is suspiciously similar in scale with the $25,000 that the rules prescribe as the baseline for tampering with footballs.
this is what i've been saying all along.
the chargers (not the chiefs BTW) refused to hand over the evidence in question. they didn't cooperate. and all they got was a fine. compare that to the patriots, who cooperated during spygate and got a first-rounder taken away, as well as a huge fine, and an evisceration by the media. that's a huge gulf in consistency there.
this time the patriots knew special punishment was coming no matter what they said or did. so why cooperate and potentially make the league's case easier? without those texts, the league had almost nothing.
if the pats had been confident that they'd receive fair punishment, i think their reaction might have been different. but they knew the league would react to the media outrage, and they'd get hammered by a desperate commissioner no matter what.
-
I think a lot how they reacted was to Brady's not cooperating and him daring them to do something. Whomever was his handler, was giving him ill suited advice and it forced Goodell to give 4 instead of two which seemed more appropriate as four is what they give for a drug offense and two is what they were going to give Rice for assault. I certainly did not see them hammering him for four.
-
Ha...anyone following this Barstool thing on Twitter right now? Some of the guys handcuffed themselves & are staging a sit-in at the NFL offices right now.
-
Ted Wells just held a press conference to try and clear his name in this since some people are arguing Wells did a bad job, wasn't independent enough, etc.
The biggest takeaway seems to be that they didn't even consider the crime that bad. 75% of this punishment is based on the fact that Brady and the team didn't cooperate with the investigation, so they basically had to assume their guilty.
The two most important aspects of this is that when Wells asked to talk to McNally one last time after they uncovered the texts and wanted to further question him on it, the team said no. And then he also cleared up the Brady phone issue, he never asked for Brady's phone. He asked for Brady to pick out all of the texts that would be considered related to the investigation. He even said he would take a written transcript of it and "take Brady's word on it"...and Brady still said no.
Now THAT certainly doesn't sound good on Brady's part. I'd love to hear Brady's side of that story.
-
Brady will almost certainly appeal. The interesting question is who will hear the appeal. I believe the CBA allows Goodell to hear it, unless he recuses himself as he did in the Ray Rice issue.
-
75% of this punishment is based on the fact that Brady and the team didn't cooperate with the investigation, so they basically had to assume their guilty.
But, they did cooperate. The Wells report said so: "the Patriots provided substantial cooperation throughout the investigation" on p. 23, apparently
-
Ted Wells just held a press conference to try and clear his name in this since some people are arguing Wells did a bad job, wasn't independent enough, etc.
The biggest takeaway seems to be that they didn't even consider the crime that bad. 75% of this punishment is based on the fact that Brady and the team didn't cooperate with the investigation, so they basically had to assume their guilty.
The two most important aspects of this is that when Wells asked to talk to McNally one last time after they uncovered the texts and wanted to further question him on it, the team said no. And then he also cleared up the Brady phone issue, he never asked for Brady's phone. He asked for Brady to pick out all of the texts that would be considered related to the investigation. He even said he would take a written transcript of it and "take Brady's word on it"...and Brady still said no.
Now THAT certainly doesn't sound good on Brady's part. I'd love to hear Brady's side of that story.
"McNally, the Patriots’ officials locker room attendant, agreed to be interviewed over the phone, but the NFL declined his offer"
http://nesn.com/2015/05/report-jim-mcnally-was-willing-to-be-questioned-over-phone-nfl-declined/
This is a full fledged soap opera.
-
75% of this punishment is based on the fact that Brady and the team didn't cooperate with the investigation, so they basically had to assume their guilty.
But, they did cooperate. The Wells report said so: "the Patriots provided substantial cooperation throughout the investigation" on p. 23, apparently
They didn't fully cooperate though. I'll repeat myself...they didn't allow McNally to be interviewed again by Wells after he uncovered all of the texts that are put in his report. And then Brady, yes he did answer questions, but when it came to asking for texts from his phone regarding the investigation, he refused.
So sure, they cooperated but not totally...and any sliver of not cooperating is considered detrimental to the league.
And Wells also basically challenged Don Yee to publish his 40 pages of notes that he said he had, and guaranteed nothing will be in there thats newsworthy...so Wells isn't backing down. It doesn't sound good for the Pats.
I'm really starting to think that the Pats aren't gonna win this one, and are gonna look like fools in the process, if they don't already. I'm really starting to wonder if Brady was petrified that he DID admit to it right after the AFC championship game, that he'd be suspended for the super bowl, and so he felt he had no choice but to lie.
-
Ted Wells just held a press conference to try and clear his name in this since some people are arguing Wells did a bad job, wasn't independent enough, etc.
The biggest takeaway seems to be that they didn't even consider the crime that bad. 75% of this punishment is based on the fact that Brady and the team didn't cooperate with the investigation, so they basically had to assume their guilty.
The two most important aspects of this is that when Wells asked to talk to McNally one last time after they uncovered the texts and wanted to further question him on it, the team said no. And then he also cleared up the Brady phone issue, he never asked for Brady's phone. He asked for Brady to pick out all of the texts that would be considered related to the investigation. He even said he would take a written transcript of it and "take Brady's word on it"...and Brady still said no.
Now THAT certainly doesn't sound good on Brady's part. I'd love to hear Brady's side of that story.
"McNally, the Patriots’ officials locker room attendant, agreed to be interviewed over the phone, but the NFL declined his offer"
http://nesn.com/2015/05/report-jim-mcnally-was-willing-to-be-questioned-over-phone-nfl-declined/
This is a full fledged soap opera.
Soap opera indeed, it's really becoming unprecedented right now...and while I do think it's dumb that the NFL declined his offer of a phone interview, it's also not the league's duty to cooperate with McNally. It's McNally's duty to cooperate with the league, and there's a big difference there. Wells said in his interview that he was willing to travel to New Hampshire to see him and the team still declined, and also said they wouldn't even tell McNally that Wells wanted to see him again.
For this type of interview and investigation, phone interviews aren't enough anyway. You gotta do this in person because I'm sure they would judge how he says things, how nervous he looks, etc.
The further this goes along, the worse and worse the Patriots look. It's getting to the point where they should just admit some wrongdoing and try and make it go away.
-
75% of this punishment is based on the fact that Brady and the team didn't cooperate with the investigation, so they basically had to assume their guilty.
But, they did cooperate. The Wells report said so: "the Patriots provided substantial cooperation throughout the investigation" on p. 23, apparently
They didn't fully cooperate though. I'll repeat myself...they didn't allow McNally to be interviewed again by Wells after he uncovered all of the texts that are put in his report. And then Brady, yes he did answer questions, but when it came to asking for texts from his phone regarding the investigation, he refused.
So sure, they cooperated but not totally...and any sliver of not cooperating is considered detrimental to the league.
And Wells also basically challenged Don Yee to publish his 40 pages of notes that he said he had, and guaranteed nothing will be in there thats newsworthy...so Wells isn't backing down. It doesn't sound good for the Pats.
I'm really starting to think that the Pats aren't gonna win this one, and are gonna look like fools in the process, if they don't already. I'm really starting to wonder if Brady was petrified that he DID admit to it right after the AFC championship game, that he'd be suspended for the super bowl, and so he felt he had no choice but to lie.
Danny Kanell on Mike and Mike this morning said Brady should have held a press conference immediately after the AFC title game (after the story leaked) and said something like "I prefer my footballs to be on the low end of the legal spectrum. I have made that known to the Patriots staff. I certainly never asked anyone to underinflate the balls to illegal limits and do not believe anyone intentionally did that. If any of the balls were below the limit as a result of any comments I've made, then I am sorry." According to Kanell something like that would have pretty much ended the inquiry before it started and at most Brady would have been fined.
-
75% of this punishment is based on the fact that Brady and the team didn't cooperate with the investigation, so they basically had to assume their guilty.
But, they did cooperate. The Wells report said so: "the Patriots provided substantial cooperation throughout the investigation" on p. 23, apparently
They didn't fully cooperate though. I'll repeat myself...they didn't allow McNally to be interviewed again by Wells after he uncovered all of the texts that are put in his report. And then Brady, yes he did answer questions, but when it came to asking for texts from his phone regarding the investigation, he refused.
So sure, they cooperated but not totally...and any sliver of not cooperating is considered detrimental to the league.
And Wells also basically challenged Don Yee to publish his 40 pages of notes that he said he had, and guaranteed nothing will be in there thats newsworthy...so Wells isn't backing down. It doesn't sound good for the Pats.
I'm really starting to think that the Pats aren't gonna win this one, and are gonna look like fools in the process, if they don't already. I'm really starting to wonder if Brady was petrified that he DID admit to it right after the AFC championship game, that he'd be suspended for the super bowl, and so he felt he had no choice but to lie.
On the contrary, I think this is looking worse and worse for Goodell. Yeah, he got some applause from the many Pats haters out there, but there's also a lot of criticism of Goodell. Deflategate is now refered to as a "mess" -- not a neatly tied up and concluded event.
-
75% of this punishment is based on the fact that Brady and the team didn't cooperate with the investigation, so they basically had to assume their guilty.
But, they did cooperate. The Wells report said so: "the Patriots provided substantial cooperation throughout the investigation" on p. 23, apparently
They didn't fully cooperate though. I'll repeat myself...they didn't allow McNally to be interviewed again by Wells after he uncovered all of the texts that are put in his report. And then Brady, yes he did answer questions, but when it came to asking for texts from his phone regarding the investigation, he refused.
So sure, they cooperated but not totally...and any sliver of not cooperating is considered detrimental to the league.
And Wells also basically challenged Don Yee to publish his 40 pages of notes that he said he had, and guaranteed nothing will be in there thats newsworthy...so Wells isn't backing down. It doesn't sound good for the Pats.
I'm really starting to think that the Pats aren't gonna win this one, and are gonna look like fools in the process, if they don't already. I'm really starting to wonder if Brady was petrified that he DID admit to it right after the AFC championship game, that he'd be suspended for the super bowl, and so he felt he had no choice but to lie.
Danny Kanell on Mike and Mike this morning said Brady should have held a press conference immediately after the AFC title game (after the story leaked) and said something like "I prefer my footballs to be on the low end of the legal spectrum. I have made that known to the Patriots staff. I certainly never asked anyone to underinflate the balls to illegal limits and do not believe anyone intentionally did that. If any of the balls were below the limit as a result of any comments I've made, then I am sorry." According to Kanell something like that would have pretty much ended the inquiry before it started and at most Brady would have been fined.
It's easy to say that now in hindsight, he very well may be right. But in Brady's position at the time, with national media outlets from all over the country questioning whether or not you're cheater, it looks like he panicked, and felt denying was the best way to go...which when you look at it now, might've been the wrong decision.
-
75% of this punishment is based on the fact that Brady and the team didn't cooperate with the investigation, so they basically had to assume their guilty.
But, they did cooperate. The Wells report said so: "the Patriots provided substantial cooperation throughout the investigation" on p. 23, apparently
They didn't fully cooperate though. I'll repeat myself...they didn't allow McNally to be interviewed again by Wells after he uncovered all of the texts that are put in his report. And then Brady, yes he did answer questions, but when it came to asking for texts from his phone regarding the investigation, he refused.
So sure, they cooperated but not totally...and any sliver of not cooperating is considered detrimental to the league.
And Wells also basically challenged Don Yee to publish his 40 pages of notes that he said he had, and guaranteed nothing will be in there thats newsworthy...so Wells isn't backing down. It doesn't sound good for the Pats.
I'm really starting to think that the Pats aren't gonna win this one, and are gonna look like fools in the process, if they don't already. I'm really starting to wonder if Brady was petrified that he DID admit to it right after the AFC championship game, that he'd be suspended for the super bowl, and so he felt he had no choice but to lie.
Danny Kanell on Mike and Mike this morning said Brady should have held a press conference immediately after the AFC title game (after the story leaked) and said something like "I prefer my footballs to be on the low end of the legal spectrum. I have made that known to the Patriots staff. I certainly never asked anyone to underinflate the balls to illegal limits and do not believe anyone intentionally did that. If any of the balls were below the limit as a result of any comments I've made, then I am sorry." According to Kanell something like that would have pretty much ended the inquiry before it started and at most Brady would have been fined.
It's easy to say that now in hindsight, he very well may be right. But in Brady's position at the time, with national media outlets from all over the country questioning whether or not you're cheater, it looks like he panicked, and felt denying was the best way to go...which when you look at it now, might've been the wrong decision.
Telling the truth is never the wrong decision.
-
75% of this punishment is based on the fact that Brady and the team didn't cooperate with the investigation, so they basically had to assume their guilty.
But, they did cooperate. The Wells report said so: "the Patriots provided substantial cooperation throughout the investigation" on p. 23, apparently
They didn't fully cooperate though. I'll repeat myself...they didn't allow McNally to be interviewed again by Wells after he uncovered all of the texts that are put in his report. And then Brady, yes he did answer questions, but when it came to asking for texts from his phone regarding the investigation, he refused.
So sure, they cooperated but not totally...and any sliver of not cooperating is considered detrimental to the league.
And Wells also basically challenged Don Yee to publish his 40 pages of notes that he said he had, and guaranteed nothing will be in there thats newsworthy...so Wells isn't backing down. It doesn't sound good for the Pats.
I'm really starting to think that the Pats aren't gonna win this one, and are gonna look like fools in the process, if they don't already. I'm really starting to wonder if Brady was petrified that he DID admit to it right after the AFC championship game, that he'd be suspended for the super bowl, and so he felt he had no choice but to lie.
On the contrary, I think this is looking worse and worse for Goodell. Yeah, he got some applause from the many Pats haters out there, but there's also a lot of criticism of Goodell. Deflategate is now refered to as a "mess" -- not a neatly tied up and concluded event.
The criticism of Goodell is completely warranted, although you could argue it's really criticism of the league, because Wells said in his phone conference that while he doesn't know for sure, by all accounts, he thinks that Goodell had no knowledge of the initial complaint by the Colts.
The Patriots not cooperating looks to be THE key in all of this. It's giving me no choice but to assume that this ball deflating goes waaaay back. The Patriots saw what was coming when they saw what happened in the Bountygate scandal. The league initially interviewed Gregg Williams, then after they got all their evidence, they called him back in, showed him the evidence, and he basically had no choice but to admit to everything because they were caught.
I think the Patriots saw that, saw that they wanted to interview McNally about the texts ("the deflator" or "I'll go to ESPN...") and then basically weighed their options. What's worse, falling on the grenade and taking a 4 game suspension for Brady with a fine and lost draft pick for impeding the investigation? Or having Jim McNally nailed and then possibly seeing a year-long suspension for maybe Belichick, maybe Brady? They felt the punishment they got for all this was still better than what would've happened if they uncovered EVERYTHING
-
consistent with other high profile cases, huh
Sure......
This punishment TOTALLY fits the crime ::)
What's your favorite nfl team, granath?
I've already mentioned that I no longer watch the NFL, in large part due to Goodell's rulings in the NFL. But yes, go back a couple of pages and you'll see my post which details that this is entirely consistent with other high profile cases in the NFL.
Note, I am not saying the punishment fit the crime. It does not. Neither did the punishment for the Saints (incredibly overboard and unjustly accused some players of participating). Or for Ben Roethlisberger (zero proof, no probable cause, no charges). Or Goodell's second try at Ray Rice (outside the boundaries of the CBA to punish someone twice). Or Adrian Peterson (again, outside the CBA). So on and so forth. What is the commonality of these cases? The Saints case was right in the middle of the concussion debacle. Big Ben is a high profile player. Ray Rice's TMZ video tape and the backlash against the paltry two game suspension. Peterson's abuse case coming on the heels of the Rice debacle. In short, the commonality is that all of these hit mainstream media.
Essentially, there's two tiers of punishment for Goodell. There's the normal suspensions and fines - the everyday comings and goings in the NFL. Then there's the ones with a lot of media scrutiny and Roger's MO is to go overboard on these to show everyone how tough he is. It makes for a very uneven system of punishment.
While we will never know whether this is true or not, I believe that if the Patriots lost the Super Bowl the punishment would have far less severe. But the "appearance" is that the Patriots cheated their way to a Super Bowl win and thus you have what was handed down yesterday. Remember when the Steelers had that coach that accidentally stepped on to the field and impacted the game. The rumor was that the Steelers were going to fined a draft pick. Only after they failed to make the playoffs was it leaked that there would be no further punishment. Had the Steelers made the playoffs, I would place a bet that they would have lost that draft pick. Why? Because the incident would have had a higher profile.
So the narrative that the NFL has two sets of rules - one for the Patriots and one for everyone else - is laughable. It's simply not the case. There ARE two sets of rules - one for high-profile media cases and one for those that aren't. It's just Roger being Roger.
So how did the Vikings heating up footballs on the sidelines, on national TV, not become a high-profile case of cheating? Doesn't get more blatant than that.
Your very question is further evidence for the point I made.
Not to mention there's a big difference between unknowingly breaking a rule and purposely breaking one (and hiding it and lying about it).
Wait, wait, wait. How do you know that the Vikings unknowingly broke that rule? Can you get inside their heads? Or did they say they did it unknowingly and you just take them at their word? How do professional football players not know the rules for how the footballs are supposed to be treated? Lots of people are vilifying Brady for claiming ignorance, yet similar ignorance (if true) in the Vikings' case is acceptable? Did the Chargers "unknowingly" use stickum on their towels? Were they not intending to break a rule?
I've read pretty much this entire thread, and I've held back from sounding off, but I can't hold off any longer. So here goes.
First, A GIANT DISCLAIMER: I'm a Patriots fan.
Second: I think there was something hinky going on with the Patriots and they deserve some punishment. The punishment could even be a bit stiffer than what the NFL's bylaws prescribe, since this Patriot regime is a repeat offender when it comes to breaking rules.
Third: All that said, I think this situation is absurd.
I think Roger Goodell cares more about his own image and legacy than he does about "the integrity of the shield."
I think that, for a lot of people, this is not about integrity but about sticking it to a team they despise.
I think DeflateGate is the culmination of a monthslong (or even yearslong) attempt by certain teams (and perhaps the league) to take the Pats down several pegs.
I think every other team is snickering joyously right now because most (if not all) of them have cheated in various ways (stickum, heated footballs, linemen putting slick substances on their jerseys) and essentially gotten away with it (oooooh, a $20,000 fine!), and now all the attention is on New England.
I think the NFL is foolish for not having a more secure protocol for game balls in the first place.
I think the NFL is foolish for even having a rule about air pressure. Who's to say what's "an acceptable PSI," or even "an acceptable range of PSI"? Brady likes the footballs below the legal limit; Rodgers like them above the legal limit. Why can't the league let each team decide for itself, and go with what's most comfortable to that set of QBs and receivers? Besides that, the current range seems arbitrary.
I'm not sure that I'd automatically hand over my phone to my employer, even if I was innocent.
I'm not sure why some people think this case involved more deliberate intent than, say, stickum on towels that other teams have been guilty of. And do you really think that was the first and only time those teams used stickum?
Yes, I'm riled up. Call me a deluded Patriots fan, but I don't think I'm deluded. I recognize that certain people involved with the Patriots did certain wrong things, but I also think this punishment was excessive. People say that the Patriots have cheated before; well, that's not exactly true. There have been multiple incidents involving various Patriots personnel, but they didn't always involve the same personnel. To our knowledge, Brady never lied or cheated or tried circumventing the rules before; he had no priors.
Whatever. Hopefully at least Brady's suspension is lowered.
-
Well, the Donald thinks Brady should sue the NFL for $250M for defamation.
Always the entertainer, Donald, always the entertainer.
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=12872719
-
Ted Wells just held a press conference to try and clear his name in this since some people are arguing Wells did a bad job, wasn't independent enough, etc.
The biggest takeaway seems to be that they didn't even consider the crime that bad. 75% of this punishment is based on the fact that Brady and the team didn't cooperate with the investigation, so they basically had to assume their guilty.
If they didn't consider the crime that bad, then why even investigate? They didn't bother investigating the Chargers for the stickum incident, even though the Chargers refused to cooperate. The league just fined them and was done with it.
-
Ted Wells just held a press conference to try and clear his name in this since some people are arguing Wells did a bad job, wasn't independent enough, etc.
The biggest takeaway seems to be that they didn't even consider the crime that bad. 75% of this punishment is based on the fact that Brady and the team didn't cooperate with the investigation, so they basically had to assume their guilty.
If they didn't consider the crime that bad, then why even investigate? They didn't bother investigating the Chargers for the stickum incident, even though the Chargers refused to cooperate. The league just fined them and was done with it.
Part of it was how the league remained silent in immediate aftermath following the AFC title game. After Kravitz tweeted out his thing, the league remained quiet on the topic and allowed it to turn into a full blown media circus. At that point, the public outcry was there and let a rather misdemeanor type item to turn into a full blown Watergate.
This office takes the temperature of the public and then acts accordingly. Everything they do reeks of being reactive and being relevant in the news cycle.
-
Ted Wells just held a press conference to try and clear his name in this since some people are arguing Wells did a bad job, wasn't independent enough, etc.
The biggest takeaway seems to be that they didn't even consider the crime that bad. 75% of this punishment is based on the fact that Brady and the team didn't cooperate with the investigation, so they basically had to assume their guilty.
If they didn't consider the crime that bad, then why even investigate? They didn't bother investigating the Chargers for the stickum incident, even though the Chargers refused to cooperate. The league just fined them and was done with it.
The ball intercepted by the Colts measured at 11.45 psi which is exactly what the Ideal Gas Law states it should have been. So why was there any investigation at all?
-
One question I keep hearing is how in the world has Bill Belichick skated in this? I guess Mike Florio said there's an urban legend out there that says that even though Goodell destroyed the spygate tapes, Bill has copies that is direct evidence of other teams doing the same exact thing he was punished for. And so he's using this evidence as leverage to not be a part of this punishment.
Even though it's just an urban legend, I'd totally buy this in a second.
-
Ted Wells just held a press conference to try and clear his name in this since some people are arguing Wells did a bad job, wasn't independent enough, etc.
The biggest takeaway seems to be that they didn't even consider the crime that bad. 75% of this punishment is based on the fact that Brady and the team didn't cooperate with the investigation, so they basically had to assume their guilty.
If they didn't consider the crime that bad, then why even investigate? They didn't bother investigating the Chargers for the stickum incident, even though the Chargers refused to cooperate. The league just fined them and was done with it.
The ball intercepted by the Colts measured at 11.45 psi which is exactly what the Ideal Gas Law states it should have been. So why was there any investigation at all?
If I recall correctly, referee Walt Anderson didn't even write down the measurements when he took them. Or am I wrong about that? And is the NFL foolish enough to not realize that a ball inflated to the lowest allowable level will drop below that level—and thence become "illegal"—during an outdoor game in cold weather?
-
Ted Wells just held a press conference to try and clear his name in this since some people are arguing Wells did a bad job, wasn't independent enough, etc.
The biggest takeaway seems to be that they didn't even consider the crime that bad. 75% of this punishment is based on the fact that Brady and the team didn't cooperate with the investigation, so they basically had to assume their guilty.
If they didn't consider the crime that bad, then why even investigate? They didn't bother investigating the Chargers for the stickum incident, even though the Chargers refused to cooperate. The league just fined them and was done with it.
The ball intercepted by the Colts measured at 11.45 psi which is exactly what the Ideal Gas Law states it should have been. So why was there any investigation at all?
If I recall correctly, referee Walt Anderson didn't even write down the measurements when he took them. Or am I wrong about that? And is the NFL foolish enough to not realize that a ball inflated to the lowest allowable level will drop below that level—and thence become "illegal"—during an outdoor game in cold weather?
NFL executives, and many jealous fans, were clearly ignorant of basic science which is what started all of this. Now we have convictions based on interpretations of selected texts from friendly banter despite conclusive evidence (which involves many undocumented variables) that the balls were even underinflated to begin with.
-
Ted Wells just held a press conference to try and clear his name in this since some people are arguing Wells did a bad job, wasn't independent enough, etc.
The biggest takeaway seems to be that they didn't even consider the crime that bad. 75% of this punishment is based on the fact that Brady and the team didn't cooperate with the investigation, so they basically had to assume their guilty.
If they didn't consider the crime that bad, then why even investigate? They didn't bother investigating the Chargers for the stickum incident, even though the Chargers refused to cooperate. The league just fined them and was done with it.
The ball intercepted by the Colts measured at 11.45 psi which is exactly what the Ideal Gas Law states it should have been. So why was there any investigation at all?
If I recall correctly, referee Walt Anderson didn't even write down the measurements when he took them. Or am I wrong about that? And is the NFL foolish enough to not realize that a ball inflated to the lowest allowable level will drop below that level—and thence become "illegal"—during an outdoor game in cold weather?
And no, Walt Anderson did not write down the pregame measurements. Wells gave Anderson's recollection of all 12 Patriots balls measurements, and all 12 Colts balls and all 12 of each team's backup balls complete credibilitily as fact.... while also dismissing Anderson's recollection of which gauge he used to measure them (despite noticeable physical differences) which would have shown the Patriots balls were in line.
-
Ted Wells just held a press conference to try and clear his name in this since some people are arguing Wells did a bad job, wasn't independent enough, etc.
The biggest takeaway seems to be that they didn't even consider the crime that bad. 75% of this punishment is based on the fact that Brady and the team didn't cooperate with the investigation, so they basically had to assume their guilty.
If they didn't consider the crime that bad, then why even investigate? They didn't bother investigating the Chargers for the stickum incident, even though the Chargers refused to cooperate. The league just fined them and was done with it.
The ball intercepted by the Colts measured at 11.45 psi which is exactly what the Ideal Gas Law states it should have been. So why was there any investigation at all?
If I recall correctly, referee Walt Anderson didn't even write down the measurements when he took them. Or am I wrong about that? And is the NFL foolish enough to not realize that a ball inflated to the lowest allowable level will drop below that level—and thence become "illegal"—during an outdoor game in cold weather?
NFL executives, and many jealous fans, were clearly ignorant of basic science which is what started all of this. Now we have convictions based on interpretations of selected texts from friendly banter despite conclusive evidence (which involves many undocumented variables) that the balls were even underinflated to begin with.
Well, obviously. This is the NFL we're talking about. What did you expect?
-
If I recall correctly, referee Walt Anderson didn't even write down the measurements when he took them. Or am I wrong about that? And is the NFL foolish enough to not realize that a ball inflated to the lowest allowable level will drop below that level—and thence become "illegal"—during an outdoor game in cold weather?
He didn't record the measurements prior to the game. We're supposed to take his word that he actually measured the balls and that the Pats balls were ~12.5 PSI and the Colts at ~13.0 PSI. That's why Ted Wells goes the extra mile trying to portray him as a credible witness.
The measurements were recorded by an NFL official at halftime.
The problem is that if you're going to take Anderson's word that he measured the balls, you have to take his word about the gauge he actually used -- and it appears that if you do, then you can't discount that the observed results were simply caused by weather (even the report says so, I believe).
-
If I were a Patriots fan, I'd probably craft a fanciful narrative that Goodell was so butthurt that not only did he pressure ESPN to decide not to extend Bill Simmons but he went out of his way to put on a public display of "testicular fortitude" and get back at Simmons by over-punishing a team that Simmons roots for.
Simmons might have a big enough ego to embrace that idea and run with it, leading to an unrestrained Sports Guy launching more bombs at Goodell.
Goodell is such a clown that it might even be true.
-
Ted Wells just held a press conference to try and clear his name in this since some people are arguing Wells did a bad job, wasn't independent enough, etc.
The biggest takeaway seems to be that they didn't even consider the crime that bad. 75% of this punishment is based on the fact that Brady and the team didn't cooperate with the investigation, so they basically had to assume their guilty.
If they didn't consider the crime that bad, then why even investigate? They didn't bother investigating the Chargers for the stickum incident, even though the Chargers refused to cooperate. The league just fined them and was done with it.
The ball intercepted by the Colts measured at 11.45 psi which is exactly what the Ideal Gas Law states it should have been. So why was there any investigation at all?
If I recall correctly, referee Walt Anderson didn't even write down the measurements when he took them. Or am I wrong about that? And is the NFL foolish enough to not realize that a ball inflated to the lowest allowable level will drop below that level—and thence become "illegal"—during an outdoor game in cold weather?
NFL executives, and many jealous fans, were clearly ignorant of basic science which is what started all of this. Now we have convictions based on interpretations of selected texts from friendly banter despite conclusive evidence (which involves many undocumented variables) that the balls were even underinflated to begin with.
Well, obviously. This is the NFL we're talking about. What did you expect?
Good point. I guess I was hoping they would at least take 5 minutes to google the formula like I did rather than opening a five milion dollar investigation. Oh well. At least this is entertaining... which I guess might be working out well for them.
-
Ted Wells just held a press conference to try and clear his name in this since some people are arguing Wells did a bad job, wasn't independent enough, etc.
The biggest takeaway seems to be that they didn't even consider the crime that bad. 75% of this punishment is based on the fact that Brady and the team didn't cooperate with the investigation, so they basically had to assume their guilty.
If they didn't consider the crime that bad, then why even investigate? They didn't bother investigating the Chargers for the stickum incident, even though the Chargers refused to cooperate. The league just fined them and was done with it.
The ball intercepted by the Colts measured at 11.45 psi which is exactly what the Ideal Gas Law states it should have been. So why was there any investigation at all?
If I recall correctly, referee Walt Anderson didn't even write down the measurements when he took them. Or am I wrong about that? And is the NFL foolish enough to not realize that a ball inflated to the lowest allowable level will drop below that level—and thence become "illegal"—during an outdoor game in cold weather?
And no, Walt Anderson did not write down the pregame measurements. Wells gave Anderson's recollection of all 12 Patriots balls measurements, and all 12 Colts balls and all 12 of each team's backup balls complete credibilitily as fact.... while also dismissing Anderson's recollection of which gauge he used to measure them (despite noticeable physical differences) which would have shown the Patriots balls were in line.
So basically, Anderson filled in that particular part of the Wells report the same way many people fill in timecards at work: "Let's see, what time did I start work last Tuesday morning? ... Hmmm, 7:27AM sounds about right. Yeah. Yeah, that's it."
-
Per Adam Schefter: Tom Brady will hire Jeff Kessler for an attorney in his appeal
This may not sound like big news, but it in fact is. Kessler is considered to be THE guy players go to when they need a defense against a ruling given to them by the NFL. He's considered overall to be the best of the best. He was the lead lawyer that helped establish the free agency and salary cap system in the NFL and NBA, he successfully represented Michael Vick, Plaxico Burress, and numerous other players when it came to recouping salary bonuses.
The NFL haaaates this guy, mostly because more often than not when he goes up against the NFL while representing a player, he wins.
So basically, Brady looks to be bringing out the big guns for this war.
-
What will almost certainly happen is that the NFLPA will argue it regardless of what the outcome actually is, and Brady will wind up missing an insignificant amount of time at most and, ultimately, no one will care. That is what I mean by "the outcome," not about whether Jim Rome is talking about it or not (because who actually cares about Jim Rome beyond morons and mouthbreathers and Mrs. Jim Rome?)
-
75% of this punishment is based on the fact that Brady and the team didn't cooperate with the investigation, so they basically had to assume their guilty.
But, they did cooperate. The Wells report said so: "the Patriots provided substantial cooperation throughout the investigation" on p. 23, apparently
They didn't fully cooperate though. I'll repeat myself...they didn't allow McNally to be interviewed again by Wells after he uncovered all of the texts that are put in his report. And then Brady, yes he did answer questions, but when it came to asking for texts from his phone regarding the investigation, he refused.
So sure, they cooperated but not totally...and any sliver of not cooperating is considered detrimental to the league.
And Wells also basically challenged Don Yee to publish his 40 pages of notes that he said he had, and guaranteed nothing will be in there thats newsworthy...so Wells isn't backing down. It doesn't sound good for the Pats.
I'm really starting to think that the Pats aren't gonna win this one, and are gonna look like fools in the process, if they don't already. I'm really starting to wonder if Brady was petrified that he DID admit to it right after the AFC championship game, that he'd be suspended for the super bowl, and so he felt he had no choice but to lie.
Danny Kanell on Mike and Mike this morning said Brady should have held a press conference immediately after the AFC title game (after the story leaked) and said something like "I prefer my footballs to be on the low end of the legal spectrum. I have made that known to the Patriots staff. I certainly never asked anyone to underinflate the balls to illegal limits and do not believe anyone intentionally did that. If any of the balls were below the limit as a result of any comments I've made, then I am sorry." According to Kanell something like that would have pretty much ended the inquiry before it started and at most Brady would have been fined.
It's easy to say that now in hindsight, he very well may be right. But in Brady's position at the time, with national media outlets from all over the country questioning whether or not you're cheater, it looks like he panicked, and felt denying was the best way to go...which when you look at it now, might've been the wrong decision.
Telling the truth is never the wrong decision.
Girlfriend/wife asks: "Do I look fat?"
-
Ted Wells just held a press conference to try and clear his name in this since some people are arguing Wells did a bad job, wasn't independent enough, etc.
The biggest takeaway seems to be that they didn't even consider the crime that bad. 75% of this punishment is based on the fact that Brady and the team didn't cooperate with the investigation, so they basically had to assume their guilty.
If they didn't consider the crime that bad, then why even investigate? They didn't bother investigating the Chargers for the stickum incident, even though the Chargers refused to cooperate. The league just fined them and was done with it.
i'd say 10% of the punishment is for the actual crime, 10% is for having a previous violation, 10% is for not cooperating, and the other 70% is because goodell wants to appease the press and public, in large part because of how he mishandled the ray rice situation.
-
Ted Wells just held a press conference to try and clear his name in this since some people are arguing Wells did a bad job, wasn't independent enough, etc.
The biggest takeaway seems to be that they didn't even consider the crime that bad. 75% of this punishment is based on the fact that Brady and the team didn't cooperate with the investigation, so they basically had to assume their guilty.
If they didn't consider the crime that bad, then why even investigate? They didn't bother investigating the Chargers for the stickum incident, even though the Chargers refused to cooperate. The league just fined them and was done with it.
i'd say 10% of the punishment is for the actual crime, 10% is for having a previous violation, 10% is for not cooperating, and the other 70% is because goodell wants to appease the press and public, in large part because of how he mishandled the ray rice situation.
I certainly think that influenced the ultimate penalty rendered. No doubt.
To me, that's the problem here. It's the arbitrary nature of these penalties whether its Rice, Hardy, Pryor, Bountygate, Deflategate, whatever.
There's not a whole lot of rhyme or reason with these things. They tend to make mountains out of ant hills then turnaround & turn a blind eye to other things or make them appear rather trivial.
-
I don't have time to read all 89 pages. Can someone give me a short summary of the Wells Report? Did they find conclusive proof that the staff intentionally deflated the balls? I thought it was just speculation without any evidence. Did they find some?
It's just speculation. There isn't even conclusive proof that the balls were even deflated. Temperature and rain, as per the report, may explain everything.
I haven't read the actual report, but the article I just read about the Brady suspension makes it seem like there are text messages that prove the guilt of two staffers (McNally and Jastremski) and that there may have been texts from Brady that they also saw. No?
No texts prove guilt. There were no texts that specifically mention tampering. There was a text message conversation between the two after a game against the Jets. Apparently, Brady was upset that some of the balls felt overinflated. Jastremski tested them the next day and found some pumped up close to 16 (12.5 to 13.5 is regulation). Jastremski pointed this out to McNally and told him that they should have been 13 and to not let the refs overinflate. A few days later Jastremski texted McNally that he spoke again with Brady and he wanted them at 12.5 and to hand a copy of the rule book to the refs if they have a problem with that. Within those conversations Jastremski and McNally had a lot of friendly banter and jokes. The most incriminating text was McNally referring to himself as the "deflator". Also there was a text about Jastremski giving McNally a needle. They explained that comment to be about Jastremskig forgetting to give him a needle earlier in the season for a pump that McNally provides to the refs. There were no actual texts from Brady until after the controversy began. He texted Jastremski to call him which Wells found suspicious and texted to Jastremski to not worry as he had done nothing wrong.
TP. Thanks for the summary. It makes logical sense that Brady would text them after the controversy began. If there were suddenly widespread accusations that I was in cahoots with some random co-worker in accounting to steal company data, I'd probably reach out to the guy... "Yo... you seeing this stuff in the news about you and me stealing company data?... Let's chat about this."
-
Ted Wells just held a press conference to try and clear his name in this since some people are arguing Wells did a bad job, wasn't independent enough, etc.
The biggest takeaway seems to be that they didn't even consider the crime that bad. 75% of this punishment is based on the fact that Brady and the team didn't cooperate with the investigation, so they basically had to assume their guilty.
If they didn't consider the crime that bad, then why even investigate? They didn't bother investigating the Chargers for the stickum incident, even though the Chargers refused to cooperate. The league just fined them and was done with it.
i'd say 10% of the punishment is for the actual crime, 10% is for having a previous violation, 10% is for not cooperating, and the other 70% is because goodell wants to appease the press and public, in large part because of how he mishandled the ray rice situation.
I certainly think that influenced the ultimate penalty rendered. No doubt.
To me, that's the problem here. It's the arbitrary nature of these penalties whether its Rice, Hardy, Pryor, Bountygate, Deflategate, whatever.
There's not a whole lot of rhyme or reason with these things. They tend to make mountains out of ant hills then turnaround & turn a blind eye to other things or make them appear rather trivial.
The good news is that any decent independent arbitrator is likely to see the same thing.
An arbitrators job is to see when somebody like Goodell is acting without any real rhyme or reason, simply making decisions on a whim or based on personal (or public) feeling.
-
you guys see this website? LOL
http://yourteamcheats.com/
holy heck
TP
That website makes me, as a patriot fan, feel more comfortable with my outrage
-
Well, the only way I as a fan can protest this is to stop watching NFL games. Giving some serious thought to that. I like college football more anyway, though I admit that the NCAA is probably at least as bad as Goodell.
While I applaud your sentiment, why would you protest this and not the Big Ben suspension, the Saints' bountygate, the Ray Rice screw up and a host of other Goodell overreaches? What makes this one special? Was it because it finally happened to your team?
It was Bountygate that turned me off from the NFL and I have no love for the Saints. It was yet another example of Goodell trying to make someone a scapegoat for his own failures as a commish. I haven't watched the Super Bowl the past two years. I never even turned on an NFL game on the TV last year. Last year was the first time that no one in my family got NFL merchandise for Christmas. And it all has to do with how the league is run.
The only sports merchandise purchased last year was a Celtics cap!
Those suspensions had the opposite problem, which was that they weren't long enough. Are we actually at the point now where we compare Tom Brady to a rapist (more likely than not folks...twice), and guy that knocked out his wife on video, and guys getting paid to hurt people circumventing the salary cap?
Is that really happening now? Yes. Yes it is. Which is why the rest of the league should have an asterisk next to what they do. There's just no league integrity. The only place that has it is Foxboro and they aren't angels.
That your first reaction is to call someone a rapist shows how very little objectivity or clarity of thought you have. But please feel free to go on ranting illogically because it is quite amusing to see you jump at conspiracy theories.
The league is not out to get the Patriots. Foxboro is not a beautiful, unique snowflake. The Patriots have been caught cheating - again. Deal with it.
I'm not allowed to compare Tom Brady's suspension for deflating balls to Big Ben's less bad suspension for being a rapist? Because I'm not objective?
-
I just don't see this as the response an innocent man gives when asked about the Wells report
"I don’t have really any reaction, Jim. Our owner commented on it yesterday. It’s only been 30 hours so I haven’t had much time to digest it fully. But when I do I will be sure to let you know how I feel about it, and everybody else."
It seems to me that if I did nothing wrong, the first, and maybe only thing, out of my mouth is some sort of profession of innocence. Not some garbage about it only being 30 hours and not having time to digest it and that I'll comment when I do. Digest what. Either you did something wrong or you didn't. You shouldn't need to digest anything. That speaks volumes about Brady's guilt in my mind.
-
Ted Wells just held a press conference to try and clear his name in this since some people are arguing Wells did a bad job, wasn't independent enough, etc.
The biggest takeaway seems to be that they didn't even consider the crime that bad. 75% of this punishment is based on the fact that Brady and the team didn't cooperate with the investigation, so they basically had to assume their guilty.
The two most important aspects of this is that when Wells asked to talk to McNally one last time after they uncovered the texts and wanted to further question him on it, the team said no. And then he also cleared up the Brady phone issue, he never asked for Brady's phone. He asked for Brady to pick out all of the texts that would be considered related to the investigation. He even said he would take a written transcript of it and "take Brady's word on it"...and Brady still said no.
Now THAT certainly doesn't sound good on Brady's part. I'd love to hear Brady's side of that story.
I don't understand why he needs these texts when he already has them. He already had the phones of McNally and Jags. That's how he got the text from Tom that said "how you doing Johnny Boy. You didn't do anything wrong". So what else does he want? Texts between Tom and who exactly?
-
He did do something wrong, and there was no concrete evidence of it. So the over-the-top punishment is even more of a backhand.
I have a friend in NY that I shared this with:
Guessing you are a Jets or Giants fan,
so: Jets, 2014: Fined 100k for tampering with Revis; 2010: Sal Alosi sticks his left knee out to intentionally trip CB Nolan Carroll; also 2010: Jets fined 125k for illegally failing to place Favre on IR; 2006: Caught SpyGating in the same fashion; 1992: Jeff Blake admitted to DeflateGate within organization (lol); 1989: 5 players punished for PEDs... it goes on..
Giants, 2012: cheap shots and illegal hits aggressively punished by league (e.g., 30k for a random S); 2011; "more probable than not" they were injury-faking in an attempt to slow down games;2004: Eli subverted the draft to try to prevent chargers from drafting him; 2001: Spcygate, also "more probably than not" that they were eavesdropping on convos b/w Eagles and Vikings during their playoff victories; 1996: 6x they were investigated and found guilty of PEDS use for 6 players, over time.. 1981-1983: Lawrence Taylor admitted to hiring escorts on the eve of games for opposing RBs in order to weary their legs; 1980s-2000s: "more probable than not" they opened stadium's tunnel doors to make wild wind gusts even worse at strategic times; 1956: Spygate (same issue, found guilty)
-
I just don't see this as the response an innocent man gives when asked about the Wells report
"I don’t have really any reaction, Jim. Our owner commented on it yesterday. It’s only been 30 hours so I haven’t had much time to digest it fully. But when I do I will be sure to let you know how I feel about it, and everybody else."
It seems to me that if I did nothing wrong, the first, and maybe only thing, out of my mouth is some sort of profession of innocence. Not some garbage about it only being 30 hours and not having time to digest it and that I'll comment when I do. Digest what. Either you did something wrong or you didn't. You shouldn't need to digest anything. That speaks volumes about Brady's guilt in my mind.
It's just that the NFL is using anything Brady says against him. If he says "I didn't do anything" and then they find a text that says "You know how I like em" it won't matter if he's talking about balls or burgers. 4 game suspension. Lose a million bucks and a draft pick. Oh and now he's a liar too.
They aren't giving Brady any benefit of the doubt or anything. They aren't taking him at his word so why does he owe them any words? Why should Brady have to go around professing his innocence when other QBs are going around freely admitting to knowingly doing what he did or worse?
I'm done with the Patriots explaining themselves. It's time for the NFL and others to do the explaining. Why do you not care about what Rodgers said? Why do you not care about Brad Johnson? Why did Ray Rice get 2 games for a violent crime and Brady gets 4? Why did Ray Lewis get nothing for interfering in a murder trial? Why did the Vikings get nothing? Why did the Chargers get a 20K fine? Why did the Jets get nothing when they were caught video taping AFTER spygate? Why isn't Anderson in trouble for clearly not following protocol? At what point does Brady have a right to privacy?
-
So how did the Vikings heating up footballs on the sidelines, on national TV, not become a high-profile case of cheating? Doesn't get more blatant than that.
I think that there's a difference between ignorance of a rule, and knowing a rule and then taking steps to break it, while hiding it from detection.
The Vikings were heating their footballs up out in the open, where the officials and everyone else could see what they were doing. They probably had no intent to cheat, and it was a one time thing.
What the Patriots were found to have done is different. They surreptitiously broke the rules, and then lied about it. I think it's a different type of violation.
That said, that doesn't mean the penalty is appropriate. However, I think that intent plays a big role here.
So why doesn't Aaron Rodgers and Brad Johnson get the Brady treatment?
-
Add Rich Gannon and Steve Beurline to the ranks of QBs that don't care what QBs do with balls. Interestingly Rich has basically agreed to Brad Johnson's story about doctoring the balls before the Super Bowl
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer/jason-la-canfora/24982082/as-deflategate-unfolds-we-find-doctoring-nfl-footballs-is-nothing-new
-
I just don't see this as the response an innocent man gives when asked about the Wells report
"I don’t have really any reaction, Jim. Our owner commented on it yesterday. It’s only been 30 hours so I haven’t had much time to digest it fully. But when I do I will be sure to let you know how I feel about it, and everybody else."
It seems to me that if I did nothing wrong, the first, and maybe only thing, out of my mouth is some sort of profession of innocence. Not some garbage about it only being 30 hours and not having time to digest it and that I'll comment when I do. Digest what. Either you did something wrong or you didn't. You shouldn't need to digest anything. That speaks volumes about Brady's guilt in my mind.
It's just that the NFL is using anything Brady says against him. If he says "I didn't do anything" and then they find a text that says "You know how I like em" it won't matter if he's talking about balls or burgers. 4 game suspension. Lose a million bucks and a draft pick. Oh and now he's a liar too.
They aren't giving Brady any benefit of the doubt or anything. They aren't taking him at his word so why does he owe them any words? Why should Brady have to go around professing his innocence when other QBs are going around freely admitting to knowingly doing what he did or worse?
I'm done with the Patriots explaining themselves. It's time for the NFL and others to do the explaining. Why do you not care about what Rodgers said? Why do you not care about Brad Johnson? Why did Ray Rice get 2 games for a violent crime and Brady gets 4? Why did Ray Lewis get nothing for interfering in a murder trial? Why did the Vikings get nothing? Why did the Chargers get a 20K fine? Why did the Jets get nothing when they were caught video taping AFTER spygate? Why isn't Anderson in trouble for clearly not following protocol? At what point does Brady have a right to privacy?
Brady purposefully set up an interview with Jim Gray. And that was Brady's answer. This wasn't part of the investigation and Brady didn't have do the interview, but if you intentionally do a voluntary interview and that is your answer to the question, it says volumes.
-
I just don't see this as the response an innocent man gives when asked about the Wells report
"I don’t have really any reaction, Jim. Our owner commented on it yesterday. It’s only been 30 hours so I haven’t had much time to digest it fully. But when I do I will be sure to let you know how I feel about it, and everybody else."
It seems to me that if I did nothing wrong, the first, and maybe only thing, out of my mouth is some sort of profession of innocence. Not some garbage about it only being 30 hours and not having time to digest it and that I'll comment when I do. Digest what. Either you did something wrong or you didn't. You shouldn't need to digest anything. That speaks volumes about Brady's guilt in my mind.
It's just that the NFL is using anything Brady says against him. If he says "I didn't do anything" and then they find a text that says "You know how I like em" it won't matter if he's talking about balls or burgers. 4 game suspension. Lose a million bucks and a draft pick. Oh and now he's a liar too.
They aren't giving Brady any benefit of the doubt or anything. They aren't taking him at his word so why does he owe them any words? Why should Brady have to go around professing his innocence when other QBs are going around freely admitting to knowingly doing what he did or worse?
I'm done with the Patriots explaining themselves. It's time for the NFL and others to do the explaining. Why do you not care about what Rodgers said? Why do you not care about Brad Johnson? Why did Ray Rice get 2 games for a violent crime and Brady gets 4? Why did Ray Lewis get nothing for interfering in a murder trial? Why did the Vikings get nothing? Why did the Chargers get a 20K fine? Why did the Jets get nothing when they were caught video taping AFTER spygate? Why isn't Anderson in trouble for clearly not following protocol? At what point does Brady have a right to privacy?
Brady purposefully set up an interview with Jim Gray. And that was Brady's answer. This wasn't part of the investigation and Brady didn't have do the interview, but if you intentionally do a voluntary interview and that is your answer to the question, it says volumes.
Nobody sets up an interview where no questions are asked and none answered. That was a prior engagement that he didn't cancel and the only thing he said was that the Super Bowl wasn't tainted. Not sure why Jim Gray was there if he was supposed to be there originally or if he was essentially rushed to the scene.
-
Brady at that event talked like a man acting on the advice of his lawyer. In TV land, that makes him guilty. In real life, that makes him smart.
-
Well, the only way I as a fan can protest this is to stop watching NFL games. Giving some serious thought to that. I like college football more anyway, though I admit that the NCAA is probably at least as bad as Goodell.
While I applaud your sentiment, why would you protest this and not the Big Ben suspension, the Saints' bountygate, the Ray Rice screw up and a host of other Goodell overreaches? What makes this one special? Was it because it finally happened to your team?
It was Bountygate that turned me off from the NFL and I have no love for the Saints. It was yet another example of Goodell trying to make someone a scapegoat for his own failures as a commish. I haven't watched the Super Bowl the past two years. I never even turned on an NFL game on the TV last year. Last year was the first time that no one in my family got NFL merchandise for Christmas. And it all has to do with how the league is run.
The only sports merchandise purchased last year was a Celtics cap!
Those suspensions had the opposite problem, which was that they weren't long enough. Are we actually at the point now where we compare Tom Brady to a rapist (more likely than not folks...twice), and guy that knocked out his wife on video, and guys getting paid to hurt people circumventing the salary cap?
Is that really happening now? Yes. Yes it is. Which is why the rest of the league should have an asterisk next to what they do. There's just no league integrity. The only place that has it is Foxboro and they aren't angels.
That your first reaction is to call someone a rapist shows how very little objectivity or clarity of thought you have. But please feel free to go on ranting illogically because it is quite amusing to see you jump at conspiracy theories.
The league is not out to get the Patriots. Foxboro is not a beautiful, unique snowflake. The Patriots have been caught cheating - again. Deal with it.
I'm not allowed to compare Tom Brady's suspension for deflating balls to Big Ben's less bad suspension for being a rapist? Because I'm not objective?
Because there was no rape. Thanks for playing, please try again.
PS - Ben got more games for a baseless accusation for rape than the Brady suspension. You're not very good at this, are you?
-
I wouldn't be surprised if this is the beginning of the end for Roger Goodell. He was already the most inept commissioner that any pro sports league had seen in a long time. And now his flubbing of this, coupled with the loss of his strongest ally in Kraft, could spell the end for him.
And it's not even entirely about the decision that he made (though I think that's horribly misguided), it's the way he handled it.
Adam Silver may have ultimately come to the same decision as Goodell; but even if he did, he would have done it in a much more straightforward and direct manner that reflected his role as the leader of the league. He wouldn't have hid behind others and danced around the issue like Goodell.
-
Because there was no rape. Thanks for playing, please try again.
PS - Ben got more games for a baseless accusation for rape than the Brady suspension. You're not very good at this, are you?
Because everybody knows when there is no conviction, there definitely was no rape or any kind of inappropriate sexual conduct. None. Totally baseless.
Especially when charges are dropped or never brought in the first place. That means the woman actually wanted it. Common knowledge.
Sorry, not trying to derail the thread, but that's asinine and it is an issue of personal significance to me.
I hate this argument that football related misconduct, no matter how minor, should be punished more severely than off the field stuff. As if the league shouldn't care what sort of people it employs or how they represent the brand. As if the league has no responsibility for how its players act.
-
Well, the only way I as a fan can protest this is to stop watching NFL games. Giving some serious thought to that. I like college football more anyway, though I admit that the NCAA is probably at least as bad as Goodell.
While I applaud your sentiment, why would you protest this and not the Big Ben suspension, the Saints' bountygate, the Ray Rice screw up and a host of other Goodell overreaches? What makes this one special? Was it because it finally happened to your team?
It was Bountygate that turned me off from the NFL and I have no love for the Saints. It was yet another example of Goodell trying to make someone a scapegoat for his own failures as a commish. I haven't watched the Super Bowl the past two years. I never even turned on an NFL game on the TV last year. Last year was the first time that no one in my family got NFL merchandise for Christmas. And it all has to do with how the league is run.
The only sports merchandise purchased last year was a Celtics cap!
Those suspensions had the opposite problem, which was that they weren't long enough. Are we actually at the point now where we compare Tom Brady to a rapist (more likely than not folks...twice), and guy that knocked out his wife on video, and guys getting paid to hurt people circumventing the salary cap?
Is that really happening now? Yes. Yes it is. Which is why the rest of the league should have an asterisk next to what they do. There's just no league integrity. The only place that has it is Foxboro and they aren't angels.
That your first reaction is to call someone a rapist shows how very little objectivity or clarity of thought you have. But please feel free to go on ranting illogically because it is quite amusing to see you jump at conspiracy theories.
The league is not out to get the Patriots. Foxboro is not a beautiful, unique snowflake. The Patriots have been caught cheating - again. Deal with it.
I'm not allowed to compare Tom Brady's suspension for deflating balls to Big Ben's less bad suspension for being a rapist? Because I'm not objective?
Because there was no rape. Thanks for playing, please try again.
PS - Ben got more games for a baseless accusation for rape than the Brady suspension. You're not very good at this, are you?
I'm not exactly sure they were baseless but I digress....
-
I wouldn't be surprised if this is the beginning of the end for Roger Goodell. He was already the most inept commissioner that any pro sports league had seen in a long time. And now his flubbing of this, coupled with the loss of his strongest ally in Kraft, could spell the end for him.
And it's not even entirely about the decision that he made (though I think that's horribly misguided), it's the way he handled it.
Adam Silver may have ultimately come to the same decision as Goodell; but even if he did, he would have done it in a much more straightforward and direct manner that reflected his role as the leader of the league. He wouldn't have hid behind others and danced around the issue like Goodell.
Yeah. Rich Levine wrote about this on CSNNE - at some point the owners will have to think, well, if we are making so much money with this buffoon, how much would we make with a guy who is actually competent?
-
Well, the only way I as a fan can protest this is to stop watching NFL games. Giving some serious thought to that. I like college football more anyway, though I admit that the NCAA is probably at least as bad as Goodell.
While I applaud your sentiment, why would you protest this and not the Big Ben suspension, the Saints' bountygate, the Ray Rice screw up and a host of other Goodell overreaches? What makes this one special? Was it because it finally happened to your team?
It was Bountygate that turned me off from the NFL and I have no love for the Saints. It was yet another example of Goodell trying to make someone a scapegoat for his own failures as a commish. I haven't watched the Super Bowl the past two years. I never even turned on an NFL game on the TV last year. Last year was the first time that no one in my family got NFL merchandise for Christmas. And it all has to do with how the league is run.
The only sports merchandise purchased last year was a Celtics cap!
Those suspensions had the opposite problem, which was that they weren't long enough. Are we actually at the point now where we compare Tom Brady to a rapist (more likely than not folks...twice), and guy that knocked out his wife on video, and guys getting paid to hurt people circumventing the salary cap?
Is that really happening now? Yes. Yes it is. Which is why the rest of the league should have an asterisk next to what they do. There's just no league integrity. The only place that has it is Foxboro and they aren't angels.
That your first reaction is to call someone a rapist shows how very little objectivity or clarity of thought you have. But please feel free to go on ranting illogically because it is quite amusing to see you jump at conspiracy theories.
The league is not out to get the Patriots. Foxboro is not a beautiful, unique snowflake. The Patriots have been caught cheating - again. Deal with it.
I'm not allowed to compare Tom Brady's suspension for deflating balls to Big Ben's less bad suspension for being a rapist? Because I'm not objective?
Because there was no rape. Thanks for playing, please try again.
PS - Ben got more games for a baseless accusation for rape than the Brady suspension. You're not very good at this, are you?
Ben got 4-6 games (knocked down to 4 for going to counseling) but Brady got 4 games AND his team got a million dollars AND loss of draft picks. So yes Brady got punished worse. Further it was Ben's 2nd sticky situation like this so the repeat offender card existed too. The punishment he got was that his conduct was not remotely close to the expectations of an NFL football player. His excuse of "consensual" (because we all post guards outside doors to get it on with completely drunk women in bathrooms when we're doing consensual stuff) is far less believable than Tom saying "I didn't tell anyone to deflate any balls". It's not close.
-
Well, the only way I as a fan can protest this is to stop watching NFL games. Giving some serious thought to that. I like college football more anyway, though I admit that the NCAA is probably at least as bad as Goodell.
While I applaud your sentiment, why would you protest this and not the Big Ben suspension, the Saints' bountygate, the Ray Rice screw up and a host of other Goodell overreaches? What makes this one special? Was it because it finally happened to your team?
It was Bountygate that turned me off from the NFL and I have no love for the Saints. It was yet another example of Goodell trying to make someone a scapegoat for his own failures as a commish. I haven't watched the Super Bowl the past two years. I never even turned on an NFL game on the TV last year. Last year was the first time that no one in my family got NFL merchandise for Christmas. And it all has to do with how the league is run.
The only sports merchandise purchased last year was a Celtics cap!
Those suspensions had the opposite problem, which was that they weren't long enough. Are we actually at the point now where we compare Tom Brady to a rapist (more likely than not folks...twice), and guy that knocked out his wife on video, and guys getting paid to hurt people circumventing the salary cap?
Is that really happening now? Yes. Yes it is. Which is why the rest of the league should have an asterisk next to what they do. There's just no league integrity. The only place that has it is Foxboro and they aren't angels.
That your first reaction is to call someone a rapist shows how very little objectivity or clarity of thought you have. But please feel free to go on ranting illogically because it is quite amusing to see you jump at conspiracy theories.
The league is not out to get the Patriots. Foxboro is not a beautiful, unique snowflake. The Patriots have been caught cheating - again. Deal with it.
I'm not allowed to compare Tom Brady's suspension for deflating balls to Big Ben's less bad suspension for being a rapist? Because I'm not objective?
Because there was no rape. Thanks for playing, please try again.
PS - Ben got more games for a baseless accusation for rape than the Brady suspension. You're not very good at this, are you?
Ben got 4-6 games (knocked down to 4 for going to counseling) but Brady got 4 games AND his team got a million dollars AND loss of draft picks. So yes Brady got punished worse. Further it was Ben's 2nd sticky situation like this so the repeat offender card existed too. The punishment he got was that his conduct was not remotely close to the expectations of an NFL football player. His excuse of "consensual" (because we all post guards outside doors to get it on with completely drunk women in bathrooms when we're doing consensual stuff) is far less believable than Tom saying "I didn't tell anyone to deflate any balls". It's not close.
one involves the integrity of the game and wasn't awhile ago.
-
Well, the only way I as a fan can protest this is to stop watching NFL games. Giving some serious thought to that. I like college football more anyway, though I admit that the NCAA is probably at least as bad as Goodell.
While I applaud your sentiment, why would you protest this and not the Big Ben suspension, the Saints' bountygate, the Ray Rice screw up and a host of other Goodell overreaches? What makes this one special? Was it because it finally happened to your team?
It was Bountygate that turned me off from the NFL and I have no love for the Saints. It was yet another example of Goodell trying to make someone a scapegoat for his own failures as a commish. I haven't watched the Super Bowl the past two years. I never even turned on an NFL game on the TV last year. Last year was the first time that no one in my family got NFL merchandise for Christmas. And it all has to do with how the league is run.
The only sports merchandise purchased last year was a Celtics cap!
Those suspensions had the opposite problem, which was that they weren't long enough. Are we actually at the point now where we compare Tom Brady to a rapist (more likely than not folks...twice), and guy that knocked out his wife on video, and guys getting paid to hurt people circumventing the salary cap?
Is that really happening now? Yes. Yes it is. Which is why the rest of the league should have an asterisk next to what they do. There's just no league integrity. The only place that has it is Foxboro and they aren't angels.
That your first reaction is to call someone a rapist shows how very little objectivity or clarity of thought you have. But please feel free to go on ranting illogically because it is quite amusing to see you jump at conspiracy theories.
The league is not out to get the Patriots. Foxboro is not a beautiful, unique snowflake. The Patriots have been caught cheating - again. Deal with it.
I'm not allowed to compare Tom Brady's suspension for deflating balls to Big Ben's less bad suspension for being a rapist? Because I'm not objective?
Because there was no rape. Thanks for playing, please try again.
PS - Ben got more games for a baseless accusation for rape than the Brady suspension. You're not very good at this, are you?
Ben got 4-6 games (knocked down to 4 for going to counseling) but Brady got 4 games AND his team got a million dollars AND loss of draft picks. So yes Brady got punished worse. Further it was Ben's 2nd sticky situation like this so the repeat offender card existed too. The punishment he got was that his conduct was not remotely close to the expectations of an NFL football player. His excuse of "consensual" (because we all post guards outside doors to get it on with completely drunk women in bathrooms when we're doing consensual stuff) is far less believable than Tom saying "I didn't tell anyone to deflate any balls". It's not close.
one involves the integrity of the game and wasn't awhile ago.
I think selling posters, fatheads, and jerseys of a rapist to kids is an integrity issue. If this were truly an integrity of the game issue the NFL would be spending 5 mill to investigate Aaron Rodgers.
Tom has been caught being guilty of one thing.....QWP......Quarterbacking While Patriot.
-
I just don't see this as the response an innocent man gives when asked about the Wells report
"I don’t have really any reaction, Jim. Our owner commented on it yesterday. It’s only been 30 hours so I haven’t had much time to digest it fully. But when I do I will be sure to let you know how I feel about it, and everybody else."
It seems to me that if I did nothing wrong, the first, and maybe only thing, out of my mouth is some sort of profession of innocence. Not some garbage about it only being 30 hours and not having time to digest it and that I'll comment when I do. Digest what. Either you did something wrong or you didn't. You shouldn't need to digest anything. That speaks volumes about Brady's guilt in my mind.
It's just that the NFL is using anything Brady says against him. If he says "I didn't do anything" and then they find a text that says "You know how I like em" it won't matter if he's talking about balls or burgers. 4 game suspension. Lose a million bucks and a draft pick. Oh and now he's a liar too.
They aren't giving Brady any benefit of the doubt or anything. They aren't taking him at his word so why does he owe them any words? Why should Brady have to go around professing his innocence when other QBs are going around freely admitting to knowingly doing what he did or worse?
I'm done with the Patriots explaining themselves. It's time for the NFL and others to do the explaining. Why do you not care about what Rodgers said? Why do you not care about Brad Johnson? Why did Ray Rice get 2 games for a violent crime and Brady gets 4? Why did Ray Lewis get nothing for interfering in a murder trial? Why did the Vikings get nothing? Why did the Chargers get a 20K fine? Why did the Jets get nothing when they were caught video taping AFTER spygate? Why isn't Anderson in trouble for clearly not following protocol? At what point does Brady have a right to privacy?
Brady purposefully set up an interview with Jim Gray. And that was Brady's answer. This wasn't part of the investigation and Brady didn't have do the interview, but if you intentionally do a voluntary interview and that is your answer to the question, it says volumes.
Nobody sets up an interview where no questions are asked and none answered.
Clearly you don't watch the NBA's sideline interview with the head coaches.
-
one involves the integrity of the game and wasn't awhile ago.
The problem is that "integrity of the game" is such a vague term.
Arguably, the Patriots affected the integrity of the game a lot worse by fooling around with eligible receivers and catching the Ravens off guard in the Divisional Round. Where's the punishment for that?
Yet, it's hard to even measure what effect, if any, the supposedly underinflated balls had on the game in question here.
The report does not come close to definitively proving that Tom didn't simply instruct his ball attendants to let air out of the footballs -- to a point within the range described by the rules -- after the refs had handled them, because the refs often give the Pats balls that are OVERinflated.
Exactly how does that affect the integrity of the game?
Meanwhile, you know what affects the integrity of the league, and the game the league provides to the public as entertainment?
The behavior of its players, who all too often act as if they are gods among men off the field. The NFL peddles a violent game that seems to frequently produce players who inflict violence on other people off of the field. That's a much bigger deal, in my book.
-
one involves the integrity of the game and wasn't awhile ago.
The problem is that "integrity of the game" is such a vague term.
I would definitely agree with this. What does "integrity" real mean to the league? It seems to contradict itself, in regards to the term, at every turn.
-
one involves the integrity of the game and wasn't awhile ago.
The problem is that "integrity of the game" is such a vague term.
Arguably, the Patriots affected the integrity of the game a lot worse by fooling around with eligible receivers and catching the Ravens off guard in the Divisional Round. Where's the punishment for that?
Yet, it's hard to even measure what effect, if any, the supposedly underinflated balls had on the game in question here.
The report does not come close to definitively proving that Tom didn't simply instruct his ball attendants to let air out of the footballs -- to a point within the range described by the rules -- after the refs had handled them, because the refs often give the Pats balls that are OVERinflated.
Exactly how does that affect the integrity of the game?
Meanwhile, you know what affects the integrity of the league, and the game the league provides to the public as entertainment?
The behavior of its players, who all too often act as if they are gods among men off the field. The NFL peddles a violent game that seems to frequently produce players who inflict violence on other people off of the field. That's a much bigger deal, in my book.
It may very well be, but it doesn't actually have any outcome at all on the game. That is the point I was making (it is also why I wouldn't suspend players for off the field conduct - though certainly as an owner of a team might very well release the player if the conduct started hurting my bottom line, which is why I had no problem with the Ravens releasing Rice, I just don't think he should have been suspended). I have no idea if deflating footballs really affects the outcome of a game, but I suspect there is some benefit or it wouldn't have happened. Now sure it didn't affect the outcome of the AFC Title game which was a blowout, but it certainly might have affected the outcome of the game against the Ravens the week before, which was a very close game. And you are probably right the weird substitution thing probably had a greater affect on that game, but that was at the time legal (it isn't now). Deflating footballs below the allowed limit is against the rules and needs to be punished. I also get that it isn't clear the Patriots intentionally broke the rules, but it seems clear they wanted those footballs as low as possible, and when you constantly skate the line between legal and illegal and then aren't entirely forthcoming in the investigation, you are going to get hit hard.
-
Well, the only way I as a fan can protest this is to stop watching NFL games. Giving some serious thought to that. I like college football more anyway, though I admit that the NCAA is probably at least as bad as Goodell.
While I applaud your sentiment, why would you protest this and not the Big Ben suspension, the Saints' bountygate, the Ray Rice screw up and a host of other Goodell overreaches? What makes this one special? Was it because it finally happened to your team?
It was Bountygate that turned me off from the NFL and I have no love for the Saints. It was yet another example of Goodell trying to make someone a scapegoat for his own failures as a commish. I haven't watched the Super Bowl the past two years. I never even turned on an NFL game on the TV last year. Last year was the first time that no one in my family got NFL merchandise for Christmas. And it all has to do with how the league is run.
The only sports merchandise purchased last year was a Celtics cap!
Those suspensions had the opposite problem, which was that they weren't long enough. Are we actually at the point now where we compare Tom Brady to a rapist (more likely than not folks...twice), and guy that knocked out his wife on video, and guys getting paid to hurt people circumventing the salary cap?
Is that really happening now? Yes. Yes it is. Which is why the rest of the league should have an asterisk next to what they do. There's just no league integrity. The only place that has it is Foxboro and they aren't angels.
That your first reaction is to call someone a rapist shows how very little objectivity or clarity of thought you have. But please feel free to go on ranting illogically because it is quite amusing to see you jump at conspiracy theories.
The league is not out to get the Patriots. Foxboro is not a beautiful, unique snowflake. The Patriots have been caught cheating - again. Deal with it.
I'm not allowed to compare Tom Brady's suspension for deflating balls to Big Ben's less bad suspension for being a rapist? Because I'm not objective?
Because there was no rape. Thanks for playing, please try again.
PS - Ben got more games for a baseless accusation for rape than the Brady suspension. You're not very good at this, are you?
Ben got 4-6 games (knocked down to 4 for going to counseling) but Brady got 4 games AND his team got a million dollars AND loss of draft picks. So yes Brady got punished worse. Further it was Ben's 2nd sticky situation like this so the repeat offender card existed too. The punishment he got was that his conduct was not remotely close to the expectations of an NFL football player. His excuse of "consensual" (because we all post guards outside doors to get it on with completely drunk women in bathrooms when we're doing consensual stuff) is far less believable than Tom saying "I didn't tell anyone to deflate any balls". It's not close.
Here's the problem with your assumption (and PhoSita's). There was no DNA evidence. A rape (which by the way is a LEGAL term and therefore not appropriate here) or even consensual sex would leave DNA traces. That's the case right there and the very reason charges were not filed. When you boil it down - with the accuser initially denying a rape took place, constantly changing stories, no cameras, no DNA evidence, no witnesses, no corroboration and the fact she was severely impaired - this had about as much substance as the Tawana Brawley case, the Duke Lacrosse or the recent UVA rape story. This isn't the place to hash all of the evidence in that case, but it's about as unfounded of an accusation as you can possibly get. For that Ben was suspended 6 games. Brady got 4. When grading the punishments for those two players, Ben's was longer. Why? Because it looked bad and it hurt the NFL image, regardless of what was actually done or (considerably more likely) not done.
They came for Ben because it made the NFL look bad. They came for the Saints because of the concussions lawsuits. They came for Ray Rice AGAIN because of Goodell's own screw up for letting him off too lightly in the first place. They came for Adrian Peterson because of the Rice scandal. They came for the Redskins and the Cowboys for supposed cap violations in an uncapped year. Every one of these could be - and probably should be - seen as unjust overreactions. Kraft, Brady and the Patriot's fan base didn't **** about any of those. So now Kraft, Brady and many Patriots fans are whining about this. Too bad. Welcome to the club, donuts and drinks are on the left.
As for your opinions, you are entitled to them. But they are the irrational and illogical rantings of a homer. You point the finger at everyone else, demand answers and then dismiss the answers because you don't like them. Every single thing the Patriots say or do is taken as gospel and everything everyone else says is a half-truth or mis-truth. It would be funny if it weren't so sad. You really shouldn't be so vested in this that you can't objectively analyze the situation. It's just a sports team and getting that worked up can't be good for your health.
-
Well, the only way I as a fan can protest this is to stop watching NFL games. Giving some serious thought to that. I like college football more anyway, though I admit that the NCAA is probably at least as bad as Goodell.
While I applaud your sentiment, why would you protest this and not the Big Ben suspension, the Saints' bountygate, the Ray Rice screw up and a host of other Goodell overreaches? What makes this one special? Was it because it finally happened to your team?
It was Bountygate that turned me off from the NFL and I have no love for the Saints. It was yet another example of Goodell trying to make someone a scapegoat for his own failures as a commish. I haven't watched the Super Bowl the past two years. I never even turned on an NFL game on the TV last year. Last year was the first time that no one in my family got NFL merchandise for Christmas. And it all has to do with how the league is run.
The only sports merchandise purchased last year was a Celtics cap!
Those suspensions had the opposite problem, which was that they weren't long enough. Are we actually at the point now where we compare Tom Brady to a rapist (more likely than not folks...twice), and guy that knocked out his wife on video, and guys getting paid to hurt people circumventing the salary cap?
Is that really happening now? Yes. Yes it is. Which is why the rest of the league should have an asterisk next to what they do. There's just no league integrity. The only place that has it is Foxboro and they aren't angels.
That your first reaction is to call someone a rapist shows how very little objectivity or clarity of thought you have. But please feel free to go on ranting illogically because it is quite amusing to see you jump at conspiracy theories.
The league is not out to get the Patriots. Foxboro is not a beautiful, unique snowflake. The Patriots have been caught cheating - again. Deal with it.
I'm not allowed to compare Tom Brady's suspension for deflating balls to Big Ben's less bad suspension for being a rapist? Because I'm not objective?
Because there was no rape. Thanks for playing, please try again.
PS - Ben got more games for a baseless accusation for rape than the Brady suspension. You're not very good at this, are you?
Ben got 4-6 games (knocked down to 4 for going to counseling) but Brady got 4 games AND his team got a million dollars AND loss of draft picks. So yes Brady got punished worse. Further it was Ben's 2nd sticky situation like this so the repeat offender card existed too. The punishment he got was that his conduct was not remotely close to the expectations of an NFL football player. His excuse of "consensual" (because we all post guards outside doors to get it on with completely drunk women in bathrooms when we're doing consensual stuff) is far less believable than Tom saying "I didn't tell anyone to deflate any balls". It's not close.
Here's the problem with your assumption (and PhoSita's). There was no DNA evidence. A rape (which by the way is a LEGAL term and therefore not appropriate here) or even consensual sex would leave DNA traces. That's the case right there and the very reason charges were not filed. When you boil it down - with the accuser initially denying a rape took place, constantly changing stories, no cameras, no DNA evidence, no witnesses, no corroboration and the fact she was severely impaired - this had about as much substance as the Tawana Brawley case, the Duke Lacrosse or the recent UVA rape story. This isn't the place to hash all of the evidence in that case, but it's about as unfounded of an accusation as you can possibly get. For that Ben was suspended 6 games. Brady got 4. When grading the punishments for those two players, Ben's was longer. Why? Because it looked bad and it hurt the NFL image, regardless of what was actually done or (considerably more likely) not done.
They came for Ben because it made the NFL look bad. They came for the Saints because of the concussions lawsuits. They came for Ray Rice AGAIN because of Goodell's own screw up for letting him off too lightly in the first place. They came for Adrian Peterson because of the Rice scandal. They came for the Redskins and the Cowboys for supposed cap violations in an uncapped year. Every one of these could be - and probably should be - seen as unjust overreactions. Kraft, Brady and the Patriot's fan base didn't **** about any of those. So now Kraft, Brady and many Patriots fans are whining about this. Too bad. Welcome to the club, donuts and drinks are on the left.
As for your opinions, you are entitled to them. But they are the irrational and illogical rantings of a homer. You point the finger at everyone else, demand answers and then dismiss the answers because you don't like them. Every single thing the Patriots say or do is taken as gospel and everything everyone else says is a half-truth or mis-truth. It would be funny if it weren't so sad. You really shouldn't be so vested in this that you can't objectively analyze the situation. It's just a sports team and getting that worked up can't be good for your health.
I can see how the texts look incriminating. So give them a punishment similar to the punishments other teams have gotten. I don't see what is irrational about that.
Also I see a huge difference between Burger (who got it knocked down to 4 games) and UVA. Burger admitted something happened....hence...consensual. He wants us to believe she was totally drunk and consensually had sex with him in a bathroom with a guard there and that this is the 2nd time something like this has happened to him. I find that far harder to believe than Brady stating he never told anyone to cheat.
I don't understand why as a homer I am irrational and sad for wanting the Patriots to be treated like other teams that don't get punished almost at all when they are caught red handed.
-
I also get that it isn't clear the Patriots intentionally broke the rules, but it seems clear they wanted those footballs as low as possible, and when you constantly skate the line between legal and illegal and then aren't entirely forthcoming in the investigation, you are going to get hit hard.
Just to be clear, you're saying that when other people suspect that you might be doing something wrong, but it isn't clear that you did something wrong, and then you don't 100% cooperate with the investigation (witch hunt, some might say) that you have some right to feel is unwarranted, that makes you 100% guilty as far as league discipline is concerned?
You're saying that, on its own, warrants not just a fine, or losing a late round pick, but a huge penalty?
Also, not only is it not clear that the Patriots intentionally broke the rule regarding inflation of footballs, it's far from clear that they actually broke the rule at all. The inflation measurements by the referee just cannot be trusted in light of the issues with his recollection and the shoddy measurement and recording procedures the NFL has in place. There have been plenty of in depth arguments made providing a solid basis for thinking the balls may have been properly inflated in the first place.
As I said above, that doesn't require you to believe that McNally didn't let any air out of the balls. The Pats could have gotten them overinflated, and then McNally could have taken them to the restroom and deflated them to the lower end of the legal range.
-
Here's the problem with your assumption (and PhoSita's). There was no DNA evidence. A rape (which by the way is a LEGAL term and therefore not appropriate here) or even consensual sex would leave DNA traces. That's the case right there and the very reason charges were not filed.
All I'm going to say is that I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about when it comes to rape and the frequency and manner in which it is investigated and prosecuted in this country. No idea whatsoever.
-
I can live with the punishment, the evidence isn't anything concrete but if we are not penalized, fans from all the other teams will completely lose their s**t. So for the sake of keeping haters out of mental asylums, I'll accept the consequences. But like it's been said, the footballs wasn't the reason the Colts only scored 7 points... whatever, It's not like it will keep us out the playoffs.
-
Here's the problem with your assumption (and PhoSita's). There was no DNA evidence. A rape (which by the way is a LEGAL term and therefore not appropriate here) or even consensual sex would leave DNA traces. That's the case right there and the very reason charges were not filed.
All I'm going to say is that I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about when it comes to rape and the frequency and manner in which it is investigated and prosecuted in this country. No idea whatsoever.
I'm going to say perhaps you should stop making assumptions. The 8 years I spent working in law enforcement says otherwise, though perhaps it's substantially changed since I put in my time back in the 90s. I doubt it though. It was a ****ty type of case to investigate then and I'm sure it's just as difficult now. I must allow that it wasn't my focus area so I don't have as much experience as some others do. We had a special group for those cases.
Now, shall we get back to football? Or would you like to pursue this conversation further?
-
I just heard one of the most HATE filled rants ever on a sports figure. It was on NPR radio ....this morning .......by one of THEIR paid sports hosts , not a call in Joe blow .
Some old geezer, didn't catch his name sports commentator , with gruff voice ......just went HATE banana's on Tom Brady .......wow... ....I'm still blown away
Frankly it sounded very personal to me .....no just media observation or reporting. :-X
It was a hate full diatribe that started with the deflate gate premise . It went on for several minutes .........hate ful comment upon hate ful comment.....how shallow Brady's career has been , he is a weak person, on and on......smh ......
From there he used that to spring board into what an awful person Brady is.......
Look .....I'm not even a Pats fan.
I was embarrassed to even be listening to this . My wife looked at me , she heard it too.......
We both were speechless for a few moments .
It's really sad people can be so jealous of the fame and success a gifted person has .........
It's sad to hear somebody that is so miserable in life jump on another human being for being the best at what he does.
I think this man should be fired from NPR
-
Here's the problem with your assumption (and PhoSita's). There was no DNA evidence. A rape (which by the way is a LEGAL term and therefore not appropriate here) or even consensual sex would leave DNA traces. That's the case right there and the very reason charges were not filed.
All I'm going to say is that I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about when it comes to rape and the frequency and manner in which it is investigated and prosecuted in this country. No idea whatsoever.
I'm going to say perhaps you should stop making assumptions. The 8 years I spent working in law enforcement says otherwise, though perhaps it's substantially changed since I put in my time back in the 90s. I doubt it though. It was a ****ty type of case to investigate then and I'm sure it's just as difficult now. I must allow that it wasn't my focus area so I don't have as much experience as some others do. We had a special group for those cases.
Now, shall we get back to football? Or would you like to pursue this conversation further?
I'm gonna stand on what I said above, with the addition that being involved with law enforcement doesn't exactly enhance your credentials on the matter, again with reference to the actual investigation and prosecution rates in this country compared to the frequency with which acts of that type are perpetrated.
-
I just heard one of the most HATE filled rants ever on a sports figure. It was on NPR radio ....this morning .......by one of THEIR paid sports hosts , not a call in Joe blow .
Some old geezer, didn't catch his name sports commentator , with gruff voice ......just went HATE banana's on Tom Brady .......wow... ....I'm still blown away
Frankly it sounded very personal to me .....no just media observation or reporting. :-X
It was a hate full diatribe that started with the deflate gate premise . It went on for several minutes .........hate ful comment upon hate ful comment.....
From there he used that to spring board into what an awful person Brady is.......
Look .....I'm not even a Pats fan.
I was embarrassed to even be listening to this . My wife looked at me , she heard it too.......
We both were speechless for a few moments .
It's really sad people can be so jealous of the fame and success a gifted person has .........
It's sad to hear somebody that is so miserable in life jump on another human being for being the best at what he does.
I think this man should be fired from NPR
Frank Deford?
Was this the rant? http://www.npr.org/2015/05/13/406227352/was-deflategate-about-tom-bradys-legacy-or-his-ego
-
one involves the integrity of the game and wasn't awhile ago.
The problem is that "integrity of the game" is such a vague term.
Arguably, the Patriots affected the integrity of the game a lot worse by fooling around with eligible receivers and catching the Ravens off guard in the Divisional Round. Where's the punishment for that?
Yet, it's hard to even measure what effect, if any, the supposedly underinflated balls had on the game in question here.
The report does not come close to definitively proving that Tom didn't simply instruct his ball attendants to let air out of the footballs -- to a point within the range described by the rules -- after the refs had handled them, because the refs often give the Pats balls that are OVERinflated.
Exactly how does that affect the integrity of the game?
Meanwhile, you know what affects the integrity of the league, and the game the league provides to the public as entertainment?
The behavior of its players, who all too often act as if they are gods among men off the field. The NFL peddles a violent game that seems to frequently produce players who inflict violence on other people off of the field. That's a much bigger deal, in my book.
It may very well be, but it doesn't actually have any outcome at all on the game. That is the point I was making (it is also why I wouldn't suspend players for off the field conduct - though certainly as an owner of a team might very well release the player if the conduct started hurting my bottom line, which is why I had no problem with the Ravens releasing Rice, I just don't think he should have been suspended). I have no idea if deflating footballs really affects the outcome of a game, but I suspect there is some benefit or it wouldn't have happened. Now sure it didn't affect the outcome of the AFC Title game which was a blowout, but it certainly might have affected the outcome of the game against the Ravens the week before, which was a very close game. And you are probably right the weird substitution thing probably had a greater affect on that game, but that was at the time legal (it isn't now). Deflating footballs below the allowed limit is against the rules and needs to be punished. I also get that it isn't clear the Patriots intentionally broke the rules, but it seems clear they wanted those footballs as low as possible, and when you constantly skate the line between legal and illegal and then aren't entirely forthcoming in the investigation, you are going to get hit hard.
The bolded parts relate to a point I've brought up before, but which no one on CB or elsewhere has addressed (to my knowledge): Why does the PSI rule even exist? And what is the science (if any) or other rationale behind it?
By saying that only certain PSI levels are acceptable, the NFL is also saying that "unacceptable" PSI levels convey an unfair advantage. But how did the league come to that conclusion? It's like the league is saying that footballs that are "too soft" or "too hard" are, what, too easy to catch? But is that true? And how would they know that? We all know that a football has to have a minimal amount of PSI, so it's not just a floppy piece of leather wobbling through the air; but beyond that, why does it matter what the PSI level is?
In other words, does it really have any measurable affect on the game? Judging by the fact that some QBs like soft footballs (Brady) and some like hard footballs (Rodgers), it seems that there's no "magic number," or else all QBs would use it. Given this, why doesn't the league just let each QB/team inflate the footballs to what's most comfortable for him/them? If every team is allowed to do that, then there's no unfairness or competitive disadvantage being conveyed to anyone.
-
one involves the integrity of the game and wasn't awhile ago.
The problem is that "integrity of the game" is such a vague term.
Arguably, the Patriots affected the integrity of the game a lot worse by fooling around with eligible receivers and catching the Ravens off guard in the Divisional Round. Where's the punishment for that?
Yet, it's hard to even measure what effect, if any, the supposedly underinflated balls had on the game in question here.
The report does not come close to definitively proving that Tom didn't simply instruct his ball attendants to let air out of the footballs -- to a point within the range described by the rules -- after the refs had handled them, because the refs often give the Pats balls that are OVERinflated.
Exactly how does that affect the integrity of the game?
Meanwhile, you know what affects the integrity of the league, and the game the league provides to the public as entertainment?
The behavior of its players, who all too often act as if they are gods among men off the field. The NFL peddles a violent game that seems to frequently produce players who inflict violence on other people off of the field. That's a much bigger deal, in my book.
It may very well be, but it doesn't actually have any outcome at all on the game. That is the point I was making (it is also why I wouldn't suspend players for off the field conduct - though certainly as an owner of a team might very well release the player if the conduct started hurting my bottom line, which is why I had no problem with the Ravens releasing Rice, I just don't think he should have been suspended). I have no idea if deflating footballs really affects the outcome of a game, but I suspect there is some benefit or it wouldn't have happened. Now sure it didn't affect the outcome of the AFC Title game which was a blowout, but it certainly might have affected the outcome of the game against the Ravens the week before, which was a very close game. And you are probably right the weird substitution thing probably had a greater affect on that game, but that was at the time legal (it isn't now). Deflating footballs below the allowed limit is against the rules and needs to be punished. I also get that it isn't clear the Patriots intentionally broke the rules, but it seems clear they wanted those footballs as low as possible, and when you constantly skate the line between legal and illegal and then aren't entirely forthcoming in the investigation, you are going to get hit hard.
The bolded parts relate to a point I've brought up before, but which no one on CB or elsewhere has addressed (to my knowledge): Why does the PSI rule even exist? And what is the science (if any) or other rationale behind it?
By saying that only certain PSI levels are acceptable, the NFL is also saying that "unacceptable" PSI levels convey an unfair advantage. But how did the league come to that conclusion? It's like the league is saying that footballs that are "too soft" or "too hard" are, what, too easy to catch? But is that true? And how would they know that? We all know that a football has to have a minimal amount of PSI, so it's not just a floppy piece of leather wobbling through the air; but beyond that, why does it matter what the PSI level is?
In other words, does it really have any measurable affect on the game? Judging by the fact that some QBs like soft footballs (Brady) and some like hard footballs (Rodgers), it seems that there's no "magic number," or else all QBs would use it. Given this, why doesn't the league just let each QB/team inflate the footballs to what's most comfortable for him/them? If every team is allowed to do that, then there's no unfairness or competitive disadvantage being conveyed to anyone.
It definitely has an impact on the game & its definitely true. They need to have a minimum (I'd argue more so than a maximum).
Balls with less PSI inside are easier to grip so it makes throwing the ball & catching the ball easier. Especially in inclement weather.
-
And as we all know, it's very important to be able to grip the football in inclement weather.
(http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/article/media_slots/photos/000/775/572/tuckrule_original.gif?1363860393)
:P
-
And as we all know, it's very important to be able to grip the football in inclement weather.
(http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/article/media_slots/photos/000/775/572/tuckrule_original.gif?1363860393)
:P
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/srcstc.gif)
-
I just heard one of the most HATE filled rants ever on a sports figure. It was on NPR radio ....this morning .......by one of THEIR paid sports hosts , not a call in Joe blow .
Some old geezer, didn't catch his name sports commentator , with gruff voice ......just went HATE banana's on Tom Brady .......wow... ....I'm still blown away
Frankly it sounded very personal to me .....no just media observation or reporting. :-X
It was a hate full diatribe that started with the deflate gate premise . It went on for several minutes .........hate ful comment upon hate ful comment.....how shallow Brady's career has been , he is a weak person, on and on......smh ......
From there he used that to spring board into what an awful person Brady is.......
Look .....I'm not even a Pats fan.
I was embarrassed to even be listening to this . My wife looked at me , she heard it too.......
We both were speechless for a few moments .
It's really sad people can be so jealous of the fame and success a gifted person has .........
It's sad to hear somebody that is so miserable in life jump on another human being for being the best at what he does.
I think this man should be fired from NPR
it was Frank Deford. He sounds like a lifelong alcoholic the way he slurs his speech. He is the worst. I have no idea how he has a job.
-
Has an investigator ever had this much to say about his report in the media before? That certainly makes me question just how deeply his emotions were into this case. Look Wells, you had 3 months and 250 or so pages to make your points, I think we get it.
Wells might think he was neutral but his report certainly wasn't. He only added the facts he wanted to "convict" the Patriots and left out everything else. Hiring a suspect company to do fact finding also didn't help.
But there is a reason we separate our police from our prosecutors and our judges and juries. And I think this case shows a prime example of why that is. For whatever reason, whether to justify all the money he billed or possibly because maybe someone leaned on him and made it known the NFL will look badly if nothing comes out of this, Wells, or at least this report, definitely only reflected one view.
The entire process though was flawed. Wells should have investigated. Then presented the facts to a neutral arbiter. The people involved should be able to present their own cases and then a decision on if some standard of burden was met. Yeah, maybe Well's report showed a preponderance of the evidence. It just seems suspicious that he knew the burden and HIS report of HIS investigation met that burden to HIM. No kidding. If you only put the facts in from your side it is kind of almost assuredly going to meet whatever burden you want it to.
I still haven't heard a good reason why which gauge used to set the beginning of the air pressure doesn't matter when it didn't seem to give the correct pressure by Well's own admission, or at least a different pressure than the other gauge. How can you possibly make a conclusion based on the balls being 12.5psi at the beginning when the gauge used to measure them wasn't reliable and they might have started closer to 12psi? The fact that there are two gauges in this that don't give the same results is just baffling to me. Is air pressure in balls important or not?
Wells alludes to there being no evidence of a "sting" operation. Where are all the emails and texts from that? Did he ask for them? Did he not find any evidence or did he not ask for any? Did he look into leaks from the NFL offices? Did he get Goddell's texts and emails?
Brady and his lawyers are going to rip Well's and his report a new one so I guess he better get on every morning show and sway public opinion as much as he can right now.
-
one involves the integrity of the game and wasn't awhile ago.
The problem is that "integrity of the game" is such a vague term.
I would definitely agree with this. What does "integrity" real mean to the league? It seems to contradict itself, in regards to the term, at every turn.
The NFL throws that term around a lot. Goodell has stated repeatedly that Wells has impeccable integrity. Is it even human to have "impeccable" integrity?
-
Has an investigator ever had this much to say about his report in the media before? That certainly makes me question just how deeply his emotions were into this case. Look Wells, you had 3 months and 250 or so pages to make your points, I think we get it.
Wells might think he was neutral but his report certainly wasn't. He only added the facts he wanted to "convict" the Patriots and left out everything else. Hiring a suspect company to do fact finding also didn't help.
But there is a reason we separate our police from our prosecutors and our judges and juries. And I think this case shows a prime example of why that is. For whatever reason, whether to justify all the money he billed or possibly because maybe someone leaned on him and made it known the NFL will look badly if nothing comes out of this, Wells, or at least this report, definitely only reflected one view.
The entire process though was flawed. Wells should have investigated. Then presented the facts to a neutral arbiter. The people involved should be able to present their own cases and then a decision on if some standard of burden was met. Yeah, maybe Well's report showed a preponderance of the evidence. It just seems suspicious that he knew the burden and HIS report of HIS investigation met that burden to HIM. No kidding. If you only put the facts in from your side it is kind of almost assuredly going to meet whatever burden you want it to.
I still haven't heard a good reason why which gauge used to set the beginning of the air pressure doesn't matter when it didn't seem to give the correct pressure by Well's own admission, or at least a different pressure than the other gauge. How can you possibly make a conclusion based on the balls being 12.5psi at the beginning when the gauge used to measure them wasn't reliable and they might have started closer to 12psi? The fact that there are two gauges in this that don't give the same results is just baffling to me. Is air pressure in balls important or not?
Wells alludes to there being no evidence of a "sting" operation. Where are all the emails and texts from that? Did he ask for them? Did he not find any evidence or did he not ask for any? Did he look into leaks from the NFL offices? Did he get Goddell's texts and emails?
Brady and his lawyers are going to rip Well's and his report a new one so I guess he better get on every morning show and sway public opinion as much as he can right now.
It seems to me that Wells doesn't like having his reputation and integrity smeared based on "more probable than not" either.
-
one involves the integrity of the game and wasn't awhile ago.
The problem is that "integrity of the game" is such a vague term.
Arguably, the Patriots affected the integrity of the game a lot worse by fooling around with eligible receivers and catching the Ravens off guard in the Divisional Round. Where's the punishment for that?
Yet, it's hard to even measure what effect, if any, the supposedly underinflated balls had on the game in question here.
The report does not come close to definitively proving that Tom didn't simply instruct his ball attendants to let air out of the footballs -- to a point within the range described by the rules -- after the refs had handled them, because the refs often give the Pats balls that are OVERinflated.
Exactly how does that affect the integrity of the game?
Meanwhile, you know what affects the integrity of the league, and the game the league provides to the public as entertainment?
The behavior of its players, who all too often act as if they are gods among men off the field. The NFL peddles a violent game that seems to frequently produce players who inflict violence on other people off of the field. That's a much bigger deal, in my book.
It may very well be, but it doesn't actually have any outcome at all on the game. That is the point I was making (it is also why I wouldn't suspend players for off the field conduct - though certainly as an owner of a team might very well release the player if the conduct started hurting my bottom line, which is why I had no problem with the Ravens releasing Rice, I just don't think he should have been suspended). I have no idea if deflating footballs really affects the outcome of a game, but I suspect there is some benefit or it wouldn't have happened. Now sure it didn't affect the outcome of the AFC Title game which was a blowout, but it certainly might have affected the outcome of the game against the Ravens the week before, which was a very close game. And you are probably right the weird substitution thing probably had a greater affect on that game, but that was at the time legal (it isn't now). Deflating footballs below the allowed limit is against the rules and needs to be punished. I also get that it isn't clear the Patriots intentionally broke the rules, but it seems clear they wanted those footballs as low as possible, and when you constantly skate the line between legal and illegal and then aren't entirely forthcoming in the investigation, you are going to get hit hard.
The bolded parts relate to a point I've brought up before, but which no one on CB or elsewhere has addressed (to my knowledge): Why does the PSI rule even exist? And what is the science (if any) or other rationale behind it?
By saying that only certain PSI levels are acceptable, the NFL is also saying that "unacceptable" PSI levels convey an unfair advantage. But how did the league come to that conclusion? It's like the league is saying that footballs that are "too soft" or "too hard" are, what, too easy to catch? But is that true? And how would they know that? We all know that a football has to have a minimal amount of PSI, so it's not just a floppy piece of leather wobbling through the air; but beyond that, why does it matter what the PSI level is?
In other words, does it really have any measurable affect on the game? Judging by the fact that some QBs like soft footballs (Brady) and some like hard footballs (Rodgers), it seems that there's no "magic number," or else all QBs would use it. Given this, why doesn't the league just let each QB/team inflate the footballs to what's most comfortable for him/them? If every team is allowed to do that, then there's no unfairness or competitive disadvantage being conveyed to anyone.
It definitely has an impact on the game & its definitely true. They need to have a minimum (I'd argue more so than a maximum).
Balls with less PSI inside are easier to grip so it makes throwing the ball & catching the ball easier. Especially in inclement weather.
Shouldn't the NFL want its players to have an easier time throwing and catching the ball? They're selling an entertainment product, and it's not very entertaining to watch more instead of fewer incomplete passes.
I agree that there has to be a minimum to make a football usable (and that minimum is clearly below 12.5 PSI). So as long as a football is usable for the team using it, I don't think there should be any other rules or considerations regarding air pressure. It's silly and pointless and leads to useless $5 million investigations and a whole lot of handwringing over something that's pretty insignificant in the larger picture.
-
one involves the integrity of the game and wasn't awhile ago.
The problem is that "integrity of the game" is such a vague term.
I would definitely agree with this. What does "integrity" real mean to the league? It seems to contradict itself, in regards to the term, at every turn.
The NFL throws that term around a lot. Goodell has stated repeatedly that Wells has impeccable integrity. Is it even human to have "impeccable" integrity?
No, it is not.
-
one involves the integrity of the game and wasn't awhile ago.
The problem is that "integrity of the game" is such a vague term.
Arguably, the Patriots affected the integrity of the game a lot worse by fooling around with eligible receivers and catching the Ravens off guard in the Divisional Round. Where's the punishment for that?
Yet, it's hard to even measure what effect, if any, the supposedly underinflated balls had on the game in question here.
The report does not come close to definitively proving that Tom didn't simply instruct his ball attendants to let air out of the footballs -- to a point within the range described by the rules -- after the refs had handled them, because the refs often give the Pats balls that are OVERinflated.
Exactly how does that affect the integrity of the game?
Meanwhile, you know what affects the integrity of the league, and the game the league provides to the public as entertainment?
The behavior of its players, who all too often act as if they are gods among men off the field. The NFL peddles a violent game that seems to frequently produce players who inflict violence on other people off of the field. That's a much bigger deal, in my book.
It may very well be, but it doesn't actually have any outcome at all on the game. That is the point I was making (it is also why I wouldn't suspend players for off the field conduct - though certainly as an owner of a team might very well release the player if the conduct started hurting my bottom line, which is why I had no problem with the Ravens releasing Rice, I just don't think he should have been suspended). I have no idea if deflating footballs really affects the outcome of a game, but I suspect there is some benefit or it wouldn't have happened. Now sure it didn't affect the outcome of the AFC Title game which was a blowout, but it certainly might have affected the outcome of the game against the Ravens the week before, which was a very close game. And you are probably right the weird substitution thing probably had a greater affect on that game, but that was at the time legal (it isn't now). Deflating footballs below the allowed limit is against the rules and needs to be punished. I also get that it isn't clear the Patriots intentionally broke the rules, but it seems clear they wanted those footballs as low as possible, and when you constantly skate the line between legal and illegal and then aren't entirely forthcoming in the investigation, you are going to get hit hard.
The bolded parts relate to a point I've brought up before, but which no one on CB or elsewhere has addressed (to my knowledge): Why does the PSI rule even exist? And what is the science (if any) or other rationale behind it?
By saying that only certain PSI levels are acceptable, the NFL is also saying that "unacceptable" PSI levels convey an unfair advantage. But how did the league come to that conclusion? It's like the league is saying that footballs that are "too soft" or "too hard" are, what, too easy to catch? But is that true? And how would they know that? We all know that a football has to have a minimal amount of PSI, so it's not just a floppy piece of leather wobbling through the air; but beyond that, why does it matter what the PSI level is?
In other words, does it really have any measurable affect on the game? Judging by the fact that some QBs like soft footballs (Brady) and some like hard footballs (Rodgers), it seems that there's no "magic number," or else all QBs would use it. Given this, why doesn't the league just let each QB/team inflate the footballs to what's most comfortable for him/them? If every team is allowed to do that, then there's no unfairness or competitive disadvantage being conveyed to anyone.
It definitely has an impact on the game & its definitely true. They need to have a minimum (I'd argue more so than a maximum).
Balls with less PSI inside are easier to grip so it makes throwing the ball & catching the ball easier. Especially in inclement weather.
Shouldn't the NFL want its players to have an easier time throwing and catching the ball? They're selling an entertainment product, and it's not very entertaining to watch more instead of fewer incomplete passes.
I agree that there has to be a minimum to make a football usable (and that minimum is clearly below 12.5 PSI). So as long as a football is usable for the team using it, I don't think there should be any other rules or considerations regarding air pressure. It's silly and pointless and leads to useless $5 million investigations and a whole lot of handwringing over something that's pretty insignificant in the larger picture.
It already is. Why do you need to drop it more?
-
one involves the integrity of the game and wasn't awhile ago.
The problem is that "integrity of the game" is such a vague term.
Arguably, the Patriots affected the integrity of the game a lot worse by fooling around with eligible receivers and catching the Ravens off guard in the Divisional Round. Where's the punishment for that?
Yet, it's hard to even measure what effect, if any, the supposedly underinflated balls had on the game in question here.
The report does not come close to definitively proving that Tom didn't simply instruct his ball attendants to let air out of the footballs -- to a point within the range described by the rules -- after the refs had handled them, because the refs often give the Pats balls that are OVERinflated.
Exactly how does that affect the integrity of the game?
Meanwhile, you know what affects the integrity of the league, and the game the league provides to the public as entertainment?
The behavior of its players, who all too often act as if they are gods among men off the field. The NFL peddles a violent game that seems to frequently produce players who inflict violence on other people off of the field. That's a much bigger deal, in my book.
It may very well be, but it doesn't actually have any outcome at all on the game. That is the point I was making (it is also why I wouldn't suspend players for off the field conduct - though certainly as an owner of a team might very well release the player if the conduct started hurting my bottom line, which is why I had no problem with the Ravens releasing Rice, I just don't think he should have been suspended). I have no idea if deflating footballs really affects the outcome of a game, but I suspect there is some benefit or it wouldn't have happened. Now sure it didn't affect the outcome of the AFC Title game which was a blowout, but it certainly might have affected the outcome of the game against the Ravens the week before, which was a very close game. And you are probably right the weird substitution thing probably had a greater affect on that game, but that was at the time legal (it isn't now). Deflating footballs below the allowed limit is against the rules and needs to be punished. I also get that it isn't clear the Patriots intentionally broke the rules, but it seems clear they wanted those footballs as low as possible, and when you constantly skate the line between legal and illegal and then aren't entirely forthcoming in the investigation, you are going to get hit hard.
The bolded parts relate to a point I've brought up before, but which no one on CB or elsewhere has addressed (to my knowledge): Why does the PSI rule even exist? And what is the science (if any) or other rationale behind it?
By saying that only certain PSI levels are acceptable, the NFL is also saying that "unacceptable" PSI levels convey an unfair advantage. But how did the league come to that conclusion? It's like the league is saying that footballs that are "too soft" or "too hard" are, what, too easy to catch? But is that true? And how would they know that? We all know that a football has to have a minimal amount of PSI, so it's not just a floppy piece of leather wobbling through the air; but beyond that, why does it matter what the PSI level is?
In other words, does it really have any measurable affect on the game? Judging by the fact that some QBs like soft footballs (Brady) and some like hard footballs (Rodgers), it seems that there's no "magic number," or else all QBs would use it. Given this, why doesn't the league just let each QB/team inflate the footballs to what's most comfortable for him/them? If every team is allowed to do that, then there's no unfairness or competitive disadvantage being conveyed to anyone.
It definitely has an impact on the game & its definitely true. They need to have a minimum (I'd argue more so than a maximum).
Balls with less PSI inside are easier to grip so it makes throwing the ball & catching the ball easier. Especially in inclement weather.
Shouldn't the NFL want its players to have an easier time throwing and catching the ball? They're selling an entertainment product, and it's not very entertaining to watch more instead of fewer incomplete passes.
I agree that there has to be a minimum to make a football usable (and that minimum is clearly below 12.5 PSI). So as long as a football is usable for the team using it, I don't think there should be any other rules or considerations regarding air pressure. It's silly and pointless and leads to useless $5 million investigations and a whole lot of handwringing over something that's pretty insignificant in the larger picture.
It already is. Why do you need to drop it more?
If a QB is more comfortable with an even lower PSI, he should be able to have it at that level, so long as the football is usable. And if each team is allowed to do this, then no one has an unfair advantage.
-
one involves the integrity of the game and wasn't awhile ago.
The problem is that "integrity of the game" is such a vague term.
Arguably, the Patriots affected the integrity of the game a lot worse by fooling around with eligible receivers and catching the Ravens off guard in the Divisional Round. Where's the punishment for that?
Yet, it's hard to even measure what effect, if any, the supposedly underinflated balls had on the game in question here.
The report does not come close to definitively proving that Tom didn't simply instruct his ball attendants to let air out of the footballs -- to a point within the range described by the rules -- after the refs had handled them, because the refs often give the Pats balls that are OVERinflated.
Exactly how does that affect the integrity of the game?
Meanwhile, you know what affects the integrity of the league, and the game the league provides to the public as entertainment?
The behavior of its players, who all too often act as if they are gods among men off the field. The NFL peddles a violent game that seems to frequently produce players who inflict violence on other people off of the field. That's a much bigger deal, in my book.
It may very well be, but it doesn't actually have any outcome at all on the game. That is the point I was making (it is also why I wouldn't suspend players for off the field conduct - though certainly as an owner of a team might very well release the player if the conduct started hurting my bottom line, which is why I had no problem with the Ravens releasing Rice, I just don't think he should have been suspended). I have no idea if deflating footballs really affects the outcome of a game, but I suspect there is some benefit or it wouldn't have happened. Now sure it didn't affect the outcome of the AFC Title game which was a blowout, but it certainly might have affected the outcome of the game against the Ravens the week before, which was a very close game. And you are probably right the weird substitution thing probably had a greater affect on that game, but that was at the time legal (it isn't now). Deflating footballs below the allowed limit is against the rules and needs to be punished. I also get that it isn't clear the Patriots intentionally broke the rules, but it seems clear they wanted those footballs as low as possible, and when you constantly skate the line between legal and illegal and then aren't entirely forthcoming in the investigation, you are going to get hit hard.
The bolded parts relate to a point I've brought up before, but which no one on CB or elsewhere has addressed (to my knowledge): Why does the PSI rule even exist? And what is the science (if any) or other rationale behind it?
By saying that only certain PSI levels are acceptable, the NFL is also saying that "unacceptable" PSI levels convey an unfair advantage. But how did the league come to that conclusion? It's like the league is saying that footballs that are "too soft" or "too hard" are, what, too easy to catch? But is that true? And how would they know that? We all know that a football has to have a minimal amount of PSI, so it's not just a floppy piece of leather wobbling through the air; but beyond that, why does it matter what the PSI level is?
In other words, does it really have any measurable affect on the game? Judging by the fact that some QBs like soft footballs (Brady) and some like hard footballs (Rodgers), it seems that there's no "magic number," or else all QBs would use it. Given this, why doesn't the league just let each QB/team inflate the footballs to what's most comfortable for him/them? If every team is allowed to do that, then there's no unfairness or competitive disadvantage being conveyed to anyone.
It definitely has an impact on the game & its definitely true. They need to have a minimum (I'd argue more so than a maximum).
Balls with less PSI inside are easier to grip so it makes throwing the ball & catching the ball easier. Especially in inclement weather.
Shouldn't the NFL want its players to have an easier time throwing and catching the ball? They're selling an entertainment product, and it's not very entertaining to watch more instead of fewer incomplete passes.
I agree that there has to be a minimum to make a football usable (and that minimum is clearly below 12.5 PSI). So as long as a football is usable for the team using it, I don't think there should be any other rules or considerations regarding air pressure. It's silly and pointless and leads to useless $5 million investigations and a whole lot of handwringing over something that's pretty insignificant in the larger picture.
It already is. Why do you need to drop it more?
If a QB is more comfortable with an even lower PSI, he should be able to have it at that level, so long as the football is usable. And if each team is allowed to do this, then no one has an unfair advantage.
Except you're missing the other effects this has. This would totally change the complexion of the running game in football. Keep lowering the PSI and you'll never see fumbles. In a snow or rain storm, what would stop a team from basically just deflating it to nothing if there was no minimum?
It would dramatically alter the game.
-
one involves the integrity of the game and wasn't awhile ago.
The problem is that "integrity of the game" is such a vague term.
Arguably, the Patriots affected the integrity of the game a lot worse by fooling around with eligible receivers and catching the Ravens off guard in the Divisional Round. Where's the punishment for that?
Yet, it's hard to even measure what effect, if any, the supposedly underinflated balls had on the game in question here.
The report does not come close to definitively proving that Tom didn't simply instruct his ball attendants to let air out of the footballs -- to a point within the range described by the rules -- after the refs had handled them, because the refs often give the Pats balls that are OVERinflated.
Exactly how does that affect the integrity of the game?
Meanwhile, you know what affects the integrity of the league, and the game the league provides to the public as entertainment?
The behavior of its players, who all too often act as if they are gods among men off the field. The NFL peddles a violent game that seems to frequently produce players who inflict violence on other people off of the field. That's a much bigger deal, in my book.
It may very well be, but it doesn't actually have any outcome at all on the game. That is the point I was making (it is also why I wouldn't suspend players for off the field conduct - though certainly as an owner of a team might very well release the player if the conduct started hurting my bottom line, which is why I had no problem with the Ravens releasing Rice, I just don't think he should have been suspended). I have no idea if deflating footballs really affects the outcome of a game, but I suspect there is some benefit or it wouldn't have happened. Now sure it didn't affect the outcome of the AFC Title game which was a blowout, but it certainly might have affected the outcome of the game against the Ravens the week before, which was a very close game. And you are probably right the weird substitution thing probably had a greater affect on that game, but that was at the time legal (it isn't now). Deflating footballs below the allowed limit is against the rules and needs to be punished. I also get that it isn't clear the Patriots intentionally broke the rules, but it seems clear they wanted those footballs as low as possible, and when you constantly skate the line between legal and illegal and then aren't entirely forthcoming in the investigation, you are going to get hit hard.
The bolded parts relate to a point I've brought up before, but which no one on CB or elsewhere has addressed (to my knowledge): Why does the PSI rule even exist? And what is the science (if any) or other rationale behind it?
By saying that only certain PSI levels are acceptable, the NFL is also saying that "unacceptable" PSI levels convey an unfair advantage. But how did the league come to that conclusion? It's like the league is saying that footballs that are "too soft" or "too hard" are, what, too easy to catch? But is that true? And how would they know that? We all know that a football has to have a minimal amount of PSI, so it's not just a floppy piece of leather wobbling through the air; but beyond that, why does it matter what the PSI level is?
In other words, does it really have any measurable affect on the game? Judging by the fact that some QBs like soft footballs (Brady) and some like hard footballs (Rodgers), it seems that there's no "magic number," or else all QBs would use it. Given this, why doesn't the league just let each QB/team inflate the footballs to what's most comfortable for him/them? If every team is allowed to do that, then there's no unfairness or competitive disadvantage being conveyed to anyone.
It definitely has an impact on the game & its definitely true. They need to have a minimum (I'd argue more so than a maximum).
Balls with less PSI inside are easier to grip so it makes throwing the ball & catching the ball easier. Especially in inclement weather.
Shouldn't the NFL want its players to have an easier time throwing and catching the ball? They're selling an entertainment product, and it's not very entertaining to watch more instead of fewer incomplete passes.
I agree that there has to be a minimum to make a football usable (and that minimum is clearly below 12.5 PSI). So as long as a football is usable for the team using it, I don't think there should be any other rules or considerations regarding air pressure. It's silly and pointless and leads to useless $5 million investigations and a whole lot of handwringing over something that's pretty insignificant in the larger picture.
It already is. Why do you need to drop it more?
If a QB is more comfortable with an even lower PSI, he should be able to have it at that level, so long as the football is usable. And if each team is allowed to do this, then no one has an unfair advantage.
Except you're missing the other effects this has. This would totally change the complexion of the running game in football. Keep lowering the PSI and you'll never see fumbles. In a snow or rain storm, what would stop a team from basically just deflating it to nothing if there was no minimum?
It would dramatically alter the game.
If a football has enough air to be usable in the passing game, it wouldn't be "deflated to nothing." Sure there might be fewer fumbles, but I don't have a problem with that. Does the NFL want more fumbles? If the NFL wants more turnovers, an improved grip could lead to more INTs. Who knows?
Besides, if relaxed PSI standards apply to everyone, then no one has an unfair advantage.
-
one involves the integrity of the game and wasn't awhile ago.
The problem is that "integrity of the game" is such a vague term.
Arguably, the Patriots affected the integrity of the game a lot worse by fooling around with eligible receivers and catching the Ravens off guard in the Divisional Round. Where's the punishment for that?
Yet, it's hard to even measure what effect, if any, the supposedly underinflated balls had on the game in question here.
The report does not come close to definitively proving that Tom didn't simply instruct his ball attendants to let air out of the footballs -- to a point within the range described by the rules -- after the refs had handled them, because the refs often give the Pats balls that are OVERinflated.
Exactly how does that affect the integrity of the game?
Meanwhile, you know what affects the integrity of the league, and the game the league provides to the public as entertainment?
The behavior of its players, who all too often act as if they are gods among men off the field. The NFL peddles a violent game that seems to frequently produce players who inflict violence on other people off of the field. That's a much bigger deal, in my book.
It may very well be, but it doesn't actually have any outcome at all on the game. That is the point I was making (it is also why I wouldn't suspend players for off the field conduct - though certainly as an owner of a team might very well release the player if the conduct started hurting my bottom line, which is why I had no problem with the Ravens releasing Rice, I just don't think he should have been suspended). I have no idea if deflating footballs really affects the outcome of a game, but I suspect there is some benefit or it wouldn't have happened. Now sure it didn't affect the outcome of the AFC Title game which was a blowout, but it certainly might have affected the outcome of the game against the Ravens the week before, which was a very close game. And you are probably right the weird substitution thing probably had a greater affect on that game, but that was at the time legal (it isn't now). Deflating footballs below the allowed limit is against the rules and needs to be punished. I also get that it isn't clear the Patriots intentionally broke the rules, but it seems clear they wanted those footballs as low as possible, and when you constantly skate the line between legal and illegal and then aren't entirely forthcoming in the investigation, you are going to get hit hard.
The bolded parts relate to a point I've brought up before, but which no one on CB or elsewhere has addressed (to my knowledge): Why does the PSI rule even exist? And what is the science (if any) or other rationale behind it?
By saying that only certain PSI levels are acceptable, the NFL is also saying that "unacceptable" PSI levels convey an unfair advantage. But how did the league come to that conclusion? It's like the league is saying that footballs that are "too soft" or "too hard" are, what, too easy to catch? But is that true? And how would they know that? We all know that a football has to have a minimal amount of PSI, so it's not just a floppy piece of leather wobbling through the air; but beyond that, why does it matter what the PSI level is?
In other words, does it really have any measurable affect on the game? Judging by the fact that some QBs like soft footballs (Brady) and some like hard footballs (Rodgers), it seems that there's no "magic number," or else all QBs would use it. Given this, why doesn't the league just let each QB/team inflate the footballs to what's most comfortable for him/them? If every team is allowed to do that, then there's no unfairness or competitive disadvantage being conveyed to anyone.
It definitely has an impact on the game & its definitely true. They need to have a minimum (I'd argue more so than a maximum).
Balls with less PSI inside are easier to grip so it makes throwing the ball & catching the ball easier. Especially in inclement weather.
Shouldn't the NFL want its players to have an easier time throwing and catching the ball? They're selling an entertainment product, and it's not very entertaining to watch more instead of fewer incomplete passes.
I agree that there has to be a minimum to make a football usable (and that minimum is clearly below 12.5 PSI). So as long as a football is usable for the team using it, I don't think there should be any other rules or considerations regarding air pressure. It's silly and pointless and leads to useless $5 million investigations and a whole lot of handwringing over something that's pretty insignificant in the larger picture.
It already is. Why do you need to drop it more?
If a QB is more comfortable with an even lower PSI, he should be able to have it at that level, so long as the football is usable. And if each team is allowed to do this, then no one has an unfair advantage.
Except you're missing the other effects this has. This would totally change the complexion of the running game in football. Keep lowering the PSI and you'll never see fumbles. In a snow or rain storm, what would stop a team from basically just deflating it to nothing if there was no minimum?
It would dramatically alter the game.
If a football has enough air to be usable in the passing game, it wouldn't be "deflated to nothing." Sure there might be fewer fumbles, but I don't have a problem with that. Does the NFL want more fumbles? If the NFL wants more turnovers, an improved grip could lead to more INTs. Who knows?
Besides, if relaxed PSI standards apply to everyone, then no one has an unfair advantage.
You're slanting the league more in the direction of offense than it is already. Football has multi-phases. It's just not about offense. Defense & kicking also make the game what it is. If you keep making the game more & more one-sided, eventually it ruins the product. The league has already been gearing towards the offensive side the past couple of decades with rule changes. I don't see why it needs to be slanted there even more. IMO, its already ridiculous how hamstrung defense has become in the game. There's no need to make it worse.
But hey, why don't we just reinvent the game of football to appease the offensive loving crowd, huh? ::)
-
quick question - not sure if this has been covered:
Can TB12 play in the pre-season games or is he suspended for those?
Also, is it wise to even play TB12 in these games, as Garapolo needs as many snaps as possible.
-
one involves the integrity of the game and wasn't awhile ago.
The problem is that "integrity of the game" is such a vague term.
Arguably, the Patriots affected the integrity of the game a lot worse by fooling around with eligible receivers and catching the Ravens off guard in the Divisional Round. Where's the punishment for that?
Yet, it's hard to even measure what effect, if any, the supposedly underinflated balls had on the game in question here.
The report does not come close to definitively proving that Tom didn't simply instruct his ball attendants to let air out of the footballs -- to a point within the range described by the rules -- after the refs had handled them, because the refs often give the Pats balls that are OVERinflated.
Exactly how does that affect the integrity of the game?
Meanwhile, you know what affects the integrity of the league, and the game the league provides to the public as entertainment?
The behavior of its players, who all too often act as if they are gods among men off the field. The NFL peddles a violent game that seems to frequently produce players who inflict violence on other people off of the field. That's a much bigger deal, in my book.
It may very well be, but it doesn't actually have any outcome at all on the game. That is the point I was making (it is also why I wouldn't suspend players for off the field conduct - though certainly as an owner of a team might very well release the player if the conduct started hurting my bottom line, which is why I had no problem with the Ravens releasing Rice, I just don't think he should have been suspended). I have no idea if deflating footballs really affects the outcome of a game, but I suspect there is some benefit or it wouldn't have happened. Now sure it didn't affect the outcome of the AFC Title game which was a blowout, but it certainly might have affected the outcome of the game against the Ravens the week before, which was a very close game. And you are probably right the weird substitution thing probably had a greater affect on that game, but that was at the time legal (it isn't now). Deflating footballs below the allowed limit is against the rules and needs to be punished. I also get that it isn't clear the Patriots intentionally broke the rules, but it seems clear they wanted those footballs as low as possible, and when you constantly skate the line between legal and illegal and then aren't entirely forthcoming in the investigation, you are going to get hit hard.
The bolded parts relate to a point I've brought up before, but which no one on CB or elsewhere has addressed (to my knowledge): Why does the PSI rule even exist? And what is the science (if any) or other rationale behind it?
By saying that only certain PSI levels are acceptable, the NFL is also saying that "unacceptable" PSI levels convey an unfair advantage. But how did the league come to that conclusion? It's like the league is saying that footballs that are "too soft" or "too hard" are, what, too easy to catch? But is that true? And how would they know that? We all know that a football has to have a minimal amount of PSI, so it's not just a floppy piece of leather wobbling through the air; but beyond that, why does it matter what the PSI level is?
In other words, does it really have any measurable affect on the game? Judging by the fact that some QBs like soft footballs (Brady) and some like hard footballs (Rodgers), it seems that there's no "magic number," or else all QBs would use it. Given this, why doesn't the league just let each QB/team inflate the footballs to what's most comfortable for him/them? If every team is allowed to do that, then there's no unfairness or competitive disadvantage being conveyed to anyone.
It definitely has an impact on the game & its definitely true. They need to have a minimum (I'd argue more so than a maximum).
Balls with less PSI inside are easier to grip so it makes throwing the ball & catching the ball easier. Especially in inclement weather.
Shouldn't the NFL want its players to have an easier time throwing and catching the ball? They're selling an entertainment product, and it's not very entertaining to watch more instead of fewer incomplete passes.
I agree that there has to be a minimum to make a football usable (and that minimum is clearly below 12.5 PSI). So as long as a football is usable for the team using it, I don't think there should be any other rules or considerations regarding air pressure. It's silly and pointless and leads to useless $5 million investigations and a whole lot of handwringing over something that's pretty insignificant in the larger picture.
It already is. Why do you need to drop it more?
If a QB is more comfortable with an even lower PSI, he should be able to have it at that level, so long as the football is usable. And if each team is allowed to do this, then no one has an unfair advantage.
Except you're missing the other effects this has. This would totally change the complexion of the running game in football. Keep lowering the PSI and you'll never see fumbles. In a snow or rain storm, what would stop a team from basically just deflating it to nothing if there was no minimum?
It would dramatically alter the game.
If a football has enough air to be usable in the passing game, it wouldn't be "deflated to nothing." Sure there might be fewer fumbles, but I don't have a problem with that. Does the NFL want more fumbles? If the NFL wants more turnovers, an improved grip could lead to more INTs. Who knows?
Besides, if relaxed PSI standards apply to everyone, then no one has an unfair advantage.
You're slanting the league more in the direction of offense than it is already. Football has multi-phases. It's just not about offense. Defense & kicking also make the game what it is. If you keep making the game more & more one-sided, eventually it ruins the product. The league has already been gearing towards the offensive side the past couple of decades with rule changes. I don't see why it needs to be slanted there even more. IMO, its already ridiculous how hamstrung defense has become in the game. There's no need to make it worse.
But hey, why don't we just reinvent the game of football to appease the offensive loving crowd, huh? ::)
No sarcasm needed. I see your point just fine. What can I say? I prefer good defense only when it's my team; and I much prefer a 35-24 game to a 14-10 game. But every person has his/her preference.
Defense, though, is about a lot more than just forced fumbles (many of which are due more to bad ball protection than to good defense). Fumbles and INTs are exciting and make for good highlight reels, but a good defense is one that keeps the opponent out of the end zone, period. The particular way(s) they do so are irrelevant. I agree that a lot of today's rules favor offense, with all the protections given to vulnerable receivers and such, but it could also be argued that a lot of the good defenses of the past had quite a lot to do with rules slanted in that direction, with defenders being able to get away with more holds and grabbing.
I think the solution is for players to become better true defenders and better true offensive players. On offense, that means learning the nuances of route running, or getting more creative with play calls. On defense, that means learning more about positioning, about funneling guys in the direction you want them to go, and not allowing them to go in the direction they want to go. Stuff like that.
-
quick question - not sure if this has been covered:
Can TB12 play in the pre-season games or is he suspended for those?
Also, is it wise to even play TB12 in these games, as Garapolo needs as many snaps as possible.
He can play in preseason, but like you say, it might be best if he didn't play much then.
-
Just a follow up on Exponent Inc.
This is the first thing I found mentioning them; "The range of their work is impressive. They have on their payrolls (or
can bring in on a moment’s notice) toxicologists, epidemiologists, biostat-
isticians, risk assessors, and any other professionally trained, media-savvy
experts deemed necessary. They and the larger, wealthier industries for which
they work go through the motions we expect of the scientific enterprise,
salting the literature with their questionable reports and studies. Never-
theless, it is all a charade. The work has one overriding motivation: ad-
vocacy for the sponsor’s position in civil court, the court of public opinion,
and the regulatory arena. Often tailored to address issues that arise in
litigation, they are more like legal pleadings than scientific papers. "
Even Wells states; "In reaching the conclusions set forth in this Report, we are mindful that the analyses performed by our scientific consultants necessarily rely on reasoned assumptions and that varying the applicable assumptions can have a material impact on the ultimate conclusions. We therefore have been careful not to give undue weight to the experimental results and have instead relied on the totality of the evidence developed during the investigation."
That basically discounts the entire scientific analysis. Well if we assume X, Y, and Z, then it looks like the ball were artificially deflated. Well, to be fair, lets not assume anything and were the balls artificially deflated, were they consistent with scientific analysis, or can we not tell?
I know you can't make millions of dollars for an answer of "we can't tell" so... we'll just assume what we need to.
Oh how I wish I was Brady's lawyer for this. I'd do it for free.
-
What will almost certainly happen is that the NFLPA will argue it regardless of what the outcome actually is, and Brady will wind up missing an insignificant amount of time at most and, ultimately, no one will care. That is what I mean by "the outcome," not about whether Jim Rome is talking about it or not (because who actually cares about Jim Rome beyond morons and mouthbreathers and Mrs. Jim Rome?)
http://nesn.com/2015/05/adam-schefter-source-predicts-tom-bradys-suspension-will-be-overturned/
Ż\_("o")_/Ż
-
Just a follow up on Exponent Inc.
This is the first thing I found mentioning them; "The range of their work is impressive. They have on their payrolls (or
can bring in on a moment’s notice) toxicologists, epidemiologists, biostat-
isticians, risk assessors, and any other professionally trained, media-savvy
experts deemed necessary. They and the larger, wealthier industries for which
they work go through the motions we expect of the scientific enterprise,
salting the literature with their questionable reports and studies. Never-
theless, it is all a charade. The work has one overriding motivation: ad-
vocacy for the sponsor’s position in civil court, the court of public opinion,
and the regulatory arena. Often tailored to address issues that arise in
litigation, they are more like legal pleadings than scientific papers. "
Even Wells states; "In reaching the conclusions set forth in this Report, we are mindful that the analyses performed by our scientific consultants necessarily rely on reasoned assumptions and that varying the applicable assumptions can have a material impact on the ultimate conclusions. We therefore have been careful not to give undue weight to the experimental results and have instead relied on the totality of the evidence developed during the investigation."
That basically discounts the entire scientific analysis. Well if we assume X, Y, and Z, then it looks like the ball were artificially deflated. Well, to be fair, lets not assume anything and were the balls artificially deflated, were they consistent with scientific analysis, or can we not tell?
I know you can't make millions of dollars for an answer of "we can't tell" so... we'll just assume what we need to.
Oh how I wish I was Brady's lawyer for this. I'd do it for free.
So, basically, Exponent is a glorified lobbyist, crafting things to look the way their paying clients want them to look.
-
So, basically, Exponent is a glorified lobbyist, crafting things to look the way their paying clients want them to look.
Not necessarily. You constantly make assumptions as a part of the scientific process -- that doesn't necessarily disqualify your conclusions. There are, however, other issues with the credibility of the contractor.
-
So, basically, Exponent is a glorified lobbyist, crafting things to look the way their paying clients want them to look.
Not necessarily. You constantly make assumptions as a part of the scientific process -- that doesn't necessarily disqualify your conclusions. There are, however, other issues with the credibility of the contractor.
I'd be careful about involving assumptions in the scientific process.
-
So, basically, Exponent is a glorified lobbyist, crafting things to look the way their paying clients want them to look.
Not necessarily. You constantly make assumptions as a part of the scientific process -- that doesn't necessarily disqualify your conclusions. There are, however, other issues with the credibility of the contractor.
I'd be careful about involving assumptions in the scientific process.
The fact that you'd be careful doesn't change the necessity to assume.
-
So, basically, Exponent is a glorified lobbyist, crafting things to look the way their paying clients want them to look.
Not necessarily. You constantly make assumptions as a part of the scientific process -- that doesn't necessarily disqualify your conclusions. There are, however, other issues with the credibility of the contractor.
I'd be careful about involving assumptions in the scientific process.
The fact that you'd be careful doesn't change the necessity to assume.
I guess I'm questioning the wisdom and necessity of assuming anything.
-
to finish out this increasingly specious tangent: faith and belief are nothing more than an assumption of an inherent truth.
Following the money is a good idea, but it's possible to see boogie men where there are none. Just ask Sy Hersh (allegedly).
-
I guess I'm questioning the wisdom and necessity of assuming anything.
The necessity is unconditional, and the wisdom lies in knowing what's a reasonable assumption and what isn't.
-
I guess I'm questioning the wisdom and necessity of assuming anything.
The necessity is unconditional, and the wisdom lies in knowing what's a reasonable assumption and what isn't.
Exactly. They used a lot of assumptions as was necessary, but determined their results to be precisely accurate. Their calculations found that the Logo balls were an average of 0.1 psi lower than their calculations and determined that to an unrealistic level. That's not a reasonable determination. There were many factors that would reasonably account for this that they failed to mention. They even used just four Colts balls whose measurements contained multiple recording errors as a control group. There are so many problems with that, but they were rigid with their calculations in comparing those four to the 11 Pats balls. Their experiment of the effects of rain water was totally unrealistic. It varied to HeadSmart Labs' experiment by 0.5, but they assumed their experiment to be accurate without accounting for margin of error or reasonableness.
-
Ted Wells previously worked for the NFL on a report about bullying and the Miami Dolphins. Does #BallGhazi make anyone think that maybe Richie Incognito wasn't as bad of a guy as he was portrayed to be?
-
For anyone interested in some light reading this Thursday morning. ;)
Via the Patriots counsel: http://wellsreportcontext.com/
-
Someone needs to have their bold button privileges revoked.
-
I think these are fair questions...
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/05/14/hurley-questions-roger-goodell-needs-to-answer/
-
I guess we can reiterate the fact that the only winners in all this are going to be the lawyers.
Of course, its always the lawyers. :P
-
I think these are fair questions...
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/05/14/hurley-questions-roger-goodell-needs-to-answer/
I think the first three are fair, and I think there's a good point made in the fourth, but the last few are just red meat for Pats fans.
-
For anyone interested in some light reading this Thursday morning. ;)
Via the Patriots counsel: http://wellsreportcontext.com/
I haven't read it, but just listening to coverage on it on the radio, it sounds like they make some legit points, specifically about the science and the gauges used...but then they also make themselves look pretty desperate at times too, trying to explain away the "deflator" text by saying that McNally said it in terms of because he's a big, overweight guy and that he's commented before about he needs to "deflate his weight." And then the "going to ESPN" text they say is McNally talking about going to ESPN about receiving merchandise.
I'm a diehard Pats fan and I like to think of myself has relatively objective. It's hard not to be 100% objective when it's your team involved, I get that. But this is really starting to get ridiculous. The Patriots are going to continue to make themselves look like buffoons with these constant attempts at explaining away things that really don't seem to hold any water.
This story is killing my enjoyment of local sports radio. It's all that's been talked about for the last week, and it doesn't look like it's going to change anytime soon. I'm just about deflategated out.
-
The "Deflator" explanation actually made me laugh.
-
I think these are fair questions...
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/05/14/hurley-questions-roger-goodell-needs-to-answer/
I think the first three are fair, and I think there's a good point made in the fourth, but the last few are just red meat for Pats fans.
Yeah, some of the inquiries were legit, but at a certain point I stopped reading to see who the author was, and he was from CBS Boston. That explained a lot.
The legit point, though, is how on Earth the officials could bungle this so much. They knew ahead of time that this was an issue, and yet they didn't record their measurements, or even which gauge they used? They let the balls out of their sight? You might expect that at the high school level, but in a several billion dollar per year organization, it's ridiculous.
-
The legit point, though, is how on Earth the officials could bungle this so much. They knew ahead of time that this was an issue, and yet they didn't record their measurements, or even which gauge they used? They let the balls out of their sight? You might expect that at the high school level, but in a several billion dollar per year organization, it's ridiculous.
Yeah, it's a joke that a league that is so strict when it comes to things like uniforms, socks, etc... acts so lackadaisical on something like the footballs actually being used in their games. Then they come out and always beat their chests about the "integrity" of the game.
It's an absolute joke.
-
The legit point, though, is how on Earth the officials could bungle this so much. They knew ahead of time that this was an issue, and yet they didn't record their measurements, or even which gauge they used? They let the balls out of their sight? You might expect that at the high school level, but in a several billion dollar per year organization, it's ridiculous.
Yeah, it's a joke that a league that is so strict when it comes to things like uniforms, socks, etc... acts so lackadaisical on something like the footballs actually being used in their games. Then they come out and always beat their chests about the "integrity" of the game.
It's an absolute joke.
The refs definitely dropped the ball. But Wells himself said in his interview that he thinks they never even took that initial complaint email from the Colts that seriously, that they looked at it along the same lines of "hey, watch out for #63, he holds on every play." The league gets complaints like that all the time from every team that they really just ignore them now. That's why Walt Anderson never wrote down the PSI levels before the game and had to go off his "best recollection" of which gauge he used.
And now it's looking like that the D'Qwell Jackson interception (after conflicting reports with this) really was the act that started ALL of this. Because if he doesn't pick that ball off, the Colts have no opportunity to turn a Pats ball into officials during the game.
Remember how Brady seemed to throw ALOT of redzone interceptions this year? I constantly said that one of these games, it's gonna come back to bite him and cost them game. Well it didn't cost them a game, but it certainly came back to bite him.
-
The legit point, though, is how on Earth the officials could bungle this so much. They knew ahead of time that this was an issue, and yet they didn't record their measurements, or even which gauge they used? They let the balls out of their sight? You might expect that at the high school level, but in a several billion dollar per year organization, it's ridiculous.
Yeah, it's a joke that a league that is so strict when it comes to things like uniforms, socks, etc... acts so lackadaisical on something like the footballs actually being used in their games. Then they come out and always beat their chests about the "integrity" of the game.
It's an absolute joke.
But, again, this is business as usual. They suspended Sean Payton for knowing as much about BountyGate as my dog did. Everything the NFL does, from being able to keep a billion dollar industry that totally destroys it's participants in various middle of nowhere pockets (Rochester, Jacksonville, etc.) to fining players more than a year of the minimum wage for wearing Under Armor socks comes from a place of unimpeachable power based on a massive fanbase of, at best, people who are indifferent to more or less every impropriety (from dementia to domestic assault to whatever else you choose to bring up) as long as two criteria are met: that it isn't happening to 'their team' and that the games come at the same time each Sunday.
-
As you may already know the Pats have written a very large rebuttal and made it public today..
http://wellsreportcontext.com
-
I don't follow football, like at all. Curious about one thing though.
Can someone help me understand why both teams don't use the same balls?
-
I don't follow football, like at all. Curious about one thing though.
Can someone help me understand why both teams don't use the same balls?
Good question.
-
I don't follow football, like at all. Curious about one thing though.
Can someone help me understand why both teams don't use the same balls?
I could be wrong on this, but I think that years ago, they did. QBs lobbied the league to allow them to use their own balls, scuffed to the degree each QB liked them, etc.
Interestingly enough, a former Dolphins QB just mentioned that years ago (early 2000s, I think), he was playing against the Patriots at Foxboro, and the ballboy kept bringing the Dolphins an unscuffed ball (harder to throw), whereas every time Brady took the field, he was given a broken-in ball. Who knows if that's accurate, but it wouldn't really surprise me.
-
I don't follow football, like at all. Curious about one thing though.
Can someone help me understand why both teams don't use the same balls?
Good question.
Or why the league doesn't supply all the balls, and keep them under lock and key until game time, and not let teams have access to them until warmups, and make all teams/all QBs throw the exact same footballs prepared the exact same way? Kinda like how NBA teams all use the same basketballs?
-
I regret having that pizza for lunch, it is really going to set back my deflating.
-
As you may already know the Pats have written a very large rebuttal and made it public today..
http://wellsreportcontext.com
I find it funny that this was published using the "Big Brother" canned Wordpress team (and yes, I did read all the way to the bottom to see this).
:)
-
I was generally on board with the defense until the silly 'deflator' weight loss nickname. Would have been better off just not mentioning that one, lol.
-
I was generally on board with the defense until the silly 'deflator' weight loss nickname. Would have been better off just not mentioning that one, lol.
I don't know why it would be silly. It actually gives meaning to one of the texts that has looked completely incomprehensible to me before, namely the one saying "Deflate and give that jacket to someone".
-
I was generally on board with the defense until the silly 'deflator' weight loss nickname. Would have been better off just not mentioning that one, lol.
I don't know why it would be silly. It actually gives meaning to one of the texts that has looked completely incomprehensible to me before, namely the one saying "Deflate and give that jacket to someone".
Right. And though it may seem like a silly explanation, it is a plausible one -- one that the investigators apparently did not consider.
That's valuable for the Patriots because if an independent party is looking at the conclusions that the NFL drew, the NFL will need to show that there were not alternative explanations that were as probable or more probable.
The Patriots will try to demonstrate that the NFL failed to consider a slew of probable alternative explanations that would tip the balance of evidence in favor of the Patriots not intentionally violating the rules.
-
I was generally on board with the defense until the silly 'deflator' weight loss nickname. Would have been better off just not mentioning that one, lol.
I don't know why it would be silly. It actually gives meaning to one of the texts that has looked completely incomprehensible to me before, namely the one saying "Deflate and give that jacket to someone".
Right. And though it may seem like a silly explanation, it is a plausible one -- one that the investigators apparently did not consider.
That's valuable for the Patriots because if an independent party is looking at the conclusions that the NFL drew, the NFL will need to show that there were not alternative explanations that were as probable or more probable.
The Patriots will try to demonstrate that the NFL failed to consider a slew of probable alternative explanations that would tip the balance of evidence in favor of the Patriots not intentionally violating the rules.
This thing is starting to look less and less like a PR damage control move, and more like a full-fledged war.
-
Just finished reading the response. My first thought is, holy cow does that make the league and Wells look foolish.
Secondly, I LOVE the Patriots pointing out that the League and the Colts broke Rule 2; the Referee is the sole judge of the pressure of the balls and nobody else is allowed to gauge them. Ouch! Take that Colts!
Seriously though, they really didn't even attack Exponent as much as I thought they would but it will be interesting to hear how different the morning show takes are tomorrow. Goddell should just resign.
-
I was generally on board with the defense until the silly 'deflator' weight loss nickname. Would have been better off just not mentioning that one, lol.
It does sound silly. I mean who would ever use the term deflate when referring to weight loss.
http://www.fitnessmagazine.com/weight-loss/tips/advice/get-rid-of-belly-bloat/
8 Simple Ways to Get Rid of Belly Bloat
Surprising reasons your belly can balloon, and how to deflate it fast.
-
I was generally on board with the defense until the silly 'deflator' weight loss nickname. Would have been better off just not mentioning that one, lol.
I don't know why it would be silly. It actually gives meaning to one of the texts that has looked completely incomprehensible to me before, namely the one saying "Deflate and give that jacket to someone".
Right. And though it may seem like a silly explanation, it is a plausible one -- one that the investigators apparently did not consider.
That's valuable for the Patriots because if an independent party is looking at the conclusions that the NFL drew, the NFL will need to show that there were not alternative explanations that were as probable or more probable.
The Patriots will try to demonstrate that the NFL failed to consider a slew of probable alternative explanations that would tip the balance of evidence in favor of the Patriots not intentionally violating the rules.
This thing is starting to look less and less like a PR damage control move, and more like a full-fledged war.
Yup. This is the Pats saying to Goodell "you fudged us once. You did it again. This time if we go down we're doing our absolute best to take you down with us. You can make this go away for you. Or you can fight us. Your choice. Because we're fighting."
-
if you read these guys other texts, like where they call each other dorito dink and things of the like, it seems crazy that Wells would want to pass their exchanges off as the basis for anything. I want to see ALL the texts between these guys. Lol
-
The other issue that doesn't sit well with me, other than the scientific part which I mentioned before this report came out, was that the NFL refused to give the Patriots the halftime measurements of the balls for two months, and when they did, it was on the condition they don't reveal it to the media.
What? Why are the halftime measurements some code to nuclear warheads that can't be made public? Isn't the League interested in setting the record straight? How is the truth to be kept from the public but all the leaks (most of which weren't accurate) allowed out of the NFL offices?
I'd really like to hear Rodger's explanation for that. So the Patriots have to twist in the wind unable to get the measurements and then unable to share them? For what purpose?
-
The other issue that doesn't sit well with me, other than the scientific part which I mentioned before this report came out, was that the NFL refused to give the Patriots the halftime measurements of the balls for two months, and when they did, it was on the condition they don't reveal it to the media.
What? Why are the halftime measurements some code to nuclear warheads that can't be made public? Isn't the League interested in setting the record straight? How is the truth to be kept from the public but all the leaks (most of which weren't accurate) allowed out of the NFL offices?
I'd really like to hear Rodger's explanation for that. So the Patriots have to twist in the wind unable to get the measurements and then unable to share them? For what purpose?
It is also crazy that they put a blatant lie (that a Pats ball was measured at 10.1 PSI) in an official NFL communication. Wow. It would have been different if it were some sort of a misinformed leak, but for the NFL to put this thing out and not correct it is absolutely insane.
-
The other issue that doesn't sit well with me, other than the scientific part which I mentioned before this report came out, was that the NFL refused to give the Patriots the halftime measurements of the balls for two months, and when they did, it was on the condition they don't reveal it to the media.
What? Why are the halftime measurements some code to nuclear warheads that can't be made public? Isn't the League interested in setting the record straight? How is the truth to be kept from the public but all the leaks (most of which weren't accurate) allowed out of the NFL offices?
I'd really like to hear Rodger's explanation for that. So the Patriots have to twist in the wind unable to get the measurements and then unable to share them? For what purpose?
The one piece of info they did give them was that one ball was 10.1 which is completely erroneous. The lowest ball as per the gauge the ref says he used was 10.9. The NFL also failed to correct the erroneous and exagerated leaks to the media that turned this into a media frenzy.
The average ball was 11.4 which falls in line with the ideal gas law. This issue should have died then.
-
if you read these guys other texts, like where they call each other dorito dink and things of the like, it seems crazy that Wells would want to pass their exchanges off as the basis for anything. I want to see ALL the texts between these guys. Lol
More and more, the Wells Report comes across less like an unbiased summary of the contents of an independent investigation, and more like the argumentative statement of findings that support the position of the NFL i.e. the conclusions in the report.
-
if you read these guys other texts, like where they call each other dorito dink and things of the like, it seems crazy that Wells would want to pass their exchanges off as the basis for anything. I want to see ALL the texts between these guys. Lol
More and more, the Wells Report comes across less like an unbiased summary of the contents of an independent investigation, and more like the argumentative statement of findings that support the position of the NFL i.e. the conclusions in the report.
I mean, its pretty clear the Wells report started with a conclusion and looked for what would support it rather than gathering data and in an open ended way asking what the data shows.
Similar to a drug company saying "the blood pressure market is huge, i have a novel compound, lets test how it could get fda approval for blood pressure" rather than saying "hey, i have an interesting new novel drug, i wonder what it would be good for?"
Or, more accurately, its like a high school english paper where you are just learning what a thesis statement and supportive arguments are, so you take things a little out if context, use slightly different definitions if words, etc, to support your preconceived thesis, and you get graded positively just for having the right structure and process rather than evaluated on the actual validity.
-
I'd like him if and only if we can get another player in FA or via Trade that commands a double team. I'd like a back court of him and Smart if we had say Aldridge taking heat off him. He would be able to play his game even in pressure situations, but I don't like him as the first option. DeRozan is great, but he just kind of takes hard shots all the time and they randomly go in or they don't.
-
This offseason is great! Not only did we beat the heck out of all NFL teams on the field this past season, now we're going to do the same to the NFL offices off the field this summer, LOL
-
if you read these guys other texts, like where they call each other dorito dink and things of the like, it seems crazy that Wells would want to pass their exchanges off as the basis for anything. I want to see ALL the texts between these guys. Lol
More and more, the Wells Report comes across less like an unbiased summary of the contents of an independent investigation, and more like the argumentative statement of findings that support the position of the NFL i.e. the conclusions in the report.
This is only the case if you live in the echo chamber of the Boston media.
-
if you read these guys other texts, like where they call each other dorito dink and things of the like, it seems crazy that Wells would want to pass their exchanges off as the basis for anything. I want to see ALL the texts between these guys. Lol
More and more, the Wells Report comes across less like an unbiased summary of the contents of an independent investigation, and more like the argumentative statement of findings that support the position of the NFL i.e. the conclusions in the report.
This is only the case if you live in the echo chamber of the Boston media.
For those asking why Patriots suspended two employees if those two did nothing wrong, as New England claims: NFL asked Pats to suspend them prior to discipline being handed down, per a league source in New York. New England obliged with the NFL’s request.
https://www.facebook.com/AdamSchefter/posts/957919684260673
Ż\_('=')_/Ż
-
Wait....there is an NFL leak that actually looks somewhat favorable to New England? Whoa....
-
Pats won't appeal. If he's swallowing the medicine here, I have to think the Brady suspension is getting reduced or dropped.
I do know that Kraft just peeved off a ton of Patriot fans, though.
Kraft: I disagree with Goodell, but I accept it and we won’t appeal
Patriots owner Robert Kraft announced today that his team will not fight NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell’s decision to strip the team of a first-round draft pick, a fourth-round draft pick and $1 million for Deflategate.
In a long statement at the league meeting, Kraft explained that he thinks it’s in the best interests of the league if the Patriots take their medicine, even if they disagree with Goodell’s decision. Here is Kraft’s statement:
“it’s been an emotionally charged couple of weeks as all of you know, and I’ve been considering what my options are. And throughout this whole process there have been two polarizing audiences. At one end of the spectrum we’ve had Patriots fans throughout the country who have been so supportive and really inspirational to us and believing in us. But, also mindful, at the other end of the spectrum, there are fans who feel just the opposite. And what I’ve learned is the ongoing rhetoric continues to galvanize both camps. And I don’t see that changing, and they will never agree.
“But the one thing we can all agree upon is the entire process has taken way too long. And I don’t think that after four months of the AFC Championship Game, we are still talking about air pressure and the PSI in footballs. I think I made it clear when the report came out that I didn’t think it was fair. There was no hard evidence, and everything was circumstantial. And at the same time, when the discipline came out, I felt like it was way over the top, it was unreasonable and unprecedented in my opinion.
“So I have two options: I can try to end it, or extend it. And I have given a lot of thought to both options. The first thing that came to mind is 21 years ago, I had the privilege of going to a meeting similar to what we have here, in Orlando, and being welcomed in an NFL owners’ meeting. So here’s a fan and a former season ticket holder, living a dream and being welcomed in that room. And I got goosebumps that day. And I vowed at that time that I would do everything I could do to make the New England Patriots an elite team, and hopefully respected throughout the country and at the same time, do what I could do to help the NFL become the most popular sport in America.
“You know, what I’ve learned over the last two decades is that the heart and soul and strength of the NFL is a partnership of 32 teams. And what’s become very clear over those very two decades is at no time should the agenda of one team outweigh the collective good of the full 32. So I have a way of looking at problems that are very strong in my mind, and before I make a final decision, I measure nine times and I cut once. And I think maybe if I had made the decision last week it would be different than it is today.
“But believing in the strength of the partnership, and the 32 teams — we have concentrated the adjudication of problems in the office of commissioner. And although I might disagree with what is decided, I do have respect for the commissioner and believe that he’s doing what he perceives to be in the best interests of the full 32. So in that spirit, I don’t want to continue the rhetoric that’s gone on for the last four months. I’m going to accept, reluctantly, what he has given to us, and not continue this dialogue and rhetoric. And we won’t appeal.”
Patriots quarterback Tom Brady still plans to appeal his four-game suspension. But Kraft is done fighting.
-
What will almost certainly happen is that the NFLPA will argue it regardless of what the outcome actually is, and Brady will wind up missing an insignificant amount of time at most and, ultimately, no one will care. That is what I mean by "the outcome," not about whether Jim Rome is talking about it or not (because who actually cares about Jim Rome beyond morons and mouthbreathers and Mrs. Jim Rome?)
Ż\_("o")_/Ż
-
What will almost certainly happen is that the NFLPA will argue it regardless of what the outcome actually is, and Brady will wind up missing an insignificant amount of time at most and, ultimately, no one will care. That is what I mean by "the outcome," not about whether Jim Rome is talking about it or not (because who actually cares about Jim Rome beyond morons and mouthbreathers and Mrs. Jim Rome?)
Ż\_("o")_/Ż
Weren't you pretty much completely wrong about the Brady thing being the only outcome? Losing a first round draft pick is huge. A first round draft pick has a TON of value and if desired, can be traded for a highly valuable veteran for a team hoping to compete now. That loss could really hur thte team down the road and obviously Brady is not going to be playing more than a few more years. Pretty harsh outcome.
-
When did I say the Brady thing would be the only outcome?
My guess on the Patriots front was that they'd lose their fourth rounder and be fined a relatively insubstantial amount of money.
-
When did I say the Brady thing would be the only outcome?
My guess on the Patriots front was that they'd lose their fourth rounder and be fined a relatively insubstantial amount of money.
Twice in this thread you have bumped your own comment about your predicted outcome (self-back patting on the internet is something I am surprised you did). The thing you keep bumping only mentions Brady so it was unclear what your predictions on the total outcome of the case would be. Brady missing two or 4 games is not the important part, losing the first rounder part is. By repeatedly bumping your prediction for Brady, a lot of people could read it that you are implying you think that is the most important outcome.
-
Mostly I bump it so I don't have to type out those faces, and also because both times it's been an appropriate response to what Donughus has posted.
-
Ż\_('=')_/Ż
-
See, the football was supposed to be like this:
<#>
Ż\_("0")_/Ż
But instead, the football was like this:
<~>
Ż\_("0")_/Ż
And now everyone is all like this:
Ż\_(;_;)_/Ż
-
Rich Levine on why Kraft surrendered.
Ouch, this makes some sense:
http://www.csnne.com/new-england-patriots/in-defense-of-robert-kraft-and-the-new-england-patriots
Mike
-
It would be hard for me to disagree more with that article. Either you care more about the Patriots or you care more about the league. If you care more about the Patriots then when the league tries to mess with you out of envy then you have to fight back and say "If I go down you're going with me. You want to shoot nukes? I got em too." I wanted a scorched Earth campaign. Mutual guaranteed destruction got us through the cold war. It worked because it was mutually guaranteed. Now we just have "If you make a report and call us cheaters enough without lots of evidence we will back down".
This thoroughly invites the NFL to do more of this to the Pats and they will.
The NFL is that guy that says "I'm shocked SHOCKED to hear there is game ball tampering in this league and I will expect a full investigation and punishment"
"Here are your Vikings and Aaron Rodgers game balls"
"Oh thank you".
Yeah. Kraft needed to go all out on that. And he backed down.
Dear Kraft. If you care more about the NFL than the Patriots then sell the team now to someone who doesn't. Because we don't need an owner like that.
-
The problem with the article is that Kraft knew those were his only 3 options since he started talking about fighting and not backing down. Kraft put all the fans into a frenzy and then backs down. It is totally and utterly Kraft's fault.
-
I think there is some merit to the idea that the NFL weren't actually looking to find the Patriots guilty of anything when they launched the investigation, and were instead just doing it to appease the Colts and go "by the numbers." It would explain Kraft's initial reaction, the kissing and making up, as well as the shock from both sides when wrongdoing was discovered and punishment was rendered, respectively.
-
On the Pats Facebook site right now almost every single comment in going against Kraft. He deserved it
-
Who knows. Not sure if we'll ever find out if there was some sort of "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" deal behind close doors (which I'm thinking there is something there) to put an end to Patriots end of this. The league botched this from Day 1 & its sad that it all came down like this.
The Brady thing is a whole other matter. Sounds like the NFLPA is hellbent on getting this thing to court and to fight Goodell's powers. The Brady & Peterson cases seem to be their perfect chance to go at it.
-
Tony Maz is going all out on Pats fans right now. He and I are enemies now
-
Who knows. Not sure if we'll ever find out if there was some sort of "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" deal behind close doors (which I'm thinking there is something there) to put an end to Patriots end of this. The league botched this from Day 1 & its sad that it all came down like this.
The Brady thing is a whole other matter. Sounds like the NFLPA is hellbent on getting this thing to court and to fight Goodell's powers. The Brady & Peterson cases seem to be their perfect chance to go at it.
Kraft did the smart thing. He would not have much chance to win and even if he had won, he'd be undermining his financial interests and his power. As we saw in the Donald Sterling case against the NBA, owners give up a lot of rights contractually to the league to have a shot at a franchise. In so doing, the discretion given to the Commissioners under league by-laws is very difficult to overcome. Franchises are enormously profitable for their long-term appreciation in value and potential owners are willing to give up rights to get them.
Kraft also knew the Brady case would continue to move along and Brady has a much better chance to win.
-
I think there is some merit to the idea that the NFL weren't actually looking to find the Patriots guilty of anything when they launched the investigation, and were instead just doing it to appease the Colts and go "by the numbers." It would explain Kraft's initial reaction, the kissing and making up, as well as the shock from both sides when wrongdoing was discovered and punishment was rendered, respectively.
The Colts measured the intercepted ball at 11.45 and the balls averaged 11.49 using the gauge the ref said he used. The Ideal Gas Law says the balls should be down just over 1 psi putting them at just under 11.50. I know they think a different gauge was used, but they only determined that weeks later after Exponent began running tests. So why did they open up a multi-million dollar investigation to begin with? Why did they allow the media to report false information exaggerating the psi drop? Why did the NFL tell the Patriots the balls were as low as 10.1?
I think this was a witch hunt from the start.
-
Yeah, I think it was a witchhunt too. The problem was that they were looking for Bette Midler and found Martha Corey, if you follow.
-
I think Kraft screwed the fans here. One of two things happened: 1) Kraft knows the Patriots cheated, in which case the team cheated 2) Kraft realized that he would lose money and possible good reputation if he went any further, in which case he shortchanged the fans by speaking so decisively and not going all-out against this.
Either way you look at it, it's not very positive. My dad is absolutely livid. He's even thinking about bringing his Dan Marino jersey out of retirement and rooting for the Dolphins again ;D
-
Yeah, I think it was a witchhunt too. The problem was that they were looking for Bette Midler and found Martha Corey, if you follow.
They were looking for a cartoonish piece of silliness and instead found a pious but naive individual who was dead serious and called them out?
So someone had to die?
Then in that case shouldn't Kraft be yelling "More weight" instead of "Ok. Go ahead. Hang us. It's in th best interest of the town"?
-
No, because Robert Kraft cares more about continuing to make money with the NFL than the integrity of the Patriots. Because, you know, he's a normal human being. Why would he do anything different? Because of "the Patriot Way?"
-
I admit it seems like typically accepting the punishment would seem to admit guilt, but he was fighting this thing insanely till just a few days ago. How could he discover suddenly in just the last couple days that they did cheat?
-
He discovered that Brady wasn't going to serve a four game suspension.
Allegedly.
-
No, because Robert Kraft cares more about continuing to make money with the NFL than the integrity of the Patriots. Because, you know, he's a normal human being. Why would he do anything different? Because of "the Patriot Way?"
Robert Kraft needs more money to the point he throws his team and fans under the bus, because he's a normal human being?
Hey I have as low an opinion of humans as anyone but that's a pretty interesting assessment there.
-
He discovered that Brady wasn't going to serve a four game suspension.
Allegedly.
Backing down from a fight when you know you're right and that people are trying to take a dump on your team and region isn't the New England way. Take that cop out bs stuff off to France where it belongs.
-
I have consistently said that the NFL doesn't care about it's fans beyond the fact that they show up to watch their games with wallets open. I will continue to say that, because it is true. That whole thing about Brady's merchandise sales doubling after the suspension? C'mon. Kraft isn't going to do anything that might jeopardize the Patriots gravy train, which is contingent upon the NFL not going through the kinds of discovery that a lawsuit (his only recourse) would bring up -- and also he probably wasn't going to win the lawsuit anyway.
The team doesn't care -- they want to get paid and do their jobs.
-
I have consistently said that the NFL doesn't care about it's fans beyond the fact that they show up to watch their games with wallets open. I will continue to say that, because it is true. That whole thing about Brady's merchandise sales doubling after the suspension? C'mon. Kraft isn't going to do anything that might jeopardize the Patriots gravy train, which is contingent upon the NFL not going through the kinds of discovery that a lawsuit (his only recourse) would bring up -- and also he probably wasn't going to win the lawsuit anyway.
The team doesn't care -- they want to get paid and do their jobs.
I guess I agree with you on some level that this event sorta does illustrate the kind of person he may actually be. And if he's who you say he is I don't like him and neither do a lot of his fans now.
-
Again the problem isn't that Kraft is letting it go, it is that is he is letting it go after months of screaming bloody murder that he wouldn't let it go. Nothing has changed in the last two days that would support his sudden change of heart (at least publicly). Kraft created the fan frenzy and then just let it go.
-
I'm not 100% sure why a federal arbitration claim, where he’d have to prove the discipline was excessive and arbitrary and that the NFL didn't correctly apply its own rules would open up the Pats to all sorts of damaging discovery. They wouldn't investigate the whole thing all over again or demand Brady's phone. I would think they'd just look at the Wells report and the rules of the league and make a decision. Did it prove what they needed to prove to the level they needed to? If they did then is the punishment in line with their own rules?
Yeah it costs money. Lots of stuff costs money. If he was such a penny pincher why did he hire lawyers to write a rebuttal?
Plus he can keep fighting in the court of public opinion, which is where 90% of this has taken place.
-
I think the best way to explain what's happening was covered in a Deadspin article the other day (they've basically nailed this whole thing, IMO):
Kraft made clear that he still disagrees with Roger Goodell, claiming the investigation wasn’t fair and found “no hard evidence.” He said the penalties were “way over the top, it was unreasonable and unprecedented.” But he’s willing to be a martyr for a bigger cause—NFL solidarity. This is a point I’ve made before, but it bears repeating now that Kraft has vocalized it—NFL owners seem keen with Goodell’s swinging-dick act until it swings their way. Kraft, as one of the league’s most powerful owners, has now set the precedent that even when the target of arbitary discipline, an owner should be quiet and accept it. Protect the shield.
http://deadspin.com/robert-kraft-will-not-appeal-the-patriots-penalties-1705536519
So, basically, this:
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--8IMcQm4H--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/gnfabq9yzwscpzq1ka12.jpg)
-
Again the problem isn't that Kraft is letting it go, it is that is he is letting it go after months of screaming bloody murder that he wouldn't let it go. Nothing has changed in the last two days that would support his sudden change of heart (at least publicly). Kraft created the fan frenzy and then just let it go.
Well, the frenzy actually started in the 24-48 hours after the AFC title game when reports were being leaked from the league office to Mort and rather than nipping things right there, the league allowed ESPN and the national media to take this false report and snowball it into the second coming of Watergate. That's when New England fans natural instinct of defense kicked in....after it became an "us versus the world" thing. People get awfully defensive about things like this.
Kraft's comments both back then and in the couple of weeks before yesterday only exasperated things, it didn't start them.
-
Again the problem isn't that Kraft is letting it go, it is that is he is letting it go after months of screaming bloody murder that he wouldn't let it go. Nothing has changed in the last two days that would support his sudden change of heart (at least publicly). Kraft created the fan frenzy and then just let it go.
Well, the frenzy actually started in the 24-48 hours after the AFC title game when reports were being leaked from the league office to Mort and rather than nipping things right there, the league allowed ESPN and the national media to take this false report and snowball it into the second coming of Watergate. That's when New England fans natural instinct of defense kicked in....after it became an "us versus the world" thing. People get awfully defensive about things like this.
Kraft's comments both back then and in the couple of weeks before yesterday only exasperated things, it didn't start them.
Yeah but he has made it way worse.
-
Plus he can keep fighting in the court of public opinion, which is where 90% of this has taken place.
He won't win that fight. The damage is already done there and it grew exponentially back in '07 with Spygate. Heck, it might've even started before then.
It's essentially 31 teams worth of fanbases against one these days and it has been for a while. This isn't the lovable underdog from 2001 that came out of nowhere and beat the Rams. Somewhere in between then & now, they became the Yankees and that evil empire than opposing teams fans love to hate.
The only way he could've got some good will on his side would've been if he could've taken down Goodell. That guy is basically universally despised these days. Problem was that the uphill battle was far too great to achieve that. As long as the money keeps flowing in, the owners will continue to bury their heads in the sand about Goodell's almost ineptness.
-
It's worth pointing out, too, that Goodell is also a great scapegoat for the ownership in situations like these.
-
I see what both of you are saying about not winning that fight, but I still want to fight that. I'm from New England. I'm almost a stubborn as those stupid rebs during the Civil War. Onward! Fight for mighty Virginia! or...New Englandia.
-
I'm Irish. I'll deal with a problem my whole life. ...Matt Damon. The Departed
-
This is basically extremely disappointing. I am usually a big fan of Kraft, but he is abruptly backing down for [what seems like] no apparent reason. This is leaving us New England fans in a state of confusion. The Cheatriot crowd just has more ammunition. I would really like more explanation on the issue.
-
I have no problem with Kraft saying he doesn't want to spend $4 mill on a lawsuit he'll lose, but then don't expect me to pay $50 for parking to a game I already overpaid on the ticket and don't expect me to buy an $80 jersey or a $7 beer or watch other NFL games.
Goes both ways Kraft. He might not lose $4mill one way but he might lose a mill a different way.
-
Sure, but what are you going to do, stop watching football?
The NFL's wager is that you won't.
-
Plus he can keep fighting in the court of public opinion, which is where 90% of this has taken place.
He won't win that fight. The damage is already done there and it grew exponentially back in '07 with Spygate. Heck, it might've even started before then.
It's essentially 31 teams worth of fanbases against one these days and it has been for a while. This isn't the lovable underdog from 2001 that came out of nowhere and beat the Rams. Somewhere in between then & now, they became the Yankees and that evil empire than opposing teams fans love to hate.
The only way he could've got some good will on his side would've been if he could've taken down Goodell. That guy is basically universally despised these days. Problem was that the uphill battle was far too great to achieve that. As long as the money keeps flowing in, the owners will continue to bury their heads in the sand about Goodell's almost ineptness.
I agree with all of this until the last sentence. I would be very surprised if Goodell got renewed when his contract is up.
-
Plus he can keep fighting in the court of public opinion, which is where 90% of this has taken place.
He won't win that fight. The damage is already done there and it grew exponentially back in '07 with Spygate. Heck, it might've even started before then.
It's essentially 31 teams worth of fanbases against one these days and it has been for a while. This isn't the lovable underdog from 2001 that came out of nowhere and beat the Rams. Somewhere in between then & now, they became the Yankees and that evil empire than opposing teams fans love to hate.
The only way he could've got some good will on his side would've been if he could've taken down Goodell. That guy is basically universally despised these days. Problem was that the uphill battle was far too great to achieve that. As long as the money keeps flowing in, the owners will continue to bury their heads in the sand about Goodell's almost ineptness.
I agree with all of this until the last sentence. I would be very surprised if Goodell got renewed when his contract is up.
I think he's up in 2019, if I read correctly somewhere.
As long as he's taking bullets for the 32 owners & the cash keeps pouring in, they'd probably keep him around. Like D.O.S. mentioned earlier, he's the scapegoat. I'm sure the owners like having him around to take the brunt of the blame . Who knows, though? He might ultimately end up taking the fall for something.
It's maddening to us fans, though. He seems to be grating more & more on the media these days too.
-
Plus he can keep fighting in the court of public opinion, which is where 90% of this has taken place.
He won't win that fight. The damage is already done there and it grew exponentially back in '07 with Spygate. Heck, it might've even started before then.
It's essentially 31 teams worth of fanbases against one these days and it has been for a while. This isn't the lovable underdog from 2001 that came out of nowhere and beat the Rams. Somewhere in between then & now, they became the Yankees and that evil empire than opposing teams fans love to hate.
The only way he could've got some good will on his side would've been if he could've taken down Goodell. That guy is basically universally despised these days. Problem was that the uphill battle was far too great to achieve that. As long as the money keeps flowing in, the owners will continue to bury their heads in the sand about Goodell's almost ineptness.
I agree with all of this until the last sentence. I would be very surprised if Goodell got renewed when his contract is up.
I think he's up in 2019, if I read correctly somewhere.
As long as he's taking bullets for the 32 owners & the cash keeps pouring in, they'd probably keep him around. Like D.O.S. mentioned earlier, he's the scapegoat. I'm sure the owners like having him around to take the brunt of the blame . Who knows, though? He might ultimately end up taking the fall for something.
It's maddening to us fans, though. He seems to be grating more & more on the media these days too.
I don't know. Paul Tagliabue didn't have a crisis that he mishandled every week and I'm sure they made money under him and will keep making money. The NBA likes Adam Silver. You can be a good GM and still make money.
-
Sure, but what are you going to do, stop watching football?
The NFL's wager is that you won't.
If they sold me a better product I might have spent more. I might have gone to a game. I might have bought a jersey. Now I won't
-
Plus he can keep fighting in the court of public opinion, which is where 90% of this has taken place.
He won't win that fight. The damage is already done there and it grew exponentially back in '07 with Spygate. Heck, it might've even started before then.
It's essentially 31 teams worth of fanbases against one these days and it has been for a while. This isn't the lovable underdog from 2001 that came out of nowhere and beat the Rams. Somewhere in between then & now, they became the Yankees and that evil empire than opposing teams fans love to hate.
The only way he could've got some good will on his side would've been if he could've taken down Goodell. That guy is basically universally despised these days. Problem was that the uphill battle was far too great to achieve that. As long as the money keeps flowing in, the owners will continue to bury their heads in the sand about Goodell's almost ineptness.
I agree with all of this until the last sentence. I would be very surprised if Goodell got renewed when his contract is up.
I think he's up in 2019, if I read correctly somewhere.
As long as he's taking bullets for the 32 owners & the cash keeps pouring in, they'd probably keep him around. Like D.O.S. mentioned earlier, he's the scapegoat. I'm sure the owners like having him around to take the brunt of the blame . Who knows, though? He might ultimately end up taking the fall for something.
It's maddening to us fans, though. He seems to be grating more & more on the media these days too.
I don't know. Paul Tagliabue didn't have a crisis that he mishandled every week and I'm sure they made money under him and will keep making money. The NBA likes Adam Silver. You can be a good GM and still make money.
True. But I'm not exactly sure the owners are seeing it that way (publicly, at least). The NFL is basically printing money & its viewership numbers are off the charts. For all the ineptness he & the league office under him have shown, the NFL hasn't slowed down one bit. My guess is that the owners just see it as "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" when it comes to Goodell. Plus, as I mentioned before, he's the one constantly getting heat. Not the owners. I'm sure the owners like it that way. Guy is basically their puppet.
-
This is basically extremely disappointing. I am usually a big fan of Kraft, but he is abruptly backing down for [what seems like] no apparent reason. This is leaving us New England fans in a state of confusion. The Cheatriot crowd just has more ammunition. I would really like more explanation on the issue.
.
Yes, people will say the Patriots are cheaters. This is because the Patriots have cheated.
I choose not to care. Big deal that others cheat too and haven't been punished as much as the Pats. Pats win. I'll still root strong for the heavily fined, pick-stripped and suspended-quarterbacked Patriots over every other team in the league. I will chuckle when folks from other parts of the country call my team a bunch of cheaters. They'd undoubtedly trade their highly ethical franchise for New England's in a second.
Someday we'll not only be a cheating franchise, but we'll be a bad non-playoff team. That's when things will suck.
-
I think the best way to explain what's happening was covered in a Deadspin article the other day (they've basically nailed this whole thing, IMO):
Kraft made clear that he still disagrees with Roger Goodell, claiming the investigation wasn’t fair and found “no hard evidence.” He said the penalties were “way over the top, it was unreasonable and unprecedented.” But he’s willing to be a martyr for a bigger cause—NFL solidarity. This is a point I’ve made before, but it bears repeating now that Kraft has vocalized it—NFL owners seem keen with Goodell’s swinging-dick act until it swings their way. Kraft, as one of the league’s most powerful owners, has now set the precedent that even when the target of arbitary discipline, an owner should be quiet and accept it. Protect the shield.
http://deadspin.com/robert-kraft-will-not-appeal-the-patriots-penalties-1705536519
I'm guessing that part of "NFL solidarity" now includes you and your star QB getting trolled by official NFL media. Isn't that just swelte...
-
It's also a little bit of "First they came for the Roethlisburgers, and I said Nothing...Then they came for the Paytons, and I said nothing...Then they came for me." Going on.
-
It's also a little bit of "First they came for the Roethlisburgers, and I said Nothing...Then they came for the Paytons, and I said nothing...Then they came for me." Going on.
Oh, I have no doubt noone will say anything for the Patriots. But being the subject of cheap shots by assorted NFL staffers is unacceptable.
-
Unacceptable for whom?
-
Unacceptable for whom?
Apparently not for the league.
-
I think the punishment is unfair but I think it's Brady's fault. He should had owned up to it after the super bowl and then the attention would had been on a fair punishment and not whether there was some kind of cover up. I don't feel bad for Brady at all.
-
I think the punishment is unfair but I think it's Brady's fault. He should had owned up to it after the super bowl and then the attention would had been on a fair punishment and not whether there was some kind of cover up. I don't feel bad for Brady at all.
But what if Brady is innocent? Should he have owned up to something he didn't do?
What if the ref actually used the gauge he said he used and the balls were not underinflated? Afterall, he did measure over 50 balls. You would think he would remember which gauge he used a few hours later when it became an issue especially considering the two gauges are noticeably different.
-
I think the punishment is unfair but I think it's Brady's fault. He should had owned up to it after the super bowl and then the attention would had been on a fair punishment and not whether there was some kind of cover up. I don't feel bad for Brady at all.
But what if Brady is innocent? Should he have owned up to something he didn't do?
What if the ref actually used the gauge he said he used and the balls were not underinflated? Afterall, he did measure over 50 balls. You would think he would remember which gauge he used a few hours later when it became an issue especially considering the two gauges are noticeably different.
He did remember. Ted Wells just chose to ignore that fact, because it doesn't fit his narrative very well.
-
I think the punishment is unfair but I think it's Brady's fault. He should had owned up to it after the super bowl and then the attention would had been on a fair punishment and not whether there was some kind of cover up. I don't feel bad for Brady at all.
But what if Brady is innocent? Should he have owned up to something he didn't do?
What if the ref actually used the gauge he said he used and the balls were not underinflated? Afterall, he did measure over 50 balls. You would think he would remember which gauge he used a few hours later when it became an issue especially considering the two gauges are noticeably different.
He did remember. Ted Wells just chose to ignore that fact, because it doesn't fit his narrative very well.
And the logic he used to determine the other gauge was used was... illogical.
-
I think the punishment is unfair but I think it's Brady's fault. He should had owned up to it after the super bowl and then the attention would had been on a fair punishment and not whether there was some kind of cover up. I don't feel bad for Brady at all.
But what if Brady is innocent? Should he have owned up to something he didn't do?
What if the ref actually used the gauge he said he used and the balls were not underinflated? Afterall, he did measure over 50 balls. You would think he would remember which gauge he used a few hours later when it became an issue especially considering the two gauges are noticeably different.
To me it all comes back to the "deflator" text message. If that guy said it was a running joke because Brady always wanted the footballs at 12.5 and had him deflating them all the time in practice and before the refs inspecting them, I could get around that. But not the story they used. No way was he calling his friend the deflator because he was losing weight.
How many people actually believe that story?
-
I think the punishment is unfair but I think it's Brady's fault. He should had owned up to it after the super bowl and then the attention would had been on a fair punishment and not whether there was some kind of cover up. I don't feel bad for Brady at all.
But what if Brady is innocent? Should he have owned up to something he didn't do?
What if the ref actually used the gauge he said he used and the balls were not underinflated? Afterall, he did measure over 50 balls. You would think he would remember which gauge he used a few hours later when it became an issue especially considering the two gauges are noticeably different.
To me it all comes back to the "deflator" text message. If that guy said it was a running joke because Brady always wanted the footballs at 12.5 and had him deflating them all the time in practice and before the refs inspecting them, I could get around that. But not the story they used. No way was he calling his friend the deflator because he was losing weight.
How many people actually believe that story?
The deflator comment came prior to the comment from Jastremski about how he was expecting the balls to be 13 after the Jets game. Why would he expect the balls to be 13 if they were deflating them? That makes no sense and contradicts the deflator comment, but hey, let's pick and choose which texts to pay attention to.
When he texted Jastremski during the Packers game "Deflate and give somebody that jkt." Was he telling him to hurry up and deflate balls? Of course not, he was using it in another context. Is it really hard to believe that he used that word in other contexts when talking to his friend who inflates and deflates balls for a living?
http://www.patspulpit.com/2015/5/14/8609329/what-is-this-deflate-that-you-speak-of
-
I think the punishment is unfair but I think it's Brady's fault. He should had owned up to it after the super bowl and then the attention would had been on a fair punishment and not whether there was some kind of cover up. I don't feel bad for Brady at all.
But what if Brady is innocent? Should he have owned up to something he didn't do?
What if the ref actually used the gauge he said he used and the balls were not underinflated? Afterall, he did measure over 50 balls. You would think he would remember which gauge he used a few hours later when it became an issue especially considering the two gauges are noticeably different.
To me it all comes back to the "deflator" text message. If that guy said it was a running joke because Brady always wanted the footballs at 12.5 and had him deflating them all the time in practice and before the refs inspecting them, I could get around that. But not the story they used. No way was he calling his friend the deflator because he was losing weight.
How many people actually believe that story?
The centerpiece of the "evidence" is McNally calling himself "the deflator" in the middle of the offseason (6 months before the issue with the 16 PSI ball cropped up), and a completely incomprehensible text reading "deflate and give that jacket to someone" (which Wells said "may have come" at the halftime of a game -- Ted, you were paid $35 million for that lousy report, you couldn't get a recording of the game to see EXACTLY when the it was sent?!).
These were the only two references to any sort of deflating that came from what was allegedly hundreds of pages of texts. Please explain how this fits Ted Wells' story any better than the weight loss story.
-
I think the punishment is unfair but I think it's Brady's fault. He should had owned up to it after the super bowl and then the attention would had been on a fair punishment and not whether there was some kind of cover up. I don't feel bad for Brady at all.
But what if Brady is innocent? Should he have owned up to something he didn't do?
What if the ref actually used the gauge he said he used and the balls were not underinflated? Afterall, he did measure over 50 balls. You would think he would remember which gauge he used a few hours later when it became an issue especially considering the two gauges are noticeably different.
To me it all comes back to the "deflator" text message. If that guy said it was a running joke because Brady always wanted the footballs at 12.5 and had him deflating them all the time in practice and before the refs inspecting them, I could get around that. But not the story they used. No way was he calling his friend the deflator because he was losing weight.
How many people actually believe that story?
The centerpiece of the "evidence" is McNally calling himself "the deflator" in the middle of the offseason (6 months before the issue with the 16 PSI ball cropped up), and a completely incomprehensible text reading "deflate and give that jacket to someone" (which Wells said "may have come" at the halftime of a game -- Ted, you were paid $35 million for that lousy report, you couldn't get a recording of the game to see EXACTLY when the it was sent?!).
These were the only two references to any sort of deflating that came from what was allegedly hundreds of pages of texts. Please explain how this fits Ted Wells' story any better than the weight loss story.
Hundreds of careless texts between two friends full of bizarre jokes and jargon.
-
I think the punishment is unfair but I think it's Brady's fault. He should had owned up to it after the super bowl and then the attention would had been on a fair punishment and not whether there was some kind of cover up. I don't feel bad for Brady at all.
But what if Brady is innocent? Should he have owned up to something he didn't do?
What if the ref actually used the gauge he said he used and the balls were not underinflated? Afterall, he did measure over 50 balls. You would think he would remember which gauge he used a few hours later when it became an issue especially considering the two gauges are noticeably different.
To me it all comes back to the "deflator" text message. If that guy said it was a running joke because Brady always wanted the footballs at 12.5 and had him deflating them all the time in practice and before the refs inspecting them, I could get around that. But not the story they used. No way was he calling his friend the deflator because he was losing weight.
How many people actually believe that story?
The deflator comment came prior to the comment from Jastremski about how he was expecting the balls to be 13 after the Jets game. Why would he expect the balls to be 13 if they were deflating them? That makes no sense and contradicts the deflator comment, but hey, let's pick and choose which texts to pay attention to.
When he texted Jastremski during the Packers game "Deflate and give somebody that jkt." Was he telling him to hurry up and deflate balls? Of course not, he was using it in another context. Is it really hard to believe that he used that word in other contexts when talking to his friend who inflates and deflates balls for a living?
http://www.patspulpit.com/2015/5/14/8609329/what-is-this-deflate-that-you-speak-of
I think it's very plausible that he was deflating the balls on the sideline. Especially since they couldn't run their scheme on road games.
And the fact that the Jaguars put in a complaint that the colt's ball boys had needles up their sleeves, makes me think it's pretty common place.
-
I think the punishment is unfair but I think it's Brady's fault. He should had owned up to it after the super bowl and then the attention would had been on a fair punishment and not whether there was some kind of cover up. I don't feel bad for Brady at all.
But what if Brady is innocent? Should he have owned up to something he didn't do?
What if the ref actually used the gauge he said he used and the balls were not underinflated? Afterall, he did measure over 50 balls. You would think he would remember which gauge he used a few hours later when it became an issue especially considering the two gauges are noticeably different.
To me it all comes back to the "deflator" text message. If that guy said it was a running joke because Brady always wanted the footballs at 12.5 and had him deflating them all the time in practice and before the refs inspecting them, I could get around that. But not the story they used. No way was he calling his friend the deflator because he was losing weight.
How many people actually believe that story?
The centerpiece of the "evidence" is McNally calling himself "the deflator" in the middle of the offseason (6 months before the issue with the 16 PSI ball cropped up), and a completely incomprehensible text reading "deflate and give that jacket to someone" (which Wells said "may have come" at the halftime of a game -- Ted, you were paid $35 million for that lousy report, you couldn't get a recording of the game to see EXACTLY when the it was sent?!).
These were the only two references to any sort of deflating that came from what was allegedly hundreds of pages of texts. Please explain how this fits Ted Wells' story any better than the weight loss story.
Because there was most likely an understanding to not text about it. That would explain the second text that he wrote saying chill buddy. Basically come on I messed up but do you really think we're screwed cause I texted that.
-
I think the punishment is unfair but I think it's Brady's fault. He should had owned up to it after the super bowl and then the attention would had been on a fair punishment and not whether there was some kind of cover up. I don't feel bad for Brady at all.
But what if Brady is innocent? Should he have owned up to something he didn't do?
What if the ref actually used the gauge he said he used and the balls were not underinflated? Afterall, he did measure over 50 balls. You would think he would remember which gauge he used a few hours later when it became an issue especially considering the two gauges are noticeably different.
To me it all comes back to the "deflator" text message. If that guy said it was a running joke because Brady always wanted the footballs at 12.5 and had him deflating them all the time in practice and before the refs inspecting them, I could get around that. But not the story they used. No way was he calling his friend the deflator because he was losing weight.
How many people actually believe that story?
The deflator comment came prior to the comment from Jastremski about how he was expecting the balls to be 13 after the Jets game. Why would he expect the balls to be 13 if they were deflating them? That makes no sense and contradicts the deflator comment, but hey, let's pick and choose which texts to pay attention to.
When he texted Jastremski during the Packers game "Deflate and give somebody that jkt." Was he telling him to hurry up and deflate balls? Of course not, he was using it in another context. Is it really hard to believe that he used that word in other contexts when talking to his friend who inflates and deflates balls for a living?
http://www.patspulpit.com/2015/5/14/8609329/what-is-this-deflate-that-you-speak-of
I think it's very plausible that he was deflating the balls on the sideline. Especially since they couldn't run their scheme on road games.
And the fact that the Jaguars put in a complaint that the colt's ball boys had needles up their sleeves, makes me think it's pretty common place.
So you think it was more likely that when McNally saw his friend on TV after the Packers just scored a game changing TD, that he sent a text advising him to deflate footballs despite the fact he would not see the text until later and that he wasn't being silly and telling the guy to relax after the camera focused on him?
You think he would be so careless to tell him to deflate the balls on the sidelines during a game, but yet so carefull to never reference to deflating the balls below 12.5 even once?
-
I think the punishment is unfair but I think it's Brady's fault. He should had owned up to it after the super bowl and then the attention would had been on a fair punishment and not whether there was some kind of cover up. I don't feel bad for Brady at all.
But what if Brady is innocent? Should he have owned up to something he didn't do?
What if the ref actually used the gauge he said he used and the balls were not underinflated? Afterall, he did measure over 50 balls. You would think he would remember which gauge he used a few hours later when it became an issue especially considering the two gauges are noticeably different.
To me it all comes back to the "deflator" text message. If that guy said it was a running joke because Brady always wanted the footballs at 12.5 and had him deflating them all the time in practice and before the refs inspecting them, I could get around that. But not the story they used. No way was he calling his friend the deflator because he was losing weight.
How many people actually believe that story?
The deflator comment came prior to the comment from Jastremski about how he was expecting the balls to be 13 after the Jets game. Why would he expect the balls to be 13 if they were deflating them? That makes no sense and contradicts the deflator comment, but hey, let's pick and choose which texts to pay attention to.
When he texted Jastremski during the Packers game "Deflate and give somebody that jkt." Was he telling him to hurry up and deflate balls? Of course not, he was using it in another context. Is it really hard to believe that he used that word in other contexts when talking to his friend who inflates and deflates balls for a living?
http://www.patspulpit.com/2015/5/14/8609329/what-is-this-deflate-that-you-speak-of
I think it's very plausible that he was deflating the balls on the sideline. Especially since they couldn't run their scheme on road games.
And the fact that the Jaguars put in a complaint that the colt's ball boys had needles up their sleeves, makes me think it's pretty common place.
So you think it was more likely that when McNally saw his friend on TV after the Packers just scored a game changing TD, that he sent a text advising him to deflate footballs despite the fact he would not see the text until later and that he wasn't being silly and telling the guy to relax after the camera focused on him?
You think he would be so careless to tell him to deflate the balls on the sidelines during a game, but yet so carefull to never reference to deflating the balls below 12.5 even once?
I doubt anyone would ever tell someone to deflate because they seemed too tense. Do you really believe that?
-
I think the punishment is unfair but I think it's Brady's fault. He should had owned up to it after the super bowl and then the attention would had been on a fair punishment and not whether there was some kind of cover up. I don't feel bad for Brady at all.
But what if Brady is innocent? Should he have owned up to something he didn't do?
What if the ref actually used the gauge he said he used and the balls were not underinflated? Afterall, he did measure over 50 balls. You would think he would remember which gauge he used a few hours later when it became an issue especially considering the two gauges are noticeably different.
To me it all comes back to the "deflator" text message. If that guy said it was a running joke because Brady always wanted the footballs at 12.5 and had him deflating them all the time in practice and before the refs inspecting them, I could get around that. But not the story they used. No way was he calling his friend the deflator because he was losing weight.
How many people actually believe that story?
The deflator comment came prior to the comment from Jastremski about how he was expecting the balls to be 13 after the Jets game. Why would he expect the balls to be 13 if they were deflating them? That makes no sense and contradicts the deflator comment, but hey, let's pick and choose which texts to pay attention to.
When he texted Jastremski during the Packers game "Deflate and give somebody that jkt." Was he telling him to hurry up and deflate balls? Of course not, he was using it in another context. Is it really hard to believe that he used that word in other contexts when talking to his friend who inflates and deflates balls for a living?
http://www.patspulpit.com/2015/5/14/8609329/what-is-this-deflate-that-you-speak-of
I think it's very plausible that he was deflating the balls on the sideline. Especially since they couldn't run their scheme on road games.
And the fact that the Jaguars put in a complaint that the colt's ball boys had needles up their sleeves, makes me think it's pretty common place.
So you think it was more likely that when McNally saw his friend on TV after the Packers just scored a game changing TD, that he sent a text advising him to deflate footballs despite the fact he would not see the text until later and that he wasn't being silly and telling the guy to relax after the camera focused on him?
You think he would be so careless to tell him to deflate the balls on the sidelines during a game, but yet so carefull to never reference to deflating the balls below 12.5 even once?
I doubt anyone would ever tell someone to deflate because they seemed too tense. Do you really believe that?
Considering all their jargon and the fact the guy inflates and deflates balls for a living and the obvious circumstance, sure. It seems a whole lot more likely than instructing the guy to start deflating footballs on the sidelines. But I guess we differ on that.
Definition of deflate: 2nd definition listed:
2.
cause (someone) to suddenly lose confidence or feel less important.
"the news left him feeling utterly deflated"
synonyms: subdue, humble, cow, chasten; dispirit, dismay, discourage, dishearten; squash, crush, bring down, take the wind out of someone's sails, knock the stuffing out of
"the news had deflated him"
-
http://clnsradio.com/new-england-patriots-news/item/11935-patriots-why-the-wells-report-in-context-was-written-for-tom-brady
I doubt that anything related to the texts will have much impact one way or the other. It's the assumptions and data used by the consultants that Wells employed that will be the focus of Kessler's attack.
-
Wait, someone here thought it was plausible that an equipment guy would deflate footballs AT THE SIDELINES during a game? Have you noticed how many cameras there are out there during a football game? How many players and team officials and players from the opposite team? If the Patriots were doing that, there would have been zero need for the Colts to tip the league. Please.
-
One of my female coworkers pointed out she thought it was stupid that the NFL was trying to paint McNally as a liar for saying he used the urinal when there was only a toilet. She was like "Well of course he said he used a urinal. He's a guy. What guy is gonna say 'I used the toilet'? What is he? French?"
I think she has a point there. I don't think I've said "I'm gonna use the toilet" since I was 6 and not even in countries where you have to say that. I'm not even 100% sure American plumbers use the word.
-
One of my female coworkers pointed out she thought it was stupid that the NFL was trying to paint McNally as a liar for saying he used the urinal when there was only a toilet. She was like "Well of course he said he used a urinal. He's a guy. What guy is gonna say 'I used the toilet'? What is he? French?"
I think she has a point there. I don't think I've said "I'm gonna use the toilet" since I was 6 and not even in countries where you have to say that. I'm not even 100% sure American plumbers use the word.
Wait... what?! During Wells' 7+ hour interrogation of McNally, McNally referred to a toilet as a urinal? Guilty!
In hundreds of text messages with the guy responsible for inflating and deflating dozens of footballs at a time, Wells found a couple instances where the word deflate was used... Guilty!
Wells' investigation looks a lot like....
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g
-
One of my female coworkers pointed out she thought it was stupid that the NFL was trying to paint McNally as a liar for saying he used the urinal when there was only a toilet. She was like "Well of course he said he used a urinal. He's a guy. What guy is gonna say 'I used the toilet'? What is he? French?"
I think she has a point there. I don't think I've said "I'm gonna use the toilet" since I was 6 and not even in countries where you have to say that. I'm not even 100% sure American plumbers use the word.
I would sooner announce that I am gonna use the toilet than gonna use the urinal.. More likely than either, I'd say Im gonna use the bathroom. Or... Gotta pee. Now that I think of it... Dang, have to get up.
-
Couple interesting points in this recent NYTimes article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/14/opinion/deflating-deflategate.html?_r=0
And
http://www.aei.org/publication/on-wells-report/
-
Couple interesting points in this recent NYTimes article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/14/opinion/deflating-deflategate.html?_r=0
And
http://www.aei.org/publication/on-wells-report/
That's an understatement. This report, which very extensively reviewed the data and assumptions compiled by the Wells Report, took it to task, basically concluding that it is unlikely the Patriots intentionally deflated the footballs, and that the Wells Report was unreliable. While it should be useful to Brady in his appeal, Goodell is such a dunce that he will say "I still stand behind Ted Wells." This case is going to end up in court. Hope Brady fights it until the end.
Also curious why only Mike Reiss mentions the report at ESPN. Does not make their front page; more interested in Bryant's threat not to play. (yawn) I guess only negative news makes the front page on ESPN especially concerning the Pats...
-
TP boscel!! Thanks for forwarding the articles. Really interesting. Boston media should push this hard.
How about an ESPN lead-in like this:
Wells Report Unreliable: More Probable Than Not
-
TP boscel!! Thanks for forwarding the articles. Really interesting. Boston media should push this hard.
How about an ESPN lead-in like this:
Wells Report Unreliable: More Probable Than Not
TP NG!!
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/as-brady-appeal-nears-roger-goodell-is-stuck-in-a-corner-of-his-own-creation/2015/06/17/a5fcbaa6-1456-11e5-89f3-61410da94eb1_story.html
The AEI analysis suggests that NFL Players Association Director DeMaurice Smith was right when he said the Wells report “delivered exactly what the client wanted.” It suggests that this wasn’t an investigation; it was a frame job by the commissioner’s office desperate to reestablish its authority.
I share this opinion and think the AEI report was putting the best possible face on the Report's errors. There were gaping holes in the Wells report when it was issued which calls into the question the competence of it's preparers and/or the intent of the Report. I have a fair amount of relevant expertise. It's tough to understand why the I's weren't dotted and T's not crossed before the Report was issued and the obvious questions addressed instead of issuing a Report to the media. The Report passes the weight test, but is otherwise professionally deficient. One can come up with some convoluted explanations, but the easiest was this Report was made as indicated.
-
Appeal hearing is (quite quietly) going on now.
-
NFL keeps screwing this up more and more. Now Goodell is apparently going to stick to the 4 game suspension because a few owners are pressuring in the hopes he goes to court, loses, and then can claim to the other owners it wasn't his fault and simultaneously placate Kraft and Pats fans.
Goodell is such a buffoon. When faced with tough decisions, he consistently makes the wrong decisions and behaves in the exact opposite way that a true leader is supposed to behave.
-
John braikis from ESPN sports science, debunked all claims that a deflated ball would help. In fact he proved that it makes the ball travel slighty slower.
-
Goddell is such a Clown.
-
The NFL is too corrupt now.
-
Goddell is such a Clown.
He has certainly made himself look foolish again. Not to mention reactionary, hypocritical, and unfair. This was a total witch hunt from the start, and if Goodell's foolish enough to suspend Brady even one game, I hope Brady's lawyers nail Goodell to the wall.
-
John braikis from ESPN sports science, debunked all claims that a deflated ball would help. In fact he proved that it makes the ball travel slighty slower.
didn't they take that particular one off of espn a day later so they could continue their witch hunt without facts?
-
Deflated balls can definitely help in regards to grip. For both a QB and a WR. I didn't see that Sports Science. Did he exactly say "deflated balls won't help" because I have a hard time believing that was the exact context?
I think problem (among dozens of other things in this case) here was that no one ever from the NFL had ever took into account the impact of the Natural Gas Law on footballs before this.
-
Deflated balls can definitely help in regards to grip. For both a QB and a WR. I didn't see that Sports Science. Did he exactly say "deflated balls won't help" because I have a hard time believing that was the exact context?
I think problem (among dozens of other things in this case) here was that no one ever from the NFL had ever took into account the impact of the Natural Gas Law on footballs before this.
They definitely help, but there's no way of knowing just how much of an effect it has had on games. Like spygate, the league supposedly destroyed the tapes before anyone saw them, so we'll never truly know how much that helped.
The one difference with deflategate is that people do technically have one stat to hold onto, and that's the fumble numbers. The patriots have fumbled less than any other team the last 7 years, and by ALOT. Now some people will say that it's just good coaching, because as soon as you fumble a ball on the Patriots, Belichick takes you out. Others will say it's because of deflated footballs.
But one thing's for certain for this upcoming season...the Pats CANNOT start fumbling the ball. That will be the ultimate ammo for Patriot haters. This team can go 4-12 this year because of a terrible secondary or injuries stacking up...but the one thing that can't happen is for them to start fumbling the ball.
-
Wait, someone here thought it was plausible that an equipment guy would deflate footballs AT THE SIDELINES during a game? Have you noticed how many cameras there are out there during a football game? How many players and team officials and players from the opposite team? If the Patriots were doing that, there would have been zero need for the Colts to tip the league. Please.
i actually read an interview from an equipment manager at a major college FB program, he said they do all sorts of illegal stuff to the balls on the sidelines, but nobody cares, just don't be blatant about it. matt leinart said the same thing.
this is literally only an issue because it's the pats.
the league doesn't care about he integrity of the game (otherwise they wouldn't have locked out their refs over $1M in a $10B league a couple years back). this is about goodell saving face, and jealous owners, fans, and players getting their shots in on belichick and brady.
yes, BB is a jerk. and yes, brady is an OCD pretty boy. but this story tells me more about the bloodthirsty, knuckle-dragging NFL owners and fans than anything else. no league has worse, less knowledgeable fans than the NFL.
-
They really help in the cold too.
-
Why is Brady and his legal team being so quiet on this? That is what I want to know. I believe Kessler could have gone on the TV circuit and really have changed public opinion on Deflategate. Clearly, the science of the Wells Report is faulty. Consensus among independent scientist is that it is impossible to conclude that anyone intentionally released air from the footballs. Given that fact alone all the rest of the so called evidence (texts and potty breaks) cannot prove guilt.
-
Why is Brady and his legal team being so quiet on this? That is what I want to know. I believe Kessler could have gone on the TV circuit and really have changed public opinion on Deflategate. Clearly, the science of the Wells Report is faulty. Consensus among independent scientist is that it is impossible to conclude that anyone intentionally released air from the footballs. Given that fact alone all the rest of the so called evidence (texts and potty breaks) cannot prove guilt.
Kessler's job is not to change public opinion, it's to get the best outcome for his client.
-
Why is Brady and his legal team being so quiet on this? That is what I want to know. I believe Kessler could have gone on the TV circuit and really have changed public opinion on Deflategate. Clearly, the science of the Wells Report is faulty. Consensus among independent scientist is that it is impossible to conclude that anyone intentionally released air from the footballs. Given that fact alone all the rest of the so called evidence (texts and potty breaks) cannot prove guilt.
Kessler's job is not to change public opinion, it's to get the best outcome for his client.
There's really no way to change public opinion on this too. Mort's report back in January & the NFL's silence on refuting it just through fuel on an existing fire.
Outside of 5 & a half states, there was already a lot of existing hatred for them. There was gonna be no benefit of the doubt there.
Although, I have seen the amount of hatred for Goodell rise quite a bit through this too which is nice to see.
-
Deflated balls can definitely help in regards to grip. For both a QB and a WR. I didn't see that Sports Science. Did he exactly say "deflated balls won't help" because I have a hard time believing that was the exact context?
I think problem (among dozens of other things in this case) here was that no one ever from the NFL had ever took into account the impact of the Natural Gas Law on footballs before this.
They definitely help, but there's no way of knowing just how much of an effect it has had on games. Like spygate, the league supposedly destroyed the tapes before anyone saw them, so we'll never truly know how much that helped.
The one difference with deflategate is that people do technically have one stat to hold onto, and that's the fumble numbers. The patriots have fumbled less than any other team the last 7 years, and by ALOT. Now some people will say that it's just good coaching, because as soon as you fumble a ball on the Patriots, Belichick takes you out. Others will say it's because of deflated footballs.
But one thing's for certain for this upcoming season...the Pats CANNOT start fumbling the ball. That will be the ultimate ammo for Patriot haters. This team can go 4-12 this year because of a terrible secondary or injuries stacking up...but the one thing that can't happen is for them to start fumbling the ball.
Here's the thing, at worst the balls were only deflated by 3 to 4 tenths of a psi, assuming the head ref incorrectly remembered which gauge he used just a few hours after measuring over fifty footballs, which coincidentally is the calibration difference between the two gauges. 2 psi as initially falsely reported may make it slightly easier, but I don't think anyone is going to say 3 to 4 tenths of a psi is any meaningful advantage. The air pressure changes that much with only a 6 to 8 degree F temperature change. It's insignificant.
As far as the fumbling stats, that's pretty much been debunked. http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-those-statistics-about-the-patriots-fumbles-are-mos-1681805710
-
4 game suspension upheld (per pretty much everyone on Twitter at the moment).
Looks like this is off to the courts now....
-
4 game suspension upheld (per pretty much everyone on Twitter at the moment).
Looks like this is off to the courts now....
What a joke.
See ya in court, Goodell.
-
Reportedly, Brady destroyed his cell phone (or ordered someone to) rather than hand it over.
-
4 game suspension upheld (per pretty much everyone on Twitter at the moment).
Looks like this is off to the courts now....
I am kind of pumped about a court room showdown!
-
4 game suspension upheld (per pretty much everyone on Twitter at the moment).
Looks like this is off to the courts now....
Makes sense. If NFLPA was going to court, barring total reversal, reducing the suspension on appeal would I think only weaken the NFL's position. No reason not to double down.
-
What I'm guessing happened is that Goodell offered to reduce the suspension,, but Brady's camp said anything more than a fine would lead to a court show down. So rather than reduce the suspension and then lose in court, he decided to just uphold the suspension. Now Goodell can pretend he stuck to his guns and be absolved of blame if the court over turns the decision.
He's the ultimate pass the buck man.
-
What I'm guessing happened is that Goodell offered to reduce the suspension,, but Brady's camp said anything more than a fine would lead to a court show down. So rather than reduce the suspension and then lose in court, he decided to just uphold the suspension. Now Goodell can pretend he stuck to his guns and be absolved of blame if the court over turns the decision.
He's the ultimate pass the buck man.
Pretend that he stuck to his guns to whom, though.
-
The statement from the league...
“On or shortly before March 6, the day that Tom Brady met with independent investigator Ted Wells and his colleagues, Brady directed that the cell phone he had used for the prior four months be destroyed,” the league statement read. “He did so even though he was aware that the investigators had requested access to text messages and other electronic information that had been stored on that phone. ?During the four months that the cell phone was in use, Brady had exchanged nearly 10,000 text messages, none of which can now be retrieved from that device. The destruction of the cell phone was not disclosed until June 18, almost four months after the investigators had first sought electronic information from Brady.”
This is really hurts Brady in my opinion...again, what he actually did isn't that big of a deal in terms of on the field help in winning games, but the optics of this are NOT good for Brady. For me this shows me that Brady had to choose the lesser of two evils...he obviously felt that getting heat for destroying his phone wouldn't be as bad as getting heat for what was actually on the phone
-
Did anyone else's twitter crash right after this news came out?
-
The statement from the league...
“On or shortly before March 6, the day that Tom Brady met with independent investigator Ted Wells and his colleagues, Brady directed that the cell phone he had used for the prior four months be destroyed,” the league statement read. “He did so even though he was aware that the investigators had requested access to text messages and other electronic information that had been stored on that phone. ?During the four months that the cell phone was in use, Brady had exchanged nearly 10,000 text messages, none of which can now be retrieved from that device. The destruction of the cell phone was not disclosed until June 18, almost four months after the investigators had first sought electronic information from Brady.”
This is really hurts Brady in my opinion...again, what he actually did isn't that big of a deal in terms of on the field help in winning games, but the optics of this are NOT good for Brady. For me this shows me that Brady had to choose the lesser of two evils...he obviously felt that getting heat for destroying his phone wouldn't be as bad as getting heat for what was actually on the phone
I'm not turning over my PRIVATE cell phone just so that some league investigator can take a peak at some selective messages.
Sorry, but I'd do the same whether I was guilty or not, doubly so if I was a celebrity / public figure.
We'll see them in Federal court, things should get interesting.
-
The statement from the league...
“On or shortly before March 6, the day that Tom Brady met with independent investigator Ted Wells and his colleagues, Brady directed that the cell phone he had used for the prior four months be destroyed,” the league statement read. “He did so even though he was aware that the investigators had requested access to text messages and other electronic information that had been stored on that phone. ?During the four months that the cell phone was in use, Brady had exchanged nearly 10,000 text messages, none of which can now be retrieved from that device. The destruction of the cell phone was not disclosed until June 18, almost four months after the investigators had first sought electronic information from Brady.”
This is really hurts Brady in my opinion...again, what he actually did isn't that big of a deal in terms of on the field help in winning games, but the optics of this are NOT good for Brady. For me this shows me that Brady had to choose the lesser of two evils...he obviously felt that getting heat for destroying his phone wouldn't be as bad as getting heat for what was actually on the phone
I'm not turning over my PRIVATE cell phone just so that some league investigator can take a peak at some selective messages.
Sorry, but I'd do the same whether I was guilty or not, doubly so if I was a celebrity / public figure.
We'll see them in Federal court, things should get interesting.
Yeah... there's a number of reasons I'd destroy my cell phone rather than let it be analyzed by a third party. None of these reasons are related to deflating footballs.
-
The statement from the league...
“On or shortly before March 6, the day that Tom Brady met with independent investigator Ted Wells and his colleagues, Brady directed that the cell phone he had used for the prior four months be destroyed,” the league statement read. “He did so even though he was aware that the investigators had requested access to text messages and other electronic information that had been stored on that phone. ?During the four months that the cell phone was in use, Brady had exchanged nearly 10,000 text messages, none of which can now be retrieved from that device. The destruction of the cell phone was not disclosed until June 18, almost four months after the investigators had first sought electronic information from Brady.”
This is really hurts Brady in my opinion...again, what he actually did isn't that big of a deal in terms of on the field help in winning games, but the optics of this are NOT good for Brady. For me this shows me that Brady had to choose the lesser of two evils...he obviously felt that getting heat for destroying his phone wouldn't be as bad as getting heat for what was actually on the phone
I'm not turning over my PRIVATE cell phone just so that some league investigator can take a peak at some selective messages.
Sorry, but I'd do the same whether I was guilty or not, doubly so if I was a celebrity / public figure.
We'll see them in Federal court, things should get interesting.
Listen, I'm as big of a Patriots fan as there is, but c'mon...how can anyone continue to think Brady isn't guilty here? Regardless of whether or not his phone is private, he instructed someone to destroy it either on the day or just before the day that Ted Wells spoke to him. It's one thing to not turn it over, but destroy it?...how can you not conclude from that that Brady is hiding something?
-
The statement from the league...
“On or shortly before March 6, the day that Tom Brady met with independent investigator Ted Wells and his colleagues, Brady directed that the cell phone he had used for the prior four months be destroyed,” the league statement read. “He did so even though he was aware that the investigators had requested access to text messages and other electronic information that had been stored on that phone. ?During the four months that the cell phone was in use, Brady had exchanged nearly 10,000 text messages, none of which can now be retrieved from that device. The destruction of the cell phone was not disclosed until June 18, almost four months after the investigators had first sought electronic information from Brady.”
This is really hurts Brady in my opinion...again, what he actually did isn't that big of a deal in terms of on the field help in winning games, but the optics of this are NOT good for Brady. For me this shows me that Brady had to choose the lesser of two evils...he obviously felt that getting heat for destroying his phone wouldn't be as bad as getting heat for what was actually on the phone
I'm not turning over my PRIVATE cell phone just so that some league investigator can take a peak at some selective messages.
Sorry, but I'd do the same whether I was guilty or not, doubly so if I was a celebrity / public figure.
We'll see them in Federal court, things should get interesting.
Yeah... there's a number of reasons I'd destroy my cell phone rather than let it be analyzed by a third party. None of these reasons are related to deflating footballs.
And people wonder why the country hates the vast vast majority of Patriots fans...denial isn't a good look.
-
The statement from the league...
“On or shortly before March 6, the day that Tom Brady met with independent investigator Ted Wells and his colleagues, Brady directed that the cell phone he had used for the prior four months be destroyed,” the league statement read. “He did so even though he was aware that the investigators had requested access to text messages and other electronic information that had been stored on that phone. ?During the four months that the cell phone was in use, Brady had exchanged nearly 10,000 text messages, none of which can now be retrieved from that device. The destruction of the cell phone was not disclosed until June 18, almost four months after the investigators had first sought electronic information from Brady.”
This is really hurts Brady in my opinion...again, what he actually did isn't that big of a deal in terms of on the field help in winning games, but the optics of this are NOT good for Brady. For me this shows me that Brady had to choose the lesser of two evils...he obviously felt that getting heat for destroying his phone wouldn't be as bad as getting heat for what was actually on the phone
I'm not turning over my PRIVATE cell phone just so that some league investigator can take a peak at some selective messages.
Sorry, but I'd do the same whether I was guilty or not, doubly so if I was a celebrity / public figure.
We'll see them in Federal court, things should get interesting.
Listen, I'm as big of a Patriots fan as there is, but c'mon...how can anyone continue to think Brady isn't guilty here? Regardless of whether or not his phone is private, he instructed someone to destroy it either on the day or just before the day that Ted Wells spoke to him. It's one thing to not turn it over, but destroy it?...how can you not conclude from that that Brady is hiding something?
I now fear he was involved with the aaron hernandez killings. Hernandez did the same thing right?
-
The statement from the league...
“On or shortly before March 6, the day that Tom Brady met with independent investigator Ted Wells and his colleagues, Brady directed that the cell phone he had used for the prior four months be destroyed,” the league statement read. “He did so even though he was aware that the investigators had requested access to text messages and other electronic information that had been stored on that phone. ?During the four months that the cell phone was in use, Brady had exchanged nearly 10,000 text messages, none of which can now be retrieved from that device. The destruction of the cell phone was not disclosed until June 18, almost four months after the investigators had first sought electronic information from Brady.”
This is really hurts Brady in my opinion...again, what he actually did isn't that big of a deal in terms of on the field help in winning games, but the optics of this are NOT good for Brady. For me this shows me that Brady had to choose the lesser of two evils...he obviously felt that getting heat for destroying his phone wouldn't be as bad as getting heat for what was actually on the phone
I'm not turning over my PRIVATE cell phone just so that some league investigator can take a peak at some selective messages.
Sorry, but I'd do the same whether I was guilty or not, doubly so if I was a celebrity / public figure.
We'll see them in Federal court, things should get interesting.
Yeah... there's a number of reasons I'd destroy my cell phone rather than let it be analyzed by a third party. None of these reasons are related to deflating footballs.
The thing is, he wasn't asked to turn over his phone. He was asked to have his lawyer provide printouts of text messages responsive to Wells' questions. There's a huge privacy difference there.
-
Both Goodell and Brady have doubled down.
Reportedly, Brady destroyed his cell phone (or ordered someone to) rather than hand it over.
I can't even react to this since it is coming from the NFL who have a really serious transparency issue. I'm content to wait and see what comes of things via courts.
-
The statement from the league...
“On or shortly before March 6, the day that Tom Brady met with independent investigator Ted Wells and his colleagues, Brady directed that the cell phone he had used for the prior four months be destroyed,” the league statement read. “He did so even though he was aware that the investigators had requested access to text messages and other electronic information that had been stored on that phone. ?During the four months that the cell phone was in use, Brady had exchanged nearly 10,000 text messages, none of which can now be retrieved from that device. The destruction of the cell phone was not disclosed until June 18, almost four months after the investigators had first sought electronic information from Brady.”
This is really hurts Brady in my opinion...again, what he actually did isn't that big of a deal in terms of on the field help in winning games, but the optics of this are NOT good for Brady. For me this shows me that Brady had to choose the lesser of two evils...he obviously felt that getting heat for destroying his phone wouldn't be as bad as getting heat for what was actually on the phone
I'm not turning over my PRIVATE cell phone just so that some league investigator can take a peak at some selective messages.
Sorry, but I'd do the same whether I was guilty or not, doubly so if I was a celebrity / public figure.
We'll see them in Federal court, things should get interesting.
Listen, I'm as big of a Patriots fan as there is, but c'mon...how can anyone continue to think Brady isn't guilty here? Regardless of whether or not his phone is private, he instructed someone to destroy it either on the day or just before the day that Ted Wells spoke to him. It's one thing to not turn it over, but destroy it?...how can you not conclude from that that Brady is hiding something?
I'm not a Patriots fan, in fact I hate them, so this has nothing to do with fandom. ALSO, in which part of my post did I mention that Brady was innocent? I didn't. I don't care for it. I only care about handing out punishment by the league because someone didn't care to hand over a PRIVATE cell phone. That's the issue here.
-
The statement from the league...
“On or shortly before March 6, the day that Tom Brady met with independent investigator Ted Wells and his colleagues, Brady directed that the cell phone he had used for the prior four months be destroyed,” the league statement read. “He did so even though he was aware that the investigators had requested access to text messages and other electronic information that had been stored on that phone. ?During the four months that the cell phone was in use, Brady had exchanged nearly 10,000 text messages, none of which can now be retrieved from that device. The destruction of the cell phone was not disclosed until June 18, almost four months after the investigators had first sought electronic information from Brady.”
This is really hurts Brady in my opinion...again, what he actually did isn't that big of a deal in terms of on the field help in winning games, but the optics of this are NOT good for Brady. For me this shows me that Brady had to choose the lesser of two evils...he obviously felt that getting heat for destroying his phone wouldn't be as bad as getting heat for what was actually on the phone
I'm not turning over my PRIVATE cell phone just so that some league investigator can take a peak at some selective messages.
Sorry, but I'd do the same whether I was guilty or not, doubly so if I was a celebrity / public figure.
We'll see them in Federal court, things should get interesting.
Yeah... there's a number of reasons I'd destroy my cell phone rather than let it be analyzed by a third party. None of these reasons are related to deflating footballs.
The thing is, he wasn't asked to turn over his phone. He was asked to have his lawyer provide printouts of text messages responsive to Wells' questions. There's a huge privacy difference there.
Unfortunately with all of this we don't know what really happened. Did Wells really even make that offer? It makes no sense to make that kind of offer. There has been so much misinformation on all sides of this that I don't know how we can accept any parts as truth. I hope it goes to court just so everything is in the open and clear. So sick of the leaks, reports, false information etc.
-
The statement from the league...
“On or shortly before March 6, the day that Tom Brady met with independent investigator Ted Wells and his colleagues, Brady directed that the cell phone he had used for the prior four months be destroyed,” the league statement read. “He did so even though he was aware that the investigators had requested access to text messages and other electronic information that had been stored on that phone. ?During the four months that the cell phone was in use, Brady had exchanged nearly 10,000 text messages, none of which can now be retrieved from that device. The destruction of the cell phone was not disclosed until June 18, almost four months after the investigators had first sought electronic information from Brady.”
This is really hurts Brady in my opinion...again, what he actually did isn't that big of a deal in terms of on the field help in winning games, but the optics of this are NOT good for Brady. For me this shows me that Brady had to choose the lesser of two evils...he obviously felt that getting heat for destroying his phone wouldn't be as bad as getting heat for what was actually on the phone
I'm not turning over my PRIVATE cell phone just so that some league investigator can take a peak at some selective messages.
Sorry, but I'd do the same whether I was guilty or not, doubly so if I was a celebrity / public figure.
We'll see them in Federal court, things should get interesting.
Listen, I'm as big of a Patriots fan as there is, but c'mon...how can anyone continue to think Brady isn't guilty here? Regardless of whether or not his phone is private, he instructed someone to destroy it either on the day or just before the day that Ted Wells spoke to him. It's one thing to not turn it over, but destroy it?...how can you not conclude from that that Brady is hiding something?
I'm not a Patriots fan, in fact I hate them, so this has nothing to do with fandom. ALSO, in which part of my post did I mention that Brady was innocent? I didn't. I don't care for it. I only care about handing out punishment by the league because someone didn't care to hand over a PRIVATE cell phone. That's the issue here.
You keep saying private cell phone...HE WASN'T ASKED TO TURN OVER HIS PHONE. He was asked to turn over individual texts that he felt related to the investigation
-
The statement from the league...
“On or shortly before March 6, the day that Tom Brady met with independent investigator Ted Wells and his colleagues, Brady directed that the cell phone he had used for the prior four months be destroyed,” the league statement read. “He did so even though he was aware that the investigators had requested access to text messages and other electronic information that had been stored on that phone. ?During the four months that the cell phone was in use, Brady had exchanged nearly 10,000 text messages, none of which can now be retrieved from that device. The destruction of the cell phone was not disclosed until June 18, almost four months after the investigators had first sought electronic information from Brady.”
This is really hurts Brady in my opinion...again, what he actually did isn't that big of a deal in terms of on the field help in winning games, but the optics of this are NOT good for Brady. For me this shows me that Brady had to choose the lesser of two evils...he obviously felt that getting heat for destroying his phone wouldn't be as bad as getting heat for what was actually on the phone
I'm not turning over my PRIVATE cell phone just so that some league investigator can take a peak at some selective messages.
Sorry, but I'd do the same whether I was guilty or not, doubly so if I was a celebrity / public figure.
We'll see them in Federal court, things should get interesting.
Yeah... there's a number of reasons I'd destroy my cell phone rather than let it be analyzed by a third party. None of these reasons are related to deflating footballs.
The thing is, he wasn't asked to turn over his phone. He was asked to have his lawyer provide printouts of text messages responsive to Wells' questions. There's a huge privacy difference there.
That changes things a bit, but not all that much. Privacy is privacy, unless judge subpoena is in effect.
-
So is he being suspended for deflating the football or failing to cooperate with the NFL? Seems to me that the original suspension was for the alleged deflations, but RG's team decided that it would have too tough of a time proving that in court and is now shifting the argument to "he didn't play nicely in the sandbox with us."
Mike
-
The statement from the league...
“On or shortly before March 6, the day that Tom Brady met with independent investigator Ted Wells and his colleagues, Brady directed that the cell phone he had used for the prior four months be destroyed,” the league statement read. “He did so even though he was aware that the investigators had requested access to text messages and other electronic information that had been stored on that phone. ?During the four months that the cell phone was in use, Brady had exchanged nearly 10,000 text messages, none of which can now be retrieved from that device. The destruction of the cell phone was not disclosed until June 18, almost four months after the investigators had first sought electronic information from Brady.”
This is really hurts Brady in my opinion...again, what he actually did isn't that big of a deal in terms of on the field help in winning games, but the optics of this are NOT good for Brady. For me this shows me that Brady had to choose the lesser of two evils...he obviously felt that getting heat for destroying his phone wouldn't be as bad as getting heat for what was actually on the phone
I'm not turning over my PRIVATE cell phone just so that some league investigator can take a peak at some selective messages.
Sorry, but I'd do the same whether I was guilty or not, doubly so if I was a celebrity / public figure.
We'll see them in Federal court, things should get interesting.
Yeah... there's a number of reasons I'd destroy my cell phone rather than let it be analyzed by a third party. None of these reasons are related to deflating footballs.
The thing is, he wasn't asked to turn over his phone. He was asked to have his lawyer provide printouts of text messages responsive to Wells' questions. There's a huge privacy difference there.
Unfortunately with all of this we don't know what really happened. Did Wells really even make that offer? It makes no sense to make that kind of offer. There has been so much misinformation on all sides of this that I don't know how we can accept any parts as truth. I hope it goes to court just so everything is in the open and clear. So sick of the leaks, reports, false information etc.
Keep in mind that Ted Wells is a member of the Bar. He's talking about conversations he had with Brady's attorney. If he's lying, he could face discipline with the Bar. I seriously doubt that he's making it up; if he were, I'm sure Brady's attorney would dispute it.
Offers like this happen all the time in litigation. You ask for something, and then the other side provides something responsive. For instance, when I request email correspondence in a divorce case, I don't get the other side's hard drive or password to their email account. Rather, the attorney prints out all emails that I have requested, after going through them and making sure there is nothing that can't be turned over in there.
-
The statement from the league...
“On or shortly before March 6, the day that Tom Brady met with independent investigator Ted Wells and his colleagues, Brady directed that the cell phone he had used for the prior four months be destroyed,” the league statement read. “He did so even though he was aware that the investigators had requested access to text messages and other electronic information that had been stored on that phone. ?During the four months that the cell phone was in use, Brady had exchanged nearly 10,000 text messages, none of which can now be retrieved from that device. The destruction of the cell phone was not disclosed until June 18, almost four months after the investigators had first sought electronic information from Brady.”
This is really hurts Brady in my opinion...again, what he actually did isn't that big of a deal in terms of on the field help in winning games, but the optics of this are NOT good for Brady. For me this shows me that Brady had to choose the lesser of two evils...he obviously felt that getting heat for destroying his phone wouldn't be as bad as getting heat for what was actually on the phone
I'm not turning over my PRIVATE cell phone just so that some league investigator can take a peak at some selective messages.
Sorry, but I'd do the same whether I was guilty or not, doubly so if I was a celebrity / public figure.
We'll see them in Federal court, things should get interesting.
Listen, I'm as big of a Patriots fan as there is, but c'mon...how can anyone continue to think Brady isn't guilty here? Regardless of whether or not his phone is private, he instructed someone to destroy it either on the day or just before the day that Ted Wells spoke to him. It's one thing to not turn it over, but destroy it?...how can you not conclude from that that Brady is hiding something?
I'm not a Patriots fan, in fact I hate them, so this has nothing to do with fandom. ALSO, in which part of my post did I mention that Brady was innocent? I didn't. I don't care for it. I only care about handing out punishment by the league because someone didn't care to hand over a PRIVATE cell phone. That's the issue here.
You keep saying private cell phone...HE WASN'T ASKED TO TURN OVER HIS PHONE. He was asked to turn over individual texts that he felt related to the investigation
Just the same, even in this minor scope, I'm not going to debilitate my privacy. If destroying personal belongings is the way to preserve my right to privacy, I'll go ahead and do it regardless of guilt or not.
-
The statement from the league...
“On or shortly before March 6, the day that Tom Brady met with independent investigator Ted Wells and his colleagues, Brady directed that the cell phone he had used for the prior four months be destroyed,” the league statement read. “He did so even though he was aware that the investigators had requested access to text messages and other electronic information that had been stored on that phone. ?During the four months that the cell phone was in use, Brady had exchanged nearly 10,000 text messages, none of which can now be retrieved from that device. The destruction of the cell phone was not disclosed until June 18, almost four months after the investigators had first sought electronic information from Brady.”
This is really hurts Brady in my opinion...again, what he actually did isn't that big of a deal in terms of on the field help in winning games, but the optics of this are NOT good for Brady. For me this shows me that Brady had to choose the lesser of two evils...he obviously felt that getting heat for destroying his phone wouldn't be as bad as getting heat for what was actually on the phone
The NFL's report is very strongly worded to conclusively place blame on Brady. Why does the NFL need the phone?
-
The thing is, he wasn't asked to turn over his phone. He was asked to have his lawyer provide printouts of text messages responsive to Wells' questions. There's a huge privacy difference there.
I'm still not sure what's on Brady's phone that couldn't be seen on McNally's and Jastremski's phones.
-
The statement from the league...
“On or shortly before March 6, the day that Tom Brady met with independent investigator Ted Wells and his colleagues, Brady directed that the cell phone he had used for the prior four months be destroyed,” the league statement read. “He did so even though he was aware that the investigators had requested access to text messages and other electronic information that had been stored on that phone. ?During the four months that the cell phone was in use, Brady had exchanged nearly 10,000 text messages, none of which can now be retrieved from that device. The destruction of the cell phone was not disclosed until June 18, almost four months after the investigators had first sought electronic information from Brady.”
This is really hurts Brady in my opinion...again, what he actually did isn't that big of a deal in terms of on the field help in winning games, but the optics of this are NOT good for Brady. For me this shows me that Brady had to choose the lesser of two evils...he obviously felt that getting heat for destroying his phone wouldn't be as bad as getting heat for what was actually on the phone
I'm not turning over my PRIVATE cell phone just so that some league investigator can take a peak at some selective messages.
Sorry, but I'd do the same whether I was guilty or not, doubly so if I was a celebrity / public figure.
We'll see them in Federal court, things should get interesting.
Yeah... there's a number of reasons I'd destroy my cell phone rather than let it be analyzed by a third party. None of these reasons are related to deflating footballs.
The thing is, he wasn't asked to turn over his phone. He was asked to have his lawyer provide printouts of text messages responsive to Wells' questions. There's a huge privacy difference there.
Unfortunately with all of this we don't know what really happened. Did Wells really even make that offer? It makes no sense to make that kind of offer. There has been so much misinformation on all sides of this that I don't know how we can accept any parts as truth. I hope it goes to court just so everything is in the open and clear. So sick of the leaks, reports, false information etc.
Keep in mind that Ted Wells is a member of the Bar. He's talking about conversations he had with Brady's attorney. If he's lying, he could face discipline with the Bar. I seriously doubt that he's making it up; if he were, I'm sure Brady's attorney would dispute it.
Offers like this happen all the time in litigation. You ask for something, and then the other side provides something responsive. For instance, when I request email correspondence in a divorce case, I don't get the other side's hard drive or password to their email account. Rather, the attorney prints out all emails that I have requested, after going through them and making sure there is nothing that can't be turned over in there.
That helps some with clarification. Can Wells face disbarment for anything else he has done related to this? His report certainly does not seem on the up and up.
-
First off I am a diehard Pats fan.
The phone destruction thing seems really bad. Would Brady really destroy his phone if the only thing on there was admission of him doctoring balls? A practice that a lot of Qbs around the league do? If he was willing to destroy his phone then I'm wondering if there was something worse on there.
Then again a player with the competitive streak like Tom Brady is unlikely to accept a loss, even if refusing to accept it makes things much worse for him.
This whole thing really seems like the NFL was out to get Brady and the Patriots. In the Ray Rice case the NFL did everything they could to sweep it under the rug, including not searching out a security feed that TMZ was able to get. Yet when it comes down to the practice of deflating footballs that other qbs have admitted to doing they hire as many investigators as they can?
Regardless of what happens in this case, the NFL needs to come up with a uniform set of guidelines to deal with suspension issues, because right now it seems like they are making up the rules as they go along which is hardly fair.
-
I was one of Brady's biggest defenders. If in fact he destroyed his phone, I feel like a complete fool who was played. It really would reflect very poorly on his character. Will refrain from final judgment until all the facts are in, but this looks bad.
-
The statement from the league...
“On or shortly before March 6, the day that Tom Brady met with independent investigator Ted Wells and his colleagues, Brady directed that the cell phone he had used for the prior four months be destroyed,” the league statement read. “He did so even though he was aware that the investigators had requested access to text messages and other electronic information that had been stored on that phone. ?During the four months that the cell phone was in use, Brady had exchanged nearly 10,000 text messages, none of which can now be retrieved from that device. The destruction of the cell phone was not disclosed until June 18, almost four months after the investigators had first sought electronic information from Brady.”
This is really hurts Brady in my opinion...again, what he actually did isn't that big of a deal in terms of on the field help in winning games, but the optics of this are NOT good for Brady. For me this shows me that Brady had to choose the lesser of two evils...he obviously felt that getting heat for destroying his phone wouldn't be as bad as getting heat for what was actually on the phone
I'm not turning over my PRIVATE cell phone just so that some league investigator can take a peak at some selective messages.
Sorry, but I'd do the same whether I was guilty or not, doubly so if I was a celebrity / public figure.
We'll see them in Federal court, things should get interesting.
Listen, I'm as big of a Patriots fan as there is, but c'mon...how can anyone continue to think Brady isn't guilty here? Regardless of whether or not his phone is private, he instructed someone to destroy it either on the day or just before the day that Ted Wells spoke to him. It's one thing to not turn it over, but destroy it?...how can you not conclude from that that Brady is hiding something?
I'm not a Patriots fan, in fact I hate them, so this has nothing to do with fandom. ALSO, in which part of my post did I mention that Brady was innocent? I didn't. I don't care for it. I only care about handing out punishment by the league because someone didn't care to hand over a PRIVATE cell phone. That's the issue here.
You keep saying private cell phone...HE WASN'T ASKED TO TURN OVER HIS PHONE. He was asked to turn over individual texts that he felt related to the investigation
Just the same, even in this minor scope, I'm not going to debilitate my privacy. If destroying personal belongings is the way to preserve my right to privacy, I'll go ahead and do it regardless of guilt or not.
And that's fine. But all the NFL can do is put pieces together. And from their view, they see that the guy who is in the middle of this, the guy who was to be questioned by investigators, not just denied giving his phone, but he had it destroyed the same day he was to be interviewed...what else is the league supposed to think?
-
I was one of Brady's biggest defenders. If in fact he destroyed his phone, I feel like a complete fool who was played. It really would reflect very poorly on his character. Will refrain from final judgment until all the facts are in, but this looks bad.
I am probably in the same boat. However, a stupid question for me related to technology. Wouldn't these messages still be on the other's guys phones? Also aren't these messages still stored in the cloud or available through subpoena? I didn't really think destroying a phone did anything.
-
The statement from the league...
“On or shortly before March 6, the day that Tom Brady met with independent investigator Ted Wells and his colleagues, Brady directed that the cell phone he had used for the prior four months be destroyed,” the league statement read. “He did so even though he was aware that the investigators had requested access to text messages and other electronic information that had been stored on that phone. ?During the four months that the cell phone was in use, Brady had exchanged nearly 10,000 text messages, none of which can now be retrieved from that device. The destruction of the cell phone was not disclosed until June 18, almost four months after the investigators had first sought electronic information from Brady.”
This is really hurts Brady in my opinion...again, what he actually did isn't that big of a deal in terms of on the field help in winning games, but the optics of this are NOT good for Brady. For me this shows me that Brady had to choose the lesser of two evils...he obviously felt that getting heat for destroying his phone wouldn't be as bad as getting heat for what was actually on the phone
I'm not turning over my PRIVATE cell phone just so that some league investigator can take a peak at some selective messages.
Sorry, but I'd do the same whether I was guilty or not, doubly so if I was a celebrity / public figure.
We'll see them in Federal court, things should get interesting.
Listen, I'm as big of a Patriots fan as there is, but c'mon...how can anyone continue to think Brady isn't guilty here? Regardless of whether or not his phone is private, he instructed someone to destroy it either on the day or just before the day that Ted Wells spoke to him. It's one thing to not turn it over, but destroy it?...how can you not conclude from that that Brady is hiding something?
I'm not a Patriots fan, in fact I hate them, so this has nothing to do with fandom. ALSO, in which part of my post did I mention that Brady was innocent? I didn't. I don't care for it. I only care about handing out punishment by the league because someone didn't care to hand over a PRIVATE cell phone. That's the issue here.
You keep saying private cell phone...HE WASN'T ASKED TO TURN OVER HIS PHONE. He was asked to turn over individual texts that he felt related to the investigation
Just the same, even in this minor scope, I'm not going to debilitate my privacy. If destroying personal belongings is the way to preserve my right to privacy, I'll go ahead and do it regardless of guilt or not.
And that's fine. But all the NFL can do is put pieces together. And from their view, they see that the guy who is in the middle of this, the guy who was to be questioned by investigators, not just denied giving his phone, but he had it destroyed the same day he was to be interviewed...what else is the league supposed to think?
Not sure, but I'd think someone values his privacy.
This whole cell phone business is a complete red herring from Goodell... a complete distraction to anything of real relevance. Trying to get popular opinion on their side.
It's dirty politics.
Once this goes to court, we'll see how much this is a factor... it won't be.
-
The statement from the league...
“On or shortly before March 6, the day that Tom Brady met with independent investigator Ted Wells and his colleagues, Brady directed that the cell phone he had used for the prior four months be destroyed,” the league statement read. “He did so even though he was aware that the investigators had requested access to text messages and other electronic information that had been stored on that phone. ?During the four months that the cell phone was in use, Brady had exchanged nearly 10,000 text messages, none of which can now be retrieved from that device. The destruction of the cell phone was not disclosed until June 18, almost four months after the investigators had first sought electronic information from Brady.”
This is really hurts Brady in my opinion...again, what he actually did isn't that big of a deal in terms of on the field help in winning games, but the optics of this are NOT good for Brady. For me this shows me that Brady had to choose the lesser of two evils...he obviously felt that getting heat for destroying his phone wouldn't be as bad as getting heat for what was actually on the phone
I'm not turning over my PRIVATE cell phone just so that some league investigator can take a peak at some selective messages.
Sorry, but I'd do the same whether I was guilty or not, doubly so if I was a celebrity / public figure.
We'll see them in Federal court, things should get interesting.
Listen, I'm as big of a Patriots fan as there is, but c'mon...how can anyone continue to think Brady isn't guilty here? Regardless of whether or not his phone is private, he instructed someone to destroy it either on the day or just before the day that Ted Wells spoke to him. It's one thing to not turn it over, but destroy it?...how can you not conclude from that that Brady is hiding something?
I'm not a Patriots fan, in fact I hate them, so this has nothing to do with fandom. ALSO, in which part of my post did I mention that Brady was innocent? I didn't. I don't care for it. I only care about handing out punishment by the league because someone didn't care to hand over a PRIVATE cell phone. That's the issue here.
You keep saying private cell phone...HE WASN'T ASKED TO TURN OVER HIS PHONE. He was asked to turn over individual texts that he felt related to the investigation
Just the same, even in this minor scope, I'm not going to debilitate my privacy. If destroying personal belongings is the way to preserve my right to privacy, I'll go ahead and do it regardless of guilt or not.
And that's fine. But all the NFL can do is put pieces together. And from their view, they see that the guy who is in the middle of this, the guy who was to be questioned by investigators, not just denied giving his phone, but he had it destroyed the same day he was to be interviewed...what else is the league supposed to think?
Not sure, but I'd think someone values his privacy.
This whole cell phone business is a complete red herring from Goodell... a complete distraction to anything of real relevance. Trying to get popular opinion on their side.
It's dirty politics.
Once this goes to court, we'll see how much this is a factor... it won't be.
So then just don't turn over the phone...but he didn't just keep it in his pocket, he had his assistant destroy it. There's privacy, and then there's covering something up.
-
Aaron Hernandez could have told him that was a bad idea.
w/e. It's July and we've got to fill the 30-ish hours before training camp.
-
The statement from the league...
“On or shortly before March 6, the day that Tom Brady met with independent investigator Ted Wells and his colleagues, Brady directed that the cell phone he had used for the prior four months be destroyed,” the league statement read. “He did so even though he was aware that the investigators had requested access to text messages and other electronic information that had been stored on that phone. ?During the four months that the cell phone was in use, Brady had exchanged nearly 10,000 text messages, none of which can now be retrieved from that device. The destruction of the cell phone was not disclosed until June 18, almost four months after the investigators had first sought electronic information from Brady.”
This is really hurts Brady in my opinion...again, what he actually did isn't that big of a deal in terms of on the field help in winning games, but the optics of this are NOT good for Brady. For me this shows me that Brady had to choose the lesser of two evils...he obviously felt that getting heat for destroying his phone wouldn't be as bad as getting heat for what was actually on the phone
I'm not turning over my PRIVATE cell phone just so that some league investigator can take a peak at some selective messages.
Sorry, but I'd do the same whether I was guilty or not, doubly so if I was a celebrity / public figure.
We'll see them in Federal court, things should get interesting.
Listen, I'm as big of a Patriots fan as there is, but c'mon...how can anyone continue to think Brady isn't guilty here? Regardless of whether or not his phone is private, he instructed someone to destroy it either on the day or just before the day that Ted Wells spoke to him. It's one thing to not turn it over, but destroy it?...how can you not conclude from that that Brady is hiding something?
I'm not a Patriots fan, in fact I hate them, so this has nothing to do with fandom. ALSO, in which part of my post did I mention that Brady was innocent? I didn't. I don't care for it. I only care about handing out punishment by the league because someone didn't care to hand over a PRIVATE cell phone. That's the issue here.
You keep saying private cell phone...HE WASN'T ASKED TO TURN OVER HIS PHONE. He was asked to turn over individual texts that he felt related to the investigation
Just the same, even in this minor scope, I'm not going to debilitate my privacy. If destroying personal belongings is the way to preserve my right to privacy, I'll go ahead and do it regardless of guilt or not.
And that's fine. But all the NFL can do is put pieces together. And from their view, they see that the guy who is in the middle of this, the guy who was to be questioned by investigators, not just denied giving his phone, but he had it destroyed the same day he was to be interviewed...what else is the league supposed to think?
Not sure, but I'd think someone values his privacy.
This whole cell phone business is a complete red herring from Goodell... a complete distraction to anything of real relevance. Trying to get popular opinion on their side.
It's dirty politics.
Once this goes to court, we'll see how much this is a factor... it won't be.
So then just don't turn over the phone...but he didn't just keep it in his pocket, he had his assistant destroy it. There's privacy, and then there's covering something up.
I for one destroy all my phones when I'm done with them.
And I don't know what can of worms I'm opening just for this simple allowance, better I nip things in the bud and roll with it.
-
I could go for destroying a beer right about now
-
So is he being suspended for deflating the football or failing to cooperate with the NFL? Seems to me that the original suspension was for the alleged deflations, but RG's team decided that it would have too tough of a time proving that in court and is now shifting the argument to "he didn't play nicely in the sandbox with us."
Mike
Pretty much.
Look, I know that much of the country hates the Patriots, and that I'm a biased Patriots fan (though I do think that Brady knew what was going on), but this has been nothing but a witch hunt from the beginning. When the NFL simply issues a warning for one minor infraction (heating balls on the sidelines, on national TV) but drops the hammer for another, the league has no credibility in my eyes.
-
And now this..
Scott Soshnick
?@soshnick
BREAKING: @NFL asks federal court to confirm Tom Brady suspension. Complaint filed in Manhattan #sportsbiz #NFL #preemptivestrike
-
And now this..
Scott Soshnick
?@soshnick
BREAKING: @NFL asks federal court to confirm Tom Brady suspension. Complaint filed in Manhattan #sportsbiz #NFL #preemptivestrike
This means the NFL is asking for a ruling before Brady can even file an appeal? Is this just flexing muscles?
-
The statement from the league...
“On or shortly before March 6, the day that Tom Brady met with independent investigator Ted Wells and his colleagues, Brady directed that the cell phone he had used for the prior four months be destroyed,” the league statement read. “He did so even though he was aware that the investigators had requested access to text messages and other electronic information that had been stored on that phone. ?During the four months that the cell phone was in use, Brady had exchanged nearly 10,000 text messages, none of which can now be retrieved from that device. The destruction of the cell phone was not disclosed until June 18, almost four months after the investigators had first sought electronic information from Brady.”
This is really hurts Brady in my opinion...again, what he actually did isn't that big of a deal in terms of on the field help in winning games, but the optics of this are NOT good for Brady. For me this shows me that Brady had to choose the lesser of two evils...he obviously felt that getting heat for destroying his phone wouldn't be as bad as getting heat for what was actually on the phone
I'm not turning over my PRIVATE cell phone just so that some league investigator can take a peak at some selective messages.
Sorry, but I'd do the same whether I was guilty or not, doubly so if I was a celebrity / public figure.
We'll see them in Federal court, things should get interesting.
Listen, I'm as big of a Patriots fan as there is, but c'mon...how can anyone continue to think Brady isn't guilty here? Regardless of whether or not his phone is private, he instructed someone to destroy it either on the day or just before the day that Ted Wells spoke to him. It's one thing to not turn it over, but destroy it?...how can you not conclude from that that Brady is hiding something?
I'm not a Patriots fan, in fact I hate them, so this has nothing to do with fandom. ALSO, in which part of my post did I mention that Brady was innocent? I didn't. I don't care for it. I only care about handing out punishment by the league because someone didn't care to hand over a PRIVATE cell phone. That's the issue here.
You keep saying private cell phone...HE WASN'T ASKED TO TURN OVER HIS PHONE. He was asked to turn over individual texts that he felt related to the investigation
Just the same, even in this minor scope, I'm not going to debilitate my privacy. If destroying personal belongings is the way to preserve my right to privacy, I'll go ahead and do it regardless of guilt or not.
And that's fine. But all the NFL can do is put pieces together. And from their view, they see that the guy who is in the middle of this, the guy who was to be questioned by investigators, not just denied giving his phone, but he had it destroyed the same day he was to be interviewed...what else is the league supposed to think?
Not sure, but I'd think someone values his privacy.
This whole cell phone business is a complete red herring from Goodell... a complete distraction to anything of real relevance. Trying to get popular opinion on their side.
It's dirty politics.
Once this goes to court, we'll see how much this is a factor... it won't be.
So then just don't turn over the phone...but he didn't just keep it in his pocket, he had his assistant destroy it. There's privacy, and then there's covering something up.
I for one destroy all my phones when I'm done with them.
And I don't know what can of worms I'm opening just for this simple allowance, better I nip things in the bud and roll with it.
But to do it THE DAY you're being interviewed in a league investigation?...that's a little too convenient for me, for a lot of people, and apparently for the league too.
-
But to do it THE DAY you're being interviewed in a league investigation?...that's a little too convenient for me, for a lot of people, and apparently for the league too.
The fact is they don't know when it was destroyed, hence the "on or before" moniker.
-
And now this..
Scott Soshnick
?@soshnick
BREAKING: @NFL asks federal court to confirm Tom Brady suspension. Complaint filed in Manhattan #sportsbiz #NFL #preemptivestrike
This means the NFL is asking for a ruling before Brady can even file an appeal? Is this just flexing muscles?
Probably choosing courts. I believe the NFLPA normally files in Minneapolis, where they've had success with a judge or two.
-
And now this..
Scott Soshnick
?@soshnick
BREAKING: @NFL asks federal court to confirm Tom Brady suspension. Complaint filed in Manhattan #sportsbiz #NFL #preemptivestrike
This means the NFL is asking for a ruling before Brady can even file an appeal? Is this just flexing muscles?
Probably choosing courts. I believe the NFLPA normally files in Minneapolis, where they've had success with a judge or two.
Agreed. NY court more likely to confirm arbitration finding than MN or MA court. NFLPA or Brady can still file in one of those courts, but will get consolidated into a single action. Leave it for the litigators to decide which court will get to hear it.
-
As bad as this looks for Brady, the one thing the Patriots and Pats fans need to hang their hat on is that Belichick hasn't been involved in this at all.
Stephen A. Smith was right about this, so let's assume he's right about other things he said today...he implied that the reason Bob Kraft ultimately accepted the team penalties for this was because he didn't want the league to investigate further and find out if Bill Belichick had anything to do with this. Part of the deal for Belichick's punishment with spygate was that if he were to ever be implicated in another kind of cheating scandal again, he could be banished from the league. And what's worse? Losing the quarterback for 4 games, or the coach for a year, maybe even forever?
Given how much control Belichick has of the franchise, how the common joke is that nobody goes to the bathroom in Gillette stadium without him knowing about it?...and yet he didn't know about the deflation of footballs?...As much as it sucks that this is happening to Brady, there's the chance that it could've been ALOT worse. The stain on the franchise because of spygate is at least arguable...if Belichick gets implicated in deflategate too, well then that unequivocally puts an asterisk and stain on the entire Belichick era Patriot legacy
-
And now this..
Scott Soshnick
?@soshnick
BREAKING: @NFL asks federal court to confirm Tom Brady suspension. Complaint filed in Manhattan #sportsbiz #NFL #preemptivestrike
This means the NFL is asking for a ruling before Brady can even file an appeal? Is this just flexing muscles?
Probably choosing courts. I believe the NFLPA normally files in Minneapolis, where they've had success with a judge or two.
Agreed. NY court more likely to confirm arbitration finding than MN or MA court. NFLPA or Brady can still file in one of those courts, but will get consolidated into a single action. Leave it for the litigators to decide which court will get to hear it.
I'm not convinced anymore this even goes to court. The fact that Brady destroyed his phone GREATLY damages his chances of winning in court. He very well may end up missing 4 games.
-
And here we go...
Jim TrotterVerified account
?@JimTrotter_NFL
Tom Brady has authorized the NFLPA to appeal his case in federal court, per source.
-
And here go...
Jim TrotterVerified account
?@JimTrotter_NFL
Tom Brady has authorized the NFLPA to appeal his case in federal court, per source.
Awesome. I'm glad to see him go forward with this.
-
And now this..
Scott Soshnick
?@soshnick
BREAKING: @NFL asks federal court to confirm Tom Brady suspension. Complaint filed in Manhattan #sportsbiz #NFL #preemptivestrike
This means the NFL is asking for a ruling before Brady can even file an appeal? Is this just flexing muscles?
Probably choosing courts. I believe the NFLPA normally files in Minneapolis, where they've had success with a judge or two.
Agreed. NY court more likely to confirm arbitration finding than MN or MA court. NFLPA or Brady can still file in one of those courts, but will get consolidated into a single action. Leave it for the litigators to decide which court will get to hear it.
I'm not convinced anymore this even goes to court. The fact that Brady destroyed his phone GREATLY damages his chances of winning in court. He very well may end up missing 4 games.
Disagree. Let it play out. NFL wants everyone to believe Brady destroyed his phone the moment before he was about to be questioned. Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't. But the fact that the NFL botched all this from the start means you've got to take everything they say with a grain of salt.
-
And here go...
Jim TrotterVerified account
?@JimTrotter_NFL
Tom Brady has authorized the NFLPA to appeal his case in federal court, per source.
Awesome. I'm glad to see him go forward with this.
If he's going forward with this, all you can be glad about is that he's attempting to get back on the field. His legacy though is now permanently stained. The fact that he had his phone destroyed is a massive detail...even if he goes to court, wins, and gets this down to 0 games, Patriot haters can say "well you know why he won? Because they had no evidence because he destroyed his phone"
Now again, if you're saying awesome just because he's fighting to get back on the field, then sure. But fighting for his "legacy" is now a dead battle. It's over.
-
If he's going forward with this, all you can be glad about is that he's attempting to get back on the field. His legacy though is now permanently stained.
(http://www.bostonherald.com/sites/default/files/styles/full/public/media/2015/06/14/061415rings005.jpg?itok=ESiSXCfe&c=1a95d272bee1a554d2d7fdd9e483ec0e)
I'm sorry, I couldn't read your post because of the glare from Tom's rings.
-
If he's going forward with this, all you can be glad about is that he's attempting to get back on the field. His legacy though is now permanently stained.
(http://www.bostonherald.com/sites/default/files/styles/full/public/media/2015/06/14/061415rings005.jpg?itok=ESiSXCfe&c=1a95d272bee1a554d2d7fdd9e483ec0e)
I'm sorry, I couldn't read your post because of the glare from Tom's rings.
Hey man I'm with you, I'm all about that glare too...but the fact is, outside of the 6 and a half New England states, he's toast
-
If he's going forward with this, all you can be glad about is that he's attempting to get back on the field. His legacy though is now permanently stained.
(http://www.bostonherald.com/sites/default/files/styles/full/public/media/2015/06/14/061415rings005.jpg?itok=ESiSXCfe&c=1a95d272bee1a554d2d7fdd9e483ec0e)
I'm sorry, I couldn't read your post because of the glare from Tom's rings.
I still can't read your post... [dang] glare! I hate Tom Brady!
-
And now this..
Scott Soshnick
?@soshnick
BREAKING: @NFL asks federal court to confirm Tom Brady suspension. Complaint filed in Manhattan #sportsbiz #NFL #preemptivestrike
This means the NFL is asking for a ruling before Brady can even file an appeal? Is this just flexing muscles?
Probably choosing courts. I believe the NFLPA normally files in Minneapolis, where they've had success with a judge or two.
Agreed. NY court more likely to confirm arbitration finding than MN or MA court. NFLPA or Brady can still file in one of those courts, but will get consolidated into a single action. Leave it for the litigators to decide which court will get to hear it.
I'm not convinced anymore this even goes to court. The fact that Brady destroyed his phone GREATLY damages his chances of winning in court. He very well may end up missing 4 games.
I see this popping up a fair amount -- and it is completely wrong and misguided. Tom Brady (and every nfl player) has no obligation to maintain private property. In fact, it is against NO rule to destroy personal property. Add in that there is a very plausible reason why he would do this.
The federal court isn't going to deal with that kind of nonsense. It is irrelevant to the actual issues of the case (whether Goodell was justified in assigning discipline procedures to Troy Vincent (he wasn't); whether Goodell was a neutral arbiter (he's not); whether the NFL accurately measured the balls at halftime (the fact that they don't know what gauge was used suggests a problem with that procedure); and the failure to account for the ideal gas law are all issues that will be taken up in Federal Court. Not whether Tom Brady routinely (or not) destroys his personal property.
-
And now this..
Scott Soshnick
?@soshnick
BREAKING: @NFL asks federal court to confirm Tom Brady suspension. Complaint filed in Manhattan #sportsbiz #NFL #preemptivestrike
This means the NFL is asking for a ruling before Brady can even file an appeal? Is this just flexing muscles?
Probably choosing courts. I believe the NFLPA normally files in Minneapolis, where they've had success with a judge or two.
Agreed. NY court more likely to confirm arbitration finding than MN or MA court. NFLPA or Brady can still file in one of those courts, but will get consolidated into a single action. Leave it for the litigators to decide which court will get to hear it.
I'm not convinced anymore this even goes to court. The fact that Brady destroyed his phone GREATLY damages his chances of winning in court. He very well may end up missing 4 games.
I see this popping up a fair amount -- and it is completely wrong and misguided. Tom Brady (and every nfl player) has no obligation to maintain private property. In fact, it is against NO rule to destroy personal property. Add in that there is a very plausible reason why he would do this.
The federal court isn't going to deal with that kind of nonsense. It is irrelevant to the actual issues of the case (whether Goodell was justified in assigning discipline procedures to Troy Vincent (he wasn't); whether Goodell was a neutral arbiter (he's not); whether the NFL accurately measured the balls at halftime (the fact that they don't know what gauge was used suggests a problem with that procedure); and the failure to account for the ideal gas law are all issues that will be taken up in Federal Court. Not whether Tom Brady routinely (or not) destroys his personal property.
And that plausible reason is?
-
And now this..
Scott Soshnick
?@soshnick
BREAKING: @NFL asks federal court to confirm Tom Brady suspension. Complaint filed in Manhattan #sportsbiz #NFL #preemptivestrike
This means the NFL is asking for a ruling before Brady can even file an appeal? Is this just flexing muscles?
Probably choosing courts. I believe the NFLPA normally files in Minneapolis, where they've had success with a judge or two.
Agreed. NY court more likely to confirm arbitration finding than MN or MA court. NFLPA or Brady can still file in one of those courts, but will get consolidated into a single action. Leave it for the litigators to decide which court will get to hear it.
I'm not convinced anymore this even goes to court. The fact that Brady destroyed his phone GREATLY damages his chances of winning in court. He very well may end up missing 4 games.
I see this popping up a fair amount -- and it is completely wrong and misguided. Tom Brady (and every nfl player) has no obligation to maintain private property. In fact, it is against NO rule to destroy personal property. Add in that there is a very plausible reason why he would do this.
The federal court isn't going to deal with that kind of nonsense. It is irrelevant to the actual issues of the case (whether Goodell was justified in assigning discipline procedures to Troy Vincent (he wasn't); whether Goodell was a neutral arbiter (he's not); whether the NFL accurately measured the balls at halftime (the fact that they don't know what gauge was used suggests a problem with that procedure); and the failure to account for the ideal gas law are all issues that will be taken up in Federal Court. Not whether Tom Brady routinely (or not) destroys his personal property.
And that plausible reason is?
A desire to avoid any "leaked" pictures that may or may not be on his device from being sold to paparazzi. Destroying the sim card deletes any pictures. It's simple, and smart if you're a celebrity. His wife is one of the most famous women in the world. Do you think there is a possibility that either he or Gisele sent compromising pictures of themselves to the other? Doesn't it make sense to ensure that those don't get out? how many celebrity leaks do we have to see?
edit:of course, not to mention, if he was carrying on an affair (possible).
Or the less nefarious --- maybe this very private individual didn't want pictures of his kids being hacked. there are lots of reasons why I celebrity would opt for privacy.
-
And now this..
Scott Soshnick
?@soshnick
BREAKING: @NFL asks federal court to confirm Tom Brady suspension. Complaint filed in Manhattan #sportsbiz #NFL #preemptivestrike
This means the NFL is asking for a ruling before Brady can even file an appeal? Is this just flexing muscles?
Probably choosing courts. I believe the NFLPA normally files in Minneapolis, where they've had success with a judge or two.
Agreed. NY court more likely to confirm arbitration finding than MN or MA court. NFLPA or Brady can still file in one of those courts, but will get consolidated into a single action. Leave it for the litigators to decide which court will get to hear it.
I'm not convinced anymore this even goes to court. The fact that Brady destroyed his phone GREATLY damages his chances of winning in court. He very well may end up missing 4 games.
I see this popping up a fair amount -- and it is completely wrong and misguided. Tom Brady (and every nfl player) has no obligation to maintain private property. In fact, it is against NO rule to destroy personal property. Add in that there is a very plausible reason why he would do this.
The federal court isn't going to deal with that kind of nonsense. It is irrelevant to the actual issues of the case (whether Goodell was justified in assigning discipline procedures to Troy Vincent (he wasn't); whether Goodell was a neutral arbiter (he's not); whether the NFL accurately measured the balls at halftime (the fact that they don't know what gauge was used suggests a problem with that procedure); and the failure to account for the ideal gas law are all issues that will be taken up in Federal Court. Not whether Tom Brady routinely (or not) destroys his personal property.
And that plausible reason is?
I don't know what he was thinking, but I'll take a stab.
He got a new phone. People do that a lot. Phones have lots of personal data on them. Imagine you bought a second-hand phone and figured out it was Tom Brady's -- you could probably get a lot for it from someone trying to hack Brady (or Giselle, to be frank). You don't need the money, so selling one second hand isn't necessary, and you probably aren't under some contract where you have to return your phone. So sometime between February and June he got a new phone and thoroughly disposed of his own one.
Do I know this to be true? No. Is it plausible that a celebrity such as Tom Brady would go a step or two further than most of us do when switching phones? Yes.
-
And now this..
Scott Soshnick
?@soshnick
BREAKING: @NFL asks federal court to confirm Tom Brady suspension. Complaint filed in Manhattan #sportsbiz #NFL #preemptivestrike
This means the NFL is asking for a ruling before Brady can even file an appeal? Is this just flexing muscles?
Probably choosing courts. I believe the NFLPA normally files in Minneapolis, where they've had success with a judge or two.
Agreed. NY court more likely to confirm arbitration finding than MN or MA court. NFLPA or Brady can still file in one of those courts, but will get consolidated into a single action. Leave it for the litigators to decide which court will get to hear it.
I'm not convinced anymore this even goes to court. The fact that Brady destroyed his phone GREATLY damages his chances of winning in court. He very well may end up missing 4 games.
I see this popping up a fair amount -- and it is completely wrong and misguided. Tom Brady (and every nfl player) has no obligation to maintain private property. In fact, it is against NO rule to destroy personal property. Add in that there is a very plausible reason why he would do this.
The federal court isn't going to deal with that kind of nonsense. It is irrelevant to the actual issues of the case (whether Goodell was justified in assigning discipline procedures to Troy Vincent (he wasn't); whether Goodell was a neutral arbiter (he's not); whether the NFL accurately measured the balls at halftime (the fact that they don't know what gauge was used suggests a problem with that procedure); and the failure to account for the ideal gas law are all issues that will be taken up in Federal Court. Not whether Tom Brady routinely (or not) destroys his personal property.
And that plausible reason is?
I don't know what he was thinking, but I'll take a stab.
He got a new phone. People do that a lot. Phones have lots of personal data on them. Imagine you bought a second-hand phone and figured out it was Tom Brady's -- you could probably get a lot for it from someone trying to hack Brady (or Giselle, to be frank). You don't need the money, so selling one second hand isn't necessary, and you probably aren't under some contract where you have to return your phone. So sometime between February and June he got a new phone and thoroughly disposed of his own one.
Do I know this to be true? No. Is it plausible that a celebrity such as Tom Brady would go a step or two further than most of us do when switching phones? Yes.
Right. And ultimately, as I mentioned initially, it doesn't matter. This is a "sway the public opinion" fact, not a fact that is relevant to the appeal.
-
Statement from Tom Brady's agent, Don Yee:
"The Commissioner’s decision is deeply disappointing, but not surprising because the appeal process was thoroughly lacking in procedural fairness.
Most importantly, neither Tom nor the Patriots did anything wrong. And the NFL has no evidence that anything inappropriate occurred.
The appeal process was a sham, resulting in the Commissioner rubber-stamping his own decision. For example, the Wells investigative team was given over 100 days to conduct its investigation. Just days prior to the appeal hearing, we were notified that we would only have four hours to present a defense; therefore, we didn’t have enough time to examine important witnesses. Likewise, it was represented to the public that the Wells team was ‘independent’; however, when we requested documents from Wells, our request was rejected on the basis of privilege. We therefore had no idea as to what Wells found from other witnesses, nor did we know what those other witnesses said.
These are just two examples of how the Commissioner failed to ensure a fair process.
Additionally, the science in the Wells Report was junk. It has been thoroughly discredited by independent third parties.
Finally, as to the issue of cooperation, we presented the Commissioner with an unprecedented amount of electronic data, all of which is incontrovertible. I do not think that any private citizen would have agreed to provide anyone with the amount of information that Tom was willing to reveal to the Commissioner. Tom was completely transparent. All of the electronic information was ignored; we don’t know why. The extent to which Tom opened up his private life to the Commissioner will become clear in the coming days.
The Commissioner’s decision and discipline has no precedent in all of NFL history. His decision alters the competitive balance of the upcoming season. The decision is wrong and has no basis, and it diminishes the integrity of the game.”
-
And now this..
Scott Soshnick
?@soshnick
BREAKING: @NFL asks federal court to confirm Tom Brady suspension. Complaint filed in Manhattan #sportsbiz #NFL #preemptivestrike
This means the NFL is asking for a ruling before Brady can even file an appeal? Is this just flexing muscles?
Probably choosing courts. I believe the NFLPA normally files in Minneapolis, where they've had success with a judge or two.
Agreed. NY court more likely to confirm arbitration finding than MN or MA court. NFLPA or Brady can still file in one of those courts, but will get consolidated into a single action. Leave it for the litigators to decide which court will get to hear it.
I'm not convinced anymore this even goes to court. The fact that Brady destroyed his phone GREATLY damages his chances of winning in court. He very well may end up missing 4 games.
I see this popping up a fair amount -- and it is completely wrong and misguided. Tom Brady (and every nfl player) has no obligation to maintain private property. In fact, it is against NO rule to destroy personal property. Add in that there is a very plausible reason why he would do this.
The federal court isn't going to deal with that kind of nonsense. It is irrelevant to the actual issues of the case (whether Goodell was justified in assigning discipline procedures to Troy Vincent (he wasn't); whether Goodell was a neutral arbiter (he's not); whether the NFL accurately measured the balls at halftime (the fact that they don't know what gauge was used suggests a problem with that procedure); and the failure to account for the ideal gas law are all issues that will be taken up in Federal Court. Not whether Tom Brady routinely (or not) destroys his personal property.
And that plausible reason is?
A desire to avoid any "leaked" pictures that may or may not be on his device from being sold to paparazzi. Destroying the sim card deletes any pictures. It's simple, and smart if you're a celebrity. His wife is one of the most famous women in the world. Do you think there is a possibility that either he or Gisele sent compromising pictures of themselves to the other? Doesn't it make sense to ensure that those don't get out? how many celebrity leaks do we have to see?
edit:of course, not to mention, if he was carrying on an affair (possible).
Or the less nefarious --- maybe this very private individual didn't want pictures of his kids being hacked. there are lots of reasons why I celebrity would opt for privacy.
All the points are you're making are good ones...they're certainly plausible, just as plausible that Brady was hiding something with this investigation by doing it. There's no way around the fact that Brady willfully destroying his phone on the day or the few days leading up to the investigation is a terrible look...just like the team claiming the "deflator" texts were in regards to weight loss.
Again, I agree it's totally plausible that you could be right. But you also have to admit that it's also totally plausible he was trying to hide something. He knew his phone was going to be asked for...and instead of just saying no and keeping it in his pocket, he had it destroyed. The league has no other choice but to think there's something fishy about that.
-
If this thing actually goes the distance in court, its gonna get really nasty.
-
I thought I saw it mentioned that Brady was using his phone for 4 months before destroying it. So he not to recently bought the phone. Well, phones, for celebrities cost nothing and yet and can very damaging if the celebrity values his and his family's privacy. This is just a guess but I would think celebs get new phones and destroy the old phones very often, simply for privacy reasons.
Of course, knowing this, the NFL could have leaked the destroyed phone issue just to [dang] Brady some more in the court of public opinion.
-
Of course, knowing this, the NFL could have leaked the destroyed phone issue just to [dang] Brady some more in the court of public opinion.
But that doesn't sound like the NFL at all!
-
And now this..
Scott Soshnick
?@soshnick
BREAKING: @NFL asks federal court to confirm Tom Brady suspension. Complaint filed in Manhattan #sportsbiz #NFL #preemptivestrike
This means the NFL is asking for a ruling before Brady can even file an appeal? Is this just flexing muscles?
Probably choosing courts. I believe the NFLPA normally files in Minneapolis, where they've had success with a judge or two.
Agreed. NY court more likely to confirm arbitration finding than MN or MA court. NFLPA or Brady can still file in one of those courts, but will get consolidated into a single action. Leave it for the litigators to decide which court will get to hear it.
I'm not convinced anymore this even goes to court. The fact that Brady destroyed his phone GREATLY damages his chances of winning in court. He very well may end up missing 4 games.
I see this popping up a fair amount -- and it is completely wrong and misguided. Tom Brady (and every nfl player) has no obligation to maintain private property. In fact, it is against NO rule to destroy personal property. Add in that there is a very plausible reason why he would do this.
The federal court isn't going to deal with that kind of nonsense. It is irrelevant to the actual issues of the case (whether Goodell was justified in assigning discipline procedures to Troy Vincent (he wasn't); whether Goodell was a neutral arbiter (he's not); whether the NFL accurately measured the balls at halftime (the fact that they don't know what gauge was used suggests a problem with that procedure); and the failure to account for the ideal gas law are all issues that will be taken up in Federal Court. Not whether Tom Brady routinely (or not) destroys his personal property.
And that plausible reason is?
A desire to avoid any "leaked" pictures that may or may not be on his device from being sold to paparazzi. Destroying the sim card deletes any pictures. It's simple, and smart if you're a celebrity. His wife is one of the most famous women in the world. Do you think there is a possibility that either he or Gisele sent compromising pictures of themselves to the other? Doesn't it make sense to ensure that those don't get out? how many celebrity leaks do we have to see?
edit:of course, not to mention, if he was carrying on an affair (possible).
Or the less nefarious --- maybe this very private individual didn't want pictures of his kids being hacked. there are lots of reasons why I celebrity would opt for privacy.
According to the news report I saw, Brady said that whenever he gets a new phone he has the old one destroyed, although he could offer no explanation about why the phone he'd used before that one was never destroyed. Also, while it's reasonable to assume that he destroys old phones (I think it's extremely unlikely that he'd bother to sell his old cell phones) the timing of the phone's destruction looks pretty bad. "Pure coincidence" would be a pretty hard sell at this point in time.
-
Of course, knowing this, the NFL could have leaked the destroyed phone issue just to [dang] Brady some more in the court of public opinion.
Oh, no doubt. This league office is all about image and PR. Nearly every thing they do is with public perception in mind.
-
And now this..
Scott Soshnick
?@soshnick
BREAKING: @NFL asks federal court to confirm Tom Brady suspension. Complaint filed in Manhattan #sportsbiz #NFL #preemptivestrike
This means the NFL is asking for a ruling before Brady can even file an appeal? Is this just flexing muscles?
Probably choosing courts. I believe the NFLPA normally files in Minneapolis, where they've had success with a judge or two.
Agreed. NY court more likely to confirm arbitration finding than MN or MA court. NFLPA or Brady can still file in one of those courts, but will get consolidated into a single action. Leave it for the litigators to decide which court will get to hear it.
I'm not convinced anymore this even goes to court. The fact that Brady destroyed his phone GREATLY damages his chances of winning in court. He very well may end up missing 4 games.
I see this popping up a fair amount -- and it is completely wrong and misguided. Tom Brady (and every nfl player) has no obligation to maintain private property. In fact, it is against NO rule to destroy personal property. Add in that there is a very plausible reason why he would do this.
The federal court isn't going to deal with that kind of nonsense. It is irrelevant to the actual issues of the case (whether Goodell was justified in assigning discipline procedures to Troy Vincent (he wasn't); whether Goodell was a neutral arbiter (he's not); whether the NFL accurately measured the balls at halftime (the fact that they don't know what gauge was used suggests a problem with that procedure); and the failure to account for the ideal gas law are all issues that will be taken up in Federal Court. Not whether Tom Brady routinely (or not) destroys his personal property.
You'd have to wonder how long the case would take and when it would start. I'm not sure it would benefit the Pats to have the suspension take place near the end of the season or during the playoffs.
-
Here is a rundown of what may happen in federal court:
http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/07/27/tom-brady-nflpa-deflategate-suspension-federal-court
-
The statement from the league...
“On or shortly before March 6, the day that Tom Brady met with independent investigator Ted Wells and his colleagues, Brady directed that the cell phone he had used for the prior four months be destroyed,” the league statement read. “He did so even though he was aware that the investigators had requested access to text messages and other electronic information that had been stored on that phone. ?During the four months that the cell phone was in use, Brady had exchanged nearly 10,000 text messages, none of which can now be retrieved from that device. The destruction of the cell phone was not disclosed until June 18, almost four months after the investigators had first sought electronic information from Brady.”
This is really hurts Brady in my opinion...again, what he actually did isn't that big of a deal in terms of on the field help in winning games, but the optics of this are NOT good for Brady. For me this shows me that Brady had to choose the lesser of two evils...he obviously felt that getting heat for destroying his phone wouldn't be as bad as getting heat for what was actually on the phone
I'm not turning over my PRIVATE cell phone just so that some league investigator can take a peak at some selective messages.
Sorry, but I'd do the same whether I was guilty or not, doubly so if I was a celebrity / public figure.
We'll see them in Federal court, things should get interesting.
Yeah... there's a number of reasons I'd destroy my cell phone rather than let it be analyzed by a third party. None of these reasons are related to deflating footballs.
Brady supposedly texts a lot. I can easily imagine that there are texts he'd rather not get leaked and the the NFL's promise that his texts wouldn't get leaked is laughable. Besides, they had an air tight investigative report and the employees phones.
This is all back-pedaling because the Wells Report is so blatantly flawed that it looks like a frame job and credible researchers are calling them on it. Forget the science, the first thing you do in a statistical study is look at the completeness and accuracy of the data and you never, ever use the data from one source in a selective manner as they did with the chief referee. The guys who did the report aren't stupid, but hacks they are. They were told what conclusion to reach. It wasn't the first time that the firm put out a report like this that requires a informed reader to suspend belief.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/18/business/la-fi-toyota-exponent18-2010feb18When some of the world's best-known companies faced disputes over secondhand smoke, toxic waste in the jungle and asbestos, they all turned to the same source for a staunch defense: Exponent Inc.
Now that same engineering and consulting firm has been hired by Toyota Motor Corp. as it seeks to fend off claims that sudden acceleration in its vehicles could be caused by problems in its electronic throttle systems.
A 56-page report that Menlo Park, Calif.-based Exponent sent to Congress on Feb. 9 found that the system behaved as intended and that Exponent was "unable to induce . . . unintended acceleration or behavior that might be a precursor to such an event."
But Exponent's research has come under fire from critics, including engineers, attorneys and academics who say the company tends to deliver to clients the reports they need to mount a public defense.
"If I were Toyota, I wouldn't have picked somebody like Exponent to do analysis," said Stanton Glantz, a cardiologist at UC San Francisco who runs a database on the tobacco industry that contains thousands of pages of Exponent research arguing, among other things, that secondhand smoke does not cause cancer. "I would have picked a firm with more of a reputation of neutrality."
Mike Gaulke, executive chairman of Exponent and an employee of the company since 1992, called critiques that it produced only favorable research a "cheap shot."
"Do we tell our clients a lot of what they don't want to hear? Absolutely," Gaulke said.
He said the firm often comes up with results that don't favor clients, although he couldn't provide specific examples.
-
double post
-
People are STILL talking about this? Wow.
-
The statement from the league...
“On or shortly before March 6, the day that Tom Brady met with independent investigator Ted Wells and his colleagues, Brady directed that the cell phone he had used for the prior four months be destroyed,” the league statement read. “He did so even though he was aware that the investigators had requested access to text messages and other electronic information that had been stored on that phone. ?During the four months that the cell phone was in use, Brady had exchanged nearly 10,000 text messages, none of which can now be retrieved from that device. The destruction of the cell phone was not disclosed until June 18, almost four months after the investigators had first sought electronic information from Brady.”
This is really hurts Brady in my opinion...again, what he actually did isn't that big of a deal in terms of on the field help in winning games, but the optics of this are NOT good for Brady. For me this shows me that Brady had to choose the lesser of two evils...he obviously felt that getting heat for destroying his phone wouldn't be as bad as getting heat for what was actually on the phone
I'm not turning over my PRIVATE cell phone just so that some league investigator can take a peak at some selective messages.
Sorry, but I'd do the same whether I was guilty or not, doubly so if I was a celebrity / public figure.
We'll see them in Federal court, things should get interesting.
Yeah... there's a number of reasons I'd destroy my cell phone rather than let it be analyzed by a third party. None of these reasons are related to deflating footballs.
Brady supposedly texts a lot. I can easily imagine that there are texts he'd rather not get leaked and the the NFL's promise that his texts wouldn't get leaked is laughable. Besides, they had an air tight investigative report and the employees' phones.
This is all back-pedaling because the Wells Report is so blatantly flawed that it looks like a frame job and credible researchers are calling them on it. Forget the science, the first thing you do in a statistical study is look at the completeness and accuracy of the data and you never, ever use the data from one source in a selective manner as they did with the chief referee. The guys who did the report aren't stupid, but hacks they are. They were told what conclusion to reach. It wasn't the first time that the firm put out a report like this that requires a informed reader to suspend belief.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/18/business/la-fi-toyota-exponent18-2010feb18
When some of the world's best-known companies faced disputes over secondhand smoke, toxic waste in the jungle and asbestos, they all turned to the same source for a staunch defense: Exponent Inc.
Now that same engineering and consulting firm has been hired by Toyota Motor Corp. as it seeks to fend off claims that sudden acceleration in its vehicles could be caused by problems in its electronic throttle systems.
A 56-page report that Menlo Park, Calif.-based Exponent sent to Congress on Feb. 9 found that the system behaved as intended and that Exponent was "unable to induce . . . unintended acceleration or behavior that might be a precursor to such an event."
But Exponent's research has come under fire from critics, including engineers, attorneys and academics who say the company tends to deliver to clients the reports they need to mount a public defense.
"If I were Toyota, I wouldn't have picked somebody like Exponent to do analysis," said Stanton Glantz, a cardiologist at UC San Francisco who runs a database on the tobacco industry that contains thousands of pages of Exponent research arguing, among other things, that secondhand smoke does not cause cancer. "I would have picked a firm with more of a reputation of neutrality."
Mike Gaulke, executive chairman of Exponent and an employee of the company since 1992, called critiques that it produced only favorable research a "cheap shot."
"Do we tell our clients a lot of what they don't want to hear? Absolutely," Gaulke said.
He said the firm often comes up with results that don't favor clients, although he couldn't provide specific examples.
The bolded part you just quoted is my boss. He is about 100 feet away from me in his office right now.
-
People are STILL talking about this? Wow.
You do understand there was a rather significant development in this today, right? ::)
-
I'd love to give Brady the benefit of the doubt, but this privacy defense is garbage. He knew the NFL wanted the phone. He could have put it in a safe deposit box or with his attorney, to ensure safe keeping. To destroy it because that is what he normally does? Right before his giving testimony? Completely disingenuous. I feel like a big fool for being such a strong defender of his integrity and position throughout deflate gate. But this is the breaking point.
Very disillusioned here. And disappointed. There are no hero's in sports, it seems. Even Tom Brady destroys the evidence, and acts like it is a normal thing to do. I just won't buy that spin.
Worst part is I have to listen to the Mike Francessa's, the Dan Shaughnessy's, and the Ron Borges' blow hards say "I told you so, he cheated, and tried to cover it up."
Ughh.
-
I'd love to give Brady the benefit of the doubt, but this privacy defense is garbage. He knew the NFL wanted the phone. He could have put it in a safe deposit box or with his attorney, to ensure safe keeping. To destroy it because that is what he normally does? Right before his giving testimony? Completely disingenuous. I feel like a big fool for being such a strong defender of his integrity and position throughout deflate gate. But this is the breaking point.
Very disillusioned here. And disappointed. There are no hero's in sports, it seems. Even Tom Brady destroys the evidence, and acts like it is a normal thing to do. I just won't buy that spin.
Worst part is I have to listen to the Mike Francessa's, the Dan Shaughnessy's, and the Ron Borges' blow hards say "I told you so, he cheated, and tried to cover it up."
Ughh.
I partly feel this way, but also party feel that I can understand where Brady could be coming from. With the amount of leaks and misinformation that have come out of the NFL front office and the Ted Wells investigation I can see him being reluctant to trust them that information would not be leaked or taken out of context if he turned over his phone.
-
And the NFLPA response
?@NFLPA
#NFLPA Statement on Tom Brady's Four-Game Suspension: http://bit.ly/1OzTQhw
NFLPA STATEMENT ON TOM BRADY'S FOUR-GAME SUSPENSION
The Commissioner's ruling today did nothing to address the legal deficiencies of due process. The NFL remains stuck with the following facts:
The NFL had no policy that applied to players;
The NFL provided no notice of any such policy or potential discipline to players;
The NFL resorted to a nebulous standard of "general awareness" to predicate a legally unjustified punishment;
The NFL had no procedures in place until two days ago to test air pressure in footballs; and
The NFL violated the plain meaning of the collective bargaining agreement.
The fact that the NFL would resort to basing a suspension on a smoke screen of irrelevant text messages instead of admitting that they have all of the phone records they asked for is a new low, even for them, but it does nothing to correct their errors.
The NFLPA will appeal this outrageous decision on behalf of Tom Brady.
-
Supposedly NFLPA plans to file in Minnesota tomorrow per @RapSheet
-
And the NFLPA response
?@NFLPA
#NFLPA Statement on Tom Brady's Four-Game Suspension: http://bit.ly/1OzTQhw
NFLPA STATEMENT ON TOM BRADY'S FOUR-GAME SUSPENSION
The Commissioner's ruling today did nothing to address the legal deficiencies of due process. The NFL remains stuck with the following facts:
The NFL had no policy that applied to players;
The NFL provided no notice of any such policy or potential discipline to players;
The NFL resorted to a nebulous standard of "general awareness" to predicate a legally unjustified punishment;
The NFL had no procedures in place until two days ago to test air pressure in footballs; and
The NFL violated the plain meaning of the collective bargaining agreement.
The fact that the NFL would resort to basing a suspension on a smoke screen of irrelevant text messages instead of admitting that they have all of the phone records they asked for is a new low, even for them, but it does nothing to correct their errors.
The NFLPA will appeal this outrageous decision on behalf of Tom Brady.
!!!
-
And the NFLPA response
?@NFLPA
#NFLPA Statement on Tom Brady's Four-Game Suspension: http://bit.ly/1OzTQhw
NFLPA STATEMENT ON TOM BRADY'S FOUR-GAME SUSPENSION
The Commissioner's ruling today did nothing to address the legal deficiencies of due process. The NFL remains stuck with the following facts:
The NFL had no policy that applied to players;
The NFL provided no notice of any such policy or potential discipline to players;
The NFL resorted to a nebulous standard of "general awareness" to predicate a legally unjustified punishment;
The NFL had no procedures in place until two days ago to test air pressure in footballs; and
The NFL violated the plain meaning of the collective bargaining agreement.
The fact that the NFL would resort to basing a suspension on a smoke screen of irrelevant text messages instead of admitting that they have all of the phone records they asked for is a new low, even for them, but it does nothing to correct their errors.
The NFLPA will appeal this outrageous decision on behalf of Tom Brady.
!!!
Im going to say this. If I were famous and had famous friends and were married to Giselle, who might be more famous world wide than tom brady, and i had already given over relevant records, i would not want the leagur to have my physical phone. There are probably, at a minimum, photos of family, intimate texts, if not some, say, very private photos and texts that i would absolutley not tryst this bumbling league to not leak.
-
I'd love to give Brady the benefit of the doubt, but this privacy defense is garbage. He knew the NFL wanted the phone. He could have put it in a safe deposit box or with his attorney, to ensure safe keeping. To destroy it because that is what he normally does? Right before his giving testimony? Completely disingenuous. I feel like a big fool for being such a strong defender of his integrity and position throughout deflate gate. But this is the breaking point.
Very disillusioned here. And disappointed. There are no hero's in sports, it seems. Even Tom Brady destroys the evidence, and acts like it is a normal thing to do. I just won't buy that spin.
Worst part is I have to listen to the Mike Francessa's, the Dan Shaughnessy's, and the Ron Borges' blow hards say "I told you so, he cheated, and tried to cover it up."
Ughh.
Privacy is not a defense (he doesn't have to defend himself for doing what he wants with his private property), but a right. Whether it looks fishy or not shouldn't be of any consequence.
Sadly you've fallen for the NFL's propaganda game.
Again, this has nothing to do with guilt or not, but they've made you think that it's about that and in that sense they've won.
I personaly think Brady was part of DeflateGate, though I don't care for it, but I think it's time to focus on the relevance facts of due process and the court, and further than that our due Rights.
-
So on page 1 Goodell admits he levied the suspension. It's going to be hard for him to make the case for being an arbitrator of his own decision.
Oh, and Brady's attourneys submitted cell phone records from his carrier. This one is getting better and better.
https://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/07282015-final-decision-tom-brady-appeal.pdf
-
The statement from the league...
“On or shortly before March 6, the day that Tom Brady met with independent investigator Ted Wells and his colleagues, Brady directed that the cell phone he had used for the prior four months be destroyed,” the league statement read. “He did so even though he was aware that the investigators had requested access to text messages and other electronic information that had been stored on that phone. ?During the four months that the cell phone was in use, Brady had exchanged nearly 10,000 text messages, none of which can now be retrieved from that device. The destruction of the cell phone was not disclosed until June 18, almost four months after the investigators had first sought electronic information from Brady.”
This is really hurts Brady in my opinion...again, what he actually did isn't that big of a deal in terms of on the field help in winning games, but the optics of this are NOT good for Brady. For me this shows me that Brady had to choose the lesser of two evils...he obviously felt that getting heat for destroying his phone wouldn't be as bad as getting heat for what was actually on the phone
I'm not turning over my PRIVATE cell phone just so that some league investigator can take a peak at some selective messages.
Sorry, but I'd do the same whether I was guilty or not, doubly so if I was a celebrity / public figure.
We'll see them in Federal court, things should get interesting.
Yeah... there's a number of reasons I'd destroy my cell phone rather than let it be analyzed by a third party. None of these reasons are related to deflating footballs.
Brady supposedly texts a lot. I can easily imagine that there are texts he'd rather not get leaked and the the NFL's promise that his texts wouldn't get leaked is laughable. Besides, they had an air tight investigative report and the employees' phones.
This is all back-pedaling because the Wells Report is so blatantly flawed that it looks like a frame job and credible researchers are calling them on it. Forget the science, the first thing you do in a statistical study is look at the completeness and accuracy of the data and you never, ever use the data from one source in a selective manner as they did with the chief referee. The guys who did the report aren't stupid, but hacks they are. They were told what conclusion to reach. It wasn't the first time that the firm put out a report like this that requires a informed reader to suspend belief.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/18/business/la-fi-toyota-exponent18-2010feb18
When some of the world's best-known companies faced disputes over secondhand smoke, toxic waste in the jungle and asbestos, they all turned to the same source for a staunch defense: Exponent Inc.
Now that same engineering and consulting firm has been hired by Toyota Motor Corp. as it seeks to fend off claims that sudden acceleration in its vehicles could be caused by problems in its electronic throttle systems.
A 56-page report that Menlo Park, Calif.-based Exponent sent to Congress on Feb. 9 found that the system behaved as intended and that Exponent was "unable to induce . . . unintended acceleration or behavior that might be a precursor to such an event."
But Exponent's research has come under fire from critics, including engineers, attorneys and academics who say the company tends to deliver to clients the reports they need to mount a public defense.
"If I were Toyota, I wouldn't have picked somebody like Exponent to do analysis," said Stanton Glantz, a cardiologist at UC San Francisco who runs a database on the tobacco industry that contains thousands of pages of Exponent research arguing, among other things, that secondhand smoke does not cause cancer. "I would have picked a firm with more of a reputation of neutrality."
Mike Gaulke, executive chairman of Exponent and an employee of the company since 1992, called critiques that it produced only favorable research a "cheap shot."
"Do we tell our clients a lot of what they don't want to hear? Absolutely," Gaulke said.
He said the firm often comes up with results that don't favor clients, although he couldn't provide specific examples.
The bolded part you just quoted is my boss. He is about 100 feet away from me in his office right now.
Did he read the Wells report? I have a lot of experience with applied statistics in business and think it's a piece of crap. Made as indicated, passes the weight test, and the charts looks good and comprehensive. Certainly would convince the media to whom all this stuff is ancient Greek, but it's lipstick on a pig. The dataset was compromised and the decisions made by Exponent in cherry picking what data to use and exclude from the very same person is ipso facto cause for dismissal.
Looking at it the first time, I was plagued by the thought that with all the uncertainty of the dataset, how did they come to a very specific conclusion with a unusually high level of statistical confidence. IOW, they were making the case that it was an open and shut case of guilt based on the evidence when I was thinking they couldn't possibly come to a conclusion unless they knew the conclusion at the start.
If you can ask what he thinks of it, please do.
-
And the NFLPA response
?@NFLPA
#NFLPA Statement on Tom Brady's Four-Game Suspension: http://bit.ly/1OzTQhw
NFLPA STATEMENT ON TOM BRADY'S FOUR-GAME SUSPENSION
The Commissioner's ruling today did nothing to address the legal deficiencies of due process. The NFL remains stuck with the following facts:
The NFL had no policy that applied to players;
The NFL provided no notice of any such policy or potential discipline to players;
The NFL resorted to a nebulous standard of "general awareness" to predicate a legally unjustified punishment;
The NFL had no procedures in place until two days ago to test air pressure in footballs; and
The NFL violated the plain meaning of the collective bargaining agreement.
The fact that the NFL would resort to basing a suspension on a smoke screen of irrelevant text messages instead of admitting that they have all of the phone records they asked for is a new low, even for them, but it does nothing to correct their errors.
The NFLPA will appeal this outrageous decision on behalf of Tom Brady.
!!!
Right, I don't know what to believe. Did Brady give them what they asked for? Did he destroy his phone? There must be a lot of spin going on here and someone is going to get exposed.
It is a lot of trouble when they can't even prove that the footballs in question were even deflated. I am an engineer and I work with applications of the ideal gas law every day. Based on what I have read about the testing and the results, I am not even sure that the balls were deflated. If the balls were never deflated, it is hard to say that Brady was generally aware of anything.
Now if he destroyed his phone and it actually was to thwart the investigation, that warrants a punishment I guess (I don't know all the NFLPA rules). But this whole thing has just gotten silly.
-
The statement from the league...
“On or shortly before March 6, the day that Tom Brady met with independent investigator Ted Wells and his colleagues, Brady directed that the cell phone he had used for the prior four months be destroyed,” the league statement read. “He did so even though he was aware that the investigators had requested access to text messages and other electronic information that had been stored on that phone. ?During the four months that the cell phone was in use, Brady had exchanged nearly 10,000 text messages, none of which can now be retrieved from that device. The destruction of the cell phone was not disclosed until June 18, almost four months after the investigators had first sought electronic information from Brady.”
This is really hurts Brady in my opinion...again, what he actually did isn't that big of a deal in terms of on the field help in winning games, but the optics of this are NOT good for Brady. For me this shows me that Brady had to choose the lesser of two evils...he obviously felt that getting heat for destroying his phone wouldn't be as bad as getting heat for what was actually on the phone
I'm not turning over my PRIVATE cell phone just so that some league investigator can take a peak at some selective messages.
Sorry, but I'd do the same whether I was guilty or not, doubly so if I was a celebrity / public figure.
We'll see them in Federal court, things should get interesting.
Yeah... there's a number of reasons I'd destroy my cell phone rather than let it be analyzed by a third party. None of these reasons are related to deflating footballs.
Brady supposedly texts a lot. I can easily imagine that there are texts he'd rather not get leaked and the the NFL's promise that his texts wouldn't get leaked is laughable. Besides, they had an air tight investigative report and the employees' phones.
This is all back-pedaling because the Wells Report is so blatantly flawed that it looks like a frame job and credible researchers are calling them on it. Forget the science, the first thing you do in a statistical study is look at the completeness and accuracy of the data and you never, ever use the data from one source in a selective manner as they did with the chief referee. The guys who did the report aren't stupid, but hacks they are. They were told what conclusion to reach. It wasn't the first time that the firm put out a report like this that requires a informed reader to suspend belief.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/18/business/la-fi-toyota-exponent18-2010feb18
When some of the world's best-known companies faced disputes over secondhand smoke, toxic waste in the jungle and asbestos, they all turned to the same source for a staunch defense: Exponent Inc.
Now that same engineering and consulting firm has been hired by Toyota Motor Corp. as it seeks to fend off claims that sudden acceleration in its vehicles could be caused by problems in its electronic throttle systems.
A 56-page report that Menlo Park, Calif.-based Exponent sent to Congress on Feb. 9 found that the system behaved as intended and that Exponent was "unable to induce . . . unintended acceleration or behavior that might be a precursor to such an event."
But Exponent's research has come under fire from critics, including engineers, attorneys and academics who say the company tends to deliver to clients the reports they need to mount a public defense.
"If I were Toyota, I wouldn't have picked somebody like Exponent to do analysis," said Stanton Glantz, a cardiologist at UC San Francisco who runs a database on the tobacco industry that contains thousands of pages of Exponent research arguing, among other things, that secondhand smoke does not cause cancer. "I would have picked a firm with more of a reputation of neutrality."
Mike Gaulke, executive chairman of Exponent and an employee of the company since 1992, called critiques that it produced only favorable research a "cheap shot."
"Do we tell our clients a lot of what they don't want to hear? Absolutely," Gaulke said.
He said the firm often comes up with results that don't favor clients, although he couldn't provide specific examples.
The bolded part you just quoted is my boss. He is about 100 feet away from me in his office right now.
Did he read the Wells report? I have a lot of experience with applied statistics in business and think it's a piece of crap. Made as indicated, passes the weight test, and the charts looks good and comprehensive. Certainly would convince the media to whom all this stuff is ancient Greek, but it's lipstick on a pig. The dataset was compromised and the decisions made by Exponent in cherry picking what data to use and exclude from the very same person is ipso facto cause for dismissal.
Looking at it the first time, I was plagued by the thought that with all the uncertainty of the dataset, how did they come to a very specific conclusion with a unusually high level of statistical confidence. IOW, they were making the case that it was an open and shut case of guilt based on the evidence when I was thinking they couldn't possibly come to a conclusion unless they knew the conclusion at the start.
If you can ask what he thinks of it, please do.
I could give you a very educated guess that he did not read it, he is about as uninterested in sports as anyone know and wouldn't really waste his time analyzing statistics for something that he is not interested in. I could ask him to do it, but I am not sure that would be worth me using a favor for :). On a related note though, he is a really interesting guy that pops up on all sorts of thing so it was a trip to see him quoted on celtics blog. I recommend everyone here see the documentary that is out right now merchants of doubt. It is about the corruption of science and he is on screen for about 20 minutes of it.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/merchants_of_doubt/
-
The statement from the league...
“On or shortly before March 6, the day that Tom Brady met with independent investigator Ted Wells and his colleagues, Brady directed that the cell phone he had used for the prior four months be destroyed,” the league statement read. “He did so even though he was aware that the investigators had requested access to text messages and other electronic information that had been stored on that phone. ?During the four months that the cell phone was in use, Brady had exchanged nearly 10,000 text messages, none of which can now be retrieved from that device. The destruction of the cell phone was not disclosed until June 18, almost four months after the investigators had first sought electronic information from Brady.”
This is really hurts Brady in my opinion...again, what he actually did isn't that big of a deal in terms of on the field help in winning games, but the optics of this are NOT good for Brady. For me this shows me that Brady had to choose the lesser of two evils...he obviously felt that getting heat for destroying his phone wouldn't be as bad as getting heat for what was actually on the phone
I'm not turning over my PRIVATE cell phone just so that some league investigator can take a peak at some selective messages.
Sorry, but I'd do the same whether I was guilty or not, doubly so if I was a celebrity / public figure.
We'll see them in Federal court, things should get interesting.
Yeah... there's a number of reasons I'd destroy my cell phone rather than let it be analyzed by a third party. None of these reasons are related to deflating footballs.
Brady supposedly texts a lot. I can easily imagine that there are texts he'd rather not get leaked and the the NFL's promise that his texts wouldn't get leaked is laughable. Besides, they had an air tight investigative report and the employees' phones.
This is all back-pedaling because the Wells Report is so blatantly flawed that it looks like a frame job and credible researchers are calling them on it. Forget the science, the first thing you do in a statistical study is look at the completeness and accuracy of the data and you never, ever use the data from one source in a selective manner as they did with the chief referee. The guys who did the report aren't stupid, but hacks they are. They were told what conclusion to reach. It wasn't the first time that the firm put out a report like this that requires a informed reader to suspend belief.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/18/business/la-fi-toyota-exponent18-2010feb18
When some of the world's best-known companies faced disputes over secondhand smoke, toxic waste in the jungle and asbestos, they all turned to the same source for a staunch defense: Exponent Inc.
Now that same engineering and consulting firm has been hired by Toyota Motor Corp. as it seeks to fend off claims that sudden acceleration in its vehicles could be caused by problems in its electronic throttle systems.
A 56-page report that Menlo Park, Calif.-based Exponent sent to Congress on Feb. 9 found that the system behaved as intended and that Exponent was "unable to induce . . . unintended acceleration or behavior that might be a precursor to such an event."
But Exponent's research has come under fire from critics, including engineers, attorneys and academics who say the company tends to deliver to clients the reports they need to mount a public defense.
"If I were Toyota, I wouldn't have picked somebody like Exponent to do analysis," said Stanton Glantz, a cardiologist at UC San Francisco who runs a database on the tobacco industry that contains thousands of pages of Exponent research arguing, among other things, that secondhand smoke does not cause cancer. "I would have picked a firm with more of a reputation of neutrality."
Mike Gaulke, executive chairman of Exponent and an employee of the company since 1992, called critiques that it produced only favorable research a "cheap shot."
"Do we tell our clients a lot of what they don't want to hear? Absolutely," Gaulke said.
He said the firm often comes up with results that don't favor clients, although he couldn't provide specific examples.
The bolded part you just quoted is my boss. He is about 100 feet away from me in his office right now.
Did he read the Wells report? I have a lot of experience with applied statistics in business and think it's a piece of crap. Made as indicated, passes the weight test, and the charts looks good and comprehensive. Certainly would convince the media to whom all this stuff is ancient Greek, but it's lipstick on a pig. The dataset was compromised and the decisions made by Exponent in cherry picking what data to use and exclude from the very same person is ipso facto cause for dismissal.
Looking at it the first time, I was plagued by the thought that with all the uncertainty of the dataset, how did they come to a very specific conclusion with a unusually high level of statistical confidence. IOW, they were making the case that it was an open and shut case of guilt based on the evidence when I was thinking they couldn't possibly come to a conclusion unless they knew the conclusion at the start.
If you can ask what he thinks of it, please do.
I will also add that exponent is a company that I investigate for part of my work (I am in tobacco control policy work). They routinely were hired to by the major tobacco companies to publish research that had industry friendly results. Really am surprised to see the NFL involved with them.
-
I will also add that exponent is a company that I investigate for part of my work (I am in tobacco control policy work). They routinely were hired to by the major tobacco companies to publish research that had industry friendly results. Really am surprised to see the NFL involved with them.
Because it is surprising that the NFL needs and NFL-friendly report on this? ;)
Either way, this has long moved past the science, which is probably bogus.
-
People are STILL talking about this? Wow.
-
I will also add that exponent is a company that I investigate for part of my work (I am in tobacco control policy work). They routinely were hired to by the major tobacco companies to publish research that had industry friendly results. Really am surprised to see the NFL involved with them.
Because it is surprising that the NFL needs and NFL-friendly report on this? ;)
Either way, this has long moved past the science, which is probably bogus.
I guess I am more surprised that they selected a company that has been outed in the past for its corruption for big business. It is a real struggle to find out what what consulting companies are legitimate and which are not. Exponent has already made its' bed and you can do a google search and find a lot of information about them. However, there are tons of think tanks and consulting companies changing names and popping up every day that nobody knows whether are corrupt or not. Maybe I have a weird perspective cause of the work I do and they have come up repeatedly in my work.
-
This beat LA, I'm so sickened by what was one of my favorite sports, is just been turned into a soap opy. Really really sad.
-
I will also add that exponent is a company that I investigate for part of my work (I am in tobacco control policy work). They routinely were hired to by the major tobacco companies to publish research that had industry friendly results. Really am surprised to see the NFL involved with them.
Because it is surprising that the NFL needs and NFL-friendly report on this? ;)
Either way, this has long moved past the science, which is probably bogus.
I guess I am more surprised that they selected a company that has been outed in the past for its corruption for big business. It is a real struggle to find out what what consulting companies are legitimate and which are not. Exponent has already made its' bed and you can do a google search and find a lot of information about them. However, there are tons of think tanks and consulting companies changing names and popping up every day that nobody knows whether are corrupt or not. Maybe I have a weird perspective cause of the work I do and they have come up repeatedly in my work.
It is different when you need scientific analysis as a part of your daily operations, and when it's a one-off thing, I presume. Google search or no google search.
-
And here go...
Jim TrotterVerified account
?@JimTrotter_NFL
Tom Brady has authorized the NFLPA to appeal his case in federal court, per source.
Awesome. I'm glad to see him go forward with this.
If he's going forward with this, all you can be glad about is that he's attempting to get back on the field. His legacy though is now permanently stained. The fact that he had his phone destroyed is a massive detail...even if he goes to court, wins, and gets this down to 0 games, Patriot haters can say "well you know why he won? Because they had no evidence because he destroyed his phone"
Now again, if you're saying awesome just because he's fighting to get back on the field, then sure. But fighting for his "legacy" is now a dead battle. It's over.
His legacy isn't stained at all, that's just the narrative fan in you talking. It's not nearly as 'stained' as, say, Ray Lewis -- who's legacy isn't in particularly poor standing at all, at least as his play is concerned.
-
People are STILL talking about this? Wow.
You do understand there was a rather significant development in this today, right? ::)
I don't think the words 'rather significant' should ever be used to describe any part of this 'story' ;).
-
And here go...
Jim TrotterVerified account
?@JimTrotter_NFL
Tom Brady has authorized the NFLPA to appeal his case in federal court, per source.
Awesome. I'm glad to see him go forward with this.
If he's going forward with this, all you can be glad about is that he's attempting to get back on the field. His legacy though is now permanently stained. The fact that he had his phone destroyed is a massive detail...even if he goes to court, wins, and gets this down to 0 games, Patriot haters can say "well you know why he won? Because they had no evidence because he destroyed his phone"
Now again, if you're saying awesome just because he's fighting to get back on the field, then sure. But fighting for his "legacy" is now a dead battle. It's over.
His legacy isn't stained at all, that's just the narrative fan in you talking. It's not nearly as 'stained' as, say, Ray Lewis -- who's legacy isn't in particularly poor standing at all, at least as his play is concerned.
Look, I'm not a football fan, but how is Brady's legacy not at all tarnished after this? In how many scandals do he and Belichick have to be involved before someone puts two and two together?
-
And here go...
Jim TrotterVerified account
?@JimTrotter_NFL
Tom Brady has authorized the NFLPA to appeal his case in federal court, per source.
Awesome. I'm glad to see him go forward with this.
If he's going forward with this, all you can be glad about is that he's attempting to get back on the field. His legacy though is now permanently stained. The fact that he had his phone destroyed is a massive detail...even if he goes to court, wins, and gets this down to 0 games, Patriot haters can say "well you know why he won? Because they had no evidence because he destroyed his phone"
Now again, if you're saying awesome just because he's fighting to get back on the field, then sure. But fighting for his "legacy" is now a dead battle. It's over.
His legacy isn't stained at all, that's just the narrative fan in you talking. It's not nearly as 'stained' as, say, Ray Lewis -- who's legacy isn't in particularly poor standing at all, at least as his play is concerned.
Look, I'm not a football fan, but how is Brady's legacy not at all tarnished after this? In how many scandals do he and Belichick have to be involved before someone puts two and two together?
I think the larger point is that these things fade from memory for the most part. You do realize the guy Dos is referring to is "more likely than not" to know about murder of two young men and/or have been involved in it. That man is now on national tv broadcasts and is trotted out as an ambassador of the game. If he can overcome that, I think it is more likely than not that Brady can overcome more likely than not knowing about the deflation of some footballs.
Unless you are Mark Brunell and facing bankruptcy from bad whattaburger investments, this is isn't the kind of stuff to cry over.
-
I am livid right now!
According to the NFLPA and Brady's agent, Don Yee, all of Brady's phone records, including calls and texts, were provided to the league. Brady destroying his cell phone (as every mega celebrity probably does), is totally irrelevant.
#fireGoodell
#freebrady
#thisisasmearcampaign
NFLPA - http://deadspin.com/nflpa-calls-tom-bradys-upheld-suspension-outrageous-1720704637?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow
Yee - http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4782927/tom-bradys-agent-don-yee-rips-nfl-in-strongly-worded-statement
-
Here in Cincinnati people think he deserves it. I think he got caught doing what all quarterbacks do. I think all pros do stuff for an edge.
-
...brilliant series of posts...
Did he read the Wells report? I have a lot of experience with applied statistics in business and think it's a piece of crap. Made as indicated, passes the weight test, and the charts looks good and comprehensive. Certainly would convince the media to whom all this stuff is ancient Greek, but it's lipstick on a pig. The dataset was compromised and the decisions made by Exponent in cherry picking what data to use and exclude from the very same person is ipso facto cause for dismissal.
Looking at it the first time, I was plagued by the thought that with all the uncertainty of the dataset, how did they come to a very specific conclusion with a unusually high level of statistical confidence. IOW, they were making the case that it was an open and shut case of guilt based on the evidence when I was thinking they couldn't possibly come to a conclusion unless they knew the conclusion at the start.
If you can ask what he thinks of it, please do.
I could give you a very educated guess that he did not read it, he is about as uninterested in sports as anyone know and wouldn't really waste his time analyzing statistics for something that he is not interested in. I could ask him to do it, but I am not sure that would be worth me using a favor for :). On a related note though, he is a really interesting guy that pops up on all sorts of thing so it was a trip to see him quoted on celtics blog. I recommend everyone here see the documentary that is out right now merchants of doubt. It is about the corruption of science and he is on screen for about 20 minutes of it.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/merchants_of_doubt/
Thanks. Will look it up. Climate change is a major interest and the industry BS is criminal. Have 3 scientists in my extended family and they are all the same as your boss. Monomaniacal focus.
-
Should be an interesting Federal Appeal. The NFL really loaded their appeal ruling to win the appeal. Goodell basically concluded that Exponent was correct and every other independent scientist was wrong because Exponent spent so much more time doing experiments. Hard to assail that type of logic.
-
I am livid right now!
According to the NFLPA and Brady's agent, Don Yee, all of Brady's phone records, including calls and texts, were provided to the league. Brady destroying his cell phone (as every mega celebrity probably does), is totally irrelevant.
I don't think the "records" were copies of the texts. Rather, if anything, they'd be copies of phone numbers Brady called / texted. Apparently, Brady told the NFL to dig through the records, and to contact the cell phone provider for the info they wanted. It's doubtful that the cell phone company would have complied with that request without a subpoena, and even then, companies aren't always compliant.
-
I'm pretty late to the party here, so I'll probably say stuff that has already been said....however, I do not for the life of me understand why an employer (really any employer but especially an employer of people in a union) think for the life of them "cooperation" in an investigation means they get to completely invade your privacy.
To me "cooperation" means they ask you questions, and you answer them. They want to see the footballs so you give them to them. But take cell phones from 5 people? Who the heck do they think they are, the NSA? Even the NSA isn't supposed to do that.
If I'm the NFLPA I'm standing united on this and saying the following:
"All our players at any and all times are always in complete control of their phones, their email and social media passwords and logins, their diaries, their trash, their homes, their photo albums, their cars, their academic records, their yards, and any other similar part of their private lives and the NFL can never have access to them ever. Our players will comply with warrants by law enforcement, but not ever the NFL. This is non-negotiable. It doesn't matter if they burn them, send them to the moon, smash them with hammers, or delete it. It is their property."
Go on strike if you must, but win this battle.
The end.
I don't recognize an employer's right to your stuff. They have a right to their stuff.
-
People that are acting like Brady should have handed over his phone to the NFL are exceptionally naive. The NFL couldn't be trusted with a game of connect 4 with a toddler, let alone a phone. That league has more leaks and lies than a sieve surrounded by snakes.
Could you imagine if pro leagues had gotten other people's phones?
What if phones existed earlier in time? Should boxing have been able to have Muhammed Ali's phone? Should baseball have been able to go into Babe Ruth's phone?
Sorry folks...the Colts think Tom cheated....not a good enough reason for Tom to hand the NFL his phone. Absurd.
-
I am livid right now!
According to the NFLPA and Brady's agent, Don Yee, all of Brady's phone records, including calls and texts, were provided to the league. Brady destroying his cell phone (as every mega celebrity probably does), is totally irrelevant.
#fireGoodell
#freebrady
#thisisasmearcampaign
NFLPA - http://deadspin.com/nflpa-calls-tom-bradys-upheld-suspension-outrageous-1720704637?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow
Yee - http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4782927/tom-bradys-agent-don-yee-rips-nfl-in-strongly-worded-statement
There is, of course, a catch -- the league got his cellphone bills, so for all practical purposes they had a giant spreadsheet of everyone he ever called or texted. However, the only way to recover said texts was to procure the phones of the text recipients and get them from there. Which was not exactly feasible.
-
And here go...
Jim TrotterVerified account
?@JimTrotter_NFL
Tom Brady has authorized the NFLPA to appeal his case in federal court, per source.
Awesome. I'm glad to see him go forward with this.
If he's going forward with this, all you can be glad about is that he's attempting to get back on the field. His legacy though is now permanently stained. The fact that he had his phone destroyed is a massive detail...even if he goes to court, wins, and gets this down to 0 games, Patriot haters can say "well you know why he won? Because they had no evidence because he destroyed his phone"
Now again, if you're saying awesome just because he's fighting to get back on the field, then sure. But fighting for his "legacy" is now a dead battle. It's over.
His legacy isn't stained at all, that's just the narrative fan in you talking. It's not nearly as 'stained' as, say, Ray Lewis -- who's legacy isn't in particularly poor standing at all, at least as his play is concerned.
Look, I'm not a football fan, but how is Brady's legacy not at all tarnished after this? In how many scandals do he and Belichick have to be involved before someone puts two and two together?
I think the larger point is that these things fade from memory for the most part. You do realize the guy Dos is referring to is "more likely than not" to know about murder of two young men and/or have been involved in it. That man is now on national tv broadcasts and is trotted out as an ambassador of the game. If he can overcome that, I think it is more likely than not that Brady can overcome more likely than not knowing about the deflation of some footballs.
Unless you are Mark Brunell and facing bankruptcy from bad whattaburger investments, this is isn't the kind of stuff to cry over.
Yes, I'm well aware of Ray Lewis and feel that he should be in jail, but I also don't think it's easy for people to dismiss this 'scandal' involving Brady and the Patriots because it only adds to their already-shady track record. Honestly, I don't give a flying fart in space about the nfl or any of this. I just think it's a sad sign of where our 'news' is right now in this country if 'stories' like this are heavily and regularly featured. I'm not sure which is more hilarious - the completely asinine discussion itself, or the amount of time given to it. I mean, other than Brady and the Patriots, the most talked about offender/conspirator (whichever term you prefer) is a guy who called himself, 'the deflator.' ::) This 'story' is gold, lol ;D.
-
People that are acting like Brady should have handed over his phone to the NFL are exceptionally naive. The NFL couldn't be trusted with a game of connect 4 with a toddler, let alone a phone. That league has more leaks and lies than a sieve surrounded by snakes.
Could you imagine if pro leagues had gotten other people's phones?
What if phones existed earlier in time? Should boxing have been able to have Muhammed Ali's phone? Should baseball have been able to go into Babe Ruth's phone?
Sorry folks...the Colts think Tom cheated....not a good enough reason for Tom to hand the NFL his phone. Absurd.
Wouldn't they just subpoena the phone in the first place? That seems like a pretty standard legal procedure to me. Brady might have destroyed his phone, but there are ways to circumvent that, like getting a hold of his sim card(s), and what if his phone was automatically backing everything up in the Verizon cloud thing? What would he do at that point?
(http://static1.squarespace.com/static/5511b221e4b0748e8e717172/t/555e0f83e4b08ef1ebb355d4/1432227720093/Greenlight+Cloud+Blog+%7C+Greenlight+%7C+Jersey,+Guernsey,+Channel+Islands)
Ahaha ;D.
-
Wouldn't they just subpoena the phone in the first place? That seems like a pretty standard legal procedure to me. Brady might have destroyed his phone, but there are ways to circumvent that, like getting a hold of his sim card(s), and what if his phone was automatically backing everything up in the Verizon cloud thing? What would he do at that point?
Last time I checked, private organizations such as the NFL had no right to issue subpoenas.
-
I think the NFL should be careful what they wished for. Remember when the Paternos and various other actors sued the NCAA over the PSU punishments? Then the NCAA had to give up all their documents on the issue? It didn't work out too well for them.
-
I'm pretty late to the party here, so I'll probably say stuff that has already been said....however, I do not for the life of me understand why an employer (really any employer but especially an employer of people in a union) think for the life of them "cooperation" in an investigation means they get to completely invade your privacy.
To me "cooperation" means they ask you questions, and you answer them. They want to see the footballs so you give them to them. But take cell phones from 5 people? Who the heck do they think they are, the NSA? Even the NSA isn't supposed to do that.
If I'm the NFLPA I'm standing united on this and saying the following:
"All our players at any and all times are always in complete control of their phones, their email and social media passwords and logins, their diaries, their trash, their homes, their photo albums, their cars, their academic records, their yards, and any other similar part of their private lives and the NFL can never have access to them ever. Our players will comply with warrants by law enforcement, but not ever the NFL. This is non-negotiable. It doesn't matter if they burn them, send them to the moon, smash them with hammers, or delete it. It is their property."
Go on strike if you must, but win this battle.
The end.
I don't recognize an employer's right to your stuff. They have a right to their stuff.
First of all, while it might be true that the league has no means whatsoever to compel players or team officials to comply with it's investigations, you can't just assume that to be true. Maybe they're expected to comply with official league investigations, and Brady's an example of what kind of punishment they can get if they don't. You also can't just compare them to typical employees. For instance, the players have to share much more of their medical history than almost anyone else would.
Also, as an fyi, it's not unheard of for employers to ask employees for their social media passwords. The employees (or prospective employees) aren't legally obligated to comply with the request, but their employment can still be contingent on it. The nfl can't legally compel Brady to give them his phone, but that doesn't imply that they can't punish him for not cooperating with the investigation.
-
People that are acting like Brady should have handed over his phone to the NFL are exceptionally naive. The NFL couldn't be trusted with a game of connect 4 with a toddler, let alone a phone. That league has more leaks and lies than a sieve surrounded by snakes.
Could you imagine if pro leagues had gotten other people's phones?
What if phones existed earlier in time? Should boxing have been able to have Muhammed Ali's phone? Should baseball have been able to go into Babe Ruth's phone?
Sorry folks...the Colts think Tom cheated....not a good enough reason for Tom to hand the NFL his phone. Absurd.
Wouldn't they just subpoena the phone in the first place? That seems like a pretty standard legal procedure to me. Brady might have destroyed his phone, but there are ways to circumvent that, like getting a hold of his sim card(s), and what if his phone was automatically backing everything up in the Verizon cloud thing? What would he do at that point?
(http://static1.squarespace.com/static/5511b221e4b0748e8e717172/t/555e0f83e4b08ef1ebb355d4/1432227720093/Greenlight+Cloud+Blog+%7C+Greenlight+%7C+Jersey,+Guernsey,+Channel+Islands)
Ahaha ;D.
You have to wonder if that's next, some (jets fan) hacker downloading Brady's cloud storage and doing a Sony-type release.
-
Wouldn't they just subpoena the phone in the first place? That seems like a pretty standard legal procedure to me. Brady might have destroyed his phone, but there are ways to circumvent that, like getting a hold of his sim card(s), and what if his phone was automatically backing everything up in the Verizon cloud thing? What would he do at that point?
Last time I checked, private organizations such as the NFL had no right to issue subpoenas.
I was more so implying that they could get a subpoena for his phone as part of the case, seeing as how it probably has oodles of sensitive information on it, and it's not like the league is lacking in lawyers.
-
People that are acting like Brady should have handed over his phone to the NFL are exceptionally naive. The NFL couldn't be trusted with a game of connect 4 with a toddler, let alone a phone. That league has more leaks and lies than a sieve surrounded by snakes.
Could you imagine if pro leagues had gotten other people's phones?
What if phones existed earlier in time? Should boxing have been able to have Muhammed Ali's phone? Should baseball have been able to go into Babe Ruth's phone?
Sorry folks...the Colts think Tom cheated....not a good enough reason for Tom to hand the NFL his phone. Absurd.
Wouldn't they just subpoena the phone in the first place? That seems like a pretty standard legal procedure to me. Brady might have destroyed his phone, but there are ways to circumvent that, like getting a hold of his sim card(s), and what if his phone was automatically backing everything up in the Verizon cloud thing? What would he do at that point?
(http://static1.squarespace.com/static/5511b221e4b0748e8e717172/t/555e0f83e4b08ef1ebb355d4/1432227720093/Greenlight+Cloud+Blog+%7C+Greenlight+%7C+Jersey,+Guernsey,+Channel+Islands)
Ahaha ;D.
You have to wonder if that's next, some (jets fan) hacker downloading Brady's cloud storage and doing a Sony-type release.
That would be hilarious - TP ;D.
-
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/28/nfl-offered-brady-at-least-50-percent-reduction-in-exchange-for-admission-of-guilt/
-
And here go...
Jim TrotterVerified account
?@JimTrotter_NFL
Tom Brady has authorized the NFLPA to appeal his case in federal court, per source.
Awesome. I'm glad to see him go forward with this.
If he's going forward with this, all you can be glad about is that he's attempting to get back on the field. His legacy though is now permanently stained. The fact that he had his phone destroyed is a massive detail...even if he goes to court, wins, and gets this down to 0 games, Patriot haters can say "well you know why he won? Because they had no evidence because he destroyed his phone"
Now again, if you're saying awesome just because he's fighting to get back on the field, then sure. But fighting for his "legacy" is now a dead battle. It's over.
His legacy isn't stained at all, that's just the narrative fan in you talking. It's not nearly as 'stained' as, say, Ray Lewis -- who's legacy isn't in particularly poor standing at all, at least as his play is concerned.
Look, I'm not a football fan, but how is Brady's legacy not at all tarnished after this? In how many scandals do he and Belichick have to be involved before someone puts two and two together?
I think the larger point is that these things fade from memory for the most part. You do realize the guy Dos is referring to is "more likely than not" to know about murder of two young men and/or have been involved in it. That man is now on national tv broadcasts and is trotted out as an ambassador of the game. If he can overcome that, I think it is more likely than not that Brady can overcome more likely than not knowing about the deflation of some footballs.
Unless you are Mark Brunell and facing bankruptcy from bad whattaburger investments, this is isn't the kind of stuff to cry over.
Yes, I'm well aware of Ray Lewis and feel that he should be in jail, but I also don't think it's easy for people to dismiss this 'scandal' involving Brady and the Patriots because it only adds to their already-shady track record. Honestly, I don't give a flying fart in space about the nfl or any of this. I just think it's a sad sign of where our 'news' is right now in this country if 'stories' like this are heavily and regularly featured. I'm not sure which is more hilarious - the completely asinine discussion itself, or the amount of time given to it. I mean, other than Brady and the Patriots, the most talked about offender/conspirator (whichever term you prefer) is a guy who called himself, 'the deflator.' ::) This 'story' is gold, lol ;D.
It's a story because they need space to fill before training camp, and end of July/beginning of August is the sports news dead zone. And also because the NFL seems incapable of doing anything other than shooting themselves in the foot whenever something like this comes up -- newsworthy because the NFL is massive.
The reasons why you feel such news stories are asinine is another topic entirely, but perhaps not one that will find much traction on a forum dedicated to tracking players of a specific sports team into largely unimportant minutia.
-
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/28/brady-offered-to-help-nfl-gather-missing-text-messages/
-
I am livid right now!
According to the NFLPA and Brady's agent, Don Yee, all of Brady's phone records, including calls and texts, were provided to the league. Brady destroying his cell phone (as every mega celebrity probably does), is totally irrelevant.
I don't think the "records" were copies of the texts. Rather, if anything, they'd be copies of phone numbers Brady called / texted. Apparently, Brady told the NFL to dig through the records, and to contact the cell phone provider for the info they wanted. It's doubtful that the cell phone company would have complied with that request without a subpoena, and even then, companies aren't always compliant.
The league had all the relevant text messages and calls by having everyone else's phone that was involved.
-
This release of info from each camp just keeps going back and forth. While I still think Brady destroying his phone either on the day or a few days leading up to the interview is INCREDIBLY incriminating, I will say that Florio's new piece on profootballtalk enlightens me and only makes this story even more ridiculous
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/28/brady-offered-to-help-nfl-gather-missing-text-messages/
Basically, Brady admitted that he destroyed the phone and explained it away by saying he destroys and gets a new phone about every 4-5 months. However, Brady offered to give investigators a spreadsheet of the contacts and phone numbers from the relevant time period and they could track them down that way...but the league refused to go down that road. Not to mention, they already went through the phones of the two equipment guys and found no direct evidence linking Brady.
He points out that the fact that "Brady destroyed his cellphone" was really all the NFL needed to win in the court of public opinion. He's basically equating it to the leaked original report of "11 of 12 balls were 2 pounds underweight" which was eventually proven false. But it didn't matter. That was the first report the public heard, it's what they clinged to, and anything else that came out after the fact really didn't matter. Now, all people are going to hear and know is "Brady destroyed his cellphone"...now unlike the Mortenson report, this is actually true, he really did destroy his cellphone. But even with Brady's reasoning behind it and still offering a spreadsheet of phone numbers, it doesn't matter because the first thing people heard was "Brady destroyed his cellphone". It's what they heard, it's what they're gonna cling to, and anything that comes out now after the fact doesn't matter.
-
But that doesn't matter, particularly if the NLFPA wins the suit.
Wade from Brockton is not going to burn his Brady jersey because Taaaaawmmmy destroyed his cell phone. Frank in Carmel is going to want to see the Colts beat the Pats with Brady because "then they'd know they could wrangle with anybody."
etc. No one is going to stop watching football because of this, and that's all the NFL cares about.
-
But that doesn't matter, particularly if the NLFPA wins the suit.
Wade from Brockton is not going to burn his Brady jersey because Taaaaawmmmy destroyed his cell phone. Frank in Carmel is going to want to see the Colts beat the Pats with Brady because "then they'd know they could wrangle with anybody."
etc. No one is going to stop watching football because of this, and that's all the NFL cares about.
When did I ever say people would stop watching football? And pre-Ray Rice, yes I'd agree that's all they cared about. Not anymore. The Ray Rice fiasco was sort of a line in NFL history...they absolutely care about their public image now given what a cluster this past season has been through now.
-
We've already had this conversation. A) the NFL cared about it's image well before the Rice scandal, B) no, they don't see this is a massively damaging PR issue it's just a perfect storm of their double-standard in dolling out punishment.
Did you notice any outcry when the Greg Hardy suspension got reduced? Probably not, because they dumped the news on a Friday when no one was going to be paying attention. If the NFL "really cared" about their public image they wouldn't have given Hardy the same punishment they're giving Brady.
The fact that you think this is the moral and ethical hill Goodell wants to die on because of PR is wrong. This is just a situation where Goodell assumed he'd be able to get away with hitting Brady with 1-2 games and the Patriots would take it on the chin (and they would have, we saw that with Kraft's statement about not suing the league). The fact that some owners decided to press for a full four games and the fact that Brady wasn't going to accept anything other than a total revocation of the suspension forced the Ginger Hammer's hand.
-
We've already had this conversation. A) the NFL cared about it's image well before the Rice scandal, B) no, they don't see this is a massively damaging PR issue it's just a perfect storm of their double-standard in dolling out punishment.
Did you notice any outcry when the Greg Hardy suspension got reduced? Probably not, because they dumped the news on a Friday when no one was going to be paying attention. If the NFL "really cared" about their public image they wouldn't have given Hardy the same punishment they're giving Brady.
The fact that you think this is the moral and ethical hill Goodell wants to die on because of PR is wrong. This is just a situation where Goodell assumed he'd be able to get away with hitting Brady with 1-2 games and the Patriots would take it on the chin (and they would have, we saw that with Kraft's statement about not suing the league). The fact that some owners decided to press for a full four games and the fact that Brady wasn't going to accept anything other than a total revocation of the suspension forced his hand.
First of all, are you allergic to the quote button on this blog? You never ever use it. Second of all, we're just gonna continue to agree to disagree on this. PR matters when it comes to the Patriots. Goodell knows the other owners are sick of the Patriots and that they think the Pats ultimately skated on spygate and weren't properly punished for it.
If Goodell reduces this to 1 or 2 games, immediately public opinion shifts to the fact that Goodell is in Robert Kraft's back pocket, that the Patriots are "above the shield", the Patriots run the league etc. The last thing Goodell needs is the perception of one team being favored over the others in punishments. He needs the public to know and believe that the Patriots are on the same level as every other team, which up until this ruling, a lot of owners and fans doubted. But again, we're gonna agree to disagree.
-
No reason to use the quote function when replying to a post that's directly above, IMO. I use it to excess in other threads, as some will almost certainly vouch.
Regardless, what you're talking about is just Goodell measuring his special bits -- I agree, he probably feels he "needs" to do it (i.e. go to court) because he's a moron who thinks these things are important, in the "the players must respect the shield" sort of way.
But, again, this is the league that cut Greg Hardy's suspension in half (edit: more than half) when it became clear that it wasn't going to cause a Rice-level uproar. This is the most cynical sports entity on the planet, save maybe FIFA, and they very much only care about fallout insofar as it might effect their bottom line. They pretty clearly don't care about "the integrity of the game" or "some of our players are totally despicable", they mostly care about "respect mah authoritah" and stealing people's money.
Remember, Goodell had offered a 1-2 game suspension reduction to Brady. How does that fit with your narrative in the slightest? Answer: it doesn't.
-
No reason to use the quote function when replying to a post that's directly above, IMO. I use it to excess in other threads, as some will almost certainly vouch.
Regardless, what you're talking about is just Goodell measuring his special bits -- I agree, he probably feels he "needs" to do it because he's a moron who thinks these things are important, in the "the players must respect the shield" sort of way.
But, again, this is the league that cut Greg Hardy's suspension in half (edit: more than half) when it became clear that it wasn't going to cause a Rice-level uproar. This is the most cynical sports entity on the planet, save maybe FIFA, and they very much only care about fallout insofar as it might effect their bottom line. They pretty clearly don't care about "the integrity of the game" or "some of our players are totally despicable", they mostly care about "respect mah authoritah" and stealing people's money.
Remember, Goodell had offered a 1-2 game suspension reduction to Brady. How does that fit with your narrative in the slightest? Answer: it doesn't.
Well this is where it all depends on which report you believe, because NFLPA spokesperson George Attalah has come out and said any report of a deal involving reducing the suspension as long as Brady admits guilt is completely false. So does that fit my narrative? Answer: Yup
-
So you think Florio's sources were lying about this even though you've cited Pro Football Talk for other aspects of this investigation and are instead relying on the word of a person who stands to lose out professionally should the NFL and Brady settle. Just checking.
Here's a good break down of this situation.
http://larrybrownsports.com/football/tom-brady-nfl-settlement-1-game-suspension/268687
Rather, you're basing it all on a tweet from this guy:
“With respect to the report this morning, not sure I can share more on that. I wish I could provide more details,” Atallah said. “I know we’re all anxious for some sort of a decision here as training camps open up next week. As far as the specifics of who offered a settlement, was a settlement offered, I wish I could provide more. The only thing I can say is, we’re looking forward to getting some closure on this sometime soon.”
Atallah said that the kinds of settlement talks that reportedly went on with Brady are “part of the normal course of how we do business” in order to avoid court battles.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/23/george-atallah-on-brady-settlement-talks-i-wish-i-could-provide-more-details/
Of course, it's possible that you could be right, and that Brady was never going to take a one game suspension, but if that's the case all these reporters were relying on one source (possible and unlikely) and not checking it against anything else, while the NFL stayed mum on the matter. It's just not nearly as likely unless you, like Mulder, want to believe.
-
From CNN:
'NFLPA spokesman George Atallah told CNN's Rachel Nichols that media reports claiming the NFL offered to drop Brady's suspension are "categorically false."'
Just going by what I read
-
What you read devoid of context about who these people are and what their role in the process is*.
Again, this is the NFLPA (edit: whoops! assistant) executive director. What do you think he's going to say after the league and Brady failed to come to a common agreement and his organization is getting ready to launch a lawsuit on the quarterback's behalf?
-
So you think Florio's sources were lying about this even though you've cited Pro Football Talk for other aspects of this investigation and are instead relying on the word of a person who stands to lose out professionally should the NFL and Brady settle. Just checking.
Here's a good break down of this situation.
http://larrybrownsports.com/football/tom-brady-nfl-settlement-1-game-suspension/268687
Rather, you're basing it all on a tweet from this guy:
“With respect to the report this morning, not sure I can share more on that. I wish I could provide more details,” Atallah said. “I know we’re all anxious for some sort of a decision here as training camps open up next week. As far as the specifics of who offered a settlement, was a settlement offered, I wish I could provide more. The only thing I can say is, we’re looking forward to getting some closure on this sometime soon.”
Atallah said that the kinds of settlement talks that reportedly went on with Brady are “part of the normal course of how we do business” in order to avoid court battles.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/23/george-atallah-on-brady-settlement-talks-i-wish-i-could-provide-more-details/
Of course, it's possible that you could be right, and that Brady was never going to take a one game suspension, but if that's the case all these reporters were relying on one source (possible and unlikely) and not checking it against anything else, while the NFL stayed mum on the matter.
But this conversation we're having about sources just shows how much of a cluster this whole situation has become. Heck, the NFL, even though it's been proven to not be true, has STILL not technically refute the original Mortenson report. It's never been taken down, it's still up for people to read, a 100% totally false report.
-
No reason to use the quote function when replying to a post that's directly above, IMO. I use it to excess in other threads, as some will almost certainly vouch.
Regardless, what you're talking about is just Goodell measuring his special bits -- I agree, he probably feels he "needs" to do it because he's a moron who thinks these things are important, in the "the players must respect the shield" sort of way.
But, again, this is the league that cut Greg Hardy's suspension in half (edit: more than half) when it became clear that it wasn't going to cause a Rice-level uproar. This is the most cynical sports entity on the planet, save maybe FIFA, and they very much only care about fallout insofar as it might effect their bottom line. They pretty clearly don't care about "the integrity of the game" or "some of our players are totally despicable", they mostly care about "respect mah authoritah" and stealing people's money.
Remember, Goodell had offered a 1-2 game suspension reduction to Brady. How does that fit with your narrative in the slightest? Answer: it doesn't.
Well this is where it all depends on which report you believe, because NFLPA spokesperson George Attalah has come out and said any report of a deal involving reducing the suspension as long as Brady admits guilt is completely false. So does that fit my narrative? Answer: Yup
Link? This is what he tweeted today and it's not equivalent:
https://twitter.com/georgeatallah
Any report that suggests two sides were coming close on a settlement in the Brady matter is rubbish. Plain and simple, rubbish.
-
edit: I'm an idiot and totally misread your post. Sorry!
-
So you think Florio's sources were lying about this even though you've cited Pro Football Talk for other aspects of this investigation and are instead relying on the word of a person who stands to lose out professionally should the NFL and Brady settle. Just checking.
Here's a good break down of this situation.
http://larrybrownsports.com/football/tom-brady-nfl-settlement-1-game-suspension/268687
Rather, you're basing it all on a tweet from this guy:
“With respect to the report this morning, not sure I can share more on that. I wish I could provide more details,” Atallah said. “I know we’re all anxious for some sort of a decision here as training camps open up next week. As far as the specifics of who offered a settlement, was a settlement offered, I wish I could provide more. The only thing I can say is, we’re looking forward to getting some closure on this sometime soon.”
Atallah said that the kinds of settlement talks that reportedly went on with Brady are “part of the normal course of how we do business” in order to avoid court battles.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/23/george-atallah-on-brady-settlement-talks-i-wish-i-could-provide-more-details/
Of course, it's possible that you could be right, and that Brady was never going to take a one game suspension, but if that's the case all these reporters were relying on one source (possible and unlikely) and not checking it against anything else, while the NFL stayed mum on the matter.
But this conversation we're having about sources just shows how much of a cluster this whole situation has become. Heck, the NFL, even though it's been proven to not be true, has STILL not technically refute the original Mortenson report. It's never been taken down, it's still up for people to read, a 100% totally false report.
It's just posturing in preparation for another draining lawsuit, IMO. Something the NFL would have surely avoided. I'm not sure that I believe that sealing the records was the only sticking point, but I definitely believe the NFL would have been agitating for a reduced sentence after an admission of guilt and an apology from Brady -- and there is an absence of evidence from the opposing side save that one tweet, which is suspect for reasons already listed.
-
However, this is a sidetrack (this whole thing is a sidetrack, but whatever). The original point I was trying to make was that the prospective PR fallout of "Brady destroyed his cell phone!" is being over blown in this thread.
Apologies for the digression.
-
However, this is a sidetrack (this whole thing is a sidetrack, but whatever). The original point I was trying to make was that the prospective PR fallout of "Brady destroyed his cell phone!" is being over blown in this thread.
Apologies for the digression.
A friend of mine said that something on page 12 of whatever was released said that Brady did not desstroy his cell phone. Don't quote me on that, as I'm not sure it's true, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it was.
EDIT: Wow, that was a really general statement.
-
This is the actual CNN report.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/28/us/tom-brady-deflategate-suspension-upheld/
NFLPA spokesman George Atallah told CNN's Rachel Nichols that media reports claiming the NFL offered to drop Brady's suspension are "categorically false."
"The negotiations never got that far," Atallah told Nichols, adding that the players' union made an initial offer to the league.
The proposed deal was that the four-game suspension be eliminated, but Brady would pay a fine for failing to cooperate with the investigation.
Atallah said league officials told them the NFL wouldn't even discuss anything unless Brady admitted his guilt.
At that point negotiations ended, Atallah told Nichols.
-
However, this is a sidetrack (this whole thing is a sidetrack, but whatever). The original point I was trying to make was that the prospective PR fallout of "Brady destroyed his cell phone!" is being over blown in this thread.
Apologies for the digression.
A friend of mine said that something on page 12 of whatever was released said that Brady did not desstroy his cell phone. Don't quote me on that, as I'm not sure it's true, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it was.
EDIT: Wow, that was a really general statement.
What pg 12 does is go at length at the fact that even though Brady claims that he customarily destroys his phones when he stops using them, he was able to provide the investigation with a phone he used prior to November 2014.
-
And here go...
Jim TrotterVerified account
?@JimTrotter_NFL
Tom Brady has authorized the NFLPA to appeal his case in federal court, per source.
Awesome. I'm glad to see him go forward with this.
If he's going forward with this, all you can be glad about is that he's attempting to get back on the field. His legacy though is now permanently stained. The fact that he had his phone destroyed is a massive detail...even if he goes to court, wins, and gets this down to 0 games, Patriot haters can say "well you know why he won? Because they had no evidence because he destroyed his phone"
Now again, if you're saying awesome just because he's fighting to get back on the field, then sure. But fighting for his "legacy" is now a dead battle. It's over.
His legacy isn't stained at all, that's just the narrative fan in you talking. It's not nearly as 'stained' as, say, Ray Lewis -- who's legacy isn't in particularly poor standing at all, at least as his play is concerned.
Look, I'm not a football fan, but how is Brady's legacy not at all tarnished after this? In how many scandals do he and Belichick have to be involved before someone puts two and two together?
I think the larger point is that these things fade from memory for the most part. You do realize the guy Dos is referring to is "more likely than not" to know about murder of two young men and/or have been involved in it. That man is now on national tv broadcasts and is trotted out as an ambassador of the game. If he can overcome that, I think it is more likely than not that Brady can overcome more likely than not knowing about the deflation of some footballs.
Unless you are Mark Brunell and facing bankruptcy from bad whattaburger investments, this is isn't the kind of stuff to cry over.
Yes, I'm well aware of Ray Lewis and feel that he should be in jail, but I also don't think it's easy for people to dismiss this 'scandal' involving Brady and the Patriots because it only adds to their already-shady track record. Honestly, I don't give a flying fart in space about the nfl or any of this. I just think it's a sad sign of where our 'news' is right now in this country if 'stories' like this are heavily and regularly featured. I'm not sure which is more hilarious - the completely asinine discussion itself, or the amount of time given to it. I mean, other than Brady and the Patriots, the most talked about offender/conspirator (whichever term you prefer) is a guy who called himself, 'the deflator.' ::) This 'story' is gold, lol ;D.
It's a story because they need space to fill before training camp, and end of July/beginning of August is the sports news dead zone. And also because the NFL seems incapable of doing anything other than shooting themselves in the foot whenever something like this comes up -- newsworthy because the NFL is massive.
The reasons why you feel such news stories are asinine is another topic entirely, but perhaps not one that will find much traction on a forum dedicated to tracking players of a specific sports team into largely unimportant minutia.
Wait, aren't you a journalist or something who has spent a lot of time lecturing this blog on how the process works, and yet you don't think a 'story' like this is asinine? ::) Wow. Well, at the very least, could we agree that the coverage has been over inflated ;) ;D, because we passed 'unimportant minutia' MONTHS AGO.
Besides, other than the 2 week period after the superbowl, there is no downtime for nfl, or college football, news. First it's the combine, then it's the draft that seemingly takes a week ::), then you have non-mandatory mini camps and workouts where 'reporters' often interpret such earth shattering events (sarcasm) as a player taking longer than usual in the porta potty as a sign that he's holding out for a new contract, followed by other mini camps and the analysis of who did and did not show up, more contract disputes, training camp, the preseason, and then the regular season finally starts. It's the same crap every year. Thank god I stopped watching sportscenter a while ago. Honestly, these 'reporters' often ask questions and cover 'stories' in a manner befitting the correspondents of extra and entertainment tonight.
-
I think you misread my post.
-
I think you misread my post.
If you're talking to me, how so?
-
put another way: the reason there are reporters 'still' covering Deflategate is the same reason we can have a multi-page thread about RJ Hunter months before the regular season starts. It has very little to do with the quality (or lack thereof) of the happenings, but simply the fact that the happenings exist.
-
Brady should have admitted he was guilty from the start instead of letting his big fat ego take over. Would have probably gotten a fine and this would have been long gone...
-
put another way: the reason there are reporters 'still' covering Deflategate is the same reason we can have a multi-page thread about RJ Hunter months before the regular season starts. It has very little to do with the quality (or lack thereof) of the happenings, but simply the fact that the happenings exist.
Well, if that's the standard by which these 'reporters' operate, then we have a much bigger problem, here. I guess this is the product of 24 hour news, but still, it's pathetic.
-
I have been saying for months in this thread that this story (rather than the controversy behind the actual story, which is the story at this point) is a waste of time, and that it is simply news because there is nothing else to talk about in regards to the NFL. Your assumption that I don't think so is unfounded.
And, in totality, your response indicates that you did not understand my post. Next time I will include more smileys and lols.
To use the quote button like mahone wants me to"
Wait, aren't you a journalist or something who has spent a lot of time lecturing this blog on how the process works, and yet you don't think a 'story' like this is asinine? ::) Wow
This is a baseless assumption born entirely out of a failure on your behalf to accurately comprehend what I wrote, both in isolation and in the greater context of the thread. That is exactly what I mean when I say "I think you misread my post." It means "your response would make it appear that you don't actually know what I've just said, and maybe a second look would help."
edit: almost forgot!
" lol! ::) "
Why spend so much time and energy on it, then? I have not been keeping up to date with any of this, so how would I know that you've given so much effort to a story that you don't think is worthy of the amount of coverage it deserves, and what is this controversy behind the controversy, so to speak?
Perhaps you should read over what you wrote, again. I was making the point on why the whole thing is absurd, and you explained why it was a story, even though, if precedent is observed, espn, etc., clearly doesn't need any help in thinking of how to report on nothing regarding any level of football. Why is this particular topic continuing to receive so much attention as opposed to something like domestic violence or the long term impact of concussions? It's one thing to be a filler piece - it's quite another to be a story that occupies a significant portion of national news broadcasts over a period of months.
Additionally, were you being sarcastic when you mentioned that it's newsworthy because the nfl is massive, because I can't tell.
Thank you for taking the time to explain what 'I think you misread my post' meant, btw - it was both necessary and greatly appreciated (sarcasm). If I have any questions in the future as far as how to make friends and influence people, you'll be the first person I contact (sarcasm) ::).
-
Brady finally comes out with a statement (you know, for the people in this thread that kinda actually care and have been following this from the start ::) )
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/29/tom-brady-im-very-disappointed-i-did-nothing-wrong/
-
Brady finally comes out with a statement (you know, for the people in this thread that kinda actually care and have been following this from the start ::) )
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/29/tom-brady-im-very-disappointed-i-did-nothing-wrong/
Give em hell Tom
-
I'm pretty late to the party here, so I'll probably say stuff that has already been said....however, I do not for the life of me understand why an employer (really any employer but especially an employer of people in a union) think for the life of them "cooperation" in an investigation means they get to completely invade your privacy.
To me "cooperation" means they ask you questions, and you answer them. They want to see the footballs so you give them to them. But take cell phones from 5 people? Who the heck do they think they are, the NSA? Even the NSA isn't supposed to do that.
If I'm the NFLPA I'm standing united on this and saying the following:
"All our players at any and all times are always in complete control of their phones, their email and social media passwords and logins, their diaries, their trash, their homes, their photo albums, their cars, their academic records, their yards, and any other similar part of their private lives and the NFL can never have access to them ever. Our players will comply with warrants by law enforcement, but not ever the NFL. This is non-negotiable. It doesn't matter if they burn them, send them to the moon, smash them with hammers, or delete it. It is their property."
Go on strike if you must, but win this battle.
The end.
I don't recognize an employer's right to your stuff. They have a right to their stuff.
First of all, while it might be true that the league has no means whatsoever to compel players or team officials to comply with it's investigations, you can't just assume that to be true. Maybe they're expected to comply with official league investigations, and Brady's an example of what kind of punishment they can get if they don't. You also can't just compare them to typical employees. For instance, the players have to share much more of their medical history than almost anyone else would.
Also, as an fyi, it's not unheard of for employers to ask employees for their social media passwords. The employees (or prospective employees) aren't legally obligated to comply with the request, but their employment can still be contingent on it. The nfl can't legally compel Brady to give them his phone, but that doesn't imply that they can't punish him for not cooperating with the investigation.
To me Brady did comply. He just didn't let them thoroughly invade his privacy and leak whatever they want to whoever they want.
And I agree he isn't just any employee. He's a member of a union with rights that are being trampled.
-
put another way: the reason there are reporters 'still' covering Deflategate is the same reason we can have a multi-page thread about RJ Hunter months before the regular season starts. It has very little to do with the quality (or lack thereof) of the happenings, but simply the fact that the happenings exist.
As far as the nfl goes, whether or not Brady gets suspended for four games seems like big news.
-
The Patriots have fallen victim to a classic old school NFL rule. Never hit back. Always hit first. By the time the ref turns around he catches you.
Instead of being on defense all the time they need to go on offense and start accusing other teams of breaking rules and requiring people to investigate the other teams. But they have to do it with the media as well as with the league.
Oh hey. The Jets are practicing too many hours. Oh the Colts are using illegal pads. Oh the Steelers are giving their players red bull during the games.
Whatever works.
-
From Brady's statement this morning:
I also disagree with yesterdays narrative surrounding my cellphone. I replaced my broken Samsung phone with a new iPhone 6 AFTER my attorneys made it clear to the NFL that my actual phone device would not be subjected to investigation under ANY circumstances. As a member of a union, I was under no obligation to set a new precedent going forward, nor was I made aware at any time during Mr. Wells investigation, that failing to subject my cell phone to investigation would result in ANY discipline.
Clearly this whole thing is just an elaborate scheme devised by Brady and his secret corporate sponsor, Apple, to promote the iPhone 6.
-
I thought this would happen because of the hubris he displayed to the league, thus I suspected they would make an example of him. I think the league blew this out of proportion though, I suspect all QBs do it.
-
put another way: the reason there are reporters 'still' covering Deflategate is the same reason we can have a multi-page thread about RJ Hunter months before the regular season starts. It has very little to do with the quality (or lack thereof) of the happenings, but simply the fact that the happenings exist.
As far as the nfl goes, whether or not Brady gets suspended for four games seems like big news.
Certainly a bigger deal than RJ Hunter scoring 96 points. That was responding to the question "why are people still focusing on this?" and the answer is that it's the NFL -- the audience is voracious enough that they'll turn anything into a newsworthy story, "worthwhile" or not.
-
So...ummm... Kraft just took a flame thrower to Goodell & the league office.
-
So...ummm... Kraft just took a flame thrower to Goodell & the league office.
A little disingenuous given his actual actions last time he said mean things though, I would say.
-
So...ummm... Kraft just took a flame thrower to Goodell & the league office.
A little disingenuous given his actual actions last time he said mean things though, I would say.
Yeah, I mean where was this back in June or whenever he rolled over?
Good to see some fight out of him again, though.
-
So...ummm... Kraft just took a flame thrower to Goodell & the league office.
A little disingenuous given his actual actions last time he said mean things though, I would say.
Not at all if you listened to the whole statement.
-
PFT just posted the transcript in its entirety.
I felt it was important to make a statement today, prior to the start of training camp. After this, I will not be talking about this matter until after the legal process plays itself out, and I would advise everyone in the organization to do the same and just concentrate on preparation for the 2015 season.
The decision handed down by the league yesterday is unfathomable to me. It is routine for discipline in the NFL to be reduced upon appeal. In the vast majority of these cases, there is tangible and hard evidence of the infraction for which the discipline is being imposed, and still the initial penalty gets reduced. Six months removed from the AFC championship game, the league still has no hard evidence of anybody doing anything to tamper with the PSI levels of footballs.
I continue to believe and unequivocally support Tom Brady. I first and foremost need to apologize to our fans, because I truly believe what I did in May, given the actual evidence of the situation and the league’s history on discipline matters, would make it much easier for the league to exonerate Tom Brady.
Unfortunately, I was wrong.
The league’s handling of this entire process has been extremely frustrating and disconcerting. I will never understand why an initial erroneous report regarding the PSI level of footballs was leaked by a source from the NFL a few days after the AFC championship game, [and] was never corrected by those who had the correct information. For four months, that report cast aspersions and shaped public opinion.
Yesterday’s decision by Commissioner was released in a similar manner, under an erroneous headline that read, “Tom Brady destroyed his cellphone.” This headline was designed to capture headlines across the country and obscure evidence regarding the tampering of air pressure in footballs. It intentionally implied nefarious behavior and minimized the acknowledgement that Tom provided the history of every number he texted during that relevant time frame. And we had already provided the league with every cellphone of every non-NFLPA that they requested, including head coach Bill Belichick.
Tom Brady is a person of great integrity, and is a great ambassador of the game, both on and off the field. Yet for reasons that I cannot comprehend, there are those in the league office who are more determined to prove that they were right rather than admit any culpability of their own or take any responsibility for the initiation of a process and ensuing investigation that was flawed.
I have come to the conclusion that this was never about doing what was fair and just. Back in May, I had to make a difficult decision that I now regret. I tried to do what I thought was right. I chose not to take legal action. I wanted to return the focus to football.
I have been negotiating agreements on a global basis my entire life. I know there are times when you have to give up important points of principle to achieve a greater good. I acted in good faith and was optimistic that by taking the actions I took the league would have what they wanted. I was willing to accept the harshest penalty in the history of the NFL for an alleged ball violation because I believed it would help exonerate Tom.
I have often said, ‘If you want to get a deal done, sometimes you have to get the lawyers out of the room.’ I had hoped that Tom Brady’s appeal to the league would provide Roger Goodell the necessary explanation to overturn his suspension. Now, the league has taken the matter to court, which is a tactic that only a lawyer would recommend.
Once again, I want to apologize to the fans of the New England Patriots and Tom Brady. I was wrong to put my faith in the league. Given the facts, evidence, and laws of science that underscore this entire situation, it is completely incomprehensible to me that the league continues to take steps to disparage one of its all-time great players, and a man for whom I have the utmost respect.
Personally, this is very sad and disappointing to me.
-
Good to see flame wars happening in real sports and not just the celticsblog points league.
Also, how much would Mark Cuban be fined if he did this stuff in the NBA?
-
Brady finally comes out with a statement (you know, for the people in this thread that kinda actually care and have been following this from the start ::) )
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/29/tom-brady-im-very-disappointed-i-did-nothing-wrong/
He seems to be claiming his old phone was broken, although everything prior to that statement pointed to something completely different. Also, he tells us all about why he never intended to give his phone or the texts to the league, yet he talks about asking the phone company if they could retrieve the texts. Not really credible, unless the plan was to have his assistant destroy some of their servers if they claimed they had the texts.
-
So...ummm... Kraft just took a flame thrower to Goodell & the league office.
A little disingenuous given his actual actions last time he said mean things though, I would say.
Not at all if you listened to the whole statement.
Nah that's bogus. He knew exactly what was going to happen when he refused to sue them a month ago. This is just more posturing and jock adjusting by all parties involved.
-
Brady finally comes out with a statement (you know, for the people in this thread that kinda actually care and have been following this from the start ::) )
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/29/tom-brady-im-very-disappointed-i-did-nothing-wrong/
He seems to be claiming his old phone was broken, although everything prior to that statement pointed to something completely different. Also, he tells us all about why he never intended to give his phone or the texts to the league, yet he talks about asking the phone company if they could retrieve the texts. Not really credible, unless the plan was to have his assistant destroy some of their servers if they claimed they had the texts.
I think the "Destroyed His Phone" Narrative was a red herring
I think replaced his phone is more accurate.
Also Brady and the patriots did provide all cell phones for every non NFLPA employee of the patriots, so they saw every text that brady sent to Belichick, and the two equipment guys.
Finally Brady presented new information during his appeal which was the records of every text he sent on that phone and offered to assist the NFL in gathering any text they wanted.
-
From Brady's statement this morning:
I also disagree with yesterdays narrative surrounding my cellphone. I replaced my broken Samsung phone with a new iPhone 6 AFTER my attorneys made it clear to the NFL that my actual phone device would not be subjected to investigation under ANY circumstances. As a member of a union, I was under no obligation to set a new precedent going forward, nor was I made aware at any time during Mr. Wells investigation, that failing to subject my cell phone to investigation would result in ANY discipline.
Clearly this whole thing is just an elaborate scheme devised by Brady and his secret corporate sponsor, Apple, to promote the iPhone 6.
I personally think switching from Android to Apple is an unforgivable offense that merits even more than a 4 game ban. ;D
-
PFT just posted the transcript in its entirety.
I felt it was important to make a statement today, prior to the start of training camp. After this, I will not be talking about this matter until after the legal process plays itself out, and I would advise everyone in the organization to do the same and just concentrate on preparation for the 2015 season.
The decision handed down by the league yesterday is unfathomable to me. It is routine for discipline in the NFL to be reduced upon appeal. In the vast majority of these cases, there is tangible and hard evidence of the infraction for which the discipline is being imposed, and still the initial penalty gets reduced. Six months removed from the AFC championship game, the league still has no hard evidence of anybody doing anything to tamper with the PSI levels of footballs.
I continue to believe and unequivocally support Tom Brady. I first and foremost need to apologize to our fans, because I truly believe what I did in May, given the actual evidence of the situation and the league’s history on discipline matters, would make it much easier for the league to exonerate Tom Brady.
Unfortunately, I was wrong.
The league’s handling of this entire process has been extremely frustrating and disconcerting. I will never understand why an initial erroneous report regarding the PSI level of footballs was leaked by a source from the NFL a few days after the AFC championship game, [and] was never corrected by those who had the correct information. For four months, that report cast aspersions and shaped public opinion.
Yesterday’s decision by Commissioner was released in a similar manner, under an erroneous headline that read, “Tom Brady destroyed his cellphone.” This headline was designed to capture headlines across the country and obscure evidence regarding the tampering of air pressure in footballs. It intentionally implied nefarious behavior and minimized the acknowledgement that Tom provided the history of every number he texted during that relevant time frame. And we had already provided the league with every cellphone of every non-NFLPA that they requested, including head coach Bill Belichick.
Tom Brady is a person of great integrity, and is a great ambassador of the game, both on and off the field. Yet for reasons that I cannot comprehend, there are those in the league office who are more determined to prove that they were right rather than admit any culpability of their own or take any responsibility for the initiation of a process and ensuing investigation that was flawed.
I have come to the conclusion that this was never about doing what was fair and just. Back in May, I had to make a difficult decision that I now regret. I tried to do what I thought was right. I chose not to take legal action. I wanted to return the focus to football.
I have been negotiating agreements on a global basis my entire life. I know there are times when you have to give up important points of principle to achieve a greater good. I acted in good faith and was optimistic that by taking the actions I took the league would have what they wanted. I was willing to accept the harshest penalty in the history of the NFL for an alleged ball violation because I believed it would help exonerate Tom.
I have often said, ‘If you want to get a deal done, sometimes you have to get the lawyers out of the room.’ I had hoped that Tom Brady’s appeal to the league would provide Roger Goodell the necessary explanation to overturn his suspension. Now, the league has taken the matter to court, which is a tactic that only a lawyer would recommend.
Once again, I want to apologize to the fans of the New England Patriots and Tom Brady. I was wrong to put my faith in the league. Given the facts, evidence, and laws of science that underscore this entire situation, it is completely incomprehensible to me that the league continues to take steps to disparage one of its all-time great players, and a man for whom I have the utmost respect.
Personally, this is very sad and disappointing to me.
Doesn't really add a lot. One thing worth noting: Brady talks about providing the league with info about all the calls and texts he made prior to the afc title game, and Kraft talks about Brady providing the league with a history of his calls and texts for "that relevant time frame". It's likely the league was just as interested in any calls or texts made after the game, and were likely stonewalled on that.
-
Brady finally comes out with a statement (you know, for the people in this thread that kinda actually care and have been following this from the start ::) )
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/29/tom-brady-im-very-disappointed-i-did-nothing-wrong/
He seems to be claiming his old phone was broken, although everything prior to that statement pointed to something completely different. Also, he tells us all about why he never intended to give his phone or the texts to the league, yet he talks about asking the phone company if they could retrieve the texts. Not really credible, unless the plan was to have his assistant destroy some of their servers if they claimed they had the texts.
I think the "Destroyed His Phone" Narrative was a red herring
I think replaced his phone is more accurate.
Also Brady and the patriots did provide all cell phones for every non NFLPA employee of the patriots, so they saw every text that brady sent to Belichick, and the two equipment guys.
Finally Brady presented new information during his appeal which was the records of every text he sent on that phone and offered to assist the NFL in gathering any text they wanted.
Replaced isn't more accurate. He doesn't have the old phone to give them, because it (and the sim card) were (apparently) deliberately destroyed. If Brady had the phone destroyed and had confirmed with the carrier that they couldn't retrieve the texts, how was he going to assist the NFL in gathering those texts? A seance?
-
FWIW, Lester Munson (who is great, even as an ESPN employee) wrote a Q&A about the possibility of a lawsuit. :
Q: The Patriots' rebuttal Thursday was aggressive and detailed. What was the purpose of this attack on Goodell and the investigation?
A: It is possible the Patriots' rebuttal will become the foundation for a lawsuit against Goodell and the league. But it is more likely that the purpose of the rebuttal was a form of damage control. It offers material for the Patriots' true-believer fans to use as they continue to support their beloved team.
It might diminish the effect of the investigation's assault upon the team's reputation in its market. But it's highly unlikely owner Bob Kraft will file any litigation against the NFL. If he filed a lawsuit, he would join the late Al Davis and Donald Sterling as the only sports team owners to sue their fellow owners. Kraft does not want to be in any group that includes Davis and Sterling.
Q: What advantages, if any, does Brady enjoy in this appeal?
A: In reality, just the notion that it cannot get any worse for him.
Whether the arbitrator is Goodell, Henderson or an independent person, the arbitrator cannot increase the suspension. If the arbitrator looks at all the evidence and concludes that Brady was guilty of a form of cheating that affected the integrity of the competition in the most successful sports enterprise in America, the arbitrator could not suspend Brady for more than four games. If the arbitrator had the power to actually increase a penalty, well, Brady and the NFLPA might not have filed an appeal.
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/12888612/tom-brady-nflpa-cannot-win-appeal-filed-deflategate
He also thinks there's no way the NFLPA has a chance in court. I'm not sure I agree with him, but he's way smarter than I am, so.
-
Brady finally comes out with a statement (you know, for the people in this thread that kinda actually care and have been following this from the start ::) )
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/29/tom-brady-im-very-disappointed-i-did-nothing-wrong/
He seems to be claiming his old phone was broken, although everything prior to that statement pointed to something completely different. Also, he tells us all about why he never intended to give his phone or the texts to the league, yet he talks about asking the phone company if they could retrieve the texts. Not really credible, unless the plan was to have his assistant destroy some of their servers if they claimed they had the texts.
I think the "Destroyed His Phone" Narrative was a red herring
I think replaced his phone is more accurate.
Also Brady and the patriots did provide all cell phones for every non NFLPA employee of the patriots, so they saw every text that brady sent to Belichick, and the two equipment guys.
Finally Brady presented new information during his appeal which was the records of every text he sent on that phone and offered to assist the NFL in gathering any text they wanted.
Replaced isn't more accurate. He doesn't have the old phone to give them, because it (and the sim card) were (apparently) deliberately destroyed. If Brady had the phone destroyed and had confirmed with the carrier that they couldn't retrieve the texts, how was he going to assist the NFL in gathering those texts? A seance?
How do you know the phone was destroyed rather than replaced?
He provided all phone records. If the other person did not delete them you can still see them. Also as previously noted all relevant communications between Brady and other Patriots personnel were already provided.
-
FWIW, Lester Munson (who is great, even as an ESPN employee) wrote a Q&A about the possibility of a lawsuit. :
Q: The Patriots' rebuttal Thursday was aggressive and detailed. What was the purpose of this attack on Goodell and the investigation?
A: It is possible the Patriots' rebuttal will become the foundation for a lawsuit against Goodell and the league. But it is more likely that the purpose of the rebuttal was a form of damage control. It offers material for the Patriots' true-believer fans to use as they continue to support their beloved team.
It might diminish the effect of the investigation's assault upon the team's reputation in its market. But it's highly unlikely owner Bob Kraft will file any litigation against the NFL. If he filed a lawsuit, he would join the late Al Davis and Donald Sterling as the only sports team owners to sue their fellow owners. Kraft does not want to be in any group that includes Davis and Sterling.
Q: What advantages, if any, does Brady enjoy in this appeal?
A: In reality, just the notion that it cannot get any worse for him.
Whether the arbitrator is Goodell, Henderson or an independent person, the arbitrator cannot increase the suspension. If the arbitrator looks at all the evidence and concludes that Brady was guilty of a form of cheating that affected the integrity of the competition in the most successful sports enterprise in America, the arbitrator could not suspend Brady for more than four games. If the arbitrator had the power to actually increase a penalty, well, Brady and the NFLPA might not have filed an appeal.
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/12888612/tom-brady-nflpa-cannot-win-appeal-filed-deflategate
He also thinks there's no way the NFLPA has a chance in court. I'm not sure I agree with him, but he's way smarter than I am, so.
I'm a biased Pats fan, and I'm not well versed in the applicable area of law, but it's just difficult for me to believe that an independent arbitrator would look at all of the facts, and how this has been handled by both sides from the start, and determine that 4 games was a reasonable suspension. Maybe the standard is higher than that -- maybe the decision needs to have been without merit, or arbitrary and capricious, or something like that.
I still think 4 games would get knocked down on that basis. We'll see, I guess.
The bottom line here for me is that Brady is being punished for the past conduct of his organization, and the stated basis for that punishment is his general awareness of rule breaking by other people in the organization. None of that is a valid basis for punishing Brady personally.
If the court sees it the same way, I can't imagine the punishment standing.
-
I feel like the NFL deliberately has been leaking false information to the press at every step in the process. Then later on it is refuted, but at that point ESPN has already talked about the false information for days and it is stuck in people's minds. That 11 of 12 balls were initially reported deflated and the original psi number being false it seems that ESPN is just a mouthpiece for whatever agenda the NFL is pushing.
It does seem like all the information we are getting in the news is from the NFL. Don Yee's statement yesterday made it seem that the NFL clearly did not give Brady a fair appeal.
That Brady's camp offered to give the numbers of all the people Brady has texted with in the past and the NFL simply said no seems kind of ridiculous. The NFL asked for Brady's texts and Brady offered a way in which to provide them, but the NFL said, no thanks we would rather just paint you as uncooperative and keep the suspension.
It just seems that with some of the recent Goodell suspensions getting overturned by independent arbiters, Goodell refused to take the chance that there would be a fair appeals process. Brady very well could/might have done something wrong but the manner in which this process took place indicates that the NFL knows they can't completely prove it so they are distorting the facts in the court of public opinion.
-
I feel like the NFL deliberately has been leaking false information to the press at every step in the process. Then later on it is refuted, but at that point ESPN has already talked about the false information for days and it is stuck in people's minds. That 11 of 12 balls were initially reported deflated and the original psi number being false it seems that ESPN is just a mouthpiece for whatever agenda the NFL is pushing.
Whatever you think of Keith Olbermann and Bill Simmons, they were both let go from the worldwide leader (at least in part) because of their adversarial comments towards the NFL's front office.
-
Replaced isn't more accurate. He doesn't have the old phone to give them, because it (and the sim card) were (apparently) deliberately destroyed. If Brady had the phone destroyed and had confirmed with the carrier that they couldn't retrieve the texts, how was he going to assist the NFL in gathering those texts? A seance?
You realize that when you send a text, it goes to another device right?
It just so happens that Brady provided the league with a complete list of the people he texted (in addition to the phone company printouts). However, the NFL deemed it "impractical" to follow up with those people. Yes, the same league that apparently thought it very practical to spend a ton of time an money on an external investigation of an equipment violation.
Cue in the applause.
-
I feel like the NFL deliberately has been leaking false information to the press at every step in the process. Then later on it is refuted, but at that point ESPN has already talked about the false information for days and it is stuck in people's minds. That 11 of 12 balls were initially reported deflated and the original psi number being false it seems that ESPN is just a mouthpiece for whatever agenda the NFL is pushing.
Whatever you think of Keith Olbermann and Bill Simmons, they were both let go from the worldwide leader (at least in part) because of their adversarial comments towards the NFL's front office.
Yup. ESPN may not be a shill for the NFL, exactly, but they are not interested in presenting openly critical opinions of the leagues that form the basis of their business.
I think it's fair to say that ESPN is at least a partner with the various major sports leagues. Not accurate to call it a "news" or "journalism" organization.
-
I feel like the NFL deliberately has been leaking false information to the press at every step in the process. Then later on it is refuted, but at that point ESPN has already talked about the false information for days and it is stuck in people's minds. That 11 of 12 balls were initially reported deflated and the original psi number being false it seems that ESPN is just a mouthpiece for whatever agenda the NFL is pushing.
Whatever you think of Keith Olbermann and Bill Simmons, they were both let go from the worldwide leader (at least in part) because of their adversarial comments towards the NFL's front office.
Yup. ESPN may not be a shill for the NFL, exactly, but they are not interested in presenting openly critical opinions of the leagues that form the basis of their business.
I think it's fair to say that ESPN is at least a partner with the various major sports leagues. Not accurate to call it a "news" or "journalism" organization.
ESPN is also already (internally) peeved that its Monday Night slate (which it pays a ridiculous amount of money for) is constantly inferior to the Sunday Night package that NBC is receiving.
The notion is that any super harsh criticism towards the league (the Commissioner's office, in particular) isn't going to help them in the future with Monday Night scheduling has certainly contributed to ESPN's "soft" tone towards the NFL here and, as DOS mentioned, seems like it contribute, in part, to the ouster of Simmons & Olbermann. Although, trimming their talent budget was a factor too.
-
From Brady's statement this morning:
I also disagree with yesterdays narrative surrounding my cellphone. I replaced my broken Samsung phone with a new iPhone 6 AFTER my attorneys made it clear to the NFL that my actual phone device would not be subjected to investigation under ANY circumstances. As a member of a union, I was under no obligation to set a new precedent going forward, nor was I made aware at any time during Mr. Wells investigation, that failing to subject my cell phone to investigation would result in ANY discipline.
Clearly this whole thing is just an elaborate scheme devised by Brady and his secret corporate sponsor, Apple, to promote the iPhone 6.
I personally think switching from Android to Apple is an unforgivable offense that merits even more than a 4 game ban. ;D
one of my friends posted the same thing on facebook today. Is the iphone really inferior to the android style? I have a flip phone so i don't know the difference besides some restrictions with apple
-
From Brady's statement this morning:
I also disagree with yesterdays narrative surrounding my cellphone. I replaced my broken Samsung phone with a new iPhone 6 AFTER my attorneys made it clear to the NFL that my actual phone device would not be subjected to investigation under ANY circumstances. As a member of a union, I was under no obligation to set a new precedent going forward, nor was I made aware at any time during Mr. Wells investigation, that failing to subject my cell phone to investigation would result in ANY discipline.
Clearly this whole thing is just an elaborate scheme devised by Brady and his secret corporate sponsor, Apple, to promote the iPhone 6.
I personally think switching from Android to Apple is an unforgivable offense that merits even more than a 4 game ban. ;D
one of my friends posted the same thing on facebook today. Is the iphone really inferior to the android style? I have a flip phone so i don't know the difference besides some restrictions with apple
Nah, it's more of a knee-jerk thing ;)
Personally, I have never liked where Apple products sit on the tradeoff line between hands-on control and user friendliness.
-
Although, trimming their talent budget was a factor too.
That's true, but I mean there's a reason they offered Colin Cowherd (who says the most "your family has to apologize for him uncle" style of mindbogglingly stupid things on a regular basis) a bigger deal and straight up cut Simmons + KO.
-
I feel like the NFL deliberately has been leaking false information to the press at every step in the process. Then later on it is refuted, but at that point ESPN has already talked about the false information for days and it is stuck in people's minds. That 11 of 12 balls were initially reported deflated and the original psi number being false it seems that ESPN is just a mouthpiece for whatever agenda the NFL is pushing.
It does seem like all the information we are getting in the news is from the NFL. Don Yee's statement yesterday made it seem that the NFL clearly did not give Brady a fair appeal.
That Brady's camp offered to give the numbers of all the people Brady has texted with in the past and the NFL simply said no seems kind of ridiculous. The NFL asked for Brady's texts and Brady offered a way in which to provide them, but the NFL said, no thanks we would rather just paint you as uncooperative and keep the suspension.
It just seems that with some of the recent Goodell suspensions getting overturned by independent arbiters, Goodell refused to take the chance that there would be a fair appeals process. Brady very well could/might have done something wrong but the manner in which this process took place indicates that the NFL knows they can't completely prove it so they are distorting the facts in the court of public opinion.
Exactly. And you don't give a leaky organization your phone
-
Exactly. And you don't give a leaky organization your phone
Well, the NFL claimed they didn't want the phone, just a curated list of texts about ball preparation. Which Brady refused to provide. So this is still confusing, given that Brady hasn't disputed this claim.
-
FWIW, Lester Munson (who is great, even as an ESPN employee) wrote a Q&A about the possibility of a lawsuit. :
Q: The Patriots' rebuttal Thursday was aggressive and detailed. What was the purpose of this attack on Goodell and the investigation?
A: It is possible the Patriots' rebuttal will become the foundation for a lawsuit against Goodell and the league. But it is more likely that the purpose of the rebuttal was a form of damage control. It offers material for the Patriots' true-believer fans to use as they continue to support their beloved team.
It might diminish the effect of the investigation's assault upon the team's reputation in its market. But it's highly unlikely owner Bob Kraft will file any litigation against the NFL. If he filed a lawsuit, he would join the late Al Davis and Donald Sterling as the only sports team owners to sue their fellow owners. Kraft does not want to be in any group that includes Davis and Sterling.
Q: What advantages, if any, does Brady enjoy in this appeal?
A: In reality, just the notion that it cannot get any worse for him.
Whether the arbitrator is Goodell, Henderson or an independent person, the arbitrator cannot increase the suspension. If the arbitrator looks at all the evidence and concludes that Brady was guilty of a form of cheating that affected the integrity of the competition in the most successful sports enterprise in America, the arbitrator could not suspend Brady for more than four games. If the arbitrator had the power to actually increase a penalty, well, Brady and the NFLPA might not have filed an appeal.
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/12888612/tom-brady-nflpa-cannot-win-appeal-filed-deflategate
He also thinks there's no way the NFLPA has a chance in court. I'm not sure I agree with him, but he's way smarter than I am, so.
You lost me at "Lester Munson, (who is great"...
-
Exactly. And you don't give a leaky organization your phone
Well, the NFL claimed they didn't want the phone, just a curated list of texts about ball preparation. Which Brady refused to provide. So this is still confusing, given that Brady hasn't disputed this claim.
Well there you have it....there's your smoking gun....I mean they didn't even want the texts. They just wanted a list OF texts. Because lists are very helpful in these kinds of investigations.
So thaaaattt's why they release something yesterday with the heading "Brady destroyed phone"
The NFL has found as easy target. Or at least they thought so.
-
Exactly. And you don't give a leaky organization your phone
Well, the NFL claimed they didn't want the phone, just a curated list of texts about ball preparation. Which Brady refused to provide. So this is still confusing, given that Brady hasn't disputed this claim.
Well there you have it....there's your smoking gun....I mean they didn't even want the texts. They just wanted a list OF texts. Because lists are very helpful in these kinds of investigations.
So thaaaattt's why they release something yesterday with the heading "Brady destroyed phone"
The NFL has found as easy target. Or at least they thought so.
Yup, this phone nonsense is nothing but a red herring because the NFL's evidence is weak at best. We are all suckers for even discussing the phone.
-
Exactly. And you don't give a leaky organization your phone
Well, the NFL claimed they didn't want the phone, just a curated list of texts about ball preparation. Which Brady refused to provide. So this is still confusing, given that Brady hasn't disputed this claim.
Well there you have it....there's your smoking gun....I mean they didn't even want the texts. They just wanted a list OF texts. Because lists are very helpful in these kinds of investigations.
So thaaaattt's why they release something yesterday with the heading "Brady destroyed phone"
The NFL has found as easy target. Or at least they thought so.
When I said "list of texts" I meant a compilation including the actual text contents.
-
FWIW, Lester Munson (who is great, even as an ESPN employee) wrote a Q&A about the possibility of a lawsuit. :
Q: The Patriots' rebuttal Thursday was aggressive and detailed. What was the purpose of this attack on Goodell and the investigation?
A: It is possible the Patriots' rebuttal will become the foundation for a lawsuit against Goodell and the league. But it is more likely that the purpose of the rebuttal was a form of damage control. It offers material for the Patriots' true-believer fans to use as they continue to support their beloved team.
It might diminish the effect of the investigation's assault upon the team's reputation in its market. But it's highly unlikely owner Bob Kraft will file any litigation against the NFL. If he filed a lawsuit, he would join the late Al Davis and Donald Sterling as the only sports team owners to sue their fellow owners. Kraft does not want to be in any group that includes Davis and Sterling.
Q: What advantages, if any, does Brady enjoy in this appeal?
A: In reality, just the notion that it cannot get any worse for him.
Whether the arbitrator is Goodell, Henderson or an independent person, the arbitrator cannot increase the suspension. If the arbitrator looks at all the evidence and concludes that Brady was guilty of a form of cheating that affected the integrity of the competition in the most successful sports enterprise in America, the arbitrator could not suspend Brady for more than four games. If the arbitrator had the power to actually increase a penalty, well, Brady and the NFLPA might not have filed an appeal.
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/12888612/tom-brady-nflpa-cannot-win-appeal-filed-deflategate
He also thinks there's no way the NFLPA has a chance in court. I'm not sure I agree with him, but he's way smarter than I am, so.
You lost me at "Lester Munson, (who is great"...
I am glad your nuanced opinion was able to convince me otherwise.
It has been my experience that people who don't like Lester Munson generally dislike his presentation aesthetically (understandable) or don't understand what he is saying.
-
Looking into the law, my initial impression is that Brady's appeal hinges on proving one or both of the following:
1) Goodell is an evidently partial arbitrator. That is to say, Goodell is demonstrably biased.
2) Brady's punishment is based upon an awareness of misconduct by other members of his organization, not actions that Brady himself took to circumvent the rules. Brady's team must argue that this type of punishment is contrary to the essence or plain language of the CBA.
Has a player ever been punished by the NFL for the conduct of other members of his organization? Looking to the Saints' situation might be relevant here.
The NFL will argue that Brady's punishment is also based upon his lack of cooperation, and indeed his overt hindrance of the NFL's investigation. Brady's team must point to the lack of any precedent for punishing players with suspension for failure to cooperate with the league.
-
Exactly. And you don't give a leaky organization your phone
Well, the NFL claimed they didn't want the phone, just a curated list of texts about ball preparation. Which Brady refused to provide. So this is still confusing, given that Brady hasn't disputed this claim.
Well there you have it....there's your smoking gun....I mean they didn't even want the texts. They just wanted a list OF texts. Because lists are very helpful in these kinds of investigations.
So thaaaattt's why they release something yesterday with the heading "Brady destroyed phone"
The NFL has found as easy target. Or at least they thought so.
Yup, this phone nonsense is nothing but a red herring because the NFL's evidence is weak at best. We are all suckers for even discussing the phone.
Exactly. Could you imagine if the justice system worked like this. "Sir there is no physical, photographic, or video evidence that he stole a car, however he did destroy his own phone, so he must be guilty. 10 years should be appropriate."
-
Exactly. And you don't give a leaky organization your phone
Well, the NFL claimed they didn't want the phone, just a curated list of texts about ball preparation. Which Brady refused to provide. So this is still confusing, given that Brady hasn't disputed this claim.
Well there you have it....there's your smoking gun....I mean they didn't even want the texts. They just wanted a list OF texts. Because lists are very helpful in these kinds of investigations.
So thaaaattt's why they release something yesterday with the heading "Brady destroyed phone"
The NFL has found as easy target. Or at least they thought so.
Yup, this phone nonsense is nothing but a red herring because the NFL's evidence is weak at best. We are all suckers for even discussing the phone.
Exactly. Could you imagine if the justice system worked like this. "Sir there is no physical, photographic, or video evidence that he stole a car, however he did destroy his own phone, so he must be guilty. 10 years should be appropriate."
Not only do they not have physical, photographic, or video evidence that he stole a car, they don't even have evidence that a car was even stolen.
-
Good thing the NFL doesn't hold itself to that standard, then.
-
Good thing the NFL doesn't hold itself to that standard, then.
On the other hand when there's actual video of an actual crime.....2 games.
-
FWIW, Lester Munson (who is great, even as an ESPN employee) wrote a Q&A about the possibility of a lawsuit. :
Q: The Patriots' rebuttal Thursday was aggressive and detailed. What was the purpose of this attack on Goodell and the investigation?
A: It is possible the Patriots' rebuttal will become the foundation for a lawsuit against Goodell and the league. But it is more likely that the purpose of the rebuttal was a form of damage control. It offers material for the Patriots' true-believer fans to use as they continue to support their beloved team.
It might diminish the effect of the investigation's assault upon the team's reputation in its market. But it's highly unlikely owner Bob Kraft will file any litigation against the NFL. If he filed a lawsuit, he would join the late Al Davis and Donald Sterling as the only sports team owners to sue their fellow owners. Kraft does not want to be in any group that includes Davis and Sterling.
Q: What advantages, if any, does Brady enjoy in this appeal?
A: In reality, just the notion that it cannot get any worse for him.
Whether the arbitrator is Goodell, Henderson or an independent person, the arbitrator cannot increase the suspension. If the arbitrator looks at all the evidence and concludes that Brady was guilty of a form of cheating that affected the integrity of the competition in the most successful sports enterprise in America, the arbitrator could not suspend Brady for more than four games. If the arbitrator had the power to actually increase a penalty, well, Brady and the NFLPA might not have filed an appeal.
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/12888612/tom-brady-nflpa-cannot-win-appeal-filed-deflategate
He also thinks there's no way the NFLPA has a chance in court. I'm not sure I agree with him, but he's way smarter than I am, so.
You lost me at "Lester Munson, (who is great"...
I am glad your nuanced opinion was able to convince me otherwise.
It has been my experience that people who don't like Lester Munson generally dislike his presentation aesthetically (understandable) or don't understand what he is saying.
a somewhat binary philosophy. I find issues a little more complicated sometimes, including opinions on people like Munson.
-
Unfortunate for me then that your feelings doesn't extend to an impulse to elaborate.
Ż\_(^,^)_/Ż
-
A few thoughts:
1) the Lester Munson analysis seems totally biased. In other parts of the article, he was fawning over Goodell's 20 page release talking about how brilliant it is.
2) I am very happy to see Kraft renew the battle. He should have torn apart Goodell earlier and hopefully this will spell the end of Goodell once and for all. Because this isn't simply a matter of it being tough to manage a pro sport and all that comes with it. Adam Silver is doing an extraordinary job with the NBA, which has it it's own share of issues that he's actually handled effectively.
3) This whole thing is so silly. Even if Brady is as guilty as anyone can imagine, he's basically guilty of the NFL equivalent of going 75 in a 55. Lots of people do it and yes, sometimes people get caught. Only this time, the police officer thinks he might have been using a faulty radar gun and, in fact, can't actually remember which gun he used or even if he got the right car. And come to think of it, there may not actually have been any speed limit signs on the highway.
Clearly to any rational person, this case gets tossed. Yes the person probably was speeding, but given how botched the whole case is, clearly the person would get off with no penalty. Only this time, instead of getting a ticket, the state revokes the man's license for 4 months.
-
Even if Brady is as guilty as anyone can imagine, he's basically guilty of the NFL equivalent of going 75 in a 55. Lots of people do it and yes, sometimes people get caught. Only this time, the police officer thinks he might have been using a faulty radar gun and, in fact, can't actually remember which gun he used or even if he got the right car. And come to think of it, there may not actually have been any speed limit signs on the highway.
The basis of the punishment that the NFL handed down is actually closer to putting the guy in the passenger seat of the car in jail because the driver was speeding, then justifying that punishment by pointing to circumstantial evidence that suggests the passenger was probably aware that the driver was speeding and may have even encouraged him to do so.
-
It is pretty clear to me that the NFL really wants to catch the Patriots at something.
The initially set up a sting operation to catch the Patriots doing something that is not important enough for the actual refs to pay a ton of attention to.
Then when they can't completely prove that wrongdoing was done they spend millions upon millions of dollars to investigate.
Finally at the appeal the commissioner does everything he can to make sure Brady doesn't get to fairly appeal his verdict.
Why did they go through all this trouble, is the question that I have. I can only think of 3 reasons they would do this.
1. The NFL suspected the Patriots were doing something much worse than deflating footballs but could not obtain evidence. The NFL kept digging and kept digging and couldn't back down after all the money and time they sunk into it.
2. Roger Goodell had taken such a media hit that he wanted to catch the most disliked team cheating so that he could distance himself from the idea that he is a push over after the Rice and Bounty gate appeals.
3. The Patriots didn't do anything but their attitude of refusing to aid in the investigation was seen as an attack on Goodell's power.
-
Replaced isn't more accurate. He doesn't have the old phone to give them, because it (and the sim card) were (apparently) deliberately destroyed. If Brady had the phone destroyed and had confirmed with the carrier that they couldn't retrieve the texts, how was he going to assist the NFL in gathering those texts? A seance?
You realize that when you send a text, it goes to another device right?
It just so happens that Brady provided the league with a complete list of the people he texted (in addition to the phone company printouts). However, the NFL deemed it "impractical" to follow up with those people. Yes, the same league that apparently thought it very practical to spend a ton of time an money on an external investigation of an equipment violation.
Cue in the applause.
Sure, it goes to another device. Do you realize that the other person may have deleted the text? And obviously it's impractical to follow up on each of the thousands of texts to see if there was any relevant information, and probably well beyond the reach of the investigation. That's the point of doing what he did. He wasn't trying to cooperate with the investigation, he was trying to thwart it and still claim that he was cooperating.
-
The NFL will argue that Brady's punishment is also based upon his lack of cooperation, and indeed his overt hindrance of the NFL's investigation. Brady's team must point to the lack of any precedent for punishing players with suspension for failure to cooperate with the league.
I think part of the punishment is the lack of cooperation, part of it is because, while they can't prove it, they don't think he's been overly honest in what he has said and part of it is the deflating of the footballs. His behavior (or more accurately their opinion of his behavior) during the investigation probably turned a slap on the wrist into a trip to the woodshed.
-
But what if ...gasp...he's innocent? And just doesn't want to hand them his phone? They can't prove anything even happened....so naturally he's supposed to hand the incredibly honest and leakless NFL his phone. Absurd.
Oh he won't let them invade his privacy. 4 games.
Does he get their phones and emails? Do we get to look into whether this whole thing was a setup? We don't, do we?
Who investigates the NFL?
-
Replaced isn't more accurate. He doesn't have the old phone to give them, because it (and the sim card) were (apparently) deliberately destroyed. If Brady had the phone destroyed and had confirmed with the carrier that they couldn't retrieve the texts, how was he going to assist the NFL in gathering those texts? A seance?
You realize that when you send a text, it goes to another device right?
It just so happens that Brady provided the league with a complete list of the people he texted (in addition to the phone company printouts). However, the NFL deemed it "impractical" to follow up with those people. Yes, the same league that apparently thought it very practical to spend a ton of time an money on an external investigation of an equipment violation.
Cue in the applause.
Sure, it goes to another device. Do you realize that the other person may have deleted the text? And obviously it's impractical to follow up on each of the thousands of texts to see if there was any relevant information, and probably well beyond the reach of the investigation. That's the point of doing what he did. He wasn't trying to cooperate with the investigation, he was trying to thwart it and still claim that he was cooperating.
Actually its not really that impractical. The NFL already has all communications between brady and patriots employees. Im sure the majority of those texts are brady's family and friends.
Assuming the NFL doesn't want to look through brady's texts to Giselle, how many of the 10,000 texts does the NFL not already have that might be relevant? really it would just be other players I would imagine
-
Michael McCann ?@McCannSportsLaw 7h7 hours ago
Key legal pt by Tom Brady in his FB post: NFL had no right to his personal phone, so its destruction doesn't matter.
A lot of people here doing exactly what the NFL wants them to: focus so much on the optics of the "destroyed phone" thing that you forget that it has no actual relevance to determining whether or not the NFL's punishment was appropriate.
-
From Brady's statement this morning:
I also disagree with yesterdays narrative surrounding my cellphone. I replaced my broken Samsung phone with a new iPhone 6 AFTER my attorneys made it clear to the NFL that my actual phone device would not be subjected to investigation under ANY circumstances. As a member of a union, I was under no obligation to set a new precedent going forward, nor was I made aware at any time during Mr. Wells investigation, that failing to subject my cell phone to investigation would result in ANY discipline.
Clearly this whole thing is just an elaborate scheme devised by Brady and his secret corporate sponsor, Apple, to promote the iPhone 6.
I personally think switching from Android to Apple is an unforgivable offense that merits even more than a 4 game ban. ;D
one of my friends posted the same thing on facebook today. Is the iphone really inferior to the android style? I have a flip phone so i don't know the difference besides some restrictions with apple
Yeah, my wife had a flip phone but sold it after getting it valued on Antique Roadshow.
Mike ducks.
Mike
-
Brady's agent on this:
http://www.csnne.com/new-england-patriots/tom-bradys-agent-says-nfl-mischaracterized-cell-phone-issue
Good read, this has become an entertaining he said / she said situation about an issue that is of little to no relevance with what actually matters.
I really think that by the end of this the NFL and Goodell will en up looking very very bad. I think Brady, and more importantly, the Player's Union will be going full court press on this and they'll come out ahead.
-
Unfortunate for me then that your feelings doesn't extend to an impulse to elaborate.
Ż\_(^,^)_/Ż
Probably starts with your characterization of Munson as great and your statement that Munson's way smarter than you. Gives one the sense that arguing with you will not be very fruitful.
In light of the NFL's poor record in court, I'd be extremely wary of Munson's characterization that this is in essence a slam dunk for the NFL. Having dealt with many attorneys on contractual, criminal, and regulatory issues, I cannot recall one who ever offered an opinion that anything in court was a sure thing.
Kessler's has a proven track record vs the NFL, he's been very aggressive in his statements, and I don't get the sense that there's ever really been an offer to settle on Brady's part other than to accept a slap-on-the-wrist fine to avoid the greater expense of going to court. That is not the stance of someone who thinks his client has a very long shot of winning.
On the face of it, the ability of Goodell to sit as arbitrator, even if the CBA allows it, is subject to being thrown out. The quality of the evidence in the Wells Report is very suspect too without which the case against Brady is not only circumstantial, but one in which the NFL or its agents has overstated from the start with its firs, egregious leak to ESPN. The entire process is subject to review and given some of the actions of the NFL, one could question whether the process was fair. Then there is the penalty phase...
-
Unfortunate for me then that your feelings doesn't extend to an impulse to elaborate.
Ż\_(^,^)_/Ż
Fair enough. Several legal experts (including Roger Smith (?) on Mike and Mike this morning) expressed the view, with much thought, that Brady has a decent chance of winning in court. In addition, other players who lost in arbitration were successful in having the rulings overturned in court. Lester Munson for months has been stating the view that Tom Brady has no chance on appeal, long before the phone stuff was ever raised. He may be right, but I feel his opinion is very slanted towards the NFL. He has expressed the view previously that the Wells Report was highly credible, which to me got me off on the wrong foot with him. He may be right, that Brady indeed has no case on appeal. It also is contrary to what has happened with similar cases in the courts recently. (of course he covers himself by saying they will end up getting overturned in an appeals court).
That's all I got.
-
Replaced isn't more accurate. He doesn't have the old phone to give them, because it (and the sim card) were (apparently) deliberately destroyed. If Brady had the phone destroyed and had confirmed with the carrier that they couldn't retrieve the texts, how was he going to assist the NFL in gathering those texts? A seance?
You realize that when you send a text, it goes to another device right?
It just so happens that Brady provided the league with a complete list of the people he texted (in addition to the phone company printouts). However, the NFL deemed it "impractical" to follow up with those people. Yes, the same league that apparently thought it very practical to spend a ton of time an money on an external investigation of an equipment violation.
Cue in the applause.
Sure, it goes to another device. Do you realize that the other person may have deleted the text? And obviously it's impractical to follow up on each of the thousands of texts to see if there was any relevant information, and probably well beyond the reach of the investigation. That's the point of doing what he did. He wasn't trying to cooperate with the investigation, he was trying to thwart it and still claim that he was cooperating.
Actually its not really that impractical. The NFL already has all communications between brady and patriots employees. Im sure the majority of those texts are brady's family and friends.
Assuming the NFL doesn't want to look through brady's texts to Giselle, how many of the 10,000 texts does the NFL not already have that might be relevant? really it would just be other players I would imagine
Wait. We're assuming the NFL has no interest in texts between the best player ever and the best supermodel ever? Really? Because it's a very professional league on the up and up?
-
How many thousands of texts have all of you gotten? What? You deleted some? You don't actually have every phone you ever touched? Then you're guilty of whatever they try to find.
-
Sure, it goes to another device. Do you realize that the other person may have deleted the text? And obviously it's impractical to follow up on each of the thousands of texts to see if there was any relevant information, and probably well beyond the reach of the investigation.
Yeah, and all of this is true for Brady's phone as well.
Also, there's no telling how many actual recipients there were of the "thousands of texts".
By the way, Kraft said that they NFL received access to the phone of every non-NFLPA employee that it requested, including Belichick (so much about the crackpot theory of him being "protected" here).
-
Unfortunate for me then that your feelings doesn't extend to an impulse to elaborate.
Ż\_(^,^)_/Ż
Fair enough. Several legal experts (including Roger Smith (?) on Mike and Mike this morning) expressed the view, with much thought, that Brady has a decent chance of winning in court. In addition, other players who lost in arbitration were successful in having the rulings overturned in court. Lester Munson for months has been stating the view that Tom Brady has no chance on appeal, long before the phone stuff was ever raised. He may be right, but I feel his opinion is very slanted towards the NFL. He has expressed the view previously that the Wells Report was highly credible, which to me got me off on the wrong foot with him. He may be right, that Brady indeed has no case on appeal. It also is contrary to what has happened with similar cases in the courts recently. (of course he covers himself by saying they will end up getting overturned in an appeals court).
That's all I got.
TP for the explanation -- Those are legitimate and justified criticisms. Like I said earlier, I find his analysis solid in spite of the fact that he works for ESPN (aka is biased towards the league, if only for the sake of continued employment) and there's a reason I only quoted the bits that I agreed with/felt were worth discussing initially (I have no desire to giggle like a schoolgirl over anything Goodell wrote, for example). Also like I said earlier, I don't think it's as much of an open and shut case as he thinks it is, but even though I disagree with the conclusion I can follow the process.
-
I'm just going to wait for the NFLPA to request Goodell's cell phone as a measure to make sure that no improprieties where made during this investigation.
-
From Brady's statement this morning:
I also disagree with yesterdays narrative surrounding my cellphone. I replaced my broken Samsung phone with a new iPhone 6 AFTER my attorneys made it clear to the NFL that my actual phone device would not be subjected to investigation under ANY circumstances. As a member of a union, I was under no obligation to set a new precedent going forward, nor was I made aware at any time during Mr. Wells investigation, that failing to subject my cell phone to investigation would result in ANY discipline.
Clearly this whole thing is just an elaborate scheme devised by Brady and his secret corporate sponsor, Apple, to promote the iPhone 6.
I personally think switching from Android to Apple is an unforgivable offense that merits even more than a 4 game ban. ;D
one of my friends posted the same thing on facebook today. Is the iphone really inferior to the android style? I have a flip phone so i don't know the difference besides some restrictions with apple
Yeah, my wife had a flip phone but sold it after getting it valued on Antique Roadshow.
Mike ducks.
Mike
TP for the laugh ;D.
-
Sure, it goes to another device. Do you realize that the other person may have deleted the text? And obviously it's impractical to follow up on each of the thousands of texts to see if there was any relevant information, and probably well beyond the reach of the investigation.
Yeah, and all of this is true for Brady's phone as well.
Also, there's no telling how many actual recipients there were of the "thousands of texts".
By the way, Kraft said that they NFL received access to the phone of every non-NFLPA employee that it requested, including Belichick (so much about the crackpot theory of him being "protected" here).
I believe Don Yee said texts were sent to 28 people
-
Replaced isn't more accurate. He doesn't have the old phone to give them, because it (and the sim card) were (apparently) deliberately destroyed. If Brady had the phone destroyed and had confirmed with the carrier that they couldn't retrieve the texts, how was he going to assist the NFL in gathering those texts? A seance?
You realize that when you send a text, it goes to another device right?
It just so happens that Brady provided the league with a complete list of the people he texted (in addition to the phone company printouts). However, the NFL deemed it "impractical" to follow up with those people. Yes, the same league that apparently thought it very practical to spend a ton of time an money on an external investigation of an equipment violation.
Cue in the applause.
Sure, it goes to another device. Do you realize that the other person may have deleted the text? And obviously it's impractical to follow up on each of the thousands of texts to see if there was any relevant information, and probably well beyond the reach of the investigation. That's the point of doing what he did. He wasn't trying to cooperate with the investigation, he was trying to thwart it and still claim that he was cooperating.
Actually its not really that impractical. The NFL already has all communications between brady and patriots employees. Im sure the majority of those texts are brady's family and friends.
Assuming the NFL doesn't want to look through brady's texts to Giselle, how many of the 10,000 texts does the NFL not already have that might be relevant? really it would just be other players I would imagine
Wait. We're assuming the NFL has no interest in texts between the best player ever and the best supermodel ever? Really? Because it's a very professional league on the up and up?
Hold on, are you saying that Tom Brady is the best player in nfl or patriots' history (I'm assuming it's the former, btw)? I'm not going to touch the supermodel point with a ten foot pole (even though it's probably unwise on my part to put 'supermodel' and 'pole' in the same sentence, lol ;D), but, yeah, why would a model of ethics such as the nfl (sarcasm) have any interest in the sexts, I mean, personal messages ;), between the two ;D?
-
How many thousands of texts have all of you gotten? What? You deleted some? You don't actually have every phone you ever touched? Then you're guilty of whatever they try to find.
(http://media.giphy.com/media/Ow59c0pwTPruU/giphy.gif)
-
Brady finally comes out with a statement (you know, for the people in this thread that kinda actually care and have been following this from the start ::) )
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/29/tom-brady-im-very-disappointed-i-did-nothing-wrong/
Lol ;D, you make it sound like a badge of honor. It's not like we're talking about the pentagon papers, here ::).
-
put another way: the reason there are reporters 'still' covering Deflategate is the same reason we can have a multi-page thread about RJ Hunter months before the regular season starts. It has very little to do with the quality (or lack thereof) of the happenings, but simply the fact that the happenings exist.
As far as the nfl goes, whether or not Brady gets suspended for four games seems like big news.
Certainly a bigger deal than RJ Hunter scoring 96 points. That was responding to the question "why are people still focusing on this?" and the answer is that it's the NFL -- the audience is voracious enough that they'll turn anything into a newsworthy story, "worthwhile" or not.
In your opinion, perhaps, but discussing RJ Hunter's summer league performance does tend to carry more weight, almost by default, on a blog dedicated to all things related to the Celtics ;).
-
... got me.
(http://new4.fjcdn.com/comments/So+that+s+why+the+sea+is+salty+_70b76118b39362d561229e2c478084d7.png)
-
Brady finally comes out with a statement (you know, for the people in this thread that kinda actually care and have been following this from the start ::) )
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/29/tom-brady-im-very-disappointed-i-did-nothing-wrong/
Lol ;D, you make it sound like a badge of honor. It's not like we're talking about the pentagon papers, here ::).
Sure. And your ignorance on it is commendable also.
-
Brady finally comes out with a statement (you know, for the people in this thread that kinda actually care and have been following this from the start ::) )
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/29/tom-brady-im-very-disappointed-i-did-nothing-wrong/
Lol ;D, you make it sound like a badge of honor. It's not like we're talking about the pentagon papers, here ::).
Sure. And your ignorance on it is commendable also.
Thanks, lol ;D. However, in this case I think it's hard to argue that ignorance isn't bliss ;).
-
http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2015/07/29/pete-roses-investigator-says-tom-brady-was-ambushed-by-goodell/
The actual video is what to watch there. He's very dismissive of the whole enterprise and has obviously relevantexpertise.
Dowd argues that Tom Brady is being convicted and suspended for an offense that he had no notice of.
“He was not suspended for failing to produce his telephone. If you read The Wells Report, it was based on alleged tampering and the text information. It wasn’t until he got on appeal that he was advised for the first time that his failure to produce the phone was a separate charge -- and that is a gross violation of fundamental fairness and due process if you will,” he said.
-
http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2015/07/29/pete-roses-investigator-says-tom-brady-was-ambushed-by-goodell/
The actual video is what to watch there. He's very dismissive of the whole enterprise and has obviously relevantexpertise.
Dowd argues that Tom Brady is being convicted and suspended for an offense that he had no notice of.
“He was not suspended for failing to produce his telephone. If you read The Wells Report, it was based on alleged tampering and the text information. It wasn’t until he got on appeal that he was advised for the first time that his failure to produce the phone was a separate charge -- and that is a gross violation of fundamental fairness and due process if you will,” he said.
You mean the NFL was...gulp.... "moving the goalposts" here?
Sorry, bad pun.
-
Last point - wouldn't this whole thing have been over months ago if they had just let TMZ take over? I'm not joking, here, btw - they have a sports division now and an excellent legal team. Plus, they'd definitely add a considerable amount of humor to it. What's the downside?
-
Sure, it goes to another device. Do you realize that the other person may have deleted the text? And obviously it's impractical to follow up on each of the thousands of texts to see if there was any relevant information, and probably well beyond the reach of the investigation.
Yeah, and all of this is true for Brady's phone as well.
Also, there's no telling how many actual recipients there were of the "thousands of texts".
By the way, Kraft said that they NFL received access to the phone of every non-NFLPA employee that it requested, including Belichick (so much about the crackpot theory of him being "protected" here).
One would wonder whether "the NFL received access to the phone of every non-NFLPA employee that it requested" is just another way to say "access to the phone of everyone involved except for Brady". For the record, I'm not saying that Brady had to turn his phone over, but for someone who's innocent and has nothing to hide, he's acting more like the opposite is true.
-
http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2015/07/29/pete-roses-investigator-says-tom-brady-was-ambushed-by-goodell/
The actual video is what to watch there. He's very dismissive of the whole enterprise and has obviously relevantexpertise.
Dowd argues that Tom Brady is being convicted and suspended for an offense that he had no notice of.
“He was not suspended for failing to produce his telephone. If you read The Wells Report, it was based on alleged tampering and the text information. It wasn’t until he got on appeal that he was advised for the first time that his failure to produce the phone was a separate charge -- and that is a gross violation of fundamental fairness and due process if you will,” he said.
You mean the NFL was...gulp.... "moving the goalposts" here?
Sorry, bad pun.
IMO a pretty good pun.
-
Last point - wouldn't this whole thing have been over months ago if they had just let TMZ take over? I'm not joking, here, btw - they have a sports division now and an excellent legal team. Plus, they'd definitely add a considerable amount of humor to it. What's the downside?
This whole thing would have been over months ago if the NFL had done a routine internal investigation sans the multi-million dollar report and then utilized an actually independent arbitrator.
-
Last point - wouldn't this whole thing have been over months ago if they had just let TMZ take over? I'm not joking, here, btw - they have a sports division now and an excellent legal team. Plus, they'd definitely add a considerable amount of humor to it. What's the downside?
This whole thing would have been over months ago if the NFL had done a routine internal investigation sans the multi-million dollar report and then utilized an actually independent arbitrator.
Oh you ;D.
-
Sure, it goes to another device. Do you realize that the other person may have deleted the text? And obviously it's impractical to follow up on each of the thousands of texts to see if there was any relevant information, and probably well beyond the reach of the investigation.
Yeah, and all of this is true for Brady's phone as well.
Also, there's no telling how many actual recipients there were of the "thousands of texts".
By the way, Kraft said that they NFL received access to the phone of every non-NFLPA employee that it requested, including Belichick (so much about the crackpot theory of him being "protected" here).
One would wonder whether "the NFL received access to the phone of every non-NFLPA employee that it requested" is just another way to say "access to the phone of everyone involved except for Brady". For the record, I'm not saying that Brady had to turn his phone over, but for someone who's innocent and has nothing to hide, he's acting more like the opposite is true.
Even folks who have nothing to hide typically go to court with an attorney.
-
Last point - wouldn't this whole thing have been over months ago if they had just let TMZ take over? I'm not joking, here, btw - they have a sports division now and an excellent legal team. Plus, they'd definitely add a considerable amount of humor to it. What's the downside?
This whole thing would have been over months ago if the NFL had done a routine internal investigation sans the multi-million dollar report and then utilized an actually independent arbitrator.
You're right, but Goodell wanted to win the case or give the appearance that he tried.
-
Last point - wouldn't this whole thing have been over months ago if they had just let TMZ take over? I'm not joking, here, btw - they have a sports division now and an excellent legal team. Plus, they'd definitely add a considerable amount of humor to it. What's the downside?
This whole thing would have been over months ago if the NFL had done a routine internal investigation sans the multi-million dollar report and then utilized an actually independent arbitrator.
You're right, but Goodell wanted to win the case or give the appearance that he tried.
I think the league office saw an opportunity there to really capitalize & turn the public perception of Goodell who had an absolutely awful 2014 from a public relations standpoint. Specifically, the Ray Rice incident.
What was a molehill (as evidenced by small fines or internal memos in the past on similar items) was turned into absolute mountain, in part, to benefit Goodell's image.
-
Sure, it goes to another device. Do you realize that the other person may have deleted the text? And obviously it's impractical to follow up on each of the thousands of texts to see if there was any relevant information, and probably well beyond the reach of the investigation.
Yeah, and all of this is true for Brady's phone as well.
Also, there's no telling how many actual recipients there were of the "thousands of texts".
By the way, Kraft said that they NFL received access to the phone of every non-NFLPA employee that it requested, including Belichick (so much about the crackpot theory of him being "protected" here).
One would wonder whether "the NFL received access to the phone of every non-NFLPA employee that it requested" is just another way to say "access to the phone of everyone involved except for Brady". For the record, I'm not saying that Brady had to turn his phone over, but for someone who's innocent and has nothing to hide, he's acting more like the opposite is true.
Precedent. Unions are big on that kind of thing. Brady may be using that for cover and really hiding something but it is nothing he should be punished for, especially when they can't even prove the footballs were deflated.
Remember, the Ref said he believed that he used the "logo" gauge. They tested at halftime with a different gage. The Wells investigator asked the ref "are you absolutely sure you didn't use the other gage". The ref said "no, I am not absolutely sure but I think I used the logo gage". Wells concluded based on this that the ref used the other gage. I say it is more likely than not that the ref used the logo gage based on what he said. If the numbers are based on the logo gage, there would be no deflation.
How is this part of the story getting lost. It is more likely than not, that the balls were not even deflated!
Say that again everyone, the balls were probably not even deflated. At best, the NFL has no credible, could stand up in court, proof the balls were deflated. Not even close.
I don't understand the whole phone destruction thing but I am still behind Brady and the Pats on this as I have not seen proof an infraction was committed on the day in question.
-
Sure, it goes to another device. Do you realize that the other person may have deleted the text? And obviously it's impractical to follow up on each of the thousands of texts to see if there was any relevant information, and probably well beyond the reach of the investigation.
Yeah, and all of this is true for Brady's phone as well.
Also, there's no telling how many actual recipients there were of the "thousands of texts".
By the way, Kraft said that they NFL received access to the phone of every non-NFLPA employee that it requested, including Belichick (so much about the crackpot theory of him being "protected" here).
One would wonder whether "the NFL received access to the phone of every non-NFLPA employee that it requested" is just another way to say "access to the phone of everyone involved except for Brady". For the record, I'm not saying that Brady had to turn his phone over, but for someone who's innocent and has nothing to hide, he's acting more like the opposite is true.
Even folks who have nothing to hide typically go to court with an attorney.
Yes, but they don't all seem to destroy evidence (even if it's their own personal property) and give a credulity-straining explanation of events.
-
Yes, but they don't all seem to destroy evidence (even if it's their own personal property) and give a credulity-straining explanation of events.
The court also doesn't routinely leak questionable information to the media, so there's that.
-
Guys, instead of getting bogged down in this stuff, just go watch the Butler interception clip a half dozen times and then watch some of the fan reaction videos again.
I'm amazed how happy it still makes me to watch that. Instant gratification. I don't think it'll ever get old.
The memory of that moment . . . the depths of despair transformed into hysterical, triumphant joy in one instant. Legendary.
-
Sure, it goes to another device. Do you realize that the other person may have deleted the text? And obviously it's impractical to follow up on each of the thousands of texts to see if there was any relevant information, and probably well beyond the reach of the investigation.
Yeah, and all of this is true for Brady's phone as well.
Also, there's no telling how many actual recipients there were of the "thousands of texts".
By the way, Kraft said that they NFL received access to the phone of every non-NFLPA employee that it requested, including Belichick (so much about the crackpot theory of him being "protected" here).
One would wonder whether "the NFL received access to the phone of every non-NFLPA employee that it requested" is just another way to say "access to the phone of everyone involved except for Brady". For the record, I'm not saying that Brady had to turn his phone over, but for someone who's innocent and has nothing to hide, he's acting more like the opposite is true.
Even folks who have nothing to hide typically go to court with an attorney.
Yes, but they don't all seem to destroy evidence (even if it's their own personal property) and give a credulity-straining explanation of events.
Right, but typically heresay isn't enough to arrest a guy let alone charge him, and when the police bungle their investigation and handling of evidence, they usually drop the charges, and even if they convict him they usually give them some sort of punishment that fits the crime. They don't usually send the cherios thief to prison for life. Not even if it's his 2nd time.
-
Yes, but they don't all seem to destroy evidence (even if it's their own personal property) and give a credulity-straining explanation of events.
The court also doesn't routinely leak questionable information to the media, so there's that.
I wouldn't bet my bottom dollar on that.
-
Sure, it goes to another device. Do you realize that the other person may have deleted the text? And obviously it's impractical to follow up on each of the thousands of texts to see if there was any relevant information, and probably well beyond the reach of the investigation.
Yeah, and all of this is true for Brady's phone as well.
Also, there's no telling how many actual recipients there were of the "thousands of texts".
By the way, Kraft said that they NFL received access to the phone of every non-NFLPA employee that it requested, including Belichick (so much about the crackpot theory of him being "protected" here).
One would wonder whether "the NFL received access to the phone of every non-NFLPA employee that it requested" is just another way to say "access to the phone of everyone involved except for Brady". For the record, I'm not saying that Brady had to turn his phone over, but for someone who's innocent and has nothing to hide, he's acting more like the opposite is true.
Precedent. Unions are big on that kind of thing. Brady may be using that for cover and really hiding something but it is nothing he should be punished for, especially when they can't even prove the footballs were deflated.
Remember, the Ref said he believed that he used the "logo" gauge. They tested at halftime with a different gage. The Wells investigator asked the ref "are you absolutely sure you didn't use the other gage". The ref said "no, I am not absolutely sure but I think I used the logo gage". Wells concluded based on this that the ref used the other gage. I say it is more likely than not that the ref used the logo gage based on what he said. If the numbers are based on the logo gage, there would be no deflation.
How is this part of the story getting lost. It is more likely than not, that the balls were not even deflated!
Say that again everyone, the balls were probably not even deflated. At best, the NFL has no credible, could stand up in court, proof the balls were deflated. Not even close.
I don't understand the whole phone destruction thing but I am still behind Brady and the Pats on this as I have not seen proof an infraction was committed on the day in question.
And look how different these two gauges look. If you measured over 50 footballs and then this huge issue developed a couple hours later, you are going to remember which of those two gauges you used. Wells just dismissed that to get the numbers he wanted.
Even if the ref did forget, at worst only about 3-4 tenths of a psi was removed, conveniently the difference between the two gauges. It doesn't make any sense to run such a risky operation to remove such an insignificant amount of air.
(https://nbcprofootballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/logononlogo.jpg?w=230)
-
https://twitter.com/BobMcGovernJr
According to what's on the docket: The Minnesota case has been assigned to Judge Richard H. Kyle, NOT Judge David Doty.
====
Both parties are jockeying for position yet, but Doty has ruled against the NFL before.
-
Media and their loving public
Are always looking for a victim
Always on the hunt
To destroy somebody
Shoot them down.
-
The case will be heard in NY, not Minnesota:
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13345115/new-england-patriots-qb-tom-brady-lawsuit-heard-new-york-not-minnesota
-
The case will be heard in NY, not Minnesota:
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13345115/new-england-patriots-qb-tom-brady-lawsuit-heard-new-york-not-minnesota
Not great news for Brady. Still, he has a very strong case, from everything I've read.
-
Per Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/darrenheitner/2015/07/28/odds-are-stacked-against-tom-brady-successfully-suing-the-nfl/
-
The case will be heard in NY, not Minnesota:
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13345115/new-england-patriots-qb-tom-brady-lawsuit-heard-new-york-not-minnesota
Apparently a liberal judge though.
-
Isn't Forbes a fairly pro-business source? I wouldn't trust them to not be NFL-biased.
http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/07/27/tom-brady-nflpa-deflategate-suspension-federal-court
I trust Michael McCann's analysis. He makes it sound like Brady has a fairly strong case, though parts of it would rely on things that are relatively hard to prove in court (e.g. leaks to the media).
The biggest issue for Brady may be time. There probably isn't time to get an injunction soon enough to make playing in the season opener a reality, and total resolution via a court battle may take months. The risk of having to serve part or all of the 4 game suspension late in the season when the Pats are pushing for the playoffs (or IN the playoffs) seems high.
To me, the biggest aspect of Brady's challenge is that there is simply no precedent for applying the rules to a player as the NFL has done in this situation, nor is there precedent for punishing such an offense with a suspension as opposed to fines. Too much of the NFL's discipline in this case is based on extremely broad interpretations of the language in the CBA and the NFL's conduct code.
-
The biggest issue for Brady may be time. There probably isn't time to get an injunction soon enough to make playing in the season opener a reality, and total resolution via a court battle may take months.
Trial will resume Aug 13, so I don't think timing will be a concern.
https://twitter.com/RMFifthCircuit/status/626783086739521537
-
The biggest issue for Brady may be time. There probably isn't time to get an injunction soon enough to make playing in the season opener a reality, and total resolution via a court battle may take months.
Trial will resume Aug 13, so I don't think timing will be a concern.
https://twitter.com/RMFifthCircuit/status/626783086739521537
McGovern has been a really good follow the past couple of days.
-
To me, the biggest aspect of Brady's challenge is that there is simply no precedent for applying the rules to a player as the NFL has done in this situation, nor is there precedent for punishing such an offense with a suspension as opposed to fines.
I would agree that this is the crux of the case, if it's challenged on the merits. However, I'm not sure that the Court reaches the merits, in deference to the arbitrator's final power to render decisions.
-
Isn't Forbes a fairly pro-business source? I wouldn't trust them to not be NFL-biased.
http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/07/27/tom-brady-nflpa-deflategate-suspension-federal-court
I trust Michael McCann's analysis. He makes it sound like Brady has a fairly strong case, though parts of it would rely on things that are relatively hard to prove in court (e.g. leaks to the media).
The biggest issue for Brady may be time. There probably isn't time to get an injunction soon enough to make playing in the season opener a reality, and total resolution via a court battle may take months. The risk of having to serve part or all of the 4 game suspension late in the season when the Pats are pushing for the playoffs (or IN the playoffs) seems high.
To me, the biggest aspect of Brady's challenge is that there is simply no precedent for applying the rules to a player as the NFL has done in this situation, nor is there precedent for punishing such an offense with a suspension as opposed to fines. Too much of the NFL's discipline in this case is based on extremely broad interpretations of the language in the CBA and the NFL's conduct code.
Sure, that's true, but it remains a good read nonetheless.
For example, in regards to the injunction:
Brady may not have much trouble is in demonstrating that it is less harmful for the NFL if a court of law allows him to play (temporarily) than if he is forced to sit, and that it is in the public’s interest that Brady be on the field (unless you are a fan of the New York Jets or Miami Dolphins). The more problematic point for Brady to prove is that he has a likelihood of success on the merits (the following sections flesh that out a bit). The toughest obstacle for Brady is that he must show that he is likely to be irreparably harmed if he is forced to sit out four games.
Can Brady be adequately compensated by monetary damages if the NFL’s final decision is vacated? Brady is missing four games and four pay checks. The calculation is quite easy. Meanwhile, his body will not take any devastating blows for those four games. Furthermore, he is inching toward the end of his career and benching Brady should have no effect on his future contractual negotiations. Thus, if the NFL’s final decision is vacated and Brady is paid the monies missed for those four games on the bench, then how is he not adequately compensated for the harm that was caused by the final decision? This alone could be the impetus for a court denying a motion for preliminary injunction.
Again, I don't necessarily agree with it, but it's a reasoned way of looking at the situation that explains itself.
-
Isn't Forbes a fairly pro-business source? I wouldn't trust them to not be NFL-biased.
http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/07/27/tom-brady-nflpa-deflategate-suspension-federal-court
I trust Michael McCann's analysis. He makes it sound like Brady has a fairly strong case, though parts of it would rely on things that are relatively hard to prove in court (e.g. leaks to the media).
The biggest issue for Brady may be time. There probably isn't time to get an injunction soon enough to make playing in the season opener a reality, and total resolution via a court battle may take months. The risk of having to serve part or all of the 4 game suspension late in the season when the Pats are pushing for the playoffs (or IN the playoffs) seems high.
To me, the biggest aspect of Brady's challenge is that there is simply no precedent for applying the rules to a player as the NFL has done in this situation, nor is there precedent for punishing such an offense with a suspension as opposed to fines. Too much of the NFL's discipline in this case is based on extremely broad interpretations of the language in the CBA and the NFL's conduct code.
Sure, that's true, but it remains a good read nonetheless.
For example, in regards to the injunction:
Brady may not have much trouble is in demonstrating that it is less harmful for the NFL if a court of law allows him to play (temporarily) than if he is forced to sit, and that it is in the public’s interest that Brady be on the field (unless you are a fan of the New York Jets or Miami Dolphins). The more problematic point for Brady to prove is that he has a likelihood of success on the merits (the following sections flesh that out a bit). The toughest obstacle for Brady is that he must show that he is likely to be irreparably harmed if he is forced to sit out four games.
Can Brady be adequately compensated by monetary damages if the NFL’s final decision is vacated? Brady is missing four games and four pay checks. The calculation is quite easy. Meanwhile, his body will not take any devastating blows for those four games. Furthermore, he is inching toward the end of his career and benching Brady should have no effect on his future contractual negotiations. Thus, if the NFL’s final decision is vacated and Brady is paid the monies missed for those four games on the bench, then how is he not adequately compensated for the harm that was caused by the final decision? This alone could be the impetus for a court denying a motion for preliminary injunction.
Again, I don't necessarily agree with it, but it's a reasoned way of looking at the situation that explains itself.
Sorry, you're forcing a competitive athlete to sit out 4 games and have trouble explaining how this will cause him irreparable harm? You must be a special kind of buffoon to think this reduces to money and hits to the head.
-
Sorry Koz, no capacity to defend an article I didn't write by somebody I don't know today. Apologies.
-
To me, the biggest aspect of Brady's challenge is that there is simply no precedent for applying the rules to a player as the NFL has done in this situation, nor is there precedent for punishing such an offense with a suspension as opposed to fines.
I would agree that this is the crux of the case, if it's challenged on the merits. However, I'm not sure that the Court reaches the merits, in deference to the arbitrator's final power to render decisions.
As I understand it, the court can look to the "law of the shop" and "industrial common law" in determining whether an award was made within the powers of the arbitrator, i.e. plausibly construing the CBA.
That includes prior arbitration awards.
Has a player ever been punished for his awareness of the actions of other members of his organization? Is there any precedent whatsoever for a punishment like this for failure to cooperate with an investigation?
I think the answer in both cases is no.
I may be wrong, but I don't think the court has to stop the analysis even if it determines Goodell was impartial and he decided on the matter that was put before him.
-
Again, I don't necessarily agree with it, but it's a reasoned way of looking at the situation that explains itself.
I know it's not your article, but I'm going to disagree about your assessment.
Not getting to play in four games of a professional football season, given the effect it could have on the team's record, Brady's career and legacy, and so on . . . it's exceedingly easy to argue that there are all sorts of harm to Brady that is not legally compensable (i.e. you can't put a dollar value on it).
No amount of money will give Brady a chance to play in the post-season this year if the Pats go 0-4 when he sits out, for example.
-
I assume everyone has seen the Post piece by now?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/the-nfls-basic-due-process-is-the-real-issue-in-the-deflategate-controversy/2015/07/30/ebda3b02-3666-11e5-9d0f-7865a67390ee_story.html
I am curious about thit part:
Wells never asked for Tom Brady’s cell phone, and didn’t require it. “Keep the phone,” Wells told Brady and his agent. He insisted that his investigation was thorough without it. “I don’t think it undermines in any way the conclusions of the report,” he said. Those were his exact words. So were these, after interrogating Brady for more than five hours: “Totally cooperative,” Wells said of Brady’s testimony.
I know it's a perhaps a somewhat fictionalized account of the exchange, but where does the information that (1) Wells told Brady to keep his phone, and (2) the "Totally cooperative" comment come from? That's the first time I see these cited.
-
I assume everyone has seen the Post piece by now?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/the-nfls-basic-due-process-is-the-real-issue-in-the-deflategate-controversy/2015/07/30/ebda3b02-3666-11e5-9d0f-7865a67390ee_story.html
I am curious about thit part:
Wells never asked for Tom Brady’s cell phone, and didn’t require it. “Keep the phone,” Wells told Brady and his agent. He insisted that his investigation was thorough without it. “I don’t think it undermines in any way the conclusions of the report,” he said. Those were his exact words. So were these, after interrogating Brady for more than five hours: “Totally cooperative,” Wells said of Brady’s testimony.
I know it's a perhaps a somewhat fictionalized account of the exchange, but where does the information that (1) Wells told Brady to keep his phone, and (2) the "Totally cooperative" comment come from? That's the first time I see these cited.
Yeah, it's strange to throw that in there without any source cited, considering that it flatly contradicts much of what the NFL has put out there recently.
Wasn’t it Brady himself who voluntarily disclosed he got rid of his old cell and upgraded? Does it really make sense that Brady would intentionally destroy a phone it was agreed he wasn’t obliged to turn over?
This is a really excellent point. Why are we even hearing about the destroyed cell-phone? Because Brady told the league he destroyed it.
If he were covering his tracks, why not just refuse to produce the cell-phone and leave it at that?
Unless Brady were anticipating litigation all the way back in January and destroyed the phone so that it couldn't be the subject of a discovery request. That seems unlikely.
-
I don't get the phone thing. What exactly are they looking for?
I think most people think he destroyed it to keep the NFL from seeing what he said to the locker room guys, but the NFL already has all that stuff from their phones.
So what are they looking for, a comment he said after the fact to Giselle, BB, Kraft, or his dad? And if that type of material is fair game, why isn't Goodell's private texts and emails also up for discussion so we can see how he handled everything with his inner council and others?
-
I don't get the phone thing. What exactly are they looking for?
I think most people think he destroyed it to keep the NFL from seeing what he said to the locker room guys, but the NFL already has all that stuff from their phones.
So what are they looking for, a comment he said after the fact to Giselle, BB, Kraft, or his dad? And if that type of material is fair game, why isn't Goodell's private texts and emails also up for discussion so we can see how he handled everything with his inner council and others?
I wouldn't be surprised if the big prize they're after is communications about the balls between Brady and Bill.
But they're also looking for direct communications from Brady's end telling the ball attendants to work on the balls. Without that, all they have is Brady's "general awareness" based on the conversations that the ball attendants had with one another.
You're right though, they have the ball attendant's phones, so I'm not sure why they think they'd find something new on Brady's phone.
-
I don't get the phone thing. What exactly are they looking for?
I think most people think he destroyed it to keep the NFL from seeing what he said to the locker room guys, but the NFL already has all that stuff from their phones. They also had the attendants' phones, from which it was evident there wasn't any direct communication.
So what are they looking for, a comment he said after the fact to Giselle, BB, Kraft, or his dad? And if that type of material is fair game, why isn't Goodell's private texts and emails also up for discussion so we can see how he handled everything with his inner council and others?
I wouldn't be surprised if the big prize they're after is communications about the balls between Brady and Bill.
But they're also looking for direct communications from Brady's end telling the ball attendants to work on the balls. Without that, all they have is Brady's "general awareness" based on the conversations that the ball attendants had with one another.
You're right though, they have the ball attendant's phones, so I'm not sure why they think they'd find something new on Brady's phone.
The problem is Kraft said Wells had access to all personnel phones he asked for, including Bill's. So that one doesn't hold water.
Kessler floated something today about the League saying that they "wanted to perhaps see an email from Brady to his father that may be relevant". Can't see how this is acceptable.
-
The problem is Kraft said Wells had access to all personnel phones he asked for, including Bill's. So that one doesn't hold water.
Kessler floated something today about the League saying that they "wanted to perhaps see an email from Brady to his father that may be relevant". Can't see how this is acceptable.
Yeah I'm at a loss then.
I think the article is spot on, it's just moving the goal-posts. The NFL didn't really need Brady's phone, which is why it wasn't an issue before. But now they know they can make Brady look guilty in the public eye by releasing the information that he destroyed the phone, so of course that's what they do.
-
The NFL should be ashamed of themselves! They are trying to burn their poster child can you imagine the NBA doing this to Lebron? ???
Heads should roll in the front office, it is clear RG is a train wreck and has no idea Edited. Profanity and masked profanity are against forum rules and may result in discipline. he is doing! >:(
-
I assume everyone has seen the Post piece by now?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/the-nfls-basic-due-process-is-the-real-issue-in-the-deflategate-controversy/2015/07/30/ebda3b02-3666-11e5-9d0f-7865a67390ee_story.html
I am curious about thit part:
Wells never asked for Tom Brady’s cell phone, and didn’t require it. “Keep the phone,” Wells told Brady and his agent. He insisted that his investigation was thorough without it. “I don’t think it undermines in any way the conclusions of the report,” he said. Those were his exact words. So were these, after interrogating Brady for more than five hours: “Totally cooperative,” Wells said of Brady’s testimony.
I know it's a perhaps a somewhat fictionalized account of the exchange, but where does the information that (1) Wells told Brady to keep his phone, and (2) the "Totally cooperative" comment come from? That's the first time I see these cited.
Finally got around to reading this. Thought Sally Jenkins really nailed it (she's been doing some top notch stuff throughout Deflategate).
This part really rings with me and certainly agree with it.
There is another pattern here — a very unseemly pattern of unethical behavior by the league office under Goodell’s leadership. First, there is always a leak from the league that commands a big headline and gins up public indignation. Next comes a disciplinary hammer from Goodell that makes him look like a hero-protector. But when the excitement dies down and actual facts emerge, it all turns out to be a souped-up overreach.
-
I assume everyone has seen the Post piece by now?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/the-nfls-basic-due-process-is-the-real-issue-in-the-deflategate-controversy/2015/07/30/ebda3b02-3666-11e5-9d0f-7865a67390ee_story.html
I am curious about thit part:
Wells never asked for Tom Brady’s cell phone, and didn’t require it. “Keep the phone,” Wells told Brady and his agent. He insisted that his investigation was thorough without it. “I don’t think it undermines in any way the conclusions of the report,” he said. Those were his exact words. So were these, after interrogating Brady for more than five hours: “Totally cooperative,” Wells said of Brady’s testimony.
I know it's a perhaps a somewhat fictionalized account of the exchange, but where does the information that (1) Wells told Brady to keep his phone, and (2) the "Totally cooperative" comment come from? That's the first time I see these cited.
Finally got around to reading this. Thought Sally Jenkins really nailed it (she's been doing some top notch stuff throughout Deflategate).
This part really rings with me and certainly agree with it.
There is another pattern here — a very unseemly pattern of unethical behavior by the league office under Goodell’s leadership. First, there is always a leak from the league that commands a big headline and gins up public indignation. Next comes a disciplinary hammer from Goodell that makes him look like a hero-protector. But when the excitement dies down and actual facts emerge, it all turns out to be a souped-up overreach.
I agree, I think it's a pretty good article. I'm just curious where she got some of her facts.
-
I assume everyone has seen the Post piece by now?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/the-nfls-basic-due-process-is-the-real-issue-in-the-deflategate-controversy/2015/07/30/ebda3b02-3666-11e5-9d0f-7865a67390ee_story.html
I am curious about thit part:
Wells never asked for Tom Brady’s cell phone, and didn’t require it. “Keep the phone,” Wells told Brady and his agent. He insisted that his investigation was thorough without it. “I don’t think it undermines in any way the conclusions of the report,” he said. Those were his exact words. So were these, after interrogating Brady for more than five hours: “Totally cooperative,” Wells said of Brady’s testimony.
I know it's a perhaps a somewhat fictionalized account of the exchange, but where does the information that (1) Wells told Brady to keep his phone, and (2) the "Totally cooperative" comment come from? That's the first time I see these cited.
Finally got around to reading this. Thought Sally Jenkins really nailed it (she's been doing some top notch stuff throughout Deflategate).
This part really rings with me and certainly agree with it.
There is another pattern here — a very unseemly pattern of unethical behavior by the league office under Goodell’s leadership. First, there is always a leak from the league that commands a big headline and gins up public indignation. Next comes a disciplinary hammer from Goodell that makes him look like a hero-protector. But when the excitement dies down and actual facts emerge, it all turns out to be a souped-up overreach.
I agree, I think it's a pretty good article. I'm just curious where she got some of her facts.
My guess would be Don Yee but who knows.
-
My guess would be Don Yee but who knows.
That's what I thought, too -- but they're not credited and have never been published before. Quite curious indeed.
-
I think the following Robert Kraft statement excerpt is the most spot on:
there are those in the league office who are more determined to prove that they are right rather than admit any culpability of their own, or take any responsibility for the initiation of a process and ensuing investigation that was flawed
and this one too:
Six months removed from the AFC Championship Game, the league still has no hard evidence of anybody doing anything to tamper with the PSI levels of footballs.
They don't even have proof that the balls were actually tampered with. The process they went through to that conclusion is flawed (which is an understatement). Is it any wonder the league wants to make this about Tom's phone and other inconsequential but headline grabbing information?
I am with my man Robert K. in that:
I continue to believe and unequivocally support Tom Brady.
Call me a homer if you want and it is of course still possible I am being duped but I keep coming back to the main issue. There is not even proof that the balls were tampered with. In fact there is proof that the balls "probably" were not tampered with.
-
I'm a homer, and I think there was something going on that Brady knew about, but ultimately I say, "Who cares?"
The prescribed penalty for breaking the PSI rule is $25,000. That's peanuts. And I think the rule is silly in the first place. Fans want to be entertained, and good NFL entertainment is based at least partly on quarterbacks being comfortable with their tools of the trade (particularly the footballs), so let the QBs have the footballs however they prefer. I mean, the NFL's not getting on Aaron Rodgers for having overinflated footballs that cut through the air better, allowing him to take better advantage of his strong arm.
Said it before and I'll keep saying it: This is a witch hunt, one in which a soft-on-domestic-violence Roger Goodell is using a team with a somewhat-checkered past to make himself look better.
-
Can't read through 124 pages so here are my questions/points and hope I am not repeating others' thoughts for the umpteenth time.
It seems to me that either Jastremski or McNally or both actually know beyond any doubt the answer to the following questions:
1. Did Brady specifically tell them to deflate below the legal limit?
2. Did Brady specifically tell them to deflate after the referee had approved the footballs?
3. Were the balls really deflated after they were approved by the refs prior to the Indy game?
If the answer is "no" to all of the above, then why aren't Jastremski/McNally already engaged in a media campaign and been interviewed by Anderson Cooper, George Stephanopoulas, Greta Van Sustern, etc. ?
If the answer is "yes" to any of the above, don't Bob, Bill and Tom all know that by now? Doesn't Tom's legal team know that? Doesn't the NFLPA legal team know that. And if they do, how can than take this to court? Jastremski and McNally will be called to testify and they will have to tell the truth. Certainly no pressure could be brought onto them to lie -- that would be crazy illegal; and Jastremski and McNally would be crazy to lie under oath. They'll have to tell the truth as there is absolutely no upside to lying -- and huge downside if they were to perjor themselves.
So, I am baffled. If the only guys who actually know the truth could exonerate Brady (and themselves), why aren't they already doing so using the media?
If the guys are holding information that would reveal misbehavior, then how can Brady/NFLPA pursue the court case -- they can't be allowed to testify and bring themselves, the team and possibly Brady (if he is directly implicated) down. If this goes to court, I think it has to mean that Brady was not complicit in a deflation scheme.
-
The prescribed penalty for breaking the PSI rule is $25,000. That's peanuts.
Not quite right.
“Once the balls have left the locker room, no one, including players, equipment managers and coaches are allowed to alter the footballs in any way. If any individual alters the footballs, or if a non-approved ball is used in the game, the person responsible and, if appropriate, the head coach or other club personnel will be subject to discipline, including but not limited to, a fine of $25,000.”
-
To me, the biggest aspect of Brady's challenge is that there is simply no precedent for applying the rules to a player as the NFL has done in this situation, nor is there precedent for punishing such an offense with a suspension as opposed to fines. Too much of the NFL's discipline in this case is based on extremely broad interpretations of the language in the CBA and the NFL's conduct code.
Except there is. Some Patriots fans like to throw out words like "unprecedented" when it's clearly not.
Ben Roethlisberger was suspended for 6 games when no charges were filed. He was actually punished for nebulous ‘harm to the shield’ and made an example of and the response by the rest of the league was nearly 100% behind the ruling. Same goes for Jon Vilma. He was suspended not just once, but twice and served 5 games for 'BountyGate'. Again, there was no real outcry.
Then the Cowboys and Redskins were punished for treating the uncapped year like an uncapped year. Their fans cried foul. Nobody else cared.
Now we see the Patriots fanbase complaining about how Goodell has taken "unprecedented" action and such but it isn’t "unprecedented". Ben’s suspension made it possible to give large punishments for ‘Conduct Unbecoming’ and it seems fair that this applies to other teams as well. Now that the Patriots have run afoul of it, it seems hypocritical to cry about it when there were no tears shed in Patsville for the Steelers, Saints, Cowboys or Redskins.
-
Can't read through 124 pages so here are my questions/points and hope I am not repeating others' thoughts for the umpteenth time.
It seems to me that either Jastremski or McNally or both actually know beyond any doubt the answer to the following questions:
1. Did Brady specifically tell them to deflate below the legal limit?
2. Did Brady specifically tell them to deflate after the referee had approved the footballs?
3. Were the balls really deflated after they were approved by the refs prior to the Indy game?
If the answer is "no" to all of the above, then why aren't Jastremski/McNally already engaged in a media campaign and been interviewed by Anderson Cooper, George Stephanopoulas, Greta Van Sustern, etc. ?
If the answer is "yes" to any of the above, don't Bob, Bill and Tom all know that by now? Doesn't Tom's legal team know that? Doesn't the NFLPA legal team know that. And if they do, how can than take this to court? Jastremski and McNally will be called to testify and they will have to tell the truth. Certainly no pressure could be brought onto them to lie -- that would be crazy illegal; and Jastremski and McNally would be crazy to lie under oath. They'll have to tell the truth as there is absolutely no upside to lying -- and huge downside if they were to perjor themselves.
So, I am baffled. If the only guys who actually know the truth could exonerate Brady (and themselves), why aren't they already doing so using the media?
If the guys are holding information that would reveal misbehavior, then how can Brady/NFLPA pursue the court case -- they can't be allowed to testify and bring themselves, the team and possibly Brady (if he is directly implicated) down. If this goes to court, I think it has to mean that Brady was not complicit in a deflation scheme.
All fabulous points. And still people are hung up on the Brady phone thing, but somehow miss the fact that if Brady told Jastremski and McNally to deflate the balls via text or email, they would have already seen these messages on J and M's phones.
And if they are really trying to see what Brady may have said to other people, it's just preposterous. Imagine you got in trouble at work and your employer wanted to see your non work phone and read messages to non work people?
I really hope that not only does Brady win, but that this leads to the end of Roger Goodell's tenure:
-
The prescribed penalty for breaking the PSI rule is $25,000. That's peanuts.
Not quite right.
“Once the balls have left the locker room, no one, including players, equipment managers and coaches are allowed to alter the footballs in any way. If any individual alters the footballs, or if a non-approved ball is used in the game, the person responsible and, if appropriate, the head coach or other club personnel will be subject to discipline, including but not limited to, a fine of $25,000.”
True. Now I remember seeing that once before. So maybe it would be reasonable to give a bigger fine to the "previously tainted" Patriots—like, maybe, $100,000? A couple of first-round picks and a 4-game suspension for the star QB seems, well, excessive. ;D
-
All fabulous points. And still people are hung up on the Brady phone thing, but somehow miss the fact that if Brady told Jastremski and McNally to deflate the balls via text or email, they would have already seen these messages on J and M's phones.
And if they are really trying to see what Brady may have said to other people, it's just preposterous. Imagine you got in trouble at work and your employer wanted to see your non work phone and read messages to non work people?
I really hope that not only does Brady win, but that this leads to the end of Roger Goodell's tenure:
Actually, the points are irrelevant. Even if Brady was 100% innocent - and that is quite hard to believe with the evidence against him - he could still be suspended for not cooperating. Destroying his phone is exceptionally powerful evidence of that, even if the New England Echo Chamber wants to try to excuse that with the same feeble excuses they've used for dismissing all of the other evidence.
Now a corporation cannot force you to turn over private messages. For one the NFL does not have subpena power so Brady is under no obligation from the law to give over his phone which, is a good thing. A corporation should not have that power.
What a corporation can do is assume the worst if you don’t cooperate and issue punishments based on that worst assumptions. You may be asked to take a drug test because the company suspects you of being high on the job. You may refuse, which is your right. But then the company can then fire you because they can assume that since you wouldn’t take a drug test you probably had been using some illicit drugs. If IBM was accusing me of sharing trade secrets with Toshiba, they could request to see my phone, if I didn’t comply, they have the right to fire me in most states.
-
All fabulous points. And still people are hung up on the Brady phone thing, but somehow miss the fact that if Brady told Jastremski and McNally to deflate the balls via text or email, they would have already seen these messages on J and M's phones.
And if they are really trying to see what Brady may have said to other people, it's just preposterous. Imagine you got in trouble at work and your employer wanted to see your non work phone and read messages to non work people?
I really hope that not only does Brady win, but that this leads to the end of Roger Goodell's tenure:
Actually, the points are irrelevant. Even if Brady was 100% innocent - and that is quite hard to believe with the evidence against him - he could still be suspended for not cooperating. Destroying his phone is exceptionally powerful evidence of that, even if the New England Echo Chamber wants to try to excuse that with the same feeble excuses they've used for dismissing all of the other evidence.
Now a corporation cannot force you to turn over private messages. For one the NFL does not have subpena power so Brady is under no obligation from the law to give over his phone which, is a good thing. A corporation should not have that power.
What a corporation can do is assume the worst if you don’t cooperate and issue punishments based on that worst assumptions. You may be asked to take a drug test because the company suspects you of being high on the job. You may refuse, which is your right. But then the company can then fire you because they can assume that since you wouldn’t take a drug test you probably had been using some illicit drugs. If IBM was accusing me of sharing trade secrets with Toshiba, they could request to see my phone, if I didn’t comply, they have the right to fire me in most states.
No player has ever been suspended for not cooperating with an investigation, in fact the former commissioner vacated an pensltys enforced against saints players for not cooperating because it was not inline with the cba
Additionally what evidence is there that Brady did anything, I have yet to see any
-
The prescribed penalty for breaking the PSI rule is $25,000. That's peanuts.
Not quite right.
“Once the balls have left the locker room, no one, including players, equipment managers and coaches are allowed to alter the footballs in any way. If any individual alters the footballs, or if a non-approved ball is used in the game, the person responsible and, if appropriate, the head coach or other club personnel will be subject to discipline, including but not limited to, a fine of $25,000.”
True. Now I remember seeing that once before. So maybe it would be reasonable to give a bigger fine to the "previously tainted" Patriots—like, maybe, $100,000? A couple of first-round picks and a 4-game suspension for the star QB seems, well, excessive. ;D
It's two different penalties. The one to the team is for an established pattern of behavior. Spygate, deflating balls, misusing the injury report and illegal use of the IR list all happened and are proven (though there was no penalty incurred on the injury report). There's also suspected tampering with headsets, Belichick physically grabbing an official, signal stealing, accusations of stealing playbooks (though I think this is not true) and a few other assorted incidents. In short, there is an incredible amount of smoke to go with that fire.
The one to Brady is not just for likely ordering the deflation of the footballs, but also failure to cooperate. It's the "harm the shield" penalty and it's akin to the same ones Big Ben/Jon Vilma got for being the poster boys of a scandal - even if that scandal is unproven (Vilma) or no charges filed (Ben). Brady may have the right to not share his text messages and destroy evidence, but Goodell has every right to protect the shield in the CBA. That's why Brady will most likely lose in court. His only hope is to show that the hearing and appeal was arbitrary and capricious and I think that's going to be very difficult.
-
All fabulous points. And still people are hung up on the Brady phone thing, but somehow miss the fact that if Brady told Jastremski and McNally to deflate the balls via text or email, they would have already seen these messages on J and M's phones.
And if they are really trying to see what Brady may have said to other people, it's just preposterous. Imagine you got in trouble at work and your employer wanted to see your non work phone and read messages to non work people?
I really hope that not only does Brady win, but that this leads to the end of Roger Goodell's tenure:
Actually, the points are irrelevant. Even if Brady was 100% innocent - and that is quite hard to believe with the evidence against him - he could still be suspended for not cooperating. Destroying his phone is exceptionally powerful evidence of that, even if the New England Echo Chamber wants to try to excuse that with the same feeble excuses they've used for dismissing all of the other evidence.
Now a corporation cannot force you to turn over private messages. For one the NFL does not have subpena power so Brady is under no obligation from the law to give over his phone which, is a good thing. A corporation should not have that power.
What a corporation can do is assume the worst if you don’t cooperate and issue punishments based on that worst assumptions. You may be asked to take a drug test because the company suspects you of being high on the job. You may refuse, which is your right. But then the company can then fire you because they can assume that since you wouldn’t take a drug test you probably had been using some illicit drugs. If IBM was accusing me of sharing trade secrets with Toshiba, they could request to see my phone, if I didn’t comply, they have the right to fire me in most states.
No player has ever been suspended for not cooperating with an investigation, in fact the former commissioner vacated an pensltys enforced against saints players for not cooperating because it was not inline with the cba
Additionally what evidence is there that Brady did anything, I have yet to see any
Agreed.
Additionally, as has been pointed out, the NFL isn't Brady's employer, the Patriots are. Goodell is an employee of the owners who can be fired by them. So this complicates things further since Kraft certainly isn't asking for the phone.
Moreover, what gets lost in all of this is that the NFL doesn't even have evidence that the balls were even deflated. So it'd be like a company forcing you to have a drug test about an accident at your work that they just think may have happened, but they have no evidence of. And that would lose in a court of law unless the company had a random drug testing policy for all employees, but that would mean that the NFL would have to see every employees phone periodically, including Roger Goodell.
-
All fabulous points. And still people are hung up on the Brady phone thing, but somehow miss the fact that if Brady told Jastremski and McNally to deflate the balls via text or email, they would have already seen these messages on J and M's phones.
And if they are really trying to see what Brady may have said to other people, it's just preposterous. Imagine you got in trouble at work and your employer wanted to see your non work phone and read messages to non work people?
I really hope that not only does Brady win, but that this leads to the end of Roger Goodell's tenure:
Actually, the points are irrelevant. Even if Brady was 100% innocent - and that is quite hard to believe with the evidence against him - he could still be suspended for not cooperating. Destroying his phone is exceptionally powerful evidence of that, even if the New England Echo Chamber wants to try to excuse that with the same feeble excuses they've used for dismissing all of the other evidence.
Now a corporation cannot force you to turn over private messages. For one the NFL does not have subpena power so Brady is under no obligation from the law to give over his phone which, is a good thing. A corporation should not have that power.
What a corporation can do is assume the worst if you don’t cooperate and issue punishments based on that worst assumptions. You may be asked to take a drug test because the company suspects you of being high on the job. You may refuse, which is your right. But then the company can then fire you because they can assume that since you wouldn’t take a drug test you probably had been using some illicit drugs. If IBM was accusing me of sharing trade secrets with Toshiba, they could request to see my phone, if I didn’t comply, they have the right to fire me in most states.
No player has ever been suspended for not cooperating with an investigation, in fact the former commissioner vacated an pensltys enforced against saints players for not cooperating because it was not inline with the cba
Additionally what evidence is there that Brady did anything, I have yet to see any
There's 120+ pages in this thread. There's 243 pages in the Wells report. If you have yet to see any evidence that's because you refuse to see any. As such, it would be futile to rehash the factual and circumstantial evidence surrounding this case.
-
All fabulous points. And still people are hung up on the Brady phone thing, but somehow miss the fact that if Brady told Jastremski and McNally to deflate the balls via text or email, they would have already seen these messages on J and M's phones.
And if they are really trying to see what Brady may have said to other people, it's just preposterous. Imagine you got in trouble at work and your employer wanted to see your non work phone and read messages to non work people?
I really hope that not only does Brady win, but that this leads to the end of Roger Goodell's tenure:
Actually, the points are irrelevant. Even if Brady was 100% innocent - and that is quite hard to believe with the evidence against him - he could still be suspended for not cooperating. Destroying his phone is exceptionally powerful evidence of that, even if the New England Echo Chamber wants to try to excuse that with the same feeble excuses they've used for dismissing all of the other evidence.
Now a corporation cannot force you to turn over private messages. For one the NFL does not have subpena power so Brady is under no obligation from the law to give over his phone which, is a good thing. A corporation should not have that power.
What a corporation can do is assume the worst if you don’t cooperate and issue punishments based on that worst assumptions. You may be asked to take a drug test because the company suspects you of being high on the job. You may refuse, which is your right. But then the company can then fire you because they can assume that since you wouldn’t take a drug test you probably had been using some illicit drugs. If IBM was accusing me of sharing trade secrets with Toshiba, they could request to see my phone, if I didn’t comply, they have the right to fire me in most states.
No player has ever been suspended for not cooperating with an investigation, in fact the former commissioner vacated an pensltys enforced against saints players for not cooperating because it was not inline with the cba
Additionally what evidence is there that Brady did anything, I have yet to see any
There's 120+ pages in this thread. There's 243 pages in the Wells report. If you have yet to see any evidence that's because you refuse to see any. As such, it would be futile to rehash the factual and circumstantial evidence surrounding this case.
Nope it's because I actually have read everything including both court filings and the report cover to back. I suggest you do the same. He devil is in the details, regardless of he nfl wanting to reduce it to headlines
-
Additionally, as has been pointed out, the NFL isn't Brady's employer, the Patriots are. Goodell is an employee of the owners who can be fired by them. So this complicates things further since Kraft certainly isn't asking for the phone.
Come on. Seriously, this is your argument? You don't think Brady signed and must follow the collective bargaining agreement and the NFL code of conduct which gives the NFL the right to adjudicate such cases? I understand that there are many homers here, but this line of thinking is absurd. Goodell has 100% the right and duty to adjudicate these types of cases. As such, there is no "complication".
Moreover, what gets lost in all of this is that the NFL doesn't even have evidence that the balls were even deflated. So it'd be like a company forcing you to have a drug test about an accident at your work that they just think may have happened, but they have no evidence of. And that would lose in a court of law unless the company had a random drug testing policy for all employees, but that would mean that the NFL would have to see every employees phone periodically, including Roger Goodell.
Only on New England sports websites would anyone say the NFL doesn't have "evidence". The evidence may be mostly circumstantial, but there is evidence. This isn't an anti-Patriots witch hunt/conspiracy, despite that common sentiment around here.
Finally, in most states a company would have the right to require a drug test if they suspected an accident and/or an employee being under the influence. So long as the belief was reasonable - even if it was not true - they could easily require this. Such laws differ from State to State (for example, this would NOT be legal in California), but you may be surprised how few rights you have as an employee in muchy of the country. And, of course, this too is an irrelevant line of thinking because it's going to be the CBA/CoC that dictates the actions that may be taken. It's really that simple.
Brady's only hope is to prove that the hearing was arbitrary and/or capricious. That could include a lack of time to prepare, a failure to have witnesses called and so forth. But I think he's going to have a very difficult time trying to prove this.
-
Nope it's because I actually have read everything including both court filings and the report cover to back. I suggest you do the same. He devil is in the details, regardless of he nfl wanting to reduce it to headlines.
And you and other Patriots fans have interpreted it the way you (plural) wanted. I've seen those interpretations in this thread. They're quite amusing.
Evidence is that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
If you have yet to see any - as per your assertion - then you simply don't understand the word. You may not believe such evidence; you may think that the evidence gathered is sufficient enough to warrant the punishment; you may be swayed by other evidence that refutes the assertions in the Wells report; but in the end there is evidence - a considerable amount in fact - that the Patriots and Tom Brady conspired to cheat by deflating footballs.
I'm a New England sports fan. But I also believe in playing by the rules. I think the preponderance of the evidence suggest that the Patriots didn't play by the rules and quite possibly "won" another tainted Super Bowl because they cheated (again). At this point, the Patriots can enjoy the rings but history will always remember that they were "won" because they were cheating (hence the quotes). That's sad. What's worse is that I find the excuses made by the fans just as sad. The ends do not justify the means.
Now, back to the points at hand. I said that Kraft would accept his penalty. He did. I said Brady would get suspended. He did. Now I am saying I think Brady will lose in court. And should he do so, I think that will reflect poorly on his legacy. He could have meekly taken the penalty without admitting his guilt and he probably would have had his penalty reduced to two games. He would have gotten a pass for just being a team player and "taking one for the team". This saga would be over and done with. And frankly with a weak AFC East the Patriots could have gotten by without him for two games. But by fighting this, he creates a disruption for the team and uncertainty going into the season. Should he lose - which I think is the more likely scenario - he hurts the team and his own legacy far worse than he would have otherwise. If Brady loses in court, the Patriots start out 1-3 and end up missing the playoffs at 9-7 or 10-6, his image in Boston will never be the same.
-
And still people are hung up on the Brady phone thing, but somehow miss the fact that if Brady told Jastremski and McNally to deflate the balls via text or email, they would have already seen these messages on J and M's phones.
Did they do a full forensic analysis on J's and M's phones to see if messages were deleted, etc.?
-
There's 120+ pages in this thread. There's 243 pages in the Wells report. If you have yet to see any evidence that's because you refuse to see any. As such, it would be futile to rehash the factual and circumstantial evidence surrounding this case.
"I say it, therefore it is so!"
-
Except there is. Some Patriots fans like to throw out words like "unprecedented" when it's clearly not.
Name me a single instance of a player being suspended for failure to cooperate with a league investigation, or "general awareness"of misconduct by other people in his organization.
What's more, point to the specific rule that Brady has supposedly violated due to his supposed "failure to cooperate" and his "general awareness" of wrongdoing.
I think you'll find that there is no specific language in the CBA to describe the conduct for which Brady is being punished. That's a problem for the league, because a disciplinary decision has to be based upon the essence of the CBA, otherwise the players didn't really ever agree to be bound in that way and the league has no power to enforce it.
-
Except there is. Some Patriots fans like to throw out words like "unprecedented" when it's clearly not.
Name me a single instance of a player being suspended for failure to cooperate with a league investigation, or "general awareness"of misconduct by other people in his organization.
What's more, point to the specific rule that Brady has supposedly violated due to his supposed "failure to cooperate" and his "general awareness" of wrongdoing.
I think you'll find that there is no specific language in the CBA to describe the conduct for which Brady is being punished. That's a problem for the league, because a disciplinary decision has to be based upon the essence of the CBA, otherwise the players didn't really ever agree to be bound in that way and the league has no power to enforce it.
If there's no possible punishment for not cooperating with an investigation, why would anyone ever cooperate with one? Why wouldn't Kraft have just told everyone associated with the team to ignore any queries into deflategate if there was no penalty for doing so? Isn't he smart enough to think of things like that?
-
https://nflpaweb.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/PDFs/Media%20Resources/7.29.15%20petition%20to%20vacate.pdf
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/the-nfls-basic-due-process-is-the-real-issue-in-the-deflategate-controversy/2015/07/30/ebda3b02-3666-11e5-9d0f-7865a67390ee_story.html
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/28/brady-offered-to-help-nfl-gather-missing-text-messages/
Heres a few good reads for anyone posting in this thread.
There are many problems with the deflategate report.
In terms of the court of public opinion, It all starts with the "loaded question" logical fallicy. The very first question should have been 1. "were the balls deflated." If yes, the next question should have been 2. "were the balls deflated naturally, accidentally, or intentionally." If intentionally, then "3. Who did the deflating, and how." Then 4. "why, at whose direction."
Unfortunately, it is utterly obvious that in the public discourse, the very first question asked was "who illegally deflated the balls for Brady?" If that is the first question asked, it is nearly impossie for the average person to have a rational debate about it.
In terms of the questions above:
1. Probably deflated.
However, as even the scientific firm who concluded that the balls were deflated acknowledges in a footnote of the Wells report, their findings are based on several assumptions, and changing any of the assumptions would nullify their conclusions. Additionally, the new ball security rules clearly show that there was never any way to determine dedlation since there was never any protocol for recording the ball pressures in a standardized way or recording the factors that would affect ball pressure (room temp, game temp, humidity, whose balls you measure first when you bring them back into a warm room; the balls measured last will warm up more and read higher pressures.) additionally, also glossed over in the Wells report, the ref thought that he used a particular gauge at halftime. If you use that gauge's halftime measurements, the average PSI is legal. So even this basic initial fundamental question is actually mot firm.
2. If deflated, probably natural. Several random people, from scientists to students, have performed experiments and mathematics to show that the pats balls decreased by an expected amount. As above, even the company hired by the nfl stated that their findings rested upon many assumptions, wgich, if any were wrong, could change their conclusions. Furthermore, it became clear that the NFL:
1. Had no standard by which to test balls mid game.
2. Had no rules or even thoughts regarding natural pressure deflation during game conditions, only rules about the pre game weigh in parameters.
3+4. From the above two questions, it never should have progressed to this question. But even so, the question was not "did someone deflate the balls and if so, who?", the question was "how did these guys deflate the balls for brady?" Once you look at the evidence from that perspective, every small thing becomes proof to fit that conclusion, despite any alternative explanations. None of the texts, if you read without knowing about deflategate, would lead you to say "hey, these guys are talking about deflating game balls because Brady wants them to!" The huge elephant in the room is actually, given the number of texts, the incredible LACK of texts mentioning any plot to deflate footballs for Brady, let alone
Brady's awareness of a plot.
Next is the CBA requirement for consistent punishment. When there is a rule in place with a penalty, say steroids, history shows that you get penalty regardless of if you deny using or admit it, or try to hide it. Suspension for lack of cooperation (after, as we are finding out, Wells told Brady he had cooperated enough) is unprecedented. The severity is unprecedented.
Also in terms of consistency, which IS required:
- Rodgers commented he likes illegally overinflated balls. No team penalty, no player penalty, no investigation.
- Jets kicker fiasco mentioned in one of the above articles: minor fine, kicker not held responsible for actions of team employee.
- ball warming incident: minor or no fine, i forget, no investigation.
Finally, the CBA has a penalty for various illegal equipment infractions on the books: small fine. By the cba, this is what should have been assigned as punishment, if anything.
-
Additionally, as has been pointed out, the NFL isn't Brady's employer, the Patriots are. Goodell is an employee of the owners who can be fired by them. So this complicates things further since Kraft certainly isn't asking for the phone.
Come on. Seriously, this is your argument? You don't think Brady signed and must follow the collective bargaining agreement and the NFL code of conduct which gives the NFL the right to adjudicate such cases? I understand that there are many homers here, but this line of thinking is absurd. Goodell has 100% the right and duty to adjudicate these types of cases. As such, there is no "complication".
Moreover, what gets lost in all of this is that the NFL doesn't even have evidence that the balls were even deflated. So it'd be like a company forcing you to have a drug test about an accident at your work that they just think may have happened, but they have no evidence of. And that would lose in a court of law unless the company had a random drug testing policy for all employees, but that would mean that the NFL would have to see every employees phone periodically, including Roger Goodell.
Only on New England sports websites would anyone say the NFL doesn't have "evidence". The evidence may be mostly circumstantial, but there is evidence. This isn't an anti-Patriots witch hunt/conspiracy, despite that common sentiment around here.
Finally, in most states a company would have the right to require a drug test if they suspected an accident and/or an employee being under the influence. So long as the belief was reasonable - even if it was not true - they could easily require this. Such laws differ from State to State (for example, this would NOT be legal in California), but you may be surprised how few rights you have as an employee in muchy of the country. And, of course, this too is an irrelevant line of thinking because it's going to be the CBA/CoC that dictates the actions that may be taken. It's really that simple.
Brady's only hope is to prove that the hearing was arbitrary and/or capricious. That could include a lack of time to prepare, a failure to have witnesses called and so forth. But I think he's going to have a very difficult time trying to prove this.
Given your legal expertise as far as evidence and arbitration, what if the union claims that Goodell is not independent, does the court ignore that argument? I wonder if the recent Missouri SC ruling against the NFL on arbitration might foreshadow the unions attack here. It is curious that Goodell appointed independent arbitrators in the past for Peterson and Rice, but not now. One of those arbitration cases got overruled in federal court as I recall. Anyway I wonder if you will talk to the Brady case in light of the Missouri ruling. I know Florio's a lawyer and all, but you're here and he's not, so maybe we can pick your brain since you seem to think Goodell has an absolute right to adjudicate.
Missouri Supreme Court invalidates Commissioner as arbitrator
Posted by Mike Florio on May 5, 2015, 11:24 PM EDT
Goodell AP
When it comes to employment disputes involving individuals teams, the NFL traditionally stacks the deck in its favor, forcing disgruntled employees to agree to arbitration — with the Commissioner of the league presiding. Last week, the Missouri Supreme Court delivered what could become a fatal blow to the league’s obsession with allowing a non-lawyer to make legal decisions that could be influenced by business interests unrelated to what the law requires.
In a lawsuit filed more than four years ago by former Rams equipment manager Todd Hewitt, the Missouri Supreme Court invalidated the requirement of submitting all claims to arbitration resolved by the Commissioner. The Missouri Supreme Court based its conclusion in part on a fairly simply analysis of three provisions of the league’s Constitution and Bylaws.
First, the Court pointed out that Section 8.3 gives the Commissioner “full, complete, and final jurisdiction and authority to arbitrate . . . [a]ny dispute between any player, coach, and/or other employee of any member of the League and any member club or clubs.” Next, the Court pointed out that Section 8.1 requires the NFL to “select and employ a person of unquestioned integrity to serve as Commissioner of the League and shall determine the period and fix the compensation of his employment.” Then, the Court pointed out that Section 8.2 states that the “Commissioner shall have no financial interest, direct or indirect, in any professional sport.”
The provisions are clearly inconsistent; it’s impossible for the Commissioner to have “no financial interest” in “any professional sport” when he is paid by the league — and when the bulk of his compensation often comes from bonuses tied to the financial success of the league. More importantly, the Missouri Supreme Court concluded that the conflicting provisions and obvious bias of the Commissioner when “required to arbitrate claims against his employers” makes the requirement that employees submit claims to arbitration resolved by the Commissioner unenforceable.
While narrow in application to the State of Missouri (which serves as the home of two NFL teams, the Rams and Chiefs), the ruling provides a blueprint for employees who hope to avoid Commissioner-resolved arbitration in the other 21 states in which the NFL does business. It also gives the NFL Players Association and the NFL Referees Association a potential hammer for challenging in court the ability of the Commissioner to continue to serve as the arbitrator over claims brought by players and game officials, respectively.
While those provisions likely will have greater teeth because they appear in Collective Bargaining Agreements, the three provisions quoted by the Missouri Supreme Court from the NFL’s Constitution and Bylaws lay the foundation for a case-by-case attack on arbitration submitted to the Commissioner based on the inherent bias of the Commissioner.
It’s an obvious problem that has been hiding in plain sight for decades. At some point, the unions, the courts, and/or the NFL itself need to acknowledge that the Commissioner necessarily is incapable of being objective when resolving disputes involving the very teams that hire and pay him, and to come up with a more fair and unbiased procedure for resolving disputes.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/05/missouri-supreme-court-invalidates-commissioner-as-arbitrator/
-
And still people are hung up on the Brady phone thing, but somehow miss the fact that if Brady told Jastremski and McNally to deflate the balls via text or email, they would have already seen these messages on J and M's phones.
Did they do a full forensic analysis on J's and M's phones to see if messages were deleted, etc.?
I think so. At least one of the messages in the Wells report was to an unknown recipient because they failed to recover it completely (looks like it was deleted).
-
If there's no possible punishment for not cooperating with an investigation, why would anyone ever cooperate with one? Why wouldn't Kraft have just told everyone associated with the team to ignore any queries into deflategate if there was no penalty for doing so? Isn't he smart enough to think of things like that?
I don't know, how do we get anyone convicted in a court of law when they're allowed to refuse to give self-incriminating testimony?
-
Except there is. Some Patriots fans like to throw out words like "unprecedented" when it's clearly not.
Name me a single instance of a player being suspended for failure to cooperate with a league investigation, or "general awareness"of misconduct by other people in his organization.
What's more, point to the specific rule that Brady has supposedly violated due to his supposed "failure to cooperate" and his "general awareness" of wrongdoing.
I think you'll find that there is no specific language in the CBA to describe the conduct for which Brady is being punished. That's a problem for the league, because a disciplinary decision has to be based upon the essence of the CBA, otherwise the players didn't really ever agree to be bound in that way and the league has no power to enforce it.
If there's no possible punishment for not cooperating with an investigation, why would anyone ever cooperate with one? Why wouldn't Kraft have just told everyone associated with the team to ignore any queries into deflategate if there was no penalty for doing so? Isn't he smart enough to think of things like that?
If the NFL wanted to have a clearly defined punishment for failure to cooperate they should have bargained for one.
Also, if the punishment were based on lack of cooperation that needed to be stated clearly from the initial issuance of the punishment. Not going in that direction once it becomes clear that there's little basis for the original accusation.
-
I don't really buy the "failure to cooperate" idea when the thing Brady "failed" to "cooperate" about was something that should never have been an issue in the first place. If one of my supervisors wanted to give me the third degree about taking a couple of company pens home from the office, I might be a little peeved too.
-
I don't have a twitter, and I know ultimately it wouldn't leave a dent, but part of me wants to create a twitter just to message Chris Mortenson and rail on him for how much of a coward he is.
The fact that he cancelled his radio show appearance is pathetic, and his statement is ridiculous.
“You guys made a mistake by drumming up business for the show and how I would address my reporting for the first time"...first of all, the fact that you're addressing this reporting 'for the first time' is a big problem. This initial report is what shaped and grew everyone's perception of this whole event and the fact that you HAVEN'T addressed it is just simply bad reporting.
“I will not allow WEEI, Kraft or anybody to make me the centerpiece of a story that has been misreported far beyond anything I did in the first 48 hours. Maybe when the lawsuit is settled, in Brady’s favor, I hope, we can revisit. Don’t call.”...second of all, hate to break it to you Mort but you ARE a centerpiece of this. And to say the story has been misreported far beyond anything you did in the first 48 hours is just a flat-out wrong statement. Man up, take your medicine, and admit your sources were wrong.
And I know WEEI is reporting that Mike Kensil was his source, which is incredibly believable and very well may be the case, but I'm not gonna go crazy on it just yet until it gets confirmed by somebody else other than a radio personality.
-
There's absolutely no way he can throw the NFL under the bus, though. That's just a reality of where he sits as someone with a job that he ostensibly wants to keep. Any reporter in the country runs with that information based on who gave it to him -- which means, ew, that I agree with Adam Schefter on this, but there's no reasonable way to skewer him over it, rather than being upset with the people who fed him the info (purposefully) in the first place.
Here's another example of that happening via Deflategate:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/30/stephen-a-smith-doesnt-seem-to-realize-he-was-used-by-the-nfl/
-
There's absolutely no way he can throw the NFL under the bus, though. That's just a reality of where he sits as someone with a job that he ostensibly wants to keep. Any reporter in the country runs with that information based on who gave it to him.
I never said he had to actually give up his source. I'm not expecting that, no reporter does that. But the least, THE LEAST, he can do is just simply apologize for that report and admit that he was given wrong information that started this poopstorm. He has yet to do that. Heck, the report is still up and free for someone to look at it. It hasn't even been retracted.
And the whole wanting to keep his job thing I don't buy. If that's the case, Adam Schefter better start looking for a new job considering on Thursday he suggested that Mort was given false information by one or more high-level NFL official...that sounds a little to me like throwing the NFL under bus.
Again, he doesn't have to reveal who told him this bad info, but the least he can do is man up and admit that he got it wrong, his source got it wrong. Not every source works out for reporters and sometimes they have to admit that their source was wrong...he hasn't done that yet.
-
Sure. He can very easily go out and say that he's sorry that he was given bad information and used by the league. In fact that's basically standard procedure when this sort of thing winds up happening.
The fact that he's not doing that probably indicates that this is a source he will need to do his job effectively in the future (which is what I assumed I implied, perhaps not), and a source with enough influence to not only stop him from doing so but also with enough import around the game of professional football that he'd rather just ignore the wailing and wait it out.
-
John Dennis reported this morning that the source was Kensil (which people have been speculating since pretty much the beginning.
Does seem like a scumbag move for Mort to pull out last second. He certainly got used by the NFL here. My biggest issue is that it was never retracted. Either ESPN or Mort should've done that a long time ago when it was clear that what was reported was erroneous.
I do think he is between a rock & a hard place because of his "insider" relationship with the NFL. He gives up that source (as wrong as they were) and he becomes an outcast. Which is a death knell for these guys that are "insiders".
-
Sure. He can very easily go out and say that he's sorry that he was given bad information and used by the league. In fact that's basically standard procedure when this sort of thing winds up happening.
The fact that he's not doing that probably indicates that this is a source he will need to do his job effectively in the future (which is what I assumed I implied, perhaps not), and a source with enough influence to not only stop him from doing so but also with enough import around the game of professional football that he'd rather just ignore the wailing and wait it out.
Or it could just indicate that he's a coward
-
Sure. He can very easily go out and say that he's sorry that he was given bad information and used by the league. In fact that's basically standard procedure when this sort of thing winds up happening.
The fact that he's not doing that probably indicates that this is a source he will need to do his job effectively in the future (which is what I assumed I implied, perhaps not), and a source with enough influence to not only stop him from doing so but also with enough import around the game of professional football that he'd rather just ignore the wailing and wait it out.
Or it could just indicate that he's a coward
If you're allergic to the nuance at hand, sure.
-
Very good read:
http://www.stradleylaw.com/deflategate-legal-questions/
-
Sure. He can very easily go out and say that he's sorry that he was given bad information and used by the league. In fact that's basically standard procedure when this sort of thing winds up happening.
The fact that he's not doing that probably indicates that this is a source he will need to do his job effectively in the future (which is what I assumed I implied, perhaps not), and a source with enough influence to not only stop him from doing so but also with enough import around the game of professional football that he'd rather just ignore the wailing and wait it out.
In essence: Roger Goodell.
-
There's absolutely no way he can throw the NFL under the bus, though.
The NFL is under the bus already. He cites a "league source" on this, and it's obviously incorrect information. So I don't see how saying "my information was bad, I'm sorry" reflects any worse on the league than it already does.
-
There's absolutely no way he can throw the NFL under the bus, though.
The NFL is under the bus already. He cites a "league source" on this, and it's obviously incorrect information. So I don't see how saying "my information was bad, I'm sorry" reflects any worse on the league than it already does.
Exactly. He doesn't have to give up his incorrect source. I understand that he might want to keep that confidential for his career sake.
My issue has always been that no one ever came out & retracted it or just said "it was a screw up".
-
There's absolutely no way he can throw the NFL under the bus, though.
The NFL is under the bus already. He cites a "league source" on this, and it's obviously incorrect information. So I don't see how saying "my information was bad, I'm sorry" reflects any worse on the league than it already does.
Exactly. He doesn't have to give up his incorrect source. I understand that he might want to keep that confidential for his career sake.
My issue has always been that no one ever came out & retracted it or just said "it was a screw up".
That's all I'm saying
-
There's absolutely no way he can throw the NFL under the bus, though.
The NFL is under the bus already. He cites a "league source" on this, and it's obviously incorrect information. So I don't see how saying "my information was bad, I'm sorry" reflects any worse on the league than it already does.
I don't blame Mortensen on this. He received some information and reported it. I guess as a journalist, you have some responsibility to confirm this type of thing but it would have been hard for him to do that. It is still not clear how many balls if any were actually deflated so what can he say? What is the truth? He might say something that is no more true than his last report. He is a dweeb for hiding on this but he is not even close to the being the real issue. Even if he did some full retraction or apology, would it do any good?
What I think is more telling is this is what the league believed. They really bought the narrative that x balls were deflated. The league thought they had something, got so excited there were probably wet pants in the league office, rushed to leak it out, and have been in damage control mode ever since.
The league botched this. Now that is something you will never hear Mortensen say.
-
Nope it's because I actually have read everything including both court filings and the report cover to back. I suggest you do the same. He devil is in the details, regardless of he nfl wanting to reduce it to headlines.
And you and other Patriots fans have interpreted it the way you (plural) wanted. I've seen those interpretations in this thread. They're quite amusing.
Evidence is that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
If you have yet to see any - as per your assertion - then you simply don't understand the word. You may not believe such evidence; you may think that the evidence gathered is sufficient enough to warrant the punishment; you may be swayed by other evidence that refutes the assertions in the Wells report; but in the end there is evidence - a considerable amount in fact - that the Patriots and Tom Brady conspired to cheat by deflating footballs.
I'm a New England sports fan. But I also believe in playing by the rules. I think the preponderance of the evidence suggest that the Patriots didn't play by the rules and quite possibly "won" another tainted Super Bowl because they cheated (again). At this point, the Patriots can enjoy the rings but history will always remember that they were "won" because they were cheating (hence the quotes). That's sad. What's worse is that I find the excuses made by the fans just as sad. The ends do not justify the means.
Now, back to the points at hand. I said that Kraft would accept his penalty. He did. I said Brady would get suspended. He did. Now I am saying I think Brady will lose in court. And should he do so, I think that will reflect poorly on his legacy. He could have meekly taken the penalty without admitting his guilt and he probably would have had his penalty reduced to two games. He would have gotten a pass for just being a team player and "taking one for the team". This saga would be over and done with. And frankly with a weak AFC East the Patriots could have gotten by without him for two games. But by fighting this, he creates a disruption for the team and uncertainty going into the season. Should he lose - which I think is the more likely scenario - he hurts the team and his own legacy far worse than he would have otherwise. If Brady loses in court, the Patriots start out 1-3 and end up missing the playoffs at 9-7 or 10-6, his image in Boston will never be the same.
No offense here, but I highly doubt you are a NE Patriots fan, because if you were, you would not make that statement. Don't need to be to express your opinions, but when you said you are a New England sports fan, does that include the Pats? Or are you being cute with your language??
-
All fabulous points. And still people are hung up on the Brady phone thing, but somehow miss the fact that if Brady told Jastremski and McNally to deflate the balls via text or email, they would have already seen these messages on J and M's phones.
And if they are really trying to see what Brady may have said to other people, it's just preposterous. Imagine you got in trouble at work and your employer wanted to see your non work phone and read messages to non work people?
I really hope that not only does Brady win, but that this leads to the end of Roger Goodell's tenure:
Actually, the points are irrelevant. Even if Brady was 100% innocent - and that is quite hard to believe with the evidence against him - he could still be suspended for not cooperating. Destroying his phone is exceptionally powerful evidence of that, even if the New England Echo Chamber wants to try to excuse that with the same feeble excuses they've used for dismissing all of the other evidence.
Now a corporation cannot force you to turn over private messages. For one the NFL does not have subpena power so Brady is under no obligation from the law to give over his phone which, is a good thing. A corporation should not have that power.
What a corporation can do is assume the worst if you don’t cooperate and issue punishments based on that worst assumptions. You may be asked to take a drug test because the company suspects you of being high on the job. You may refuse, which is your right. But then the company can then fire you because they can assume that since you wouldn’t take a drug test you probably had been using some illicit drugs. If IBM was accusing me of sharing trade secrets with Toshiba, they could request to see my phone, if I didn’t comply, they have the right to fire me in most states.
No player has ever been suspended for not cooperating with an investigation, in fact the former commissioner vacated an pensltys enforced against saints players for not cooperating because it was not inline with the cba
Additionally what evidence is there that Brady did anything, I have yet to see any
There's 120+ pages in this thread. There's 243 pages in the Wells report. If you have yet to see any evidence that's because you refuse to see any. As such, it would be futile to rehash the factual and circumstantial evidence surrounding this case.
If you are relying on the Wells report as the evidence, I could not disagree more strongly. Subsequent, objectively prepared, scientific reports have torn that to shreds. I am a Pats fan, and felt somewhat sanEdited. Profanity and masked profanity are against forum rules and may result in discipline.ged by Brady for the destruction of his phone. But as I read more context, I am totally confused by what the heck happened. I think the fact that it will be heard in a NY court will likely have it decided in the NFL's favor, and we can all go for closure. But I doubt that we will ever find out whether or not there really was any tampering of the footballs that day.
-
And still people are hung up on the Brady phone thing, but somehow miss the fact that if Brady told Jastremski and McNally to deflate the balls via text or email, they would have already seen these messages on J and M's phones.
Did they do a full forensic analysis on J's and M's phones to see if messages were deleted, etc.?
Unlikely that any deleted texts from Brady, because they would have shown up in the transcript he provided. If you mean between them, I have no idea.
-
Good read here by Jason McIntyre
http://thebiglead.com/2015/07/31/espn-nfl-criticism-simmons-goodell-mortensen/
An excerpt:
This all points to a troubling trend: While there’s no doubt the ESPN has an impressive stable of prize-winning and talented reporters, and “Outside the Lines” is a serious news show, there are more than a few examples over the last two years of the NFL attempting to stifle high-profile criticism (see Simmons, Olbermann), and allegedly leaking information to further an agenda (see Mortensen, Smith) at the most powerful sports media entity on the planet.
-
Nope it's because I actually have read everything including both court filings and the report cover to back. I suggest you do the same. He devil is in the details, regardless of he nfl wanting to reduce it to headlines.
And you and other Patriots fans have interpreted it the way you (plural) wanted. I've seen those interpretations in this thread. They're quite amusing.
Evidence is that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
If you have yet to see any - as per your assertion - then you simply don't understand the word. You may not believe such evidence; you may think that the evidence gathered is sufficient enough to warrant the punishment; you may be swayed by other evidence that refutes the assertions in the Wells report; but in the end there is evidence - a considerable amount in fact - that the Patriots and Tom Brady conspired to cheat by deflating footballs.
I'm a New England sports fan. But I also believe in playing by the rules. I think the preponderance of the evidence suggest that the Patriots didn't play by the rules and quite possibly "won" another tainted Super Bowl because they cheated (again). At this point, the Patriots can enjoy the rings but history will always remember that they were "won" because they were cheating (hence the quotes). That's sad. What's worse is that I find the excuses made by the fans just as sad. The ends do not justify the means.
Now, back to the points at hand. I said that Kraft would accept his penalty. He did. I said Brady would get suspended. He did. Now I am saying I think Brady will lose in court. And should he do so, I think that will reflect poorly on his legacy. He could have meekly taken the penalty without admitting his guilt and he probably would have had his penalty reduced to two games. He would have gotten a pass for just being a team player and "taking one for the team". This saga would be over and done with. And frankly with a weak AFC East the Patriots could have gotten by without him for two games. But by fighting this, he creates a disruption for the team and uncertainty going into the season. Should he lose - which I think is the more likely scenario - he hurts the team and his own legacy far worse than he would have otherwise. If Brady loses in court, the Patriots start out 1-3 and end up missing the playoffs at 9-7 or 10-6, his image in Boston will never be the same.
No offense here, but I highly doubt you are a NE Patriots fan, because if you were, you would not make that statement. Don't need to be to express your opinions, but when you said you are a New England sports fan, does that include the Pats? Or are you being cute with your language??
How does this make any sense? Granath is qualifying his statement by saying that he's a Patriots fan -- in essence avoiding the particular critique that you are making of his post.
I feel like knowing where posters stand relative to the Pats is fairly important to how you contribute to this conversation. For example both eja and Donghus's contributions are undoubtedly colored by the fact that they're Pats fans, whereas I am gleefully indifferent to the Patriots (and NFL teams in general). That doesn't do anything to affect the validity of anyone's statements, though.
-
Nope it's because I actually have read everything including both court filings and the report cover to back. I suggest you do the same. He devil is in the details, regardless of he nfl wanting to reduce it to headlines.
And you and other Patriots fans have interpreted it the way you (plural) wanted. I've seen those interpretations in this thread. They're quite amusing.
Evidence is that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
If you have yet to see any - as per your assertion - then you simply don't understand the word. You may not believe such evidence; you may think that the evidence gathered is sufficient enough to warrant the punishment; you may be swayed by other evidence that refutes the assertions in the Wells report; but in the end there is evidence - a considerable amount in fact - that the Patriots and Tom Brady conspired to cheat by deflating footballs.
I'm a New England sports fan. But I also believe in playing by the rules. I think the preponderance of the evidence suggest that the Patriots didn't play by the rules and quite possibly "won" another tainted Super Bowl because they cheated (again). At this point, the Patriots can enjoy the rings but history will always remember that they were "won" because they were cheating (hence the quotes). That's sad. What's worse is that I find the excuses made by the fans just as sad. The ends do not justify the means.
Now, back to the points at hand. I said that Kraft would accept his penalty. He did. I said Brady would get suspended. He did. Now I am saying I think Brady will lose in court. And should he do so, I think that will reflect poorly on his legacy. He could have meekly taken the penalty without admitting his guilt and he probably would have had his penalty reduced to two games. He would have gotten a pass for just being a team player and "taking one for the team". This saga would be over and done with. And frankly with a weak AFC East the Patriots could have gotten by without him for two games. But by fighting this, he creates a disruption for the team and uncertainty going into the season. Should he lose - which I think is the more likely scenario - he hurts the team and his own legacy far worse than he would have otherwise. If Brady loses in court, the Patriots start out 1-3 and end up missing the playoffs at 9-7 or 10-6, his image in Boston will never be the same.
No offense here, but I highly doubt you are a NE Patriots fan, because if you were, you would not make that statement. Don't need to be to express your opinions, but when you said you are a New England sports fan, does that include the Pats? Or are you being cute with your language??
How does this make any sense? Granath is qualifying his statement by saying that he's a Patriots fan -- in essence avoiding the particular critique that you are making of his post.
I feel like knowing where posters stand relative to the Pats is fairly important to how you contribute to this conversation. For example both eja and Donghus's contributions are undoubtedly colored by the fact that they're Pats fans, whereas I am gleefully indifferent to the Patriots (and NFL teams in general). That doesn't do anything to affect the validity of anyone's statements, though.
I hate the Patriots and dislike Brady. This whole destroying of the cell phone business and the focus it has brought to this discussion has been complete BS though.
And an aside for Granath, you believe in playing by the rules, so do I , at the same time the League is also at the disposition of said rules, not above them. So we can't have double standards there. If the League doesn't have grounds to punish teams/Brady, and also to the extent that it's doing so, then you should be against the Goodell's ruling as well... since for all apparent purposes, the League is not playing by the rules and in accordance to the parameters set by the CBA.
So in all of this, for all the purists about playing by the rules, don't selectively close your other eye from the opposing side of the argument.
-
If there's no possible punishment for not cooperating with an investigation, why would anyone ever cooperate with one? Why wouldn't Kraft have just told everyone associated with the team to ignore any queries into deflategate if there was no penalty for doing so? Isn't he smart enough to think of things like that?
I don't know, how do we get anyone convicted in a court of law when they're allowed to refuse to give self-incriminating testimony?
Frequently by forcing the suspects to turn over their personal property by obtaining warrants. Or by giving some people immunity and compelling them to testify against others. You know, things these investigators had no power to do.
-
Except there is. Some Patriots fans like to throw out words like "unprecedented" when it's clearly not.
Name me a single instance of a player being suspended for failure to cooperate with a league investigation, or "general awareness"of misconduct by other people in his organization.
What's more, point to the specific rule that Brady has supposedly violated due to his supposed "failure to cooperate" and his "general awareness" of wrongdoing.
I think you'll find that there is no specific language in the CBA to describe the conduct for which Brady is being punished. That's a problem for the league, because a disciplinary decision has to be based upon the essence of the CBA, otherwise the players didn't really ever agree to be bound in that way and the league has no power to enforce it.
If there's no possible punishment for not cooperating with an investigation, why would anyone ever cooperate with one? Why wouldn't Kraft have just told everyone associated with the team to ignore any queries into deflategate if there was no penalty for doing so? Isn't he smart enough to think of things like that?
If the NFL wanted to have a clearly defined punishment for failure to cooperate they should have bargained for one.
Also, if the punishment were based on lack of cooperation that needed to be stated clearly from the initial issuance of the punishment. Not going in that direction once it becomes clear that there's little basis for the original accusation.
You're saying that the league never said anything about Brady being uncooperative or less than forthright when they originally suspended him? That's not what I recall.
-
If there's no possible punishment for not cooperating with an investigation, why would anyone ever cooperate with one? Why wouldn't Kraft have just told everyone associated with the team to ignore any queries into deflategate if there was no penalty for doing so? Isn't he smart enough to think of things like that?
I don't know, how do we get anyone convicted in a court of law when they're allowed to refuse to give self-incriminating testimony?
Frequently by forcing the suspects to turn over their personal property by obtaining warrants. Or by giving some people immunity and compelling them to testify against others. You know, things these investigators had no power to do.
No power, and more importantly, NO RIGHT to do.
-
https://nflpaweb.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/PDFs/Media%20Resources/7.29.15%20petition%20to%20vacate.pdf
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/the-nfls-basic-due-process-is-the-real-issue-in-the-deflategate-controversy/2015/07/30/ebda3b02-3666-11e5-9d0f-7865a67390ee_story.html
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/28/brady-offered-to-help-nfl-gather-missing-text-messages/
Heres a few good reads for anyone posting in this thread.
There are many problems with the deflategate report.
In terms of the court of public opinion, It all starts with the "loaded question" logical fallicy. The very first question should have been 1. "were the balls deflated." If yes, the next question should have been 2. "were the balls deflated naturally, accidentally, or intentionally." If intentionally, then "3. Who did the deflating, and how." Then 4. "why, at whose direction."
Unfortunately, it is utterly obvious that in the public discourse, the very first question asked was "who illegally deflated the balls for Brady?" If that is the first question asked, it is nearly impossie for the average person to have a rational debate about it.
In terms of the questions above:
1. Probably deflated.
However, as even the scientific firm who concluded that the balls were deflated acknowledges in a footnote of the Wells report, their findings are based on several assumptions, and changing any of the assumptions would nullify their conclusions. Additionally, the new ball security rules clearly show that there was never any way to determine dedlation since there was never any protocol for recording the ball pressures in a standardized way or recording the factors that would affect ball pressure (room temp, game temp, humidity, whose balls you measure first when you bring them back into a warm room; the balls measured last will warm up more and read higher pressures.) additionally, also glossed over in the Wells report, the ref thought that he used a particular gauge at halftime. If you use that gauge's halftime measurements, the average PSI is legal. So even this basic initial fundamental question is actually mot firm.
2. If deflated, probably natural. Several random people, from scientists to students, have performed experiments and mathematics to show that the pats balls decreased by an expected amount. As above, even the company hired by the nfl stated that their findings rested upon many assumptions, wgich, if any were wrong, could change their conclusions. Furthermore, it became clear that the NFL:
1. Had no standard by which to test balls mid game.
2. Had no rules or even thoughts regarding natural pressure deflation during game conditions, only rules about the pre game weigh in parameters.
3+4. From the above two questions, it never should have progressed to this question. But even so, the question was not "did someone deflate the balls and if so, who?", the question was "how did these guys deflate the balls for brady?"
I think that much of the investigation was based on guesswork and not concrete proof. The fact that the balls were less deflated when they were re-measured doesn't prove that they were deflated, it just shows that they might have been. In other words, if they weren't below the specified range the case would have ended there.
The next question is, were the balls actually deflated or was it a natural phenomenon? Again, no direct evidence, but (while I haven't followed the case as closely as some), I think you have to consider all of the texts about needles, referring to someone as the deflator, or the balls having an undesired amount of air in them if the proper bribes aren't exchanged. It seems pretty hard to combine the under-inflated balls and the texts about under-inflating the balls and come to the conclusion that it's unlikely anything untoward happened.
Once you look at the evidence from that perspective, every small thing becomes proof to fit that conclusion, despite any alternative explanations. None of the texts, if you read without knowing about deflategate, would lead you to say "hey, these guys are talking about deflating game balls because Brady wants them to!" The huge elephant in the room is actually, given the number of texts, the incredible LACK of texts mentioning any plot to deflate footballs for Brady, let alone Brady's awareness of a plot.
I thought there were clearly texts mentioning a plot to deflate balls and texts that implied Brady knew what was happening. And he'd have to be the primary reason the balls were deflated. There's literally no other motive for doing so other than the deflated balls being what Brady preferred.
-
If there's no possible punishment for not cooperating with an investigation, why would anyone ever cooperate with one? Why wouldn't Kraft have just told everyone associated with the team to ignore any queries into deflategate if there was no penalty for doing so? Isn't he smart enough to think of things like that?
I don't know, how do we get anyone convicted in a court of law when they're allowed to refuse to give self-incriminating testimony?
Frequently by forcing the suspects to turn over their personal property by obtaining warrants. Or by giving some people immunity and compelling them to testify against others. You know, things these investigators had no power to do.
No power, and more importantly, NO RIGHT to do.
Obviously the nfl investigators don't have the power or the right to do so. But, again, if there's no punishment whatsoever for not cooperating with an investigation, why would anyone ever cooperate with one?
-
I'm for playing by the rules and think that enough has been shown over all this time to suggest that the Pats were probably doing something with the balls, but nothing that had any noticeable affect on the outcome of a game.
I also think the rule the Patriots are alleged to have violated is one that was not consistently or seriously enforced prior to a complaint raised by a recently defeated opponent of the Patriots.
Based on all of that, I think the Patriots deserve to receive a punishment consistent with prior league rulings and the letter and spirit of the rules found in the CBA and league conduct policy.
Which is to say, the Pats should have been fined.
-
If there's no possible punishment for not cooperating with an investigation, why would anyone ever cooperate with one? Why wouldn't Kraft have just told everyone associated with the team to ignore any queries into deflategate if there was no penalty for doing so? Isn't he smart enough to think of things like that?
I don't know, how do we get anyone convicted in a court of law when they're allowed to refuse to give self-incriminating testimony?
Frequently by forcing the suspects to turn over their personal property by obtaining warrants. Or by giving some people immunity and compelling them to testify against others. You know, things these investigators had no power to do.
No power, and more importantly, NO RIGHT to do.
To underscore here -- the NFL has no right or power to do those things because they failed to bargain for that power in the most recent CBA. If the NFL wants to be able to compel players to turn over evidence and punish them for failure to comply with such requests, they need to bargain for it.
The only reason the NFL has a right to punish players at all is because of the authority in the CBA.
-
(https://wellsreportcontext.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/glaser-pash-emails1.jpg)
http://wellsreportcontext.com/league-failure-to-correct-misinformation/
-
(https://wellsreportcontext.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/glaser-pash-emails1.jpg)
http://wellsreportcontext.com/league-failure-to-correct-misinformation/
I don't understand how the NFL front office telling lies that harm a team and HOF player (or any player) and refusing to correct those lies isn't a bigger story. Nor do I understand how so many people after seeing these lies give the league more credibility than a player with no history of that kind of behavior.
-
Nope it's because I actually have read everything including both court filings and the report cover to back. I suggest you do the same. He devil is in the details, regardless of he nfl wanting to reduce it to headlines.
And you and other Patriots fans have interpreted it the way you (plural) wanted. I've seen those interpretations in this thread. They're quite amusing.
Evidence is that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
If you have yet to see any - as per your assertion - then you simply don't understand the word. You may not believe such evidence; you may think that the evidence gathered is sufficient enough to warrant the punishment; you may be swayed by other evidence that refutes the assertions in the Wells report; but in the end there is evidence - a considerable amount in fact - that the Patriots and Tom Brady conspired to cheat by deflating footballs.
I'm a New England sports fan. But I also believe in playing by the rules. I think the preponderance of the evidence suggest that the Patriots didn't play by the rules and quite possibly "won" another tainted Super Bowl because they cheated (again). At this point, the Patriots can enjoy the rings but history will always remember that they were "won" because they were cheating (hence the quotes). That's sad. What's worse is that I find the excuses made by the fans just as sad. The ends do not justify the means.
Now, back to the points at hand. I said that Kraft would accept his penalty. He did. I said Brady would get suspended. He did. Now I am saying I think Brady will lose in court. And should he do so, I think that will reflect poorly on his legacy. He could have meekly taken the penalty without admitting his guilt and he probably would have had his penalty reduced to two games. He would have gotten a pass for just being a team player and "taking one for the team". This saga would be over and done with. And frankly with a weak AFC East the Patriots could have gotten by without him for two games. But by fighting this, he creates a disruption for the team and uncertainty going into the season. Should he lose - which I think is the more likely scenario - he hurts the team and his own legacy far worse than he would have otherwise. If Brady loses in court, the Patriots start out 1-3 and end up missing the playoffs at 9-7 or 10-6, his image in Boston will never be the same.
No offense here, but I highly doubt you are a NE Patriots fan, because if you were, you would not make that statement. Don't need to be to express your opinions, but when you said you are a New England sports fan, does that include the Pats? Or are you being cute with your language??
How does this make any sense? Granath is qualifying his statement by saying that he's a Patriots fan -- in essence avoiding the particular critique that you are making of his post.
I feel like knowing where posters stand relative to the Pats is fairly important to how you contribute to this conversation. For example both eja and Donghus's contributions are undoubtedly colored by the fact that they're Pats fans, whereas I am gleefully indifferent to the Patriots (and NFL teams in general). That doesn't do anything to affect the validity of anyone's statements, though.
He said he was a New England sports fan, not a Patriots fan. A Boston Celtic fan is a New England sports fan. The fact that he was put much stock on the Wells Report; I just don't know anyone who looks at it critically--and every Pats fan I know has---would give it as much credence as he does in his comments.
But my comment was reactive, did not add to the dialogue/debate. I probably should not have even made the point. Apologies to Granath for even going there. It doesn't matter whether he is a Pats fan or not.
Man, I am so messed up about Deflategate!!!
-
Do people still think Brady was innocent in this whole thing or that nothing ever happened?
The only thing that should be contested is the penalty being too harsh but Brady does deserve some kind of penalty.
-
To underscore here -- the NFL has no right or power to do those things because they failed to bargain for that power in the most recent CBA. If the NFL wants to be able to compel players to turn over evidence and punish them for failure to comply with such requests, they need to bargain for it.
For not having power, it seems they made an example of Brady pretty much at will. I know Kraft is mad, but face it, a lot of owners probably love watching him squirm, and I see them backing Goodell who serves at all the owners behest. The Pats are generally seen as cheaters who got away with it, recall the play stealing scandal perhaps? I live well outside of Boston and people here in Cincinnati are loving it and posting stuff on facebook about how great it was Brady got caught, being a C's fan I kind of like the Pats, I defintely do not like the Bungles (Bengals).
But I still the NFL as a whole as a lot more powerful than you. They are not bound by law. They can do whatever they want as long as the owners stick together.
-
To underscore here -- the NFL has no right or power to do those things because they failed to bargain for that power in the most recent CBA. If the NFL wants to be able to compel players to turn over evidence and punish them for failure to comply with such requests, they need to bargain for it.
For not having power, it seems they made an example of Brady pretty much at will. I know Kraft is mad, but face it, a lot of owners probably love watching him squirm, and I see them backing Goodell who serves at all the owners behest. The Pats are generally seen as cheaters who got away with it, recall the play stealing scandal perhaps? I live well outside of Boston and people here in Cincinnati are loving it and posting stuff on facebook about how great it was Brady got caught, being a C's fan I kind of like the Pats, I defintely do not like the Bungles (Bengals).
But I still the NFL as a whole as a lot more powerful than you. They are not bound by law. They can do whatever they want as long as the owners stick together.
What the NFL can do is a function of what the players are willing to call them out on by utilizing the legal avenues Brady is using right now.
-
Do people still think Brady was innocent in this whole thing or that nothing ever happened?
The only thing that should be contested is the penalty being too harsh but Brady does deserve some kind of penalty.
I think he's innocent. Do you think he conspired with a part time, minimum wage employee on a risky scheme to remove 3 to 4 tenths of a psi which is only possible if the ref forgot which gauge he used to measure over 50 footballs only a couple hours after measuring them? Or do you believe a league which has been caught lying about the incident?
-
Do people still think Brady was innocent in this whole thing or that nothing ever happened?
The only thing that should be contested is the penalty being too harsh but Brady does deserve some kind of penalty.
A fine.
-
To underscore here -- the NFL has no right or power to do those things because they failed to bargain for that power in the most recent CBA. If the NFL wants to be able to compel players to turn over evidence and punish them for failure to comply with such requests, they need to bargain for it.
For not having power, it seems they made an example of Brady pretty much at will. I know Kraft is mad, but face it, a lot of owners probably love watching him squirm, and I see them backing Goodell who serves at all the owners behest. The Pats are generally seen as cheaters who got away with it, recall the play stealing scandal perhaps? I live well outside of Boston and people here in Cincinnati are loving it and posting stuff on facebook about how great it was Brady got caught, being a C's fan I kind of like the Pats, I defintely do not like the Bungles (Bengals).
But I still the NFL as a whole as a lot more powerful than you. They are not bound by law. They can do whatever they want as long as the owners stick together.
Except when in court.
-
You're saying that the league never said anything about Brady being uncooperative or less than forthright when they originally suspended him? That's not what I recall.
"With respect to your particular involvement, the report established that there is substantial and credible evidence to conclude you were at least generally aware of the actions of the Patriots' employees involved in the deflation of the footballs and that it was unlikely that their actions were done without your knowledge. Moreover, the report documents your failure to cooperate fully and candidly with the investigation, including by refusing to produce any relevant electronic evidence (emails, texts, etc.), despite being offered extraordinary safeguards by the investigators to protect unrelated personal information, and by providing testimony that the report concludes was not plausible and contradicted by other evidence."
The NFL release cites as their authority for the punishment the "Integrity of the Game Policy" which is applied to teams, not to players, and is not a part of the CBA that governs the relationship between the league and the players.
There is no punishment under the CBA for "failure to cooperate fully and candidly." Further, there's no precedent at all for punishing lack of cooperation with a suspension. Favre got a fine.
Anyway, based on everything that has been released, it sounds like the alleged "failure to cooperate" is a fabrication, since Tom Brady actually did produce vast amounts of relevant electronic evidence. He just didn't produce the evidence they were hoping to find that would clearly incriminate Brady and also implicate higher up members of the organization.
It really sounds like the NFL was operating from the assumption that the Patriots, and Brady specifically, were guilty, which means that "You didn't produce evidence that would clearly show your guilt or admit you cheated" becomes "You didn't cooperate with our investigation and your statements were not credible."
-
You're saying that the league never said anything about Brady being uncooperative or less than forthright when they originally suspended him? That's not what I recall.
"With respect to your particular involvement, the report established that there is substantial and credible evidence to conclude you were at least generally aware of the actions of the Patriots' employees involved in the deflation of the footballs and that it was unlikely that their actions were done without your knowledge. Moreover, the report documents your failure to cooperate fully and candidly with the investigation, including by refusing to produce any relevant electronic evidence (emails, texts, etc.), despite being offered extraordinary safeguards by the investigators to protect unrelated personal information, and by providing testimony that the report concludes was not plausible and contradicted by other evidence."
The NFL release cites as their authority for the punishment the "Integrity of the Game Policy" which is applied to teams, not to players, and is not a part of the CBA that governs the relationship between the league and the players.
There is no punishment under the CBA for "failure to cooperate fully and candidly." Further, there's no precedent at all for punishing lack of cooperation with a suspension. Favre got a fine.
A fine is a punishment though, isn't it? You're claiming the nfl doesn't have the right to punish Brady for not cooperating with the investigation. Apparently they've been able to do so in the past. And from the few seconds I spent looking at the union's appeal, they seem to be complaining that the league suspended Brady when the only punishment for not cooperating in the past has been a fine.
Anyway, based on everything that has been released, it sounds like the alleged "failure to cooperate" is a fabrication, since Tom Brady actually did produce vast amounts of relevant electronic evidence. He just didn't produce the evidence they were hoping to find that would clearly incriminate Brady and also implicate higher up members of the organization.
It really sounds like the NFL was operating from the assumption that the Patriots, and Brady specifically, were guilty, which means that "You didn't produce evidence that would clearly show your guilt or admit you cheated" becomes "You didn't cooperate with our investigation and your statements were not credible."
It sounds like what Brady did was provide the investigation with vast amounts of useless information in order to be able to claim that he provided them with vast amounts of relevant information.
-
You're saying that the league never said anything about Brady being uncooperative or less than forthright when they originally suspended him? That's not what I recall.
"With respect to your particular involvement, the report established that there is substantial and credible evidence to conclude you were at least generally aware of the actions of the Patriots' employees involved in the deflation of the footballs and that it was unlikely that their actions were done without your knowledge. Moreover, the report documents your failure to cooperate fully and candidly with the investigation, including by refusing to produce any relevant electronic evidence (emails, texts, etc.), despite being offered extraordinary safeguards by the investigators to protect unrelated personal information, and by providing testimony that the report concludes was not plausible and contradicted by other evidence."
The NFL release cites as their authority for the punishment the "Integrity of the Game Policy" which is applied to teams, not to players, and is not a part of the CBA that governs the relationship between the league and the players.
There is no punishment under the CBA for "failure to cooperate fully and candidly." Further, there's no precedent at all for punishing lack of cooperation with a suspension. Favre got a fine.
A fine is a punishment though, isn't it? You're claiming the nfl doesn't have the right to punish Brady for not cooperating with the investigation. Apparently they've been able to do so in the past. And from the few seconds I spent looking at the union's appeal, they seem to be complaining that the league suspended Brady when the only punishment for not cooperating in the past has been a fine.
Anyway, based on everything that has been released, it sounds like the alleged "failure to cooperate" is a fabrication, since Tom Brady actually did produce vast amounts of relevant electronic evidence. He just didn't produce the evidence they were hoping to find that would clearly incriminate Brady and also implicate higher up members of the organization.
It really sounds like the NFL was operating from the assumption that the Patriots, and Brady specifically, were guilty, which means that "You didn't produce evidence that would clearly show your guilt or admit you cheated" becomes "You didn't cooperate with our investigation and your statements were not credible."
It sounds like what Brady did was provide the investigation with vast amounts of useless information in order to be able to claim that he provided them with vast amounts of relevant information.
He didn't provide useless information. He provided a list of every person he called or texted and received with the date and time. Sure, there were thousands of texts, but the vast majority were to his wife, family, and friends. Every text to team employees including the the clown ball boys and coaches, including Belichick's, were already in possession by the league already. Wells said he was only interested in those texts anyway, not personal texts. So what exactly is the league complaining about? They don't have his texts to Giselle, his Dad, Mark Wahlberg? They said they were not interested in those. And Brady was not required by any rule or law to provide those? So what is the league looking for? Nothing, it's a red herring and anyone who doesn't see that is a sucker.
-
You're saying that the league never said anything about Brady being uncooperative or less than forthright when they originally suspended him? That's not what I recall.
"With respect to your particular involvement, the report established that there is substantial and credible evidence to conclude you were at least generally aware of the actions of the Patriots' employees involved in the deflation of the footballs and that it was unlikely that their actions were done without your knowledge. Moreover, the report documents your failure to cooperate fully and candidly with the investigation, including by refusing to produce any relevant electronic evidence (emails, texts, etc.), despite being offered extraordinary safeguards by the investigators to protect unrelated personal information, and by providing testimony that the report concludes was not plausible and contradicted by other evidence."
The NFL release cites as their authority for the punishment the "Integrity of the Game Policy" which is applied to teams, not to players, and is not a part of the CBA that governs the relationship between the league and the players.
There is no punishment under the CBA for "failure to cooperate fully and candidly." Further, there's no precedent at all for punishing lack of cooperation with a suspension. Favre got a fine.
A fine is a punishment though, isn't it? You're claiming the nfl doesn't have the right to punish Brady for not cooperating with the investigation. Apparently they've been able to do so in the past. And from the few seconds I spent looking at the union's appeal, they seem to be complaining that the league suspended Brady when the only punishment for not cooperating in the past has been a fine.
Anyway, based on everything that has been released, it sounds like the alleged "failure to cooperate" is a fabrication, since Tom Brady actually did produce vast amounts of relevant electronic evidence. He just didn't produce the evidence they were hoping to find that would clearly incriminate Brady and also implicate higher up members of the organization.
It really sounds like the NFL was operating from the assumption that the Patriots, and Brady specifically, were guilty, which means that "You didn't produce evidence that would clearly show your guilt or admit you cheated" becomes "You didn't cooperate with our investigation and your statements were not credible."
It sounds like what Brady did was provide the investigation with vast amounts of useless information in order to be able to claim that he provided them with vast amounts of relevant information.
He didn't provide useless information. He provided a list of every person he called or texted and received with the date and time. Sure, there were thousands of texts, but the vast majority were to his wife, family, and friends. Every text to team employees including the the clown ball boys and coaches, including Belichick's, were already in possession by the league already. Wells said he was only interested in those texts anyway, not personal texts. So what exactly is the league complaining about?
You're saying that you know for a fact that the league is in possession of every text that Brady sent to anyone on the Pats? That none of the people who received the texts ever deleted a single one? If that's the case, why did they bother to ask for Brady's texts? Were they just looking for a way to bill more hours to the nfl?
-
You're saying that the league never said anything about Brady being uncooperative or less than forthright when they originally suspended him? That's not what I recall.
"With respect to your particular involvement, the report established that there is substantial and credible evidence to conclude you were at least generally aware of the actions of the Patriots' employees involved in the deflation of the footballs and that it was unlikely that their actions were done without your knowledge. Moreover, the report documents your failure to cooperate fully and candidly with the investigation, including by refusing to produce any relevant electronic evidence (emails, texts, etc.), despite being offered extraordinary safeguards by the investigators to protect unrelated personal information, and by providing testimony that the report concludes was not plausible and contradicted by other evidence."
The NFL release cites as their authority for the punishment the "Integrity of the Game Policy" which is applied to teams, not to players, and is not a part of the CBA that governs the relationship between the league and the players.
There is no punishment under the CBA for "failure to cooperate fully and candidly." Further, there's no precedent at all for punishing lack of cooperation with a suspension. Favre got a fine.
A fine is a punishment though, isn't it? You're claiming the nfl doesn't have the right to punish Brady for not cooperating with the investigation. Apparently they've been able to do so in the past. And from the few seconds I spent looking at the union's appeal, they seem to be complaining that the league suspended Brady when the only punishment for not cooperating in the past has been a fine.
Anyway, based on everything that has been released, it sounds like the alleged "failure to cooperate" is a fabrication, since Tom Brady actually did produce vast amounts of relevant electronic evidence. He just didn't produce the evidence they were hoping to find that would clearly incriminate Brady and also implicate higher up members of the organization.
It really sounds like the NFL was operating from the assumption that the Patriots, and Brady specifically, were guilty, which means that "You didn't produce evidence that would clearly show your guilt or admit you cheated" becomes "You didn't cooperate with our investigation and your statements were not credible."
It sounds like what Brady did was provide the investigation with vast amounts of useless information in order to be able to claim that he provided them with vast amounts of relevant information.
He didn't provide useless information. He provided a list of every person he called or texted and received with the date and time. Sure, there were thousands of texts, but the vast majority were to his wife, family, and friends. Every text to team employees including the the clown ball boys and coaches, including Belichick's, were already in possession by the league already. Wells said he was only interested in those texts anyway, not personal texts. So what exactly is the league complaining about?
You're saying that you know for a fact that the league is in possession of every text that Brady sent to anyone on the Pats? That none of the people who received the texts ever deleted a single one? If that's the case, why did they bother to ask for Brady's texts? Were they just looking for a way to bill more hours to the nfl?
Brady was fined for being *overly* cooperative??
????
-
You're saying that the league never said anything about Brady being uncooperative or less than forthright when they originally suspended him? That's not what I recall.
"With respect to your particular involvement, the report established that there is substantial and credible evidence to conclude you were at least generally aware of the actions of the Patriots' employees involved in the deflation of the footballs and that it was unlikely that their actions were done without your knowledge. Moreover, the report documents your failure to cooperate fully and candidly with the investigation, including by refusing to produce any relevant electronic evidence (emails, texts, etc.), despite being offered extraordinary safeguards by the investigators to protect unrelated personal information, and by providing testimony that the report concludes was not plausible and contradicted by other evidence."
The NFL release cites as their authority for the punishment the "Integrity of the Game Policy" which is applied to teams, not to players, and is not a part of the CBA that governs the relationship between the league and the players.
There is no punishment under the CBA for "failure to cooperate fully and candidly." Further, there's no precedent at all for punishing lack of cooperation with a suspension. Favre got a fine.
A fine is a punishment though, isn't it? You're claiming the nfl doesn't have the right to punish Brady for not cooperating with the investigation. Apparently they've been able to do so in the past. And from the few seconds I spent looking at the union's appeal, they seem to be complaining that the league suspended Brady when the only punishment for not cooperating in the past has been a fine.
Anyway, based on everything that has been released, it sounds like the alleged "failure to cooperate" is a fabrication, since Tom Brady actually did produce vast amounts of relevant electronic evidence. He just didn't produce the evidence they were hoping to find that would clearly incriminate Brady and also implicate higher up members of the organization.
It really sounds like the NFL was operating from the assumption that the Patriots, and Brady specifically, were guilty, which means that "You didn't produce evidence that would clearly show your guilt or admit you cheated" becomes "You didn't cooperate with our investigation and your statements were not credible."
It sounds like what Brady did was provide the investigation with vast amounts of useless information in order to be able to claim that he provided them with vast amounts of relevant information.
He didn't provide useless information. He provided a list of every person he called or texted and received with the date and time. Sure, there were thousands of texts, but the vast majority were to his wife, family, and friends. Every text to team employees including the the clown ball boys and coaches, including Belichick's, were already in possession by the league already. Wells said he was only interested in those texts anyway, not personal texts. So what exactly is the league complaining about?
You're saying that you know for a fact that the league is in possession of every text that Brady sent to anyone on the Pats? That none of the people who received the texts ever deleted a single one? If that's the case, why did they bother to ask for Brady's texts? Were they just looking for a way to bill more hours to the nfl?
It wasn't him picking and choosing what to send, he gave them records from the phone company. Yee has stated as much. Why has Goodell pushed this further? Because it plays well to the non thinking masses.
-
You're saying that the league never said anything about Brady being uncooperative or less than forthright when they originally suspended him? That's not what I recall.
"With respect to your particular involvement, the report established that there is substantial and credible evidence to conclude you were at least generally aware of the actions of the Patriots' employees involved in the deflation of the footballs and that it was unlikely that their actions were done without your knowledge. Moreover, the report documents your failure to cooperate fully and candidly with the investigation, including by refusing to produce any relevant electronic evidence (emails, texts, etc.), despite being offered extraordinary safeguards by the investigators to protect unrelated personal information, and by providing testimony that the report concludes was not plausible and contradicted by other evidence."
The NFL release cites as their authority for the punishment the "Integrity of the Game Policy" which is applied to teams, not to players, and is not a part of the CBA that governs the relationship between the league and the players.
There is no punishment under the CBA for "failure to cooperate fully and candidly." Further, there's no precedent at all for punishing lack of cooperation with a suspension. Favre got a fine.
A fine is a punishment though, isn't it? You're claiming the nfl doesn't have the right to punish Brady for not cooperating with the investigation. Apparently they've been able to do so in the past. And from the few seconds I spent looking at the union's appeal, they seem to be complaining that the league suspended Brady when the only punishment for not cooperating in the past has been a fine.
Anyway, based on everything that has been released, it sounds like the alleged "failure to cooperate" is a fabrication, since Tom Brady actually did produce vast amounts of relevant electronic evidence. He just didn't produce the evidence they were hoping to find that would clearly incriminate Brady and also implicate higher up members of the organization.
It really sounds like the NFL was operating from the assumption that the Patriots, and Brady specifically, were guilty, which means that "You didn't produce evidence that would clearly show your guilt or admit you cheated" becomes "You didn't cooperate with our investigation and your statements were not credible."
It sounds like what Brady did was provide the investigation with vast amounts of useless information in order to be able to claim that he provided them with vast amounts of relevant information.
He didn't provide useless information. He provided a list of every person he called or texted and received with the date and time. Sure, there were thousands of texts, but the vast majority were to his wife, family, and friends. Every text to team employees including the the clown ball boys and coaches, including Belichick's, were already in possession by the league already. Wells said he was only interested in those texts anyway, not personal texts. So what exactly is the league complaining about?
You're saying that you know for a fact that the league is in possession of every text that Brady sent to anyone on the Pats? That none of the people who received the texts ever deleted a single one? If that's the case, why did they bother to ask for Brady's texts? Were they just looking for a way to bill more hours to the nfl?
It wasn't him picking and choosing what to send, he gave them records from the phone company. Yee has stated as much. Why has Goodell pushed this further? Because it plays well to the non thinking masses.
Yes, he picked and chose what to send, and what he chose to withhold was what he was asked to provide (the texts).
-
I'm shocked. Along with releasing the emails asking for the NFL to retract this story the NEP are letting the dirty laundry fly.
http://www.csnne.com/new-england-patriots/attention-circles-back-to-mike-kensil-as-deflategate-source
-
Do people still think Brady was innocent in this whole thing or that nothing ever happened?
The only thing that should be contested is the penalty being too harsh but Brady does deserve some kind of penalty.
I think he's innocent. Do you think he conspired with a part time, minimum wage employee on a risky scheme to remove 3 to 4 tenths of a psi which is only possible if the ref forgot which gauge he used to measure over 50 footballs only a couple hours after measuring them? Or do you believe a league which has been caught lying about the incident?
I don't believe that the ball boy refered to the other as the deflator because he was on a diet. I also don't believe the ball boy would take the footballs into the restroom without a high porobability of tampering with them. I also don't think the ball boys would be taking all these risks without some kind of direction from Brady. How would they even know that Brady preferred them at 11.5 unless told? And why would they deflate to 11.5 if they knew Brady had the footballs perfect unless they were told otherwise. I know I would never mess with the football that Brady had ready for the game. I wouldnt want to mess up the ball for him unless he said he really wanted them at 11.5.
-
I'm shocked. Along with releasing the emails asking for the NFL to retract this story the NEP are letting the dirty laundry fly.
http://www.csnne.com/new-england-patriots/attention-circles-back-to-mike-kensil-as-deflategate-source
For all the people who who think the Patriots cheated or at least did something wrong with the footballs, let's go back to the beginning of the story.
When they measured the footballs, they found that the average football dropped 1.01 psi using the gauge that the head ref said used to measure the footballs. We know that it was 48 degrees outside and a reasonable assumption would be that they were measured in a room around 70. Therefore, according the laws of science, the balls should have dropped around 1.1 psi give or take a bit. Therefore, the balls were exactly in line with what science dictated.
So why was there an investigation?
This was before they learned McNally took a bathroom break, before Ted Wells and Exponent used convoluted logic to determine the ref was wrong about which gauge he used, before digging through the two clown ball boys' phones, before Exponent created transient curves that every independent scientist has since criticized, and before they asked for Brady's phone.
The footballs dropped 1.01 psi which fit exactly with science, but the NFL lied and said the balls dropped 2 psi which science could not easily explain. 1.01 was expected. If the league was truthful, this story would have died in a day. So why did the NFL lie? And why did they refuse to correct that lie? Why did the NFL open up a $5 million investigation?
Can someone explain that to me?
-
Do people still think Brady was innocent in this whole thing or that nothing ever happened?
The only thing that should be contested is the penalty being too harsh but Brady does deserve some kind of penalty.
I think he's innocent. Do you think he conspired with a part time, minimum wage employee on a risky scheme to remove 3 to 4 tenths of a psi which is only possible if the ref forgot which gauge he used to measure over 50 footballs only a couple hours after measuring them? Or do you believe a league which has been caught lying about the incident?
I don't believe that the ball boy refered to the other as the deflator because he was on a diet. I also don't believe the ball boy would take the footballs into the restroom without a high porobability of tampering with them. I also don't think the ball boys would be taking all these risks without some kind of direction from Brady. How would they even know that Brady preferred them at 11.5 unless told? And why would they deflate to 11.5 if they knew Brady had the footballs perfect unless they were told otherwise. I know I would never mess with the football that Brady had ready for the game. I wouldnt want to mess up the ball for him unless he said he really wanted them at 11.5.
11.5? There you go, you are wrong about that. You have completely ignored the Ideal Gas Law. It is impossible that they deflated them to 11.5. At worst they were deflated to around 12.1 to 12.2 psi. Of course that only happed if the ref was wrong about which gauge he used to measure over 50 footballs just a few hours before it turned into a huge issue. Otherwise, no air was removed.
Did you also miss the text where Jastremski said the balls should have been 13 psi after the mid October Jets game?
-
Do people still think Brady was innocent in this whole thing or that nothing ever happened?
The only thing that should be contested is the penalty being too harsh but Brady does deserve some kind of penalty.
I think he's innocent. Do you think he conspired with a part time, minimum wage employee on a risky scheme to remove 3 to 4 tenths of a psi which is only possible if the ref forgot which gauge he used to measure over 50 footballs only a couple hours after measuring them? Or do you believe a league which has been caught lying about the incident?
I don't believe that the ball boy refered to the other as the deflator because he was on a diet. I also don't believe the ball boy would take the footballs into the restroom without a high porobability of tampering with them. I also don't think the ball boys would be taking all these risks without some kind of direction from Brady. How would they even know that Brady preferred them at 11.5 unless told? And why would they deflate to 11.5 if they knew Brady had the footballs perfect unless they were told otherwise. I know I would never mess with the football that Brady had ready for the game. I wouldnt want to mess up the ball for him unless he said he really wanted them at 11.5.
11.5? There you go, you are wrong about that. You have completely ignored the Ideal Gas Law. It is impossible that they deflated them to 11.5. At worst they were deflated to around 12.1 to 12.2 psi. Of course that only happed if the ref was wrong about which gauge he used to measure over 50 footballs just a few hours before it turned into a huge issue. Otherwise, no air was removed.
Did you also miss the text where Jastremski said the balls should have been 13 psi after the mid October Jets game?
even if they lowered the ball pressure to 12 it is still altering the ball.
Perhaps they didn't take the risk against terrible teams such as the Jets. That would explain why the balls were initially set to 13 with the idea to leave them. I guess you didnt think of that since it doesnt help your argument.
-
Do people still think Brady was innocent in this whole thing or that nothing ever happened?
The only thing that should be contested is the penalty being too harsh but Brady does deserve some kind of penalty.
I think he's innocent. Do you think he conspired with a part time, minimum wage employee on a risky scheme to remove 3 to 4 tenths of a psi which is only possible if the ref forgot which gauge he used to measure over 50 footballs only a couple hours after measuring them? Or do you believe a league which has been caught lying about the incident?
I don't believe that the ball boy refered to the other as the deflator because he was on a diet. I also don't believe the ball boy would take the footballs into the restroom without a high porobability of tampering with them. I also don't think the ball boys would be taking all these risks without some kind of direction from Brady. How would they even know that Brady preferred them at 11.5 unless told? And why would they deflate to 11.5 if they knew Brady had the footballs perfect unless they were told otherwise. I know I would never mess with the football that Brady had ready for the game. I wouldnt want to mess up the ball for him unless he said he really wanted them at 11.5.
11.5? There you go, you are wrong about that. You have completely ignored the Ideal Gas Law. It is impossible that they deflated them to 11.5. At worst they were deflated to around 12.1 to 12.2 psi. Of course that only happed if the ref was wrong about which gauge he used to measure over 50 footballs just a few hours before it turned into a huge issue. Otherwise, no air was removed.
Did you also miss the text where Jastremski said the balls should have been 13 psi after the mid October Jets game?
even if they lowered the ball pressure to 12 it is still altering the ball.
Perhaps they didn't take the risk against terrible teams such as the Jets. That would explain why the balls were initially set to 13 with the idea to leave them. I guess you didnt think of that since it doesnt help your argument.
After that Jets game, Jastremski sent a text message that he discussed psi levels with Brady and from now on he would like the balls to be 12.5 and to provide a copy of the rules to the refs. If they were already running a scheme to deflate the balls because Brady wanted them below the legal limit, why that text message? It makes no sense.
-
Do people still think Brady was innocent in this whole thing or that nothing ever happened?
The only thing that should be contested is the penalty being too harsh but Brady does deserve some kind of penalty.
I think he's innocent. Do you think he conspired with a part time, minimum wage employee on a risky scheme to remove 3 to 4 tenths of a psi which is only possible if the ref forgot which gauge he used to measure over 50 footballs only a couple hours after measuring them? Or do you believe a league which has been caught lying about the incident?
I don't believe that the ball boy refered to the other as the deflator because he was on a diet. I also don't believe the ball boy would take the footballs into the restroom without a high porobability of tampering with them. I also don't think the ball boys would be taking all these risks without some kind of direction from Brady. How would they even know that Brady preferred them at 11.5 unless told? And why would they deflate to 11.5 if they knew Brady had the footballs perfect unless they were told otherwise. I know I would never mess with the football that Brady had ready for the game. I wouldnt want to mess up the ball for him unless he said he really wanted them at 11.5.
11.5? There you go, you are wrong about that. You have completely ignored the Ideal Gas Law. It is impossible that they deflated them to 11.5. At worst they were deflated to around 12.1 to 12.2 psi. Of course that only happed if the ref was wrong about which gauge he used to measure over 50 footballs just a few hours before it turned into a huge issue. Otherwise, no air was removed.
Did you also miss the text where Jastremski said the balls should have been 13 psi after the mid October Jets game?
even if they lowered the ball pressure to 12 it is still altering the ball.
Perhaps they didn't take the risk against terrible teams such as the Jets. That would explain why the balls were initially set to 13 with the idea to leave them. I guess you didnt think of that since it doesnt help your argument.
After that Jets game, Jastremski sent a text message that he discussed psi levels with Brady and from now on he would like the balls to be 12.5 and to provide a copy of the rules to the refs. If they were already running a scheme to deflate the balls because Brady wanted them below the legal limit, why that text message? It makes no sense.
It's been a while since I read it, but that the gist of what I recall. It was more about Brady complaining about over-inflated balls [illegal as per the rules], and his desire/preference to have them at the lowest legal limit.
And considering all the science that has come since then explaining how simply the passage of time alters the PSI levels, it's very hard for me to come to the conclusion, with the evidence as presented, that Brady in particular did anything wrong here.
Anything beyond that is pure speculation and outside of the scope of what matters I think.
I'm not an expert on this topic, I don't care much about it, but this latest drama has been interesting.
-
Do people still think Brady was innocent in this whole thing or that nothing ever happened?
The only thing that should be contested is the penalty being too harsh but Brady does deserve some kind of penalty.
I think he's innocent. Do you think he conspired with a part time, minimum wage employee on a risky scheme to remove 3 to 4 tenths of a psi which is only possible if the ref forgot which gauge he used to measure over 50 footballs only a couple hours after measuring them? Or do you believe a league which has been caught lying about the incident?
I don't believe that the ball boy refered to the other as the deflator because he was on a diet. I also don't believe the ball boy would take the footballs into the restroom without a high porobability of tampering with them. I also don't think the ball boys would be taking all these risks without some kind of direction from Brady. How would they even know that Brady preferred them at 11.5 unless told? And why would they deflate to 11.5 if they knew Brady had the footballs perfect unless they were told otherwise. I know I would never mess with the football that Brady had ready for the game. I wouldnt want to mess up the ball for him unless he said he really wanted them at 11.5.
11.5? There you go, you are wrong about that. You have completely ignored the Ideal Gas Law. It is impossible that they deflated them to 11.5. At worst they were deflated to around 12.1 to 12.2 psi. Of course that only happed if the ref was wrong about which gauge he used to measure over 50 footballs just a few hours before it turned into a huge issue. Otherwise, no air was removed.
Did you also miss the text where Jastremski said the balls should have been 13 psi after the mid October Jets game?
even if they lowered the ball pressure to 12 it is still altering the ball.
Perhaps they didn't take the risk against terrible teams such as the Jets. That would explain why the balls were initially set to 13 with the idea to leave them. I guess you didnt think of that since it doesnt help your argument.
After that Jets game, Jastremski sent a text message that he discussed psi levels with Brady and from now on he would like the balls to be 12.5 and to provide a copy of the rules to the refs. If they were already running a scheme to deflate the balls because Brady wanted them below the legal limit, why that text message? It makes no sense.
It's been a while since I read it, but that the gist of what I recall. It was more about Brady complaining about over-inflated balls [illegal as per the rules], and his desire/preference to have them at the lowest legal limit.
And considering all the science that has come since then explaining how simply the passage of time alters the PSI levels, it's very hard for me to come to the conclusion, with the evidence as presented, that Brady in particular did anything wrong here.
Anything beyond that is pure speculation and outside of the scope of what matters I think.
I'm not an expert on this topic, I don't care much about it, but this latest drama has been interesting.
That conversation was about Brady complaining about overinflated balls (16psi). But if they were already running this risky scheme to deflate them below the legal limit, why would it be necessary for Jastremski to discuss Brady's preference? Afterall, they were already in cahoots with Brady because Brady was demanding them to be below the minimum. No, it makes no sense and contradicts the notion they were already running a scheme.
The latest drama is interesting, but it is only a red herring that distracts from the flimsy at best evidence that the balls were tampered with.
-
I'm shocked. Along with releasing the emails asking for the NFL to retract this story the NEP are letting the dirty laundry fly.
http://www.csnne.com/new-england-patriots/attention-circles-back-to-mike-kensil-as-deflategate-source
For all the people who who think the Patriots cheated or at least did something wrong with the footballs, let's go back to the beginning of the story.
When they measured the footballs, they found that the average football dropped 1.01 psi using the gauge that the head ref said used to measure the footballs. We know that it was 48 degrees outside and a reasonable assumption would be that they were measured in a room around 70. Therefore, according the laws of science, the balls should have dropped around 1.1 psi give or take a bit. Therefore, the balls were exactly in line with what science dictated.
So why was there an investigation?
This was before they learned McNally took a bathroom break, before Ted Wells and Exponent used convoluted logic to determine the ref was wrong about which gauge he used, before digging through the two clown ball boys' phones, before Exponent created transient curves that every independent scientist has since criticized, and before they asked for Brady's phone.
The footballs dropped 1.01 psi which fit exactly with science, but the NFL lied and said the balls dropped 2 psi which science could not easily explain. 1.01 was expected. If the league was truthful, this story would have died in a day. So why did the NFL lie? And why did they refuse to correct that lie? Why did the NFL open up a $5 million investigation?
Can someone explain that to me?
First of all, from what I heard, the Patriots balls lost more air than the Colts balls, which doesn't really fit with the science. Secondly, I don't think the ideal gas law says you'd lose that amount of air.
-
Do people still think Brady was innocent in this whole thing or that nothing ever happened?
The only thing that should be contested is the penalty being too harsh but Brady does deserve some kind of penalty.
I think he's innocent. Do you think he conspired with a part time, minimum wage employee on a risky scheme to remove 3 to 4 tenths of a psi which is only possible if the ref forgot which gauge he used to measure over 50 footballs only a couple hours after measuring them? Or do you believe a league which has been caught lying about the incident?
I don't believe that the ball boy refered to the other as the deflator because he was on a diet. I also don't believe the ball boy would take the footballs into the restroom without a high porobability of tampering with them. I also don't think the ball boys would be taking all these risks without some kind of direction from Brady. How would they even know that Brady preferred them at 11.5 unless told? And why would they deflate to 11.5 if they knew Brady had the footballs perfect unless they were told otherwise. I know I would never mess with the football that Brady had ready for the game. I wouldnt want to mess up the ball for him unless he said he really wanted them at 11.5.
11.5? There you go, you are wrong about that. You have completely ignored the Ideal Gas Law. It is impossible that they deflated them to 11.5. At worst they were deflated to around 12.1 to 12.2 psi. Of course that only happed if the ref was wrong about which gauge he used to measure over 50 footballs just a few hours before it turned into a huge issue. Otherwise, no air was removed.
Did you also miss the text where Jastremski said the balls should have been 13 psi after the mid October Jets game?
even if they lowered the ball pressure to 12 it is still altering the ball.
Perhaps they didn't take the risk against terrible teams such as the Jets. That would explain why the balls were initially set to 13 with the idea to leave them. I guess you didnt think of that since it doesnt help your argument.
After that Jets game, Jastremski sent a text message that he discussed psi levels with Brady and from now on he would like the balls to be 12.5 and to provide a copy of the rules to the refs. If they were already running a scheme to deflate the balls because Brady wanted them below the legal limit, why that text message? It makes no sense.
I thought Brady said he never discussed ball pressure with anyone before the investigation started.
-
I'm shocked. Along with releasing the emails asking for the NFL to retract this story the NEP are letting the dirty laundry fly.
http://www.csnne.com/new-england-patriots/attention-circles-back-to-mike-kensil-as-deflategate-source
For all the people who who think the Patriots cheated or at least did something wrong with the footballs, let's go back to the beginning of the story.
When they measured the footballs, they found that the average football dropped 1.01 psi using the gauge that the head ref said used to measure the footballs. We know that it was 48 degrees outside and a reasonable assumption would be that they were measured in a room around 70. Therefore, according the laws of science, the balls should have dropped around 1.1 psi give or take a bit. Therefore, the balls were exactly in line with what science dictated.
So why was there an investigation?
This was before they learned McNally took a bathroom break, before Ted Wells and Exponent used convoluted logic to determine the ref was wrong about which gauge he used, before digging through the two clown ball boys' phones, before Exponent created transient curves that every independent scientist has since criticized, and before they asked for Brady's phone.
The footballs dropped 1.01 psi which fit exactly with science, but the NFL lied and said the balls dropped 2 psi which science could not easily explain. 1.01 was expected. If the league was truthful, this story would have died in a day. So why did the NFL lie? And why did they refuse to correct that lie? Why did the NFL open up a $5 million investigation?
Can someone explain that to me?
First of all, from what I heard, the Patriots balls lost more air than the Colts balls, which doesn't really fit with the science. Secondly, I don't think the ideal gas law says you'd lose that amount of air.
Yes, the ideal gas law does say you lose that amount of air pressure. The math is actually quite easy.
The Patriots balls did lose more air pressure, but that is easily explained by the fact they were measured before the Colts balls. Thus, the Colts balls were coming to equilibrium in the warm room while the Patriots balls were measured and then reinflated. The refs only measure 4 Colts balls as they said they ran out of time as halftime was coming to an end. Plenty of scientists have explained that the difference in time easily explains the difference between the two teams' balls.
-
Do people still think Brady was innocent in this whole thing or that nothing ever happened?
The only thing that should be contested is the penalty being too harsh but Brady does deserve some kind of penalty.
I think he's innocent. Do you think he conspired with a part time, minimum wage employee on a risky scheme to remove 3 to 4 tenths of a psi which is only possible if the ref forgot which gauge he used to measure over 50 footballs only a couple hours after measuring them? Or do you believe a league which has been caught lying about the incident?
I don't believe that the ball boy refered to the other as the deflator because he was on a diet. I also don't believe the ball boy would take the footballs into the restroom without a high porobability of tampering with them. I also don't think the ball boys would be taking all these risks without some kind of direction from Brady. How would they even know that Brady preferred them at 11.5 unless told? And why would they deflate to 11.5 if they knew Brady had the footballs perfect unless they were told otherwise. I know I would never mess with the football that Brady had ready for the game. I wouldnt want to mess up the ball for him unless he said he really wanted them at 11.5.
11.5? There you go, you are wrong about that. You have completely ignored the Ideal Gas Law. It is impossible that they deflated them to 11.5. At worst they were deflated to around 12.1 to 12.2 psi. Of course that only happed if the ref was wrong about which gauge he used to measure over 50 footballs just a few hours before it turned into a huge issue. Otherwise, no air was removed.
Did you also miss the text where Jastremski said the balls should have been 13 psi after the mid October Jets game?
even if they lowered the ball pressure to 12 it is still altering the ball.
Perhaps they didn't take the risk against terrible teams such as the Jets. That would explain why the balls were initially set to 13 with the idea to leave them. I guess you didnt think of that since it doesnt help your argument.
After that Jets game, Jastremski sent a text message that he discussed psi levels with Brady and from now on he would like the balls to be 12.5 and to provide a copy of the rules to the refs. If they were already running a scheme to deflate the balls because Brady wanted them below the legal limit, why that text message? It makes no sense.
Because they probably didn't run the scheme all the time which makes sense. Why take a chance against the jets? Also they couldn't run the scheme on the road. Brady would still want the ball at 12.5 in these games.
-
Brady screwed this up he deserves whatever he gets. He should have admitted he was involved from the start. Spoiled Republican rich kid.
-
I'm shocked. Along with releasing the emails asking for the NFL to retract this story the NEP are letting the dirty laundry fly.
http://www.csnne.com/new-england-patriots/attention-circles-back-to-mike-kensil-as-deflategate-source
For all the people who who think the Patriots cheated or at least did something wrong with the footballs, let's go back to the beginning of the story.
When they measured the footballs, they found that the average football dropped 1.01 psi using the gauge that the head ref said used to measure the footballs. We know that it was 48 degrees outside and a reasonable assumption would be that they were measured in a room around 70. Therefore, according the laws of science, the balls should have dropped around 1.1 psi give or take a bit. Therefore, the balls were exactly in line with what science dictated.
So why was there an investigation?
This was before they learned McNally took a bathroom break, before Ted Wells and Exponent used convoluted logic to determine the ref was wrong about which gauge he used, before digging through the two clown ball boys' phones, before Exponent created transient curves that every independent scientist has since criticized, and before they asked for Brady's phone.
The footballs dropped 1.01 psi which fit exactly with science, but the NFL lied and said the balls dropped 2 psi which science could not easily explain. 1.01 was expected. If the league was truthful, this story would have died in a day. So why did the NFL lie? And why did they refuse to correct that lie? Why did the NFL open up a $5 million investigation?
Can someone explain that to me?
First of all, from what I heard, the Patriots balls lost more air than the Colts balls, which doesn't really fit with the science. Secondly, I don't think the ideal gas law says you'd lose that amount of air.
Yes, the ideal gas law does say you lose that amount of air pressure. The math is actually quite easy.
The Patriots balls did lose more air pressure, but that is easily explained by the fact they were measured before the Colts balls. Thus, the Colts balls were coming to equilibrium in the warm room while the Patriots balls were measured and then reinflated. The refs only measure 4 Colts balls as they said they ran out of time as halftime was coming to an end. Plenty of scientists have explained that the difference in time easily explains the difference between the two teams' balls.
If they didn't have the text messages or if they didn't have video of the ball boy taking the balls into the bathroom, then this argument could change things. But all three things added together is no coincidence.
-
Do people still think Brady was innocent in this whole thing or that nothing ever happened?
The only thing that should be contested is the penalty being too harsh but Brady does deserve some kind of penalty.
I think he's innocent. Do you think he conspired with a part time, minimum wage employee on a risky scheme to remove 3 to 4 tenths of a psi which is only possible if the ref forgot which gauge he used to measure over 50 footballs only a couple hours after measuring them? Or do you believe a league which has been caught lying about the incident?
I don't believe that the ball boy refered to the other as the deflator because he was on a diet. I also don't believe the ball boy would take the footballs into the restroom without a high porobability of tampering with them. I also don't think the ball boys would be taking all these risks without some kind of direction from Brady. How would they even know that Brady preferred them at 11.5 unless told? And why would they deflate to 11.5 if they knew Brady had the footballs perfect unless they were told otherwise. I know I would never mess with the football that Brady had ready for the game. I wouldnt want to mess up the ball for him unless he said he really wanted them at 11.5.
11.5? There you go, you are wrong about that. You have completely ignored the Ideal Gas Law. It is impossible that they deflated them to 11.5. At worst they were deflated to around 12.1 to 12.2 psi. Of course that only happed if the ref was wrong about which gauge he used to measure over 50 footballs just a few hours before it turned into a huge issue. Otherwise, no air was removed.
Did you also miss the text where Jastremski said the balls should have been 13 psi after the mid October Jets game?
even if they lowered the ball pressure to 12 it is still altering the ball.
Perhaps they didn't take the risk against terrible teams such as the Jets. That would explain why the balls were initially set to 13 with the idea to leave them. I guess you didnt think of that since it doesnt help your argument.
After that Jets game, Jastremski sent a text message that he discussed psi levels with Brady and from now on he would like the balls to be 12.5 and to provide a copy of the rules to the refs. If they were already running a scheme to deflate the balls because Brady wanted them below the legal limit, why that text message? It makes no sense.
Because they probably didn't run the scheme all the time which makes sense. Why take a chance against the jets? Also they couldn't run the scheme on the road. Brady would still want the ball at 12.5 in these games.
First, that was a home game. Second, if they had been running the scheme, they already knew his preference.
-
My question is, where's the punishment for the team who inflated the balls to 16 PSI?
-
Do people still think Brady was innocent in this whole thing or that nothing ever happened?
The only thing that should be contested is the penalty being too harsh but Brady does deserve some kind of penalty.
I think he's innocent. Do you think he conspired with a part time, minimum wage employee on a risky scheme to remove 3 to 4 tenths of a psi which is only possible if the ref forgot which gauge he used to measure over 50 footballs only a couple hours after measuring them? Or do you believe a league which has been caught lying about the incident?
I don't believe that the ball boy refered to the other as the deflator because he was on a diet. I also don't believe the ball boy would take the footballs into the restroom without a high porobability of tampering with them. I also don't think the ball boys would be taking all these risks without some kind of direction from Brady. How would they even know that Brady preferred them at 11.5 unless told? And why would they deflate to 11.5 if they knew Brady had the footballs perfect unless they were told otherwise. I know I would never mess with the football that Brady had ready for the game. I wouldnt want to mess up the ball for him unless he said he really wanted them at 11.5.
11.5? There you go, you are wrong about that. You have completely ignored the Ideal Gas Law. It is impossible that they deflated them to 11.5. At worst they were deflated to around 12.1 to 12.2 psi. Of course that only happed if the ref was wrong about which gauge he used to measure over 50 footballs just a few hours before it turned into a huge issue. Otherwise, no air was removed.
Did you also miss the text where Jastremski said the balls should have been 13 psi after the mid October Jets game?
even if they lowered the ball pressure to 12 it is still altering the ball.
Perhaps they didn't take the risk against terrible teams such as the Jets. That would explain why the balls were initially set to 13 with the idea to leave them. I guess you didnt think of that since it doesnt help your argument.
After that Jets game, Jastremski sent a text message that he discussed psi levels with Brady and from now on he would like the balls to be 12.5 and to provide a copy of the rules to the refs. If they were already running a scheme to deflate the balls because Brady wanted them below the legal limit, why that text message? It makes no sense.
Because they probably didn't run the scheme all the time which makes sense. Why take a chance against the jets? Also they couldn't run the scheme on the road. Brady would still want the ball at 12.5 in these games.
First, that was a home game. Second, if they had been running the scheme, they already knew his preference.
Wow. You really only read what fits your argument. I said they also wouldn't against terrible teams like the Jets.
-
Do people still think Brady was innocent in this whole thing or that nothing ever happened?
The only thing that should be contested is the penalty being too harsh but Brady does deserve some kind of penalty.
I think he's innocent. Do you think he conspired with a part time, minimum wage employee on a risky scheme to remove 3 to 4 tenths of a psi which is only possible if the ref forgot which gauge he used to measure over 50 footballs only a couple hours after measuring them? Or do you believe a league which has been caught lying about the incident?
I don't believe that the ball boy refered to the other as the deflator because he was on a diet. I also don't believe the ball boy would take the footballs into the restroom without a high porobability of tampering with them. I also don't think the ball boys would be taking all these risks without some kind of direction from Brady. How would they even know that Brady preferred them at 11.5 unless told? And why would they deflate to 11.5 if they knew Brady had the footballs perfect unless they were told otherwise. I know I would never mess with the football that Brady had ready for the game. I wouldnt want to mess up the ball for him unless he said he really wanted them at 11.5.
11.5? There you go, you are wrong about that. You have completely ignored the Ideal Gas Law. It is impossible that they deflated them to 11.5. At worst they were deflated to around 12.1 to 12.2 psi. Of course that only happed if the ref was wrong about which gauge he used to measure over 50 footballs just a few hours before it turned into a huge issue. Otherwise, no air was removed.
Did you also miss the text where Jastremski said the balls should have been 13 psi after the mid October Jets game?
even if they lowered the ball pressure to 12 it is still altering the ball.
Perhaps they didn't take the risk against terrible teams such as the Jets. That would explain why the balls were initially set to 13 with the idea to leave them. I guess you didnt think of that since it doesnt help your argument.
After that Jets game, Jastremski sent a text message that he discussed psi levels with Brady and from now on he would like the balls to be 12.5 and to provide a copy of the rules to the refs. If they were already running a scheme to deflate the balls because Brady wanted them below the legal limit, why that text message? It makes no sense.
Because they probably didn't run the scheme all the time which makes sense. Why take a chance against the jets? Also they couldn't run the scheme on the road. Brady would still want the ball at 12.5 in these games.
First, that was a home game. Second, if they had been running the scheme, they already knew his preference.
Wow. You really only read what fits your argument. I said they also wouldn't against terrible teams like the Jets.
I could say the exact same thing about you. First, you incorrectly thought they took a full pound of pressure out of the footballs and when I corrected you, that didn't disway you at all. Back when the story first came out, many people compared the difference between two balls with a 2 psi difference and that was difficult for most to notice. What about a half pund or slightly less? Does it honestly make sense to you that they would take out such a barely discernible amount of air while running such a risky operation? Don't answer because I know you will say yes because you already made up your mind when you did not even know the facts.
You really think they would pick and choose which teams they would run the scheme against based on how good that team is and not do it against their hated rival? Really?
-
I'm shocked. Along with releasing the emails asking for the NFL to retract this story the NEP are letting the dirty laundry fly.
http://www.csnne.com/new-england-patriots/attention-circles-back-to-mike-kensil-as-deflategate-source
For all the people who who think the Patriots cheated or at least did something wrong with the footballs, let's go back to the beginning of the story.
When they measured the footballs, they found that the average football dropped 1.01 psi using the gauge that the head ref said used to measure the footballs. We know that it was 48 degrees outside and a reasonable assumption would be that they were measured in a room around 70. Therefore, according the laws of science, the balls should have dropped around 1.1 psi give or take a bit. Therefore, the balls were exactly in line with what science dictated.
So why was there an investigation?
This was before they learned McNally took a bathroom break, before Ted Wells and Exponent used convoluted logic to determine the ref was wrong about which gauge he used, before digging through the two clown ball boys' phones, before Exponent created transient curves that every independent scientist has since criticized, and before they asked for Brady's phone.
The footballs dropped 1.01 psi which fit exactly with science, but the NFL lied and said the balls dropped 2 psi which science could not easily explain. 1.01 was expected. If the league was truthful, this story would have died in a day. So why did the NFL lie? And why did they refuse to correct that lie? Why did the NFL open up a $5 million investigation?
Can someone explain that to me?
First of all, from what I heard, the Patriots balls lost more air than the Colts balls, which doesn't really fit with the science. Secondly, I don't think the ideal gas law says you'd lose that amount of air.
Yes, the ideal gas law does say you lose that amount of air pressure. The math is actually quite easy.
The Patriots balls did lose more air pressure, but that is easily explained by the fact they were measured before the Colts balls. Thus, the Colts balls were coming to equilibrium in the warm room while the Patriots balls were measured and then reinflated. The refs only measure 4 Colts balls as they said they ran out of time as halftime was coming to an end. Plenty of scientists have explained that the difference in time easily explains the difference between the two teams' balls.
If they didn't have the text messages or if they didn't have video of the ball boy taking the balls into the bathroom, then this argument could change things. But all three things added together is no coincidence.
This is where I'm at too. The science isn't definitive either way, and the other things we know don't exactly point in the Pat's favor.
-
I'm shocked. Along with releasing the emails asking for the NFL to retract this story the NEP are letting the dirty laundry fly.
http://www.csnne.com/new-england-patriots/attention-circles-back-to-mike-kensil-as-deflategate-source
For all the people who who think the Patriots cheated or at least did something wrong with the footballs, let's go back to the beginning of the story.
When they measured the footballs, they found that the average football dropped 1.01 psi using the gauge that the head ref said used to measure the footballs. We know that it was 48 degrees outside and a reasonable assumption would be that they were measured in a room around 70. Therefore, according the laws of science, the balls should have dropped around 1.1 psi give or take a bit. Therefore, the balls were exactly in line with what science dictated.
So why was there an investigation?
This was before they learned McNally took a bathroom break, before Ted Wells and Exponent used convoluted logic to determine the ref was wrong about which gauge he used, before digging through the two clown ball boys' phones, before Exponent created transient curves that every independent scientist has since criticized, and before they asked for Brady's phone.
The footballs dropped 1.01 psi which fit exactly with science, but the NFL lied and said the balls dropped 2 psi which science could not easily explain. 1.01 was expected. If the league was truthful, this story would have died in a day. So why did the NFL lie? And why did they refuse to correct that lie? Why did the NFL open up a $5 million investigation?
Can someone explain that to me?
First of all, from what I heard, the Patriots balls lost more air than the Colts balls, which doesn't really fit with the science. Secondly, I don't think the ideal gas law says you'd lose that amount of air.
Yes, the ideal gas law does say you lose that amount of air pressure. The math is actually quite easy.
The Patriots balls did lose more air pressure, but that is easily explained by the fact they were measured before the Colts balls. Thus, the Colts balls were coming to equilibrium in the warm room while the Patriots balls were measured and then reinflated. The refs only measure 4 Colts balls as they said they ran out of time as halftime was coming to an end. Plenty of scientists have explained that the difference in time easily explains the difference between the two teams' balls.
If they didn't have the text messages or if they didn't have video of the ball boy taking the balls into the bathroom, then this argument could change things. But all three things added together is no coincidence.
This is where I'm at too. The science isn't definitive either way, and the other things we know don't exactly point in the Pat's favor.
It shouldn't be about definitive either way, it SHOULD be definitive about proving illegal PSI levels (you know, the actual requirement that something is actually wrong). Absent of that, the rest should be irrelevant.
I mean, is the issue here that someone deflated the balls or that someone deflated the balls to outside the acceptable range?
Though related, not really the same thing.
-
Do people still think Brady was innocent in this whole thing or that nothing ever happened?
The only thing that should be contested is the penalty being too harsh but Brady does deserve some kind of penalty.
I think he's innocent. Do you think he conspired with a part time, minimum wage employee on a risky scheme to remove 3 to 4 tenths of a psi which is only possible if the ref forgot which gauge he used to measure over 50 footballs only a couple hours after measuring them? Or do you believe a league which has been caught lying about the incident?
I don't believe that the ball boy refered to the other as the deflator because he was on a diet. I also don't believe the ball boy would take the footballs into the restroom without a high porobability of tampering with them. I also don't think the ball boys would be taking all these risks without some kind of direction from Brady. How would they even know that Brady preferred them at 11.5 unless told? And why would they deflate to 11.5 if they knew Brady had the footballs perfect unless they were told otherwise. I know I would never mess with the football that Brady had ready for the game. I wouldnt want to mess up the ball for him unless he said he really wanted them at 11.5.
11.5? There you go, you are wrong about that. You have completely ignored the Ideal Gas Law. It is impossible that they deflated them to 11.5. At worst they were deflated to around 12.1 to 12.2 psi. Of course that only happed if the ref was wrong about which gauge he used to measure over 50 footballs just a few hours before it turned into a huge issue. Otherwise, no air was removed.
Did you also miss the text where Jastremski said the balls should have been 13 psi after the mid October Jets game?
even if they lowered the ball pressure to 12 it is still altering the ball.
Perhaps they didn't take the risk against terrible teams such as the Jets. That would explain why the balls were initially set to 13 with the idea to leave them. I guess you didnt think of that since it doesnt help your argument.
After that Jets game, Jastremski sent a text message that he discussed psi levels with Brady and from now on he would like the balls to be 12.5 and to provide a copy of the rules to the refs. If they were already running a scheme to deflate the balls because Brady wanted them below the legal limit, why that text message? It makes no sense.
Because they probably didn't run the scheme all the time which makes sense. Why take a chance against the jets? Also they couldn't run the scheme on the road. Brady would still want the ball at 12.5 in these games.
First, that was a home game. Second, if they had been running the scheme, they already knew his preference.
Wow. You really only read what fits your argument. I said they also wouldn't against terrible teams like the Jets.
I could say the exact same thing about you. First, you incorrectly thought they took a full pound of pressure out of the footballs and when I corrected you, that didn't disway you at all. Back when the story first came out, many people compared the difference between two balls with a 2 psi difference and that was difficult for most to notice. What about a half pund or slightly less? Does it honestly make sense to you that they would take out such a barely discernible amount of air while running such a risky operation? Don't answer because I know you will say yes because you already made up your mind when you did not even know the facts.
You really think they would pick and choose which teams they would run the scheme against based on how good that team is and not do it against their hated rival? Really?
I accepted your correction but if Brady likes them at 12.5 that much then it seems even more plausible that he would prefer them at 12.0 but the rules do not allow that.
What is your argument against the deflator text message and the ball boy taking the balls into the bathroom? When you add all three things together, its hard to argue that the Patriots were not altering football.
-
Do people still think Brady was innocent in this whole thing or that nothing ever happened?
The only thing that should be contested is the penalty being too harsh but Brady does deserve some kind of penalty.
I think he's innocent. Do you think he conspired with a part time, minimum wage employee on a risky scheme to remove 3 to 4 tenths of a psi which is only possible if the ref forgot which gauge he used to measure over 50 footballs only a couple hours after measuring them? Or do you believe a league which has been caught lying about the incident?
I don't believe that the ball boy refered to the other as the deflator because he was on a diet. I also don't believe the ball boy would take the footballs into the restroom without a high porobability of tampering with them. I also don't think the ball boys would be taking all these risks without some kind of direction from Brady. How would they even know that Brady preferred them at 11.5 unless told? And why would they deflate to 11.5 if they knew Brady had the footballs perfect unless they were told otherwise. I know I would never mess with the football that Brady had ready for the game. I wouldnt want to mess up the ball for him unless he said he really wanted them at 11.5.
11.5? There you go, you are wrong about that. You have completely ignored the Ideal Gas Law. It is impossible that they deflated them to 11.5. At worst they were deflated to around 12.1 to 12.2 psi. Of course that only happed if the ref was wrong about which gauge he used to measure over 50 footballs just a few hours before it turned into a huge issue. Otherwise, no air was removed.
Did you also miss the text where Jastremski said the balls should have been 13 psi after the mid October Jets game?
even if they lowered the ball pressure to 12 it is still altering the ball.
Perhaps they didn't take the risk against terrible teams such as the Jets. That would explain why the balls were initially set to 13 with the idea to leave them. I guess you didnt think of that since it doesnt help your argument.
After that Jets game, Jastremski sent a text message that he discussed psi levels with Brady and from now on he would like the balls to be 12.5 and to provide a copy of the rules to the refs. If they were already running a scheme to deflate the balls because Brady wanted them below the legal limit, why that text message? It makes no sense.
Because they probably didn't run the scheme all the time which makes sense. Why take a chance against the jets? Also they couldn't run the scheme on the road. Brady would still want the ball at 12.5 in these games.
First, that was a home game. Second, if they had been running the scheme, they already knew his preference.
Wow. You really only read what fits your argument. I said they also wouldn't against terrible teams like the Jets.
I could say the exact same thing about you. First, you incorrectly thought they took a full pound of pressure out of the footballs and when I corrected you, that didn't disway you at all. Back when the story first came out, many people compared the difference between two balls with a 2 psi difference and that was difficult for most to notice. What about a half pund or slightly less? Does it honestly make sense to you that they would take out such a barely discernible amount of air while running such a risky operation? Don't answer because I know you will say yes because you already made up your mind when you did not even know the facts.
You really think they would pick and choose which teams they would run the scheme against based on how good that team is and not do it against their hated rival? Really?
I accepted your correction but if Brady likes them at 12.5 that much then it seems even more plausible that he would prefer them at 12.0 but the rules do not allow that.
What is your argument against the deflator text message and the ball boy taking the balls into the bathroom? When you add all three things together, its hard to argue that the Patriots were not altering football.
I would argue that the ball boy taking the balls into the bathroom with him on his way to the field is as indicative of innocent behavior as it could be nefarious behavior. I would also argue that while it is possible to deflate the balls in such a short amount of time, it seems unlikely that a man of his size and age would do it so quickly when he wasn't racing against a stop watch.
The deflator text was in May in the middle of the season. I would say they went through thousands of texts between two friends and only finding a handful of texts out of context is extremely flimsly curcumstantial evidence. I would argue and have that there are text nessages that contradict the notion they were running a scheme. I would argue that these two guys were not careful at all with their text messages, they even ripped Brady and talked about stealing sneakers which is not a wise thing to do if you are worried about your texts being read. So, I find it hard to believe Wells could not find stronger evidence when reviewing their communication. Wells even interrogated McNally for over seven hours and this is all he has.
Regarding the deflator comment, yeah it's an odd choice of words. I would point out that Jastremski inflates and deflates balls hundred or more times during the week and it is not odd given that reality for him to use words that are common to his job for other meanings when talking casually with friends. In fact there is evidence of that happening when McNally tells Jastremski to deflate and give someone that jacket when McNally saw him on TV following a game changing end of the half TD by the Packers.
I think it is easy to find bits of circumstantial evidence when spending months and millions investigating. In this case, you are convicting someone of a crime based on circumstantial evidence without evidence a crime even occurred. I would argue that there was not even a reason to believe balls were tampered with prior to investigating except for a lack of knowledge of basic science.
-
Do people still think Brady was innocent in this whole thing or that nothing ever happened?
The only thing that should be contested is the penalty being too harsh but Brady does deserve some kind of penalty.
I think he's innocent. Do you think he conspired with a part time, minimum wage employee on a risky scheme to remove 3 to 4 tenths of a psi which is only possible if the ref forgot which gauge he used to measure over 50 footballs only a couple hours after measuring them? Or do you believe a league which has been caught lying about the incident?
I don't believe that the ball boy refered to the other as the deflator because he was on a diet. I also don't believe the ball boy would take the footballs into the restroom without a high porobability of tampering with them. I also don't think the ball boys would be taking all these risks without some kind of direction from Brady. How would they even know that Brady preferred them at 11.5 unless told? And why would they deflate to 11.5 if they knew Brady had the footballs perfect unless they were told otherwise. I know I would never mess with the football that Brady had ready for the game. I wouldnt want to mess up the ball for him unless he said he really wanted them at 11.5.
11.5? There you go, you are wrong about that. You have completely ignored the Ideal Gas Law. It is impossible that they deflated them to 11.5. At worst they were deflated to around 12.1 to 12.2 psi. Of course that only happed if the ref was wrong about which gauge he used to measure over 50 footballs just a few hours before it turned into a huge issue. Otherwise, no air was removed.
Did you also miss the text where Jastremski said the balls should have been 13 psi after the mid October Jets game?
even if they lowered the ball pressure to 12 it is still altering the ball.
Perhaps they didn't take the risk against terrible teams such as the Jets. That would explain why the balls were initially set to 13 with the idea to leave them. I guess you didnt think of that since it doesnt help your argument.
After that Jets game, Jastremski sent a text message that he discussed psi levels with Brady and from now on he would like the balls to be 12.5 and to provide a copy of the rules to the refs. If they were already running a scheme to deflate the balls because Brady wanted them below the legal limit, why that text message? It makes no sense.
Because they probably didn't run the scheme all the time which makes sense. Why take a chance against the jets? Also they couldn't run the scheme on the road. Brady would still want the ball at 12.5 in these games.
First, that was a home game. Second, if they had been running the scheme, they already knew his preference.
Wow. You really only read what fits your argument. I said they also wouldn't against terrible teams like the Jets.
I could say the exact same thing about you. First, you incorrectly thought they took a full pound of pressure out of the footballs and when I corrected you, that didn't disway you at all. Back when the story first came out, many people compared the difference between two balls with a 2 psi difference and that was difficult for most to notice. What about a half pund or slightly less? Does it honestly make sense to you that they would take out such a barely discernible amount of air while running such a risky operation? Don't answer because I know you will say yes because you already made up your mind when you did not even know the facts.
You really think they would pick and choose which teams they would run the scheme against based on how good that team is and not do it against their hated rival? Really?
I accepted your correction but if Brady likes them at 12.5 that much then it seems even more plausible that he would prefer them at 12.0 but the rules do not allow that.
What is your argument against the deflator text message and the ball boy taking the balls into the bathroom? When you add all three things together, its hard to argue that the Patriots were not altering football.
I would argue that the ball boy taking the balls into the bathroom with him on his way to the field is as indicative of innocent behavior as it could be nefarious behavior. I would also argue that while it is possible to deflate the balls in such a short amount of time, it seems unlikely that a man of his size and age would do it so quickly when he wasn't racing against a stop watch.
The deflator text was in May in the middle of the season. I would say they went through thousands of texts between two friends and only finding a handful of texts out of context is extremely flimsly curcumstantial evidence. I would argue and have that there are text nessages that contradict the notion they were running a scheme. I would argue that these two guys were not careful at all with their text messages, they even ripped Brady and talked about stealing sneakers which is not a wise thing to do if you are worried about your texts being read. So, I find it hard to believe Wells could not find stronger evidence when reviewing their communication. Wells even interrogated McNally for over seven hours and this is all he has.
Regarding the deflator comment, yeah it's an odd choice of words. I would point out that Jastremski inflates and deflates balls hundred or more times during the week and it is not odd given that reality for him to use words that are common to his job for other meanings when talking casually with friends. In fact there is evidence of that happening when McNally tells Jastremski to deflate and give someone that jacket when McNally saw him on TV following a game changing end of the half TD by the Packers.
I think it is easy to find bits of circumstantial evidence when spending months and millions investigating. In this case, you are convicting someone of a crime based on circumstantial evidence without evidence a crime even occurred. I would argue that there was not even a reason to believe balls were tampered with prior to investigating except for a lack of knowledge of basic science.
The ball boy would have practiced taking air out of the balls so being able to do this in under 90 seconds is not surprising.
The reference during the Packers game could have been about covering a football with the jacket and deflating it.
-
Do people still think Brady was innocent in this whole thing or that nothing ever happened?
The only thing that should be contested is the penalty being too harsh but Brady does deserve some kind of penalty.
I think he's innocent. Do you think he conspired with a part time, minimum wage employee on a risky scheme to remove 3 to 4 tenths of a psi which is only possible if the ref forgot which gauge he used to measure over 50 footballs only a couple hours after measuring them? Or do you believe a league which has been caught lying about the incident?
I don't believe that the ball boy refered to the other as the deflator because he was on a diet. I also don't believe the ball boy would take the footballs into the restroom without a high porobability of tampering with them. I also don't think the ball boys would be taking all these risks without some kind of direction from Brady. How would they even know that Brady preferred them at 11.5 unless told? And why would they deflate to 11.5 if they knew Brady had the footballs perfect unless they were told otherwise. I know I would never mess with the football that Brady had ready for the game. I wouldnt want to mess up the ball for him unless he said he really wanted them at 11.5.
11.5? There you go, you are wrong about that. You have completely ignored the Ideal Gas Law. It is impossible that they deflated them to 11.5. At worst they were deflated to around 12.1 to 12.2 psi. Of course that only happed if the ref was wrong about which gauge he used to measure over 50 footballs just a few hours before it turned into a huge issue. Otherwise, no air was removed.
Did you also miss the text where Jastremski said the balls should have been 13 psi after the mid October Jets game?
even if they lowered the ball pressure to 12 it is still altering the ball.
Perhaps they didn't take the risk against terrible teams such as the Jets. That would explain why the balls were initially set to 13 with the idea to leave them. I guess you didnt think of that since it doesnt help your argument.
After that Jets game, Jastremski sent a text message that he discussed psi levels with Brady and from now on he would like the balls to be 12.5 and to provide a copy of the rules to the refs. If they were already running a scheme to deflate the balls because Brady wanted them below the legal limit, why that text message? It makes no sense.
Because they probably didn't run the scheme all the time which makes sense. Why take a chance against the jets? Also they couldn't run the scheme on the road. Brady would still want the ball at 12.5 in these games.
First, that was a home game. Second, if they had been running the scheme, they already knew his preference.
Wow. You really only read what fits your argument. I said they also wouldn't against terrible teams like the Jets.
I could say the exact same thing about you. First, you incorrectly thought they took a full pound of pressure out of the footballs and when I corrected you, that didn't disway you at all. Back when the story first came out, many people compared the difference between two balls with a 2 psi difference and that was difficult for most to notice. What about a half pund or slightly less? Does it honestly make sense to you that they would take out such a barely discernible amount of air while running such a risky operation? Don't answer because I know you will say yes because you already made up your mind when you did not even know the facts.
You really think they would pick and choose which teams they would run the scheme against based on how good that team is and not do it against their hated rival? Really?
I accepted your correction but if Brady likes them at 12.5 that much then it seems even more plausible that he would prefer them at 12.0 but the rules do not allow that.
What is your argument against the deflator text message and the ball boy taking the balls into the bathroom? When you add all three things together, its hard to argue that the Patriots were not altering football.
I would argue that the ball boy taking the balls into the bathroom with him on his way to the field is as indicative of innocent behavior as it could be nefarious behavior. I would also argue that while it is possible to deflate the balls in such a short amount of time, it seems unlikely that a man of his size and age would do it so quickly when he wasn't racing against a stop watch.
The deflator text was in May in the middle of the season. I would say they went through thousands of texts between two friends and only finding a handful of texts out of context is extremely flimsly curcumstantial evidence. I would argue and have that there are text nessages that contradict the notion they were running a scheme. I would argue that these two guys were not careful at all with their text messages, they even ripped Brady and talked about stealing sneakers which is not a wise thing to do if you are worried about your texts being read. So, I find it hard to believe Wells could not find stronger evidence when reviewing their communication. Wells even interrogated McNally for over seven hours and this is all he has.
Regarding the deflator comment, yeah it's an odd choice of words. I would point out that Jastremski inflates and deflates balls hundred or more times during the week and it is not odd given that reality for him to use words that are common to his job for other meanings when talking casually with friends. In fact there is evidence of that happening when McNally tells Jastremski to deflate and give someone that jacket when McNally saw him on TV following a game changing end of the half TD by the Packers.
I think it is easy to find bits of circumstantial evidence when spending months and millions investigating. In this case, you are convicting someone of a crime based on circumstantial evidence without evidence a crime even occurred. I would argue that there was not even a reason to believe balls were tampered with prior to investigating except for a lack of knowledge of basic science.
The ball boy would have practiced taking air out of the balls so being able to do this in under 90 seconds is not surprising.
The reference during the Packers game could have been about covering a football with the jacket and deflating it.
Covering a football with a jacket and deflating it? Oh, C'mon. You are reaching. And you say I only want to believe what helps my argument? ::)
-
I'm shocked. Along with releasing the emails asking for the NFL to retract this story the NEP are letting the dirty laundry fly.
http://www.csnne.com/new-england-patriots/attention-circles-back-to-mike-kensil-as-deflategate-source
For all the people who who think the Patriots cheated or at least did something wrong with the footballs, let's go back to the beginning of the story.
When they measured the footballs, they found that the average football dropped 1.01 psi using the gauge that the head ref said used to measure the footballs. We know that it was 48 degrees outside and a reasonable assumption would be that they were measured in a room around 70. Therefore, according the laws of science, the balls should have dropped around 1.1 psi give or take a bit. Therefore, the balls were exactly in line with what science dictated.
So why was there an investigation?
This was before they learned McNally took a bathroom break, before Ted Wells and Exponent used convoluted logic to determine the ref was wrong about which gauge he used, before digging through the two clown ball boys' phones, before Exponent created transient curves that every independent scientist has since criticized, and before they asked for Brady's phone.
The footballs dropped 1.01 psi which fit exactly with science, but the NFL lied and said the balls dropped 2 psi which science could not easily explain. 1.01 was expected. If the league was truthful, this story would have died in a day. So why did the NFL lie? And why did they refuse to correct that lie? Why did the NFL open up a $5 million investigation?
Can someone explain that to me?
First of all, from what I heard, the Patriots balls lost more air than the Colts balls, which doesn't really fit with the science. Secondly, I don't think the ideal gas law says you'd lose that amount of air.
Yes, the ideal gas law does say you lose that amount of air pressure. The math is actually quite easy.
The Patriots balls did lose more air pressure, but that is easily explained by the fact they were measured before the Colts balls. Thus, the Colts balls were coming to equilibrium in the warm room while the Patriots balls were measured and then reinflated. The refs only measure 4 Colts balls as they said they ran out of time as halftime was coming to an end. Plenty of scientists have explained that the difference in time easily explains the difference between the two teams' balls.
If they didn't have the text messages or if they didn't have video of the ball boy taking the balls into the bathroom, then this argument could change things. But all three things added together is no coincidence.
This is where I'm at too. The science isn't definitive either way, and the other things we know don't exactly point in the Pat's favor.
It shouldn't be about definitive either way, it SHOULD be definitive about proving illegal PSI levels (you know, the actual requirement that something is actually wrong). Absent of that, the rest should be irrelevant.
I mean, is the issue here that someone deflated the balls or that someone deflated the balls to outside the acceptable range?
Though related, not really the same thing.
I would expect the practice of doctoring the footballs after having them inspected would be frowned upon, unless you're willing to take the word of the person who doctored the balls that he deflated them, but not to illegal levels.
-
Again, the evidence is incredibly flimsy and circumstantial at best. And, again, it really only looks incriminating if you start with the assumption that someone intentionally deflated the balls and work from there, picking information out of context that only fits that theory.
For what the patriots are accused of, and given how much information the league had access to, if guilty, its actually incredible that there isn't MORE "evidence" of wrongdoing. The trick of the Wells report is that it takes all these random texts from thousands of texts from months apart at a time, and strips them of timing and context and puts them artificially together as evidence. But it only looks like evidence if you start with the conclusion set in stone.
Given how much these guys text and how freely they talk (texting insults about brady, etc), if there were an ongoing elaborate scheme, wouldn't you expect MORE evidence of illegality, especially if you could take texts out of context from any time?
it would be fun to look at the phones of two frequent texters, pick a crime, and try to dig texts from random times and different contexts to "prove" the crime. Again, if you are actually reading the texts without a foregone conclusion, the LACK of evidence is astounding.
In fact, if you were actually doing a non-biased search for deflation, you actually find that the best, most relevant and most explicit evidence shows that brady requested the balls NOT be 15-16 psi (illegally firm), and requests that they be 12.5 psi... WHICH IS LEGAL!
This is the amazing mind boggling thing. The texts ACTUALLY HAVE THE BEST EVIDENCE OF FULLY LEGAL BEHAVIOR!!!! THE ONLY MENTIONS OF PSI ARE FOR LEGAL LEVELS!
-
My question is, where's the punishment for the team who inflated the balls to 16 PSI?
I agree.
And to be more precise, where are the punishments for all the teams and all the QBs who have done their own variations of breaking this rule? And why no punishment for warming up footballs on the sideline (during a nationally televised game, no less)? And why can kickers (and Aaron Rodgers, apparently) have firmer footballs, but Brady can't have softer footballs?
Oh, that's right, because this is all about Goodell trying to rehab his image at the expense of an easy target.
-
You really see how asinine the NFL's argument is when you figure the Patriots went through all this trouble to deflate the footballs by .3 or .4 psi. That amount is beyond trivial and obviously within pressure gauge error.
I think the NFL and this Kensil guy got overly excited by seeing how deflated the Patriots footballs were at halftime and never considered the weather had anything to do with it. After that, it was how can we possibly make this horrible case of facts and lack of evidence fit into the Patriots being cheaters.
There is never ANY, not one shred, of evidence that Brady likes his footballs with less inflation than 12.5psi. Yet the entire case depends on this being a fact.
-
Given how much these guys text and how freely they talk (texting insults about brady, etc), if there were an ongoing elaborate scheme, wouldn't you expect MORE evidence of illegality, especially if you could take texts out of context from any time?
If you assume an ongoing scheme, how much texting would you need to do on a weekly basis? How many texts would you ever need?
-
One thing that no one who thinks the Pats are guilty has been able to explain to me is:
How could the ball boy, who supposedly deflated the balls, deflate 12 balls a precise amount of air in 100 seconds he was in the bathroom when it took the NFL Refs a half an hour to accurately measure 12 Pats balls and then only four Colts balls because they ran out of time?
The accuracy with which the balls were supposedly deflated, in the time that the ballboy was in the bathroom, just doesn't seem to be possible given the amount of time it took the league to accurately measure the balls.
-
Given how much these guys text and how freely they talk (texting insults about brady, etc), if there were an ongoing elaborate scheme, wouldn't you expect MORE evidence of illegality, especially if you could take texts out of context from any time?
If you assume an ongoing scheme, how much texting would you need to do on a weekly basis? How many texts would you ever need?
So now we are at the point where lack of evidence is in fact further evidence of wrongdoing
-
One thing that no one who thinks the Pats are guilty has been able to explain to me is:
How could the ball boy, who supposedly deflated the balls, deflate 12 balls a precise amount of air in 100 seconds he was in the bathroom when it took the NFL Refs a half an hour to accurately measure 12 Pats balls and then only four Colts balls because they ran out of time?
The accuracy with which the balls were supposedly deflated, in the time that the ballboy was in the bathroom, just doesn't seem to be possible given the amount of time it took the league to accurately measure the balls.
Because this guy has the speed, agility, and body control of a Ninja. Or at least it's more probable than not that he does.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/596045986784419841/U37ZgMfu.jpg)
-
THe picking and choosing by the Wells report and league does not meake any sense for someone trying to actually find out the answer to a question. It only makes sense to be that selective if you are trying to prove a specific point.
Example 1: The best positive evidence that exists is that Brady asked for his balls to be at 12.5, and that he really does not like the balls at 15 PSI. Given that the range allowed by the rules is 12.5 - 13.5, this is very normal. It's not like the range is 12.5-22.5 and he chose 12.5. It's just 12.5-13.5 and he said 12.5. That's the evidence that exists. But because people are trying to prove a point, they then lean on an assumption: "well if he liked 12.5, he was REALLY asking for 11.5!" That's pure assumption, not open ended evidence gathering. Thus, the league makes the conclusion that asking for the legal low end of a small range is somehow evidence of illegal intent.
Example 2: THe ref testified that he remembered which gauge he used at halftime. If that was in fact the gauge he used, then the average PSI of balls tested at halftime would be legal. However, in this case, the league assumes that JUST THIS part of his testimony (but nothing else) is unreliable, so the Wells report ignores just that testimony and bases its findings on the other gauge.
-
THe picking and choosing by the Wells report and league does not meake any sense for someone trying to actually find out the answer to a question. It only makes sense to be that selective if you are trying to prove a specific point.
Example 1: The best positive evidence that exists is that Brady asked for his balls to be at 12.5, and that he really does not like the balls at 15 PSI. Given that the range allowed by the rules is 12.5 - 13.5, this is very normal. It's not like the range is 12.5-22.5 and he chose 12.5. It's just 12.5-13.5 and he said 12.5. That's the evidence that exists. But because people are trying to prove a point, they then lean on an assumption: "well if he liked 12.5, he was REALLY asking for 11.5!" That's pure assumption, not open ended evidence gathering. Thus, the league makes the conclusion that asking for the legal low end of a small range is somehow evidence of illegal intent.
Example 2: THe ref testified that he remembered which gauge he used at halftime. If that was in fact the gauge he used, then the average PSI of balls tested at halftime would be legal. However, in this case, the league assumes that JUST THIS part of his testimony (but nothing else) is unreliable, so the Wells report ignores just that testimony and bases its findings on the other gauge.
witch hunt:
noun
1. an intensive effort to discover and expose disloyalty, subversion, dishonesty, or the like, usually based on slight, doubtful, or irrelevant evidence.
-
Sounds like this won't take long. Judges are kings of their courtrooms and this judge seemingly wants this fiasco off his docket and is thus looking for a quick settlement or he'll ram a quick verdict down their throats. I'd wager it's a lock that the NFL's not getting 4 games and Brady's not getting the whole thing overturned because of an argument like Goodell cannot by definition be an independent arbitrator. So my best guess is 2 games or just a fine.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/08/01/judge-berman-takes-full-control-of-brady-case/
Judge Berman takes full control of Brady case
Posted by Mike Florio on August 1, 2015, 10:07 AM EDT
Some judges don’t get directly involved in trying to settle a case. Some do.
And some of the judges who get directly involved in the efforts to settle a case make it very clear to the parties that the judge is determined to settle the case. When that happens, the case usually settles.
In 18 years of practicing law, I never saw an order like the one Judge Richard M. Berman issued to the NFL and the NFLPA on Friday. Below, I’ll explain how I would interpret it, if I was representing either the NFL or the NFLPA in this case.
Posted on Twitter by Raffi Melkonian, a Texas lawyer who has been posting various court filings to date in the case, the full order reads as follows:
“Thank you for your letter, dated July 31, 2015. I found it helpful. It is ‘OK’ to file a public version of the answer and counterclaim as you request. I always have considerable difficulty approving any sealed documents, given the keen public interest in these matters and the public’s right to know. It’s up to you whether to file any sealed motions or sealed document applications at this time.
“I have two further suggestions. First, because I already have a good understanding of your positions from your submissions to date, you need only each file a 15 page double spaced memo (further supporting your positions) by August 7, 2015. In the nature of a reply brief, perhaps.
“Second, I am scheduling a status/settlement conference for Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 11:00 a.m., with your principals (including, without limitation, Mr. Goodell and Mr. Brady). Let’s see what we can accomplish at that conference and if there is a need for more written submissions, the August 14, 2015 submission date you propose is fine.
“I am also scheduling a status/settlement/oral argument conference for Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 10:00 a.m., again with your principals (including, without limitation, Mr. Goodell and Mr. Brady). Please jointly confirm all dates by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, August 3, 2015. . . .
“Lastly, I request that you all engage in comprehensive, good-faith settlement discussions prior to the conference on August 12, 2015. Magistrate Judge James C. Francis, IV is available to assist you if you wish.”
First, it’s clear that the judge has been studying the case and knows the issues. He probably already has an idea regarding how he would rule on the case; there’s really not much either side can do to change his mind in only 15, double-spaced pages.
Second, he’s determined to get the case settled. By directing the two sides to engage in “comprehensive, good-faith settlement discussions” before the first of not one but two settlement conferences with Judge Berman presiding, he expects the parties to arrive at the first conference with their latest settlement positions clearly established (e.g., NFL at a two-game suspension and an acknowledgement of guilt and Brady at a two-game fine and no acknowledgement of guilt). At that point, Judge Berman will then have two opportunities to pressure the side that needs to be pressured the most (and it possibly will be both sides that need pressure) to resolve the case before he issues a ruling.
Third, the invitation to utilize the services of Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV to assist in any settlement talks before August 12 isn’t an invitation. If they don’t take Judge Berman up on the offer, he won’t be happy — unless they can settle the case without using Judge Francis as the facilitator/mediator of settlement discussions over the next 11 days.
Fourth, and as surmised on Friday, Judge Berman expects Goodell and Brady to appear in court for both conferences on August 12 and 19. Whoever resists showing up on either of those days does so at his own peril.
For Brady, it will mean missing two days of work. Although the team’s training-camp schedule hasn’t been announced beyond August 3, August 12 comes one day before the preseason opener against the Packers, at Gillette Stadium. On August 19, the Patriots will be in the middle of a three-day visit to West Virginia, for joint practices with the Saints.
For Goodell, it will mean shuffling whatever schedule he already has in place for those days. The NFL’s lawyers will likely tell him that nothing is more important than showing up for the conferences with Judge Berman.
Fifth, it’s clear that Judge Berman won’t be inclined to keep any documents under seal, based on this sentence: “I always have considerable difficulty approving any sealed documents, given the keen public interest in these matters and the public’s right to know.” In other words, the full transcript of the Tom Brady appeal hearing eventually will be released, if the case isn’t settled.
That’s a win for the NFLPA and Brady. Although the NFL would say that the parties agreed to seal the transcript, a source with knowledge of the situation tells PFT that the NFLPA agreed to seal the transcript at the insistence of the NFL.
The best way to keep the transcript from ever being released to the public (barring a leak) would be to settle the case before the judge has to decide whether to approve the filing of the transcript under seal. And Judge Berman knows that. And now the NFL and NFLPA know that he knows that.
I’m tempted to think the case could settle this week, without Goodell and Brady having to appear before Judge Berman. But if the two sides are at an impasse over whether a settlement would include a suspension of any duration, it won’t be easy to break that log jam without getting an idea of how Judge Berman feels about what amounts to an all-or-nothing proposition in court.
Eventually, Judge Berman may have to privately inform the side against which he’s inclined to rule that it will either accept the best deal it can get, or it will get nothing and like it.
-
Given how much these guys text and how freely they talk (texting insults about brady, etc), if there were an ongoing elaborate scheme, wouldn't you expect MORE evidence of illegality, especially if you could take texts out of context from any time?
If you assume an ongoing scheme, how much texting would you need to do on a weekly basis? How many texts would you ever need?
So now we are at the point where lack of evidence is in fact further evidence of wrongdoing
More like we're at the point where a lack of repetitive texts doesn't nullify the ones that exist.
-
One thing that no one who thinks the Pats are guilty has been able to explain to me is:
How could the ball boy, who supposedly deflated the balls, deflate 12 balls a precise amount of air in 100 seconds he was in the bathroom when it took the NFL Refs a half an hour to accurately measure 12 Pats balls and then only four Colts balls because they ran out of time?
The accuracy with which the balls were supposedly deflated, in the time that the ballboy was in the bathroom, just doesn't seem to be possible given the amount of time it took the league to accurately measure the balls.
Assuming he did it on a regular basis it would be awfully simple. If you think about it, all of the footballs start out at about the same air pressure. He's using the same needle to deflate each ball, so the air's going to escape through the needle at about the same speed on each ball. All you have to do is let the air escape for relatively the same small amount of time and the balls will be close to the same.
-
One thing that no one who thinks the Pats are guilty has been able to explain to me is:
How could the ball boy, who supposedly deflated the balls, deflate 12 balls a precise amount of air in 100 seconds he was in the bathroom when it took the NFL Refs a half an hour to accurately measure 12 Pats balls and then only four Colts balls because they ran out of time?
The accuracy with which the balls were supposedly deflated, in the time that the ballboy was in the bathroom, just doesn't seem to be possible given the amount of time it took the league to accurately measure the balls.
Assuming he did it on a regular basis it would be awfully simple. If you think about it, all of the footballs start out at about the same air pressure. He's using the same needle to deflate each ball, so the air's going to escape through the needle at about the same speed on each ball. All you have to do is let the air escape for relatively the same small amount of time and the balls will be close to the same.
Yeah.......I'm not buying that.
-
One thing that no one who thinks the Pats are guilty has been able to explain to me is:
How could the ball boy, who supposedly deflated the balls, deflate 12 balls a precise amount of air in 100 seconds he was in the bathroom when it took the NFL Refs a half an hour to accurately measure 12 Pats balls and then only four Colts balls because they ran out of time?
The accuracy with which the balls were supposedly deflated, in the time that the ballboy was in the bathroom, just doesn't seem to be possible given the amount of time it took the league to accurately measure the balls.
Assuming he did it on a regular basis it would be awfully simple. If you think about it, all of the footballs start out at about the same air pressure. He's using the same needle to deflate each ball, so the air's going to escape through the needle at about the same speed on each ball. All you have to do is let the air escape for relatively the same small amount of time and the balls will be close to the same.
Yeah.......I'm not buying that.
Ok, I'll bite. How long do you think it would take you to stick a needle into a ball and let out a little air? Hopefully we'll be talking seconds, not minutes. How much faster do you think you could get if you did it all the time?
-
http://www.csnne.com/new-england-patriots/nfl-official-notes-balls-have-been-known-leak
Slaughter, a 12-year NFL official prior to becoming a supervisor, said he’s encountered footballs that lose air because of leaks which have nothing to do with tampering by teams. “These are man-made products,” Slaughter said, according to the the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. “There is a bladder and a valve. We have all checked them for many years. Sometimes when you check the ball in the locker room right out of the box, there could be a problem. They could have a slow leak, and you wouldn't even know it at the time.”
That’s valuable intel, especially considering the haste the NFL showed in leaping to the conclusion that footballs which lost pressure during the first half of the AFC Championship Game were tampered with by the Patriots equipment staff. We’ve all had more than enough exploration of the possibility that the Ideal Gas Law is just as likely to have been the culprit. But the fact that an individual like Slaughter, with no dog in the fight, notes that sometimes balls are faulty “right out of the box” is enlightening. And a nugget that may get Slaughter a phone call requesting he keep his faulty ball information to himself for at least the near future.
-
Still will not come out and say directly that the Wells Report was corrupt. I will. You do not cherry-pick the evidence that fits your conclusion and ignore the evidence that contradicts your conclusion. This is not a matter of competency. It was a matter of intent and Exponent has a history of providing cooked statistics for well-heeled clients. The firm to hire if you want to reach a predetermined conclusion. Along with the leaks the NFL have used to mislead and failed to retract, there is a clear pattern of willful misconduct here.
Goodell is just a figurehead who comes off like an empty suit. An executive who looks the part and that is about it as far as substance. Blows with the prevailing political wind and the wind is coming from his subordinates, who worked for teams like the Jets, and owners/execs from teams like Indy who want to punish the Pats and Belichick for their arrogance in running up scores, pulling trick plays that go up to the line of NFL rules, ditching the Jets, etc. Just NFL politics and payback.
Who knows what the federal judge will rule, but one attack the Brady/union team is going to employ is going after Goodell's ability to serve as an impartial arbitrator (which the Missouri SC dismissed in another case). I think it is a fruitful line of attack since Goodell works for the owners, but the judge seemingly strongly desires to get this case off his docket and will try to force a settlement.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/08/02/nfl-supervisor-of-officials-acknowledges-slow-leak-possibility/
Posted by Mike Florio on August 2, 2015, 1:27 PM EDT
Football
The Ted Wells report should have resulted, in the opinion of PFT and not necessarily anyone else, in a finding that the results of the investigation were inconclusive as to whether the Patriots had tampered with footballs prior to the AFC title game.
Inconclusive, because the NFL had (as former NFL official and supervisor of officials Jim Daopoulos has told PFT) never regarded the inflation of footballs as a science.
Inconclusive, because the NFL had never even checked air pressure in footballs during or after any game in the 95-year history of the league.
Inconclusive, because of the significant gap between the two gauges made available to the officials responsible for setting the air pressure in the footballs used for the AFC Championship Game.
Inconclusive, because the measurements generated by the Patriots footballs (the real ones, not the false ones leaked to ESPN) on one of those gauges — the one the referee specifically recalled using before kickoff to set the air in the Patriots footballs — fell within the range expected by the Ideal Gas Law.
Inconclusive, because one of the gauges showed three of four Colts footballs to be under the 12.5 PSI minimum at halftime, even though they started at 13.0 or 13.1 PSI.
Inconclusive, because a $1,000-an-hour lawyer wasn’t able to parlay troubling Beavis-and-Butthead text messages into a pants-p---ing confession from a day-of-game employee who carries around a bag of footballs on Sundays.
And, now, inconclusive, because a current NFL supervisor of officials has acknowledged that some footballs are defective, when it comes to keeping air inside them.
“These are man-made products,” Central Region supervisor of officials Gary Slaughter said during a via to the Steelers, via Mark Kaboly of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. “There is a bladder and a valve. We have all checked them for many years. Sometimes when you check the ball in the locker room right out of the box, there could be a problem. They could have a slow leak, and you wouldn’t even know it at the time.”
The possibility of a slow leak doesn’t exonerate the Patriots. But it’s another reason for concluding based on the information available to Ted Wells that the evidence of cheating prior to the AFC Championship Game is inconclusive.
The sheer volume of the evidence generated by Ted Wells allows for a 243-page decision supporting any outcome Wells wanted to reach. Whatever outcome he wanted to reach, the end result should have been that the evidence is inconclusive.
-
The owners like having Goodell be the centerpiece for any heat, by the way. It's part of the reason he's able to act like his job is secure -- because, by and large, it is.
-
The owners like having Goodell be the centerpiece for any heat, by the way. It's part of the reason he's able to act like his job is secure -- because, by and large, it is.
I agree in part. The owners are not going to want to replace him because it makes them look bad, and he's making $40M per year. Hopefully, they move on when his contract is up.
I would contrast his reign of error with Tagliabue's and Rozelle's. Everyone faces tough issues; Goodell has managed to screw one thing up after another.
-
Found via NEP Reddit. Tosses ESPN under the bus.
39 minutes in on the 8/2 podcast:
http://www.ysrpodcasts.com/jason/
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/the-nfls-basic-due-process-is-the-real-issue-in-the-deflategate-controversy/2015/07/30/ebda3b02-3666-11e5-9d0f-7865a67390ee_story.html
About that exploding cellphone. You know, the one NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell seems to think belonged to Machine Gun Kelly and was used in the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby, as well as the Krupp diamond theft. The one that Ted Wells said he didn’t want or need to complete his investigation into DeflateGate. The one the NFL’s own investigator said wasn’t necessary to the case.
That one.
Wells never asked for Tom Brady’s cellphone and didn’t require it. “Keep the phone,” Wells told Brady and his agent. He insisted his investigation was thorough without it. “I don’t think it undermines in any way the conclusions of the report,” he said. Those were his exact words. So were these, after interrogating Brady for more than five hours: “Totally cooperative,” Wells said of Brady’s testimony.
Yet somehow Goodell found Brady guilty of lack of cooperation and willful destruction of evidence on appeal, all because he upgraded to an iPhone 6?
It goes downhill from there...
There is another pattern here — a very unseemly pattern of unethical behavior by the league office under Goodell’s leadership. First, there is always a leak from the league that commands a big headline and gins up public indignation. Next comes a disciplinary hammer from Goodell that makes him look like a hero-protector. But when the excitement dies down and actual facts emerge, it all turns out to be a souped-up overreach.
-
Another Florio piece came out late last night. It appears the union is going straight at the issue of whether Goodell could ever be an impartial arbitrator. According to the Sports Law blog, the issue of partiality in NY is pretty simple:
"a reasonable person would have to conclude that an arbitrator was partial to one party to the arbitration."
This should be kept in mind when reading the Florio piece below: http://tinyurl.com/o5czahb
The handling of the Brady appeal and its aftermath have raised new questions regarding whether Commissioner Roger Goodell ever can be truly impartial in cases where he has direct involvement in the underlying disciplinary decision.
As the NFLPA argued at paragraph 151 of the original court filing in Minnesota, “It is hard to imagine any person in Goodell’s position even attempting to serve as arbitrator under these circumstances, but that is exactly what he did." ...
Goodell gets paid by the owners (and his subordinates are directly involved in the case). The NFL has lost on that issue before in a decision in May by the Missouri Supreme court. This is hardly a 3rd party arbitration and impartiality is important regardless of what the CBA says about Goodell's right to serve in that capacity.
~~~
Here's some decent explanation about settlement issues an the first link below and about arbitration as it applies to this case in the second link:
http://www.stradleylaw.com/deflategate-legal-faqs-settlement/
http://www.stradleylaw.com/deflategate-legal-questions/
This attorney is blunter than Florio about how the judge likely doesn't want to waste judicial resources on this case. She also thinks the right settlement is at best a fine.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/the-nfls-basic-due-process-is-the-real-issue-in-the-deflategate-controversy/2015/07/30/ebda3b02-3666-11e5-9d0f-7865a67390ee_story.html
About that exploding cellphone. You know, the one NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell seems to think belonged to Machine Gun Kelly and was used in the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby, as well as the Krupp diamond theft. The one that Ted Wells said he didn’t want or need to complete his investigation into DeflateGate. The one the NFL’s own investigator said wasn’t necessary to the case.
That one.
Wells never asked for Tom Brady’s cellphone and didn’t require it. “Keep the phone,” Wells told Brady and his agent. He insisted his investigation was thorough without it. “I don’t think it undermines in any way the conclusions of the report,” he said. Those were his exact words. So were these, after interrogating Brady for more than five hours: “Totally cooperative,” Wells said of Brady’s testimony.
Yet somehow Goodell found Brady guilty of lack of cooperation and willful destruction of evidence on appeal, all because he upgraded to an iPhone 6?
They didn't ask Brady for the phone, they asked him for any texts and emails on his phone related to the inquiry. Brady didn't provide that information, and destroyed his phone so that information would be irretrievable.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/the-nfls-basic-due-process-is-the-real-issue-in-the-deflategate-controversy/2015/07/30/ebda3b02-3666-11e5-9d0f-7865a67390ee_story.html
About that exploding cellphone. You know, the one NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell seems to think belonged to Machine Gun Kelly and was used in the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby, as well as the Krupp diamond theft. The one that Ted Wells said he didn’t want or need to complete his investigation into DeflateGate. The one the NFL’s own investigator said wasn’t necessary to the case.
That one.
Wells never asked for Tom Brady’s cellphone and didn’t require it. “Keep the phone,” Wells told Brady and his agent. He insisted his investigation was thorough without it. “I don’t think it undermines in any way the conclusions of the report,” he said. Those were his exact words. So were these, after interrogating Brady for more than five hours: “Totally cooperative,” Wells said of Brady’s testimony.
Yet somehow Goodell found Brady guilty of lack of cooperation and willful destruction of evidence on appeal, all because he upgraded to an iPhone 6?
They didn't ask Brady for the phone, they asked him for any texts and emails on his phone related to the inquiry. Brady didn't provide that information, and destroyed his phone so that information would be irretrievable.
Not true. They had the phones of all non nflpa patriots employees who would have been on the receiving end of those texts and emails. Unfortunately for the nfl none existed
-
TP to colincb for the news
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/the-nfls-basic-due-process-is-the-real-issue-in-the-deflategate-controversy/2015/07/30/ebda3b02-3666-11e5-9d0f-7865a67390ee_story.html
About that exploding cellphone. You know, the one NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell seems to think belonged to Machine Gun Kelly and was used in the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby, as well as the Krupp diamond theft. The one that Ted Wells said he didn’t want or need to complete his investigation into DeflateGate. The one the NFL’s own investigator said wasn’t necessary to the case.
That one.
Wells never asked for Tom Brady’s cellphone and didn’t require it. “Keep the phone,” Wells told Brady and his agent. He insisted his investigation was thorough without it. “I don’t think it undermines in any way the conclusions of the report,” he said. Those were his exact words. So were these, after interrogating Brady for more than five hours: “Totally cooperative,” Wells said of Brady’s testimony.
Yet somehow Goodell found Brady guilty of lack of cooperation and willful destruction of evidence on appeal, all because he upgraded to an iPhone 6?
They didn't ask Brady for the phone, they asked him for any texts and emails on his phone related to the inquiry. Brady didn't provide that information, and destroyed his phone so that information would be irretrievable.
I find the whole phone thing very confusing and I am definitely leaning towards the conclusion that it is an NFL smoke screen. If these statements from Sally Jenkins are actually true and the investigator in the case actually said that I don't need his phone and he was totally cooperative, how on earth is this even still a story?
Second, I have long been of the understanding that there are at least two ends of every text (some texts have more). So they had the phones of the employees who allegedly did the dirty work but there were no texts from Brady so what is the story?
The third considerations seems to be the idea that texts can be deleted so having the employees' phones may not have all the evidence but Brady can delete texts too. But the employees didn't delete the crazy deflator texts but did delete the texts from Brady? I don't know that there is anything at the end of this line of thinking.
Bottom line, if Sally Jenkins is correct in her reporting about Well's statements about the phone and the cooperation, the league has nothing. NOTHING. No proof that the balls were even tampered with and nothing to substantiate the Brady didn't cooperate.
All the NFL has is cryptic texts between ball attendants months ago and a guy going to the bathroom on game day. Both could be interpreted to be incriminating or could be easily explained but in now way is either proof. What the Pats/Brady have is a long line of false leaks by the NFL and a clear pattern of deception.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/the-nfls-basic-due-process-is-the-real-issue-in-the-deflategate-controversy/2015/07/30/ebda3b02-3666-11e5-9d0f-7865a67390ee_story.html
About that exploding cellphone. You know, the one NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell seems to think belonged to Machine Gun Kelly and was used in the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby, as well as the Krupp diamond theft. The one that Ted Wells said he didn’t want or need to complete his investigation into DeflateGate. The one the NFL’s own investigator said wasn’t necessary to the case.
That one.
Wells never asked for Tom Brady’s cellphone and didn’t require it. “Keep the phone,” Wells told Brady and his agent. He insisted his investigation was thorough without it. “I don’t think it undermines in any way the conclusions of the report,” he said. Those were his exact words. So were these, after interrogating Brady for more than five hours: “Totally cooperative,” Wells said of Brady’s testimony.
Yet somehow Goodell found Brady guilty of lack of cooperation and willful destruction of evidence on appeal, all because he upgraded to an iPhone 6?
They didn't ask Brady for the phone, they asked him for any texts and emails on his phone related to the inquiry. Brady didn't provide that information, and destroyed his phone so that information would be irretrievable.
Not true. They had the phones of all non nflpa patriots employees who would have been on the receiving end of those texts and emails. Unfortunately for the nfl none existed
They had some phones, which may or may not be all the phones Brady texted, and may or may not have deleted some of the texts.
In any case, they asked Brady to provide them with some texts and emails from his phone. Not only did he not comply with the request, he destroyed his phone and the texts and emails on it.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/the-nfls-basic-due-process-is-the-real-issue-in-the-deflategate-controversy/2015/07/30/ebda3b02-3666-11e5-9d0f-7865a67390ee_story.html
About that exploding cellphone. You know, the one NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell seems to think belonged to Machine Gun Kelly and was used in the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby, as well as the Krupp diamond theft. The one that Ted Wells said he didn’t want or need to complete his investigation into DeflateGate. The one the NFL’s own investigator said wasn’t necessary to the case.
That one.
Wells never asked for Tom Brady’s cellphone and didn’t require it. “Keep the phone,” Wells told Brady and his agent. He insisted his investigation was thorough without it. “I don’t think it undermines in any way the conclusions of the report,” he said. Those were his exact words. So were these, after interrogating Brady for more than five hours: “Totally cooperative,” Wells said of Brady’s testimony.
Yet somehow Goodell found Brady guilty of lack of cooperation and willful destruction of evidence on appeal, all because he upgraded to an iPhone 6?
They didn't ask Brady for the phone, they asked him for any texts and emails on his phone related to the inquiry. Brady didn't provide that information, and destroyed his phone so that information would be irretrievable.
Not true. They had the phones of all non nflpa patriots employees who would have been on the receiving end of those texts and emails. Unfortunately for the nfl none existed
They had some phones, which may or may not be all the phones Brady texted, and may or may not have deleted some of the texts.
In any case, they asked Brady to provide them with some texts and emails from his phone. Not only did he not comply with the request, he destroyed his phone and the texts and emails on it.
And? Even IF all that's true... AND?
I don't know in what world you guys think it's OK for the NFL to have access to any private information a player has on their cell-phone/emails.
It's really ridiculous, and if for you that's sign of guilt so be it... but you've been taken by the NFL Irrelevant Propaganda and it's sad to see.
And to clarify something I read previously in this thread about social media passwords... it's illegal for employers to request that from their employee, just a little tangent on that (last I recalled).
If Brady didn't want to give up his cell-phone (which the investigator said wasn't needed), his texts (which we don't know what was provided or not), his emails, all the while found by the investigator to be cooperative... whether guilty or not of an event that hasn't been proved to have occurred in the first place, I don't know what the big deal is... other than optics.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/the-nfls-basic-due-process-is-the-real-issue-in-the-deflategate-controversy/2015/07/30/ebda3b02-3666-11e5-9d0f-7865a67390ee_story.html
About that exploding cellphone. You know, the one NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell seems to think belonged to Machine Gun Kelly and was used in the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby, as well as the Krupp diamond theft. The one that Ted Wells said he didn’t want or need to complete his investigation into DeflateGate. The one the NFL’s own investigator said wasn’t necessary to the case.
That one.
Wells never asked for Tom Brady’s cellphone and didn’t require it. “Keep the phone,” Wells told Brady and his agent. He insisted his investigation was thorough without it. “I don’t think it undermines in any way the conclusions of the report,” he said. Those were his exact words. So were these, after interrogating Brady for more than five hours: “Totally cooperative,” Wells said of Brady’s testimony.
Yet somehow Goodell found Brady guilty of lack of cooperation and willful destruction of evidence on appeal, all because he upgraded to an iPhone 6?
They didn't ask Brady for the phone, they asked him for any texts and emails on his phone related to the inquiry. Brady didn't provide that information, and destroyed his phone so that information would be irretrievable.
Not true. They had the phones of all non nflpa patriots employees who would have been on the receiving end of those texts and emails. Unfortunately for the nfl none existed
They had some phones, which may or may not be all the phones Brady texted, and may or may not have deleted some of the texts.
In any case, they asked Brady to provide them with some texts and emails from his phone. Not only did he not comply with the request, he destroyed his phone and the texts and emails on it.
According to Brady's lawyers they provided the phone records which prove that all outgoing communications to non NFLPA employees of the patriots had already been provided.
-
Months and months into this thing, I believe it is clear that the NFL has accomplished their main goal. No one is talking about NFL players that beat women or have long term brain damage from concussions anymore.
-
Months and months into this thing, I believe it is clear that the NFL has accomplished their main goal. No one is talking about NFL players that beat women or have long term brain damage from concussions anymore.
Yep. Goodell was smart to make a big deal about going after the most polarizing team in the league. Even when he inevitably acts like a buffoon, contradicts himself, abuses his position, makes the NFL look like a joke, and so on, there are still tons of fans willing to overlook all that because they hate the Patriots and are just so excited to see them branded as cheaters and get punished severely.
-
I mentioned it a few pages back -- Brady and Greg Hardy are serving the same suspension, which is exactly how the NFL likes it.
-
Months and months into this thing, I believe it is clear that the NFL has accomplished their main goal. No one is talking about NFL players that beat women or have long term brain damage from concussions anymore.
Yep. Goodell was smart to make a big deal about going after the most polarizing team in the league. Even when he inevitably acts like a buffoon, contradicts himself, abuses his position, makes the NFL look like a joke, and so on, there are still tons of fans willing to overlook all that because they hate the Patriots and are just so excited to see them branded as cheaters and get punished severely.
That's why it's gonna be extra awesome when the Pats win the Super Bowl again this season.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/the-nfls-basic-due-process-is-the-real-issue-in-the-deflategate-controversy/2015/07/30/ebda3b02-3666-11e5-9d0f-7865a67390ee_story.html
About that exploding cellphone. You know, the one NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell seems to think belonged to Machine Gun Kelly and was used in the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby, as well as the Krupp diamond theft. The one that Ted Wells said he didn’t want or need to complete his investigation into DeflateGate. The one the NFL’s own investigator said wasn’t necessary to the case.
That one.
Wells never asked for Tom Brady’s cellphone and didn’t require it. “Keep the phone,” Wells told Brady and his agent. He insisted his investigation was thorough without it. “I don’t think it undermines in any way the conclusions of the report,” he said. Those were his exact words. So were these, after interrogating Brady for more than five hours: “Totally cooperative,” Wells said of Brady’s testimony.
Yet somehow Goodell found Brady guilty of lack of cooperation and willful destruction of evidence on appeal, all because he upgraded to an iPhone 6?
They didn't ask Brady for the phone, they asked him for any texts and emails on his phone related to the inquiry. Brady didn't provide that information, and destroyed his phone so that information would be irretrievable.
Not true. They had the phones of all non nflpa patriots employees who would have been on the receiving end of those texts and emails. Unfortunately for the nfl none existed
They had some phones, which may or may not be all the phones Brady texted, and may or may not have deleted some of the texts.
In any case, they asked Brady to provide them with some texts and emails from his phone. Not only did he not comply with the request, he destroyed his phone and the texts and emails on it.
And? Even IF all that's true... AND?
I don't know in what world you guys think it's OK for the NFL to have access to any private information a player has on their cell-phone/emails.
It's really ridiculous, and if for you that's sign of guilt so be it... but you've been taken by the NFL Irrelevant Propaganda and it's sad to see.
And to clarify something I read previously in this thread about social media passwords... it's illegal for employers to request that from their employee, just a little tangent on that (last I recalled).
If Brady didn't want to give up his cell-phone (which the investigator said wasn't needed), his texts (which we don't know what was provided or not), his emails, all the while found by the investigator to be cooperative... whether guilty or not of an event that hasn't been proved to have occurred in the first place, I don't know what the big deal is... other than optics.
I don't know enough about the nfl's cba to know whether or not the league has any right to ask players for information or to punish them if they fail to comply with investigations. Apparently the league feels that it had those rights. We'll soon find out if the courts agree.
I also don't think that it's universally true that it's illegal for employers to ask employees for social media passwords, more likely illegal in some states.
-
Months and months into this thing, I believe it is clear that the NFL has accomplished their main goal. No one is talking about NFL players that beat women or have long term brain damage from concussions anymore.
Great point. Sad, but true.
-
See item 3 below and the underlined sentence in particular. Peter King says NFL execs are not as united on this as their public utterings make it seem. No surprise really, but the primary media outlet for sports cannot ask simple questions like King did to come up with a more nuanced picture.
I am sick of the way that ESPN has been the mouthpiece for the NFL on this. ESPN knew the initial piece was BS when the Wells Report itself discredited it. They did not have to wait for permission to retract the story. There’s been too much overlooking of the obvious here and too much of having clowns like Bill Polian, Mark Brunell et al, and too much one-sided reporting. They have their noses so far up the NFL’s behind in the hopes of getting more games, that any pretense of journalistic integrity has been exposed.
http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2015/08/02/nfl-training-camp-bruce-dehaven-cancer-carolina-panthers
Brady vs. Goodell, still.
The affirmation of Tom Brady’s four-game suspension by the NFL leaves these issues in the wake:
1. Both sides want a resolution by opening day. With the presiding judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Richard Berman, ordering that Brady and commissioner Roger Goodell be available to appear at pre-trial conferences in New York on Aug. 12 and 19, it’s clear that he, and both sides, will push to resolve this by the Sept. 10 league opener. Berman asked the attorneys to push for a resolution before Aug. 12, but both Goodell and attorneys for Brady feel their cases are solid, so don’t look for any concessions in the next nine days.
2. Good for the Patriots, publishing some emails to the league last winter, asking the league to clamp down on the leaks to ESPN (at least one patently false) and getting nothing in return. I find it alarming that the league has never acknowledged that the letter informing the Patriots of the official investigation the day after the AFC title game had a major fact error that was never corrected. The letter from NFL vice president David Gardi said that one of the Patriots’ footballs examined by the league at halftime of the game “was inflated to 10.1 psi, far below the requirement of 12-1/2 to 13-1?2 psi. In contrast, each of the Colts’ game balls that was inspected met the requirements set forth above.” Huge errors. The Ted Wells Report confirmed that no football measured as low as 10.1 of the Patriots’ balls. Gardi said the Colts’ balls measured within the range required. The Wells Reports said three of them were under the minimum of 12.5 psi. Never corrected. Why? Similarly, when ESPN reported that 10 New England balls were at least two pounds under the limit measured at halftime, the league never corrected that error. What is most damaging about this is that these impressions were left as facts, particularly the ESPN claim, for a long period, allowing the public to be convinced the Patriots were guilty. Maybe that will turn out to be true, but this evidence wasn’t factual.
3. I can tell you that smart and influential executives are fed up with this story—fed up that it has bled into the 2015 season, and fed up that the league bungled some of the very basic elements, such as the Gardi letter. I’ve asked a few high-ranking team people in the past few days an open-ended question, with the proviso I wouldn’t use names. The clear sentiment: Teams think league officials are running scared after the Ray Rice verdict backfired on the NFL. Two thought it was ridiculous how long the Wells report took to finish, one saying if the league is going to hire an outside firm to investigate a case, there has to be a deadline. “Why are we fighting this fight now?” one top team executive said. “We should be getting ready for a new season, but we’ve got our biggest star firing bombs at the league and the league firing back, a month before the season starts. It’s ridiculous. The headlines aren’t football. They’re about a scandal that’s eight months old.” (Not quite eight, but you get the picture.)
4. It would behoove the NFL, as much as Brady, to get this matter over now. There is a nuclear-winter scenario. I’ve mentioned it before. But follow me here. The NFL has laid out a plan to spot-check footballs during the course of the season. What happens if, say, the footballs in a northern city on a day when it’s 40 degrees outside lose 1.0 to 1.5 psi between the pre-game measurement and the halftime measurement? (Which, apparently, science would support.) That’s nearly what happened to the Patriots’ football that January day in Foxboro. If the NFL’s examination of footballs in 2015 shows that kind of deflation, naturally, the whole case should be thrown out. But by then, Brady might have already served his four games. This would be the ultimate nightmare for the league, and for Goodell. Of course, if the balls don’t deflate much at all, the league will be able to say it had it right.
5. I don’t know who will prevail in this case, but the NFL has some major, major holes here. Any judge looking at the evidence is going to be suspicious of the circumstantial evidence around Brady. But there’s a good chance he’d be as suspicious of the things the NFL took as fact here. This is important: Officials used two gauges at halftime of the AFC Championship Game to measure air pressure in 11 New England footballs and four Indianapolis footballs. On page 113 of the Wells report, Wells says that the Patriots footballs would have been justified to have measured between 11.32 psi and 11.52 psi at halftime. The average of one gauge for the 11 balls was 11.49 psi, on the upper range of what the balls should have measured. The average of the other gauge was 11.11 psi, clearly lower than what the balls should have measured. Average all 22 readings, and you get 11.30 … two-one-hundredths lower than what the Ideal Gas Law would have allowed for balls that started the day at 12.5 psi. It is crazy to me, and just wrong, that the NFL issued a historic sanction when the inflation level of the football is so close to what science says it should be.
-
I am sick of the way that ESPN has been the mouthpiece for the NFL on this. ESPN knew the initial piece was BS when the Wells Report itself discredited it. They did not have to wait for permission to retract the story. There’s been too much overlooking of the obvious here and too much of having clowns like Bill Polian, Mark Brunell et al, and too much one-sided reporting. They have their noses so far up the NFL’s behind in the hopes of getting more games, that any pretense of journalistic integrity has been exposed.
That you say this and then cite a Peter King article is golden. There is literally no bigger NFL brown noser in the industry than Peter King.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/the-nfls-basic-due-process-is-the-real-issue-in-the-deflategate-controversy/2015/07/30/ebda3b02-3666-11e5-9d0f-7865a67390ee_story.html
About that exploding cellphone. You know, the one NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell seems to think belonged to Machine Gun Kelly and was used in the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby, as well as the Krupp diamond theft. The one that Ted Wells said he didn’t want or need to complete his investigation into DeflateGate. The one the NFL’s own investigator said wasn’t necessary to the case.
That one.
Wells never asked for Tom Brady’s cellphone and didn’t require it. “Keep the phone,” Wells told Brady and his agent. He insisted his investigation was thorough without it. “I don’t think it undermines in any way the conclusions of the report,” he said. Those were his exact words. So were these, after interrogating Brady for more than five hours: “Totally cooperative,” Wells said of Brady’s testimony.
Yet somehow Goodell found Brady guilty of lack of cooperation and willful destruction of evidence on appeal, all because he upgraded to an iPhone 6?
They didn't ask Brady for the phone, they asked him for any texts and emails on his phone related to the inquiry. Brady didn't provide that information, and destroyed his phone so that information would be irretrievable.
Not true. They had the phones of all non nflpa patriots employees who would have been on the receiving end of those texts and emails. Unfortunately for the nfl none existed
They had some phones, which may or may not be all the phones Brady texted, and may or may not have deleted some of the texts.
In any case, they asked Brady to provide them with some texts and emails from his phone. Not only did he not comply with the request, he destroyed his phone and the texts and emails on it.
And? Even IF all that's true... AND?
I don't know in what world you guys think it's OK for the NFL to have access to any private information a player has on their cell-phone/emails.
It's really ridiculous, and if for you that's sign of guilt so be it... but you've been taken by the NFL Irrelevant Propaganda and it's sad to see.
And to clarify something I read previously in this thread about social media passwords... it's illegal for employers to request that from their employee, just a little tangent on that (last I recalled).
If Brady didn't want to give up his cell-phone (which the investigator said wasn't needed), his texts (which we don't know what was provided or not), his emails, all the while found by the investigator to be cooperative... whether guilty or not of an event that hasn't been proved to have occurred in the first place, I don't know what the big deal is... other than optics.
I don't know enough about the nfl's cba to know whether or not the league has any right to ask players for information or to punish them if they fail to comply with investigations. Apparently the league feels that it had those rights. We'll soon find out if the courts agree.
I also don't think that it's universally true that it's illegal for employers to ask employees for social media passwords, more likely illegal in some states.
Unless there's something hidden I haven't seen, all I've read around is that at most lack of cooperation/equipment tampering (at least for a 1st time offender) it's punishable by a fine.
That's why the NFL used some general catch-all "All of this indisputably constitutes conduct detrimental to the integrity of, and public confidence in, the game of professional football" because apparently Tom Brady "willfully OBSTRUCTED" the investigation because, you know, he valued his privacy.
And I point out, as I've read, Wells claims that Brady was cooperative... so there's that.
-
I am sick of the way that ESPN has been the mouthpiece for the NFL on this. ESPN knew the initial piece was BS when the Wells Report itself discredited it. They did not have to wait for permission to retract the story. There’s been too much overlooking of the obvious here and too much of having clowns like Bill Polian, Mark Brunell et al, and too much one-sided reporting. They have their noses so far up the NFL’s behind in the hopes of getting more games, that any pretense of journalistic integrity has been exposed.
That you say this and then cite a Peter King article is golden. There is literally no bigger NFL brown noser in the industry than Peter King.
The article speaks for itself. Is it fawning?
-
I am sick of the way that ESPN has been the mouthpiece for the NFL on this. ESPN knew the initial piece was BS when the Wells Report itself discredited it. They did not have to wait for permission to retract the story. There’s been too much overlooking of the obvious here and too much of having clowns like Bill Polian, Mark Brunell et al, and too much one-sided reporting. They have their noses so far up the NFL’s behind in the hopes of getting more games, that any pretense of journalistic integrity has been exposed.
That you say this and then cite a Peter King article is golden. There is literally no bigger NFL brown noser in the industry than Peter King.
The article speaks for itself. Is it fawning?
No, and in this case I think the article is marginally valuable -- insofar as any peter King article has value, it's in the fact that you can always find out what the NFL thinks of the NFL by reading his column on Monday -- but the idea of King being painted in opposition to ESPN is hilarious to me, that's all.
I thought Tim Marchman did a really good job of explaining it here:
http://deadspin.com/peter-king-is-a-****n-embarrassment-1665259136
(http://In the second item in the column, King lays out five thoughts and thought-like objects inspired by former federal judge Barbara Jones's recent determination that the NFL overstepped its authority in dropping Ray Rice into a black hole. The first four are unobjectionable. The fifth is this:
I quoted a source in July as saying Janay Rice made a moving case for leniency for Ray Rice during the June 16 meeting. My source was incorrect. According to Judge Jones' report, Janay Rice was asked only one question during the hearing—how she felt—and she cried and said, "I'm just ready for it to be over." I regret the error, and should have vetted the story further before publishing the account of one source.
The reference is, apparently, to this column, in which Janay Rice's "moving case for leniency" is presented as the single most important reason why Roger Goodell suspended Ray Rice for only two games for knocking his wife out in a hotel elevator. It's presented there not just in broad terms, but in concrete, detailed ones:
Rice's wife, a source said, made a moving and apparently convincing case to Goodell during a June 16 hearing at Goodell's office in Manhattan—attended by Rice, GM Ozzie Newsome, club president Dick Cass of Baltimore; and Goodell, Jeff Pash and Adolpho Birch of the league—that the incident in the hotel elevator was a one-time event, and nothing physical had happened in their relationship before or since. She urged Goodell, the source said, to not ruin Rice's image and career with his sanctions.)
This didn't actually happen, though! In her own account of things, in an ESPN as-told-to over which she retained editorial control, Janay Rice is clear on exactly what did:
I really didn't think they would ask me any questions, but I was asked one. I was surprised I was asked anything at all. One of the NFL executives asked me how I felt about everything. And I broke down in tears. I could hardly get a word out. I just told him that I was ready for this to be over.
There is no way to reconcile this with what King's source described over the summer. And as with a previous King correction involving an element of the Rice case, the journalistic error he's admitting to here is so basic as to be literally unbelievable.
The most generous version of what happened here would involve King getting caught up in a game of telephone, with some lower-level NFL minion's distorted version of what happened in the meeting between the Rices and league and team brass ending up in King's column. This would show King as being willing to run a key detail related by some random flunky without checking it in any way with the principals, who aren't exactly strangers to King. It would paint him as a complete incompetent, and a moron.
It's much more likely, of course, that someone who was in the room—one of the three NFL officials or two Baltimore Ravens officials King places there—lied to him. What he published, after all, wasn't an incorrect version of what actually happened, but something that never happened at all. And it had a very clear beneficiary, allowing Roger Goodell to be seen not as issuing a punishment that showed the NFL doesn't care about domestic violence, but as showing deference to the wishes of a victim.
King, in this version of events, was used as the instrument of a smear campaign, almost certainly by either the league's commissioner, its general counsel, or its senior vice president in charge of labor policy. That's a big story! A serious reporter, you'd think, would want to expose the powerful people who used his column against Janay Rice. Even allowing a more generous interpretation, you'd think anyone with any curiosity at all would want to know how exactly Janay Rice telling NFL higher-ups she just wanted it all to be over morphed into her pleading for mercy on her husband's behalf.
Ah language in the URL. Point being, this is funny to me because of who Peter King is and what his relationship to the NFL is.
-
Months and months into this thing, I believe it is clear that the NFL has accomplished their main goal. No one is talking about NFL players that beat women or have long term brain damage from concussions anymore.
Yep. Goodell was smart to make a big deal about going after the most polarizing team in the league. Even when he inevitably acts like a buffoon, contradicts himself, abuses his position, makes the NFL look like a joke, and so on, there are still tons of fans willing to overlook all that because they hate the Patriots and are just so excited to see them branded as cheaters and get punished severely.
That's why it's gonna be extra awesome when the Pats win the Super Bowl again this season.
TP for the optimism
You just KNOW they're ready
-
Honestly, I don't care what the Pats do for the rest of Brady's tenure. I'd like to see them continue to dominate the division and stay relevant in the playoffs, but this Super Bowl was the cherry on top for me. The legacy is solidified. Brady and Bill needed that final title to sow together the two ends of their run.
Now they can just see how long they can keep their string of competitive seasons together going, but it's all gravy regardless.
That said, the suspension bugs me because we only get to see Brady playing for a few more seasons at most -- and who knows how much of that time will be spent in a Patriots uniform. Four games is a large chunk of Brady's remaining career to miss out on. Once Brady's gone, we're going to really miss having that superstar QB running the offense. Who knows how long the Pats will spend finding a long term replacement.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/the-nfls-basic-due-process-is-the-real-issue-in-the-deflategate-controversy/2015/07/30/ebda3b02-3666-11e5-9d0f-7865a67390ee_story.html
About that exploding cellphone. You know, the one NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell seems to think belonged to Machine Gun Kelly and was used in the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby, as well as the Krupp diamond theft. The one that Ted Wells said he didn’t want or need to complete his investigation into DeflateGate. The one the NFL’s own investigator said wasn’t necessary to the case.
That one.
Wells never asked for Tom Brady’s cellphone and didn’t require it. “Keep the phone,” Wells told Brady and his agent. He insisted his investigation was thorough without it. “I don’t think it undermines in any way the conclusions of the report,” he said. Those were his exact words. So were these, after interrogating Brady for more than five hours: “Totally cooperative,” Wells said of Brady’s testimony.
Yet somehow Goodell found Brady guilty of lack of cooperation and willful destruction of evidence on appeal, all because he upgraded to an iPhone 6?
They didn't ask Brady for the phone, they asked him for any texts and emails on his phone related to the inquiry. Brady didn't provide that information, and destroyed his phone so that information would be irretrievable.
Not true. They had the phones of all non nflpa patriots employees who would have been on the receiving end of those texts and emails. Unfortunately for the nfl none existed
They had some phones, which may or may not be all the phones Brady texted, and may or may not have deleted some of the texts.
In any case, they asked Brady to provide them with some texts and emails from his phone. Not only did he not comply with the request, he destroyed his phone and the texts and emails on it.
And? Even IF all that's true... AND?
I don't know in what world you guys think it's OK for the NFL to have access to any private information a player has on their cell-phone/emails.
It's really ridiculous, and if for you that's sign of guilt so be it... but you've been taken by the NFL Irrelevant Propaganda and it's sad to see.
And to clarify something I read previously in this thread about social media passwords... it's illegal for employers to request that from their employee, just a little tangent on that (last I recalled).
If Brady didn't want to give up his cell-phone (which the investigator said wasn't needed), his texts (which we don't know what was provided or not), his emails, all the while found by the investigator to be cooperative... whether guilty or not of an event that hasn't been proved to have occurred in the first place, I don't know what the big deal is... other than optics.
I don't know enough about the nfl's cba to know whether or not the league has any right to ask players for information or to punish them if they fail to comply with investigations. Apparently the league feels that it had those rights. We'll soon find out if the courts agree.
I also don't think that it's universally true that it's illegal for employers to ask employees for social media passwords, more likely illegal in some states.
See the underlined sentences below. I don't think it's a settled matter in law and have read stuff on both sides, but in this case, it's tough for the NFL to justify saying Brady was obligated under the CBA to hand over his phone when you admit that you have no specific right to do force him to do so and there was no precedent. Given the long and sometimes contentious relationship between the union and the NFL, precedent and lack of a specific right seems to weigh in favor of Brady.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/cellphone-privacy-workplace-nfl-superstar-tom-brady-105215323.html
In Goodell’s 20-page statement on the Brady matter, Goodell said that “neither the NFL or any NFL member club has subpoena power or other means to compel production of relevant materials or testimony.”
However, Goodell also said that under the collective bargaining agreement between the NFL and the player’s union, the NFL can consider the extent of cooperation of league or club employees during a workplace investigation in evaluating sanctions.
Goodell cited Article 46 of the collective bargaining agreement as granting the commissioner the power to discipline players for conduct “detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in the game of professional football.”
The commissioner’s conclusion was that the case evidence “fully” supported that Brady played part in a plan to alter the game balls and that Brady obstructed the investigation by having one of his cellphones destroyed.
The immediate response from Brady and the union was that the commissioner was mistaken.
On his Facebook page, Brady made the case that NFL version of the cellphone destruction was problematic.
“I replaced my broken Samsung phone with a new iPhone 6 AFTER my attorneys made it clear to the NFL that my actual phone device would not be subjected to investigation under ANY circumstances. As a member of a union, I was under no obligation to set a new precedent going forward, nor was I made aware at any time during Mr. Wells investigation, that failing to subject my cell phone to investigation would result in ANY discipline,” Brady wrote.
“I respect the Commissioners authority, but he also has to respect the CBA and my rights as a private citizen,” he said.
Lawyer Jeffrey Kessler for the player’s union made an equally strong statement on Wednesday. “It’s just grasping at straws to try to divert attention from their complete lack of evidence or legal process to justify what’s happened here,” he told USA Today.
-
I am sick of the way that ESPN has been the mouthpiece for the NFL on this. ESPN knew the initial piece was BS when the Wells Report itself discredited it. They did not have to wait for permission to retract the story. There’s been too much overlooking of the obvious here and too much of having clowns like Bill Polian, Mark Brunell et al, and too much one-sided reporting. They have their noses so far up the NFL’s behind in the hopes of getting more games, that any pretense of journalistic integrity has been exposed.
That you say this and then cite a Peter King article is golden. There is literally no bigger NFL brown noser in the industry than Peter King.
The article speaks for itself. Is it fawning?
No, and in this case I think the article is marginally valuable -- insofar as any peter King article has value, it's in the fact that you can always find out what the NFL thinks of the NFL by reading his column on Monday -- but the idea of King being painted in opposition to ESPN is hilarious to me, that's all.
I thought Tim Marchman did a really good job of explaining it here:
http://deadspin.com/peter-king-is-a-****n-embarrassment-1665259136
(http://In the second item in the column, King lays out five thoughts and thought-like objects inspired by former federal judge Barbara Jones's recent determination that the NFL overstepped its authority in dropping Ray Rice into a black hole. The first four are unobjectionable. The fifth is this:
I quoted a source in July as saying Janay Rice made a moving case for leniency for Ray Rice during the June 16 meeting. My source was incorrect. According to Judge Jones' report, Janay Rice was asked only one question during the hearing—how she felt—and she cried and said, "I'm just ready for it to be over." I regret the error, and should have vetted the story further before publishing the account of one source.
The reference is, apparently, to this column, in which Janay Rice's "moving case for leniency" is presented as the single most important reason why Roger Goodell suspended Ray Rice for only two games for knocking his wife out in a hotel elevator. It's presented there not just in broad terms, but in concrete, detailed ones:
Rice's wife, a source said, made a moving and apparently convincing case to Goodell during a June 16 hearing at Goodell's office in Manhattan—attended by Rice, GM Ozzie Newsome, club president Dick Cass of Baltimore; and Goodell, Jeff Pash and Adolpho Birch of the league—that the incident in the hotel elevator was a one-time event, and nothing physical had happened in their relationship before or since. She urged Goodell, the source said, to not ruin Rice's image and career with his sanctions.)
This didn't actually happen, though! In her own account of things, in an ESPN as-told-to over which she retained editorial control, Janay Rice is clear on exactly what did:
I really didn't think they would ask me any questions, but I was asked one. I was surprised I was asked anything at all. One of the NFL executives asked me how I felt about everything. And I broke down in tears. I could hardly get a word out. I just told him that I was ready for this to be over.
There is no way to reconcile this with what King's source described over the summer. And as with a previous King correction involving an element of the Rice case, the journalistic error he's admitting to here is so basic as to be literally unbelievable.
The most generous version of what happened here would involve King getting caught up in a game of telephone, with some lower-level NFL minion's distorted version of what happened in the meeting between the Rices and league and team brass ending up in King's column. This would show King as being willing to run a key detail related by some random flunky without checking it in any way with the principals, who aren't exactly strangers to King. It would paint him as a complete incompetent, and a moron.
It's much more likely, of course, that someone who was in the room—one of the three NFL officials or two Baltimore Ravens officials King places there—lied to him. What he published, after all, wasn't an incorrect version of what actually happened, but something that never happened at all. And it had a very clear beneficiary, allowing Roger Goodell to be seen not as issuing a punishment that showed the NFL doesn't care about domestic violence, but as showing deference to the wishes of a victim.
King, in this version of events, was used as the instrument of a smear campaign, almost certainly by either the league's commissioner, its general counsel, or its senior vice president in charge of labor policy. That's a big story! A serious reporter, you'd think, would want to expose the powerful people who used his column against Janay Rice. Even allowing a more generous interpretation, you'd think anyone with any curiosity at all would want to know how exactly Janay Rice telling NFL higher-ups she just wanted it all to be over morphed into her pleading for mercy on her husband's behalf.
Ah language in the URL. Point being, this is funny to me because of who Peter King is and what his relationship to the NFL is.
What have you seen from ESPN calling into question the NFL's case?
-
Nothing. What does that have to do with my own amusement at the scenario presented?
The point being that neither ESPN nor Peter King are going to be overly critical of the NFL because the NFL is a central part of the success of ESPN and Peter King. This is why it's funny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xECUrlnXCqk
-
Nothing. What does that have to do with my own amusement at the scenario presented?
The point being that neither ESPN nor Peter King are going to be overly critical of the NFL because the NFL is a central part of the success of ESPN and Peter King. This is why it's funny.
I don't disagree with the idea that anyone in sports media is not going to be overly critical of their sources in the sport they mainly cover. That being said, there's plenty of people in media saying the NFL has screwed up, including King in this article. There's virtually nothing coming from ESPN in that regard.
-
Very true, and certainly a valid thing to bring up -- I think it already has in a roundabout way as Olbermann and Simmons's respective dismissals have come up in the thread.
-
No kidding. Having trouble defending it too. In fairness it's his editorial supervisors at ESPN who should be pulling the piece.
http://blog.masslive.com/patriots/2015/08/chris_mortensen_deflategate_pa.html#incart_m-rpt-1
-
Coming attractions: Breakdown of the Brady/NFLPA brief to the 2nd circuit.
-
Honestly, I don't care what the Pats do for the rest of Brady's tenure. I'd like to see them continue to dominate the division and stay relevant in the playoffs, but this Super Bowl was the cherry on top for me. The legacy is solidified. Brady and Bill needed that final title to sow together the two ends of their run.
Now they can just see how long they can keep their string of competitive seasons together going, but it's all gravy regardless.
Totally agree. It's all gravy at this point. "This point" being that Brady and BB have firmly established themselves in the upper most echelons of the NFL.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/the-nfls-basic-due-process-is-the-real-issue-in-the-deflategate-controversy/2015/07/30/ebda3b02-3666-11e5-9d0f-7865a67390ee_story.html
About that exploding cellphone. You know, the one NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell seems to think belonged to Machine Gun Kelly and was used in the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby, as well as the Krupp diamond theft. The one that Ted Wells said he didn’t want or need to complete his investigation into DeflateGate. The one the NFL’s own investigator said wasn’t necessary to the case.
That one.
Wells never asked for Tom Brady’s cellphone and didn’t require it. “Keep the phone,” Wells told Brady and his agent. He insisted his investigation was thorough without it. “I don’t think it undermines in any way the conclusions of the report,” he said. Those were his exact words. So were these, after interrogating Brady for more than five hours: “Totally cooperative,” Wells said of Brady’s testimony.
Yet somehow Goodell found Brady guilty of lack of cooperation and willful destruction of evidence on appeal, all because he upgraded to an iPhone 6?
They didn't ask Brady for the phone, they asked him for any texts and emails on his phone related to the inquiry. Brady didn't provide that information, and destroyed his phone so that information would be irretrievable.
Not true. They had the phones of all non nflpa patriots employees who would have been on the receiving end of those texts and emails. Unfortunately for the nfl none existed
They had some phones, which may or may not be all the phones Brady texted, and may or may not have deleted some of the texts.
In any case, they asked Brady to provide them with some texts and emails from his phone. Not only did he not comply with the request, he destroyed his phone and the texts and emails on it.
And? Even IF all that's true... AND?
I don't know in what world you guys think it's OK for the NFL to have access to any private information a player has on their cell-phone/emails.
It's really ridiculous, and if for you that's sign of guilt so be it... but you've been taken by the NFL Irrelevant Propaganda and it's sad to see.
And to clarify something I read previously in this thread about social media passwords... it's illegal for employers to request that from their employee, just a little tangent on that (last I recalled).
If Brady didn't want to give up his cell-phone (which the investigator said wasn't needed), his texts (which we don't know what was provided or not), his emails, all the while found by the investigator to be cooperative... whether guilty or not of an event that hasn't been proved to have occurred in the first place, I don't know what the big deal is... other than optics.
I don't know enough about the nfl's cba to know whether or not the league has any right to ask players for information or to punish them if they fail to comply with investigations. Apparently the league feels that it had those rights. We'll soon find out if the courts agree.
I also don't think that it's universally true that it's illegal for employers to ask employees for social media passwords, more likely illegal in some states.
See the underlined sentences below. I don't think it's a settled matter in law and have read stuff on both sides, but in this case, it's tough for the NFL to justify saying Brady was obligated under the CBA to hand over his phone when you admit that you have no specific right to do force him to do so and there was no precedent. Given the long and sometimes contentious relationship between the union and the NFL, precedent and lack of a specific right seems to weigh in favor of Brady.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/cellphone-privacy-workplace-nfl-superstar-tom-brady-105215323.html
In Goodell’s 20-page statement on the Brady matter, Goodell said that “neither the NFL or any NFL member club has subpoena power or other means to compel production of relevant materials or testimony.”
However, Goodell also said that under the collective bargaining agreement between the NFL and the player’s union, the NFL can consider the extent of cooperation of league or club employees during a workplace investigation in evaluating sanctions.
Right, so while the league obviously can't legally compel Brady to cooperate with them, they feel like they can punish him if he doesn't cooperate with them.
By the way, I'd guess everyone else is aware of this, but while looking for that part of the document, I came across the Brady/Jastremski stuff. After apparently not communicating much (if at all) from October through the afc championship game, Brady spoke to Jastremski 8 times on the phone for a total of almost an hour in the three days following the afc title game, texted him 15 times and met with him in person. When asked about all the communications, Brady couldn't recall any specifics from the conversations and claimed they were mainly about ball preparation for the super bowl.
It's hard to come to any conclusion other than Brady being uncooperative and less than forthright in his answers after reading that.
-
http://sports-law.blogspot.com/2015/08/synopsis-of-brady-and-nflpa-legal.html
Monday, August 03, 2015
Synopsis of Brady and NFLPA Legal Arguments
On Friday, Tom Brady and the NFLPA filed an Answer and Counterclaim in the New York federal court action initiated by the NFL to "confirm" the arbitration award rendered by Commissioner Goodell, which upheld Brady's four-game suspension arising out of Deflategate. This 54-page document lays out the NFLPA's legal arguments as to why Goodell's ruling should not be "confirmed" and, specifically, why it should be "vacated." It's a great piece of writing by Jeffrey Kessler and his team, and I believe it makes a compelling case to vacate Goodell's ruling, especially on the "no-notice" grounds, which have (in my view) constitutional dimensions similar to the Adrian Peterson and Ray Rice cases.
If you don't have access to PACER or just simply do not feel like slogging through a 54-page document, I have outlined the arguments raised by Brady and the NFLPA in their Answer and Counterclaim (which is the "mirror image" of their petition to vacate filed in Minnesota). I've basically streamlined their document into a much shorter outline, with some of my own thoughts mixed in (particularly those which relate to what I see as "constitutional-level" violations, as well as a discussion of the standard of review).
Link to the 11 page outline
http://www.bplegal.com/webfiles/CLIFF%20NOTES%20VERSION_8_03_15_v5.pdf
====
My collapsing of the Sports Law Blog outline covering the main lines of attack:
A. LACK OF NOTICE A longstanding jurisprudence of NFL arbitrations provides that NFL players may not be subject to discipline without advance notice of what conduct might result in such discipline, and what the disciplinary consequences might be.
[IOW, you cannot create a policy and a violation after the fact.]
B. LACK OF “FAIR AND CONSISTENT” DISCIPLINE A long line of CBA precedents holds that discipline under Article 46 must be “fair and consistent.” Where the imposition of discipline is not fair or consistent, an abuse of discretion has occurred and the discipline must be overturned.
[In this section they argue that you cannot rely on the football testing because of all types of problems, which were admitted explicitly and implicitly by the NFL in its subsequent actions.]
C. FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR PROCESS Courts may vacate an arbitration award under Section 1 the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) where, inter alia, “the Arbitrators were guilty of [any] misconduct . . . by which the rights of ant party have been prejudiced, thereby amount[ing] to a denial of [a party’s right to] fundamental fairness of the arbitration proceeding.”
[Except: “For example, prior to the hearing, Goodell had ruled that Brady and the Union could not question essential witnesses, denied them access to the investigative files underlying the Wells Report (which were nonetheless available to the NFL’s counsel at the arbitration), and summarily rejected Brady’s unlawful delegation argument without considering any evidence (other than “facts” decreed by Goodell himself in his decision)”.]
D. GOODELL WAS AN “EVIDENTLY PARTIAL” ARBITRATOR Federal courts also have authority to vacate an arbitration award if the arbitrator exhibited “evident partiality.”
To vacate an arbitration award on this basis in the Second Circuit, the challenging party has the burden of showing that “a reasonable person would have to conclude that an arbitrator was partial to one party to the arbitration."
[Excerpt: "Prior to serving as hearing officer, Goodell publicly lauded the Wells Report—the issue at the very heart of the appeal. By doing so, he made it impossible to serve as arbitrator in any proceeding challenging the conclusions of the Wells Report. And, unsurprisingly, his eventual Award declared the Wells Report unassailable in every respect."]
====
IMO, Kessler could have done a better with item D, but I’m making that assessment without access to the actual filing. I do not see how Kessler does not mention that Goodell’s subordinates were actively involved with the ”investigative process”. The other sections seem strong, but while I have a decent background in constitutional, contract, franchise, and labor law by education and business experience, I’m not a lawyer, never mind one who deals with these issues in the 2nd Circuit.
-
After apparently not communicating much (if at all) from October through the afc championship game, Brady spoke to Jastremski 8 times on the phone for a total of almost an hour in the three days following the afc title game, texted him 15 times and met with him in person. When asked about all the communications, Brady couldn't recall any specifics from the conversations and claimed they were mainly about ball preparation for the super bowl.
It's hard to come to any conclusion other than Brady being uncooperative and less than forthright in his answers after reading that.
Well, Walt Anderson thought he used the logo gauge, but it was hard to come to any conclusion other than he "may have misremembered". Welcome to the land of "independent" NFL investigations.
-
http://blog.masslive.com/patriots/2015/08/chris_mortensen_deflategate_pa.html
I'm getting ready to go to Arizona for the Pro Bowl and Super Bowl, which we happen to have on ESPN, and all I can tell you is my inquiry was focused just like this with somebody on the night I was looking forward to leaving the next morning to get out of the winter and into the sun. (The inquiry) was, 'How many footballs are we talking about here? Three or four?' And what came back to me was 11. And that was a significant number. That was my focus. Because quite frankly, I didn't even know what the PSI regulations were at that time, but when I heard 11 footballs were under inflated, then I got on the phone and talked to three different people and one of them said...11 footballs was consistently verified, as it was in the Wells Report, by the way. The PSI level, one of my sources said 'two pounds under.' And another said 'significantly under inflated.' I used both those terms. Two pounds under and significantly under inflated. Who those sources are will forever remain in my confidence."
You cannot touch it. The reason why you create trust with sources is you don’t even go there. And it could be very unfair to the person identified by somebody as a source. And by the way, we have sources. It’s not a single source at the time. What you do is you have to keep your distance. That’s how you keep your credibility with your sources anyway just to maintain that level of trust. You’re never going to bend in terms of identifying them.
"I already had changed the descriptive tone. And I did with our news desk, pretty early, to 'significantly underinflated.' And I will never retract that. The two pounds PSI, that was obviously an error and clarified and corrected. If you want to call it a retraction...what I didn't do was retract it on Twitter. And that was probably technically a mistake."
Listen, one of the sources I did not feel betrayed by I think I've got a pretty good understanding of what happened. I feel like I probably could have done a better job of vetting, but I didn't have access to that person for that long a period, but I did on a couple of others. For me, it's a matter of, 'When you say two pounds under, what are you talking about? Are you generalizing a range of two pounds under?' And oh by the way, in the NFL letter of notification to the Patriots, when they notify them 'Hey we're looking into this,' Dave Gardi, who is part of the football operations for the NFL, said one ball was as low as 10.1 PSI. Turns out there was no ball 10.1 PSI. And so therefore, I think there was some inaccurate data at the time that was passed on to me, but I also talked to other sources who verified the number that I was focused on. The number of footballs. Eleven was a significant number, and 'significantly underinflated' was a significant description. And so therefore do I feel betrayed? No. And by the way, this whole concept of being deliberately lied to, that means somebody called me up. When anybody calls me up and volunteers significant information, I always get suspicious of motive. That's a red flag right there. As I said you go through that process and you review your own work. And I've done that. An
Nobody from the NFL ever identified Brady as being the target of an investigation in that first week we're talking about, within three days of the game. Brady's never mentioned. The Patriots are never mentioned. And the Wells investigation was not launched because of my reporting. There's no evidence of that. I've checked on that. So therefore it's hard to feel I was used. And Ted Wells himself in a conference call said, 'It's ludicrous to think that the league would want to smear its face of the league in Tom Brady with this type of campaign.' To me, it's an insult a little bit to the intelligence. But I do know the Patriots believe that, by the way. That is their belief, and therefore obviously their fanbase believes that, too...
Sometimes, as time passes on, the narrative—that's the popular word—that everything changes where people think, like I say, I never even identified Brady. I never had NFL sources say Brady was the target."
fwiw.
-
http://blog.masslive.com/patriots/2015/08/chris_mortensen_deflategate_pa.html
I'm getting ready to go to Arizona for the Pro Bowl and Super Bowl, which we happen to have on ESPN, and all I can tell you is my inquiry was focused just like this with somebody on the night I was looking forward to leaving the next morning to get out of the winter and into the sun. (The inquiry) was, 'How many footballs are we talking about here? Three or four?' And what came back to me was 11. And that was a significant number. That was my focus. Because quite frankly, I didn't even know what the PSI regulations were at that time, but when I heard 11 footballs were under inflated, then I got on the phone and talked to three different people and one of them said...11 footballs was consistently verified, as it was in the Wells Report, by the way. The PSI level, one of my sources said 'two pounds under.' And another said 'significantly under inflated.' I used both those terms. Two pounds under and significantly under inflated. Who those sources are will forever remain in my confidence."
You cannot touch it. The reason why you create trust with sources is you don’t even go there. And it could be very unfair to the person identified by somebody as a source. And by the way, we have sources. It’s not a single source at the time. What you do is you have to keep your distance. That’s how you keep your credibility with your sources anyway just to maintain that level of trust. You’re never going to bend in terms of identifying them.
"I already had changed the descriptive tone. And I did with our news desk, pretty early, to 'significantly underinflated.' And I will never retract that. The two pounds PSI, that was obviously an error and clarified and corrected. If you want to call it a retraction...what I didn't do was retract it on Twitter. And that was probably technically a mistake."
Listen, one of the sources I did not feel betrayed by I think I've got a pretty good understanding of what happened. I feel like I probably could have done a better job of vetting, but I didn't have access to that person for that long a period, but I did on a couple of others. For me, it's a matter of, 'When you say two pounds under, what are you talking about? Are you generalizing a range of two pounds under?' And oh by the way, in the NFL letter of notification to the Patriots, when they notify them 'Hey we're looking into this,' Dave Gardi, who is part of the football operations for the NFL, said one ball was as low as 10.1 PSI. Turns out there was no ball 10.1 PSI. And so therefore, I think there was some inaccurate data at the time that was passed on to me, but I also talked to other sources who verified the number that I was focused on. The number of footballs. Eleven was a significant number, and 'significantly underinflated' was a significant description. And so therefore do I feel betrayed? No. And by the way, this whole concept of being deliberately lied to, that means somebody called me up. When anybody calls me up and volunteers significant information, I always get suspicious of motive. That's a red flag right there. As I said you go through that process and you review your own work. And I've done that. An
Nobody from the NFL ever identified Brady as being the target of an investigation in that first week we're talking about, within three days of the game. Brady's never mentioned. The Patriots are never mentioned. And the Wells investigation was not launched because of my reporting. There's no evidence of that. I've checked on that. So therefore it's hard to feel I was used. And Ted Wells himself in a conference call said, 'It's ludicrous to think that the league would want to smear its face of the league in Tom Brady with this type of campaign.' To me, it's an insult a little bit to the intelligence. But I do know the Patriots believe that, by the way. That is their belief, and therefore obviously their fanbase believes that, too...
Sometimes, as time passes on, the narrative—that's the popular word—that everything changes where people think, like I say, I never even identified Brady. I never had NFL sources say Brady was the target."
fwiw.
I think that there is significant evidence that it is more likely than not that Mortenson was at least partially aware that his sources were wrong and feeding him bad, inflammatory information.
;D
-
I think that there is significant evidence that it is more likely than not that Mortenson was at least partially aware that his sources were wrong and feeding him bad, inflammatory information.
;D
I want to unironically agree but it's entirely possible that he is that dense, too. ;)
-
After apparently not communicating much (if at all) from October through the afc championship game, Brady spoke to Jastremski 8 times on the phone for a total of almost an hour in the three days following the afc title game, texted him 15 times and met with him in person. When asked about all the communications, Brady couldn't recall any specifics from the conversations and claimed they were mainly about ball preparation for the super bowl.
It's hard to come to any conclusion other than Brady being uncooperative and less than forthright in his answers after reading that.
Well, Walt Anderson thought he used the logo gauge, but it was hard to come to any conclusion other than he "may have misremembered". Welcome to the land of "independent" NFL investigations.
Sure, the nfl investigation was something of a joke, and the PSI evidence was far from conclusive. The most compelling evidence against the Patriots came from their communications and behavior.
Brady and a team employee that he had little to no contact with suddenly (immediately after the investigation began) had 8 phone calls totaling an hour in time, texted back and forth and met in person, all in the space of 3 days. Brady doesn't have a believable explanation for the flurry of activity and can't remember any of the details of the conversations. That looks much worse than any evidence the nfl got from measuring footballs.
-
After apparently not communicating much (if at all) from October through the afc championship game, Brady spoke to Jastremski 8 times on the phone for a total of almost an hour in the three days following the afc title game, texted him 15 times and met with him in person. When asked about all the communications, Brady couldn't recall any specifics from the conversations and claimed they were mainly about ball preparation for the super bowl.
It's hard to come to any conclusion other than Brady being uncooperative and less than forthright in his answers after reading that.
Well, Walt Anderson thought he used the logo gauge, but it was hard to come to any conclusion other than he "may have misremembered". Welcome to the land of "independent" NFL investigations.
Sure, the nfl investigation was something of a joke, and the PSI evidence was far from conclusive. The most compelling evidence against the Patriots came from their communications and behavior.
Brady and a team employee that he had little to no contact with suddenly (immediately after the investigation began) had 8 phone calls totaling an hour in time, texted back and forth and met in person, all in the space of 3 days. Brady doesn't have a believable explanation for the flurry of activity and can't remember any of the details of the conversations. That looks much worse than any evidence the nfl got from measuring footballs.
So in otherwords. You accuse somebody of stealing your car with the help of two other people and call the police. They freak out and talk to eachother because they are being accused of something ridiculous. You then realize you left your car in the garage the whole time, but they are guilty because they talked about it.
-
After apparently not communicating much (if at all) from October through the afc championship game, Brady spoke to Jastremski 8 times on the phone for a total of almost an hour in the three days following the afc title game, texted him 15 times and met with him in person. When asked about all the communications, Brady couldn't recall any specifics from the conversations and claimed they were mainly about ball preparation for the super bowl.
It's hard to come to any conclusion other than Brady being uncooperative and less than forthright in his answers after reading that.
Well, Walt Anderson thought he used the logo gauge, but it was hard to come to any conclusion other than he "may have misremembered". Welcome to the land of "independent" NFL investigations.
Sure, the nfl investigation was something of a joke, and the PSI evidence was far from conclusive. The most compelling evidence against the Patriots came from their communications and behavior.
Brady and a team employee that he had little to no contact with suddenly (immediately after the investigation began) had 8 phone calls totaling an hour in time, texted back and forth and met in person, all in the space of 3 days. Brady doesn't have a believable explanation for the flurry of activity and can't remember any of the details of the conversations. That looks much worse than any evidence the nfl got from measuring footballs.
I read all this, and keep asking myself.... And?
-
After apparently not communicating much (if at all) from October through the afc championship game, Brady spoke to Jastremski 8 times on the phone for a total of almost an hour in the three days following the afc title game, texted him 15 times and met with him in person. When asked about all the communications, Brady couldn't recall any specifics from the conversations and claimed they were mainly about ball preparation for the super bowl.
It's hard to come to any conclusion other than Brady being uncooperative and less than forthright in his answers after reading that.
Well, Walt Anderson thought he used the logo gauge, but it was hard to come to any conclusion other than he "may have misremembered". Welcome to the land of "independent" NFL investigations.
Sure, the nfl investigation was something of a joke, and the PSI evidence was far from conclusive. The most compelling evidence against the Patriots came from their communications and behavior.
Brady and a team employee that he had little to no contact with suddenly (immediately after the investigation began) had 8 phone calls totaling an hour in time, texted back and forth and met in person, all in the space of 3 days. Brady doesn't have a believable explanation for the flurry of activity and can't remember any of the details of the conversations. That looks much worse than any evidence the nfl got from measuring footballs.
I never felt the fact that he talked or texted one of the guys during that time frame indicated guilt or innocence. And have not read any report that Brady said he could not remember the details of those conversations. If you have, please post it here.
-
After apparently not communicating much (if at all) from October through the afc championship game, Brady spoke to Jastremski 8 times on the phone for a total of almost an hour in the three days following the afc title game, texted him 15 times and met with him in person. When asked about all the communications, Brady couldn't recall any specifics from the conversations and claimed they were mainly about ball preparation for the super bowl.
It's hard to come to any conclusion other than Brady being uncooperative and less than forthright in his answers after reading that.
Well, Walt Anderson thought he used the logo gauge, but it was hard to come to any conclusion other than he "may have misremembered". Welcome to the land of "independent" NFL investigations.
Sure, the nfl investigation was something of a joke, and the PSI evidence was far from conclusive. The most compelling evidence against the Patriots came from their communications and behavior.
Brady and a team employee that he had little to no contact with suddenly (immediately after the investigation began) had 8 phone calls totaling an hour in time, texted back and forth and met in person, all in the space of 3 days. Brady doesn't have a believable explanation for the flurry of activity and can't remember any of the details of the conversations. That looks much worse than any evidence the nfl got from measuring footballs.
At the time the nfl lied and said the balls were 2 psi lower. So obviously Brady is curious as to why. This is also why Bill and Brady's press conference was awkward cause they were led to believe the balls were dramatically deflated beyond a scientific explanation.
-
After apparently not communicating much (if at all) from October through the afc championship game, Brady spoke to Jastremski 8 times on the phone for a total of almost an hour in the three days following the afc title game, texted him 15 times and met with him in person. When asked about all the communications, Brady couldn't recall any specifics from the conversations and claimed they were mainly about ball preparation for the super bowl.
It's hard to come to any conclusion other than Brady being uncooperative and less than forthright in his answers after reading that.
Well, Walt Anderson thought he used the logo gauge, but it was hard to come to any conclusion other than he "may have misremembered". Welcome to the land of "independent" NFL investigations.
Sure, the nfl investigation was something of a joke, and the PSI evidence was far from conclusive. The most compelling evidence against the Patriots came from their communications and behavior.
Brady and a team employee that he had little to no contact with suddenly (immediately after the investigation began) had 8 phone calls totaling an hour in time, texted back and forth and met in person, all in the space of 3 days. Brady doesn't have a believable explanation for the flurry of activity and can't remember any of the details of the conversations. That looks much worse than any evidence the nfl got from measuring footballs.
So in otherwords. You accuse somebody of stealing your car with the help of two other people and call the police. They freak out and talk to eachother because they are being accused of something ridiculous. You then realize you left your car in the garage the whole time, but they are guilty because they talked about it.
on the first call, they say did you do anything? No. Ok. No reason to keep talking that much if there isn't something there. Of course Brady could have just said what they talked about instead of "not remembering". Reminds me of Roger Clemons and the whole "misremembering" thing.
Brady and the Patriots got punished for the "cover-up" i.e. lack of cooperation.
I said before and I say again, Brady should have just come out said right after the scandal broke, something like "I did not have any member of the Patriots remove air from the footballs. I do like a softer ball, but a ball within the legal limits. If the balls were lower than that, I am sorry, but I did nothing wrong." He then should have fully cooperated with the investigation. He maybe gets fined and the whole thing goes away. His lack of cooperation is the real problem here and it always has been.
-
I have really gone full arc on this. When along with the rest of the NFL fandom, I heard:
"The Patriot's balls were 2 psi under the minimum of 12.5 psig (the "g" here is important) and McNally was shown on film going into a bathroom with the balls"
I thought, OK, wow, I can't believe my Pats did this.
But if the first story was something more like:
"The Pats balls do not appear to be measurably underinflated and McNally took the balls into a bathroom for 90 seconds"
I think this whole thing would be a very different story.
Same now with the Phone:
"Brady destroyed his phone to avoid having to turn over information, continuing his pattern of lack of cooperation with the investigation"
or if you believe Sally Jenkins:
"Wells stated that Brady cooperated fully with the investigation and Wells did not need any further phone related information. Brady got a new phone and destroyed his old phone."
Context is very important and it is clear that the NFL is going out of their way to create the worst possible context for all of these leaks. Why??
-
I have really gone full arc on this. When along with the rest of the NFL fandom, I heard:
"The Patriot's balls were 2 psi under the minimum of 12.5 psig (the "g" here is important) and McNally was shown on film going into a bathroom with the balls"
I thought, OK, wow, I can't believe my Pats did this.
But if the first story was something more like:
"The Pats balls do not appear to be measurably underinflated and McNally took the balls into a bathroom for 90 seconds"
I think this whole thing would be a very different story.
Same now with the Phone:
"Brady destroyed his phone to avoid having to turn over information, continuing his pattern of lack of cooperation with the investigation"
or if you believe Sally Jenkins:
"Wells stated that Brady cooperated fully with the investigation and Wells did not need any further phone related information. Brady got a new phone and destroyed his old phone."
Context is very important and it is clear that the NFL is going out of their way to create the worst possible context for all of these leaks. Why??
Everything Goodell does is for the sake of public opinion.
He chose to make a big deal about going after the most polarizing franchise in the league. He knew that no matter how egregiously the NFL handled the entire business, if they made a point of releasing information to make the Patriots look as bad as possible, there would be a majority of the viewing public who would side with the NFL, if only because they are happy to see the Pats brought down a peg or simply outed as the cheaters everybody knew them to be all along.
Charles Pierce suggested as much on Grantland -- Tom Brady may not be an arrogant, spoiled, pretty-boy cheater who deserves to be exposed and humbled, but that is how a lot of people see him. The NFL has gladly catered to that portion of the NFL fanbase, and created a controversy they could actually handle so as to come out on top in public opinion.
-
Context is very important and it is clear that the NFL is going out of their way to create the worst possible context for all of these leaks. Why??
Only thing I can really come up with is that Goodell was getting absolutely killed for the Ray Rice thing in the media & the public perception of him was at rock bottom.
What better way to try & put him back in a positive spotlight than an overblown & contrived controversy involving a Super Bowl participant (& organization already very polarizing in a national context) and one of the league's poster children (Brady)? Lay down the hammer and show "Strong Roger".
I said it back in January; if this involved the Jacksonville Jaguars, none of this happens and a 25K fine or something pretty much flies under the radar.
-
on the first call, they say did you do anything? No. Ok. No reason to keep talking that much if there isn't something there.
There's a much longer conversation you could make out of that, if you were so inclined. Like say, if your professional reputation, millions of dollars, and a sizable chunk of your career could be affected by the answers.
Brady's lawyer, for example, could probably turn that into an hour's worth of questions investigating everything the ball attendant might have done or said during the entire 48 hours before, during, and after the AFC Championship game.
It's not so far-fetched to think Brady might have wanted to know what the heck happened with the balls after it came out in the news that the Pats were being accused of tampering with them and might get in trouble. Especially with the Super Bowl on the line.
-
His lack of cooperation is the real problem here and it always has been.
That's not even close to being the real problem in this whole Deflategate situation.
-
[quote author=Vermont Green link=topic=75779.msg1941447#msg1941447
I said it back in January; if this involved the Jacksonville Jaguars, none of this happens and a 25K fine or something pretty much flies under the radar.
If this involved the Jacksonville Jaguars, it would never have been a thing because they wouldn't have multiple opponents whom they have beaten over and over in big games salivating at the opportunity to get them in hot water for breaking the rules.
The Colts and Ravens, and by extension all of the Pats' rivals, have always been the ones with the most to gain from this. They can point to all the times they've been beaten or flat out embarrassed at the hands of the Patriots and say, well, they're a bunch of cheaters.
-
I have really gone full arc on this. When along with the rest of the NFL fandom, I heard:
"The Patriot's balls were 2 psi under the minimum of 12.5 psig (the "g" here is important) and McNally was shown on film going into a bathroom with the balls"
I thought, OK, wow, I can't believe my Pats did this.
But if the first story was something more like:
"The Pats balls do not appear to be measurably underinflated and McNally took the balls into a bathroom for 90 seconds"
I think this whole thing would be a very different story.
Same now with the Phone:
"Brady destroyed his phone to avoid having to turn over information, continuing his pattern of lack of cooperation with the investigation"
or if you believe Sally Jenkins:
"Wells stated that Brady cooperated fully with the investigation and Wells did not need any further phone related information. Brady got a new phone and destroyed his old phone."
Context is very important and it is clear that the NFL is going out of their way to create the worst possible context for all of these leaks. Why??
Wells didn't say he did not need any further phone related information. He said that he didn't need to see the phone himself, he just wanted them to provide information from the phone that was related to the investigation. Brady refused to provide the information and directed someone to destroy the phone.
-
[quote author=Vermont Green link=topic=75779.msg1941447#msg1941447
I said it back in January; if this involved the Jacksonville Jaguars, none of this happens and a 25K fine or something pretty much flies under the radar.
If this involved the Jacksonville Jaguars, it would never have been a thing because they wouldn't have multiple opponents whom they have beaten over and over in big games salivating at the opportunity to get them in hot water for breaking the rules.
The Colts and Ravens, and by extension all of the Pats' rivals, have always been the ones with the most to gain from this. They can point to all the times they've been beaten or flat out embarrassed at the hands of the Patriots and say, well, they're a bunch of cheaters.
Except Baltimore is 2-2 against New England in their last 4 including last years very close game and has had more success against the Pats in the postseason than any other team in the Harbaugh/Flacco era. It doesn't quite have the same effect when a team that is actually winning games registers a complaint or two.
-
[quote author=Vermont Green link=topic=75779.msg1941447#msg1941447
I said it back in January; if this involved the Jacksonville Jaguars, none of this happens and a 25K fine or something pretty much flies under the radar.
If this involved the Jacksonville Jaguars, it would never have been a thing because they wouldn't have multiple opponents whom they have beaten over and over in big games salivating at the opportunity to get them in hot water for breaking the rules.
The Colts and Ravens, and by extension all of the Pats' rivals, have always been the ones with the most to gain from this. They can point to all the times they've been beaten or flat out embarrassed at the hands of the Patriots and say, well, they're a bunch of cheaters.
Except Baltimore is 2-2 against New England in their last 4 including last years very close game and has had more success against the Pats in the postseason than any other team in the Harbaugh/Flacco era. It doesn't quite have the same effect when a team that is actually winning games registers a complaint or two.
Ravens were behind this because pouty harbaugh took offense to brady's learn the rulebook comment
-
Except Baltimore is 2-2 against New England in their last 4 including last years very close game and has had more success against the Pats in the postseason than any other team in the Harbaugh/Flacco era. It doesn't quite have the same effect when a team that is actually winning games registers a complaint or two.
If you don't think the Ravens are salty from losing to the Pats in the AFC Championship game a few years ago and again this year in the divisional round, despite the other games they won, I think you're being silly.
Of course the Ravens would love to see the Pats get taken down a peg and even hurt from a competitive standpoint.
Nobody would ever bother to make a big deal out of a team like the Jaguars doing something like this. But if it's the team that beats you every time you face them, or even just a team that has played you to a draw and stood in your way of the Super Bowl multiple times, of course you would.
-
After apparently not communicating much (if at all) from October through the afc championship game, Brady spoke to Jastremski 8 times on the phone for a total of almost an hour in the three days following the afc title game, texted him 15 times and met with him in person. When asked about all the communications, Brady couldn't recall any specifics from the conversations and claimed they were mainly about ball preparation for the super bowl.
It's hard to come to any conclusion other than Brady being uncooperative and less than forthright in his answers after reading that.
Well, Walt Anderson thought he used the logo gauge, but it was hard to come to any conclusion other than he "may have misremembered". Welcome to the land of "independent" NFL investigations.
Sure, the nfl investigation was something of a joke, and the PSI evidence was far from conclusive. The most compelling evidence against the Patriots came from their communications and behavior.
Brady and a team employee that he had little to no contact with suddenly (immediately after the investigation began) had 8 phone calls totaling an hour in time, texted back and forth and met in person, all in the space of 3 days. Brady doesn't have a believable explanation for the flurry of activity and can't remember any of the details of the conversations. That looks much worse than any evidence the nfl got from measuring footballs.
So in otherwords. You accuse somebody of stealing your car with the help of two other people and call the police. They freak out and talk to eachother because they are being accused of something ridiculous. You then realize you left your car in the garage the whole time, but they are guilty because they talked about it.
More like you heard your 15 year old son and a friend have been joyriding in cars, your keys aren't where you think you left them and you think your odometer has more miles on it than it should. You mention it to your son, who then has a flurry of conversations with his friend, then later denies remembering what they talked about beyond what the weather was like on one of the days they talked.
-
I have really gone full arc on this. When along with the rest of the NFL fandom, I heard:
"The Patriot's balls were 2 psi under the minimum of 12.5 psig (the "g" here is important) and McNally was shown on film going into a bathroom with the balls"
I thought, OK, wow, I can't believe my Pats did this.
But if the first story was something more like:
"The Pats balls do not appear to be measurably underinflated and McNally took the balls into a bathroom for 90 seconds"
I think this whole thing would be a very different story.
Same now with the Phone:
"Brady destroyed his phone to avoid having to turn over information, continuing his pattern of lack of cooperation with the investigation"
or if you believe Sally Jenkins:
"Wells stated that Brady cooperated fully with the investigation and Wells did not need any further phone related information. Brady got a new phone and destroyed his old phone."
Context is very important and it is clear that the NFL is going out of their way to create the worst possible context for all of these leaks. Why??
Everything Goodell does is for the sake of public opinion.
He chose to make a big deal about going after the most polarizing franchise in the league. He knew that no matter how egregiously the NFL handled the entire business, if they made a point of releasing information to make the Patriots look as bad as possible, there would be a majority of the viewing public who would side with the NFL, if only because they are happy to see the Pats brought down a peg or simply outed as the cheaters everybody knew them to be all along.
Charles Pierce suggested as much on Grantland -- Tom Brady may not be an arrogant, spoiled, pretty-boy cheater who deserves to be exposed and humbled, but that is how a lot of people see him. The NFL has gladly catered to that portion of the NFL fanbase, and created a controversy they could actually handle so as to come out on top in public opinion.
Exactly , and it worked. Ray Rice and other horrible situations are long forgotten now. I also think Goodell told Kraft outright about this in their private meeting right befor Kraft decided not to pursue this further. He proably told him that this is the best strategy to save the league long term, and prevent massive losses of money for all owners, and really, there was no other franchise or star player that could take the fall for the league and survive. Problem is no one asked Brady if he was ok with going along with this.
-
After apparently not communicating much (if at all) from October through the afc championship game, Brady spoke to Jastremski 8 times on the phone for a total of almost an hour in the three days following the afc title game, texted him 15 times and met with him in person. When asked about all the communications, Brady couldn't recall any specifics from the conversations and claimed they were mainly about ball preparation for the super bowl.
It's hard to come to any conclusion other than Brady being uncooperative and less than forthright in his answers after reading that.
Well, Walt Anderson thought he used the logo gauge, but it was hard to come to any conclusion other than he "may have misremembered". Welcome to the land of "independent" NFL investigations.
Sure, the nfl investigation was something of a joke, and the PSI evidence was far from conclusive. The most compelling evidence against the Patriots came from their communications and behavior.
Brady and a team employee that he had little to no contact with suddenly (immediately after the investigation began) had 8 phone calls totaling an hour in time, texted back and forth and met in person, all in the space of 3 days. Brady doesn't have a believable explanation for the flurry of activity and can't remember any of the details of the conversations. That looks much worse than any evidence the nfl got from measuring footballs.
At the time the nfl lied and said the balls were 2 psi lower. So obviously Brady is curious as to why. This is also why Bill and Brady's press conference was awkward cause they were led to believe the balls were dramatically deflated beyond a scientific explanation.
And you think that if both Brady and Jastremski were innocent it would take an entire hour's worth of conversation, a number of texts and a meeting in person to figure out that they'd done nothing wrong? Or that Brady wouldn't be able to recall what was discussed?
-
on the first call, they say did you do anything? No. Ok. No reason to keep talking that much if there isn't something there.
There's a much longer conversation you could make out of that, if you were so inclined. Like say, if your professional reputation, millions of dollars, and a sizable chunk of your career could be affected by the answers.
Brady's lawyer, for example, could probably turn that into an hour's worth of questions investigating everything the ball attendant might have done or said during the entire 48 hours before, during, and after the AFC Championship game.
It's not so far-fetched to think Brady might have wanted to know what the heck happened with the balls after it came out in the news that the Pats were being accused of tampering with them and might get in trouble. Especially with the Super Bowl on the line.
Brady's lawyer might have been able to interrogate Jastremski for an entire hour, it's less likely that Brady would. Even if it's not far-fetched that he did, it's pretty far-fetched that he didn't recall any specifics of any of the conversations or whether they were talking about anything beyond ball preparation for the Super Bowl.
-
I have really gone full arc on this. When along with the rest of the NFL fandom, I heard:
"The Patriot's balls were 2 psi under the minimum of 12.5 psig (the "g" here is important) and McNally was shown on film going into a bathroom with the balls"
I thought, OK, wow, I can't believe my Pats did this.
But if the first story was something more like:
"The Pats balls do not appear to be measurably underinflated and McNally took the balls into a bathroom for 90 seconds"
I think this whole thing would be a very different story.
Same now with the Phone:
"Brady destroyed his phone to avoid having to turn over information, continuing his pattern of lack of cooperation with the investigation"
or if you believe Sally Jenkins:
"Wells stated that Brady cooperated fully with the investigation and Wells did not need any further phone related information. Brady got a new phone and destroyed his old phone."
Context is very important and it is clear that the NFL is going out of their way to create the worst possible context for all of these leaks. Why??
Wells didn't say he did not need any further phone related information. He said that he didn't need to see the phone himself, he just wanted them to provide information from the phone that was related to the investigation. Brady refused to provide the information and directed someone to destroy the phone.
This is Sally Jenkins version of the alleged statements:
Wells never asked for Tom Brady’s cellphone and didn’t require it. “Keep the phone,” Wells told Brady and his agent. He insisted his investigation was thorough without it. “I don’t think it undermines in any way the conclusions of the report,” he said. Those were his exact words. So were these, after interrogating Brady for more than five hours: “Totally cooperative,” Wells said of Brady’s testimony.
Not even close to the way the NFL's leaks portrayed this. That is my point. The NFL is going out of their way to make it seem that Brady did not cooperate by "refusing" to give up his phone, then leaked that he "destroyed" his phone implying that this was further impeding the investigation.
Why didn't the NFL say what Well's said. We don't need his phone and he has been "totally cooperative".
-
After apparently not communicating much (if at all) from October through the afc championship game, Brady spoke to Jastremski 8 times on the phone for a total of almost an hour in the three days following the afc title game, texted him 15 times and met with him in person. When asked about all the communications, Brady couldn't recall any specifics from the conversations and claimed they were mainly about ball preparation for the super bowl.
It's hard to come to any conclusion other than Brady being uncooperative and less than forthright in his answers after reading that.
Well, Walt Anderson thought he used the logo gauge, but it was hard to come to any conclusion other than he "may have misremembered". Welcome to the land of "independent" NFL investigations.
Sure, the nfl investigation was something of a joke, and the PSI evidence was far from conclusive. The most compelling evidence against the Patriots came from their communications and behavior.
Brady and a team employee that he had little to no contact with suddenly (immediately after the investigation began) had 8 phone calls totaling an hour in time, texted back and forth and met in person, all in the space of 3 days. Brady doesn't have a believable explanation for the flurry of activity and can't remember any of the details of the conversations. That looks much worse than any evidence the nfl got from measuring footballs.
So in otherwords. You accuse somebody of stealing your car with the help of two other people and call the police. They freak out and talk to eachother because they are being accused of something ridiculous. You then realize you left your car in the garage the whole time, but they are guilty because they talked about it.
More like you heard your 15 year old son and a friend have been joyriding in cars, your keys aren't where you think you left them and you think your odometer has more miles on it than it should. You mention it to your son, who then has a flurry of conversations with his friend, then later denies remembering what they talked about beyond what the weather was like on one of the days they talked.
False, in this case, the odometer and keys are exactly where you would expect.
-
After apparently not communicating much (if at all) from October through the afc championship game, Brady spoke to Jastremski 8 times on the phone for a total of almost an hour in the three days following the afc title game, texted him 15 times and met with him in person. When asked about all the communications, Brady couldn't recall any specifics from the conversations and claimed they were mainly about ball preparation for the super bowl.
It's hard to come to any conclusion other than Brady being uncooperative and less than forthright in his answers after reading that.
Well, Walt Anderson thought he used the logo gauge, but it was hard to come to any conclusion other than he "may have misremembered". Welcome to the land of "independent" NFL investigations.
Sure, the nfl investigation was something of a joke, and the PSI evidence was far from conclusive. The most compelling evidence against the Patriots came from their communications and behavior.
Brady and a team employee that he had little to no contact with suddenly (immediately after the investigation began) had 8 phone calls totaling an hour in time, texted back and forth and met in person, all in the space of 3 days. Brady doesn't have a believable explanation for the flurry of activity and can't remember any of the details of the conversations. That looks much worse than any evidence the nfl got from measuring footballs.
So in otherwords. You accuse somebody of stealing your car with the help of two other people and call the police. They freak out and talk to eachother because they are being accused of something ridiculous. You then realize you left your car in the garage the whole time, but they are guilty because they talked about it.
More like you heard your 15 year old son and a friend have been joyriding in cars, your keys aren't where you think you left them and you think your odometer has more miles on it than it should. You mention it to your son, who then has a flurry of conversations with his friend, then later denies remembering what they talked about beyond what the weather was like on one of the days they talked.
False, in this case, the odometer and keys are exactly where you would expect.
That's the response of your spouse, who believes that not having proof that their son did something wrong is the same as having proof that they didn't.
-
After apparently not communicating much (if at all) from October through the afc championship game, Brady spoke to Jastremski 8 times on the phone for a total of almost an hour in the three days following the afc title game, texted him 15 times and met with him in person. When asked about all the communications, Brady couldn't recall any specifics from the conversations and claimed they were mainly about ball preparation for the super bowl.
It's hard to come to any conclusion other than Brady being uncooperative and less than forthright in his answers after reading that.
Well, Walt Anderson thought he used the logo gauge, but it was hard to come to any conclusion other than he "may have misremembered". Welcome to the land of "independent" NFL investigations.
Sure, the nfl investigation was something of a joke, and the PSI evidence was far from conclusive. The most compelling evidence against the Patriots came from their communications and behavior.
Brady and a team employee that he had little to no contact with suddenly (immediately after the investigation began) had 8 phone calls totaling an hour in time, texted back and forth and met in person, all in the space of 3 days. Brady doesn't have a believable explanation for the flurry of activity and can't remember any of the details of the conversations. That looks much worse than any evidence the nfl got from measuring footballs.
So in otherwords. You accuse somebody of stealing your car with the help of two other people and call the police. They freak out and talk to eachother because they are being accused of something ridiculous. You then realize you left your car in the garage the whole time, but they are guilty because they talked about it.
More like you heard your 15 year old son and a friend have been joyriding in cars, your keys aren't where you think you left them and you think your odometer has more miles on it than it should. You mention it to your son, who then has a flurry of conversations with his friend, then later denies remembering what they talked about beyond what the weather was like on one of the days they talked.
False, in this case, the odometer and keys are exactly where you would expect.
That's the response of your spouse, who believes that not having proof that their son did something wrong is the same as having proof that they didn't.
Nope, you are off base. You lack evidence that anything wrong occurred, let alone who was responsible.
Infact I would say the science proves the patriots did nothing wrong, and the nfl has done nothing to suggest that anything wrong occured
-
More like you heard your 15 year old son and a friend have been joyriding in cars, your keys aren't where you think you left them and you think your odometer has more miles on it than it should. You mention it to your son, who then has a flurry of conversations with his friend, then later denies remembering what they talked about beyond what the weather was like on one of the days they talked.
Would be a fine analogy if the NFL had the broad authority to punish players the way parents can punish their children. Mere suspicion of wrongdoing based on seemingly guilty behavior is sufficient in that situation.
Many of the responses I've seen to this whole controversy suggest that a good number of NFL fans think the NFL does have that authority, or at least that it should.
Luckily for Brady, that is not the case.
-
I have really gone full arc on this. When along with the rest of the NFL fandom, I heard:
"The Patriot's balls were 2 psi under the minimum of 12.5 psig (the "g" here is important) and McNally was shown on film going into a bathroom with the balls"
I thought, OK, wow, I can't believe my Pats did this.
But if the first story was something more like:
"The Pats balls do not appear to be measurably underinflated and McNally took the balls into a bathroom for 90 seconds"
I think this whole thing would be a very different story.
Same now with the Phone:
"Brady destroyed his phone to avoid having to turn over information, continuing his pattern of lack of cooperation with the investigation"
or if you believe Sally Jenkins:
"Wells stated that Brady cooperated fully with the investigation and Wells did not need any further phone related information. Brady got a new phone and destroyed his old phone."
Context is very important and it is clear that the NFL is going out of their way to create the worst possible context for all of these leaks. Why??
Wells didn't say he did not need any further phone related information. He said that he didn't need to see the phone himself, he just wanted them to provide information from the phone that was related to the investigation. Brady refused to provide the information and directed someone to destroy the phone.
This is Sally Jenkins version of the alleged statements:
Wells never asked for Tom Brady’s cellphone and didn’t require it. “Keep the phone,” Wells told Brady and his agent. He insisted his investigation was thorough without it. “I don’t think it undermines in any way the conclusions of the report,” he said. Those were his exact words. So were these, after interrogating Brady for more than five hours: “Totally cooperative,” Wells said of Brady’s testimony.
Not even close to the way the NFL's leaks portrayed this. That is my point. The NFL is going out of their way to make it seem that Brady did not cooperate by "refusing" to give up his phone, then leaked that he "destroyed" his phone implying that this was further impeding the investigation.
Why didn't the NFL say what Well's said. We don't need his phone and he has been "totally cooperative".
This is from the Wells report:
"Similarly, although Tom Brady appeared for a requested interview and answered
questions voluntarily, he declined to make available any documents or electronic information
(including text messages and emails) that we requested, even though those requests were limited
to the subject matter of our investigation (such as messages concerning the preparation of game
balls, air pressure of balls, inflation of balls or deflation of balls) and we offered to allow Brady?s
counsel to screen and control the production so that it would be limited strictly to responsive
materials and would not involve our taking possession of Brady?s telephone or other electronic
devices. Our inability to review contemporaneous communications and other documents in
Brady?s possession and control related to the matters under review potentially limited the
discovery of relevant evidence and was not helpful to the investigation."
Jenkins (and you) seem to be taking that out of context.
-
After apparently not communicating much (if at all) from October through the afc championship game, Brady spoke to Jastremski 8 times on the phone for a total of almost an hour in the three days following the afc title game, texted him 15 times and met with him in person. When asked about all the communications, Brady couldn't recall any specifics from the conversations and claimed they were mainly about ball preparation for the super bowl.
It's hard to come to any conclusion other than Brady being uncooperative and less than forthright in his answers after reading that.
Well, Walt Anderson thought he used the logo gauge, but it was hard to come to any conclusion other than he "may have misremembered". Welcome to the land of "independent" NFL investigations.
Sure, the nfl investigation was something of a joke, and the PSI evidence was far from conclusive. The most compelling evidence against the Patriots came from their communications and behavior.
Brady and a team employee that he had little to no contact with suddenly (immediately after the investigation began) had 8 phone calls totaling an hour in time, texted back and forth and met in person, all in the space of 3 days. Brady doesn't have a believable explanation for the flurry of activity and can't remember any of the details of the conversations. That looks much worse than any evidence the nfl got from measuring footballs.
So in otherwords. You accuse somebody of stealing your car with the help of two other people and call the police. They freak out and talk to eachother because they are being accused of something ridiculous. You then realize you left your car in the garage the whole time, but they are guilty because they talked about it.
More like you heard your 15 year old son and a friend have been joyriding in cars, your keys aren't where you think you left them and you think your odometer has more miles on it than it should. You mention it to your son, who then has a flurry of conversations with his friend, then later denies remembering what they talked about beyond what the weather was like on one of the days they talked.
False, in this case, the odometer and keys are exactly where you would expect.
That's the response of your spouse, who believes that not having proof that their son did something wrong is the same as having proof that they didn't.
Nope, you are off base. You lack evidence that anything wrong occurred, let alone who was responsible.
Infact I would say the science proves the patriots did nothing wrong, and the nfl has done nothing to suggest that anything wrong occured
The science doesn't prove the Pats were guilty and it doesn't prove that they were guilty. That's fairly obvious.
-
After apparently not communicating much (if at all) from October through the afc championship game, Brady spoke to Jastremski 8 times on the phone for a total of almost an hour in the three days following the afc title game, texted him 15 times and met with him in person. When asked about all the communications, Brady couldn't recall any specifics from the conversations and claimed they were mainly about ball preparation for the super bowl.
It's hard to come to any conclusion other than Brady being uncooperative and less than forthright in his answers after reading that.
Well, Walt Anderson thought he used the logo gauge, but it was hard to come to any conclusion other than he "may have misremembered". Welcome to the land of "independent" NFL investigations.
Sure, the nfl investigation was something of a joke, and the PSI evidence was far from conclusive. The most compelling evidence against the Patriots came from their communications and behavior.
Brady and a team employee that he had little to no contact with suddenly (immediately after the investigation began) had 8 phone calls totaling an hour in time, texted back and forth and met in person, all in the space of 3 days. Brady doesn't have a believable explanation for the flurry of activity and can't remember any of the details of the conversations. That looks much worse than any evidence the nfl got from measuring footballs.
So in otherwords. You accuse somebody of stealing your car with the help of two other people and call the police. They freak out and talk to eachother because they are being accused of something ridiculous. You then realize you left your car in the garage the whole time, but they are guilty because they talked about it.
More like you heard your 15 year old son and a friend have been joyriding in cars, your keys aren't where you think you left them and you think your odometer has more miles on it than it should. You mention it to your son, who then has a flurry of conversations with his friend, then later denies remembering what they talked about beyond what the weather was like on one of the days they talked.
False, in this case, the odometer and keys are exactly where you would expect.
That's the response of your spouse, who believes that not having proof that their son did something wrong is the same as having proof that they didn't.
Nope, you are off base. You lack evidence that anything wrong occurred, let alone who was responsible.
Infact I would say the science proves the patriots did nothing wrong, and the nfl has done nothing to suggest that anything wrong occured
The science doesn't prove the Pats were guilty and it doesn't prove that they were guilty. That's fairly obvious.
Ironic
-
More like you heard your 15 year old son and a friend have been joyriding in cars, your keys aren't where you think you left them and you think your odometer has more miles on it than it should. You mention it to your son, who then has a flurry of conversations with his friend, then later denies remembering what they talked about beyond what the weather was like on one of the days they talked.
Would be a fine analogy if the NFL had the broad authority to punish players the way parents can punish their children. Mere suspicion of wrongdoing based on seemingly guilty behavior is sufficient in that situation.
Many of the responses I've seen to this whole controversy suggest that a good number of NFL fans think the NFL does have that authority, or at least that it should.
Luckily for Brady, that is not the case.
I'd guess that depends on whether their standards for guilt are more like criminal or civil court.
-
After apparently not communicating much (if at all) from October through the afc championship game, Brady spoke to Jastremski 8 times on the phone for a total of almost an hour in the three days following the afc title game, texted him 15 times and met with him in person. When asked about all the communications, Brady couldn't recall any specifics from the conversations and claimed they were mainly about ball preparation for the super bowl.
It's hard to come to any conclusion other than Brady being uncooperative and less than forthright in his answers after reading that.
Well, Walt Anderson thought he used the logo gauge, but it was hard to come to any conclusion other than he "may have misremembered". Welcome to the land of "independent" NFL investigations.
Sure, the nfl investigation was something of a joke, and the PSI evidence was far from conclusive. The most compelling evidence against the Patriots came from their communications and behavior.
Brady and a team employee that he had little to no contact with suddenly (immediately after the investigation began) had 8 phone calls totaling an hour in time, texted back and forth and met in person, all in the space of 3 days. Brady doesn't have a believable explanation for the flurry of activity and can't remember any of the details of the conversations. That looks much worse than any evidence the nfl got from measuring footballs.
So in otherwords. You accuse somebody of stealing your car with the help of two other people and call the police. They freak out and talk to eachother because they are being accused of something ridiculous. You then realize you left your car in the garage the whole time, but they are guilty because they talked about it.
More like you heard your 15 year old son and a friend have been joyriding in cars, your keys aren't where you think you left them and you think your odometer has more miles on it than it should. You mention it to your son, who then has a flurry of conversations with his friend, then later denies remembering what they talked about beyond what the weather was like on one of the days they talked.
False, in this case, the odometer and keys are exactly where you would expect.
That's the response of your spouse, who believes that not having proof that their son did something wrong is the same as having proof that they didn't.
Nope, you are off base. You lack evidence that anything wrong occurred, let alone who was responsible.
Infact I would say the science proves the patriots did nothing wrong, and the nfl has done nothing to suggest that anything wrong occured
The science doesn't prove the Pats were guilty and it doesn't prove that they were guilty. That's fairly obvious.
Ironic
I suppose. I'm not going to check old texts to see what I posted here, but I'd be willing to bet that one of my first comments on this matter was something along the lines of "the margin of error in the measurements will be larger than what they're trying to measure". Clearly that was going to be the case, and obviously that's what happened.
-
Except Baltimore is 2-2 against New England in their last 4 including last years very close game and has had more success against the Pats in the postseason than any other team in the Harbaugh/Flacco era. It doesn't quite have the same effect when a team that is actually winning games registers a complaint or two.
If you don't think the Ravens are salty from losing to the Pats in the AFC Championship game a few years ago and again this year in the divisional round, despite the other games they won, I think you're being silly.
Of course the Ravens would love to see the Pats get taken down a peg and even hurt from a competitive standpoint.
Nobody would ever bother to make a big deal out of a team like the Jaguars doing something like this. But if it's the team that beats you every time you face them, or even just a team that has played you to a draw and stood in your way of the Super Bowl multiple times, of course you would.
If a team is breaking the rules, they get reported and there are consequences. The fact that it was in the playoffs and involved a team that has a history of skirting the line (if not out right crossing it i.e. spygate), certainly plays into it. If this was the Jaguars in the AFC Championship and their QB didn't cooperate then yeah, he gets suspended as well. Probably doesn't have quite the same media attention because Jacksonville doesn't have the history of New England, but there would be suspensions and fines.
-
I'd guess that depends on whether their standards for guilt are more like criminal or civil court.
It's not a matter of the standard of guilt, it's a matter of the authority they have to punish players.
The players are members of a union, and part of their collective bargaining agreement with the league provides for arbitration of disputes over discipline handed down by the league.
Arbitration law and industry custom provide that in order for a member of a union to be bound by a punishment, she must have advance notice of the specific policies she is required to follow and the penalties for violation of those policies.
What that means is that the NFL is not allowed to invoke a vague "conduct detrimental to the league" policy when pointing to what a punishment is based on, nor can they make up a punishment on the spot to fit the specific circumstances of the alleged misconduct. It all must be provided for in the language of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Otherwise, the NFL has not effectively bargained for the power it seeks to use in punishing the employee.
-
"the margin of error in the measurements will be larger than what they're trying to measure".
Clearly that was going to be the case, and obviously that's what happened.
You don't think that's a pretty serious problem when the NFL seeks to hand down one of the most severe punishments in the history of the league (picks + fines + suspension) for a violation it doesn't have the ability to prove even happened?
-
I'd guess that depends on whether their standards for guilt are more like criminal or civil court.
It's not a matter of the standard of guilt, it's a matter of the authority they have to punish players.
The players are members of a union, and part of their collective bargaining agreement with the league provides for arbitration of disputes over discipline handed down by the league.
Arbitration law and industry custom provide that in order for a member of a union to be bound by a punishment, she must have advance notice of the specific policies she is required to follow and the penalties for violation of those policies.
What that means is that the NFL is not allowed to invoke a vague "conduct detrimental to the league" policy when pointing to what a punishment is based on, nor can they make up a punishment on the spot to fit the specific circumstances of the alleged misconduct. It all must be provided for in the language of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Otherwise, the NFL has not effectively bargained for the power it seeks to use in punishing the employee.
I seriously doubt that the nfl is powerless to punish players if they're seen to be involved in a scheme to break the rules. And the nfl has imposed punishment in the past for not cooperating with an investigation, so I'm not sure that's beyond their power either.
-
More like you heard your 15 year old son and a friend have been joyriding in cars, your keys aren't where you think you left them and you think your odometer has more miles on it than it should. You mention it to your son, who then has a flurry of conversations with his friend, then later denies remembering what they talked about beyond what the weather was like on one of the days they talked.
Would be a fine analogy if the NFL had the broad authority to punish players the way parents can punish their children. Mere suspicion of wrongdoing based on seemingly guilty behavior is sufficient in that situation.
Many of the responses I've seen to this whole controversy suggest that a good number of NFL fans think the NFL does have that authority, or at least that it should.
Luckily for Brady, that is not the case.
This is illustrative of how the NFL would like to be perceived, and how they go out of their way to do so. That there are many fans who endorse it speaks to a greater set of endemic beliefs that the league reinforces as a whole.
The problem with that position (the league's position) is that as the internet has become more pervasive the absurdity of the stance becomes increasingly obvious. If TMZ doesn't exist then no one sees the Ray Rice tape and, by extension, Brady gets the two game deal.
-
"the margin of error in the measurements will be larger than what they're trying to measure".
Clearly that was going to be the case, and obviously that's what happened.
You don't think that's a pretty serious problem when the NFL seeks to hand down one of the most severe punishments in the history of the league (picks + fines + suspension) for a violation it doesn't have the ability to prove even happened?
The pats were accused of doctoring the air pressure in their footballs by another team, and the (poorly done) pressure measurements seem to at least somewhat support the claim. Further investigation (which was probably warranted) uncovered some fairly incriminating texts.
But the punishments do seem to be exceptionally severe for the infraction.
-
"the margin of error in the measurements will be larger than what they're trying to measure".
Clearly that was going to be the case, and obviously that's what happened.
You don't think that's a pretty serious problem when the NFL seeks to hand down one of the most severe punishments in the history of the league (picks + fines + suspension) for a violation it doesn't have the ability to prove even happened?
The pats were accused of doctoring the air pressure in their footballs by another team, and the (poorly done) pressure measurements seem to at least somewhat support the claim. Further investigation (which was probably warranted) uncovered some fairly incriminating texts.
But the punishments do seem to be exceptionally severe for the infraction.
This is wrong
-
But the punishments do seem to be exceptionally severe for the infraction.
We can agree on this, then. I'll say again, I think the Pats deserve a fine, and so does Brady. Should have been a fine from the beginning and then let's move on.
Instead, we have a circus.
-
I seriously doubt that the nfl is powerless to punish players if they're seen to be involved in a scheme to break the rules. And the nfl has imposed punishment in the past for not cooperating with an investigation, so I'm not sure that's beyond their power either.
The NFL has imposed a lot of penalties in recent years. Many of them, when challenged in arbitration or in court, get overturned. The NFL likes to exceed its authority when it comes to discipline, and as D.o.s. points out, the public tends to think they have the right to do so, which is why they keep doing it.
-
Context is very important and it is clear that the NFL is going out of their way to create the worst possible context for all of these leaks. Why??
Only thing I can really come up with is that Goodell was getting absolutely killed for the Ray Rice thing in the media & the public perception of him was at rock bottom.
What better way to try & put him back in a positive spotlight than an overblown & contrived controversy involving a Super Bowl participant (& organization already very polarizing in a national context) and one of the league's poster children (Brady)? Lay down the hammer and show "Strong Roger".
I said it back in January; if this involved the Jacksonville Jaguars, none of this happens and a 25K fine or something pretty much flies under the radar.
TP Motive. Check.
-
"the margin of error in the measurements will be larger than what they're trying to measure".
Clearly that was going to be the case, and obviously that's what happened.
You don't think that's a pretty serious problem when the NFL seeks to hand down one of the most severe punishments in the history of the league (picks + fines + suspension) for a violation it doesn't have the ability to prove even happened?
The pats were accused of doctoring the air pressure in their footballs by another team, and the (poorly done) pressure measurements seem to at least somewhat support the claim. Further investigation (which was probably warranted) uncovered some fairly incriminating texts.
But the punishments do seem to be exceptionally severe for the infraction.
This is wrong
It's obviously not wrong. If they'd measured the balls at halftime and the pats PSIs were within the allowable limits then it would have been unlikely that anything untoward happened. Measuring the balls and finding many of the pats balls below the allowable limit and none of the colts balls below the limit clearly seems to somewhat support the claim.
-
But the punishments do seem to be exceptionally severe for the infraction.
We can agree on this, then. I'll say again, I think the Pats deserve a fine, and so does Brady. Should have been a fine from the beginning and then let's move on.
Instead, we have a circus.
I think that the circus is at least somewhat self inflicted on the Pat's side though.
-
"the margin of error in the measurements will be larger than what they're trying to measure".
Clearly that was going to be the case, and obviously that's what happened.
You don't think that's a pretty serious problem when the NFL seeks to hand down one of the most severe punishments in the history of the league (picks + fines + suspension) for a violation it doesn't have the ability to prove even happened?
The pats were accused of doctoring the air pressure in their footballs by another team, and the (poorly done) pressure measurements seem to at least somewhat support the claim. Further investigation (which was probably warranted) uncovered some fairly incriminating texts.
But the punishments do seem to be exceptionally severe for the infraction.
This is wrong
It's obviously not wrong. If they'd measured the balls at halftime and the pats PSIs were within the allowable limits then it would have been unlikely that anything untoward happened. Measuring the balls and finding many of the pats balls below the allowable limit and none of the colts balls below the limit clearly seems to somewhat support the claim.
Ummm....except for the part in the Wells Report that showed 3 out the 4 balls from the Colts measured were under the minimum according to one gauge at halftime.
-
"the margin of error in the measurements will be larger than what they're trying to measure".
Clearly that was going to be the case, and obviously that's what happened.
You don't think that's a pretty serious problem when the NFL seeks to hand down one of the most severe punishments in the history of the league (picks + fines + suspension) for a violation it doesn't have the ability to prove even happened?
The pats were accused of doctoring the air pressure in their footballs by another team, and the (poorly done) pressure measurements seem to at least somewhat support the claim. Further investigation (which was probably warranted) uncovered some fairly incriminating texts.
But the punishments do seem to be exceptionally severe for the infraction.
This is wrong
It's obviously not wrong. If they'd measured the balls at halftime and the pats PSIs were within the allowable limits then it would have been unlikely that anything untoward happened. Measuring the balls and finding many of the pats balls below the allowable limit and none of the colts balls below the limit clearly seems to somewhat support the claim.
This is the danger of the mortensen reports. Headlines stick longer than facts. Its sad but is the uphill battle patriots fans will be fighting for a long time to come
-
But the punishments do seem to be exceptionally severe for the infraction.
We can agree on this, then. I'll say again, I think the Pats deserve a fine, and so does Brady. Should have been a fine from the beginning and then let's move on.
Instead, we have a circus.
I think that the circus is at least somewhat self inflicted on the Pat's side though.
I agree, the Patriots definitely made this all more difficult than it could have been. Though then again, it seems their paranoia about how the league would handle all of this was not unfounded. On the other hand, that same paranoia pretty obviously exacerbated things.
-
"the margin of error in the measurements will be larger than what they're trying to measure".
Clearly that was going to be the case, and obviously that's what happened.
You don't think that's a pretty serious problem when the NFL seeks to hand down one of the most severe punishments in the history of the league (picks + fines + suspension) for a violation it doesn't have the ability to prove even happened?
The pats were accused of doctoring the air pressure in their footballs by another team, and the (poorly done) pressure measurements seem to at least somewhat support the claim. Further investigation (which was probably warranted) uncovered some fairly incriminating texts.
But the punishments do seem to be exceptionally severe for the infraction.
This is wrong
It's obviously not wrong. If they'd measured the balls at halftime and the pats PSIs were within the allowable limits then it would have been unlikely that anything untoward happened. Measuring the balls and finding many of the pats balls below the allowable limit and none of the colts balls below the limit clearly seems to somewhat support the claim.
Ummm....except for the part in the Wells Report that showed 3 out the 4 balls from the Colts measured were under the minimum according to one gauge at halftime.
I stand corrected. One of the colts balls was within range on both measurements, the other three were within range on one measurement. None of the pats balls were within range on either measurement. One of the 8 colts measurements was lower than the highest measurement of a pats ball, and 21 of the 22 measurements of the pats balls were lower than the lowest measurement for the colts balls. So that correction still doesn't really exonerate the pats.
-
"the margin of error in the measurements will be larger than what they're trying to measure".
Clearly that was going to be the case, and obviously that's what happened.
You don't think that's a pretty serious problem when the NFL seeks to hand down one of the most severe punishments in the history of the league (picks + fines + suspension) for a violation it doesn't have the ability to prove even happened?
The pats were accused of doctoring the air pressure in their footballs by another team, and the (poorly done) pressure measurements seem to at least somewhat support the claim. Further investigation (which was probably warranted) uncovered some fairly incriminating texts.
But the punishments do seem to be exceptionally severe for the infraction.
This is wrong
It's obviously not wrong. If they'd measured the balls at halftime and the pats PSIs were within the allowable limits then it would have been unlikely that anything untoward happened. Measuring the balls and finding many of the pats balls below the allowable limit and none of the colts balls below the limit clearly seems to somewhat support the claim.
Ummm....except for the part in the Wells Report that showed 3 out the 4 balls from the Colts measured were under the minimum according to one gauge at halftime.
I stand corrected. One of the colts balls was within range on both measurements, the other three were within range on one measurement. None of the pats balls were within range on either measurement. One of the 8 colts measurements was lower than the highest measurement of a pats ball, and 21 of the 22 measurements of the pats balls were lower than the lowest measurement for the colts balls. So that correction still doesn't really exonerate the pats.
Unless, the colts balls started at 13 psi instead of 12.5 as was WIDELY reported including by Walt Anderson in the wells report
-
I have really gone full arc on this. When along with the rest of the NFL fandom, I heard:
"The Patriot's balls were 2 psi under the minimum of 12.5 psig (the "g" here is important) and McNally was shown on film going into a bathroom with the balls"
I thought, OK, wow, I can't believe my Pats did this.
But if the first story was something more like:
"The Pats balls do not appear to be measurably underinflated and McNally took the balls into a bathroom for 90 seconds"
I think this whole thing would be a very different story.
Same now with the Phone:
"Brady destroyed his phone to avoid having to turn over information, continuing his pattern of lack of cooperation with the investigation"
or if you believe Sally Jenkins:
"Wells stated that Brady cooperated fully with the investigation and Wells did not need any further phone related information. Brady got a new phone and destroyed his old phone."
Context is very important and it is clear that the NFL is going out of their way to create the worst possible context for all of these leaks. Why??
Wells didn't say he did not need any further phone related information. He said that he didn't need to see the phone himself, he just wanted them to provide information from the phone that was related to the investigation. Brady refused to provide the information and directed someone to destroy the phone.
This is Sally Jenkins version of the alleged statements:
Wells never asked for Tom Brady’s cellphone and didn’t require it. “Keep the phone,” Wells told Brady and his agent. He insisted his investigation was thorough without it. “I don’t think it undermines in any way the conclusions of the report,” he said. Those were his exact words. So were these, after interrogating Brady for more than five hours: “Totally cooperative,” Wells said of Brady’s testimony.
Not even close to the way the NFL's leaks portrayed this. That is my point. The NFL is going out of their way to make it seem that Brady did not cooperate by "refusing" to give up his phone, then leaked that he "destroyed" his phone implying that this was further impeding the investigation.
Why didn't the NFL say what Well's said. We don't need his phone and he has been "totally cooperative".
This is from the Wells report:
"Similarly, although Tom Brady appeared for a requested interview and answered
questions voluntarily, he declined to make available any documents or electronic information
(including text messages and emails) that we requested, even though those requests were limited
to the subject matter of our investigation (such as messages concerning the preparation of game
balls, air pressure of balls, inflation of balls or deflation of balls) and we offered to allow Brady?s
counsel to screen and control the production so that it would be limited strictly to responsive
materials and would not involve our taking possession of Brady?s telephone or other electronic
devices. Our inability to review contemporaneous communications and other documents in
Brady?s possession and control related to the matters under review potentially limited the
discovery of relevant evidence and was not helpful to the investigation."
Jenkins (and you) seem to be taking that out of context.
Wells did mention they were "totally cooperative" and voluntary, his direct words. At the same time he DOES make note that Brady refused to provide the requested electronic data... which Wells had NO right to in the first place. Which is the key in all of this.
So yes, Brady was cooperative to the extent that he was required to.
Again, the NFL had no right, even in a limited scope, to go through his private data in one form or another, and Brady setting precedent to make it OK for them to do so would've been idiotic.
-
https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/05/12/full-transcript-ted-wells-conference-call-deflategate-report/sweK5ADLDyhQjnaVBmJRtM/story.html
What about Tom Brady’s lack of cooperation? Did you view Tom Brady as not cooperating fully?
Wells: Mr. Brady, the report sets forth, he came to the interview, he answered every question I put to him. He did not refuse to answer any questions. In terms of the back and forth between Mr. Brady and my team, he was totally cooperative. At the same time, he refused to permit us to review electronic data from his telephone or other instruments. Most of the key evidence, as in most cases, come from people’s cell phones and he refused to let us review the phone and I want to be crystal clear. I told Mr. Brady and his agent I did not, I was willing not to take possession of the phone. I said I don’t want to see any private information, I said you keep the phone. You the agent, Mr. Yee, you can look at the phone. You give me documents that are responsive and I will take your word that you have given me what’s responsive. And they still refused.
Does the lack of cooperation from Brady to turn over the texts, the emails and then the lack of cooperation from the Patriots to produce McNally for a follow up, what kind of holes can that create in your report?
Wells: I don’t think it undermines in any way the conclusions of the report. I do believe that if I had had access to Brady’s electronic messages and if I had received all of the messages that it might have yielded additional insights into what happened and I think that would have been good for everybody regardless of what it showed. and I think it’s disappointing that they would say on one hand they are cooperating and yet refuse to give me access to the electronic data. I mean as I said a few minutes ago, most of the evidence in a huge number of cases today is based on a review of electronic data, be it text messages, emails, what have you. That’s just how our society has evolved. So the notion that you are going to say you’re cooperating but I won’t let you look at perhaps the most fruitful area of evidence I think is inconsistent.
-
Given all the leaks and evidence that suggests that the league was intentionally trying to turn the public's opinion against the Pats, I don't see why people aren't demanding to see the phones and internal emails of league employees including Roger Goodell.
And before anyone goes crazy and compares this to an employee asking an employer to take the same drug test that he is, please keep in mind that Roger Goodell is not Brady's employer, Robert Kraft is. Goodell and other league officials are also employees.
-
https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/05/12/full-transcript-ted-wells-conference-call-deflategate-report/sweK5ADLDyhQjnaVBmJRtM/story.html
What about Tom Brady’s lack of cooperation? Did you view Tom Brady as not cooperating fully?
Wells: Mr. Brady, the report sets forth, he came to the interview, he answered every question I put to him. He did not refuse to answer any questions. In terms of the back and forth between Mr. Brady and my team, he was totally cooperative. At the same time, he refused to permit us to review electronic data from his telephone or other instruments. Most of the key evidence, as in most cases, come from people’s cell phones and he refused to let us review the phone and I want to be crystal clear. I told Mr. Brady and his agent I did not, I was willing not to take possession of the phone. I said I don’t want to see any private information, I said you keep the phone. You the agent, Mr. Yee, you can look at the phone. You give me documents that are responsive and I will take your word that you have given me what’s responsive. And they still refused.
Does the lack of cooperation from Brady to turn over the texts, the emails and then the lack of cooperation from the Patriots to produce McNally for a follow up, what kind of holes can that create in your report?
Wells: I don’t think it undermines in any way the conclusions of the report. I do believe that if I had had access to Brady’s electronic messages and if I had received all of the messages that it might have yielded additional insights into what happened and I think that would have been good for everybody regardless of what it showed. and I think it’s disappointing that they would say on one hand they are cooperating and yet refuse to give me access to the electronic data. I mean as I said a few minutes ago, most of the evidence in a huge number of cases today is based on a review of electronic data, be it text messages, emails, what have you. That’s just how our society has evolved. So the notion that you are going to say you’re cooperating but I won’t let you look at perhaps the most fruitful area of evidence I think is inconsistent.
However, after the appeal Brady's lawyer said he provided the NFL with an "unprecedented" amount of electronic data. It seems like Brady was more cooperative during the appeals process but by that point the NLF wasn't trying to hear it. That makes me believe that the NFL was more concerned with getting a PR win than actually finding out what happened. The report is that had Brady admitted guilt his suspension would have been reduced. That screams, please vindicate us for wasting everyones time.
-
https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/05/12/full-transcript-ted-wells-conference-call-deflategate-report/sweK5ADLDyhQjnaVBmJRtM/story.html
What about Tom Brady’s lack of cooperation? Did you view Tom Brady as not cooperating fully?
Wells: Mr. Brady, the report sets forth, he came to the interview, he answered every question I put to him. He did not refuse to answer any questions. In terms of the back and forth between Mr. Brady and my team, he was totally cooperative. At the same time, he refused to permit us to review electronic data from his telephone or other instruments. Most of the key evidence, as in most cases, come from people’s cell phones and he refused to let us review the phone and I want to be crystal clear. I told Mr. Brady and his agent I did not, I was willing not to take possession of the phone. I said I don’t want to see any private information, I said you keep the phone. You the agent, Mr. Yee, you can look at the phone. You give me documents that are responsive and I will take your word that you have given me what’s responsive. And they still refused.
Does the lack of cooperation from Brady to turn over the texts, the emails and then the lack of cooperation from the Patriots to produce McNally for a follow up, what kind of holes can that create in your report?
Wells: I don’t think it undermines in any way the conclusions of the report. I do believe that if I had had access to Brady’s electronic messages and if I had received all of the messages that it might have yielded additional insights into what happened and I think that would have been good for everybody regardless of what it showed. and I think it’s disappointing that they would say on one hand they are cooperating and yet refuse to give me access to the electronic data. I mean as I said a few minutes ago, most of the evidence in a huge number of cases today is based on a review of electronic data, be it text messages, emails, what have you. That’s just how our society has evolved. So the notion that you are going to say you’re cooperating but I won’t let you look at perhaps the most fruitful area of evidence I think is inconsistent.
However, after the appeal Brady's lawyer said he provided the NFL with an "unprecedented" amount of electronic data. It seems like Brady was more cooperative during the appeals process but by that point the NLF wasn't trying to hear it. That makes me believe that the NFL was more concerned with getting a PR win than actually finding out what happened. The report is that had Brady admitted guilt his suspension would have been reduced. That screams, please vindicate us for wasting everyones time.
Wait.....the NFL would do this? Noooooo :P
-
https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/05/12/full-transcript-ted-wells-conference-call-deflategate-report/sweK5ADLDyhQjnaVBmJRtM/story.html
What about Tom Brady’s lack of cooperation? Did you view Tom Brady as not cooperating fully?
Wells: Mr. Brady, the report sets forth, he came to the interview, he answered every question I put to him. He did not refuse to answer any questions. In terms of the back and forth between Mr. Brady and my team, he was totally cooperative. At the same time, he refused to permit us to review electronic data from his telephone or other instruments. Most of the key evidence, as in most cases, come from people’s cell phones and he refused to let us review the phone and I want to be crystal clear. I told Mr. Brady and his agent I did not, I was willing not to take possession of the phone. I said I don’t want to see any private information, I said you keep the phone. You the agent, Mr. Yee, you can look at the phone. You give me documents that are responsive and I will take your word that you have given me what’s responsive. And they still refused.
Does the lack of cooperation from Brady to turn over the texts, the emails and then the lack of cooperation from the Patriots to produce McNally for a follow up, what kind of holes can that create in your report?
Wells: I don’t think it undermines in any way the conclusions of the report. I do believe that if I had had access to Brady’s electronic messages and if I had received all of the messages that it might have yielded additional insights into what happened and I think that would have been good for everybody regardless of what it showed. and I think it’s disappointing that they would say on one hand they are cooperating and yet refuse to give me access to the electronic data. I mean as I said a few minutes ago, most of the evidence in a huge number of cases today is based on a review of electronic data, be it text messages, emails, what have you. That’s just how our society has evolved. So the notion that you are going to say you’re cooperating but I won’t let you look at perhaps the most fruitful area of evidence I think is inconsistent.
However, after the appeal Brady's lawyer said he provided the NFL with an "unprecedented" amount of electronic data. It seems like Brady was more cooperative during the appeals process but by that point the NLF wasn't trying to hear it. That makes me believe that the NFL was more concerned with getting a PR win than actually finding out what happened. The report is that had Brady admitted guilt his suspension would have been reduced. That screams, please vindicate us for wasting everyones time.
Or maybe the NFL is like the Court system and you can't bring up new evidence that was available at the time of the original action.
If you fail to cooperate you get burned. Period.
-
"the margin of error in the measurements will be larger than what they're trying to measure".
Clearly that was going to be the case, and obviously that's what happened.
You don't think that's a pretty serious problem when the NFL seeks to hand down one of the most severe punishments in the history of the league (picks + fines + suspension) for a violation it doesn't have the ability to prove even happened?
The pats were accused of doctoring the air pressure in their footballs by another team, and the (poorly done) pressure measurements seem to at least somewhat support the claim. Further investigation (which was probably warranted) uncovered some fairly incriminating texts.
But the punishments do seem to be exceptionally severe for the infraction.
This is wrong
It's obviously not wrong. If they'd measured the balls at halftime and the pats PSIs were within the allowable limits then it would have been unlikely that anything untoward happened. Measuring the balls and finding many of the pats balls below the allowable limit and none of the colts balls below the limit clearly seems to somewhat support the claim.
Ummm....except for the part in the Wells Report that showed 3 out the 4 balls from the Colts measured were under the minimum according to one gauge at halftime.
I stand corrected. One of the colts balls was within range on both measurements, the other three were within range on one measurement. None of the pats balls were within range on either measurement. One of the 8 colts measurements was lower than the highest measurement of a pats ball, and 21 of the 22 measurements of the pats balls were lower than the lowest measurement for the colts balls. So that correction still doesn't really exonerate the pats.
Unless, the colts balls started at 13 psi instead of 12.5 as was WIDELY reported including by Walt Anderson in the wells report
Do the math, the difference in the average between the pats and colts balls at halftime is probably well over that .5 psi starting difference.
-
"the margin of error in the measurements will be larger than what they're trying to measure".
Clearly that was going to be the case, and obviously that's what happened.
You don't think that's a pretty serious problem when the NFL seeks to hand down one of the most severe punishments in the history of the league (picks + fines + suspension) for a violation it doesn't have the ability to prove even happened?
The pats were accused of doctoring the air pressure in their footballs by another team, and the (poorly done) pressure measurements seem to at least somewhat support the claim. Further investigation (which was probably warranted) uncovered some fairly incriminating texts.
But the punishments do seem to be exceptionally severe for the infraction.
This is wrong
It's obviously not wrong. If they'd measured the balls at halftime and the pats PSIs were within the allowable limits then it would have been unlikely that anything untoward happened. Measuring the balls and finding many of the pats balls below the allowable limit and none of the colts balls below the limit clearly seems to somewhat support the claim.
Ummm....except for the part in the Wells Report that showed 3 out the 4 balls from the Colts measured were under the minimum according to one gauge at halftime.
I stand corrected. One of the colts balls was within range on both measurements, the other three were within range on one measurement. None of the pats balls were within range on either measurement. One of the 8 colts measurements was lower than the highest measurement of a pats ball, and 21 of the 22 measurements of the pats balls were lower than the lowest measurement for the colts balls. So that correction still doesn't really exonerate the pats.
Unless, the colts balls started at 13 psi instead of 12.5 as was WIDELY reported including by Walt Anderson in the wells report
Do the math, the difference in the average between the pats and colts balls at halftime is probably well over that .5 psi starting difference.
The reasons for that has already been explained by Ideal Gas Law which indicated by the nature of them being measured after the Patriot's ones [and whatever time passed between them] was a factor for the increased PSI.
-
Or maybe the NFL is like the Court system and you can't bring up new evidence that was available at the time of the original action.
If you fail to cooperate you get burned. Period.
There seems to be some inconsistency about when the NFL is allowed to be held to the standards of a court (when it wants to crush players who step out of line, mostly) and when it doesn't (like when it needs to cooperate with the rules of evidence).
-
"the margin of error in the measurements will be larger than what they're trying to measure".
Clearly that was going to be the case, and obviously that's what happened.
You don't think that's a pretty serious problem when the NFL seeks to hand down one of the most severe punishments in the history of the league (picks + fines + suspension) for a violation it doesn't have the ability to prove even happened?
The pats were accused of doctoring the air pressure in their footballs by another team, and the (poorly done) pressure measurements seem to at least somewhat support the claim. Further investigation (which was probably warranted) uncovered some fairly incriminating texts.
But the punishments do seem to be exceptionally severe for the infraction.
This is wrong
It's obviously not wrong. If they'd measured the balls at halftime and the pats PSIs were within the allowable limits then it would have been unlikely that anything untoward happened. Measuring the balls and finding many of the pats balls below the allowable limit and none of the colts balls below the limit clearly seems to somewhat support the claim.
Ummm....except for the part in the Wells Report that showed 3 out the 4 balls from the Colts measured were under the minimum according to one gauge at halftime.
I stand corrected. One of the colts balls was within range on both measurements, the other three were within range on one measurement. None of the pats balls were within range on either measurement. One of the 8 colts measurements was lower than the highest measurement of a pats ball, and 21 of the 22 measurements of the pats balls were lower than the lowest measurement for the colts balls. So that correction still doesn't really exonerate the pats.
Unless, the colts balls started at 13 psi instead of 12.5 as was WIDELY reported including by Walt Anderson in the wells report
Do the math, the difference in the average between the pats and colts balls at halftime is probably well over that .5 psi starting difference.
The reasons for that has already been explained by Gas Law which indicated by the nature of them being measured after the Patriot's ones [and whatever time passed between them] was a factor for the increased PSI.
Yup. There certainly can be a scientific explanation for it & this was also addressed in the Wells Report. Up to 0.7 PSI in 13 minutes.
-
I have really gone full arc on this. When along with the rest of the NFL fandom, I heard:
"The Patriot's balls were 2 psi under the minimum of 12.5 psig (the "g" here is important) and McNally was shown on film going into a bathroom with the balls"
I thought, OK, wow, I can't believe my Pats did this.
But if the first story was something more like:
"The Pats balls do not appear to be measurably underinflated and McNally took the balls into a bathroom for 90 seconds"
I think this whole thing would be a very different story.
Same now with the Phone:
"Brady destroyed his phone to avoid having to turn over information, continuing his pattern of lack of cooperation with the investigation"
or if you believe Sally Jenkins:
"Wells stated that Brady cooperated fully with the investigation and Wells did not need any further phone related information. Brady got a new phone and destroyed his old phone."
Context is very important and it is clear that the NFL is going out of their way to create the worst possible context for all of these leaks. Why??
Wells didn't say he did not need any further phone related information. He said that he didn't need to see the phone himself, he just wanted them to provide information from the phone that was related to the investigation. Brady refused to provide the information and directed someone to destroy the phone.
This is Sally Jenkins version of the alleged statements:
Wells never asked for Tom Brady’s cellphone and didn’t require it. “Keep the phone,” Wells told Brady and his agent. He insisted his investigation was thorough without it. “I don’t think it undermines in any way the conclusions of the report,” he said. Those were his exact words. So were these, after interrogating Brady for more than five hours: “Totally cooperative,” Wells said of Brady’s testimony.
Not even close to the way the NFL's leaks portrayed this. That is my point. The NFL is going out of their way to make it seem that Brady did not cooperate by "refusing" to give up his phone, then leaked that he "destroyed" his phone implying that this was further impeding the investigation.
Why didn't the NFL say what Well's said. We don't need his phone and he has been "totally cooperative".
This is from the Wells report:
"Similarly, although Tom Brady appeared for a requested interview and answered
questions voluntarily, he declined to make available any documents or electronic information
(including text messages and emails) that we requested, even though those requests were limited
to the subject matter of our investigation (such as messages concerning the preparation of game
balls, air pressure of balls, inflation of balls or deflation of balls) and we offered to allow Brady?s
counsel to screen and control the production so that it would be limited strictly to responsive
materials and would not involve our taking possession of Brady?s telephone or other electronic
devices. Our inability to review contemporaneous communications and other documents in
Brady?s possession and control related to the matters under review potentially limited the
discovery of relevant evidence and was not helpful to the investigation."
Jenkins (and you) seem to be taking that out of context.
Wells did mention they were "totally cooperative" and voluntary, his direct words. At the same time he DOES make note that Brady refused to provide the requested electronic data... which Wells had NO right to in the first place. Which is the key in all of this.
So yes, Brady was cooperative to the extent that he was required to.
Again, the NFL had no right, even in a limited scope, to go through his private data in one form or another, and Brady setting precedent to make it OK for them to do so would've been idiotic.
While they note that Brady answered all of the questions voluntarily, they don't seem to believe that he answered all of the questions honestly, specifically his lack of any recollection of what he and Jastremski discussed in the days following the afc title game. While they'd view such answers as voluntary, I doubt they'd consider them to be full cooperation with the investigation.
-
https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/05/12/full-transcript-ted-wells-conference-call-deflategate-report/sweK5ADLDyhQjnaVBmJRtM/story.html
What about Tom Brady’s lack of cooperation? Did you view Tom Brady as not cooperating fully?
Wells: Mr. Brady, the report sets forth, he came to the interview, he answered every question I put to him. He did not refuse to answer any questions. In terms of the back and forth between Mr. Brady and my team, he was totally cooperative. At the same time, he refused to permit us to review electronic data from his telephone or other instruments. Most of the key evidence, as in most cases, come from people’s cell phones and he refused to let us review the phone and I want to be crystal clear. I told Mr. Brady and his agent I did not, I was willing not to take possession of the phone. I said I don’t want to see any private information, I said you keep the phone. You the agent, Mr. Yee, you can look at the phone. You give me documents that are responsive and I will take your word that you have given me what’s responsive. And they still refused.
Does the lack of cooperation from Brady to turn over the texts, the emails and then the lack of cooperation from the Patriots to produce McNally for a follow up, what kind of holes can that create in your report?
Wells: I don’t think it undermines in any way the conclusions of the report. I do believe that if I had had access to Brady’s electronic messages and if I had received all of the messages that it might have yielded additional insights into what happened and I think that would have been good for everybody regardless of what it showed. and I think it’s disappointing that they would say on one hand they are cooperating and yet refuse to give me access to the electronic data. I mean as I said a few minutes ago, most of the evidence in a huge number of cases today is based on a review of electronic data, be it text messages, emails, what have you. That’s just how our society has evolved. So the notion that you are going to say you’re cooperating but I won’t let you look at perhaps the most fruitful area of evidence I think is inconsistent.
However, after the appeal Brady's lawyer said he provided the NFL with an "unprecedented" amount of electronic data. It seems like Brady was more cooperative during the appeals process but by that point the NLF wasn't trying to hear it. That makes me believe that the NFL was more concerned with getting a PR win than actually finding out what happened. The report is that had Brady admitted guilt his suspension would have been reduced. That screams, please vindicate us for wasting everyones time.
Or maybe the NFL is like the Court system and you can't bring up new evidence that was available at the time of the original action.
If you fail to cooperate you get burned. Period.
So Goodell said he was willing to hear new information, but he really didn't mean it?
-
This should be fascinating.
From PFT:
Judge Berman orders NFL-NFLPA to not file documents under seal
Posted by Mike Florio on August 4, 2015, 4:04 PM EDT
AP
Full transparency is coming to the Tom Brady appeal process.
Judge Richard M. Berman, who strongly hinted on Friday that he won’t be inclined to allow the NFL and NFLPA to keep the transcript of the 10-hour Tom Brady appeal hearing secret, has ordered the parties to not submit materials under seal, according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
It means that the transcript of the Brady appeal hearing will soon be made public.
The NFLPA previously attached the transcript as an exhibit to the filing made under seal in federal court in Minnesota. With that case transferred back to New York, the union soon will be re-filing its initial submission, with the transcript as an exhibit.
And the transcript at that point will be a matter of public record. Which means that it’ll be time to brew some coffee and put on the cheaters, because anyone paid to comment on this case will be compelled to read every word of every page of the transcript.
-
"the margin of error in the measurements will be larger than what they're trying to measure".
Clearly that was going to be the case, and obviously that's what happened.
You don't think that's a pretty serious problem when the NFL seeks to hand down one of the most severe punishments in the history of the league (picks + fines + suspension) for a violation it doesn't have the ability to prove even happened?
The pats were accused of doctoring the air pressure in their footballs by another team, and the (poorly done) pressure measurements seem to at least somewhat support the claim. Further investigation (which was probably warranted) uncovered some fairly incriminating texts.
But the punishments do seem to be exceptionally severe for the infraction.
This is wrong
It's obviously not wrong. If they'd measured the balls at halftime and the pats PSIs were within the allowable limits then it would have been unlikely that anything untoward happened. Measuring the balls and finding many of the pats balls below the allowable limit and none of the colts balls below the limit clearly seems to somewhat support the claim.
Ummm....except for the part in the Wells Report that showed 3 out the 4 balls from the Colts measured were under the minimum according to one gauge at halftime.
I stand corrected. One of the colts balls was within range on both measurements, the other three were within range on one measurement. None of the pats balls were within range on either measurement. One of the 8 colts measurements was lower than the highest measurement of a pats ball, and 21 of the 22 measurements of the pats balls were lower than the lowest measurement for the colts balls. So that correction still doesn't really exonerate the pats.
Unless, the colts balls started at 13 psi instead of 12.5 as was WIDELY reported including by Walt Anderson in the wells report
Do the math, the difference in the average between the pats and colts balls at halftime is probably well over that .5 psi starting difference.
The reasons for that has already been explained by Ideal Gas Law which indicated by the nature of them being measured after the Patriot's ones [and whatever time passed between them] was a factor for the increased PSI.
The ideal gas law is a *possible* explanation for the difference, hence the inconclusiveness of the data. You'd also see consistent signs of it. The first balls that were measured would tend to have the lowest psi, the last pats balls to be measured would be close to being in range. You'd also likely see more of a spread between the first pats balls measured and the last than you would between the last pats balls and the colts balls as the increase in temperature would slow as they approached equilibrium. I don't think that's the case.
-
"the margin of error in the measurements will be larger than what they're trying to measure".
Clearly that was going to be the case, and obviously that's what happened.
You don't think that's a pretty serious problem when the NFL seeks to hand down one of the most severe punishments in the history of the league (picks + fines + suspension) for a violation it doesn't have the ability to prove even happened?
The pats were accused of doctoring the air pressure in their footballs by another team, and the (poorly done) pressure measurements seem to at least somewhat support the claim. Further investigation (which was probably warranted) uncovered some fairly incriminating texts.
But the punishments do seem to be exceptionally severe for the infraction.
This is wrong
It's obviously not wrong. If they'd measured the balls at halftime and the pats PSIs were within the allowable limits then it would have been unlikely that anything untoward happened. Measuring the balls and finding many of the pats balls below the allowable limit and none of the colts balls below the limit clearly seems to somewhat support the claim.
Ummm....except for the part in the Wells Report that showed 3 out the 4 balls from the Colts measured were under the minimum according to one gauge at halftime.
I stand corrected. One of the colts balls was within range on both measurements, the other three were within range on one measurement. None of the pats balls were within range on either measurement. One of the 8 colts measurements was lower than the highest measurement of a pats ball, and 21 of the 22 measurements of the pats balls were lower than the lowest measurement for the colts balls. So that correction still doesn't really exonerate the pats.
Unless, the colts balls started at 13 psi instead of 12.5 as was WIDELY reported including by Walt Anderson in the wells report
Do the math, the difference in the average between the pats and colts balls at halftime is probably well over that .5 psi starting difference.
The reasons for that has already been explained by Ideal Gas Law which indicated by the nature of them being measured after the Patriot's ones [and whatever time passed between them] was a factor for the increased PSI.
The ideal gas law is a *possible* explanation for the difference, hence the inconclusiveness of the data. You'd also see consistent signs of it. The first balls that were measured would tend to have the lowest psi, the last pats balls to be measured would be close to being in range. You'd also likely see more of a spread between the first pats balls measured and the last than you would between the last pats balls and the colts balls as the increase in temperature would slow as they approached equilibrium. I don't think that's the case.
Read the AEI report. They spelled it all out pretty conclusively while [dang]ing the analysis in the wells report by exponent.
-
This should be fascinating.
From PFT:
Judge Berman orders NFL-NFLPA to not file documents under seal
Posted by Mike Florio on August 4, 2015, 4:04 PM EDT
AP
Full transparency is coming to the Tom Brady appeal process.
Judge Richard M. Berman, who strongly hinted on Friday that he won’t be inclined to allow the NFL and NFLPA to keep the transcript of the 10-hour Tom Brady appeal hearing secret, has ordered the parties to not submit materials under seal, according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
It means that the transcript of the Brady appeal hearing will soon be made public.
The NFLPA previously attached the transcript as an exhibit to the filing made under seal in federal court in Minnesota. With that case transferred back to New York, the union soon will be re-filing its initial submission, with the transcript as an exhibit.
And the transcript at that point will be a matter of public record. Which means that it’ll be time to brew some coffee and put on the cheaters, because anyone paid to comment on this case will be compelled to read every word of every page of the transcript.
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/1325492886_Borat_Great_Success.jpg)
This is actually awesome, though. At least, I am going to enjoy the heck out of it.
-
"the margin of error in the measurements will be larger than what they're trying to measure".
Clearly that was going to be the case, and obviously that's what happened.
You don't think that's a pretty serious problem when the NFL seeks to hand down one of the most severe punishments in the history of the league (picks + fines + suspension) for a violation it doesn't have the ability to prove even happened?
The pats were accused of doctoring the air pressure in their footballs by another team, and the (poorly done) pressure measurements seem to at least somewhat support the claim. Further investigation (which was probably warranted) uncovered some fairly incriminating texts.
But the punishments do seem to be exceptionally severe for the infraction.
This is wrong
It's obviously not wrong. If they'd measured the balls at halftime and the pats PSIs were within the allowable limits then it would have been unlikely that anything untoward happened. Measuring the balls and finding many of the pats balls below the allowable limit and none of the colts balls below the limit clearly seems to somewhat support the claim.
Ummm....except for the part in the Wells Report that showed 3 out the 4 balls from the Colts measured were under the minimum according to one gauge at halftime.
I stand corrected. One of the colts balls was within range on both measurements, the other three were within range on one measurement. None of the pats balls were within range on either measurement. One of the 8 colts measurements was lower than the highest measurement of a pats ball, and 21 of the 22 measurements of the pats balls were lower than the lowest measurement for the colts balls. So that correction still doesn't really exonerate the pats.
Unless, the colts balls started at 13 psi instead of 12.5 as was WIDELY reported including by Walt Anderson in the wells report
Do the math, the difference in the average between the pats and colts balls at halftime is probably well over that .5 psi starting difference.
The reasons for that has already been explained by Gas Law which indicated by the nature of them being measured after the Patriot's ones [and whatever time passed between them] was a factor for the increased PSI.
Yup. There certainly can be a scientific explanation for it & this was also addressed in the Wells Report. Up to 0.7 PSI in 13 minutes.
For the record, I'm not oblivious to the ideal gas law, and I didn't need a refresher course in it when this story came out. I'm saying that they didn't take enough measurements to measure the effect of it they didn't take all of the measurements they'd want to, and the measuring they did wasn't accurate enough, they didn't even know (apparently) which gauge they used for some of the measurements. On top of that, they don't know how well the balls held their air pressure. Did I miss anything?
The only things you can prove or disprove based on that are things that are so far from what was measured that the accumulation of all of the errors aren't great enough to affect them.
-
"the margin of error in the measurements will be larger than what they're trying to measure".
Clearly that was going to be the case, and obviously that's what happened.
You don't think that's a pretty serious problem when the NFL seeks to hand down one of the most severe punishments in the history of the league (picks + fines + suspension) for a violation it doesn't have the ability to prove even happened?
The pats were accused of doctoring the air pressure in their footballs by another team, and the (poorly done) pressure measurements seem to at least somewhat support the claim. Further investigation (which was probably warranted) uncovered some fairly incriminating texts.
But the punishments do seem to be exceptionally severe for the infraction.
This is wrong
It's obviously not wrong. If they'd measured the balls at halftime and the pats PSIs were within the allowable limits then it would have been unlikely that anything untoward happened. Measuring the balls and finding many of the pats balls below the allowable limit and none of the colts balls below the limit clearly seems to somewhat support the claim.
Ummm....except for the part in the Wells Report that showed 3 out the 4 balls from the Colts measured were under the minimum according to one gauge at halftime.
I stand corrected. One of the colts balls was within range on both measurements, the other three were within range on one measurement. None of the pats balls were within range on either measurement. One of the 8 colts measurements was lower than the highest measurement of a pats ball, and 21 of the 22 measurements of the pats balls were lower than the lowest measurement for the colts balls. So that correction still doesn't really exonerate the pats.
Unless, the colts balls started at 13 psi instead of 12.5 as was WIDELY reported including by Walt Anderson in the wells report
Do the math, the difference in the average between the pats and colts balls at halftime is probably well over that .5 psi starting difference.
The reasons for that has already been explained by Gas Law which indicated by the nature of them being measured after the Patriot's ones [and whatever time passed between them] was a factor for the increased PSI.
Yup. There certainly can be a scientific explanation for it & this was also addressed in the Wells Report. Up to 0.7 PSI in 13 minutes.
For the record, I'm not oblivious to the ideal gas law, and I didn't need a refresher course in it when this story came out. I'm saying that they didn't take enough measurements to measure the effect of it they didn't take all of the measurements they'd want to, and the measuring they did wasn't accurate enough, they didn't even know (apparently) which gauge they used for some of the measurements. On top of that, they don't know how well the balls held their air pressure. Did I miss anything?
The only things you can prove or disprove based on that are things that are so far from what was measured that the accumulation of all of the errors aren't great enough to affect them.
1st para sounds like an excellent endorsement for why there should have been absolutely NO punishment, and a promise to tighten up the process for next year (i.e., next BB rule).
CB
-
"the margin of error in the measurements will be larger than what they're trying to measure".
Clearly that was going to be the case, and obviously that's what happened.
You don't think that's a pretty serious problem when the NFL seeks to hand down one of the most severe punishments in the history of the league (picks + fines + suspension) for a violation it doesn't have the ability to prove even happened?
The pats were accused of doctoring the air pressure in their footballs by another team, and the (poorly done) pressure measurements seem to at least somewhat support the claim. Further investigation (which was probably warranted) uncovered some fairly incriminating texts.
But the punishments do seem to be exceptionally severe for the infraction.
This is wrong
It's obviously not wrong. If they'd measured the balls at halftime and the pats PSIs were within the allowable limits then it would have been unlikely that anything untoward happened. Measuring the balls and finding many of the pats balls below the allowable limit and none of the colts balls below the limit clearly seems to somewhat support the claim.
Ummm....except for the part in the Wells Report that showed 3 out the 4 balls from the Colts measured were under the minimum according to one gauge at halftime.
I stand corrected. One of the colts balls was within range on both measurements, the other three were within range on one measurement. None of the pats balls were within range on either measurement. One of the 8 colts measurements was lower than the highest measurement of a pats ball, and 21 of the 22 measurements of the pats balls were lower than the lowest measurement for the colts balls. So that correction still doesn't really exonerate the pats.
Unless, the colts balls started at 13 psi instead of 12.5 as was WIDELY reported including by Walt Anderson in the wells report
Do the math, the difference in the average between the pats and colts balls at halftime is probably well over that .5 psi starting difference.
The reasons for that has already been explained by Ideal Gas Law which indicated by the nature of them being measured after the Patriot's ones [and whatever time passed between them] was a factor for the increased PSI.
The ideal gas law is a *possible* explanation for the difference, hence the inconclusiveness of the data. You'd also see consistent signs of it. The first balls that were measured would tend to have the lowest psi, the last pats balls to be measured would be close to being in range. You'd also likely see more of a spread between the first pats balls measured and the last than you would between the last pats balls and the colts balls as the increase in temperature would slow as they approached equilibrium. I don't think that's the case.
Read the AEI report. They spelled it all out pretty conclusively while [dang]ing the analysis in the wells report by exponent.
If you are interested in the science, you should read Steve McIntyre's writing on the subject.
He thinks it's more likely the logo gauge was used and the balls were not tampered with. He also shreds Exponent's report.
"Remarkably, for Non-Logo initialization, the only manual deflation that is not precluded are amounts equal (within uncertainty) to the inter-gauge bias of ~0.38 psi. Precisely why Patriots would have deflated balls by an amount almost exactly equal to the bias between referee Anderson’s gauges is a bizarre coincidence, to say the least. I think that one can safely say that it is “more probable than not” that referee Anderson used the Logo gauge than that such an implausible coincidence."
http://climateaudit.org/2015/06/29/exponents-transients-bodge-or-botch/
http://www.climateaudit.info/data/football/mcintyre_analysis_of_wells_report.pdf
-
"the margin of error in the measurements will be larger than what they're trying to measure".
Clearly that was going to be the case, and obviously that's what happened.
You don't think that's a pretty serious problem when the NFL seeks to hand down one of the most severe punishments in the history of the league (picks + fines + suspension) for a violation it doesn't have the ability to prove even happened?
The pats were accused of doctoring the air pressure in their footballs by another team, and the (poorly done) pressure measurements seem to at least somewhat support the claim. Further investigation (which was probably warranted) uncovered some fairly incriminating texts.
But the punishments do seem to be exceptionally severe for the infraction.
This is wrong
It's obviously not wrong. If they'd measured the balls at halftime and the pats PSIs were within the allowable limits then it would have been unlikely that anything untoward happened. Measuring the balls and finding many of the pats balls below the allowable limit and none of the colts balls below the limit clearly seems to somewhat support the claim.
Ummm....except for the part in the Wells Report that showed 3 out the 4 balls from the Colts measured were under the minimum according to one gauge at halftime.
I stand corrected. One of the colts balls was within range on both measurements, the other three were within range on one measurement. None of the pats balls were within range on either measurement. One of the 8 colts measurements was lower than the highest measurement of a pats ball, and 21 of the 22 measurements of the pats balls were lower than the lowest measurement for the colts balls. So that correction still doesn't really exonerate the pats.
Unless, the colts balls started at 13 psi instead of 12.5 as was WIDELY reported including by Walt Anderson in the wells report
Do the math, the difference in the average between the pats and colts balls at halftime is probably well over that .5 psi starting difference.
The reasons for that has already been explained by Ideal Gas Law which indicated by the nature of them being measured after the Patriot's ones [and whatever time passed between them] was a factor for the increased PSI.
The ideal gas law is a *possible* explanation for the difference, hence the inconclusiveness of the data. You'd also see consistent signs of it. The first balls that were measured would tend to have the lowest psi, the last pats balls to be measured would be close to being in range. You'd also likely see more of a spread between the first pats balls measured and the last than you would between the last pats balls and the colts balls as the increase in temperature would slow as they approached equilibrium. I don't think that's the case.
Read the AEI report. They spelled it all out pretty conclusively while [dang]ing the analysis in the wells report by exponent.
Did you read it? I'm not going to plow through the whole thing, but I found things like the following in the summary:
"When correct tests are performed, the evidence points to a conclusion that is inconsistent with the Wells findings. Our evidence suggests a specific sequence of events. The Wells report conclusions are likely incorrect, and a simple misunderstanding appears to have led the NFL to these incorrect conclusions."
Note it says the Wells report is LIKELY incorrect.
-
Note it says the Wells report is LIKELY incorrect.
You mean, like, more probably than not? ;D
-
"the margin of error in the measurements will be larger than what they're trying to measure".
Clearly that was going to be the case, and obviously that's what happened.
You don't think that's a pretty serious problem when the NFL seeks to hand down one of the most severe punishments in the history of the league (picks + fines + suspension) for a violation it doesn't have the ability to prove even happened?
The pats were accused of doctoring the air pressure in their footballs by another team, and the (poorly done) pressure measurements seem to at least somewhat support the claim. Further investigation (which was probably warranted) uncovered some fairly incriminating texts.
But the punishments do seem to be exceptionally severe for the infraction.
This is wrong
It's obviously not wrong. If they'd measured the balls at halftime and the pats PSIs were within the allowable limits then it would have been unlikely that anything untoward happened. Measuring the balls and finding many of the pats balls below the allowable limit and none of the colts balls below the limit clearly seems to somewhat support the claim.
Ummm....except for the part in the Wells Report that showed 3 out the 4 balls from the Colts measured were under the minimum according to one gauge at halftime.
I stand corrected. One of the colts balls was within range on both measurements, the other three were within range on one measurement. None of the pats balls were within range on either measurement. One of the 8 colts measurements was lower than the highest measurement of a pats ball, and 21 of the 22 measurements of the pats balls were lower than the lowest measurement for the colts balls. So that correction still doesn't really exonerate the pats.
Unless, the colts balls started at 13 psi instead of 12.5 as was WIDELY reported including by Walt Anderson in the wells report
Do the math, the difference in the average between the pats and colts balls at halftime is probably well over that .5 psi starting difference.
The reasons for that has already been explained by Gas Law which indicated by the nature of them being measured after the Patriot's ones [and whatever time passed between them] was a factor for the increased PSI.
Yup. There certainly can be a scientific explanation for it & this was also addressed in the Wells Report. Up to 0.7 PSI in 13 minutes.
For the record, I'm not oblivious to the ideal gas law, and I didn't need a refresher course in it when this story came out. I'm saying that they didn't take enough measurements to measure the effect of it they didn't take all of the measurements they'd want to, and the measuring they did wasn't accurate enough, they didn't even know (apparently) which gauge they used for some of the measurements. On top of that, they don't know how well the balls held their air pressure. Did I miss anything?
The only things you can prove or disprove based on that are things that are so far from what was measured that the accumulation of all of the errors aren't great enough to affect them.
1st para sounds like an excellent endorsement for why there should have been absolutely NO punishment, and a promise to tighten up the process for next year (i.e., next BB rule).
CB
I think that all of the texts that we've heard about were more of an issue for the pats than the measurements were.
-
Note it says the Wells report is LIKELY incorrect.
You mean, like, more probably than not? ;D
Sure, more probably than not, which probably isn't enough to preclude the investigation which followed.
-
"the margin of error in the measurements will be larger than what they're trying to measure".
Clearly that was going to be the case, and obviously that's what happened.
You don't think that's a pretty serious problem when the NFL seeks to hand down one of the most severe punishments in the history of the league (picks + fines + suspension) for a violation it doesn't have the ability to prove even happened?
The pats were accused of doctoring the air pressure in their footballs by another team, and the (poorly done) pressure measurements seem to at least somewhat support the claim. Further investigation (which was probably warranted) uncovered some fairly incriminating texts.
But the punishments do seem to be exceptionally severe for the infraction.
This is wrong
It's obviously not wrong. If they'd measured the balls at halftime and the pats PSIs were within the allowable limits then it would have been unlikely that anything untoward happened. Measuring the balls and finding many of the pats balls below the allowable limit and none of the colts balls below the limit clearly seems to somewhat support the claim.
Ummm....except for the part in the Wells Report that showed 3 out the 4 balls from the Colts measured were under the minimum according to one gauge at halftime.
I stand corrected. One of the colts balls was within range on both measurements, the other three were within range on one measurement. None of the pats balls were within range on either measurement. One of the 8 colts measurements was lower than the highest measurement of a pats ball, and 21 of the 22 measurements of the pats balls were lower than the lowest measurement for the colts balls. So that correction still doesn't really exonerate the pats.
Unless, the colts balls started at 13 psi instead of 12.5 as was WIDELY reported including by Walt Anderson in the wells report
Do the math, the difference in the average between the pats and colts balls at halftime is probably well over that .5 psi starting difference.
The reasons for that has already been explained by Gas Law which indicated by the nature of them being measured after the Patriot's ones [and whatever time passed between them] was a factor for the increased PSI.
Yup. There certainly can be a scientific explanation for it & this was also addressed in the Wells Report. Up to 0.7 PSI in 13 minutes.
For the record, I'm not oblivious to the ideal gas law, and I didn't need a refresher course in it when this story came out. I'm saying that they didn't take enough measurements to measure the effect of it they didn't take all of the measurements they'd want to, and the measuring they did wasn't accurate enough, they didn't even know (apparently) which gauge they used for some of the measurements. On top of that, they don't know how well the balls held their air pressure. Did I miss anything?
The only things you can prove or disprove based on that are things that are so far from what was measured that the accumulation of all of the errors aren't great enough to affect them.
1st para sounds like an excellent endorsement for why there should have been absolutely NO punishment, and a promise to tighten up the process for next year (i.e., next BB rule).
CB
I think that all of the texts that we've heard about were more of an issue for the pats than the measurements were.
yes, but without a "crime", the texts are meaningless
CB
-
Note it says the Wells report is LIKELY incorrect.
You mean, like, more probably than not? ;D
Sure, more probably than not, which probably isn't enough to preclude the investigation which followed.
The investigation didn't "follow" -- this is the product of said investigation. However, the (obvious) level of uncertainly should have been enough to preclude the way the whole affair was handled, as a minimum.
-
"the margin of error in the measurements will be larger than what they're trying to measure".
Clearly that was going to be the case, and obviously that's what happened.
You don't think that's a pretty serious problem when the NFL seeks to hand down one of the most severe punishments in the history of the league (picks + fines + suspension) for a violation it doesn't have the ability to prove even happened?
The pats were accused of doctoring the air pressure in their footballs by another team, and the (poorly done) pressure measurements seem to at least somewhat support the claim. Further investigation (which was probably warranted) uncovered some fairly incriminating texts.
But the punishments do seem to be exceptionally severe for the infraction.
This is wrong
It's obviously not wrong. If they'd measured the balls at halftime and the pats PSIs were within the allowable limits then it would have been unlikely that anything untoward happened. Measuring the balls and finding many of the pats balls below the allowable limit and none of the colts balls below the limit clearly seems to somewhat support the claim.
Ummm....except for the part in the Wells Report that showed 3 out the 4 balls from the Colts measured were under the minimum according to one gauge at halftime.
I stand corrected. One of the colts balls was within range on both measurements, the other three were within range on one measurement. None of the pats balls were within range on either measurement. One of the 8 colts measurements was lower than the highest measurement of a pats ball, and 21 of the 22 measurements of the pats balls were lower than the lowest measurement for the colts balls. So that correction still doesn't really exonerate the pats.
Unless, the colts balls started at 13 psi instead of 12.5 as was WIDELY reported including by Walt Anderson in the wells report
Do the math, the difference in the average between the pats and colts balls at halftime is probably well over that .5 psi starting difference.
The reasons for that has already been explained by Gas Law which indicated by the nature of them being measured after the Patriot's ones [and whatever time passed between them] was a factor for the increased PSI.
Yup. There certainly can be a scientific explanation for it & this was also addressed in the Wells Report. Up to 0.7 PSI in 13 minutes.
For the record, I'm not oblivious to the ideal gas law, and I didn't need a refresher course in it when this story came out. I'm saying that they didn't take enough measurements to measure the effect of it they didn't take all of the measurements they'd want to, and the measuring they did wasn't accurate enough, they didn't even know (apparently) which gauge they used for some of the measurements. On top of that, they don't know how well the balls held their air pressure. Did I miss anything?
The only things you can prove or disprove based on that are things that are so far from what was measured that the accumulation of all of the errors aren't great enough to affect them.
You wrote this a few days ago, "I don't think the ideal gas law says you'd lose that amount of air." That was in response to my pointing out the IGL accounts for a 1.01 psi drop. I don't mean to be a jerk by digging up older comments, but I think that is proof that you formed your opinion before knowing the basic facts as the IGL states the balls would lose that amount and even slightly more depending on the temperature of the room Anderson tested the balls in before the game.
-
Note it says the Wells report is LIKELY incorrect.
You mean, like, more probably than not? ;D
Sure, more probably than not, which probably isn't enough to preclude the investigation which followed.
The investigation didn't "follow" -- this is the product of said investigation. However, the (obvious) level of uncertainly should have been enough to preclude the way the whole affair was handled, as a minimum.
I've said this before, but I don't think it can be said enough. According the the gauge the ref said he used, the balls should have dropped around 1.1. The average Patriots ball dropped by 1.01 per that gauge. There was no reason for suspicion or an investigation. The suspicion and investigation was based on lies by the NFL that the balls were 2 psi below regulation, not the expected 1 psi. Everything since has been circumstantial.
-
Ok, so, how many times do you think the phrase "integrity of the shield" will be found once the court reports are released in full.
I'm betting at least 15,000. Maybe 250,000. Maybe a million.
-
@McCannSportsLaw among others have been releasing portions of the transcript on Twitter.
-
For those interested. ;)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CLmJ7MdWIAA7QFE.png)
-
Reading this stuff just makes it more obvious how stupid this stuff was. Brady didn't have a roll in this, nothing happened
-
Reading this stuff just makes it more obvious how stupid this stuff was. Brady didn't have a roll in this, nothing happened
From the stuff I've seen released from the transcript so far, I'd agree.
-
Sure he did. He openly flouted the reign of the Ginger Hammer. How is Goodell supposed to sell you guys a pickup truck if you think he's a wuss?
-
Just reiterating the idea that the only winners in this have been the lawyers
EDIT: This is from Wells.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CLmNbT2WoAA3UVT.png)
-
I'm saying that they didn't take enough measurements to measure the effect of it they didn't take all of the measurements they'd want to, and the measuring they did wasn't accurate enough, they didn't even know (apparently) which gauge they used for some of the measurements. On top of that, they don't know how well the balls held their air pressure. Did I miss anything?
I am actually an engineer with a background working with applications of the ideal gas law (and some other gas laws), and there are a couple of things beyond the uncertainties that BballTim has listed. I am being a total devil's advocate to refute the NFL because I don't believe them anymore. I don't know what happened but I enjoy trying to shoot down the NFL's case (which isn't hard because it has a lot of holes).
The first has nothing to do with gases but when leather gets wet, it relaxes or stretches a little. All the balls would have a different level of moisture content at the time of being measured and the leather would be different in every ball. This doesn't necessarily favor the Pats but their balls would have been a little wetter when tested at halftime than the Colts balls which had a little longer to dry. This is not a big difference but we are talking about fractions of psi. We are talking about 0.5 psi out of a total absolute pressure of about 27 psi or 2% so something small can be making the difference in these measurements
The other thing that can make a difference is that as balls are pumped up, the air inside gets hotter. The pump takes air at 0 psig (14.7 psia or absolute pressure) and compresses it to say 13 psig (27.7 psia) so that it can go through the needle and into the ball. This small amount of air will be hot per the ideal gas law and will mix with the cooler air already in the ball. So if the refs added a little air to the Pat's balls, the air in the ball at that moment would be a little hotter than equilibrium (room air) and the cooling effect would reduce the pressure even more.
If the Refs took a little air out of the Colts balls, the air in the balls is expanded a little and cooled a little, reducing its change in temperature and resulting change in pressure. This type of thing could contribute to the fact that the Pat's balls lost more air pressure than the Colts. I say "could" because I have never seen a description of what the refs did with the balls before the game.
And my final thought (for now anyway) is if there was a camera on the bathroom to record that McNally went in with the balls for 90 seconds, shouldn't there be film to show any other time he had gone in? If he had been at work all day and didn't go to the bathroom, wouldn't that make the idea that he just went to the bathroom more plausible? And if they had film of him taking a leak say 30 minutes earlier, that would destroy his story. Since the NFL has leaked every other detail true or not, if they had him in the bathroom earlier, I sure we would have heard about that.
It seems reasonable to me that he would take a leak before heading out on the field. He is probably required to stay on the field and would not have a chance to run back in before halftime. I know I take a leak before I go to my seat when I go to games.
For anyone still reading this long post I want to explain gage pressure vs. absolute pressure. When they quote 12.5 or 13.0 psi, they are implying that this is gage pressure or psig. Gage pressure means the difference between the pressure you are measuring and atmospheric pressure (which varies but averages 14.7 psia at sea level). Pressure gages can only measure a pressure relative to a reference pressure so gages inherently reference atmospheric pressure (it is right there and easy to reference). The point is that pressure gages of the type used are not highly accurate and real gases do not behave exactly as ideal gases. You are comparing a inaccurate measurement of gage pressure to a somewhat simplified calculation of absolute pressure-temperature changes so 0.5 psi of bias (about 2% of the absolute pressure in the ball) is a really small difference.
Why would McNally go to all this trouble to release an almost immeasurable amount of air from the balls? You could barely get the needle in and out quick enough to limit the release of air to the amount we are talking about.
-
I'm saying that they didn't take enough measurements to measure the effect of it they didn't take all of the measurements they'd want to, and the measuring they did wasn't accurate enough, they didn't even know (apparently) which gauge they used for some of the measurements. On top of that, they don't know how well the balls held their air pressure. Did I miss anything?
I am actually an engineer with a background working with applications of the ideal gas law (and some other gas laws), and there are a couple of things beyond the uncertainties that BballTim has listed. I am being a total devil's advocate to refute the NFL because I don't believe them anymore. I don't know what happened but I enjoy trying to shoot down the NFL's case (which isn't hard because it has a lot of holes).
The first has nothing to do with gases but when leather gets wet, it relaxes or stretches a little. All the balls would have a different level of moisture content at the time of being measured and the leather would be different in every ball. This doesn't necessarily favor the Pats but their balls would have been a little wetter when tested at halftime than the Colts balls which had a little longer to dry. This is not a big difference but we are talking about fractions of psi. We are talking about 0.5 psi out of a total absolute pressure of about 27 psi or 2% so something small can be making the difference in these measurements
The other thing that can make a difference is that as balls are pumped up, the air inside gets hotter. The pump takes air at 0 psig (14.7 psia or absolute pressure) and compresses it to say 13 psig (27.7 psia) so that it can go through the needle and into the ball. This small amount of air will be hot per the ideal gas law and will mix with the cooler air already in the ball. So if the refs added a little air to the Pat's balls, the air in the ball at that moment would be a little hotter than equilibrium (room air) and the cooling effect would reduce the pressure even more.
If the Refs took a little air out of the Colts balls, the air in the balls is expanded a little and cooled a little, reducing its change in temperature and resulting change in pressure. This type of thing could contribute to the fact that the Pat's balls lost more air pressure than the Colts. I say "could" because I have never seen a description of what the refs did with the balls before the game.
And my final thought (for now anyway) is if there was a camera on the bathroom to record that McNally went in with the balls for 90 seconds, shouldn't there be film to show any other time he had gone in? If he had been at work all day and didn't go to the bathroom, wouldn't that make the idea that he just went to the bathroom more plausible? And if they had film of him taking a leak say 30 minutes earlier, that would destroy his story. Since the NFL has leaked every other detail true or not, if they had him in the bathroom earlier, I sure we would have heard about that.
It seems reasonable to me that he would take a leak before heading out on the field. He is probably required to stay on the field and would not have a chance to run back in before halftime. I know I take a leak before I go to my seat when I go to games.
For anyone still reading this long post I want to explain gage pressure vs. absolute pressure. When they quote 12.5 or 13.0 psi, they are implying that this is gage pressure or psig. Gage pressure means the difference between the pressure you are measuring and atmospheric pressure (which varies but averages 14.7 psia at sea level). Pressure gages can only measure a pressure relative to a reference pressure so gages inherently reference atmospheric pressure (it is right there and easy to reference). The point is that pressure gages of the type used are not highly accurate and real gases do not behave exactly as ideal gases. You are comparing a inaccurate measurement of gage pressure to a somewhat simplified calculation of absolute pressure-temperature changes so 0.5 psi of bias (about 2% of the absolute pressure in the ball) is a really small difference.
Why would McNally go to all this trouble to release an almost immeasurable amount of air from the balls? You could barely get the needle in and out quick enough to limit the release of air to the amount we are talking about.
TP for an excellent post.
-
I'm saying that they didn't take enough measurements to measure the effect of it they didn't take all of the measurements they'd want to, and the measuring they did wasn't accurate enough, they didn't even know (apparently) which gauge they used for some of the measurements. On top of that, they don't know how well the balls held their air pressure. Did I miss anything?
I am actually an engineer with a background working with applications of the ideal gas law (and some other gas laws), and there are a couple of things beyond the uncertainties that BballTim has listed. I am being a total devil's advocate to refute the NFL because I don't believe them anymore. I don't know what happened but I enjoy trying to shoot down the NFL's case (which isn't hard because it has a lot of holes).
The first has nothing to do with gases but when leather gets wet, it relaxes or stretches a little. All the balls would have a different level of moisture content at the time of being measured and the leather would be different in every ball. This doesn't necessarily favor the Pats but their balls would have been a little wetter when tested at halftime than the Colts balls which had a little longer to dry. This is not a big difference but we are talking about fractions of psi. We are talking about 0.5 psi out of a total absolute pressure of about 27 psi or 2% so something small can be making the difference in these measurements
The other thing that can make a difference is that as balls are pumped up, the air inside gets hotter. The pump takes air at 0 psig (14.7 psia or absolute pressure) and compresses it to say 13 psig (27.7 psia) so that it can go through the needle and into the ball. This small amount of air will be hot per the ideal gas law and will mix with the cooler air already in the ball. So if the refs added a little air to the Pat's balls, the air in the ball at that moment would be a little hotter than equilibrium (room air) and the cooling effect would reduce the pressure even more.
If the Refs took a little air out of the Colts balls, the air in the balls is expanded a little and cooled a little, reducing its change in temperature and resulting change in pressure. This type of thing could contribute to the fact that the Pat's balls lost more air pressure than the Colts. I say "could" because I have never seen a description of what the refs did with the balls before the game.
And my final thought (for now anyway) is if there was a camera on the bathroom to record that McNally went in with the balls for 90 seconds, shouldn't there be film to show any other time he had gone in? If he had been at work all day and didn't go to the bathroom, wouldn't that make the idea that he just went to the bathroom more plausible? And if they had film of him taking a leak say 30 minutes earlier, that would destroy his story. Since the NFL has leaked every other detail true or not, if they had him in the bathroom earlier, I sure we would have heard about that.
It seems reasonable to me that he would take a leak before heading out on the field. He is probably required to stay on the field and would not have a chance to run back in before halftime. I know I take a leak before I go to my seat when I go to games.
For anyone still reading this long post I want to explain gage pressure vs. absolute pressure. When they quote 12.5 or 13.0 psi, they are implying that this is gage pressure or psig. Gage pressure means the difference between the pressure you are measuring and atmospheric pressure (which varies but averages 14.7 psia at sea level). Pressure gages can only measure a pressure relative to a reference pressure so gages inherently reference atmospheric pressure (it is right there and easy to reference). The point is that pressure gages of the type used are not highly accurate and real gases do not behave exactly as ideal gases. You are comparing a inaccurate measurement of gage pressure to a somewhat simplified calculation of absolute pressure-temperature changes so 0.5 psi of bias (about 2% of the absolute pressure in the ball) is a really small difference.
Why would McNally go to all this trouble to release an almost immeasurable amount of air from the balls? You could barely get the needle in and out quick enough to limit the release of air to the amount we are talking about.
(http://cdn.meme.am/instances/400x/50510290.jpg)
-
From the transcript:
I think whenever I'm done with the phone, I don't want anybody ever to see the content of the phone, photos. Obviously there is a log with the smart phones of all my e-mail communications. So in those folders, there is player contracts. There's, you know, endorsement deals. There's -- along with photos of my family and so forth that I just don't want anyone to ever come in contact with those. A lot of people's private information that, had that phone -- if it shows up somewhere, then, you know, all the contacts in my phone, you know, wouldn't want that to happen. So I have always told the guy who swaps them out for me, make sure you get rid of that phone. And what I mean is destroy the phone so that no one can ever, you know, reset it or do something where I feel like the information is available to anybody.
-
From the transcript:
I think whenever I'm done with the phone, I don't want anybody ever to see the content of the phone, photos. Obviously there is a log with the smart phones of all my e-mail communications. So in those folders, there is player contracts. There's, you know, endorsement deals. There's -- along with photos of my family and so forth that I just don't want anyone to ever come in contact with those. A lot of people's private information that, had that phone -- if it shows up somewhere, then, you know, all the contacts in my phone, you know, wouldn't want that to happen. So I have always told the guy who swaps them out for me, make sure you get rid of that phone. And what I mean is destroy the phone so that no one can ever, you know, reset it or do something where I feel like the information is available to anybody.
I'm convinced Brady is 100% innocent.
-
I think Brady's explanation for why he had the phone destroyed makes perfect sense.
Of course, if his attorney had fed him that answer beforehand, it would make perfect sense.
Still, it rings of truth to me regardless.
-
Anybody that believes that Brady didn't tell those guys to deflate those footballs is a moron. End of story.
-
Anybody that believes that Brady didn't tell those guys to deflate those footballs is a moron. End of story.
Have they even determined if the balls were deflated?
-
Anybody that believes that Brady didn't tell those guys to deflate those footballs is a moron. End of story.
Have they even determined if the balls were deflated?
Exactly. At this point, if you've read all of the evidence that's come out and decided that the balls were definitely, 100% deflated below the legal level in that game on purpose, well, you may not be a moron, but I can think of some negative things to say about you pretty easily.
-
"the margin of error in the measurements will be larger than what they're trying to measure".
Clearly that was going to be the case, and obviously that's what happened.
You don't think that's a pretty serious problem when the NFL seeks to hand down one of the most severe punishments in the history of the league (picks + fines + suspension) for a violation it doesn't have the ability to prove even happened?
The pats were accused of doctoring the air pressure in their footballs by another team, and the (poorly done) pressure measurements seem to at least somewhat support the claim. Further investigation (which was probably warranted) uncovered some fairly incriminating texts.
But the punishments do seem to be exceptionally severe for the infraction.
This is wrong
It's obviously not wrong. If they'd measured the balls at halftime and the pats PSIs were within the allowable limits then it would have been unlikely that anything untoward happened. Measuring the balls and finding many of the pats balls below the allowable limit and none of the colts balls below the limit clearly seems to somewhat support the claim.
Ummm....except for the part in the Wells Report that showed 3 out the 4 balls from the Colts measured were under the minimum according to one gauge at halftime.
I stand corrected. One of the colts balls was within range on both measurements, the other three were within range on one measurement. None of the pats balls were within range on either measurement. One of the 8 colts measurements was lower than the highest measurement of a pats ball, and 21 of the 22 measurements of the pats balls were lower than the lowest measurement for the colts balls. So that correction still doesn't really exonerate the pats.
Unless, the colts balls started at 13 psi instead of 12.5 as was WIDELY reported including by Walt Anderson in the wells report
Do the math, the difference in the average between the pats and colts balls at halftime is probably well over that .5 psi starting difference.
The reasons for that has already been explained by Gas Law which indicated by the nature of them being measured after the Patriot's ones [and whatever time passed between them] was a factor for the increased PSI.
Yup. There certainly can be a scientific explanation for it & this was also addressed in the Wells Report. Up to 0.7 PSI in 13 minutes.
For the record, I'm not oblivious to the ideal gas law, and I didn't need a refresher course in it when this story came out. I'm saying that they didn't take enough measurements to measure the effect of it they didn't take all of the measurements they'd want to, and the measuring they did wasn't accurate enough, they didn't even know (apparently) which gauge they used for some of the measurements. On top of that, they don't know how well the balls held their air pressure. Did I miss anything?
The only things you can prove or disprove based on that are things that are so far from what was measured that the accumulation of all of the errors aren't great enough to affect them.
1st para sounds like an excellent endorsement for why there should have been absolutely NO punishment, and a promise to tighten up the process for next year (i.e., next BB rule).
CB
I think that all of the texts that we've heard about were more of an issue for the pats than the measurements were.
yes, but without a "crime", the texts are meaningless
CB
The texts at least arguably imply that a "crime" was committed.
-
Note it says the Wells report is LIKELY incorrect.
You mean, like, more probably than not? ;D
Sure, more probably than not, which probably isn't enough to preclude the investigation which followed.
The investigation didn't "follow" -- this is the product of said investigation. However, the (obvious) level of uncertainly should have been enough to preclude the way the whole affair was handled, as a minimum.
Sorry. Apparently I should have specified "the part of the investigation that followed".
-
I'm saying that they didn't take enough measurements to measure the effect of it they didn't take all of the measurements they'd want to, and the measuring they did wasn't accurate enough, they didn't even know (apparently) which gauge they used for some of the measurements. On top of that, they don't know how well the balls held their air pressure. Did I miss anything?
I am actually an engineer with a background working with applications of the ideal gas law (and some other gas laws), and there are a couple of things beyond the uncertainties that BballTim has listed. I am being a total devil's advocate to refute the NFL because I don't believe them anymore. I don't know what happened but I enjoy trying to shoot down the NFL's case (which isn't hard because it has a lot of holes).
The first has nothing to do with gases but when leather gets wet, it relaxes or stretches a little. All the balls would have a different level of moisture content at the time of being measured and the leather would be different in every ball. This doesn't necessarily favor the Pats but their balls would have been a little wetter when tested at halftime than the Colts balls which had a little longer to dry. This is not a big difference but we are talking about fractions of psi. We are talking about 0.5 psi out of a total absolute pressure of about 27 psi or 2% so something small can be making the difference in these measurements
The other thing that can make a difference is that as balls are pumped up, the air inside gets hotter. The pump takes air at 0 psig (14.7 psia or absolute pressure) and compresses it to say 13 psig (27.7 psia) so that it can go through the needle and into the ball. This small amount of air will be hot per the ideal gas law and will mix with the cooler air already in the ball. So if the refs added a little air to the Pat's balls, the air in the ball at that moment would be a little hotter than equilibrium (room air) and the cooling effect would reduce the pressure even more.
If the Refs took a little air out of the Colts balls, the air in the balls is expanded a little and cooled a little, reducing its change in temperature and resulting change in pressure. This type of thing could contribute to the fact that the Pat's balls lost more air pressure than the Colts. I say "could" because I have never seen a description of what the refs did with the balls before the game.
And my final thought (for now anyway) is if there was a camera on the bathroom to record that McNally went in with the balls for 90 seconds, shouldn't there be film to show any other time he had gone in? If he had been at work all day and didn't go to the bathroom, wouldn't that make the idea that he just went to the bathroom more plausible? And if they had film of him taking a leak say 30 minutes earlier, that would destroy his story. Since the NFL has leaked every other detail true or not, if they had him in the bathroom earlier, I sure we would have heard about that.
It seems reasonable to me that he would take a leak before heading out on the field. He is probably required to stay on the field and would not have a chance to run back in before halftime. I know I take a leak before I go to my seat when I go to games.
For anyone still reading this long post I want to explain gage pressure vs. absolute pressure. When they quote 12.5 or 13.0 psi, they are implying that this is gage pressure or psig. Gage pressure means the difference between the pressure you are measuring and atmospheric pressure (which varies but averages 14.7 psia at sea level). Pressure gages can only measure a pressure relative to a reference pressure so gages inherently reference atmospheric pressure (it is right there and easy to reference). The point is that pressure gages of the type used are not highly accurate and real gases do not behave exactly as ideal gases. You are comparing a inaccurate measurement of gage pressure to a somewhat simplified calculation of absolute pressure-temperature changes so 0.5 psi of bias (about 2% of the absolute pressure in the ball) is a really small difference.
Why would McNally go to all this trouble to release an almost immeasurable amount of air from the balls? You could barely get the needle in and out quick enough to limit the release of air to the amount we are talking about.
Good info.
So I'm guessing you'd probably agree with my claim that the keystone kops weren't able to show whether the balls were doctored or not?
I can only imagine what my chem 101 professor would have said if I'd turned in a lab that was done that sloppily.
-
I think Brady's explanation for why he had the phone destroyed makes perfect sense.
Of course, if his attorney had fed him that answer beforehand, it would make perfect sense.
Still, it rings of truth to me regardless.
The timing's a little fishy, as is the (supposed) fact that he never had the phone he used before that one destroyed.
-
https://youtu.be/ZLC2RmvVDhw
-
I'm reading the transcript of the appeal hearing now (regardless of whether you believed Brady did it or not) the suspension is too harsh. It has little basis when compared to previous cases in the NFL and does not go along with the CBA. The closest comparable violations in the CBA are punished by suspending the ball boy (without punishment to the player) or fining the player, a suspension for this is ridiculous.
Goodell can not be allowed to make up punishment as he goes along with a disregard for consistency and fairness when it comes to judging players. Past impartial arbiters in cases said as much, which is why Goodell heard the appeal himself.
My theory is that after the Jets game, Brady really laid into the ball boy. Saying something to the effect of if I ever find the balls not how I like them again (after oking them during pregame) I'll make sure you are fired. The ball boy then felt that the balls were not right due to temperature change before the game and was scared to the point that he tried to fix the situation.
-
"the margin of error in the measurements will be larger than what they're trying to measure".
Clearly that was going to be the case, and obviously that's what happened.
You don't think that's a pretty serious problem when the NFL seeks to hand down one of the most severe punishments in the history of the league (picks + fines + suspension) for a violation it doesn't have the ability to prove even happened?
The pats were accused of doctoring the air pressure in their footballs by another team, and the (poorly done) pressure measurements seem to at least somewhat support the claim. Further investigation (which was probably warranted) uncovered some fairly incriminating texts.
But the punishments do seem to be exceptionally severe for the infraction.
This is wrong
It's obviously not wrong. If they'd measured the balls at halftime and the pats PSIs were within the allowable limits then it would have been unlikely that anything untoward happened. Measuring the balls and finding many of the pats balls below the allowable limit and none of the colts balls below the limit clearly seems to somewhat support the claim.
Ummm....except for the part in the Wells Report that showed 3 out the 4 balls from the Colts measured were under the minimum according to one gauge at halftime.
I stand corrected. One of the colts balls was within range on both measurements, the other three were within range on one measurement. None of the pats balls were within range on either measurement. One of the 8 colts measurements was lower than the highest measurement of a pats ball, and 21 of the 22 measurements of the pats balls were lower than the lowest measurement for the colts balls. So that correction still doesn't really exonerate the pats.
Unless, the colts balls started at 13 psi instead of 12.5 as was WIDELY reported including by Walt Anderson in the wells report
Do the math, the difference in the average between the pats and colts balls at halftime is probably well over that .5 psi starting difference.
The reasons for that has already been explained by Gas Law which indicated by the nature of them being measured after the Patriot's ones [and whatever time passed between them] was a factor for the increased PSI.
Yup. There certainly can be a scientific explanation for it & this was also addressed in the Wells Report. Up to 0.7 PSI in 13 minutes.
For the record, I'm not oblivious to the ideal gas law, and I didn't need a refresher course in it when this story came out. I'm saying that they didn't take enough measurements to measure the effect of it they didn't take all of the measurements they'd want to, and the measuring they did wasn't accurate enough, they didn't even know (apparently) which gauge they used for some of the measurements. On top of that, they don't know how well the balls held their air pressure. Did I miss anything?
The only things you can prove or disprove based on that are things that are so far from what was measured that the accumulation of all of the errors aren't great enough to affect them.
You wrote this a few days ago, "I don't think the ideal gas law says you'd lose that amount of air." That was in response to my pointing out the IGL accounts for a 1.01 psi drop. I don't mean to be a jerk by digging up older comments, but I think that is proof that you formed your opinion before knowing the basic facts as the IGL states the balls would lose that amount and even slightly more depending on the temperature of the room Anderson tested the balls in before the game.
You're right, my first thought on the subject didn't account for stp. From what I read I wasn't alone in that. On the other hand, nobody's really demonstrated that the air inside the footballs was still as low as the outdoor temperature when the halftime measurements were done, so there's that as well.
-
"the margin of error in the measurements will be larger than what they're trying to measure".
Clearly that was going to be the case, and obviously that's what happened.
You don't think that's a pretty serious problem when the NFL seeks to hand down one of the most severe punishments in the history of the league (picks + fines + suspension) for a violation it doesn't have the ability to prove even happened?
The pats were accused of doctoring the air pressure in their footballs by another team, and the (poorly done) pressure measurements seem to at least somewhat support the claim. Further investigation (which was probably warranted) uncovered some fairly incriminating texts.
But the punishments do seem to be exceptionally severe for the infraction.
This is wrong
It's obviously not wrong. If they'd measured the balls at halftime and the pats PSIs were within the allowable limits then it would have been unlikely that anything untoward happened. Measuring the balls and finding many of the pats balls below the allowable limit and none of the colts balls below the limit clearly seems to somewhat support the claim.
Ummm....except for the part in the Wells Report that showed 3 out the 4 balls from the Colts measured were under the minimum according to one gauge at halftime.
I stand corrected. One of the colts balls was within range on both measurements, the other three were within range on one measurement. None of the pats balls were within range on either measurement. One of the 8 colts measurements was lower than the highest measurement of a pats ball, and 21 of the 22 measurements of the pats balls were lower than the lowest measurement for the colts balls. So that correction still doesn't really exonerate the pats.
Unless, the colts balls started at 13 psi instead of 12.5 as was WIDELY reported including by Walt Anderson in the wells report
Do the math, the difference in the average between the pats and colts balls at halftime is probably well over that .5 psi starting difference.
The reasons for that has already been explained by Gas Law which indicated by the nature of them being measured after the Patriot's ones [and whatever time passed between them] was a factor for the increased PSI.
Yup. There certainly can be a scientific explanation for it & this was also addressed in the Wells Report. Up to 0.7 PSI in 13 minutes.
For the record, I'm not oblivious to the ideal gas law, and I didn't need a refresher course in it when this story came out. I'm saying that they didn't take enough measurements to measure the effect of it they didn't take all of the measurements they'd want to, and the measuring they did wasn't accurate enough, they didn't even know (apparently) which gauge they used for some of the measurements. On top of that, they don't know how well the balls held their air pressure. Did I miss anything?
The only things you can prove or disprove based on that are things that are so far from what was measured that the accumulation of all of the errors aren't great enough to affect them.
You wrote this a few days ago, "I don't think the ideal gas law says you'd lose that amount of air." That was in response to my pointing out the IGL accounts for a 1.01 psi drop. I don't mean to be a jerk by digging up older comments, but I think that is proof that you formed your opinion before knowing the basic facts as the IGL states the balls would lose that amount and even slightly more depending on the temperature of the room Anderson tested the balls in before the game.
You're right, my first thought on the subject didn't account for stp. From what I read I wasn't alone in that. On the other hand, nobody's really demonstrated that the air inside the footballs was still as low as the outdoor temperature when the halftime measurements were done, so there's that as well.
There have been a lot of experiments done on how fast the balls would come to equilibrium and it takes less than 30 minutes. So, the temperature in the balls would have matched the outdoor temperature long before halftime.
-
I think Brady's explanation for why he had the phone destroyed makes perfect sense.
Of course, if his attorney had fed him that answer beforehand, it would make perfect sense.
Still, it rings of truth to me regardless.
The timing's a little fishy, as is the (supposed) fact that he never had the phone he used before that one destroyed.
You could also say he waited until his lawyers told him he did not need to hand over his phone before he replaced it. That would be responsible and rational.
-
"the margin of error in the measurements will be larger than what they're trying to measure".
Clearly that was going to be the case, and obviously that's what happened.
You don't think that's a pretty serious problem when the NFL seeks to hand down one of the most severe punishments in the history of the league (picks + fines + suspension) for a violation it doesn't have the ability to prove even happened?
The pats were accused of doctoring the air pressure in their footballs by another team, and the (poorly done) pressure measurements seem to at least somewhat support the claim. Further investigation (which was probably warranted) uncovered some fairly incriminating texts.
But the punishments do seem to be exceptionally severe for the infraction.
This is wrong
It's obviously not wrong. If they'd measured the balls at halftime and the pats PSIs were within the allowable limits then it would have been unlikely that anything untoward happened. Measuring the balls and finding many of the pats balls below the allowable limit and none of the colts balls below the limit clearly seems to somewhat support the claim.
Ummm....except for the part in the Wells Report that showed 3 out the 4 balls from the Colts measured were under the minimum according to one gauge at halftime.
I stand corrected. One of the colts balls was within range on both measurements, the other three were within range on one measurement. None of the pats balls were within range on either measurement. One of the 8 colts measurements was lower than the highest measurement of a pats ball, and 21 of the 22 measurements of the pats balls were lower than the lowest measurement for the colts balls. So that correction still doesn't really exonerate the pats.
Unless, the colts balls started at 13 psi instead of 12.5 as was WIDELY reported including by Walt Anderson in the wells report
Do the math, the difference in the average between the pats and colts balls at halftime is probably well over that .5 psi starting difference.
The reasons for that has already been explained by Gas Law which indicated by the nature of them being measured after the Patriot's ones [and whatever time passed between them] was a factor for the increased PSI.
Yup. There certainly can be a scientific explanation for it & this was also addressed in the Wells Report. Up to 0.7 PSI in 13 minutes.
For the record, I'm not oblivious to the ideal gas law, and I didn't need a refresher course in it when this story came out. I'm saying that they didn't take enough measurements to measure the effect of it they didn't take all of the measurements they'd want to, and the measuring they did wasn't accurate enough, they didn't even know (apparently) which gauge they used for some of the measurements. On top of that, they don't know how well the balls held their air pressure. Did I miss anything?
The only things you can prove or disprove based on that are things that are so far from what was measured that the accumulation of all of the errors aren't great enough to affect them.
You wrote this a few days ago, "I don't think the ideal gas law says you'd lose that amount of air." That was in response to my pointing out the IGL accounts for a 1.01 psi drop. I don't mean to be a jerk by digging up older comments, but I think that is proof that you formed your opinion before knowing the basic facts as the IGL states the balls would lose that amount and even slightly more depending on the temperature of the room Anderson tested the balls in before the game.
You're right, my first thought on the subject didn't account for stp. From what I read I wasn't alone in that. On the other hand, nobody's really demonstrated that the air inside the footballs was still as low as the outdoor temperature when the halftime measurements were done, so there's that as well.
There have been a lot of experiments done on how fast the balls would come to equilibrium and it takes less than 30 minutes. So, the temperature in the balls would have matched the outdoor temperature long before halftime.
No, I mean as soon as you brought them inside they'd start coming back up to room temperature, so you can't really assume they'd all still be at the outdoor temperature when they were being measured. You also can't assume a big spread in temperature between the pats balls and the colts balls.
-
"the margin of error in the measurements will be larger than what they're trying to measure".
Clearly that was going to be the case, and obviously that's what happened.
You don't think that's a pretty serious problem when the NFL seeks to hand down one of the most severe punishments in the history of the league (picks + fines + suspension) for a violation it doesn't have the ability to prove even happened?
The pats were accused of doctoring the air pressure in their footballs by another team, and the (poorly done) pressure measurements seem to at least somewhat support the claim. Further investigation (which was probably warranted) uncovered some fairly incriminating texts.
But the punishments do seem to be exceptionally severe for the infraction.
This is wrong
It's obviously not wrong. If they'd measured the balls at halftime and the pats PSIs were within the allowable limits then it would have been unlikely that anything untoward happened. Measuring the balls and finding many of the pats balls below the allowable limit and none of the colts balls below the limit clearly seems to somewhat support the claim.
Ummm....except for the part in the Wells Report that showed 3 out the 4 balls from the Colts measured were under the minimum according to one gauge at halftime.
I stand corrected. One of the colts balls was within range on both measurements, the other three were within range on one measurement. None of the pats balls were within range on either measurement. One of the 8 colts measurements was lower than the highest measurement of a pats ball, and 21 of the 22 measurements of the pats balls were lower than the lowest measurement for the colts balls. So that correction still doesn't really exonerate the pats.
Unless, the colts balls started at 13 psi instead of 12.5 as was WIDELY reported including by Walt Anderson in the wells report
Do the math, the difference in the average between the pats and colts balls at halftime is probably well over that .5 psi starting difference.
The reasons for that has already been explained by Gas Law which indicated by the nature of them being measured after the Patriot's ones [and whatever time passed between them] was a factor for the increased PSI.
Yup. There certainly can be a scientific explanation for it & this was also addressed in the Wells Report. Up to 0.7 PSI in 13 minutes.
For the record, I'm not oblivious to the ideal gas law, and I didn't need a refresher course in it when this story came out. I'm saying that they didn't take enough measurements to measure the effect of it they didn't take all of the measurements they'd want to, and the measuring they did wasn't accurate enough, they didn't even know (apparently) which gauge they used for some of the measurements. On top of that, they don't know how well the balls held their air pressure. Did I miss anything?
The only things you can prove or disprove based on that are things that are so far from what was measured that the accumulation of all of the errors aren't great enough to affect them.
1st para sounds like an excellent endorsement for why there should have been absolutely NO punishment, and a promise to tighten up the process for next year (i.e., next BB rule).
CB
I think that all of the texts that we've heard about were more of an issue for the pats than the measurements were.
yes, but without a "crime", the texts are meaningless
CB
The texts at least arguably imply that a "crime" was committed.
If stories about Brady's footballs in the Jet's game being "overinflated" to 16 psi are true, I can see an infuriated Brady threatening the equipment guys with castration if they let that ever happen again, even if it means "deflating" the balls to the low end of the legal range AFTER the refs take control. Still a violation of the rules, so yes a crime would have been committed, but I think most would agree it's a lesser one all the way around.
This would explain:
1) the "deflator" tag,
2) the reason the equipment guys were so PO'ed with Brady, and
3) the reason Brady so strongly believes he did nothing wrong. After all, he was just doing the ref's job for them, ensuring the balls were in the "legal" range. Granted, a rule would still have been broken, but arguably one to offset the ineptitude of the NFL and the refs.
Just a pet theory of mine.
CB
-
I think Brady's explanation for why he had the phone destroyed makes perfect sense.
Of course, if his attorney had fed him that answer beforehand, it would make perfect sense.
Still, it rings of truth to me regardless.
The timing's a little fishy, as is the (supposed) fact that he never had the phone he used before that one destroyed.
You could also say he waited until his lawyers told him he did not need to hand over his phone before he replaced it. That would be responsible and rational.
His lawyer would have told him from day one that he didn't need to hand over his phone. They wouldn't have just decided that the week of his interview.
-
"the margin of error in the measurements will be larger than what they're trying to measure".
Clearly that was going to be the case, and obviously that's what happened.
You don't think that's a pretty serious problem when the NFL seeks to hand down one of the most severe punishments in the history of the league (picks + fines + suspension) for a violation it doesn't have the ability to prove even happened?
The pats were accused of doctoring the air pressure in their footballs by another team, and the (poorly done) pressure measurements seem to at least somewhat support the claim. Further investigation (which was probably warranted) uncovered some fairly incriminating texts.
But the punishments do seem to be exceptionally severe for the infraction.
This is wrong
It's obviously not wrong. If they'd measured the balls at halftime and the pats PSIs were within the allowable limits then it would have been unlikely that anything untoward happened. Measuring the balls and finding many of the pats balls below the allowable limit and none of the colts balls below the limit clearly seems to somewhat support the claim.
Ummm....except for the part in the Wells Report that showed 3 out the 4 balls from the Colts measured were under the minimum according to one gauge at halftime.
I stand corrected. One of the colts balls was within range on both measurements, the other three were within range on one measurement. None of the pats balls were within range on either measurement. One of the 8 colts measurements was lower than the highest measurement of a pats ball, and 21 of the 22 measurements of the pats balls were lower than the lowest measurement for the colts balls. So that correction still doesn't really exonerate the pats.
Unless, the colts balls started at 13 psi instead of 12.5 as was WIDELY reported including by Walt Anderson in the wells report
Do the math, the difference in the average between the pats and colts balls at halftime is probably well over that .5 psi starting difference.
The reasons for that has already been explained by Gas Law which indicated by the nature of them being measured after the Patriot's ones [and whatever time passed between them] was a factor for the increased PSI.
Yup. There certainly can be a scientific explanation for it & this was also addressed in the Wells Report. Up to 0.7 PSI in 13 minutes.
For the record, I'm not oblivious to the ideal gas law, and I didn't need a refresher course in it when this story came out. I'm saying that they didn't take enough measurements to measure the effect of it they didn't take all of the measurements they'd want to, and the measuring they did wasn't accurate enough, they didn't even know (apparently) which gauge they used for some of the measurements. On top of that, they don't know how well the balls held their air pressure. Did I miss anything?
The only things you can prove or disprove based on that are things that are so far from what was measured that the accumulation of all of the errors aren't great enough to affect them.
1st para sounds like an excellent endorsement for why there should have been absolutely NO punishment, and a promise to tighten up the process for next year (i.e., next BB rule).
CB
I think that all of the texts that we've heard about were more of an issue for the pats than the measurements were.
yes, but without a "crime", the texts are meaningless
CB
The texts at least arguably imply that a "crime" was committed.
If stories about Brady's footballs in the Jet's game being "overinflated" to 16 psi are true, I can see an infuriated Brady threatening the equipment guys with castration if they let that ever happen again, even if it means "deflating" the balls to the low end of the legal range AFTER the refs take control. Still a violation of the rules, so yes a crime would have been committed, but I think most would agree it's a lesser one all the way around.
This would explain:
1) the "deflator" tag,
2) the reason the equipment guys were so PO'ed with Brady, and
3) the reason Brady so strongly believes he did nothing wrong. After all, he was just doing the ref's job for them, ensuring the balls were in the "legal" range. Granted, a rule would still have been broken, but arguably one to offset the ineptitude of the NFL and the refs.
Just a pet theory of mine.
CB
That Brady had the equipment manager print out the rule book and show it to the refs as to the correct PSI really tells me something. It seems like Goodell is punishing Brady for a rule that the refs not only didn't enforce but didn't even know the specifics of.
-
"the margin of error in the measurements will be larger than what they're trying to measure".
Clearly that was going to be the case, and obviously that's what happened.
You don't think that's a pretty serious problem when the NFL seeks to hand down one of the most severe punishments in the history of the league (picks + fines + suspension) for a violation it doesn't have the ability to prove even happened?
The pats were accused of doctoring the air pressure in their footballs by another team, and the (poorly done) pressure measurements seem to at least somewhat support the claim. Further investigation (which was probably warranted) uncovered some fairly incriminating texts.
But the punishments do seem to be exceptionally severe for the infraction.
This is wrong
It's obviously not wrong. If they'd measured the balls at halftime and the pats PSIs were within the allowable limits then it would have been unlikely that anything untoward happened. Measuring the balls and finding many of the pats balls below the allowable limit and none of the colts balls below the limit clearly seems to somewhat support the claim.
Ummm....except for the part in the Wells Report that showed 3 out the 4 balls from the Colts measured were under the minimum according to one gauge at halftime.
I stand corrected. One of the colts balls was within range on both measurements, the other three were within range on one measurement. None of the pats balls were within range on either measurement. One of the 8 colts measurements was lower than the highest measurement of a pats ball, and 21 of the 22 measurements of the pats balls were lower than the lowest measurement for the colts balls. So that correction still doesn't really exonerate the pats.
Unless, the colts balls started at 13 psi instead of 12.5 as was WIDELY reported including by Walt Anderson in the wells report
Do the math, the difference in the average between the pats and colts balls at halftime is probably well over that .5 psi starting difference.
The reasons for that has already been explained by Gas Law which indicated by the nature of them being measured after the Patriot's ones [and whatever time passed between them] was a factor for the increased PSI.
Yup. There certainly can be a scientific explanation for it & this was also addressed in the Wells Report. Up to 0.7 PSI in 13 minutes.
For the record, I'm not oblivious to the ideal gas law, and I didn't need a refresher course in it when this story came out. I'm saying that they didn't take enough measurements to measure the effect of it they didn't take all of the measurements they'd want to, and the measuring they did wasn't accurate enough, they didn't even know (apparently) which gauge they used for some of the measurements. On top of that, they don't know how well the balls held their air pressure. Did I miss anything?
The only things you can prove or disprove based on that are things that are so far from what was measured that the accumulation of all of the errors aren't great enough to affect them.
You wrote this a few days ago, "I don't think the ideal gas law says you'd lose that amount of air." That was in response to my pointing out the IGL accounts for a 1.01 psi drop. I don't mean to be a jerk by digging up older comments, but I think that is proof that you formed your opinion before knowing the basic facts as the IGL states the balls would lose that amount and even slightly more depending on the temperature of the room Anderson tested the balls in before the game.
You're right, my first thought on the subject didn't account for stp. From what I read I wasn't alone in that. On the other hand, nobody's really demonstrated that the air inside the footballs was still as low as the outdoor temperature when the halftime measurements were done, so there's that as well.
There have been a lot of experiments done on how fast the balls would come to equilibrium and it takes less than 30 minutes. So, the temperature in the balls would have matched the outdoor temperature long before halftime.
No, I mean as soon as you brought them inside they'd start coming back up to room temperature, so you can't really assume they'd all still be at the outdoor temperature when they were being measured. You also can't assume a big spread in temperature between the pats balls and the colts balls.
I assumed you meant when they brought them in. Exponent calculated transient curves that show how fast the balls warm up. Some of the assumptions Exponent used have been criticized including the temperature of the room they used as well as the exact time the Colts balls were measured which is probably the biggest key. They assumed the Colt balls were measure 8 minutes (I think) into the half. However, that contradicts statements by the refs who said they only measured 4 balls because they ran out of time. Had Exponent assumed the balls were measure several minutes later, they would have been consistent with the Patriots balls along the transient curve.
-
I think Brady's explanation for why he had the phone destroyed makes perfect sense.
Of course, if his attorney had fed him that answer beforehand, it would make perfect sense.
Still, it rings of truth to me regardless.
The timing's a little fishy, as is the (supposed) fact that he never had the phone he used before that one destroyed.
You could also say he waited until his lawyers told him he did not need to hand over his phone before he replaced it. That would be responsible and rational.
His lawyer would have told him from day one that he didn't need to hand over his phone. They wouldn't have just decided that the week of his interview.
So then why didn't he just get rid of the phone on day one?
And when did the NFLPA get involved who was very vocal about not handing over the phone?
-
Good info.
So I'm guessing you'd probably agree with my claim that the keystone kops weren't able to show whether the balls were doctored or not?
I can only imagine what my chem 101 professor would have said if I'd turned in a lab that was done that sloppily.
I don't agree. If the balls were doctored in a manner that actually resulted in air being removed from them, you would have been able to tell. If it was something in the range of 1 psi, you could measure that. Maybe not the NFL I guess. The only case where you would not be able to would be if the amount of air released was very small.
So yes, you could argue that "see you can't prove they didn't release a tiny amount of air from the balls", an amount that is so small that a simplistic instrument couldn't detect it but it would help Tom throw the ball better.
And I also remember a lot of talk (mostly Felger and Mazz I think) that the whole point of letting the air out of the balls was because of fumbles and that it was going to be a big story when the Pats start fumbling more now that their evil ball doctoring plot has been exposed. Of course this whole theory would exonerate Brady because if it was about fumbles and not the QB's grip, he would have nothing to do with it.
The reason that the NFL botched this whole thing so much is that they got intoxicated by the thought that they finally had caught the Pats and I guess Tom Brady (though Lord only knows why they would have it in for Brady) that they didn't wait until they were actually sure about the evidence before they let it out. They have been desperately covering their tracks ever since.
-
I think Brady's explanation for why he had the phone destroyed makes perfect sense.
Of course, if his attorney had fed him that answer beforehand, it would make perfect sense.
Still, it rings of truth to me regardless.
The timing's a little fishy, as is the (supposed) fact that he never had the phone he used before that one destroyed.
You could also say he waited until his lawyers told him he did not need to hand over his phone before he replaced it. That would be responsible and rational.
His lawyer would have told him from day one that he didn't need to hand over his phone. They wouldn't have just decided that the week of his interview.
So then why didn't he just get rid of the phone on day one?
And when did the NFLPA get involved who was very vocal about not handing over the phone?
Reading the briefs, it's pretty clear that lawyers told him not to give his phone over. It would have established a precedent according to the briefs and you can assume they're not going to lie about something that could easily disproved. The union is actively involved in this case and likely has been from the start. They want to reign in the arbitrary governance of this commissioner. It doesn't matter if Brady kept the phone or not. It wasn't going to get to the NFL and the NFL knew it. Not day 1. Not day 10,000.
It's all NFL spin.
-
Good info.
So I'm guessing you'd probably agree with my claim that the keystone kops weren't able to show whether the balls were doctored or not?
I can only imagine what my chem 101 professor would have said if I'd turned in a lab that was done that sloppily.
I don't agree. If the balls were doctored in a manner that actually resulted in air being removed from them, you would have been able to tell. If it was something in the range of 1 psi, you could measure that. Maybe not the NFL I guess. The only case where you would not be able to would be if the amount of air released was very small.
So yes, you could argue that "see you can't prove they didn't release a tiny amount of air from the balls", an amount that is so small that a simplistic instrument couldn't detect it but it would help Tom throw the ball better.
And I also remember a lot of talk (mostly Felger and Mazz I think) that the whole point of letting the air out of the balls was because of fumbles and that it was going to be a big story when the Pats start fumbling more now that their evil ball doctoring plot has been exposed. Of course this whole theory would exonerate Brady because if it was about fumbles and not the QB's grip, he would have nothing to do with it.
The reason that the NFL botched this whole thing so much is that they got intoxicated by the thought that they finally had caught the Pats and I guess Tom Brady (though Lord only knows why they would have it in for Brady) that they didn't wait until they were actually sure about the evidence before they let it out. They have been desperately covering their tracks ever since.
This part didnt fit for me either, until i was recently reminded that Mike Kensil was likely the 11/12 and 2 psi leak as well as the one overseeing the inflation check, instructing the refs to check, and spearheading the drive to investigate.
http://heavy.com/sports/2015/07/mike-kensil-nfl-deflategate-football-new-england-patriots-tom-brady-roger-goodell/
-
I'm reading the transcript of the appeal hearing now (regardless of whether you believed Brady did it or not) the suspension is too harsh. It has little basis when compared to previous cases in the NFL and does not go along with the CBA. The closest comparable violations in the CBA are punished by suspending the ball boy (without punishment to the player) or fining the player, a suspension for this is ridiculous.
Goodell can not be allowed to make up punishment as he goes along with a disregard for consistency and fairness when it comes to judging players. Past impartial arbiters in cases said as much, which is why Goodell heard the appeal himself.
My theory is that after the Jets game, Brady really laid into the ball boy. Saying something to the effect of if I ever find the balls not how I like them again (after oking them during pregame) I'll make sure you are fired. The ball boy then felt that the balls were not right due to temperature change before the game and was scared to the point that he tried to fix the situation.
I started to read some of it, but I'm buried right now. Please do a short summary if you can.
BTW, the bolded section above hits one of the four arguments that Kessler is using in last Friday's filing. You can't create a violation after the fact.
-
I'm reading the transcript of the appeal hearing now (regardless of whether you believed Brady did it or not) the suspension is too harsh. It has little basis when compared to previous cases in the NFL and does not go along with the CBA. The closest comparable violations in the CBA are punished by suspending the ball boy (without punishment to the player) or fining the player, a suspension for this is ridiculous.
Goodell can not be allowed to make up punishment as he goes along with a disregard for consistency and fairness when it comes to judging players. Past impartial arbiters in cases said as much, which is why Goodell heard the appeal himself.
My theory is that after the Jets game, Brady really laid into the ball boy. Saying something to the effect of if I ever find the balls not how I like them again (after oking them during pregame) I'll make sure you are fired. The ball boy then felt that the balls were not right due to temperature change before the game and was scared to the point that he tried to fix the situation.
I started to read some of it, but I'm buried right now. Please do a short summary if you can.
BTW, the bolded section above hits one of the four arguments that Kessler is using in last Friday's filing. You can't create a violation after the fact.
Aside for Evantime34:
Sorry buddy, I read your comment above and said whoa, isn't that Jets theory what I just proposed before. I went back and saw you made almost the same comment as me, but 20 minutes earlier than me! Thought I read the whole thread, but must have run out of gas before reading your comment. Sorry, wasn't trying to ride your coattails.
Guess great minds DO think alike! haha
CB
-
https://twitter.com/BillSimmons
Simmons is hammering away.
-
I'm reading the transcript of the appeal hearing now (regardless of whether you believed Brady did it or not) the suspension is too harsh. It has little basis when compared to previous cases in the NFL and does not go along with the CBA. The closest comparable violations in the CBA are punished by suspending the ball boy (without punishment to the player) or fining the player, a suspension for this is ridiculous.
Goodell can not be allowed to make up punishment as he goes along with a disregard for consistency and fairness when it comes to judging players. Past impartial arbiters in cases said as much, which is why Goodell heard the appeal himself.
My theory is that after the Jets game, Brady really laid into the ball boy. Saying something to the effect of if I ever find the balls not how I like them again (after oking them during pregame) I'll make sure you are fired. The ball boy then felt that the balls were not right due to temperature change before the game and was scared to the point that he tried to fix the situation.
I started to read some of it, but I'm buried right now. Please do a short summary if you can.
BTW, the bolded section above hits one of the four arguments that Kessler is using in last Friday's filing. You can't create a violation after the fact.
Aside for Evantime34:
Sorry buddy, I read your comment above and said whoa, isn't that Jets theory what I just proposed before. I went back and saw you made almost the same comment as me, but 20 minutes earlier than me! Thought I read the whole thread, but must have run out of gas before reading your comment. Sorry, wasn't trying to ride your coattails.
Guess great minds DO think alike! haha
CB
TP! that we came of it independently makes it more of plausible theory in my mind.
-
Good info.
So I'm guessing you'd probably agree with my claim that the keystone kops weren't able to show whether the balls were doctored or not?
I can only imagine what my chem 101 professor would have said if I'd turned in a lab that was done that sloppily.
I don't agree. If the balls were doctored in a manner that actually resulted in air being removed from them, you would have been able to tell. If it was something in the range of 1 psi, you could measure that. Maybe not the NFL I guess. The only case where you would not be able to would be if the amount of air released was very small.
So yes, you could argue that "see you can't prove they didn't release a tiny amount of air from the balls", an amount that is so small that a simplistic instrument couldn't detect it but it would help Tom throw the ball better.
I wasn't really asking whether I could detect it or you could detect it, more whether they could definitively detect it with the error-prone methodology they employed.
And I also remember a lot of talk (mostly Felger and Mazz I think) that the whole point of letting the air out of the balls was because of fumbles and that it was going to be a big story when the Pats start fumbling more now that their evil ball doctoring plot has been exposed. Of course this whole theory would exonerate Brady because if it was about fumbles and not the QB's grip, he would have nothing to do with it.
I think the fumbles would be a by-product of using a less inflated ball.
-
http://nesn.com/2015/08/roger-goodell-falsely-made-tom-brady-seem-dishonest-in-appeal-decision/
Maybe Roger Goodell should have read through the transcripts of Tom Brady’s suspension appeal a little closer before the commissioner submitted his decision.
Goodell states in his appeal decision “In response to the question, ‘Why were you talking to Mr. (John) Jastremski in those two weeks?,’ Mr. Brady responsed, in sum: ‘I think most of the conversations centered around breaking in the balls.'”
Goodell also wrote: “The sharp contrast between the almost complete absence of communications through the AFC Championship Game and the extraordinary volume of communications during the three days following the AFC Championship Game undermines the suggestion that the communications addressed only preparation of footballs for the Super Bowl rather than the tampering allegations and their anticipated responses to inquiries about the tampering.”
Goodell is implying that Brady lied about why he and Jastremski communicated so frequently after the AFC Championship Game.
Brady readily admitted, multiple times, however, in his appeal to Goodell that he and Jastremski could have been discussing the Deflategate allegations against the Patriots and not only football preparation for the Super Bowl.
As demonstrated amply in the transcripts that follow in the article. IOW more NFL spin.
-
I think the fumbles would be a by-product of using a less inflated ball.
The opposite. Less inflation gives you a better grip.
-
I'm reading the transcript of the appeal hearing now (regardless of whether you believed Brady did it or not) the suspension is too harsh. It has little basis when compared to previous cases in the NFL and does not go along with the CBA. The closest comparable violations in the CBA are punished by suspending the ball boy (without punishment to the player) or fining the player, a suspension for this is ridiculous.
Goodell can not be allowed to make up punishment as he goes along with a disregard for consistency and fairness when it comes to judging players. Past impartial arbiters in cases said as much, which is why Goodell heard the appeal himself.
My theory is that after the Jets game, Brady really laid into the ball boy. Saying something to the effect of if I ever find the balls not how I like them again (after oking them during pregame) I'll make sure you are fired. The ball boy then felt that the balls were not right due to temperature change before the game and was scared to the point that he tried to fix the situation.
I started to read some of it, but I'm buried right now. Please do a short summary if you can.
BTW, the bolded section above hits one of the four arguments that Kessler is using in last Friday's filing. You can't create a violation after the fact.
Aside for Evantime34:
Sorry buddy, I read your comment above and said whoa, isn't that Jets theory what I just proposed before. I went back and saw you made almost the same comment as me, but 20 minutes earlier than me! Thought I read the whole thread, but must have run out of gas before reading your comment. Sorry, wasn't trying to ride your coattails.
Guess great minds DO think alike! haha
CB
TP! that we came of it independently makes it more of plausible theory in my mind.
hah - TP right back at ya
CB
-
I think the fumbles would be a by-product of using a less inflated ball.
The opposite. Less inflation gives you a better grip.
And less bounce off pads.
-
I think Brady's explanation for why he had the phone destroyed makes perfect sense.
Of course, if his attorney had fed him that answer beforehand, it would make perfect sense.
Still, it rings of truth to me regardless.
The timing's a little fishy, as is the (supposed) fact that he never had the phone he used before that one destroyed.
You could also say he waited until his lawyers told him he did not need to hand over his phone before he replaced it. That would be responsible and rational.
His lawyer would have told him from day one that he didn't need to hand over his phone. They wouldn't have just decided that the week of his interview.
So then why didn't he just get rid of the phone on day one?
And when did the NFLPA get involved who was very vocal about not handing over the phone?
This conversation's starting to take on a "who's on first" quality.
-
BTW, one item being reported is Brady's testimony was made under oath.
-
I think the fumbles would be a by-product of using a less inflated ball.
The opposite. Less inflation gives you a better grip.
And less bounce off pads.
Yeah. Outside of kicking & punting, I'm having a tough time thinking where having a more inflated ball would be beneficial outside of a player preference standpoint like how Aaron Rodgers claims to like it.
-
Brady testimony in NFL 'Deflategate' released
http://bigstory.ap.org/urn:publicid:ap.org:19434dc6a57643ccb6a50692fcc74398
Although Wells asked repeatedly for Brady's cellphone, the investigator also testified: "I did not tell Mr. Brady at any time that he would be subject to punishment for not giving -- not turning over the documents. I did not say anything like that."
-
I think the fumbles would be a by-product of using a less inflated ball.
The opposite. Less inflation gives you a better grip.
I think you misunderstood my post.
-
I think Brady's explanation for why he had the phone destroyed makes perfect sense.
Of course, if his attorney had fed him that answer beforehand, it would make perfect sense.
Still, it rings of truth to me regardless.
The timing's a little fishy, as is the (supposed) fact that he never had the phone he used before that one destroyed.
You could also say he waited until his lawyers told him he did not need to hand over his phone before he replaced it. That would be responsible and rational.
His lawyer would have told him from day one that he didn't need to hand over his phone. They wouldn't have just decided that the week of his interview.
So then why didn't he just get rid of the phone on day one?
And when did the NFLPA get involved who was very vocal about not handing over the phone?
This conversation's starting to take on a "who's on first" quality.
Wells and Goodell could have found Abbott and Costello guilty of kidnapping the Lindbergh baby based on that routine. And some people here would buy into it.
-
By the same token Brady could have taped himself burning down a house from start to finish and some posters would still believe it must have been an accident. ;)
-
By the same token Brady could have taped himself burning down a house from start to finish and some posters would still believe it must have been an accident. ;)
And defend him for destroying the video, because nobody could definitively prove that he did anything without it.
-
:P Definitely.
Reading through the transcript now. Here's one relevant bit:
Now, did there come a time after February 28th, so now we are well past the Super Bowl, when you learned from your lawyers or your agents that there had been some request made for e-mails and texts that you might have?"
"Yes."
"Okay. Now, we know that those were — nothing was turned over or the request was not responded to. How did you make the decision about that? What were you relying upon? How did you decide that?"
"Well, I was relying on their advice as my lawyers and what they basically said, There’s been a request, but we don’t think it’s proper for you to turn your phone over, so you don’t need to do that."
If anyone wants to take their own crack at it:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/273547523/Tom-Brady-Appeal-Hearing
Also there is a sick burn (relatively speaking) that starts on page 25 . I enjoyed it.
-
By the same token Brady could have taped himself burning down a house from start to finish and some posters would still believe it must have been an accident. ;)
And defend him for destroying the video, because nobody could definitively prove that he did anything without it.
the hate for brady runs strong in this thread
-
I'm saying that they didn't take enough measurements to measure the effect of it they didn't take all of the measurements they'd want to, and the measuring they did wasn't accurate enough, they didn't even know (apparently) which gauge they used for some of the measurements. On top of that, they don't know how well the balls held their air pressure. Did I miss anything?
I am actually an engineer with a background working with applications of the ideal gas law (and some other gas laws), and there are a couple of things beyond the uncertainties that BballTim has listed. I am being a total devil's advocate to refute the NFL because I don't believe them anymore. I don't know what happened but I enjoy trying to shoot down the NFL's case (which isn't hard because it has a lot of holes).
The first has nothing to do with gases but when leather gets wet, it relaxes or stretches a little. All the balls would have a different level of moisture content at the time of being measured and the leather would be different in every ball. This doesn't necessarily favor the Pats but their balls would have been a little wetter when tested at halftime than the Colts balls which had a little longer to dry. This is not a big difference but we are talking about fractions of psi. We are talking about 0.5 psi out of a total absolute pressure of about 27 psi or 2% so something small can be making the difference in these measurements
The other thing that can make a difference is that as balls are pumped up, the air inside gets hotter. The pump takes air at 0 psig (14.7 psia or absolute pressure) and compresses it to say 13 psig (27.7 psia) so that it can go through the needle and into the ball. This small amount of air will be hot per the ideal gas law and will mix with the cooler air already in the ball. So if the refs added a little air to the Pat's balls, the air in the ball at that moment would be a little hotter than equilibrium (room air) and the cooling effect would reduce the pressure even more.
If the Refs took a little air out of the Colts balls, the air in the balls is expanded a little and cooled a little, reducing its change in temperature and resulting change in pressure. This type of thing could contribute to the fact that the Pat's balls lost more air pressure than the Colts. I say "could" because I have never seen a description of what the refs did with the balls before the game.
And my final thought (for now anyway) is if there was a camera on the bathroom to record that McNally went in with the balls for 90 seconds, shouldn't there be film to show any other time he had gone in? If he had been at work all day and didn't go to the bathroom, wouldn't that make the idea that he just went to the bathroom more plausible? And if they had film of him taking a leak say 30 minutes earlier, that would destroy his story. Since the NFL has leaked every other detail true or not, if they had him in the bathroom earlier, I sure we would have heard about that.
It seems reasonable to me that he would take a leak before heading out on the field. He is probably required to stay on the field and would not have a chance to run back in before halftime. I know I take a leak before I go to my seat when I go to games.
For anyone still reading this long post I want to explain gage pressure vs. absolute pressure. When they quote 12.5 or 13.0 psi, they are implying that this is gage pressure or psig. Gage pressure means the difference between the pressure you are measuring and atmospheric pressure (which varies but averages 14.7 psia at sea level). Pressure gages can only measure a pressure relative to a reference pressure so gages inherently reference atmospheric pressure (it is right there and easy to reference). The point is that pressure gages of the type used are not highly accurate and real gases do not behave exactly as ideal gases. You are comparing a inaccurate measurement of gage pressure to a somewhat simplified calculation of absolute pressure-temperature changes so 0.5 psi of bias (about 2% of the absolute pressure in the ball) is a really small difference.
Why would McNally go to all this trouble to release an almost immeasurable amount of air from the balls? You could barely get the needle in and out quick enough to limit the release of air to the amount we are talking about.
Late to the party but TP for the post. This is why I love CsBlog.
-
By the same token Brady could have taped himself burning down a house from start to finish and some posters would still believe it must have been an accident. ;)
And defend him for destroying the video, because nobody could definitively prove that he did anything without it.
the hate for brady runs strong in this thread
I would say it is decidedly the opposite. however my point was mostly that the folks who make up the die hards on either side are sort of immune to any evidence one way or another. There's a bit of "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" going on.
-
Here's a snippet from the summary of Brady's testimony:
[Brady] denied discussing air-pressure levels with the ball boys or even thinking about how inflated the footballs were when he selected them. He said he was not aware of the rules that govern the inflation levels of footballs until after an Oct. 16, 2014, game against the New York Jets in which he complained about the size of the footballs.
With the caveat that I haven't read the actually testimony, does that ring true to anybody? Almost every QB in the media has indicated that he had a preference. It just defies logic that Tom Brady, a top-10 QB of all-time, would not understand the rules about the football, or would even think about inflation in terms of having a preference.
Wasn't it Brady -- along with Manning -- that lobbied the league to allow QBs to break in footballs? This is the most important tool in his craft; I just flat out don't believe that he had no idea about ball pressure for the first dozen years of his career.
The NFL appears slimy to me, but so does Brady.
-
Here's a snippet from the summary of Brady's testimony:
Wasn't it Brady -- along with Manning -- that lobbied the league to allow QBs to break in footballs? This is the most important tool in his craft; I just flat out don't believe that he had no idea about ball pressure for the first dozen years of his career.
correct - this is also one of the circumstantial pieces of evidence against him that leads the NFL to believe he is guilty in the absence of any reliable hard evidence - i must admit it's all pretty fishy, but the NFL just does't have a strong enough evidential case to drop the hammer on Brady and the Pats.
CB
-
Here's a snippet from the summary of Brady's testimony:
[Brady] denied discussing air-pressure levels with the ball boys or even thinking about how inflated the footballs were when he selected them. He said he was not aware of the rules that govern the inflation levels of footballs until after an Oct. 16, 2014, game against the New York Jets in which he complained about the size of the footballs.
With the caveat that I haven't read the actually testimony, does that ring true to anybody? Almost every QB in the media has indicated that he had a preference. It just defies logic that Tom Brady, a top-10 QB of all-time, would not understand the rules about the football, or would even think about inflation in terms of having a preference.
Wasn't it Brady -- along with Manning -- that lobbied the league to allow QBs to break in footballs? This is the most important tool in his craft; I just flat out don't believe that he had no idea about ball pressure for the first dozen years of his career.
The NFL appears slimy to me, but so does Brady.
Yeah just doesn't make sense. Cris Carter was on Mike and Mike this morning and basically flat out called Brady a liar. Said there was no way he didn't know the rules.
Couple that with him not turning over the cell phone (or even the transcripts) and the few other statements he made that just lack veracity and it isn't hard to see why the NFL ruled the way they did. I mean you have a guy that is flat out lying to you, withholding evidence, and generally not fully cooperating. Makes you think he is doing that because there is something to hide. I just don't see how the court overturns this. Cover-ups are almost always worse than the actual crime.
-
Here's a snippet from the summary of Brady's testimony:
Wasn't it Brady -- along with Manning -- that lobbied the league to allow QBs to break in footballs? This is the most important tool in his craft; I just flat out don't believe that he had no idea about ball pressure for the first dozen years of his career.
correct - this is also one of the circumstantial pieces of evidence against him that leads the NFL to believe he is guilty in the absence of any reliable hard evidence - i must admit it's all pretty fishy, but the NFL just does't have a strong enough evidential case to drop the hammer on Brady and the Pats.
CB
Right because Brady wouldn't give it to them.
-
Here's a snippet from the summary of Brady's testimony:
Wasn't it Brady -- along with Manning -- that lobbied the league to allow QBs to break in footballs? This is the most important tool in his craft; I just flat out don't believe that he had no idea about ball pressure for the first dozen years of his career.
correct - this is also one of the circumstantial pieces of evidence against him that leads the NFL to believe he is guilty in the absence of any reliable hard evidence - i must admit it's all pretty fishy, but the NFL just does't have a strong enough evidential case to drop the hammer on Brady and the Pats.
CB
Right because Brady wouldn't give it to them.
he was under no legal or contractual obligation to provide anything else - the league conclusions may be right, but they are over reaching due to the lack of evidence and just plain shoddy/sloppy investigating. Why do you think Goodell didn't appoint a true independent arbitrator?
CB
edit: replace "true independent arbitrator" with "impartial arbitrator"
-
Here's a snippet from the summary of Brady's testimony:
Wasn't it Brady -- along with Manning -- that lobbied the league to allow QBs to break in footballs? This is the most important tool in his craft; I just flat out don't believe that he had no idea about ball pressure for the first dozen years of his career.
correct - this is also one of the circumstantial pieces of evidence against him that leads the NFL to believe he is guilty in the absence of any reliable hard evidence - i must admit it's all pretty fishy, but the NFL just does't have a strong enough evidential case to drop the hammer on Brady and the Pats.
CB
Right because Brady wouldn't give it to them.
he was under no legal or contractual obligation to provide anything else - the league conclusions may be right, but they are over reaching due to the lack of evidence and just plain shoddy/sloppy investigating. Why do you think Goodell didn't appoint a true independent arbitrator?
CB
edit: replace "true independent arbitrator" with "impartial arbitrator"
He didn't appoint one because he isn't required to.
Here is the thing, even if Brady didn't have to turn the texts and emails over if they didn't show anything, he should have. He could have avoided this whole thing.
-
Here's a snippet from the summary of Brady's testimony:
[Brady] denied discussing air-pressure levels with the ball boys or even thinking about how inflated the footballs were when he selected them. He said he was not aware of the rules that govern the inflation levels of footballs until after an Oct. 16, 2014, game against the New York Jets in which he complained about the size of the footballs.
With the caveat that I haven't read the actually testimony, does that ring true to anybody? Almost every QB in the media has indicated that he had a preference. It just defies logic that Tom Brady, a top-10 QB of all-time, would not understand the rules about the football, or would even think about inflation in terms of having a preference.
Wasn't it Brady -- along with Manning -- that lobbied the league to allow QBs to break in footballs? This is the most important tool in his craft; I just flat out don't believe that he had no idea about ball pressure for the first dozen years of his career.
The NFL appears slimy to me, but so does Brady.
It wasn't to break in footballs, it was to have visiting teams supply their own balls so how inflated they were and how broken in they were would be to the particular quarterback's liking. It looks like one of many hard to believe things he's said in this.
-
Here's a snippet from the summary of Brady's testimony:
[Brady] denied discussing air-pressure levels with the ball boys or even thinking about how inflated the footballs were when he selected them. He said he was not aware of the rules that govern the inflation levels of footballs until after an Oct. 16, 2014, game against the New York Jets in which he complained about the size of the footballs.
With the caveat that I haven't read the actually testimony, does that ring true to anybody? Almost every QB in the media has indicated that he had a preference. It just defies logic that Tom Brady, a top-10 QB of all-time, would not understand the rules about the football, or would even think about inflation in terms of having a preference.
Wasn't it Brady -- along with Manning -- that lobbied the league to allow QBs to break in footballs? This is the most important tool in his craft; I just flat out don't believe that he had no idea about ball pressure for the first dozen years of his career.
The NFL appears slimy to me, but so does Brady.
Just out of curiosity, do you know what the required psi level is for an NBA basketball? Do you think
Garnett or Pierce knows? Do you think they know what their preferred psi level is? Back in 2006, the NBA tested out new balls and the players complained about the texture, did the psi levels come up at that time?
-
Here's a snippet from the summary of Brady's testimony:
[Brady] denied discussing air-pressure levels with the ball boys or even thinking about how inflated the footballs were when he selected them. He said he was not aware of the rules that govern the inflation levels of footballs until after an Oct. 16, 2014, game against the New York Jets in which he complained about the size of the footballs.
With the caveat that I haven't read the actually testimony, does that ring true to anybody? Almost every QB in the media has indicated that he had a preference. It just defies logic that Tom Brady, a top-10 QB of all-time, would not understand the rules about the football, or would even think about inflation in terms of having a preference.
Wasn't it Brady -- along with Manning -- that lobbied the league to allow QBs to break in footballs? This is the most important tool in his craft; I just flat out don't believe that he had no idea about ball pressure for the first dozen years of his career.
The NFL appears slimy to me, but so does Brady.
Yeah just doesn't make sense. Cris Carter was on Mike and Mike this morning and basically flat out called Brady a liar. Said there was no way he didn't know the rules.
Couple that with him not turning over the cell phone (or even the transcripts) and the few other statements he made that just lack veracity and it isn't hard to see why the NFL ruled the way they did. I mean you have a guy that is flat out lying to you, withholding evidence, and generally not fully cooperating. Makes you think he is doing that because there is something to hide. I just don't see how the court overturns this. Cover-ups are almost always worse than the actual crime.
And yet the text evidence suggest that Brady didn't know then since he ASKED for the rules.
Playing devil's advocate, there's a difference from someone telling you: "Yo' dude, I like my balls soft" and "Hey Mr. Ball Boy, I want you to inflate the balls to exactly this PSI level".
Also, haven't been able to go through the whole transcript, but a distinction has to be made between who the Ball Boys are, and with whom Brady (if anyone) would discuss those issues with.
-
Here's a snippet from the summary of Brady's testimony:
[Brady] denied discussing air-pressure levels with the ball boys or even thinking about how inflated the footballs were when he selected them. He said he was not aware of the rules that govern the inflation levels of footballs until after an Oct. 16, 2014, game against the New York Jets in which he complained about the size of the footballs.
With the caveat that I haven't read the actually testimony, does that ring true to anybody? Almost every QB in the media has indicated that he had a preference. It just defies logic that Tom Brady, a top-10 QB of all-time, would not understand the rules about the football, or would even think about inflation in terms of having a preference.
Wasn't it Brady -- along with Manning -- that lobbied the league to allow QBs to break in footballs? This is the most important tool in his craft; I just flat out don't believe that he had no idea about ball pressure for the first dozen years of his career.
The NFL appears slimy to me, but so does Brady.
It wasn't to break in footballs, it was to have visiting teams supply their own balls so how inflated they were and how broken in they were would be to the particular quarterback's liking. It looks like one of many hard to believe things he's said in this.
That came about because Wilson sent new footballs with a different texture to all the QBs asking for their feedback. The QBs responded by saying they did not like the new footballs and requested that rather than experimenting with new football designs, let them use their own. Brady and Manning's names were on the request because of their fame.
-
Here's a snippet from the summary of Brady's testimony:
[Brady] denied discussing air-pressure levels with the ball boys or even thinking about how inflated the footballs were when he selected them. He said he was not aware of the rules that govern the inflation levels of footballs until after an Oct. 16, 2014, game against the New York Jets in which he complained about the size of the footballs.
With the caveat that I haven't read the actually testimony, does that ring true to anybody? Almost every QB in the media has indicated that he had a preference. It just defies logic that Tom Brady, a top-10 QB of all-time, would not understand the rules about the football, or would even think about inflation in terms of having a preference.
Wasn't it Brady -- along with Manning -- that lobbied the league to allow QBs to break in footballs? This is the most important tool in his craft; I just flat out don't believe that he had no idea about ball pressure for the first dozen years of his career.
The NFL appears slimy to me, but so does Brady.
Just out of curiosity, do you know what the required psi level is for an NBA basketball? Do you think
Garnett or Pierce knows? Do you think they know what their preferred psi level is? Back in 2006, the NBA tested out new balls and the players complained about the texture, did the psi levels come up at that time?
This is where i land. Brady is not denying knowing the psi now. Brady is not denying lobbying the league for each team to have the roght to bring their own balls. But he isnt the only on. It is very likely that for the first decade he is given regulation balls that have undergone various scuffing, etc (like every team does) and he says "i like this one" so they prep them like that. This is very easy to do without actually knowing the psi desired, the composition of leather, the amountt of scuffing performed, the diameter of the football, the lwngth of the football, etc. Same how a basketball player can just say a ball doesnt feel right without knowing the precise diameter amd psi of a game ball.
Then one game the refs overpump the balls dramatically from where brady likes it, so he looks up the range. In fact, the bestpositive existing evidence in this whole thing is that brady asked for legal but low end of legal balls. That is not suspicious or rule violating behavior. Why ignore that?
-
Here's a snippet from the summary of Brady's testimony:
[Brady] denied discussing air-pressure levels with the ball boys or even thinking about how inflated the footballs were when he selected them. He said he was not aware of the rules that govern the inflation levels of footballs until after an Oct. 16, 2014, game against the New York Jets in which he complained about the size of the footballs.
With the caveat that I haven't read the actually testimony, does that ring true to anybody? Almost every QB in the media has indicated that he had a preference. It just defies logic that Tom Brady, a top-10 QB of all-time, would not understand the rules about the football, or would even think about inflation in terms of having a preference.
Wasn't it Brady -- along with Manning -- that lobbied the league to allow QBs to break in footballs? This is the most important tool in his craft; I just flat out don't believe that he had no idea about ball pressure for the first dozen years of his career.
The NFL appears slimy to me, but so does Brady.
It wasn't to break in footballs, it was to have visiting teams supply their own balls so how inflated they were and how broken in they were would be to the particular quarterback's liking. It looks like one of many hard to believe things he's said in this.
That came about because Wilson sent new footballs with a different texture to all the QBs asking for their feedback. The QBs responded by saying they did not like the new footballs and requested that rather than experimenting with new football designs, let them use their own. Brady and Manning's names were on the request because of their fame.
It was also, according to Brady, about how inflated the different qbs wanted the balls to be.
-
Here's a snippet from the summary of Brady's testimony:
Wasn't it Brady -- along with Manning -- that lobbied the league to allow QBs to break in footballs? This is the most important tool in his craft; I just flat out don't believe that he had no idea about ball pressure for the first dozen years of his career.
correct - this is also one of the circumstantial pieces of evidence against him that leads the NFL to believe he is guilty in the absence of any reliable hard evidence - i must admit it's all pretty fishy, but the NFL just does't have a strong enough evidential case to drop the hammer on Brady and the Pats.
CB
Right because Brady wouldn't give it to them.
he was under no legal or contractual obligation to provide anything else - the league conclusions may be right, but they are over reaching due to the lack of evidence and just plain shoddy/sloppy investigating. Why do you think Goodell didn't appoint a true independent arbitrator?
CB
edit: replace "true independent arbitrator" with "impartial arbitrator"
He didn't appoint one because he isn't required to.
Here is the thing, even if Brady didn't have to turn the texts and emails over if they didn't show anything, he should have. He could have avoided this whole thing.
Moranis -
I'm sympathetic and largely agree with your position. Both the Pats and Brady could have handled this much, much better, especially if they are innocent, just as the league could have. However, it's my understanding the league was provided all team cells or cell records. If there was anything that incriminated Brady within the team (minus other players), it would have showed up there. It's difficult for me to believe there was nothing in those records, but Brady was sloppy enough to incriminate himself with other players, friends, or family. That's just not credible, IMO.
As far as your first point goes, why the double standard? Why is ok to dismiss the commissioners flawed decision to appoint himself as an "impartial" arbitrator to rule on his own decision because he not required to do anything else, but not ok to dismiss Brady's actions to not provide information he is not required to provide, which IMO probably doesn't offer anything new? However, one-liners like "Brady destroys cell phone" do provide the league with great soundbites to help sway public opinion.
CB
-
Here's a snippet from the summary of Brady's testimony:
[Brady] denied discussing air-pressure levels with the ball boys or even thinking about how inflated the footballs were when he selected them. He said he was not aware of the rules that govern the inflation levels of footballs until after an Oct. 16, 2014, game against the New York Jets in which he complained about the size of the footballs.
With the caveat that I haven't read the actually testimony, does that ring true to anybody? Almost every QB in the media has indicated that he had a preference. It just defies logic that Tom Brady, a top-10 QB of all-time, would not understand the rules about the football, or would even think about inflation in terms of having a preference.
Wasn't it Brady -- along with Manning -- that lobbied the league to allow QBs to break in footballs? This is the most important tool in his craft; I just flat out don't believe that he had no idea about ball pressure for the first dozen years of his career.
The NFL appears slimy to me, but so does Brady.
It wasn't to break in footballs, it was to have visiting teams supply their own balls so how inflated they were and how broken in they were would be to the particular quarterback's liking. It looks like one of many hard to believe things he's said in this.
That came about because Wilson sent new footballs with a different texture to all the QBs asking for their feedback. The QBs responded by saying they did not like the new footballs and requested that rather than experimenting with new football designs, let them use their own. Brady and Manning's names were on the request because of their fame.
It was also, according to Brady, about how inflated the different qbs wanted the balls to be.
Do you have that quote?
-
Here's a snippet from the summary of Brady's testimony:
Wasn't it Brady -- along with Manning -- that lobbied the league to allow QBs to break in footballs? This is the most important tool in his craft; I just flat out don't believe that he had no idea about ball pressure for the first dozen years of his career.
correct - this is also one of the circumstantial pieces of evidence against him that leads the NFL to believe he is guilty in the absence of any reliable hard evidence - i must admit it's all pretty fishy, but the NFL just does't have a strong enough evidential case to drop the hammer on Brady and the Pats.
CB
Right because Brady wouldn't give it to them.
he was under no legal or contractual obligation to provide anything else - the league conclusions may be right, but they are over reaching due to the lack of evidence and just plain shoddy/sloppy investigating. Why do you think Goodell didn't appoint a true independent arbitrator?
CB
edit: replace "true independent arbitrator" with "impartial arbitrator"
He didn't appoint one because he isn't required to.
Here is the thing, even if Brady didn't have to turn the texts and emails over if they didn't show anything, he should have. He could have avoided this whole thing.
Moranis -
I'm sympathetic and largely agree with your position. Both the Pats and Brady could have handled this much, much better, especially if they are innocent, just as the league could have. However, it's my understanding the league was provided all team cells or cell records. If there was anything that incriminated Brady within the team (minus other players), it would have showed up there. It's difficult for me to believe there was nothing in those records, but Brady was sloppy enough to incriminate himself with other players, friends, or family. That's just not credible, IMO.
As far as your first point goes, why the double standard? Why is ok to dismiss the commissioners flawed decision to appoint himself as an "impartial" arbitrator to rule on his own decision because he not required to do anything else, but not ok to dismiss Brady's actions to not provide information he is not required to provide, which IMO probably doesn't offer anything new? However, one-liners like "Brady destroys cell phone" do provide the league with great soundbites to help sway public opinion.
CB
In hindsight, the Patriots could have handled it better, but let's not forget that they were working off lies told by the NFL.
-
Here's a snippet from the summary of Brady's testimony:
[Brady] denied discussing air-pressure levels with the ball boys or even thinking about how inflated the footballs were when he selected them. He said he was not aware of the rules that govern the inflation levels of footballs until after an Oct. 16, 2014, game against the New York Jets in which he complained about the size of the footballs.
With the caveat that I haven't read the actually testimony, does that ring true to anybody? Almost every QB in the media has indicated that he had a preference. It just defies logic that Tom Brady, a top-10 QB of all-time, would not understand the rules about the football, or would even think about inflation in terms of having a preference.
Wasn't it Brady -- along with Manning -- that lobbied the league to allow QBs to break in footballs? This is the most important tool in his craft; I just flat out don't believe that he had no idea about ball pressure for the first dozen years of his career.
The NFL appears slimy to me, but so does Brady.
As others have said he didn't know the PSI levels but he lobbied to be able to break down the leather of the footballs using substances like baseball glove oil.
What is pretty important (at least in my mind) about this part of the appeal is that Brady had the equipment guy highlight the page in the rulebook that talked about the specific PSI and give it to the refs because the balls were overinflated past the legal limit.
So to recap, the NFL suspended Brady 4 games and fined the Patriots draft picks as punishment for breaking a rule that the refs didn't seem to enforce OR EVEN KNOW!
I'm a Patriots fan and I think they clearly did something against the rules. The problem is the NFL is levying unfair punishment because the rules that were broken were essentially viewed as inconsequential violations that were only worthy of a fine in every other situation.
-
Here's a snippet from the summary of Brady's testimony:
Wasn't it Brady -- along with Manning -- that lobbied the league to allow QBs to break in footballs? This is the most important tool in his craft; I just flat out don't believe that he had no idea about ball pressure for the first dozen years of his career.
correct - this is also one of the circumstantial pieces of evidence against him that leads the NFL to believe he is guilty in the absence of any reliable hard evidence - i must admit it's all pretty fishy, but the NFL just does't have a strong enough evidential case to drop the hammer on Brady and the Pats.
CB
Right because Brady wouldn't give it to them.
he was under no legal or contractual obligation to provide anything else - the league conclusions may be right, but they are over reaching due to the lack of evidence and just plain shoddy/sloppy investigating. Why do you think Goodell didn't appoint a true independent arbitrator?
CB
edit: replace "true independent arbitrator" with "impartial arbitrator"
He didn't appoint one because he isn't required to.
Here is the thing, even if Brady didn't have to turn the texts and emails over if they didn't show anything, he should have. He could have avoided this whole thing.
Moranis -
I'm sympathetic and largely agree with your position. Both the Pats and Brady could have handled this much, much better, especially if they are innocent, just as the league could have. However, it's my understanding the league was provided all team cells or cell records. If there was anything that incriminated Brady within the team (minus other players), it would have showed up there. It's difficult for me to believe there was nothing in those records, but Brady was sloppy enough to incriminate himself with other players, friends, or family. That's just not credible, IMO.
As far as your first point goes, why the double standard? Why is ok to dismiss the commissioners flawed decision to appoint himself as an "impartial" arbitrator to rule on his own decision because he not required to do anything else, but not ok to dismiss Brady's actions to not provide information he is not required to provide, which IMO probably doesn't offer anything new? However, one-liners like "Brady destroys cell phone" do provide the league with great soundbites to help sway public opinion.
CB
In hindsight, the Patriots could have handled it better, but let's not forget that they were working off lies told by the NFL.
True. They've been on the defense since the start back in January. You usually don't look your best when you're on the defensive. For the most part, outside of New England, they lost the PR fight on this a long time ago.
-
http://deadspin.com/the-full-story-of-tom-bradys-destroyed-cell-phone-1722190784?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow
-
Here's a snippet from the summary of Brady's testimony:
Wasn't it Brady -- along with Manning -- that lobbied the league to allow QBs to break in footballs? This is the most important tool in his craft; I just flat out don't believe that he had no idea about ball pressure for the first dozen years of his career.
correct - this is also one of the circumstantial pieces of evidence against him that leads the NFL to believe he is guilty in the absence of any reliable hard evidence - i must admit it's all pretty fishy, but the NFL just does't have a strong enough evidential case to drop the hammer on Brady and the Pats.
CB
Right because Brady wouldn't give it to them.
he was under no legal or contractual obligation to provide anything else - the league conclusions may be right, but they are over reaching due to the lack of evidence and just plain shoddy/sloppy investigating. Why do you think Goodell didn't appoint a true independent arbitrator?
CB
edit: replace "true independent arbitrator" with "impartial arbitrator"
He didn't appoint one because he isn't required to.
Here is the thing, even if Brady didn't have to turn the texts and emails over if they didn't show anything, he should have. He could have avoided this whole thing.
Moranis -
I'm sympathetic and largely agree with your position. Both the Pats and Brady could have handled this much, much better, especially if they are innocent, just as the league could have. However, it's my understanding the league was provided all team cells or cell records. If there was anything that incriminated Brady within the team (minus other players), it would have showed up there. It's difficult for me to believe there was nothing in those records, but Brady was sloppy enough to incriminate himself with other players, friends, or family. That's just not credible, IMO.
As far as your first point goes, why the double standard? Why is ok to dismiss the commissioners flawed decision to appoint himself as an "impartial" arbitrator to rule on his own decision because he not required to do anything else, but not ok to dismiss Brady's actions to not provide information he is not required to provide, which IMO probably doesn't offer anything new? However, one-liners like "Brady destroys cell phone" do provide the league with great soundbites to help sway public opinion.
CB
In hindsight, the Patriots could have handled it better, but let's not forget that they were working off lies told by the NFL.
True. They've been on the defense since the start back in January. You usually don't look your best when you're on the defensive. For the most part, outside of New England, they lost the PR fight on this a long time ago.
It didn't help their PR that the NFL consistently leaked false information to the media and then made no effort to correct the information once it was proven false. The fact that ESPN has been the mouthpiece for every lie the NFL wants to tell made the Patriots job almost impossible.
-
Also, a few thoughts on the transcript (haven't read the entire thing, just excerpts).
- Does anyone come out of that looking worse than Troy Vincent?
- So the Ravens did tip off the Colts (which was widely suspected) but denied by Harbaugh
- Sorta reinforces the belief that the league office is filled with buffoons
- Ryan Grigson sure is whiny
- Lawyers in. Period.
-
Here's a snippet from the summary of Brady's testimony:
Wasn't it Brady -- along with Manning -- that lobbied the league to allow QBs to break in footballs? This is the most important tool in his craft; I just flat out don't believe that he had no idea about ball pressure for the first dozen years of his career.
correct - this is also one of the circumstantial pieces of evidence against him that leads the NFL to believe he is guilty in the absence of any reliable hard evidence - i must admit it's all pretty fishy, but the NFL just does't have a strong enough evidential case to drop the hammer on Brady and the Pats.
CB
Right because Brady wouldn't give it to them.
he was under no legal or contractual obligation to provide anything else - the league conclusions may be right, but they are over reaching due to the lack of evidence and just plain shoddy/sloppy investigating. Why do you think Goodell didn't appoint a true independent arbitrator?
CB
edit: replace "true independent arbitrator" with "impartial arbitrator"
He didn't appoint one because he isn't required to.
Here is the thing, even if Brady didn't have to turn the texts and emails over if they didn't show anything, he should have. He could have avoided this whole thing.
Moranis -
I'm sympathetic and largely agree with your position. Both the Pats and Brady could have handled this much, much better, especially if they are innocent, just as the league could have. However, it's my understanding the league was provided all team cells or cell records. If there was anything that incriminated Brady within the team (minus other players), it would have showed up there. It's difficult for me to believe there was nothing in those records, but Brady was sloppy enough to incriminate himself with other players, friends, or family. That's just not credible, IMO.
As far as your first point goes, why the double standard? Why is ok to dismiss the commissioners flawed decision to appoint himself as an "impartial" arbitrator to rule on his own decision because he not required to do anything else, but not ok to dismiss Brady's actions to not provide information he is not required to provide, which IMO probably doesn't offer anything new? However, one-liners like "Brady destroys cell phone" do provide the league with great soundbites to help sway public opinion.
CB
In hindsight, the Patriots could have handled it better, but let's not forget that they were working off lies told by the NFL.
My one, big regret is Kraft's strong stance when the story first broke, demanding an apology from the league. I think it just hardened Goodell's position and lessened any chance for a reasonable settlement. As bad as Brady's punishment is, the Pat's is really a joke. I know they are responsible for their employees, but the league's position appears to be Brady in cahoots with the equipment guys. Seems like you either go after the the team and the two lacky's, or Brady and the two lacky's, but not both to such an extreme. The general consensus seems to be the punishment is out of line compared to previous, similar cases, even if guilty. While Goodell was having dinner with Kraft, I believe the hypocrite was just waiting for an opportunity to do something like this. He keeps trying to make up for all his poor decisions by making even poorer ones, trying to save face and his job.
CB
-
Added observation:
The story about Brady not recalling any discussion with the equipment guys post AFC championship game other than the future issue of ball preparation for the SB was a flat out lie by the NFL. Made Brady look disingenuous, turns out it was more blatant spin. He readily admitted he talked to them about Deflategate, says they told him they did nothing, and he reassured them. What else would people expect an innocent guy to do in those circumstances? Could be a flat out lie by Brady. Definitely a flat out lie by Goodell.
These two attorneys have followed the case closely and the transcripts:
https://twitter.com/StephStradley
https://twitter.com/McCannSportsLaw
-
Whether you believe Brady is lying or not, what the NFL is doing is complete crap.
This is a good read for those who don't want to read the full transcript, particularly about how the PSI rules aren't handed to Players:
http://www.patspulpit.com/2015/8/5/9099339/deflategate-highlights-and-summary-of-the-tom-brady-appeal-transcript
-
\ While Goodell was having dinner with Kraft, I believe the hypocrite was just waiting for an opportunity to do something like this. He keeps trying to make up for all his poor decisions by making even poorer ones, trying to save face and his job.
CB
Is this in reference to Kraft or TGH?
-
Whether you believe Brady is lying or not, what the NFL is doing is complete crap.
This is a good read for those who don't want to read the full transcript, particularly about how the PSI rules aren't handed to Players:
http://www.patspulpit.com/2015/8/5/9099339/deflategate-highlights-and-summary-of-the-tom-brady-appeal-transcript
I am sure that PatsPulpit will provide an even-keeled look at the preceedings. :P
-
"Close to 10,000 texts, but three are missing? From Tom Brady to Jastremski, okay. And these guys are the ones that handle the footballs," said a fired up Tanguay. "You can't tell me that those texts were not eliminated for the purpose of not being discovered."
What is Tanguay referring to here? I really need to read the transcripts.
-
Here's a snippet from the summary of Brady's testimony:
Wasn't it Brady -- along with Manning -- that lobbied the league to allow QBs to break in footballs? This is the most important tool in his craft; I just flat out don't believe that he had no idea about ball pressure for the first dozen years of his career.
correct - this is also one of the circumstantial pieces of evidence against him that leads the NFL to believe he is guilty in the absence of any reliable hard evidence - i must admit it's all pretty fishy, but the NFL just does't have a strong enough evidential case to drop the hammer on Brady and the Pats.
CB
Right because Brady wouldn't give it to them.
he was under no legal or contractual obligation to provide anything else - the league conclusions may be right, but they are over reaching due to the lack of evidence and just plain shoddy/sloppy investigating. Why do you think Goodell didn't appoint a true independent arbitrator?
CB
edit: replace "true independent arbitrator" with "impartial arbitrator"
He didn't appoint one because he isn't required to.
Here is the thing, even if Brady didn't have to turn the texts and emails over if they didn't show anything, he should have. He could have avoided this whole thing.
Moranis -
I'm sympathetic and largely agree with your position. Both the Pats and Brady could have handled this much, much better, especially if they are innocent, just as the league could have. However, it's my understanding the league was provided all team cells or cell records. If there was anything that incriminated Brady within the team (minus other players), it would have showed up there. It's difficult for me to believe there was nothing in those records, but Brady was sloppy enough to incriminate himself with other players, friends, or family. That's just not credible, IMO.
As far as your first point goes, why the double standard? Why is ok to dismiss the commissioners flawed decision to appoint himself as an "impartial" arbitrator to rule on his own decision because he not required to do anything else, but not ok to dismiss Brady's actions to not provide information he is not required to provide, which IMO probably doesn't offer anything new? However, one-liners like "Brady destroys cell phone" do provide the league with great soundbites to help sway public opinion.
CB
I'm not saying there is a double standard, I'm saying that Brady appeared less than truthful at times in his testimony and when coupled with his refusal to provide transcripts of text messages, makes it seem like he has something to hide. Gives the impression to the league there is something there, which easily could have been refuted by providing the information to refute it. It isn't a double standard at all. Just because you don't have to do something, doesn't mean you shouldn't.
-
"Close to 10,000 texts, but three are missing? From Tom Brady to Jastremski, okay. And these guys are the ones that handle the footballs," said a fired up Tanguay. "You can't tell me that those texts were not eliminated for the purpose of not being discovered."
What is Tanguay referring to here? I really need to read the transcripts.
Tanguay as in Gary Tanguay? The raving lunatic?
-
From where I sit, nothing's changed:
• Yes, Brady, Kraft, & Co. could've handled things better
• But ultimately this was a botched PR move by Goodell to make himself look better
• And this is all over a rule that is arbitrary and virtually pointless
-
Whether you believe Brady is lying or not, what the NFL is doing is complete crap.
This is a good read for those who don't want to read the full transcript, particularly about how the PSI rules aren't handed to Players:
http://www.patspulpit.com/2015/8/5/9099339/deflategate-highlights-and-summary-of-the-tom-brady-appeal-transcript
I am sure that PatsPulpit will provide an even-keeled look at the preceedings. :P
Didn't notice the website source was on my phone, but even then all they're doing is providing snips from the transcript (colored with their opinion of course).
But yeah, agreed. :)
-
Here's a snippet from the summary of Brady's testimony:
Wasn't it Brady -- along with Manning -- that lobbied the league to allow QBs to break in footballs? This is the most important tool in his craft; I just flat out don't believe that he had no idea about ball pressure for the first dozen years of his career.
correct - this is also one of the circumstantial pieces of evidence against him that leads the NFL to believe he is guilty in the absence of any reliable hard evidence - i must admit it's all pretty fishy, but the NFL just does't have a strong enough evidential case to drop the hammer on Brady and the Pats.
CB
Right because Brady wouldn't give it to them.
he was under no legal or contractual obligation to provide anything else - the league conclusions may be right, but they are over reaching due to the lack of evidence and just plain shoddy/sloppy investigating. Why do you think Goodell didn't appoint a true independent arbitrator?
CB
edit: replace "true independent arbitrator" with "impartial arbitrator"
He didn't appoint one because he isn't required to.
Here is the thing, even if Brady didn't have to turn the texts and emails over if they didn't show anything, he should have. He could have avoided this whole thing.
Moranis -
I'm sympathetic and largely agree with your position. Both the Pats and Brady could have handled this much, much better, especially if they are innocent, just as the league could have. However, it's my understanding the league was provided all team cells or cell records. If there was anything that incriminated Brady within the team (minus other players), it would have showed up there. It's difficult for me to believe there was nothing in those records, but Brady was sloppy enough to incriminate himself with other players, friends, or family. That's just not credible, IMO.
As far as your first point goes, why the double standard? Why is ok to dismiss the commissioners flawed decision to appoint himself as an "impartial" arbitrator to rule on his own decision because he not required to do anything else, but not ok to dismiss Brady's actions to not provide information he is not required to provide, which IMO probably doesn't offer anything new? However, one-liners like "Brady destroys cell phone" do provide the league with great soundbites to help sway public opinion.
CB
I'm not saying there is a double standard, I'm saying that Brady appeared less than truthful at times in his testimony and when coupled with his refusal to provide transcripts of text messages, makes it seem like he has something to hide. Gives the impression to the league there is something there, which easily could have been refuted by providing the information to refute it. It isn't a double standard at all. Just because you don't have to do something, doesn't mean you shouldn't.
When what you do has direct impact on what other players in your union might have to do in the future, this is a little less cut-and-dry.
The NFLPA absolutely does not want a situation where the players are compelled to give their personal belongings to the league when they don't have to. I imagine you'd feel similarly about your current employer asking for the same thing, regardless of whether you were or were not doing anything wrong.
-
From where I sit, nothing's changed:
• Yes, Brady, Kraft, & Co. could've handled things better
• But ultimately this was a botched PR move by Goodell to make himself look better
• And this is all over a rule that is arbitrary and virtually pointless
Um all rules are abritrary and virtually pointless. Why is a touchdown worth 6 points and not 2 or 50 or a million? Because reasons.
-
Here's a snippet from the summary of Brady's testimony:
Wasn't it Brady -- along with Manning -- that lobbied the league to allow QBs to break in footballs? This is the most important tool in his craft; I just flat out don't believe that he had no idea about ball pressure for the first dozen years of his career.
correct - this is also one of the circumstantial pieces of evidence against him that leads the NFL to believe he is guilty in the absence of any reliable hard evidence - i must admit it's all pretty fishy, but the NFL just does't have a strong enough evidential case to drop the hammer on Brady and the Pats.
CB
Right because Brady wouldn't give it to them.
he was under no legal or contractual obligation to provide anything else - the league conclusions may be right, but they are over reaching due to the lack of evidence and just plain shoddy/sloppy investigating. Why do you think Goodell didn't appoint a true independent arbitrator?
CB
edit: replace "true independent arbitrator" with "impartial arbitrator"
He didn't appoint one because he isn't required to.
Here is the thing, even if Brady didn't have to turn the texts and emails over if they didn't show anything, he should have. He could have avoided this whole thing.
Moranis -
I'm sympathetic and largely agree with your position. Both the Pats and Brady could have handled this much, much better, especially if they are innocent, just as the league could have. However, it's my understanding the league was provided all team cells or cell records. If there was anything that incriminated Brady within the team (minus other players), it would have showed up there. It's difficult for me to believe there was nothing in those records, but Brady was sloppy enough to incriminate himself with other players, friends, or family. That's just not credible, IMO.
As far as your first point goes, why the double standard? Why is ok to dismiss the commissioners flawed decision to appoint himself as an "impartial" arbitrator to rule on his own decision because he not required to do anything else, but not ok to dismiss Brady's actions to not provide information he is not required to provide, which IMO probably doesn't offer anything new? However, one-liners like "Brady destroys cell phone" do provide the league with great soundbites to help sway public opinion.
CB
I'm not saying there is a double standard, I'm saying that Brady appeared less than truthful at times in his testimony and when coupled with his refusal to provide transcripts of text messages, makes it seem like he has something to hide. Gives the impression to the league there is something there, which easily could have been refuted by providing the information to refute it. It isn't a double standard at all. Just because you don't have to do something, doesn't mean you shouldn't.
When what you do has direct impact on what other players in your union might have to do in the future, this is a little less cut-and-dry.
The NFLPA absolutely does not want a situation where the players are compelled to give their personal belongings to the league when they don't have to. I imagine you'd feel similarly about your current employer asking for the same thing, regardless of whether you were or were not doing anything wrong.
Are transcripts of a text message personal belongings? Because that is what Wells requested. He didn't ask for the phone, just the transcript of the relevant text messages. Even would have let Brady's attorney determine what is relevant.
I get why the NFLPA would have an issue with it, and if that is why Brady didn't turn them over he should have just said it or made the NFLPA fall on the sword.
-
Here's a snippet from the summary of Brady's testimony:
Wasn't it Brady -- along with Manning -- that lobbied the league to allow QBs to break in footballs? This is the most important tool in his craft; I just flat out don't believe that he had no idea about ball pressure for the first dozen years of his career.
correct - this is also one of the circumstantial pieces of evidence against him that leads the NFL to believe he is guilty in the absence of any reliable hard evidence - i must admit it's all pretty fishy, but the NFL just does't have a strong enough evidential case to drop the hammer on Brady and the Pats.
CB
Right because Brady wouldn't give it to them.
he was under no legal or contractual obligation to provide anything else - the league conclusions may be right, but they are over reaching due to the lack of evidence and just plain shoddy/sloppy investigating. Why do you think Goodell didn't appoint a true independent arbitrator?
CB
edit: replace "true independent arbitrator" with "impartial arbitrator"
He didn't appoint one because he isn't required to.
Here is the thing, even if Brady didn't have to turn the texts and emails over if they didn't show anything, he should have. He could have avoided this whole thing.
Moranis -
I'm sympathetic and largely agree with your position. Both the Pats and Brady could have handled this much, much better, especially if they are innocent, just as the league could have. However, it's my understanding the league was provided all team cells or cell records. If there was anything that incriminated Brady within the team (minus other players), it would have showed up there. It's difficult for me to believe there was nothing in those records, but Brady was sloppy enough to incriminate himself with other players, friends, or family. That's just not credible, IMO.
As far as your first point goes, why the double standard? Why is ok to dismiss the commissioners flawed decision to appoint himself as an "impartial" arbitrator to rule on his own decision because he not required to do anything else, but not ok to dismiss Brady's actions to not provide information he is not required to provide, which IMO probably doesn't offer anything new? However, one-liners like "Brady destroys cell phone" do provide the league with great soundbites to help sway public opinion.
CB
I'm not saying there is a double standard, I'm saying that Brady appeared less than truthful at times in his testimony and when coupled with his refusal to provide transcripts of text messages, makes it seem like he has something to hide. Gives the impression to the league there is something there, which easily could have been refuted by providing the information to refute it. It isn't a double standard at all. Just because you don't have to do something, doesn't mean you shouldn't.
When what you do has direct impact on what other players in your union might have to do in the future, this is a little less cut-and-dry.
The NFLPA absolutely does not want a situation where the players are compelled to give their personal belongings to the league when they don't have to. I imagine you'd feel similarly about your current employer asking for the same thing, regardless of whether you were or were not doing anything wrong.
Are transcripts of a text message personal belongings? Because that is what Wells requested. He didn't ask for the phone, just the transcript of the relevant text messages. Even would have let Brady's attorney determine what is relevant.
I get why the NFLPA would have an issue with it, and if that is why Brady didn't turn them over he should have just said it or made the NFLPA fall on the sword.
Umm... yes of course that's personal belongings...
Not sure why anyone would consider them not to be.
-
Here's a snippet from the summary of Brady's testimony:
Wasn't it Brady -- along with Manning -- that lobbied the league to allow QBs to break in footballs? This is the most important tool in his craft; I just flat out don't believe that he had no idea about ball pressure for the first dozen years of his career.
correct - this is also one of the circumstantial pieces of evidence against him that leads the NFL to believe he is guilty in the absence of any reliable hard evidence - i must admit it's all pretty fishy, but the NFL just does't have a strong enough evidential case to drop the hammer on Brady and the Pats.
CB
Right because Brady wouldn't give it to them.
he was under no legal or contractual obligation to provide anything else - the league conclusions may be right, but they are over reaching due to the lack of evidence and just plain shoddy/sloppy investigating. Why do you think Goodell didn't appoint a true independent arbitrator?
CB
edit: replace "true independent arbitrator" with "impartial arbitrator"
He didn't appoint one because he isn't required to.
Here is the thing, even if Brady didn't have to turn the texts and emails over if they didn't show anything, he should have. He could have avoided this whole thing.
Moranis -
I'm sympathetic and largely agree with your position. Both the Pats and Brady could have handled this much, much better, especially if they are innocent, just as the league could have. However, it's my understanding the league was provided all team cells or cell records. If there was anything that incriminated Brady within the team (minus other players), it would have showed up there. It's difficult for me to believe there was nothing in those records, but Brady was sloppy enough to incriminate himself with other players, friends, or family. That's just not credible, IMO.
As far as your first point goes, why the double standard? Why is ok to dismiss the commissioners flawed decision to appoint himself as an "impartial" arbitrator to rule on his own decision because he not required to do anything else, but not ok to dismiss Brady's actions to not provide information he is not required to provide, which IMO probably doesn't offer anything new? However, one-liners like "Brady destroys cell phone" do provide the league with great soundbites to help sway public opinion.
CB
I'm not saying there is a double standard, I'm saying that Brady appeared less than truthful at times in his testimony and when coupled with his refusal to provide transcripts of text messages, makes it seem like he has something to hide. Gives the impression to the league there is something there, which easily could have been refuted by providing the information to refute it. It isn't a double standard at all. Just because you don't have to do something, doesn't mean you shouldn't.
When what you do has direct impact on what other players in your union might have to do in the future, this is a little less cut-and-dry.
The NFLPA absolutely does not want a situation where the players are compelled to give their personal belongings to the league when they don't have to. I imagine you'd feel similarly about your current employer asking for the same thing, regardless of whether you were or were not doing anything wrong.
Are transcripts of a text message personal belongings? Because that is what Wells requested. He didn't ask for the phone, just the transcript of the relevant text messages. Even would have let Brady's attorney determine what is relevant.
I get why the NFLPA would have an issue with it, and if that is why Brady didn't turn them over he should have just said it or made the NFLPA fall on the sword.
He did say it, in so many words. I even quoted it a couple pages back:
Reading through the transcript now. Here's one relevant bit:
Now, did there come a time after February 28th, so now we are well past the Super Bowl, when you learned from your lawyers or your agents that there had been some request made for e-mails and texts that you might have?"
"Yes."
"Okay. Now, we know that those were — nothing was turned over or the request was not responded to. How did you make the decision about that? What were you relying upon? How did you decide that?"
"Well, I was relying on their advice as my lawyers and what they basically said, There’s been a request, but we don’t think it’s proper for you to turn your phone over, so you don’t need to do that."
If anyone wants to take their own crack at it:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/273547523/Tom-Brady-Appeal-Hearing
Also there is a sick burn (relatively speaking) that starts on page 25 . I enjoyed it.
-
\ While Goodell was having dinner with Kraft, I believe the hypocrite was just waiting for an opportunity to do something like this. He keeps trying to make up for all his poor decisions by making even poorer ones, trying to save face and his job.
CB
Is this in reference to Kraft or TGH?
sorry, I'm kinda high today on pain killers for a kidney stone procedure yesterday - TGH?
-
\ While Goodell was having dinner with Kraft, I believe the hypocrite was just waiting for an opportunity to do something like this. He keeps trying to make up for all his poor decisions by making even poorer ones, trying to save face and his job.
CB
Is this in reference to Kraft or TGH?
sorry, I'm kinda high today on pain killers for a kidney stone procedure yesterday - TGH?
The Ginger Hammer. Goodell.
-
Ooof. Kidney stones. Sympathies there. Hope the drugs are good, though.
-
Here's a snippet from the summary of Brady's testimony:
Wasn't it Brady -- along with Manning -- that lobbied the league to allow QBs to break in footballs? This is the most important tool in his craft; I just flat out don't believe that he had no idea about ball pressure for the first dozen years of his career.
correct - this is also one of the circumstantial pieces of evidence against him that leads the NFL to believe he is guilty in the absence of any reliable hard evidence - i must admit it's all pretty fishy, but the NFL just does't have a strong enough evidential case to drop the hammer on Brady and the Pats.
CB
Right because Brady wouldn't give it to them.
he was under no legal or contractual obligation to provide anything else - the league conclusions may be right, but they are over reaching due to the lack of evidence and just plain shoddy/sloppy investigating. Why do you think Goodell didn't appoint a true independent arbitrator?
CB
edit: replace "true independent arbitrator" with "impartial arbitrator"
He didn't appoint one because he isn't required to.
Here is the thing, even if Brady didn't have to turn the texts and emails over if they didn't show anything, he should have. He could have avoided this whole thing.
Moranis -
I'm sympathetic and largely agree with your position. Both the Pats and Brady could have handled this much, much better, especially if they are innocent, just as the league could have. However, it's my understanding the league was provided all team cells or cell records. If there was anything that incriminated Brady within the team (minus other players), it would have showed up there. It's difficult for me to believe there was nothing in those records, but Brady was sloppy enough to incriminate himself with other players, friends, or family. That's just not credible, IMO.
As far as your first point goes, why the double standard? Why is ok to dismiss the commissioners flawed decision to appoint himself as an "impartial" arbitrator to rule on his own decision because he not required to do anything else, but not ok to dismiss Brady's actions to not provide information he is not required to provide, which IMO probably doesn't offer anything new? However, one-liners like "Brady destroys cell phone" do provide the league with great soundbites to help sway public opinion.
CB
I'm not saying there is a double standard, I'm saying that Brady appeared less than truthful at times in his testimony and when coupled with his refusal to provide transcripts of text messages, makes it seem like he has something to hide. Gives the impression to the league there is something there, which easily could have been refuted by providing the information to refute it. It isn't a double standard at all. Just because you don't have to do something, doesn't mean you shouldn't.
When what you do has direct impact on what other players in your union might have to do in the future, this is a little less cut-and-dry.
The NFLPA absolutely does not want a situation where the players are compelled to give their personal belongings to the league when they don't have to. I imagine you'd feel similarly about your current employer asking for the same thing, regardless of whether you were or were not doing anything wrong.
There's is a lot of posturing and gamesmanship to this whole thing on both sides. Goodell has looked bad in several recent disciplinary decisions and he wants to show he is a strong commissioner, not to mention the pressure from other owners on him to rein in the Pats. I'm convinced Harbaugh triggered this whole thing because Brady embarrassed him in his postgame interview. Virtually nothing that has been done in this case can be viewed without suspicion of ulterior motives. In some ways, the same can be said of Brady and the Pats. There are issues of team and personal legacy, protecting Kraft's position of power in the league, union issues, etc. All of this has detracted from any attempt at full and open disclosure, truth, and fairness, although I suppose that is almost always true in any legal or disciplinary hearing.
CB
-
Ooof. Kidney stones. Sympathies there. Hope the drugs are good, though.
I figured that's what you meant, but didn't pick up on the acronym. I meant TGH. He's had a rough year. The Pats, on the other hand, have had a very good year to the chagrin of a lot of people around the league.
Second time around for me and stones. I highly recommend avoiding them at all costs. The drugs are good, though! Lol
CB
-
Here's a snippet from the summary of Brady's testimony:
[Brady] denied discussing air-pressure levels with the ball boys or even thinking about how inflated the footballs were when he selected them. He said he was not aware of the rules that govern the inflation levels of footballs until after an Oct. 16, 2014, game against the New York Jets in which he complained about the size of the footballs.
With the caveat that I haven't read the actually testimony, does that ring true to anybody? Almost every QB in the media has indicated that he had a preference. It just defies logic that Tom Brady, a top-10 QB of all-time, would not understand the rules about the football, or would even think about inflation in terms of having a preference.
Wasn't it Brady -- along with Manning -- that lobbied the league to allow QBs to break in footballs? This is the most important tool in his craft; I just flat out don't believe that he had no idea about ball pressure for the first dozen years of his career.
The NFL appears slimy to me, but so does Brady.
It wasn't to break in footballs, it was to have visiting teams supply their own balls so how inflated they were and how broken in they were would be to the particular quarterback's liking. It looks like one of many hard to believe things he's said in this.
That came about because Wilson sent new footballs with a different texture to all the QBs asking for their feedback. The QBs responded by saying they did not like the new footballs and requested that rather than experimenting with new football designs, let them use their own. Brady and Manning's names were on the request because of their fame.
It was also, according to Brady, about how inflated the different qbs wanted the balls to be.
Do you have that quote?
I'll find it when I get a chance. I'm surprised you know so much about the situation without knowing that. I think it was the first thing that popped up on google.
-
Here's a snippet from the summary of Brady's testimony:
[Brady] denied discussing air-pressure levels with the ball boys or even thinking about how inflated the footballs were when he selected them. He said he was not aware of the rules that govern the inflation levels of footballs until after an Oct. 16, 2014, game against the New York Jets in which he complained about the size of the footballs.
With the caveat that I haven't read the actually testimony, does that ring true to anybody? Almost every QB in the media has indicated that he had a preference. It just defies logic that Tom Brady, a top-10 QB of all-time, would not understand the rules about the football, or would even think about inflation in terms of having a preference.
Wasn't it Brady -- along with Manning -- that lobbied the league to allow QBs to break in footballs? This is the most important tool in his craft; I just flat out don't believe that he had no idea about ball pressure for the first dozen years of his career.
The NFL appears slimy to me, but so does Brady.
It wasn't to break in footballs, it was to have visiting teams supply their own balls so how inflated they were and how broken in they were would be to the particular quarterback's liking. It looks like one of many hard to believe things he's said in this.
That came about because Wilson sent new footballs with a different texture to all the QBs asking for their feedback. The QBs responded by saying they did not like the new footballs and requested that rather than experimenting with new football designs, let them use their own. Brady and Manning's names were on the request because of their fame.
It was also, according to Brady, about how inflated the different qbs wanted the balls to be.
Do you have that quote?
I'll find it when I get a chance. I'm surprised you know so much about the situation without knowing that. I think it was the first thing that popped up on google.
You're right. Here's the quote “The thing is, every quarterback likes it a little bit different,” Brady told the Sun-Sentinel at the time. “Some like them blown up a little bit more, some like them a little more thin, some like them a little more new, some like them really broken in.”
-
\ While Goodell was having dinner with Kraft, I believe the hypocrite was just waiting for an opportunity to do something like this. He keeps trying to make up for all his poor decisions by making even poorer ones, trying to save face and his job.
CB
Is this in reference to Kraft or TGH?
sorry, I'm kinda high today on pain killers for a kidney stone procedure yesterday - TGH?
The Ginger Hammer. Goodell.
Thanks Donoghus - I originally thought D.O.S provided that answer
CB
-
https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/08/04/shaughnessy/Fef7oEvS7vuqW3CCZveiyL/story.html?p1=Article_InThisSection_Bottom
It is the sports version of Red States vs. Blue States, Fox News vs. MSNBC.
You either believe the Patriots cheated (a small infraction by any measure) and got caught. Or you believe the NFL is out to get the Patriots. There is no middle ground.
Pardon me, Mr. Shaugnessy, but am I allowed to believe both that the Patriots cheated -- a small infraction by any measure -- and that the NFL is out to get them, for a variety of reasons, obvious and obscure?
-
https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/08/04/shaughnessy/Fef7oEvS7vuqW3CCZveiyL/story.html?p1=Article_InThisSection_Bottom
It is the sports version of Red States vs. Blue States, Fox News vs. MSNBC.
You either believe the Patriots cheated (a small infraction by any measure) and got caught. Or you believe the NFL is out to get the Patriots. There is no middle ground.
Pardon me, Mr. Shaugnessy, but am I allowed to believe both that the Patriots cheated -- a small infraction by any measure -- and that the NFL is out to get them, for a variety of reasons, obvious and obscure?
I don't know if the NFL was necessarily out to get them. I think the NFL got themselves in a position where things have kept snowballing since January and they passed the point of no return a long time ago (time in between AFCCG & SB49) and now are stuck in their ways in a stubborn refusal to admit that they were wrong.
-
https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/08/04/shaughnessy/Fef7oEvS7vuqW3CCZveiyL/story.html?p1=Article_InThisSection_Bottom
It is the sports version of Red States vs. Blue States, Fox News vs. MSNBC.
You either believe the Patriots cheated (a small infraction by any measure) and got caught. Or you believe the NFL is out to get the Patriots. There is no middle ground.
Pardon me, Mr. Shaugnessy, but am I allowed to believe both that the Patriots cheated -- a small infraction by any measure -- and that the NFL is out to get them, for a variety of reasons, obvious and obscure?
just because we're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get us
-
https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/08/04/shaughnessy/Fef7oEvS7vuqW3CCZveiyL/story.html?p1=Article_InThisSection_Bottom
It is the sports version of Red States vs. Blue States, Fox News vs. MSNBC.
You either believe the Patriots cheated (a small infraction by any measure) and got caught. Or you believe the NFL is out to get the Patriots. There is no middle ground.
Pardon me, Mr. Shaugnessy, but am I allowed to believe both that the Patriots cheated -- a small infraction by any measure -- and that the NFL is out to get them, for a variety of reasons, obvious and obscure?
I don't know if the NFL was necessarily out to get them. I think the NFL got themselves in a position where things have kept snowballing since January and they passed the point of no return a long time ago (time in between AFCCG & SB49) and now are stuck in their ways in a stubborn refusal to admit that they were wrong.
I guess "out to get them" is too loaded a phrase.
I think the NFL was given an opportunity to go after the Patriots because the Colts went out of their way to give them one. If anybody was "out to get" the Pats, it was the Colts.
The league office, though, has handled this in a way that suggests they particularly relished the opportunity to make a big deal out of investigating and punishing the Patriots. I think that has a lot to do with trying to rehab their image in the wake of all of the domestic violence stuff that happened last year, and I think it also has a lot to do with how the Patriots have handled themselves, in the past and throughout the whole Deflategate nonsense.
-
So, I finally got a chance to read through Brady's testimony... He does not come across as credible at all to me.
I think that this was a sloppy investigation by the NFL, I think that the punishment has no precedent, I think that the league probably knew exactly what result it was looking for... but I think Brady is lying through his teeth.
-
So, I finally got a chance to read through Brady's testimony... He does not come across as credible at all to me.
I think that this was a sloppy investigation by the NFL, I think that the punishment has no precedent, I think that the league probably knew exactly what result it was looking for... but I think Brady is lying through his teeth.
It came across to me like he was being truthful at certain points -- the reasoning he gave for destroying the phone rang true to me.
At other points, like where he claims again and again that he's never talked about or thought about the inflation level of the footballs, that sounds false to me.
-
So, I finally got a chance to read through Brady's testimony... He does not come across as credible at all to me.
I think that this was a sloppy investigation by the NFL, I think that the punishment has no precedent, I think that the league probably knew exactly what result it was looking for... but I think Brady is lying through his teeth.
It came across to me like he was being truthful at certain points -- the reasoning he gave for destroying the phone rang true to me.
At other points, like where he claims again and again that he's never talked about or thought about the inflation level of the footballs, that sounds false to me.
I agree with the latter statement. But I wonder if his lawyers advised him to say that only because the NFL so egregiously screwed up by not giving the players copies of the rule book.
So essentially, the player's union can now equate this to Brady getting his license suspended for getting pulled over for doing 65 in a 55 when there weren't any speed limits posted.
Doesn't mean he's not lying, but it still may not mean that he had anything to do with deflating the balls.
-
Ravens issued another statement. I bolded the actual text message from the Ravens' to the Colts' staff.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13380713/baltimore-ravens-deny-tipping-indianapolis-colts-new-england-patriots-deflated-footballs (http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13380713/baltimore-ravens-deny-tipping-indianapolis-colts-new-england-patriots-deflated-footballs)
The Baltimore Ravens acknowledge a team official contacted the Indianapolis Colts about the New England Patriots' kicking balls, but the Ravens once again insist they did not tip off the Colts about the Patriots' game balls.
"I've been consistent from the beginning when asked about whether the Ravens tipped off the Colts about deflated footballs," coach John Harbaugh said in a statement released by the team Wednesday. "I'll say it again -- we didn't. We knew nothing about deflated footballs."
This comes one day after the release of emails Tuesday that allege Ravens special-teams coach Jerry Rosburg called Colts coach Chuck Pagano to warn him about the condition of designated "kicking" footballs used at the AFC divisional playoff game in New England, which was one week before the AFC Championship Game between the Colts and Patriots.
Long after the season ended with New England's Super Bowl championship, the subject of deflated footballs remains a hot topic.
"As a former special-teams coach, I know that members of the kicking group from teams talk to their counterparts all the time about conditions, including field, weather and footballs," Harbaugh said. "I learned this morning that our kicking consultant [Randy Brown] sent a text to Coach Pagano on Jan. 16 suggesting to the Colts that they pay attention to how the officials rotate the kicking balls into the game. Coach Brown's text did not mention the Patriots and did not complain about anything the Patriots did. The Colts never responded to Randy's text, and he had no further communications with the Colts on this matter."
The Ravens released a text that kicking consultant Randy Brown had sent to Pagano:
"Make sure the refs rotate the kicking balls cause last week they wouldn't let our ball in the game. Their ball was done so poorly that it was nearly impossible to kick off deep...It was hard and not worked in well at all...Let Tom (McMahon, Colts special teams coordinator) know he can call me at any time."
Rosburg said that Pagano called him "on or about Jan. 12" to ask about a punt/field goal substitution play that the Patriots had used against the Ravens in the divisional playoff game.
"Coach Pagano wanted to know about New England's substitution, because the coaching video does not show that part," Rosburg said. "There was no conversation regarding footballs."
-
Doesn't mean he's not lying, but it still may not mean that he had anything to do with deflating the balls.
I agree that the likely explanation here is that Brady's been told to maintain utter ignorance of the policies the NFL is trying to apply to him. That's an important thing to establish given the way that arbitration law works.
-
So, I finally got a chance to read through Brady's testimony... He does not come across as credible at all to me.
I think that this was a sloppy investigation by the NFL, I think that the punishment has no precedent, I think that the league probably knew exactly what result it was looking for... but I think Brady is lying through his teeth.
I'd agree. I thought Brady said that one of the reasons he appealed the original suspension was to restore his reputation, that ship has clearly sailed.
-
So based on this being released everyone looks like liars in some capacity right? The NFL (Goodell, Vincent, all of them), Brady, the Ravens, the Colts. Glad this became such a big deal and end ed up dragging so many people through the mud. And at the end of the day no matter what is released people will not change their opinions on this. There are those that believe Brady and the Pats and then those that do not.
Granted I do not think any one is on the side that the NFL handled this correctly and that this really does not take away from anything that Brady or the Patriots have accomplished considering this only started happening after the Jets game this past October.
-
So, I finally got a chance to read through Brady's testimony... He does not come across as credible at all to me.
I think that this was a sloppy investigation by the NFL, I think that the punishment has no precedent, I think that the league probably knew exactly what result it was looking for... but I think Brady is lying through his teeth.
I'd agree. I thought Brady said that one of the reasons he appealed the original suspension was to restore his reputation, that ship has clearly sailed.
At this point I think it's all about getting to play those 4 games without having to ever admit that he did anything wrong.
Brady probably broke the rules, but I'm sure he feels like there's nothing that he did that warrants publicly outing himself as a "cheater."
-
So, I finally got a chance to read through Brady's testimony... He does not come across as credible at all to me.
I think that this was a sloppy investigation by the NFL, I think that the punishment has no precedent, I think that the league probably knew exactly what result it was looking for... but I think Brady is lying through his teeth.
I'd agree. I thought Brady said that one of the reasons he appealed the original suspension was to restore his reputation, that ship has clearly sailed.
At this point I think it's all about getting to play those 4 games without having to ever admit that he did anything wrong.
Brady probably broke the rules, but I'm sure he feels like there's nothing that he did that warrants publicly outing himself as a "cheater."
If the NFL had just fined him in the first place & moved on, this whole mess wouldn't have transpired. The fact that the NFL looked to take a pound of flesh and try to reflex their muscles after the Ray Rice debacle is what helped get them in trouble. Now it looks like it could very well backfire on them.
-
So, I finally got a chance to read through Brady's testimony... He does not come across as credible at all to me.
I think that this was a sloppy investigation by the NFL, I think that the punishment has no precedent, I think that the league probably knew exactly what result it was looking for... but I think Brady is lying through his teeth.
Why is credibility an issue anyways?
So he wasn't a credible WITNESS...
-
I feel like if Brady was honest, that most fans would have gotten over it and compared it to a lot of other situations that teams and players have done. But the longer he goes on with the lying, the worse it makes his offense seem like.
-
Shaughnessy is right, I think, when he says this:
Sorry, I think the Patriots are guilty.
I know that is not a popular opinion and I could very well be wrong, but from the jump they’ve behaved like a guilty party, and I’ve spent enough time around them to believe this is exactly the kind of microsystem they would design in order to get a small edge. And the league-hating Belichick and ever-angry Jonathan Kraft would never admit guilt. No matter how small the infraction. Better to deny all and see if the league can make it stick.
On the other hand, I also believe the league has played dirty and gone out of its way to embarrass and punish New England for a petty crime.
-
Shaughnessy is right, I think, when he says this:
Sorry, I think the Patriots are guilty.
I know that is not a popular opinion and I could very well be wrong, but from the jump they’ve behaved like a guilty party, and I’ve spent enough time around them to believe this is exactly the kind of microsystem they would design in order to get a small edge. And the league-hating Belichick and ever-angry Jonathan Kraft would never admit guilt. No matter how small the infraction. Better to deny all and see if the league can make it stick.
On the other hand, I also believe the league has played dirty and gone out of its way to embarrass and punish New England for a petty crime.
Big surprise, Shaunessy continues to play contrarian.
I still don't think the Patriots or Brady did anything wrong and I really don't care if they did. This whole thing has been the biggest waste of time and money in history.
-
Speaking of -- don't forget to buy more Pats memorabilia on the way out, and be sure to re-up those season tickets :D
-
Shaughnessy is right, I think, when he says this:
Sorry, I think the Patriots are guilty.
I know that is not a popular opinion and I could very well be wrong, but from the jump they’ve behaved like a guilty party, and I’ve spent enough time around them to believe this is exactly the kind of microsystem they would design in order to get a small edge. And the league-hating Belichick and ever-angry Jonathan Kraft would never admit guilt. No matter how small the infraction. Better to deny all and see if the league can make it stick.
On the other hand, I also believe the league has played dirty and gone out of its way to embarrass and punish New England for a petty crime.
This is probably the first time I've ever agreed with Shaughnessy.
-
Shaughnessy is right, I think, when he says this:
Sorry, I think the Patriots are guilty.
I know that is not a popular opinion and I could very well be wrong, but from the jump they’ve behaved like a guilty party, and I’ve spent enough time around them to believe this is exactly the kind of microsystem they would design in order to get a small edge. And the league-hating Belichick and ever-angry Jonathan Kraft would never admit guilt. No matter how small the infraction. Better to deny all and see if the league can make it stick.
On the other hand, I also believe the league has played dirty and gone out of its way to embarrass and punish New England for a petty crime.
This is probably the first time I've ever agreed with Shaughnessy.
Idk they didnt really fight Spygate that much even though they just placed a camera in the wrong spot so fighting like this really has not happened before not sure what Shaughnessy means by that.
-
Now that all of his e-mails are out there everyone agrees with him not giving over any texts or his phone at all right? Granted he should not have gotten a new one and destroyed that one around that time with everything else going on.
-
Shaughnessy is right, I think, when he says this:
Sorry, I think the Patriots are guilty.
I know that is not a popular opinion and I could very well be wrong, but from the jump they’ve behaved like a guilty party, and I’ve spent enough time around them to believe this is exactly the kind of microsystem they would design in order to get a small edge. And the league-hating Belichick and ever-angry Jonathan Kraft would never admit guilt. No matter how small the infraction. Better to deny all and see if the league can make it stick.
On the other hand, I also believe the league has played dirty and gone out of its way to embarrass and punish New England for a petty crime.
This is probably the first time I've ever agreed with Shaughnessy.
Idk they didnt really fight Spygate that much even though they just placed a camera in the wrong spot so fighting like this really has not happened before not sure what Shaughnessy means by that.
He means the Patriots always are looking for ways to get right up to the edge of the rules. For example, you have their handling of injury reporting (not crossing the line, but certainly not always living up to the spirit of the rules). You have their sneaky substitutions against Baltimore in the playoffs last year (again deemed legal, but again seems a little sneaky and against the spirit of the rules). I'm sure there are other examples of that sort of gray area type stuff. And then you have Spygate where they in fact crossed the line and were hit hard for it.
-
Shaughnessy is right, I think, when he says this:
Sorry, I think the Patriots are guilty.
I know that is not a popular opinion and I could very well be wrong, but from the jump they’ve behaved like a guilty party, and I’ve spent enough time around them to believe this is exactly the kind of microsystem they would design in order to get a small edge. And the league-hating Belichick and ever-angry Jonathan Kraft would never admit guilt. No matter how small the infraction. Better to deny all and see if the league can make it stick.
On the other hand, I also believe the league has played dirty and gone out of its way to embarrass and punish New England for a petty crime.
This is probably the first time I've ever agreed with Shaughnessy.
Idk they didnt really fight Spygate that much even though they just placed a camera in the wrong spot so fighting like this really has not happened before not sure what Shaughnessy means by that.
He means the Patriots always are looking for ways to get right up to the edge of the rules. For example, you have their handling of injury reporting (not crossing the line, but certainly not always living up to the spirit of the rules). You have their sneaky substitutions against Baltimore in the playoffs last year (again deemed legal, but again seems a little sneaky and against the spirit of the rules). I'm sure there are other examples of that sort of gray area type stuff. And then you have Spygate where they in fact crossed the line and were hit hard for it.
Ahh yeah from that perspective they do definitely tip toe the line like other organizations for sure. But I was referring to this statement in there where he says "And the league-hating Belichick and ever-angry Jonathan Kraft would never admit guilt." I guess if you ignore the fact that Belichick did admit guilt for Spygate without much of a fight that may be true. But that comment seems a little off and makes his whole point a little less convincing.
-
Shaughnessy is right, I think, when he says this:
Sorry, I think the Patriots are guilty.
I know that is not a popular opinion and I could very well be wrong, but from the jump they’ve behaved like a guilty party, and I’ve spent enough time around them to believe this is exactly the kind of microsystem they would design in order to get a small edge. And the league-hating Belichick and ever-angry Jonathan Kraft would never admit guilt. No matter how small the infraction. Better to deny all and see if the league can make it stick.
On the other hand, I also believe the league has played dirty and gone out of its way to embarrass and punish New England for a petty crime.
he said "not popular opinion" ? What is he talking about? That is literally THE popular opinion
-
Shaughnessy is right, I think, when he says this:
Sorry, I think the Patriots are guilty.
I know that is not a popular opinion and I could very well be wrong, but from the jump they’ve behaved like a guilty party, and I’ve spent enough time around them to believe this is exactly the kind of microsystem they would design in order to get a small edge. And the league-hating Belichick and ever-angry Jonathan Kraft would never admit guilt. No matter how small the infraction. Better to deny all and see if the league can make it stick.
On the other hand, I also believe the league has played dirty and gone out of its way to embarrass and punish New England for a petty crime.
This is probably the first time I've ever agreed with Shaughnessy.
If you find yourself agreeing with Shaughnessy, maybe you should question yourself.
-
Shaughnessy is right, I think, when he says this:
Sorry, I think the Patriots are guilty.
I know that is not a popular opinion and I could very well be wrong, but from the jump they’ve behaved like a guilty party, and I’ve spent enough time around them to believe this is exactly the kind of microsystem they would design in order to get a small edge. And the league-hating Belichick and ever-angry Jonathan Kraft would never admit guilt. No matter how small the infraction. Better to deny all and see if the league can make it stick.
On the other hand, I also believe the league has played dirty and gone out of its way to embarrass and punish New England for a petty crime.
This is probably the first time I've ever agreed with Shaughnessy.
If you find yourself agreeing with Shaughnessy, maybe you should question yourself.
Eh. A broken clock is right twice a day.
I think that the Patriots probably cheated. I think that it's extremely likely that Brady lied. Between hiding behind lawyers and the union, destroying his phone (but not the prior one), conveniently forgetting conversations, statements contradicted by the equipment managers, his feigned ignorance about air pressure in footballs, etc., Brady is acting very much like a guilty party.
At the same time, I see this as a fairly minor infraction, or, as DS says, a petty crime.
In an ideal world, the NFL would have fined the Pats $25k per game since the infamous Jets game, the team would lose a mid-to-late round draft pick, and Brady would be fined a game check. Then, everybody could have moved on, and the rules and penalties could have been clarified and stiffened moving forward.
-
A broken clock is right twice a day only by accident.
Answer me this if you are interested, why should there be any suspicion when the Patriots balls measured exactly as they were expected to using the gauge the ref said he used? Keep in mind the ref used a very different looking gauge to the other, just a few hours before this blew up, to measure over 50 balls.
As a lawyer, what would your reaction be if the police accused your client of a crime who they had no reason to suspect other than their own lies and then used circumstantial evidence to try to convict?
What would your reaction be to your client's behavior when he was defending himself from incriminating and completely false lies told by the police.... and the judge who was to hear the case?
-
Shaughnessy is right, I think, when he says this:
Sorry, I think the Patriots are guilty.
I know that is not a popular opinion and I could very well be wrong, but from the jump they’ve behaved like a guilty party, and I’ve spent enough time around them to believe this is exactly the kind of microsystem they would design in order to get a small edge. And the league-hating Belichick and ever-angry Jonathan Kraft would never admit guilt. No matter how small the infraction. Better to deny all and see if the league can make it stick.
On the other hand, I also believe the league has played dirty and gone out of its way to embarrass and punish New England for a petty crime.
This is probably the first time I've ever agreed with Shaughnessy.
If you find yourself agreeing with Shaughnessy, maybe you should question yourself.
Eh. A broken clock is right twice a day.
I think that the Patriots probably cheated. I think that it's extremely likely that Brady lied. Between hiding behind lawyers and the union, destroying his phone (but not the prior one), conveniently forgetting conversations, statements contradicted by the equipment managers, his feigned ignorance about air pressure in footballs, etc., Brady is acting very much like a guilty party.
At the same time, I see this as a fairly minor infraction, or, as DS says, a petty crime.
In an ideal world, the NFL would have fined the Pats $25k per game since the infamous Jets game, the team would lose a mid-to-late round draft pick, and Brady would be fined a game check. Then, everybody could have moved on, and the rules and penalties could have been clarified and stiffened moving forward.
I dunno bout that.
I'm not sure how altering footballs in a bathroom could be considered a minor infraction.
The only thing Brady has going for him is the NFL over looking other incidents. He can argue he was over punished but it was a pretty serious infraction.
-
Now that all of his e-mails are out there everyone agrees with him not giving over any texts or his phone at all right? Granted he should not have gotten a new one and destroyed that one around that time with everything else going on.
Privacy for me is one of the most important rights I possess, and I do anything to protect that right. Seeing how these emails are now being made public (haven't checked who's making them public, and under who's authority and permission), I'd there's no way I'm handing the NFL or any of its investigators ANY private data I may possess, no matter the scope of it.
-
Shaughnessy is right, I think, when he says this:
Sorry, I think the Patriots are guilty.
I know that is not a popular opinion and I could very well be wrong, but from the jump they’ve behaved like a guilty party, and I’ve spent enough time around them to believe this is exactly the kind of microsystem they would design in order to get a small edge. And the league-hating Belichick and ever-angry Jonathan Kraft would never admit guilt. No matter how small the infraction. Better to deny all and see if the league can make it stick.
On the other hand, I also believe the league has played dirty and gone out of its way to embarrass and punish New England for a petty crime.
This is probably the first time I've ever agreed with Shaughnessy.
If you find yourself agreeing with Shaughnessy, maybe you should question yourself.
Eh. A broken clock is right twice a day.
I think that the Patriots probably cheated. I think that it's extremely likely that Brady lied. Between hiding behind lawyers and the union, destroying his phone (but not the prior one), conveniently forgetting conversations, statements contradicted by the equipment managers, his feigned ignorance about air pressure in footballs, etc., Brady is acting very much like a guilty party.
At the same time, I see this as a fairly minor infraction, or, as DS says, a petty crime.
In an ideal world, the NFL would have fined the Pats $25k per game since the infamous Jets game, the team would lose a mid-to-late round draft pick, and Brady would be fined a game check. Then, everybody could have moved on, and the rules and penalties could have been clarified and stiffened moving forward.
I dunno bout that.
I'm not sure how altering footballs in a bathroom could be considered a minor infraction.
The only thing Brady has going for him is the NFL over looking other incidents. He can argue he was over punished but it was a pretty serious infraction.
That, science, logic, and common sense. But who cares about that, he destroyed his phone and some guy said the word "deflator". Witch!
-
Shaughnessy is right, I think, when he says this:
Sorry, I think the Patriots are guilty.
I know that is not a popular opinion and I could very well be wrong, but from the jump they’ve behaved like a guilty party, and I’ve spent enough time around them to believe this is exactly the kind of microsystem they would design in order to get a small edge. And the league-hating Belichick and ever-angry Jonathan Kraft would never admit guilt. No matter how small the infraction. Better to deny all and see if the league can make it stick.
On the other hand, I also believe the league has played dirty and gone out of its way to embarrass and punish New England for a petty crime.
This is probably the first time I've ever agreed with Shaughnessy.
If you find yourself agreeing with Shaughnessy, maybe you should question yourself.
Eh. A broken clock is right twice a day.
I think that the Patriots probably cheated. I think that it's extremely likely that Brady lied. Between hiding behind lawyers and the union, destroying his phone (but not the prior one), conveniently forgetting conversations, statements contradicted by the equipment managers, his feigned ignorance about air pressure in footballs, etc., Brady is acting very much like a guilty party.
At the same time, I see this as a fairly minor infraction, or, as DS says, a petty crime.
In an ideal world, the NFL would have fined the Pats $25k per game since the infamous Jets game, the team would lose a mid-to-late round draft pick, and Brady would be fined a game check. Then, everybody could have moved on, and the rules and penalties could have been clarified and stiffened moving forward.
Pretty much agree with this.
However, during the Jets game the NFL inflated the balls much higher than the legal limit. Can the league really punish the Patriots for rules they themselves failed to follow?
-
I think the answer to that is an unequivocal yes. The NFL, who are more or less Mark Metcalf circa the We're Not Gonna Take It video, haven't shown a single iota of concern over internal consistency.
-
I think the answer to that is an unequivocal yes. The NFL, who are more or less Mark Metcalf circa the We're Not Gonna Take It video, haven't shown a single iota of concern over internal consistency.
In fact, Goodell was called a liar by a federal judge in November. And honestly, the guy said he did not know there was any connection to football, concussions, and post career mental health problems. Seriously? And guess who which law firm and lawyers represented him on that matter? They sound kind of familiar when looking at the deflategate nonsense. Independent... ::)
-
Shaughnessy is right, I think, when he says this:
Sorry, I think the Patriots are guilty.
I know that is not a popular opinion and I could very well be wrong, but from the jump they’ve behaved like a guilty party, and I’ve spent enough time around them to believe this is exactly the kind of microsystem they would design in order to get a small edge. And the league-hating Belichick and ever-angry Jonathan Kraft would never admit guilt. No matter how small the infraction. Better to deny all and see if the league can make it stick.
On the other hand, I also believe the league has played dirty and gone out of its way to embarrass and punish New England for a petty crime.
This is probably the first time I've ever agreed with Shaughnessy.
If you find yourself agreeing with Shaughnessy, maybe you should question yourself.
Eh. A broken clock is right twice a day.
I think that the Patriots probably cheated. I think that it's extremely likely that Brady lied. Between hiding behind lawyers and the union, destroying his phone (but not the prior one), conveniently forgetting conversations, statements contradicted by the equipment managers, his feigned ignorance about air pressure in footballs, etc., Brady is acting very much like a guilty party.
At the same time, I see this as a fairly minor infraction, or, as DS says, a petty crime.
In an ideal world, the NFL would have fined the Pats $25k per game since the infamous Jets game, the team would lose a mid-to-late round draft pick, and Brady would be fined a game check. Then, everybody could have moved on, and the rules and penalties could have been clarified and stiffened moving forward.
Pretty much agree with this.
However, during the Jets game the NFL inflated the balls much higher than the legal limit. Can the league really punish the Patriots for rules they themselves failed to follow?
The jets game that Goodell didn't know was played at Gillette rather than the meadowlands. Makes me wonder if he read the wells report.
The bulk of his questioning during the appeal made it seem like he was trying to prove he was awake. Which I'm sure is why Kessler desperately wanted the transcript released to the public which the nfl initially denied
-
It's the same reason the NFL was leaking things like "brady destroyed his cell phone" to Stephen A.: posturing.
-
Shaughnessy is right, I think, when he says this:
Sorry, I think the Patriots are guilty.
I know that is not a popular opinion and I could very well be wrong, but from the jump they’ve behaved like a guilty party, and I’ve spent enough time around them to believe this is exactly the kind of microsystem they would design in order to get a small edge. And the league-hating Belichick and ever-angry Jonathan Kraft would never admit guilt. No matter how small the infraction. Better to deny all and see if the league can make it stick.
On the other hand, I also believe the league has played dirty and gone out of its way to embarrass and punish New England for a petty crime.
This is probably the first time I've ever agreed with Shaughnessy.
If you find yourself agreeing with Shaughnessy, maybe you should question yourself.
Eh. A broken clock is right twice a day.
I think that the Patriots probably cheated. I think that it's extremely likely that Brady lied. Between hiding behind lawyers and the union, destroying his phone (but not the prior one), conveniently forgetting conversations, statements contradicted by the equipment managers, his feigned ignorance about air pressure in footballs, etc., Brady is acting very much like a guilty party.
At the same time, I see this as a fairly minor infraction, or, as DS says, a petty crime.
In an ideal world, the NFL would have fined the Pats $25k per game since the infamous Jets game, the team would lose a mid-to-late round draft pick, and Brady would be fined a game check. Then, everybody could have moved on, and the rules and penalties could have been clarified and stiffened moving forward.
Pretty much agree with this.
However, during the Jets game the NFL inflated the balls much higher than the legal limit. Can the league really punish the Patriots for rules they themselves failed to follow?
The jets game that Goodell didn't know was played at Gillette rather than the meadowlands. Makes me wonder if he read the wells report.
The bulk of his questioning during the appeal made it seem like he was trying to prove he was awake. Which I'm sure is why Kessler desperately wanted the transcript released to the public which the nfl initially denied
The bulk of his questioning proved he is a numbskull which the owners like and would like to hide from. Let the village idiot deal with the tough questions, like concussions, while they hide and count their gold coins.
-
So was it 22 minutes, after ?nearly ten? minutes? Or was it about 49 minutes, after about nine minutes? Does this matter, all these facts and figures? Only insofar as the Wells Report (and Goodell) have tried to transform an avalanche of statistics about cellphone conversations into evidence of wrongdoing. If that?s your strategy, at least stay consistent.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc-sports-bog/wp/2015/08/05/roger-goodell-misled-me-brady-appeal-transcript-shows/
The tide has turned on the discredited NFL league office, who have proven time and time again that the "popular decision" will always be their path, regardless of the actual circumstances surrounding a case they're handling.
-
So was it 22 minutes, after ?nearly ten? minutes? Or was it about 49 minutes, after about nine minutes? Does this matter, all these facts and figures? Only insofar as the Wells Report (and Goodell) have tried to transform an avalanche of statistics about cellphone conversations into evidence of wrongdoing. If that?s your strategy, at least stay consistent.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc-sports-bog/wp/2015/08/05/roger-goodell-misled-me-brady-appeal-transcript-shows/
The tide has turned on the discredited NFL league office, who have proven time and time again that the "popular decision" will always be their path, regardless of the actual circumstances surrounding a case they're handling.
While the mistakes he pointed out don't affect the story much, you'd hope that with the millions he was charging the nfl Wells would have put out a report that was free of such errors.
-
I agree that the Wells report for what it cost should not be so easy for regular people to point out its flaws. Exponent received $600K and laymen like me pointed out its many flaws upon first reading that were later pointed out by scholars like Dean Snyder and many other respected staticians and scientists.
You should read Wells' colleague Lorin Reisner's attempted take down of a Yale dean's destruction of Exponent's report. It is a fascinating take of dumb attacking smart.
-
While watching american ninja warrior ::) tonight, my sister remarked, "these guys are all stuck on the balls," to which I replied, "so is the nfl," ;D.
-
While watching american ninja warrior ::) tonight, my sister remarked, "these guys are all stuck on the balls," to which I replied, "so is the nfl," ;D.
Are you sure you understood what your sister was referring to? ;D :o ;D ??? :P ;D 8)
-
So was it 22 minutes, after ?nearly ten? minutes? Or was it about 49 minutes, after about nine minutes? Does this matter, all these facts and figures? Only insofar as the Wells Report (and Goodell) have tried to transform an avalanche of statistics about cellphone conversations into evidence of wrongdoing. If that?s your strategy, at least stay consistent.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc-sports-bog/wp/2015/08/05/roger-goodell-misled-me-brady-appeal-transcript-shows/
The tide has turned on the discredited NFL league office, who have proven time and time again that the "popular decision" will always be their path, regardless of the actual circumstances surrounding a case they're handling.
While the mistakes he pointed out don't affect the story much, you'd hope that with the millions he was charging the nfl Wells would have put out a report that was free of such errors.
The point of the article is Goodell made false statements in his 20 page appeal verdict (or what ever it is called). The author agrees with you that the jumbled figures are not a large issue:
Still, that’s mostly trivia and fact-checking.
His real problem with Goodell (and mine) is:
Being deliberately misleading about whether or not Brady admitted to discussing the allegations with the assistant during those conversations is not [mostly trivial].
Here are the specific quotes taken from the transcript:
“Mr. Brady testified that he was unable to recall any specifics of those discussions and he suggested that their principal subject was preparation of game balls for the Super Bowl,”...Goodell further argued that the huge uptick in communication between Brady and the assistant "undermines any suggestion that the communications addressed only preparation of footballs for the Super Bowl rather than the tampering allegations and their anticipated responses to inquiries about the tampering.”
After the Well's report quoted Brady's testimony as:
Brady admitted that he didn’t “remember exactly what we discussed,” but suggested there were two topics: “one was the allegations which we were facing and the second was getting ready for the Super Bowl,” and that he was talking to the assistant “about those things.”
and
“I think I was trying to figure out what happened [with the footballs], you know what could be — possibly could have happened to those balls.”
All of this continues the pattern of blatantly false statements by the NFL intended for the sole purpose of disparaging Brady. It was bad enough when such false and misleading statements were secretly leaked but in this case they are in writing, pretending to be a decision reached in an impartial appeal hearing. How can anyone continue to take the side of the NFL on this; Pats fan or otherwise?
-
While watching american ninja warrior ::) tonight, my sister remarked, "these guys are all stuck on the balls," to which I replied, "so is the nfl," ;D.
Are you sure you understood what your sister was referring to? ;D :o ;D ??? :P ;D 8)
Yes, but that was obviously the other way to take the conversation, lol ;D.
-
While watching american ninja warrior ::) tonight, my sister remarked, "these guys are all stuck on the balls," to which I replied, "so is the nfl," ;D.
Are you sure you understood what your sister was referring to? ;D :o ;D ??? :P ;D 8)
Yes, but that was obviously the other way to take the conversation, lol ;D.
Hey man, this isn't about you... 8)
-
I keep hearing people say this evidence is circumstantial as a way to minimize circumstantial evidence but actually circumstantial evidence is often the best evidence. However, most of the evidence Well's uses isn't really circumstantial evidence, it is just pure speculation on his part.
For instance, Well's asks Jasteremski, McNally and Brady if they did it. They say, "no." That is direct evidence, testimony from people who were there or not there, whatever. This evidence is totally uncontroverted. Nobody says, "I saw them do it." There isn't any video of someone doing it. There is literally no other direct evidence in this case directly tying these three guys to deflating the footballs.And to be fair, we generally don't put much stock in direct evidence like this because, well people lie.
Yet, the fact that McNally took the balls into a restroom on his way to the field and is there for an amount of time I don't think anyone would say isn't consistent with doing what people normally do in a restroom, many people hold that as more evidential than the direct testimony of three people.
-
Yet, the fact that McNally took the balls into a restroom on his way to the field and is there for an amount of time I don't think anyone would say isn't consistent with doing what people normally do in a restroom, many people hold that as more evidential than the direct testimony of three people.
I think people see it as being important because of the imaginary urinal.
"He said that on the day of the AFC Championship Game, he entered the bathroom, dropped the ball bags to his left, and used the urinal to his right," the report said. "That bathroom, however, does not contain a urinal. Upon further questioning, McNally claimed that he did not pay attention to what type of fixture he used."
If that's the type of direct testimony elicited, I would see it as lacking credibility and being self-serving, too. From what I read of the transcript, I see Brady's testimony the same time. His lack of credibility goes a long way in making me doubt his claims.
Of course, none of that means anything conclusive, but it certainly doesn't paint a portrait of open and honest witnesses.
-
Yet, the fact that McNally took the balls into a restroom on his way to the field and is there for an amount of time I don't think anyone would say isn't consistent with doing what people normally do in a restroom, many people hold that as more evidential than the direct testimony of three people.
I think people see it as being important because of the imaginary urinal.
"He said that on the day of the AFC Championship Game, he entered the bathroom, dropped the ball bags to his left, and used the urinal to his right," the report said. "That bathroom, however, does not contain a urinal. Upon further questioning, McNally claimed that he did not pay attention to what type of fixture he used."
If that's the type of direct testimony elicited, I would see it as lacking credibility and being self-serving, too. From what I read of the transcript, I see Brady's testimony the same time. His lack of credibility goes a long way in making me doubt his claims.
Of course, none of that means anything conclusive, but it certainly doesn't paint a portrait of open and honest witnesses.
Was there a fixture on the right? Does this guy just say urinal when describing the place he pees? Did they look to see if he ever used that restroom before? Did Well's ask him? Certainly you'd agree, if he walked in there he would have seen if there was a urinal or toilet there, even if he was just in there to deflate the balls.
The fact you see that as making him less than honest says more about your position than his honesty, and the fact that Wells didn't check or at least doesn't mention that information to verify whether McNally has ever been in that restroom before says more about his independent investigation than whether or not McNally urinated in the bathroom.
Lets say McNally used that bathroom ten times before, does that make the fact he called the place he urinated a urinal instead of a toilet more or less likely that he deflated the footballs? Or does that just mean he deflated the footballs in there ten other times?
People make mistakes on words all the time. They say car when they really mean vehicle or truck for van. It doesn't make them any less honest, it makes them human and not lawyers. If there was a sink on the right I'd be more inclined to call the guy a liar.
-
Yet, the fact that McNally took the balls into a restroom on his way to the field and is there for an amount of time I don't think anyone would say isn't consistent with doing what people normally do in a restroom, many people hold that as more evidential than the direct testimony of three people.
I think people see it as being important because of the imaginary urinal.
"He said that on the day of the AFC Championship Game, he entered the bathroom, dropped the ball bags to his left, and used the urinal to his right," the report said. "That bathroom, however, does not contain a urinal. Upon further questioning, McNally claimed that he did not pay attention to what type of fixture he used."
If that's the type of direct testimony elicited, I would see it as lacking credibility and being self-serving, too. From what I read of the transcript, I see Brady's testimony the same time. His lack of credibility goes a long way in making me doubt his claims.
Of course, none of that means anything conclusive, but it certainly doesn't paint a portrait of open and honest witnesses.
Was there a fixture on the right? Does this guy just say urinal when describing the place he pees? Did they look to see if he ever used that restroom before? Did Well's ask him? Certainly you'd agree, if he walked in there he would have seen if there was a urinal or toilet there, even if he was just in there to deflate the balls.
The fact you see that as making him less than honest says more about your position than his honesty, and the fact that Wells didn't check or at least doesn't mention that information to verify whether McNally has ever been in that restroom before says more about his independent investigation than whether or not McNally urinated in the bathroom.
Lets say McNally used that bathroom ten times before, does that make the fact he called the place he urinated a urinal instead of a toilet more or less likely that he deflated the footballs? Or does that just mean he deflated the footballs in there ten other times?
People make mistakes on words all the time. They say car when they really mean vehicle or truck for van. It doesn't make them any less honest, it makes them human and not lawyers. If there was a sink on the right I'd be more inclined to call the guy a liar.
Unless of course he usually pees in the sink.
Doesn't make him a liar just would give me pause before washing my hands in a sink at Gilette.
-
http://www.csnne.com/new-england-patriots/curran-inconsistencies-regarding-possible-sting
"When we look at the notion of a sting, one glaring aspect of the testimony and that’s Troy Vincent, the NFL's vice president of operations, saying he had no awareness of a scheme to deflate footballs or an alert to check for deflated footballs until Ryan Grigson, the Colts GM, knocked on the door," Tom E. Curran said. "In the Wells Report, that was established long prior to that. Both Troy Vincent and Mike Kensil had mobilized prior to Ryan Grigson knocking on the door. These little inconsistencies hint at the NFL trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube."
-
The fact you see that as making him less than honest says more about your position than his honesty
No. I think that anybody with common sense knows the difference between a toilet and a urinal. The "I didn't pay attention to whether it was a urinal or a toilet" doesn't ring true at all to me. Every man who has ever used one knows that there's a difference; you're not going to get them confused because you weren't "paying attention".
I would expect that people who accept that testimony as credible are also the type that accept that the nickname "deflator" was in reference to weight loss.
If there was a sink on the right I'd be more inclined to call the guy[ a liar.
My educated guess is that you would then posit that people get their left from their right mixed up frequently, and that the contradictory testimony means very little.
-
It is definitely clear that the Patriots and Brady contradict themselves but so don't the NFL a bunch of times too. It could just be not remembering every little detail or it could be covering something up.
As for the deflator comment I imagine you think that nickname came from him illegally deflating footballs? The question then is what is your explanation for the Jets game? Brady decided to not have them deflate the footballs against a Rex Ryan defense he always struggled against? That might be the hardest thing to believe out of this. In which case the deflator nickname does not have to do with him illegally deflating footballs. Now whether you believe the weight loss explanation which is a real term or not is up to you. But based on text messages after that it clearly shows it does not mean illegally deflating footballs.
Also this is a random question and I'm not sure if anyone else knows but when did they look at these two guys text messages? I just find it hard to believe if they were illegally deflating footballs the only mention of psi ever is in a text where they directly say the balls should have been at 13psi. For two guys who aren't careful about what they text I just find it hard to believe they didn't message each other at all about illegally deflating footballs.
The fact you see that as making him less than honest says more about your position than his honesty
No. I think that anybody with common sense knows the difference between a toilet and a urinal. The "I didn't pay attention to whether it was a urinal or a toilet" doesn't ring true at all to me. Every man who has ever used one knows that there's a difference; you're not going to get them confused because you weren't "paying attention".
I would expect that people who accept that testimony as credible are also the type that accept that the nickname "deflator" was in reference to weight loss.
If there was a sink on the right I'd be more inclined to call the guy[ a liar.
My educated guess is that you would then posit that people get their left from their right mixed up frequently, and that the contradictory testimony means very little.
-
With regards to the jets game what about the text to his wife where he says, they were at 16, they were supposed to be at 13. Are we to believe be lied to his wife? What was his motivation for lying to his wife via text.
This also comes after the deflator text.
-
With regards to the jets game what about the text to his wife where he says, they were at 16, they were supposed to be at 13. Are we to believe be lied to his wife? What was his motivation for lying to his wife via text.
This also comes after the deflator text.
This is what keeps drivingme crazy. In this caseit keeps seeming that absence of evidence is interpreted as proof of conspiracy and cover up. Any inconsistency or not knowing exactly what you did when is proof of lying (rather than, say, the natural tendency to forget specifics when you are doing innocent things that someone then later asks you to recall). And yet, the only concrete things, like the specific mention of 13 psi, is ignored. Why?
-
At the AFC Championship, the Patriots presented the footballs at the lowest point possible (12.5 PSI) then the cold air dropped the levels slightly. All this other stuff is unsubstantiated nonsense rooted in jealousy (teams) and supported by a league more concerned about public perception than doing the right thing.
Has anyone listened to the Serial Podcast? If not, I highly recommend it. Anyway, in the first episode they discuss recollection and the difficulties of recalling even the bigger of details days after the fact. I could quiz anyone reading this about what they did, in detail, say, on July 28th, and every one of you would get things wrong. Especially minor details like where a stall was in a bathroom. Who cares? Did he bring the balls in the bathroom to deflate the balls or take a pee? He took a pee.
-
With regards to the jets game what about the text to his wife where he says, they were at 16, they were supposed to be at 13. Are we to believe be lied to his wife? What was his motivation for lying to his wife via text.
This also comes after the deflator text.
This is what keeps drivingme crazy. In this caseit keeps seeming that absence of evidence is interpreted as proof of conspiracy and cover up. Any inconsistency or not knowing exactly what you did when is proof of lying (rather than, say, the natural tendency to forget specifics when you are doing innocent things that someone then later asks you to recall). And yet, the only concrete things, like the specific mention of 13 psi, is ignored. Why?
TP. How some smart and rational people are viewing this situation just totally baffles me.
Roy H. if this was criminal, the case would have been thrown out at the complaint hearing.
-
At the AFC Championship, the Patriots presented the footballs at the lowest point possible (12.5 PSI) then the cold air dropped the levels slightly. All this other stuff is unsubstantiated nonsense rooted in jealousy (teams) and supported by a league more concerned about public perception than doing the right thing.
Has anyone listened to the Serial Podcast? If not, I highly recommend it. Anyway, in the first episode they discuss recollection and the difficulties of recalling even the bigger of details days after the fact. I could quiz anyone reading this about what they did, in detail, on July 28th and everyone of you when get things wrongs. Especially minor details like where a stall was in a bathroom. Who cares? Did he bring the balls in the bathroom to deflate the balls or take a pee? He took a pee.
The thing is, all he had to do was say I went in there to take a pee. And if asked a direct question, he could have said I don't remember if it was a urinal or toilet, it was awhile ago. One of the first things I tell every person about to be deposed or questioned under oath is that if you are going to say anything, make sure you know it for sure. Don't guess, don't infer, if you don't know say you don't remember. Much better answer than saying things that aren't true because it makes you look like a liar, even if it was an honest mistake.
-
So right now, I think the only thing that people can reasonably accuse the patriots of is acting guilty in certain circumstances
Luckily acting guilty doesn't mean you did it.
-
I wonder if Brady had turned over his phone and there were no [dang]ing texts, whether the NFL would have given him any punishment.
-
I wonder if Brady had turned over his phone and there were no [dang]ing texts, whether the NFL would have given him any punishment.
Maybe not, but then the NFL would have set a precedent where they can demand a player turn over there phone to investigate any infraction.
-
Roy H. if this was criminal, the case would have been thrown out at the complaint hearing.
It is not criminal, it is the NFL and what the commissioner says is the law. The problem is, that people cannot separate in their minds that is it a sport preceding not a criminal one. Here is a great example of sports over legal.
Shoeless Joe Jackson batted .375 in the Black Sox Scandal Series.
During the series, Jackson had 12 hits (a Series record) and a .375 batting average—leading individual statistics for both teams. He committed no errors and threw out a runner at the plate.[13]
Despite a lot of evidence that he played well that series he was still lumped in with the others and tossed out of baseball forever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoeless_Joe_Jackson
In short, this is not a legal matter. Roger Goodell can do whatever he wants as long as the owners support him. You really think, other the other owner want to bail out Kraft, they probably love this folks. There is no day in court and due process.
-
With regards to the jets game what about the text to his wife where he says, they were at 16, they were supposed to be at 13. Are we to believe be lied to his wife? What was his motivation for lying to his wife via text.
This also comes after the deflator text.
I'm confused. In the appeal testimony Brady said he had never known the PSI rule until after the Jets game, because that is when the equipment guy looked it up for him. So him texting his wife that they were at 16 and should have been at 13 doesn't seem like he was lying about anything.
-
The fact you see that as making him less than honest says more about your position than his honesty
No. I think that anybody with common sense knows the difference between a toilet and a urinal. The "I didn't pay attention to whether it was a urinal or a toilet" doesn't ring true at all to me. Every man who has ever used one knows that there's a difference; you're not going to get them confused because you weren't "paying attention".
I would expect that people who accept that testimony as credible are also the type that accept that the nickname "deflator" was in reference to weight loss.
If there was a sink on the right I'd be more inclined to call the guy[ a liar.
My educated guess is that you would then posit that people get their left from their right mixed up frequently, and that the contradictory testimony means very little.
Wasnt he interviewed like 3-4 weeks after the incident? He goes to different stadiums and facilities every day so I dont think it's that crazy of an idea he didnt remember what he used to take a leak.
The deflator text is [dang]ing though.
-
With regards to the jets game what about the text to his wife where he says, they were at 16, they were supposed to be at 13. Are we to believe be lied to his wife? What was his motivation for lying to his wife via text.
This also comes after the deflator text.
I'm confused. In the appeal testimony Brady said he had never known the PSI rule until after the Jets game, because that is when the equipment guy looked it up for him. So him texting his wife that they were at 16 and should have been at 13 doesn't seem like he was lying about anything.
It seems pretty beyond belief that Brady wouldn't know the PSI requirement without being seriously affected by the brain damage that comes with playing professional football.
He does not appear to be suffering from that to this point. Would you agree?
-
Roy H. if this was criminal, the case would have been thrown out at the complaint hearing.
It's not criminal, though. The standard of proof is wildly different.
-
With regards to the jets game what about the text to his wife where he says, they were at 16, they were supposed to be at 13. Are we to believe be lied to his wife? What was his motivation for lying to his wife via text.
This also comes after the deflator text.
I'm confused. In the appeal testimony Brady said he had never known the PSI rule until after the Jets game, because that is when the equipment guy looked it up for him. So him texting his wife that they were at 16 and should have been at 13 doesn't seem like he was lying about anything.
It seems pretty beyond belief that Brady wouldn't know the PSI requirement without being seriously affected by the brain damage that comes with playing professional football.
He does not appear to be suffering from that to this point. Would you agree?
Yet isn't there a text message from Brady proving that he didn't, since he was basically asking what they were, etc.?
-
I don't remember, but I glazed over in my own readings of the transcripts etc. after a certain point.
Maybe someone else knows?
-
I'll be honest here- as a Pats fan, I don't really mind all of this Deflategate crap. I actually like it.
Having watched the season, both playoff games and the Super Bowl, it was an incredibly emotional conclusion to the season (who didn't jump out of their seat when Butler intercepted Wilson?). While the 5th ring is huge for B&B's combined legacy, this may have been the year to relax, especially with a depleted secondary and continuing to grow with a young defense. Brady is 38 and looks like he can play through his mid-40's. No joke. If we assume that Brady has a superior diet/workout regime (which it appears he does), he could play for another 5+ years. Peyton Manning looks like his father out there, and he still will probably play for another 2-3 years.
5 years to get one more ring- I would understand if the Pats took the foot off the gas this year to prepare for next year. Then the rumblings happened that one fateful Sunday night in January.
Now that Brady/Belichick/Kraft have been through the ringer over the last half of a year, there's no relenting. They are going to pound teams. Remember the 52-7 win over the Redskins in 2007? 59-0 in the snow over the Titans in 2009? The Pats play both teams again this year, and this time it could get worse. The NFL just lit a fire under the one QB-coaching combo that has the ability to impose a crazy amount of football hurt on the rest of the league. Those 4 suspension games (still could get reduced) will pale in comparison to the focused lionesque plan of attack that the Patriots are going to bring this year.
While deflated footballs might shape a couple of opinions, the on-field product will impress a lot more. Patriots fans will be laughing about this in due time. We just need to weather the storm until the Stephen A. Smith's of the world focus on actual football, not politics. When that happens, there will be no doubt about Brady's legacy.
-
With regards to the jets game what about the text to his wife where he says, they were at 16, they were supposed to be at 13. Are we to believe be lied to his wife? What was his motivation for lying to his wife via text.
This also comes after the deflator text.
I'm confused. In the appeal testimony Brady said he had never known the PSI rule until after the Jets game, because that is when the equipment guy looked it up for him. So him texting his wife that they were at 16 and should have been at 13 doesn't seem like he was lying about anything.
It seems pretty beyond belief that Brady wouldn't know the PSI requirement without being seriously affected by the brain damage that comes with playing professional football.
He does not appear to be suffering from that to this point. Would you agree?
Him saying he didn't know the exact number early last season before all this started isn't ridiculous. I'm sure there are very few basketball players who know what the legal psi for a basketball is.
Considering Brady showed the refs what the rule was, indicates that the refs didn't know what the rule was at that point either. So no I can't fault him for not knowing a requirement the refs weren't sure as to the specifics of.
-
Fair point.
-
I don't remember, but I glazed over in my own readings of the transcripts etc. after a certain point.
Maybe someone else knows?
Don't remember either, but I seem to recall an exchange about him asking what the rule said and then he subsequently asking for them to show the rules to refs, etc.
Might be wrong, but there's so much garbage around hard to find the details.
-
Fair point.
I'm a die hard Pats fan and I think the Pats certainly did something wrong.
My issue is that this was a minor rule that no one knew (apparently not even the refs) or cared about that was punished as if it was something much worse. The commissioner acted unfairly in the first place and acted even more unfairly during the appeal. All the while spreading lies in the media to make things look worse.
I'm tired of having to hear about how bad of cheaters the Patriots are when the infraction that was committed usually only incurs a small fine.
BTW tp for the response, getting something like that on celticsblog is rare and I kind of don't know what to do.
-
Fair point.
I'm a die hard Pats fan and I think the Pats certainly did something wrong.
My issue is that this was a minor rule that no one knew (apparently not even the refs) or cared about that was punished as if it was something much worse. The commissioner acted unfairly in the first place and acted even more unfairly during the appeal. All the while spreading lies in the media to make things look worse.
I'm tired of having to hear about how bad of cheaters the Patriots are when the infraction that was committed usually only incurs a small fine.
BTW tp for the response, getting something like that on celticsblog is rare and I kind of don't know what to do.
well said
-
Fair point.
I'm a die hard Pats fan and I think the Pats certainly did something wrong.
My issue is that this was a minor rule that no one knew (apparently not even the refs) or cared about that was punished as if it was something much worse. The commissioner acted unfairly in the first place and acted even more unfairly during the appeal. All the while spreading lies in the media to make things look worse.
I'm tired of having to hear about how bad of cheaters the Patriots are when the infraction that was committed usually only incurs a small fine.
BTW tp for the response, getting something like that on celticsblog is rare and I kind of don't know what to do.
your point was way off base....
(happy now?)
-
Fair point.
I'm a die hard Pats fan and I think the Pats certainly did something wrong.
My issue is that this was a minor rule that no one knew (apparently not even the refs) or cared about that was punished as if it was something much worse. The commissioner acted unfairly in the first place and acted even more unfairly during the appeal. All the while spreading lies in the media to make things look worse.
I'm tired of having to hear about how bad of cheaters the Patriots are when the infraction that was committed usually only incurs a small fine.
BTW tp for the response, getting something like that on celticsblog is rare and I kind of don't know what to do.
It's not really that rare when we actually have things to talk about. Offseason makes everyone a little testy.
In general I think the league treats their players and fans like absolute garbage in pretty much every aspect of their careers and I very much enjoy watching this aspect of the NFL be brought to light, especially when it's something mundane like the PSI of a football.
-
I wonder if Brady had turned over his phone and there were no [dang]ing texts, whether the NFL would have given him any punishment.
Maybe not, but then the NFL would have set a precedent where they can demand a player turn over there phone to investigate any infraction.
I don't buy the "precedent" thing. Richie Incognito turned over his cell phone. That didn't create a precedent where Brady was forced to turn over his.
-
I wonder if Brady had turned over his phone and there were no [dang]ing texts, whether the NFL would have given him any punishment.
Maybe not, but then the NFL would have set a precedent where they can demand a player turn over there phone to investigate any infraction.
I don't buy the "precedent" thing. Richie Incognito turned over his cell phone. That didn't create a precedent where Brady was forced to turn over his.
Didn't Wells say it was the worst move he has seen in 50 years in part because he had no problem getting the dolphin's cell phones?
-
I wonder if Brady had turned over his phone and there were no [dang]ing texts, whether the NFL would have given him any punishment.
Maybe not, but then the NFL would have set a precedent where they can demand a player turn over there phone to investigate any infraction.
I don't buy the "precedent" thing. Richie Incognito turned over his cell phone. That didn't create a precedent where Brady was forced to turn over his.
Didn't Wells say it was the worst move he has seen in 50 years in part because he had no problem getting the dolphin's cell phones?
I don't think he linked those two things. I know he said that it was a poor decision because not turning over the requested documents instantly damaged Brady's credibility.
Regardless, though, there's no precedent. Brady obviously didn't feel pressured to turn over his phone just because Incognito had.
-
I wonder if Brady had turned over his phone and there were no [dang]ing texts, whether the NFL would have given him any punishment.
Maybe not, but then the NFL would have set a precedent where they can demand a player turn over there phone to investigate any infraction.
I don't buy the "precedent" thing. Richie Incognito turned over his cell phone. That didn't create a precedent where Brady was forced to turn over his.
I guess but at the same time Brady's name carries a lot more weight. It's much easier for the NFL to convince a player to turn over his phone because Brady did it than to say well this second rung lineman one time gave us your phone so you should too.
With all the leaks that the NFL has been behind lately would you trust them with your phone? One that I'm assuming has naked pictures of your Super Model wife on them?
If you were Brady's counsel would you have told him to hand over your phone?
-
Fair point.
I'm a die hard Pats fan and I think the Pats certainly did something wrong.
My issue is that this was a minor rule that no one knew (apparently not even the refs) or cared about that was punished as if it was something much worse. The commissioner acted unfairly in the first place and acted even more unfairly during the appeal. All the while spreading lies in the media to make things look worse.
I'm tired of having to hear about how bad of cheaters the Patriots are when the infraction that was committed usually only incurs a small fine.
BTW tp for the response, getting something like that on celticsblog is rare and I kind of don't know what to do.
It's not really that rare when we actually have things to talk about. Offseason makes everyone a little testy.
In general I think the league treats their players and fans like absolute garbage in pretty much every aspect of their careers and I very much enjoy watching this aspect of the NFL be brought to light, especially when it's something mundane like the PSI of a football.
It's sad because they have a product that people love and it seems like at every turn they are doing something to hurt their brand.
Even though the NFL is making a record amount of money I still think they should force Goodell out. In my opinion all of the money being made by the NFL would have still been made without him and I wouldn't feel like I need a cold shower after saying I support the NFL.
-
So right now, I think the only thing that people can reasonably accuse the patriots of is acting guilty in certain circumstances
Luckily acting guilty doesn't mean you did it.
You have the possibility that the patriots did something against the rules followed by all that acting guilty though. You can't be overly surprised by the conclusions people are coming to.
-
So right now, I think the only thing that people can reasonably accuse the patriots of is acting guilty in certain circumstances
Luckily acting guilty doesn't mean you did it.
You have the possibility that the patriots did something against the rules followed by all that acting guilty though. You can't be overly surprised by the conclusions people are coming to.
I can when the overwhelming evidence shows they didn't do anything
-
I wonder if Brady had turned over his phone and there were no [dang]ing texts, whether the NFL would have given him any punishment.
Maybe not, but then the NFL would have set a precedent where they can demand a player turn over there phone to investigate any infraction.
I don't buy the "precedent" thing. Richie Incognito turned over his cell phone. That didn't create a precedent where Brady was forced to turn over his.
I guess but at the same time Brady's name carries a lot more weight. It's much easier for the NFL to convince a player to turn over his phone because Brady did it than to say well this second rung lineman one time gave us your phone so you should too.
With all the leaks that the NFL has been behind lately would you trust them with your phone? One that I'm assuming has naked pictures of your Super Model wife on them?
The phone, no. Transcripts of texts that his attorney reviewed? Yes.
If you were Brady's counsel would you have told him to hand over your phone?
Well, first the obvious part: it depends upon what was on the phone. If it established guilt, then probably not. If there was something clearly exonerating him, then probably so.
I think the request to have Brady's attorney provide a transcript of those texts that were responsive to the inquiry was extremely reasonable.
Also, I certainly wouldn't have told Brady to destroy his phone.
-
Fair point.
I'm a die hard Pats fan and I think the Pats certainly did something wrong.
My issue is that this was a minor rule that no one knew (apparently not even the refs) or cared about that was punished as if it was something much worse. The commissioner acted unfairly in the first place and acted even more unfairly during the appeal. All the while spreading lies in the media to make things look worse.
I'm tired of having to hear about how bad of cheaters the Patriots are when the infraction that was committed usually only incurs a small fine.
BTW tp for the response, getting something like that on celticsblog is rare and I kind of don't know what to do.
It's not really that rare when we actually have things to talk about. Offseason makes everyone a little testy.
In general I think the league treats their players and fans like absolute garbage in pretty much every aspect of their careers and I very much enjoy watching this aspect of the NFL be brought to light, especially when it's something mundane like the PSI of a football.
It's sad because they have a product that people love and it seems like at every turn they are doing something to hurt their brand.
Even though the NFL is making a record amount of money I still think they should force Goodell out. In my opinion all of the money being made by the NFL would have still been made without him and I wouldn't feel like I need a cold shower after saying I support the NFL.
I mean this is probably where I out myself and say that I'm not a particularly big football fan at all so I would love to see America's sports attentions focused on, say, leagues like the NBA.
On the other hand, I kind of enjoy having the NFL's target market focused on the NFL, since they tend to be, well, football fans. Present company excluded, of course.
-
Fair point.
I'm a die hard Pats fan and I think the Pats certainly did something wrong.
My issue is that this was a minor rule that no one knew (apparently not even the refs) or cared about that was punished as if it was something much worse. The commissioner acted unfairly in the first place and acted even more unfairly during the appeal. All the while spreading lies in the media to make things look worse.
I'm tired of having to hear about how bad of cheaters the Patriots are when the infraction that was committed usually only incurs a small fine.
BTW tp for the response, getting something like that on celticsblog is rare and I kind of don't know what to do.
It's not really that rare when we actually have things to talk about. Offseason makes everyone a little testy.
In general I think the league treats their players and fans like absolute garbage in pretty much every aspect of their careers and I very much enjoy watching this aspect of the NFL be brought to light, especially when it's something mundane like the PSI of a football.
It's sad because they have a product that people love and it seems like at every turn they are doing something to hurt their brand.
Even though the NFL is making a record amount of money I still think they should force Goodell out. In my opinion all of the money being made by the NFL would have still been made without him and I wouldn't feel like I need a cold shower after saying I support the NFL.
@Evantime34: Your first post quoted above is precisely how I feel—I'm a Pats fan, but not so biased as to think they're squeaky clean in this, but ultimately this was way overblown and it's basically Goodell's fault. There's even one Jets player at least (Cromartie) saying this is ridiculous.
And just for kicks, Bill Simmons finally chimed in on all this stuff (http://sports.yahoo.com/news/2-months-off-radar-bill-213605813.html).
-
I mean if making fun of something like this cost me six figures I'd be pretty p---ed too.
-
This morning, I got this article about Tom Brady's pool cover in my news feed. Apparently, it was "priceless."
http://www.businessinsider.com/tom-brady-pool-cover-emails-2015-8
My point is, if I'm Tom Brady, I'm not giving my cell phone to the porous NFL. No way I feel like dealing with 8,000 headlines about my pool cover or something equally important once some intern gets hold of the texts and sells them to TMZ.
This thing got away from Goodell. If he had known then what he knows now, he would have fined them $50K for using under-inflated footballs and sent them on their merry way.
Mike
-
So right now, I think the only thing that people can reasonably accuse the patriots of is acting guilty in certain circumstances
Luckily acting guilty doesn't mean you did it.
You have the possibility that the patriots did something against the rules followed by all that acting guilty though. You can't be overly surprised by the conclusions people are coming to.
I can when the overwhelming evidence shows they didn't do anything
If it did this thread would be 8-10 pages long at most. Claims of innocence from those guys who are acting guilty doesn't constitute overwhelming evidence, nor do reports that claim it's *likely* that the conclusions of the investigation were incorrect. Combining the two doesn't cut it either.
-
So right now, I think the only thing that people can reasonably accuse the patriots of is acting guilty in certain circumstances
Luckily acting guilty doesn't mean you did it.
You have the possibility that the patriots did something against the rules followed by all that acting guilty though. You can't be overly surprised by the conclusions people are coming to.
I can when the overwhelming evidence shows they didn't do anything
If it did this thread would be 8-10 pages long at most. Claims of innocence from those guys who are acting guilty doesn't constitute overwhelming evidence, nor do reports that claim it's *likely* that the conclusions of the investigation were incorrect. Combining the two doesn't cut it either.
I don't agree. There are a lot of jealous fans out there that will jump on the pats despite the evidence
-
So right now, I think the only thing that people can reasonably accuse the patriots of is acting guilty in certain circumstances
Luckily acting guilty doesn't mean you did it.
You have the possibility that the patriots did something against the rules followed by all that acting guilty though. You can't be overly surprised by the conclusions people are coming to.
I can when the overwhelming evidence shows they didn't do anything
If it did this thread would be 8-10 pages long at most. Claims of innocence from those guys who are acting guilty doesn't constitute overwhelming evidence, nor do reports that claim it's *likely* that the conclusions of the investigation were incorrect. Combining the two doesn't cut it either.
I don't agree. There are a lot of jealous fans out there that will jump on the pats despite the evidence
And, apparently, plenty who will defend them equally strongly. But neither side would come close to this long of a thread if the evidence was strongly tilted in one direction or the other.
-
I feel like we've all been posting on CB long enough to know that that is not necessarily the case.
-
I hope, for his sake, that Mark Brunell is just an naturally emotional person.
-
I'm just curious, when are they going to start investigating Jerry Rice and what will his penalty be?
Mike
-
So right now, I think the only thing that people can reasonably accuse the patriots of is acting guilty in certain circumstances
Luckily acting guilty doesn't mean you did it.
You have the possibility that the patriots did something against the rules followed by all that acting guilty though. You can't be overly surprised by the conclusions people are coming to.
I can when the overwhelming evidence shows they didn't do anything
If it did this thread would be 8-10 pages long at most. Claims of innocence from those guys who are acting guilty doesn't constitute overwhelming evidence, nor do reports that claim it's *likely* that the conclusions of the investigation were incorrect. Combining the two doesn't cut it either.
Concerning the bolded section, I think that's a matter of individual perception. Yahoo's Dan Wetzel wrote what I think is a really good piece addressing this issue. (http://sports.yahoo.com/news/roger-goodell-s-manipulation-of-tom-brady-s-testimony-leaves-nfl-on-slippery-slope-214409591-nfl.html)
-
I'm just curious, when are they going to start investigating Jerry Rice and what will his penalty be?
Mike
Perhaps an asterisk next to his records is appropriate? ;)
-
If it did this thread would be 8-10 pages long at most. Claims of innocence from those guys who are acting guilty doesn't constitute overwhelming evidence, nor do reports that claim it's *likely* that the conclusions of the investigation were incorrect. Combining the two doesn't cut it either.
Concerning the bolded section, I think that's a matter of individual perception. Yahoo's Dan Wetzel wrote what I think is a really good piece addressing this issue. (http://sports.yahoo.com/news/roger-goodell-s-manipulation-of-tom-brady-s-testimony-leaves-nfl-on-slippery-slope-214409591-nfl.html)
I think this Yahoo article is great. Even better than the one in the Washington Post yesterday.
The credibility of the NFL is heading down the toilet. It seems the more real truthful detail that come out (vs. the false and misleading information that has flowed out of the NFL formally and through leaks), the worse the NFL looks.
The story is staying the same for the Pats/Brady. There is a text from months ago where a locker room attendant lackey referred to himself as the deflator. This occurred likely after Brady made a big fuss about his game day footballs being over inflated to 16 psig for the Jets game. Then this lackey went to the bathroom on his way to the field with the balls. Then Brady got a new phone. Nothing is changing around this.
The NFL? They thought the balls were deflated by 2 psi so they leaked this out. Ooops, forgot about the Ideal Gas Law. Then Goodell made up testimony and attributed it to Brady to make him look bad. Ooops, the transcript got released and an important lie in a formally issued document is exposed. Then it was Brady didn't cooperate so he must be guilty. Uh oh, the Washington Post reports that Wells said Brady "totally cooperated"......
People keep coming back to the concept that the Pats "behavior" is indicative of someone who is guilty. Unfortunately for the NFL, every time they site or leak an example of that behavior, it turns out to be exaggerated our outright false. But even that isn't the point. The point is; if the Pats behavior makes some people think the Pats are "acting guilty" (whatever that means), what does the NFL behavior reflect?
-
Andy Benoit had a pretty good article on SI/MMQB saying Goodell likely should be fired for the mess he's made.
http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2015/08/06/roger-goodell-nfl-deflategate-dez-bryant-fight-chip-kelly
-
I'm just curious, when are they going to start investigating Jerry Rice and what will his penalty be?
Mike
Probably depends on whether or not he throws his phone in the microwave before he heads out to be interviewed.
-
Dumb question of the day: Is there any circumstances under which the Pats could get their draft picks returned?
Thanks,
Mike
-
Probably not, no.
-
I'm just curious, when are they going to start investigating Jerry Rice and what will his penalty be?
Mike
Probably depends on whether or not he throws his phone in the microwave before he heads out to be interviewed.
always comes back to the phone
The nfl wins
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/07/opinions/dowd-nfl-brady-investigation/
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/07/opinions/dowd-nfl-brady-investigation/
Seems like the tide is really turning on Goodell. Not only does it look like he will lose this, he might now lose his job.
Talk about ultimate vindication for the Pats.
Do they get the picks back if Goodell gets canned?
-
Will the NFL take into account science when they measure the balls this season? Or will they open an investigation every time weather drops the PSI by .03?
This is a legitimate question because right now the NFL does NOT believe in science. So every football they will think has been illegally deflated by the team.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/07/opinions/dowd-nfl-brady-investigation/
Seems like the tide is really turning on Goodell. Not only does it look like he will lose this, he might now lose his job.
Talk about ultimate vindication for the Pats.
Do they get the picks back if Goodell gets canned?
they should get the picks back. But that's a good question
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/07/opinions/dowd-nfl-brady-investigation/
The nfl doesn't seem to be faring too well in this, but the author of the article seems pretty clueless. First of all, I'm not sure why so many people think "I don't need to personally examine your phone, I just want some data that's stored on it" means "go ahead and destroy the phone (and the data on it), I don't mind". I'd guess I shouldn't be surprised that many of those same people think that supplying someone with a list of who you sent texts to counts as fully cooperating with a request for the content of some texts.
Also, while it's easy to buy Brady's claim that he'd have turned over his phone if he knew he might get punished if he didn't, and it's easy to believe that he wasn't going to turn over his texts and emails because of the precedent that it would set for other players, it's kind of a stretch to believe them both.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/07/opinions/dowd-nfl-brady-investigation/
The nfl doesn't seem to be faring too well in this, but the author of the article seems pretty clueless. First of all, I'm not sure why so many people think "I don't need to personally examine your phone, I just want some data that's stored on it" means "go ahead and destroy the phone (and the data on it), I don't mind". I'd guess I shouldn't be surprised that many of those same people think that supplying someone with a list of who you sent texts to counts as fully cooperating with a request for the content of some texts.
Also, while it's easy to buy Brady's claim that he'd have turned over his phone if he knew he might get punished if he didn't, and it's easy to believe that he wasn't going to turn over his texts and emails because of the precedent that it would set for other players, it's kind of a stretch to believe them both.
That may all be true from a theoretical standpoint, but if you are the disciplinarian in a case and don't clearly make your expectations clear, then you are to blame.
And I don't blame Brady for destroying his phone. Of the emails he released, several are already all over the Internet (the pool cover, messages about his oldest son, comments about Peyton). God know what would have come out about his personal life of the NFL (who already has leaked numerous things) had gotten hold of it.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/07/opinions/dowd-nfl-brady-investigation/
The nfl doesn't seem to be faring too well in this, but the author of the article seems pretty clueless. First of all, I'm not sure why so many people think "I don't need to personally examine your phone, I just want some data that's stored on it" means "go ahead and destroy the phone (and the data on it), I don't mind". I'd guess I shouldn't be surprised that many of those same people think that supplying someone with a list of who you sent texts to counts as fully cooperating with a request for the content of some texts.
Also, while it's easy to buy Brady's claim that he'd have turned over his phone if he knew he might get punished if he didn't, and it's easy to believe that he wasn't going to turn over his texts and emails because of the precedent that it would set for other players, it's kind of a stretch to believe them both.
That may all be true from a theoretical standpoint, but if you are the disciplinarian in a case and don't clearly make your expectations clear, then you are to blame.
And I don't blame Brady for destroying his phone. Of the emails he released, several are already all over the Internet (the pool cover, messages about his oldest son, comments about Peyton). God know what would have come out about his personal life of the NFL (who already has leaked numerous things) had gotten hold of it.
You know you have to cooperate. You know you didn't fully cooperate. They shouldn't have to tell you if you don't turn something over you will be punished. It is implied. It would be different if he was told if you don't turn them over you won't be punished, but that didn't happen here the NFL just didn't say he would.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/07/opinions/dowd-nfl-brady-investigation/
The nfl doesn't seem to be faring too well in this, but the author of the article seems pretty clueless. First of all, I'm not sure why so many people think "I don't need to personally examine your phone, I just want some data that's stored on it" means "go ahead and destroy the phone (and the data on it), I don't mind". I'd guess I shouldn't be surprised that many of those same people think that supplying someone with a list of who you sent texts to counts as fully cooperating with a request for the content of some texts.
Also, while it's easy to buy Brady's claim that he'd have turned over his phone if he knew he might get punished if he didn't, and it's easy to believe that he wasn't going to turn over his texts and emails because of the precedent that it would set for other players, it's kind of a stretch to believe them both.
That may all be true from a theoretical standpoint, but if you are the disciplinarian in a case and don't clearly make your expectations clear, then you are to blame.
And I don't blame Brady for destroying his phone. Of the emails he released, several are already all over the Internet (the pool cover, messages about his oldest son, comments about Peyton). God know what would have come out about his personal life of the NFL (who already has leaked numerous things) had gotten hold of it.
I think that would be a solid argument for not handing over his phone to let the investigators rummage through all of his personal texts and emails. They sought to alleviate those concerns by having Brady's team go through the data on the phone and only turn over the relevant texts, and they seemed to be pretty clear in what they were asking for.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/07/opinions/dowd-nfl-brady-investigation/
The nfl doesn't seem to be faring too well in this, but the author of the article seems pretty clueless. First of all, I'm not sure why so many people think "I don't need to personally examine your phone, I just want some data that's stored on it" means "go ahead and destroy the phone (and the data on it), I don't mind". I'd guess I shouldn't be surprised that many of those same people think that supplying someone with a list of who you sent texts to counts as fully cooperating with a request for the content of some texts.
Also, while it's easy to buy Brady's claim that he'd have turned over his phone if he knew he might get punished if he didn't, and it's easy to believe that he wasn't going to turn over his texts and emails because of the precedent that it would set for other players, it's kind of a stretch to believe them both.
That may all be true from a theoretical standpoint, but if you are the disciplinarian in a case and don't clearly make your expectations clear, then you are to blame.
And I don't blame Brady for destroying his phone. Of the emails he released, several are already all over the Internet (the pool cover, messages about his oldest son, comments about Peyton). God know what would have come out about his personal life of the NFL (who already has leaked numerous things) had gotten hold of it.
I think that would be a solid argument for not handing over his phone to let the investigators rummage through all of his personal texts and emails. They sought to alleviate those concerns by having Brady's team go through the data on the phone and only turn over the relevant texts, and they seemed to be pretty clear in what they were asking for.
That's not enough, as even the most limited scope of texts are susceptible to being leaked.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/07/opinions/dowd-nfl-brady-investigation/
The nfl doesn't seem to be faring too well in this, but the author of the article seems pretty clueless. First of all, I'm not sure why so many people think "I don't need to personally examine your phone, I just want some data that's stored on it" means "go ahead and destroy the phone (and the data on it), I don't mind". I'd guess I shouldn't be surprised that many of those same people think that supplying someone with a list of who you sent texts to counts as fully cooperating with a request for the content of some texts.
Also, while it's easy to buy Brady's claim that he'd have turned over his phone if he knew he might get punished if he didn't, and it's easy to believe that he wasn't going to turn over his texts and emails because of the precedent that it would set for other players, it's kind of a stretch to believe them both.
That may all be true from a theoretical standpoint, but if you are the disciplinarian in a case and don't clearly make your expectations clear, then you are to blame.
And I don't blame Brady for destroying his phone. Of the emails he released, several are already all over the Internet (the pool cover, messages about his oldest son, comments about Peyton). God know what would have come out about his personal life of the NFL (who already has leaked numerous things) had gotten hold of it.
I think that would be a solid argument for not handing over his phone to let the investigators rummage through all of his personal texts and emails. They sought to alleviate those concerns by having Brady's team go through the data on the phone and only turn over the relevant texts, and they seemed to be pretty clear in what they were asking for.
That's not enough, as even the most limited scope of texts are susceptible to being leaked.
Texts relevant to whether the balls were deflated are more susceptible to being part of the final report. The texts and emails that are related to Brady's personal life (i.e. what wasn't asked for) are what would be more likely to be "leaked".
-
I don't know how much of this really matters in the, "they cheated" debate. If the appeal process is what is being appealed then the NFL and Pats haters have already won their victory. Even if Brady gets no games the Wells report (though bogus), Vincent and Goddell (the league office) have all decided Pats and Brady cheated. The league will stick with the claim as badly as Mortenson has stuck with his first report. There is no way the haters or uninformed masses get by those judgments like the masses that have no clue on spygate. They will see this appeal like AP, Hardy, and Rice appeals as simply get your punishment reduced. Patriots lost this national debate no matter what.
-
If the new standards for checking balls being properly inflated and documented before the game and at half, creates data which show cold weather environments deflate footballs in the same range that the Pateiots balls deflated, the league is going to look absolutely foolish. By the same token the opposite can happen and confirm Brady was guilty. In this circumstance the league has more to lose than Brady. Brady is already perceived as guilty around most of the country. Confirmation of Brady's guilt would mean little to most people.
But if the NFL has data that shows this was a witchhunt, is the league going to give back the Pats million dollars, the NFLPA's money spent on defending Brady, Brady for retaining Lessler, and the US Court system for bringing forth a frivolous case and will the Pats get their draft picks back?
I think we all know the answer to that question.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/07/opinions/dowd-nfl-brady-investigation/
The nfl doesn't seem to be faring too well in this, but the author of the article seems pretty clueless. First of all, I'm not sure why so many people think "I don't need to personally examine your phone, I just want some data that's stored on it" means "go ahead and destroy the phone (and the data on it), I don't mind". I'd guess I shouldn't be surprised that many of those same people think that supplying someone with a list of who you sent texts to counts as fully cooperating with a request for the content of some texts.
Also, while it's easy to buy Brady's claim that he'd have turned over his phone if he knew he might get punished if he didn't, and it's easy to believe that he wasn't going to turn over his texts and emails because of the precedent that it would set for other players, it's kind of a stretch to believe them both.
That may all be true from a theoretical standpoint, but if you are the disciplinarian in a case and don't clearly make your expectations clear, then you are to blame.
And I don't blame Brady for destroying his phone. Of the emails he released, several are already all over the Internet (the pool cover, messages about his oldest son, comments about Peyton). God know what would have come out about his personal life of the NFL (who already has leaked numerous things) had gotten hold of it.
I think that would be a solid argument for not handing over his phone to let the investigators rummage through all of his personal texts and emails. They sought to alleviate those concerns by having Brady's team go through the data on the phone and only turn over the relevant texts, and they seemed to be pretty clear in what they were asking for.
Ok, but here's what I don't get: what are these "relevant texts"? Texts to the two locker room guys showing Brady and them colluding? If that's the case, the NFL already has their phones and knows what was said.
It seems to me they wanted to be able to look at every single text and email he ever sent to everyone in his life with the hope of finding something incriminating. That's not only ridiculously unfair, but also would have clearly lead to a leak of personal info.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/07/opinions/dowd-nfl-brady-investigation/
The nfl doesn't seem to be faring too well in this, but the author of the article seems pretty clueless. First of all, I'm not sure why so many people think "I don't need to personally examine your phone, I just want some data that's stored on it" means "go ahead and destroy the phone (and the data on it), I don't mind". I'd guess I shouldn't be surprised that many of those same people think that supplying someone with a list of who you sent texts to counts as fully cooperating with a request for the content of some texts.
Also, while it's easy to buy Brady's claim that he'd have turned over his phone if he knew he might get punished if he didn't, and it's easy to believe that he wasn't going to turn over his texts and emails because of the precedent that it would set for other players, it's kind of a stretch to believe them both.
That may all be true from a theoretical standpoint, but if you are the disciplinarian in a case and don't clearly make your expectations clear, then you are to blame.
And I don't blame Brady for destroying his phone. Of the emails he released, several are already all over the Internet (the pool cover, messages about his oldest son, comments about Peyton). God know what would have come out about his personal life of the NFL (who already has leaked numerous things) had gotten hold of it.
I think that would be a solid argument for not handing over his phone to let the investigators rummage through all of his personal texts and emails. They sought to alleviate those concerns by having Brady's team go through the data on the phone and only turn over the relevant texts, and they seemed to be pretty clear in what they were asking for.
That's not enough, as even the most limited scope of texts are susceptible to being leaked.
Texts relevant to whether the balls were deflated are more susceptible to being part of the final report. The texts and emails that are related to Brady's personal life (i.e. what wasn't asked for) are what would be more likely to be "leaked".
I think you have a very limited imagination of the possibilities.
-
It seems to me they wanted to be able to look at every single text and email he ever sent to everyone in his life with the hope of finding something incriminating. That's not only ridiculously unfair, but also would have clearly lead to a leak of personal info.
If that's what they wanted, why isn't it what Ted Wells requested?
-
It seems to me they wanted to be able to look at every single text and email he ever sent to everyone in his life with the hope of finding something incriminating. That's not only ridiculously unfair, but also would have clearly lead to a leak of personal info.
If that's what they wanted, why isn't it what Ted Wells requested?
What did he want to see then? They already had what Brady sent to the locker room guys. What else is there to see?
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/07/opinions/dowd-nfl-brady-investigation/
The nfl doesn't seem to be faring too well in this, but the author of the article seems pretty clueless. First of all, I'm not sure why so many people think "I don't need to personally examine your phone, I just want some data that's stored on it" means "go ahead and destroy the phone (and the data on it), I don't mind". I'd guess I shouldn't be surprised that many of those same people think that supplying someone with a list of who you sent texts to counts as fully cooperating with a request for the content of some texts.
Also, while it's easy to buy Brady's claim that he'd have turned over his phone if he knew he might get punished if he didn't, and it's easy to believe that he wasn't going to turn over his texts and emails because of the precedent that it would set for other players, it's kind of a stretch to believe them both.
That may all be true from a theoretical standpoint, but if you are the disciplinarian in a case and don't clearly make your expectations clear, then you are to blame.
And I don't blame Brady for destroying his phone. Of the emails he released, several are already all over the Internet (the pool cover, messages about his oldest son, comments about Peyton). God know what would have come out about his personal life of the NFL (who already has leaked numerous things) had gotten hold of it.
I think that would be a solid argument for not handing over his phone to let the investigators rummage through all of his personal texts and emails. They sought to alleviate those concerns by having Brady's team go through the data on the phone and only turn over the relevant texts, and they seemed to be pretty clear in what they were asking for.
Ok, but here's what I don't get: what are these "relevant texts"? Texts to the two locker room guys showing Brady and them colluding? If that's the case, the NFL already has their phones and knows what was said.
It seems to me they wanted to be able to look at every single text and email he ever sent to everyone in his life with the hope of finding something incriminating. That's not only ridiculously unfair, but also would have clearly lead to a leak of personal info.
If they didn't ask for his phone and they only asked for Brady's representative to turn over copies of texts and emails related to the investigation, how were they going to do that?
-
I just don't see how you can take some of the Patriots' explanations at face value:
“Tom sucks . . . im going make that next ball a [expletive] balloon.’’
Jastremski replied, “Talked to him last night. He actually brought you up and said you must have a lot of stress trying to get them done.’’
[The Patriots] asserted the “Tom’’ in question was not Brady but a friend of Jastremski’s. He said the conversation involved “McNally’s stress relating to reselling family tickets’’ to Patriots games.
How does that make sense to anybody? What's the friend Tom have to do with balls? And "trying to get them done", after just talking about ball, is referring to selling tickets?
Come on.
I also here a lot about lack of direct evidence, and the ideal gas law. However, even the Patriots admit that 3 of the 11 balls tested were lower than the ideal law suggests, even with the gauge most favorable to their case.
I just don't get this "lack of evidence" thing. There's all kind of evidence, some of it stronger than others. From everything I've seen, finding that the Patriots engaged in a scheme to deflate footballs does seem more likely than not. It's perhaps not beyond a reasonable doubt, although I've seen juries convict on substantially weaker evidence.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/07/opinions/dowd-nfl-brady-investigation/
The nfl doesn't seem to be faring too well in this, but the author of the article seems pretty clueless. First of all, I'm not sure why so many people think "I don't need to personally examine your phone, I just want some data that's stored on it" means "go ahead and destroy the phone (and the data on it), I don't mind". I'd guess I shouldn't be surprised that many of those same people think that supplying someone with a list of who you sent texts to counts as fully cooperating with a request for the content of some texts.
Also, while it's easy to buy Brady's claim that he'd have turned over his phone if he knew he might get punished if he didn't, and it's easy to believe that he wasn't going to turn over his texts and emails because of the precedent that it would set for other players, it's kind of a stretch to believe them both.
That may all be true from a theoretical standpoint, but if you are the disciplinarian in a case and don't clearly make your expectations clear, then you are to blame.
And I don't blame Brady for destroying his phone. Of the emails he released, several are already all over the Internet (the pool cover, messages about his oldest son, comments about Peyton). God know what would have come out about his personal life of the NFL (who already has leaked numerous things) had gotten hold of it.
I think that would be a solid argument for not handing over his phone to let the investigators rummage through all of his personal texts and emails. They sought to alleviate those concerns by having Brady's team go through the data on the phone and only turn over the relevant texts, and they seemed to be pretty clear in what they were asking for.
Ok, but here's what I don't get: what are these "relevant texts"? Texts to the two locker room guys showing Brady and them colluding? If that's the case, the NFL already has their phones and knows what was said.
It seems to me they wanted to be able to look at every single text and email he ever sent to everyone in his life with the hope of finding something incriminating. That's not only ridiculously unfair, but also would have clearly lead to a leak of personal info.
If they didn't ask for his phone and they only asked for Brady's representative to turn over copies of texts and emails related to the investigation, how were they going to do that?
But again, what defines "texts and emails related to the investigation"? Yes, it seems cut and dry when we talk about it in vague terms like that. But what does that mean? They already have all the texts Brady sent to the locker room guys, so what else is there to see?
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/07/opinions/dowd-nfl-brady-investigation/
The nfl doesn't seem to be faring too well in this, but the author of the article seems pretty clueless. First of all, I'm not sure why so many people think "I don't need to personally examine your phone, I just want some data that's stored on it" means "go ahead and destroy the phone (and the data on it), I don't mind". I'd guess I shouldn't be surprised that many of those same people think that supplying someone with a list of who you sent texts to counts as fully cooperating with a request for the content of some texts.
Also, while it's easy to buy Brady's claim that he'd have turned over his phone if he knew he might get punished if he didn't, and it's easy to believe that he wasn't going to turn over his texts and emails because of the precedent that it would set for other players, it's kind of a stretch to believe them both.
That may all be true from a theoretical standpoint, but if you are the disciplinarian in a case and don't clearly make your expectations clear, then you are to blame.
And I don't blame Brady for destroying his phone. Of the emails he released, several are already all over the Internet (the pool cover, messages about his oldest son, comments about Peyton). God know what would have come out about his personal life of the NFL (who already has leaked numerous things) had gotten hold of it.
I think that would be a solid argument for not handing over his phone to let the investigators rummage through all of his personal texts and emails. They sought to alleviate those concerns by having Brady's team go through the data on the phone and only turn over the relevant texts, and they seemed to be pretty clear in what they were asking for.
That's not enough, as even the most limited scope of texts are susceptible to being leaked.
Texts relevant to whether the balls were deflated are more susceptible to being part of the final report. The texts and emails that are related to Brady's personal life (i.e. what wasn't asked for) are what would be more likely to be "leaked".
I think you have a very limited imagination of the possibilities.
I guess, if the thought is the league was going to leak texts they were never in possession of. Possibly unrelated, but I'm wondering why we're reading online about Brady's pool cover. Where did those texts come from? The league never had access to Brady's phone before he had it destroyed. Where did those texts come from?
-
It seems to me they wanted to be able to look at every single text and email he ever sent to everyone in his life with the hope of finding something incriminating. That's not only ridiculously unfair, but also would have clearly lead to a leak of personal info.
If that's what they wanted, why isn't it what Ted Wells requested?
What did he want to see then? They already had what Brady sent to the locker room guys. What else is there to see?
Maybe they were looking for texts or emails sent to other people, maybe they were looking for texts and emails to other devices those guys owned, maybe they were going to compare the texts Brady gave them to the texts they got from those other guys to determine whether those other guys had deleted any messages.
-
I just don't see how you can take some of the Patriots' explanations at face value:
“Tom sucks . . . im going make that next ball a [expletive] balloon.’’
Jastremski replied, “Talked to him last night. He actually brought you up and said you must have a lot of stress trying to get them done.’’
[The Patriots] asserted the “Tom’’ in question was not Brady but a friend of Jastremski’s. He said the conversation involved “McNally’s stress relating to reselling family tickets’’ to Patriots games.
How does that make sense to anybody? What's the friend Tom have to do with balls? And "trying to get them done", after just talking about ball, is referring to selling tickets?
Come on.
I also here a lot about lack of direct evidence, and the ideal gas law. However, even the Patriots admit that 3 of the 11 balls tested were lower than the ideal law suggests, even with the gauge most favorable to their case.
I just don't get this "lack of evidence" thing. There's all kind of evidence, some of it stronger than others. From everything I've seen, finding that the Patriots engaged in a scheme to deflate footballs does seem more likely than not. It's perhaps not beyond a reasonable doubt, although I've seen juries convict on substantially weaker evidence.
Yeah, I don't buy the Tom's friend argument.
Also, it misses that the Patriots made the friend Tom available for an interview, something Wells didn't bother to investigate. So whether I believe it or not (which I don't), it makes for a shoddy work of an investigation of looking at things at all angles.
That said, all you're showing in this is not about Tom's guilt, but potential guilt from the Patriot's staff/equipment people.
Jastremski is responsible, from what I've gathered, for preparing Brady's game balls. Tom Brady seems to be very hard on him when he hasn't prepared them correctly or when gameballs are seemingly overinflated (16 PSI or so which was when Brady complained).
So what I've gathered from these texts is that Brady rides Jastremski hard. Jastremski worries about job security, and looks for someone to help him out in making sure the gameballs get on the field to Brady's liking (McNally).
Further more, Brady seemed to have texted Jastremski after the news came out in which he tries to console Jastremski telling him to don't worry, that Jastremski didn't do anything wrong... so up to that point Brady seemed to be to the understanding that they haven't done anything illegal or at least seemingly unaware of the other side of the scheme to make sure Brady had the balls the way he liked them when they got to the field.
I'll tell you this also, if they had a ball boy inflating/deflating game balls at his whim, he would've been fired.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/07/opinions/dowd-nfl-brady-investigation/
The nfl doesn't seem to be faring too well in this, but the author of the article seems pretty clueless. First of all, I'm not sure why so many people think "I don't need to personally examine your phone, I just want some data that's stored on it" means "go ahead and destroy the phone (and the data on it), I don't mind". I'd guess I shouldn't be surprised that many of those same people think that supplying someone with a list of who you sent texts to counts as fully cooperating with a request for the content of some texts.
Also, while it's easy to buy Brady's claim that he'd have turned over his phone if he knew he might get punished if he didn't, and it's easy to believe that he wasn't going to turn over his texts and emails because of the precedent that it would set for other players, it's kind of a stretch to believe them both.
That may all be true from a theoretical standpoint, but if you are the disciplinarian in a case and don't clearly make your expectations clear, then you are to blame.
And I don't blame Brady for destroying his phone. Of the emails he released, several are already all over the Internet (the pool cover, messages about his oldest son, comments about Peyton). God know what would have come out about his personal life of the NFL (who already has leaked numerous things) had gotten hold of it.
I think that would be a solid argument for not handing over his phone to let the investigators rummage through all of his personal texts and emails. They sought to alleviate those concerns by having Brady's team go through the data on the phone and only turn over the relevant texts, and they seemed to be pretty clear in what they were asking for.
That's not enough, as even the most limited scope of texts are susceptible to being leaked.
Texts relevant to whether the balls were deflated are more susceptible to being part of the final report. The texts and emails that are related to Brady's personal life (i.e. what wasn't asked for) are what would be more likely to be "leaked".
I think you have a very limited imagination of the possibilities.
I guess, if the thought is the league was going to leak texts they were never in possession of. Possibly unrelated, but I'm wondering why we're reading online about Brady's pool cover. Where did those texts come from? The league never had access to Brady's phone before he had it destroyed. Where did those texts come from?
Emails he made available for the Appeal process... you know after he was punished for an unprecedented 4 game suspension, which makes little to no sense EVEN if guilty.
-
It seems to me they wanted to be able to look at every single text and email he ever sent to everyone in his life with the hope of finding something incriminating. That's not only ridiculously unfair, but also would have clearly lead to a leak of personal info.
If that's what they wanted, why isn't it what Ted Wells requested?
What did he want to see then? They already had what Brady sent to the locker room guys. What else is there to see?
Maybe they were looking for texts or emails sent to other people, maybe they were looking for texts and emails to other devices those guys owned, maybe they were going to compare the texts Brady gave them to the texts they got from those other guys to determine whether those other guys had deleted any messages.
But what is the limit on that? Those are all such vague phrases. "Texts or emails sent to other people" would mean that Wells could conceivably look at every text and every email Brady sent to anyone else in his life.
And there are ways to check if people deleted texts. Well could have compared the actual number of texts that were on the phone with the number of texts shown on the bill. And for 3 million dollars, he should have found the time to do that.
-
I just don't see how you can take some of the Patriots' explanations at face value:
“Tom sucks . . . im going make that next ball a [expletive] balloon.’’
Jastremski replied, “Talked to him last night. He actually brought you up and said you must have a lot of stress trying to get them done.’’
[The Patriots] asserted the “Tom’’ in question was not Brady but a friend of Jastremski’s. He said the conversation involved “McNally’s stress relating to reselling family tickets’’ to Patriots games.
How does that make sense to anybody? What's the friend Tom have to do with balls? And "trying to get them done", after just talking about ball, is referring to selling tickets?
Come on.
I also here a lot about lack of direct evidence, and the ideal gas law. However, even the Patriots admit that 3 of the 11 balls tested were lower than the ideal law suggests, even with the gauge most favorable to their case.
I just don't get this "lack of evidence" thing. There's all kind of evidence, some of it stronger than others. From everything I've seen, finding that the Patriots engaged in a scheme to deflate footballs does seem more likely than not. It's perhaps not beyond a reasonable doubt, although I've seen juries convict on substantially weaker evidence.
There are valid reasons why balls would vary at half time and why 3 balls would be below what the IGL predicts. Some balls would be out in the elements more. Some balls would be in the middle of a collision between players. Some balls would have had a defensive player land his helmet directly on the ball when making a tackle.
Most importantly, some balls would be wetter than others. Exponent did a test where they sprayed a ball using a spray bottle and then immediately dried it off, they repeated the step, but it is not an honest representation of what happens to a ball on the field in the rain. Some balls would would have been out in the rain for minutes and would have rolled around in wet grass and had people landing on it. Headsmart Labs did a study where they found wet balls losing an additional 0.7 psi vs. Exponent's experiment of 0.1. There are other experiments finding the same thing as Headmart.
It doesn't even make sense for the ball boys to take air out of just three balls. The fact is, overall the balls were in the expected range. At worst, they took out an average of a few tenths of a psi which really doesn't even make any sense and was coincidentally the difference between the two gauges (hmmm). And you can only get there if you believe the ref was wrong about which gauge (two very different looking gauges) he used to measure over 50 footballs just a few hours before this became a major ordeal.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/07/opinions/dowd-nfl-brady-investigation/
The nfl doesn't seem to be faring too well in this, but the author of the article seems pretty clueless. First of all, I'm not sure why so many people think "I don't need to personally examine your phone, I just want some data that's stored on it" means "go ahead and destroy the phone (and the data on it), I don't mind". I'd guess I shouldn't be surprised that many of those same people think that supplying someone with a list of who you sent texts to counts as fully cooperating with a request for the content of some texts.
Also, while it's easy to buy Brady's claim that he'd have turned over his phone if he knew he might get punished if he didn't, and it's easy to believe that he wasn't going to turn over his texts and emails because of the precedent that it would set for other players, it's kind of a stretch to believe them both.
That may all be true from a theoretical standpoint, but if you are the disciplinarian in a case and don't clearly make your expectations clear, then you are to blame.
And I don't blame Brady for destroying his phone. Of the emails he released, several are already all over the Internet (the pool cover, messages about his oldest son, comments about Peyton). God know what would have come out about his personal life of the NFL (who already has leaked numerous things) had gotten hold of it.
I think that would be a solid argument for not handing over his phone to let the investigators rummage through all of his personal texts and emails. They sought to alleviate those concerns by having Brady's team go through the data on the phone and only turn over the relevant texts, and they seemed to be pretty clear in what they were asking for.
That's not enough, as even the most limited scope of texts are susceptible to being leaked.
Texts relevant to whether the balls were deflated are more susceptible to being part of the final report. The texts and emails that are related to Brady's personal life (i.e. what wasn't asked for) are what would be more likely to be "leaked".
I think you have a very limited imagination of the possibilities.
I guess, if the thought is the league was going to leak texts they were never in possession of. Possibly unrelated, but I'm wondering why we're reading online about Brady's pool cover. Where did those texts come from? The league never had access to Brady's phone before he had it destroyed. Where did those texts come from?
Emails he made available for the Appeal process... you know after he was punished for an unprecedented 4 game suspension, which makes little to no sense EVEN if guilty.
So, as part of the appeals process, Brady submits some emails completely unrelated to deflategate (in an effort to convince people he's trying to cooperate). Since they were made public (as the rest of the appeal was), he can now claim that he was right to not turn over texts because they'd obviously be leaked, and he was understandably worried that all of his personal (non deflate-gate related) texts, which the investigation *never asked to have* would also be leaked? I hope nobody's seeing anything else when they look at that.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/07/opinions/dowd-nfl-brady-investigation/
The nfl doesn't seem to be faring too well in this, but the author of the article seems pretty clueless. First of all, I'm not sure why so many people think "I don't need to personally examine your phone, I just want some data that's stored on it" means "go ahead and destroy the phone (and the data on it), I don't mind". I'd guess I shouldn't be surprised that many of those same people think that supplying someone with a list of who you sent texts to counts as fully cooperating with a request for the content of some texts.
Also, while it's easy to buy Brady's claim that he'd have turned over his phone if he knew he might get punished if he didn't, and it's easy to believe that he wasn't going to turn over his texts and emails because of the precedent that it would set for other players, it's kind of a stretch to believe them both.
That may all be true from a theoretical standpoint, but if you are the disciplinarian in a case and don't clearly make your expectations clear, then you are to blame.
And I don't blame Brady for destroying his phone. Of the emails he released, several are already all over the Internet (the pool cover, messages about his oldest son, comments about Peyton). God know what would have come out about his personal life of the NFL (who already has leaked numerous things) had gotten hold of it.
I think that would be a solid argument for not handing over his phone to let the investigators rummage through all of his personal texts and emails. They sought to alleviate those concerns by having Brady's team go through the data on the phone and only turn over the relevant texts, and they seemed to be pretty clear in what they were asking for.
That's not enough, as even the most limited scope of texts are susceptible to being leaked.
Texts relevant to whether the balls were deflated are more susceptible to being part of the final report. The texts and emails that are related to Brady's personal life (i.e. what wasn't asked for) are what would be more likely to be "leaked".
I think you have a very limited imagination of the possibilities.
I guess, if the thought is the league was going to leak texts they were never in possession of. Possibly unrelated, but I'm wondering why we're reading online about Brady's pool cover. Where did those texts come from? The league never had access to Brady's phone before he had it destroyed. Where did those texts come from?
Emails he made available for the Appeal process... you know after he was punished for an unprecedented 4 game suspension, which makes little to no sense EVEN if guilty.
So, as part of the appeals process, Brady submits some emails completely unrelated to deflategate (in an effort to convince people he's trying to cooperate). Since they were made public (as the rest of the appeal was), he can now claim that he was right to not turn over texts because they'd obviously be leaked, and he was understandably worried that all of his personal (non deflate-gate related) texts, which the investigation *never asked to have* would also be leaked? I hope nobody's seeing anything else when they look at that.
You're more worried about optics I see.
He doesn't need to make that argument (and I haven't seen anywhere where he's done it either).
Also, not sure who made these emails available anyways... it might have not been him or his party. Could've been accounts from the Patriots organization rather a personal email, which makes things like expectation of privacy a bit different.
You seem more worried about proving a point of who believes that Brady did anything wrong here (which I don't care for at all), while I'm interested in what the NFL actually has a right to do under the agreed CBA.
-
So, as part of the appeals process, Brady submits some emails completely unrelated to deflategate (in an effort to convince people he's trying to cooperate). Since they were made public (as the rest of the appeal was), he can now claim that he was right to not turn over texts because they'd obviously be leaked, and he was understandably worried that all of his personal (non deflate-gate related) texts, which the investigation *never asked to have* would also be leaked? I hope nobody's seeing anything else when they look at that.
The email release was ordered by Judge Berman, wasn't it?
-
So, as part of the appeals process, Brady submits some emails completely unrelated to deflategate (in an effort to convince people he's trying to cooperate). Since they were made public (as the rest of the appeal was), he can now claim that he was right to not turn over texts because they'd obviously be leaked, and he was understandably worried that all of his personal (non deflate-gate related) texts, which the investigation *never asked to have* would also be leaked? I hope nobody's seeing anything else when they look at that.
The email release was ordered by Judge Berman, wasn't it?
I'm pretty sure he's not allowing any evidence presented under seal, so yes. Which means, whether a leak or not, even through legal channels, private information would've made it's way to the public.
So even if you wanted to trust 100% the NFL and the NFLPA completely, if the disagreement came into a court battle, there's still a big chance your privacy wouldn't be protected. And that's a big IF initially.
-
So, as part of the appeals process, Brady submits some emails completely unrelated to deflategate (in an effort to convince people he's trying to cooperate). Since they were made public (as the rest of the appeal was), he can now claim that he was right to not turn over texts because they'd obviously be leaked, and he was understandably worried that all of his personal (non deflate-gate related) texts, which the investigation *never asked to have* would also be leaked? I hope nobody's seeing anything else when they look at that.
The email release was ordered by Judge Berman, wasn't it?
I'm pretty sure he's not allowing any evidence presented under seal, so yes. Which means, whether a leak or not, even through legal channels, private information would've made it's way to the public.
So even if you wanted to trust 100% the NFL and the NFLPA completely, if the disagreement came into a court battle, there's still a big chance your privacy wouldn't be protected. And that's a big IF initially.
I'd also point out that those e-mails led to a front page story on the Daily Mail, which I believe is the most widely read tabloid world wide, calling him a diva. Just a couple of days earlier, the Daily Mail had a front page story showing a close up of his wife's feet as she was dressed in a burqa in an attempt to hide from the paparazzi. His privacy concerns are unique. Much more so than any other NFL player.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/07/opinions/dowd-nfl-brady-investigation/
The nfl doesn't seem to be faring too well in this, but the author of the article seems pretty clueless. First of all, I'm not sure why so many people think "I don't need to personally examine your phone, I just want some data that's stored on it" means "go ahead and destroy the phone (and the data on it), I don't mind". I'd guess I shouldn't be surprised that many of those same people think that supplying someone with a list of who you sent texts to counts as fully cooperating with a request for the content of some texts.
Also, while it's easy to buy Brady's claim that he'd have turned over his phone if he knew he might get punished if he didn't, and it's easy to believe that he wasn't going to turn over his texts and emails because of the precedent that it would set for other players, it's kind of a stretch to believe them both.
That may all be true from a theoretical standpoint, but if you are the disciplinarian in a case and don't clearly make your expectations clear, then you are to blame.
And I don't blame Brady for destroying his phone. Of the emails he released, several are already all over the Internet (the pool cover, messages about his oldest son, comments about Peyton). God know what would have come out about his personal life of the NFL (who already has leaked numerous things) had gotten hold of it.
I think that would be a solid argument for not handing over his phone to let the investigators rummage through all of his personal texts and emails. They sought to alleviate those concerns by having Brady's team go through the data on the phone and only turn over the relevant texts, and they seemed to be pretty clear in what they were asking for.
That's not enough, as even the most limited scope of texts are susceptible to being leaked.
Texts relevant to whether the balls were deflated are more susceptible to being part of the final report. The texts and emails that are related to Brady's personal life (i.e. what wasn't asked for) are what would be more likely to be "leaked".
I think you have a very limited imagination of the possibilities.
I guess, if the thought is the league was going to leak texts they were never in possession of. Possibly unrelated, but I'm wondering why we're reading online about Brady's pool cover. Where did those texts come from? The league never had access to Brady's phone before he had it destroyed. Where did those texts come from?
Emails he made available for the Appeal process... you know after he was punished for an unprecedented 4 game suspension, which makes little to no sense EVEN if guilty.
So, as part of the appeals process, Brady submits some emails completely unrelated to deflategate (in an effort to convince people he's trying to cooperate). Since they were made public (as the rest of the appeal was), he can now claim that he was right to not turn over texts because they'd obviously be leaked, and he was understandably worried that all of his personal (non deflate-gate related) texts, which the investigation *never asked to have* would also be leaked? I hope nobody's seeing anything else when they look at that.
You're more worried about optics I see.
He doesn't need to make that argument (and I haven't seen anywhere where he's done it either).
Also, not sure who made these emails available anyways... it might have not been him or his party. Could've been accounts from the Patriots organization rather a personal email, which makes things like expectation of privacy a bit different.
You seem more worried about proving a point of who believes that Brady did anything wrong here (which I don't care for at all), while I'm interested in what the NFL actually has a right to do under the agreed CBA.
They seem to have the right to run an investigation, punish people they deem to be guilty of some offense, and also punish players who don't cooperate with the investigation.
-
So, as part of the appeals process, Brady submits some emails completely unrelated to deflategate (in an effort to convince people he's trying to cooperate). Since they were made public (as the rest of the appeal was), he can now claim that he was right to not turn over texts because they'd obviously be leaked, and he was understandably worried that all of his personal (non deflate-gate related) texts, which the investigation *never asked to have* would also be leaked? I hope nobody's seeing anything else when they look at that.
The email release was ordered by Judge Berman, wasn't it?
Possibly, but I from everything I heard, the investigation wasn't requesting emails related to pool covers.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/07/opinions/dowd-nfl-brady-investigation/
The nfl doesn't seem to be faring too well in this, but the author of the article seems pretty clueless. First of all, I'm not sure why so many people think "I don't need to personally examine your phone, I just want some data that's stored on it" means "go ahead and destroy the phone (and the data on it), I don't mind". I'd guess I shouldn't be surprised that many of those same people think that supplying someone with a list of who you sent texts to counts as fully cooperating with a request for the content of some texts.
Also, while it's easy to buy Brady's claim that he'd have turned over his phone if he knew he might get punished if he didn't, and it's easy to believe that he wasn't going to turn over his texts and emails because of the precedent that it would set for other players, it's kind of a stretch to believe them both.
That may all be true from a theoretical standpoint, but if you are the disciplinarian in a case and don't clearly make your expectations clear, then you are to blame.
And I don't blame Brady for destroying his phone. Of the emails he released, several are already all over the Internet (the pool cover, messages about his oldest son, comments about Peyton). God know what would have come out about his personal life of the NFL (who already has leaked numerous things) had gotten hold of it.
I think that would be a solid argument for not handing over his phone to let the investigators rummage through all of his personal texts and emails. They sought to alleviate those concerns by having Brady's team go through the data on the phone and only turn over the relevant texts, and they seemed to be pretty clear in what they were asking for.
That's not enough, as even the most limited scope of texts are susceptible to being leaked.
Texts relevant to whether the balls were deflated are more susceptible to being part of the final report. The texts and emails that are related to Brady's personal life (i.e. what wasn't asked for) are what would be more likely to be "leaked".
I think you have a very limited imagination of the possibilities.
I guess, if the thought is the league was going to leak texts they were never in possession of. Possibly unrelated, but I'm wondering why we're reading online about Brady's pool cover. Where did those texts come from? The league never had access to Brady's phone before he had it destroyed. Where did those texts come from?
Emails he made available for the Appeal process... you know after he was punished for an unprecedented 4 game suspension, which makes little to no sense EVEN if guilty.
So, as part of the appeals process, Brady submits some emails completely unrelated to deflategate (in an effort to convince people he's trying to cooperate). Since they were made public (as the rest of the appeal was), he can now claim that he was right to not turn over texts because they'd obviously be leaked, and he was understandably worried that all of his personal (non deflate-gate related) texts, which the investigation *never asked to have* would also be leaked? I hope nobody's seeing anything else when they look at that.
You're more worried about optics I see.
He doesn't need to make that argument (and I haven't seen anywhere where he's done it either).
Also, not sure who made these emails available anyways... it might have not been him or his party. Could've been accounts from the Patriots organization rather a personal email, which makes things like expectation of privacy a bit different.
You seem more worried about proving a point of who believes that Brady did anything wrong here (which I don't care for at all), while I'm interested in what the NFL actually has a right to do under the agreed CBA.
They seem to have the right to run an investigation, punish people they deem to be guilty of some offense, and also punish players who don't cooperate with the investigation.
Generalizations do you no good here...
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/07/opinions/dowd-nfl-brady-investigation/
The nfl doesn't seem to be faring too well in this, but the author of the article seems pretty clueless. First of all, I'm not sure why so many people think "I don't need to personally examine your phone, I just want some data that's stored on it" means "go ahead and destroy the phone (and the data on it), I don't mind". I'd guess I shouldn't be surprised that many of those same people think that supplying someone with a list of who you sent texts to counts as fully cooperating with a request for the content of some texts.
Also, while it's easy to buy Brady's claim that he'd have turned over his phone if he knew he might get punished if he didn't, and it's easy to believe that he wasn't going to turn over his texts and emails because of the precedent that it would set for other players, it's kind of a stretch to believe them both.
That may all be true from a theoretical standpoint, but if you are the disciplinarian in a case and don't clearly make your expectations clear, then you are to blame.
And I don't blame Brady for destroying his phone. Of the emails he released, several are already all over the Internet (the pool cover, messages about his oldest son, comments about Peyton). God know what would have come out about his personal life of the NFL (who already has leaked numerous things) had gotten hold of it.
I think that would be a solid argument for not handing over his phone to let the investigators rummage through all of his personal texts and emails. They sought to alleviate those concerns by having Brady's team go through the data on the phone and only turn over the relevant texts, and they seemed to be pretty clear in what they were asking for.
That's not enough, as even the most limited scope of texts are susceptible to being leaked.
Texts relevant to whether the balls were deflated are more susceptible to being part of the final report. The texts and emails that are related to Brady's personal life (i.e. what wasn't asked for) are what would be more likely to be "leaked".
I think you have a very limited imagination of the possibilities.
I guess, if the thought is the league was going to leak texts they were never in possession of. Possibly unrelated, but I'm wondering why we're reading online about Brady's pool cover. Where did those texts come from? The league never had access to Brady's phone before he had it destroyed. Where did those texts come from?
Emails he made available for the Appeal process... you know after he was punished for an unprecedented 4 game suspension, which makes little to no sense EVEN if guilty.
So, as part of the appeals process, Brady submits some emails completely unrelated to deflategate (in an effort to convince people he's trying to cooperate). Since they were made public (as the rest of the appeal was), he can now claim that he was right to not turn over texts because they'd obviously be leaked, and he was understandably worried that all of his personal (non deflate-gate related) texts, which the investigation *never asked to have* would also be leaked? I hope nobody's seeing anything else when they look at that.
You're more worried about optics I see.
He doesn't need to make that argument (and I haven't seen anywhere where he's done it either).
Also, not sure who made these emails available anyways... it might have not been him or his party. Could've been accounts from the Patriots organization rather a personal email, which makes things like expectation of privacy a bit different.
You seem more worried about proving a point of who believes that Brady did anything wrong here (which I don't care for at all), while I'm interested in what the NFL actually has a right to do under the agreed CBA.
They seem to have the right to run an investigation, punish people they deem to be guilty of some offense, and also punish players who don't cooperate with the investigation.
Generalizations do you no good here...
Feel free to add specifics, it's your concerns about what the nfl has the right to do that we're discussing.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/07/opinions/dowd-nfl-brady-investigation/
The nfl doesn't seem to be faring too well in this, but the author of the article seems pretty clueless. First of all, I'm not sure why so many people think "I don't need to personally examine your phone, I just want some data that's stored on it" means "go ahead and destroy the phone (and the data on it), I don't mind". I'd guess I shouldn't be surprised that many of those same people think that supplying someone with a list of who you sent texts to counts as fully cooperating with a request for the content of some texts.
Also, while it's easy to buy Brady's claim that he'd have turned over his phone if he knew he might get punished if he didn't, and it's easy to believe that he wasn't going to turn over his texts and emails because of the precedent that it would set for other players, it's kind of a stretch to believe them both.
That may all be true from a theoretical standpoint, but if you are the disciplinarian in a case and don't clearly make your expectations clear, then you are to blame.
And I don't blame Brady for destroying his phone. Of the emails he released, several are already all over the Internet (the pool cover, messages about his oldest son, comments about Peyton). God know what would have come out about his personal life of the NFL (who already has leaked numerous things) had gotten hold of it.
I think that would be a solid argument for not handing over his phone to let the investigators rummage through all of his personal texts and emails. They sought to alleviate those concerns by having Brady's team go through the data on the phone and only turn over the relevant texts, and they seemed to be pretty clear in what they were asking for.
That's not enough, as even the most limited scope of texts are susceptible to being leaked.
Texts relevant to whether the balls were deflated are more susceptible to being part of the final report. The texts and emails that are related to Brady's personal life (i.e. what wasn't asked for) are what would be more likely to be "leaked".
I think you have a very limited imagination of the possibilities.
I guess, if the thought is the league was going to leak texts they were never in possession of. Possibly unrelated, but I'm wondering why we're reading online about Brady's pool cover. Where did those texts come from? The league never had access to Brady's phone before he had it destroyed. Where did those texts come from?
Emails he made available for the Appeal process... you know after he was punished for an unprecedented 4 game suspension, which makes little to no sense EVEN if guilty.
So, as part of the appeals process, Brady submits some emails completely unrelated to deflategate (in an effort to convince people he's trying to cooperate). Since they were made public (as the rest of the appeal was), he can now claim that he was right to not turn over texts because they'd obviously be leaked, and he was understandably worried that all of his personal (non deflate-gate related) texts, which the investigation *never asked to have* would also be leaked? I hope nobody's seeing anything else when they look at that.
You're more worried about optics I see.
He doesn't need to make that argument (and I haven't seen anywhere where he's done it either).
Also, not sure who made these emails available anyways... it might have not been him or his party. Could've been accounts from the Patriots organization rather a personal email, which makes things like expectation of privacy a bit different.
You seem more worried about proving a point of who believes that Brady did anything wrong here (which I don't care for at all), while I'm interested in what the NFL actually has a right to do under the agreed CBA.
They seem to have the right to run an investigation, punish people they deem to be guilty of some offense, and also punish players who don't cooperate with the investigation.
Generalizations do you no good here...
Feel free to add specifics, it's your concerns about what the nfl has the right to do that we're discussing.
The finer points have been discussed in 154 pages.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/07/opinions/dowd-nfl-brady-investigation/
The nfl doesn't seem to be faring too well in this, but the author of the article seems pretty clueless. First of all, I'm not sure why so many people think "I don't need to personally examine your phone, I just want some data that's stored on it" means "go ahead and destroy the phone (and the data on it), I don't mind". I'd guess I shouldn't be surprised that many of those same people think that supplying someone with a list of who you sent texts to counts as fully cooperating with a request for the content of some texts.
Also, while it's easy to buy Brady's claim that he'd have turned over his phone if he knew he might get punished if he didn't, and it's easy to believe that he wasn't going to turn over his texts and emails because of the precedent that it would set for other players, it's kind of a stretch to believe them both.
That may all be true from a theoretical standpoint, but if you are the disciplinarian in a case and don't clearly make your expectations clear, then you are to blame.
And I don't blame Brady for destroying his phone. Of the emails he released, several are already all over the Internet (the pool cover, messages about his oldest son, comments about Peyton). God know what would have come out about his personal life of the NFL (who already has leaked numerous things) had gotten hold of it.
I think that would be a solid argument for not handing over his phone to let the investigators rummage through all of his personal texts and emails. They sought to alleviate those concerns by having Brady's team go through the data on the phone and only turn over the relevant texts, and they seemed to be pretty clear in what they were asking for.
That's not enough, as even the most limited scope of texts are susceptible to being leaked.
Texts relevant to whether the balls were deflated are more susceptible to being part of the final report. The texts and emails that are related to Brady's personal life (i.e. what wasn't asked for) are what would be more likely to be "leaked".
I think you have a very limited imagination of the possibilities.
I guess, if the thought is the league was going to leak texts they were never in possession of. Possibly unrelated, but I'm wondering why we're reading online about Brady's pool cover. Where did those texts come from? The league never had access to Brady's phone before he had it destroyed. Where did those texts come from?
Emails he made available for the Appeal process... you know after he was punished for an unprecedented 4 game suspension, which makes little to no sense EVEN if guilty.
So, as part of the appeals process, Brady submits some emails completely unrelated to deflategate (in an effort to convince people he's trying to cooperate). Since they were made public (as the rest of the appeal was), he can now claim that he was right to not turn over texts because they'd obviously be leaked, and he was understandably worried that all of his personal (non deflate-gate related) texts, which the investigation *never asked to have* would also be leaked? I hope nobody's seeing anything else when they look at that.
You're more worried about optics I see.
He doesn't need to make that argument (and I haven't seen anywhere where he's done it either).
Also, not sure who made these emails available anyways... it might have not been him or his party. Could've been accounts from the Patriots organization rather a personal email, which makes things like expectation of privacy a bit different.
You seem more worried about proving a point of who believes that Brady did anything wrong here (which I don't care for at all), while I'm interested in what the NFL actually has a right to do under the agreed CBA.
They seem to have the right to run an investigation, punish people they deem to be guilty of some offense, and also punish players who don't cooperate with the investigation.
Generalizations do you no good here...
Feel free to add specifics, it's your concerns about what the nfl has the right to do that we're discussing.
The finer points have been discussed in 154 pages.
Right, I was just summing up the discussion. Technically just the last 15-20 pages but from what I've read that's probably close enough.
-
Does the CBA have to specifically say, "NFL can't lie and manipulate the media during the investigation of a player"
If that's the case then why can't Roger hire a 3 year-old as lead investigator. Give him a crayon and have him write "gilty" on NFL letterhead. There's nothing in the CBA that specifically say's he can't.
-
Does the CBA have to specifically say, "NFL can't lie and manipulate the media during the investigation of a player"
If that's the case then why can't Roger hire a 3 year-old as lead investigator. Give him a crayon and have him write "gilty" on NFL letterhead. There's nothing in the CBA that specifically say's he can't.
well, i'd imagine that if the 3 year old wrote"gilty" it wouldn't hold up in court
;)
-
So, as part of the appeals process, Brady submits some emails completely unrelated to deflategate (in an effort to convince people he's trying to cooperate). Since they were made public (as the rest of the appeal was), he can now claim that he was right to not turn over texts because they'd obviously be leaked, and he was understandably worried that all of his personal (non deflate-gate related) texts, which the investigation *never asked to have* would also be leaked? I hope nobody's seeing anything else when they look at that.
The email release was ordered by Judge Berman, wasn't it?
Yeah but that didnt fit Tim's narrative.
But anyways I am so sick of this. Brady clearly had some level of guilt. But I still find the punishment imposed on the Patriots egregious. A first round pick when the Wells report specifically exonerates Kraft and Bellicheck? I get a 4 game Brady suspension but I dont get that.
-
So, as part of the appeals process, Brady submits some emails completely unrelated to deflategate (in an effort to convince people he's trying to cooperate). Since they were made public (as the rest of the appeal was), he can now claim that he was right to not turn over texts because they'd obviously be leaked, and he was understandably worried that all of his personal (non deflate-gate related) texts, which the investigation *never asked to have* would also be leaked? I hope nobody's seeing anything else when they look at that.
The email release was ordered by Judge Berman, wasn't it?
Yeah but that didnt fit Tim's narrative.
But anyways I am so sick of this. Brady clearly had some level of guilt. But I still find the punishment imposed on the Patriots egregious. A first round pick when the Wells report specifically exonerates Kraft and Bellicheck? I get a 4 game Brady suspension but I dont get that.
You 'get' a 4 game Brady suspension? Really? Since no player has ever been suspended any games for such an action (which isn't proven at all - read knuckleballer's posts. He is really on the ball with his defensive stance), how can you advocate any punishment at all?
But, yes, we are in total agreement on the bs punishment levied to the Patriots.
-
So, as part of the appeals process, Brady submits some emails completely unrelated to deflategate (in an effort to convince people he's trying to cooperate). Since they were made public (as the rest of the appeal was), he can now claim that he was right to not turn over texts because they'd obviously be leaked, and he was understandably worried that all of his personal (non deflate-gate related) texts, which the investigation *never asked to have* would also be leaked? I hope nobody's seeing anything else when they look at that.
The email release was ordered by Judge Berman, wasn't it?
Yeah but that didnt fit Tim's narrative.
But anyways I am so sick of this. Brady clearly had some level of guilt. But I still find the punishment imposed on the Patriots egregious. A first round pick when the Wells report specifically exonerates Kraft and Bellicheck? I get a 4 game Brady suspension but I dont get that.
I don't really see what his comment (or yours) have to do with the part of my post that was bolded. Why would Brady turn over texts about a pool cover in response to a request for texts related to deflate-gate? Why would anyone consider that to be cooperation?
-
So, as part of the appeals process, Brady submits some emails completely unrelated to deflategate (in an effort to convince people he's trying to cooperate). Since they were made public (as the rest of the appeal was), he can now claim that he was right to not turn over texts because they'd obviously be leaked, and he was understandably worried that all of his personal (non deflate-gate related) texts, which the investigation *never asked to have* would also be leaked? I hope nobody's seeing anything else when they look at that.
The email release was ordered by Judge Berman, wasn't it?
Yeah but that didnt fit Tim's narrative.
But anyways I am so sick of this. Brady clearly had some level of guilt. But I still find the punishment imposed on the Patriots egregious. A first round pick when the Wells report specifically exonerates Kraft and Bellicheck? I get a 4 game Brady suspension but I dont get that.
I don't really see what his comment (or yours) have to do with the part of my post that was bolded. Why would Brady turn over texts about a pool cover in response to a request for texts related to deflate-gate? Why would anyone consider that to be cooperation?
"To try and reconcile the record and fully cooperate with the investigation after I was disciplined in May, we turned over detailed pages of cell phone records and all of the emails that Mr. Wells requested,” Brady wrote. “We even contacted the phone company to see if there was any possible way we could retrieve any/all of the actual text messages from my old phone. In short, we exhausted every possibility to give the NFL everything we could and offered to go thru the identity for every text and phone call during the relevant time. Regardless, the NFL knows that Mr. Wells already had ALL relevant communications with Patriots personnel that either Mr. Wells saw or that I was questioned about in my appeal hearing.” http://larrybrownsports.com/football/tom-brady-turned-over-emails-cell-phone-records/268756
"On June 3 his forensic examiner catalogued all 5,317 emails Brady sent or received between Sept. 1, 2014 and March 1, 2015. These emails were searched for the following terms:
k-ball, kball, gage, air-pump, airpump, needle, pin, PSI, pounds per square inch, 12.5, bladder, McNally, Bird, 1 pound, 1 lb, one pound, one lb, 2 pound, 2 lb, two pound, two lb, gaug* [the * means that all variations of “gaug” were included, such as gauge, gauging, gauged etc.], pump*, inflat*, deflat*, (game OR kick*) ball ~2 [this means Brady’s emails were searched to see whether the words “game” or “kick*” were found within two words of “ball”], (prep* OR rub*) AND (ball OR football) ~10, (investigat* OR meet* OR discuss* OR question) AND (championship OR Jan* 18 OR 1/18), investigat* AND (ball OR football OR Ind* OR Colts) ~10, (equilib* OR atmosphere* OR climat* OR environment* OR test* OR experiment) AND (ball OR football) ~10". http://deadspin.com/the-full-story-of-tom-bradys-destroyed-cell-phone-1722190784
pump* is in the pool cover e-mail
-
So, as part of the appeals process, Brady submits some emails completely unrelated to deflategate (in an effort to convince people he's trying to cooperate). Since they were made public (as the rest of the appeal was), he can now claim that he was right to not turn over texts because they'd obviously be leaked, and he was understandably worried that all of his personal (non deflate-gate related) texts, which the investigation *never asked to have* would also be leaked? I hope nobody's seeing anything else when they look at that.
The email release was ordered by Judge Berman, wasn't it?
Yeah but that didnt fit Tim's narrative.
But anyways I am so sick of this. Brady clearly had some level of guilt. But I still find the punishment imposed on the Patriots egregious. A first round pick when the Wells report specifically exonerates Kraft and Bellicheck? I get a 4 game Brady suspension but I dont get that.
I don't really see what his comment (or yours) have to do with the part of my post that was bolded. Why would Brady turn over texts about a pool cover in response to a request for texts related to deflate-gate? Why would anyone consider that to be cooperation?
"To try and reconcile the record and fully cooperate with the investigation after I was disciplined in May, we turned over detailed pages of cell phone records and all of the emails that Mr. Wells requested,” Brady wrote. “We even contacted the phone company to see if there was any possible way we could retrieve any/all of the actual text messages from my old phone. In short, we exhausted every possibility to give the NFL everything we could and offered to go thru the identity for every text and phone call during the relevant time. Regardless, the NFL knows that Mr. Wells already had ALL relevant communications with Patriots personnel that either Mr. Wells saw or that I was questioned about in my appeal hearing.” http://larrybrownsports.com/football/tom-brady-turned-over-emails-cell-phone-records/268756
"On June 3 his forensic examiner catalogued all 5,317 emails Brady sent or received between Sept. 1, 2014 and March 1, 2015. These emails were searched for the following terms:
k-ball, kball, gage, air-pump, airpump, needle, pin, PSI, pounds per square inch, 12.5, bladder, McNally, Bird, 1 pound, 1 lb, one pound, one lb, 2 pound, 2 lb, two pound, two lb, gaug* [the * means that all variations of “gaug” were included, such as gauge, gauging, gauged etc.], pump*, inflat*, deflat*, (game OR kick*) ball ~2 [this means Brady’s emails were searched to see whether the words “game” or “kick*” were found within two words of “ball”], (prep* OR rub*) AND (ball OR football) ~10, (investigat* OR meet* OR discuss* OR question) AND (championship OR Jan* 18 OR 1/18), investigat* AND (ball OR football OR Ind* OR Colts) ~10, (equilib* OR atmosphere* OR climat* OR environment* OR test* OR experiment) AND (ball OR football) ~10". http://deadspin.com/the-full-story-of-tom-bradys-destroyed-cell-phone-1722190784
pump* is in the pool cover e-mail
Ok, so they were in "flood the investigation with reams of irrelevant data" mode after destroying the data that was requested. Got it.
But how does that fit in with his refusal to comply with the investigation's original request because of the precedent it would set?
-
I just don't think showing all of his text messages would have helped him out. Even if they said here are all the relative texts they would have painted this picture that Brady did not turn over all of his texts or his full phone. And even if he had nothing in there it would not have made him completely innocent. I mean one of the guys who was supposedly heavily involved had a text message that said the balls should have been at 13PSI. That is the clearest text out of them all and it did not help their case so I really do not think there is anything Brady could have turned over that would have changed the story.
Also failure to cooperate and receiving a suspension for it is completely unprecedented. Favre did not turn his over and he got fined $50,000. Gostkowski also was investigated for the kicker balls and he did not turn his phone over and got nothing. Oh and one of those guys was proven innocent and the other one guilty so I do not think not turning over texts or your phone shows you are innocent or guilty.
-
I do not think not turning over texts or your phone shows you are innocent or guilty.
Agreed, but it's fairly easy to look at this in the same way you'd look at a breathalyzer or something like that -- you're not compelled (just heavily coerced per fines and penalties, ala Brady and his phone) to submit to testing, but if you're innocent, why wouldn't you?
How you feel about authorities doling out punishment on that sort of scale would, I assume, play a part in how you feel about what Brady did and how the NFL responded.
-
I do not think not turning over texts or your phone shows you are innocent or guilty.
Agreed, but it's fairly easy to look at this in the same way you'd look at a breathalyzer or something like that -- you're not compelled (just heavily coerced per fines and penalties, ala Brady and his phone) to submit to testing, but if you're innocent, why wouldn't you?
I don't know. Why didn't Gostkowski? Do you really think Brady would have as much support from the union and other players if he did? I think that probably has a lot to do with it as it would really be going against what the union would want. Now we have seen some guys who hate Brady come out to support him like Suggs, Pollard and others.
Also a breathalyzer could really help your case if you pass, turning over texts I just really do not see that helping much based on how this all played out.
-
My point is more about the refusal than the actual benefit (or detriment) of doing something you're not being compelled to do.
-
So, as part of the appeals process, Brady submits some emails completely unrelated to deflategate (in an effort to convince people he's trying to cooperate). Since they were made public (as the rest of the appeal was), he can now claim that he was right to not turn over texts because they'd obviously be leaked, and he was understandably worried that all of his personal (non deflate-gate related) texts, which the investigation *never asked to have* would also be leaked? I hope nobody's seeing anything else when they look at that.
The email release was ordered by Judge Berman, wasn't it?
Yeah but that didnt fit Tim's narrative.
But anyways I am so sick of this. Brady clearly had some level of guilt. But I still find the punishment imposed on the Patriots egregious. A first round pick when the Wells report specifically exonerates Kraft and Bellicheck? I get a 4 game Brady suspension but I dont get that.
I don't really see what his comment (or yours) have to do with the part of my post that was bolded. Why would Brady turn over texts about a pool cover in response to a request for texts related to deflate-gate? Why would anyone consider that to be cooperation?
"To try and reconcile the record and fully cooperate with the investigation after I was disciplined in May, we turned over detailed pages of cell phone records and all of the emails that Mr. Wells requested,” Brady wrote. “We even contacted the phone company to see if there was any possible way we could retrieve any/all of the actual text messages from my old phone. In short, we exhausted every possibility to give the NFL everything we could and offered to go thru the identity for every text and phone call during the relevant time. Regardless, the NFL knows that Mr. Wells already had ALL relevant communications with Patriots personnel that either Mr. Wells saw or that I was questioned about in my appeal hearing.” http://larrybrownsports.com/football/tom-brady-turned-over-emails-cell-phone-records/268756
"On June 3 his forensic examiner catalogued all 5,317 emails Brady sent or received between Sept. 1, 2014 and March 1, 2015. These emails were searched for the following terms:
k-ball, kball, gage, air-pump, airpump, needle, pin, PSI, pounds per square inch, 12.5, bladder, McNally, Bird, 1 pound, 1 lb, one pound, one lb, 2 pound, 2 lb, two pound, two lb, gaug* [the * means that all variations of “gaug” were included, such as gauge, gauging, gauged etc.], pump*, inflat*, deflat*, (game OR kick*) ball ~2 [this means Brady’s emails were searched to see whether the words “game” or “kick*” were found within two words of “ball”], (prep* OR rub*) AND (ball OR football) ~10, (investigat* OR meet* OR discuss* OR question) AND (championship OR Jan* 18 OR 1/18), investigat* AND (ball OR football OR Ind* OR Colts) ~10, (equilib* OR atmosphere* OR climat* OR environment* OR test* OR experiment) AND (ball OR football) ~10". http://deadspin.com/the-full-story-of-tom-bradys-destroyed-cell-phone-1722190784
pump* is in the pool cover e-mail
Ok, so they were in "flood the investigation with reams of irrelevant data" mode after destroying the data that was requested. Got it.
But how does that fit in with his refusal to comply with the investigation's original request because of the precedent it would set?
From the hearing Ted Wells testified “I did not tell Mr Brady at any time that he would be subject to punishment for not giving … not turning over the documents. I did not say anything like that."
Also from the hearing, there is this exchange between Kessler and Brady
Q. During that time, did they ever tell you that if you didn't turn over some texts or e-mails or respond to that that you were going to be disciplined in any way, you know, that you were going to be violating some, you know, specific policy about that or anything like that? Did they ever tell you that?
A. No.
Q. If you had been informed by them and they said look, this is your duty to cooperate, would you then have produced them no matter what your agents and your counsel said?
A. Yes.
-
I mean, that's sworn testimony and all but it's very easy to say "sure, totally would have" in retrospect.
-
I just don't think showing all of his text messages would have helped him out. Even if they said here are all the relative texts they would have painted this picture that Brady did not turn over all of his texts or his full phone. And even if he had nothing in there it would not have made him completely innocent. I mean one of the guys who was supposedly heavily involved had a text message that said the balls should have been at 13PSI. That is the clearest text out of them all and it did not help their case so I really do not think there is anything Brady could have turned over that would have changed the story.
Also failure to cooperate and receiving a suspension for it is completely unprecedented. Favre did not turn his over and he got fined $50,000. Gostkowski also was investigated for the kicker balls and he did not turn his phone over and got nothing. Oh and one of those guys was proven innocent and the other one guilty so I do not think not turning over texts or your phone shows you are innocent or guilty.
I agree, the text message from Jastremski stating the balls should have been 13 has basically been ignored. It contradicts that there was already a scheme in place and it came 5 months after the "deflator" comment.
The problem is that it is extremely difficult to prove a negative.
-
I mean, that's sworn testimony and all but it's very easy to say "sure, totally would have" in retrospect.
Agreed. Then again he gave up all the materials requested, that could still be accessed of course, once the incredibly unprecedented punishment came about.
-
I mean, that's sworn testimony and all but it's very easy to say "sure, totally would have" in retrospect.
Sure, but what else is there? What more could be done at that point? They handed over everything they could and provided a letter from his carrier stating that they could not retrieve his texts. Afterall, they have all the texts from the ball boys as wells as many other team employees including Belichick.
I understand why he refused to hand over his phone. I understand why his lawyer and the NFLPA advised him not to. Certainly, no one thought that would lead to assumed guilt and a four game suspension. It's a basic discovery dispute.
-
I mean, that's sworn testimony and all but it's very easy to say "sure, totally would have" in retrospect.
Sure, but what else is there? What more could be done at that point? They handed over everything they could and provided a letter from his carrier stating that they could not retrieve his texts. Afterall, they have all the texts from the ball boys as wells as many other team employees including Belichick.
I understand why he refused to hand over his phone. I understand why his lawyer and the NFLPA advised him not to. Certainly, no one thought that would lead to assumed guilt and a four game suspension. It's a basic discovery dispute.
I agree with you. Like I just said:
How you feel about authorities doling out punishment on that sort of scale would, I assume, play a part in how you feel about what Brady did and how the NFL responded.
Don't worry, I'm not looking to impugn on precious Tawm's honor.
-
My point is more about the refusal than the actual benefit (or detriment) of doing something you're not being compelled to do.
Yeah, I guess I just do not see the point when it goes against what the union probably advised and wanted him to do. Granted the replacing and destroying of that phone was a horrible idea. My guess is Brady and the Patriots all thought this was a very small thing and did not take it that seriously. Then when the punishment came down and Brady saw how bad it was thats when they backtracked and probably tried to do anything they could to get some of those text messages at the time. Really badly handled by his legal team I think from that part. Even if he does regularly destroy his old phones when he gets a new one, which makes sense they should not have let him do that in this case. Horrible advice guilty or innocent.
-
When the 2 pounds report, the deflator text and the ballboy in the bathroom were reported, I thought the pats did it.
Then two things happened. The actual measurements came out and the drop could be explained by the ideal gas law.
But the text and the bathroom visit still looms and the coincidence is tough to swallow.
So let's say that brady conspired in the scheme, that means that either:
A) the deflator takes the balls in the bathroom and decides that for some reason he's not going to take air out this time
B) the deflator takes maaaybe .01 out of the balls
If you believe in the ideal gas law AND you believe that brady is guilty then you must believe in A or B. So which is it?
Option B is ridiculous.
Option A means there is no violation, at least for this game.
Is there an option C? What am I missing?
-
When the 2 pounds report, the deflator text and the ballboy in the bathroom were reported, I thought the pats did it.
Then two things happened. The actual measurements came out and the drop could be explained by the ideal gas law.
But the text and the bathroom visit still looms and the coincidence is tough to swallow.
So let's say that brady conspired in the scheme, that means that either:
A) the deflator takes the balls in the bathroom and decides that for some reason he's not going to take air out this time
B) the deflator takes maaaybe .01 out of the balls
If you believe in the ideal gas law AND you believe that brady is guilty then you must believe in A or B. So which is it?
Option B is ridiculous.
Option A means there is no violation, at least for this game.
Is there an option C? What am I missing?
C) he took a leak
Not sure why that is hard to believe.
-
My point is more about the refusal than the actual benefit (or detriment) of doing something you're not being compelled to do.
Yeah, I guess I just do not see the point when it goes against what the union probably advised and wanted him to do. Granted the replacing and destroying of that phone was a horrible idea. My guess is Brady and the Patriots all thought this was a very small thing and did not take it that seriously. Then when the punishment came down and Brady saw how bad it was thats when they backtracked and probably tried to do anything they could to get some of those text messages at the time. Really badly handled by his legal team I think from that part. Even if he does regularly destroy his old phones when he gets a new one, which makes sense they should not have let him do that in this case. Horrible advice guilty or innocent.
Isn't it possible that he texted someone something so personal that it would be worse if that got out? Perhaps the perception of "I must be hiding deflategate evidence" is a better alternative for him.
I don't think destroying the phone necessarily means your guilty of this violation. But for all the people saying that he must be hiding something, aren't we all?
-
My point is more about the refusal than the actual benefit (or detriment) of doing something you're not being compelled to do.
Yeah, I guess I just do not see the point when it goes against what the union probably advised and wanted him to do. Granted the replacing and destroying of that phone was a horrible idea. My guess is Brady and the Patriots all thought this was a very small thing and did not take it that seriously. Then when the punishment came down and Brady saw how bad it was thats when they backtracked and probably tried to do anything they could to get some of those text messages at the time. Really badly handled by his legal team I think from that part. Even if he does regularly destroy his old phones when he gets a new one, which makes sense they should not have let him do that in this case. Horrible advice guilty or innocent.
Isn't it possible that he texted someone something so personal that it would be worse if that got out? Perhaps the perception of "I must be hiding deflategate evidence" is a better alternative for him.
I don't think destroying the phone necessarily means your guilty of this violation. But for all the people saying that he must be hiding something, aren't we all?
I'd be extremely reluctant to give up my cell phone under any circumstances. Even if I'm innocent. Just a privacy thing.
Someone pointed out it the other day on Twitter (can't remember who, though), the hypocrisy of some in the media (& beyond) who were calling out Brady for not giving up his cell phone then criticizing him for the comments he made about Manning in an email.
-
My point is more about the refusal than the actual benefit (or detriment) of doing something you're not being compelled to do.
Yeah, I guess I just do not see the point when it goes against what the union probably advised and wanted him to do. Granted the replacing and destroying of that phone was a horrible idea. My guess is Brady and the Patriots all thought this was a very small thing and did not take it that seriously. Then when the punishment came down and Brady saw how bad it was thats when they backtracked and probably tried to do anything they could to get some of those text messages at the time. Really badly handled by his legal team I think from that part. Even if he does regularly destroy his old phones when he gets a new one, which makes sense they should not have let him do that in this case. Horrible advice guilty or innocent.
Isn't it possible that he texted someone something so personal that it would be worse if that got out? Perhaps the perception of "I must be hiding deflategate evidence" is a better alternative for him.
I don't think destroying the phone necessarily means your guilty of this violation. But for all the people saying that he must be hiding something, aren't we all?
I'd be extremely reluctant to give up my cell phone under any circumstances. Even if I'm innocent. Just a privacy thing.
Someone pointed out it the other day on Twitter (can't remember who, though), the hypocrisy of some in the media (& beyond) who were calling out Brady for not giving up his cell phone then criticizing him for the comments he made about Manning in an email.
And meanwhile Goodell is refusing to hand over communication between the NFL and Ted Wells.
And Goodell refused to hand over his private phone in either the Peterson case or Rice case, can't remember which one.
-
My point is more about the refusal than the actual benefit (or detriment) of doing something you're not being compelled to do.
Yeah, I guess I just do not see the point when it goes against what the union probably advised and wanted him to do. Granted the replacing and destroying of that phone was a horrible idea. My guess is Brady and the Patriots all thought this was a very small thing and did not take it that seriously. Then when the punishment came down and Brady saw how bad it was thats when they backtracked and probably tried to do anything they could to get some of those text messages at the time. Really badly handled by his legal team I think from that part. Even if he does regularly destroy his old phones when he gets a new one, which makes sense they should not have let him do that in this case. Horrible advice guilty or innocent.
Isn't it possible that he texted someone something so personal that it would be worse if that got out? Perhaps the perception of "I must be hiding deflategate evidence" is a better alternative for him.
I don't think destroying the phone necessarily means your guilty of this violation. But for all the people saying that he must be hiding something, aren't we all?
This is pertinent:
State Rep. Todd Courser planned the distribution of a fictional email alleging he had sex with a male prostitute in a bid to conceal his relationship with Rep. Cindy Gamrat, according to audio recordings obtained by The Detroit News.
Courser, a Lapeer Republican, said on one recording the email was designed to create “a complete smear campaign” of exaggerated, false claims about him and Gamrat so a public revelation about the legislators’ relationship would seem “mild by comparison.”
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2015/08/06/recordings-state-rep-asked-aide-hide-relationship/31269315/
And, for the record, I would not give my phone over either -- I was just attempting to reason with the logic from those who would.
-
When the 2 pounds report, the deflator text and the ballboy in the bathroom were reported, I thought the pats did it.
Then two things happened. The actual measurements came out and the drop could be explained by the ideal gas law.
But the text and the bathroom visit still looms and the coincidence is tough to swallow.
So let's say that brady conspired in the scheme, that means that either:
A) the deflator takes the balls in the bathroom and decides that for some reason he's not going to take air out this time
B) the deflator takes maaaybe .01 out of the balls
If you believe in the ideal gas law AND you believe that brady is guilty then you must believe in A or B. So which is it?
Option B is ridiculous.
Option A means there is no violation, at least for this game.
Is there an option C? What am I missing?
C) he took a leak
Not sure why that is hard to believe.
Im with you. I want to hear from the people who think brady is lying. I think I just want people to admit that there wasn't even a violation. That seems to get lost in this mess.
-
When the 2 pounds report, the deflator text and the ballboy in the bathroom were reported, I thought the pats did it.
Then two things happened. The actual measurements came out and the drop could be explained by the ideal gas law.
But the text and the bathroom visit still looms and the coincidence is tough to swallow.
So let's say that brady conspired in the scheme, that means that either:
A) the deflator takes the balls in the bathroom and decides that for some reason he's not going to take air out this time
B) the deflator takes maaaybe .01 out of the balls
If you believe in the ideal gas law AND you believe that brady is guilty then you must believe in A or B. So which is it?
Option B is ridiculous.
Option A means there is no violation, at least for this game.
Is there an option C? What am I missing?
C) he took a leak
Not sure why that is hard to believe.
Im with you. I want to hear from the people who think brady is lying. I think I just want people to admit that there wasn't even a violation. That seems to get lost in this mess.
I've said it a few times already and I'm saying it again. The balls measured as expected using the gauge the ref said he used. There was never a reason to be suspicious in the first place other than a lack of knowledge of basic science that we were all taught and tested on when we were in grade school. The rest has been a fishing expedition where normal innocent behavior is being overanalyzed through a prism of suspected guilt based on ignorance and lies told by the league.
-
This is old news, but I just found out about it... I mean the apparent independent Wells Report was actually edited and polished by Goodell's lackey Jeff Pash?
http://www.csnne.com/new-england-patriots/will-nfls-lie-about-wells-independence-even-hurt
In a battle about credibility, it's hard for the NFL to hold the moral high ground in all of this.
-
When the 2 pounds report, the deflator text and the ballboy in the bathroom were reported, I thought the pats did it.
Then two things happened. The actual measurements came out and the drop could be explained by the ideal gas law.
But the text and the bathroom visit still looms and the coincidence is tough to swallow.
So let's say that brady conspired in the scheme, that means that either:
A) the deflator takes the balls in the bathroom and decides that for some reason he's not going to take air out this time
B) the deflator takes maaaybe .01 out of the balls
If you believe in the ideal gas law AND you believe that brady is guilty then you must believe in A or B. So which is it?
Option B is ridiculous.
Option A means there is no violation, at least for this game.
Is there an option C? What am I missing?
C) he took a leak
Not sure why that is hard to believe.
Im with you. I want to hear from the people who think brady is lying. I think I just want people to admit that there wasn't even a violation. That seems to get lost in this mess.
I've said it a few times already and I'm saying it again. The balls measured as expected using the gauge the ref said he used. There was never a reason to be suspicious in the first place other than a lack of knowledge of basic science that we were all taught and tested on when we were in grade school. The rest has been a fishing expedition where normal innocent behavior is being overanalyzed through a prism of suspected guilt based on ignorance and lies told by the league.
It's like suspecting someone of robbing a bank, then finding out the money is still in the bank.
After Bill's science press conference, there was no way that the NFL was going to say, "You know what, Bill is right" So they made the incredible move of taking out the science in the Well's report!
-
So, as part of the appeals process, Brady submits some emails completely unrelated to deflategate (in an effort to convince people he's trying to cooperate). Since they were made public (as the rest of the appeal was), he can now claim that he was right to not turn over texts because they'd obviously be leaked, and he was understandably worried that all of his personal (non deflate-gate related) texts, which the investigation *never asked to have* would also be leaked? I hope nobody's seeing anything else when they look at that.
The email release was ordered by Judge Berman, wasn't it?
Yeah but that didnt fit Tim's narrative.
But anyways I am so sick of this. Brady clearly had some level of guilt. But I still find the punishment imposed on the Patriots egregious. A first round pick when the Wells report specifically exonerates Kraft and Bellicheck? I get a 4 game Brady suspension but I dont get that.
I don't really see what his comment (or yours) have to do with the part of my post that was bolded. Why would Brady turn over texts about a pool cover in response to a request for texts related to deflate-gate? Why would anyone consider that to be cooperation?
"To try and reconcile the record and fully cooperate with the investigation after I was disciplined in May, we turned over detailed pages of cell phone records and all of the emails that Mr. Wells requested,” Brady wrote. “We even contacted the phone company to see if there was any possible way we could retrieve any/all of the actual text messages from my old phone. In short, we exhausted every possibility to give the NFL everything we could and offered to go thru the identity for every text and phone call during the relevant time. Regardless, the NFL knows that Mr. Wells already had ALL relevant communications with Patriots personnel that either Mr. Wells saw or that I was questioned about in my appeal hearing.” http://larrybrownsports.com/football/tom-brady-turned-over-emails-cell-phone-records/268756
"On June 3 his forensic examiner catalogued all 5,317 emails Brady sent or received between Sept. 1, 2014 and March 1, 2015. These emails were searched for the following terms:
k-ball, kball, gage, air-pump, airpump, needle, pin, PSI, pounds per square inch, 12.5, bladder, McNally, Bird, 1 pound, 1 lb, one pound, one lb, 2 pound, 2 lb, two pound, two lb, gaug* [the * means that all variations of “gaug” were included, such as gauge, gauging, gauged etc.], pump*, inflat*, deflat*, (game OR kick*) ball ~2 [this means Brady’s emails were searched to see whether the words “game” or “kick*” were found within two words of “ball”], (prep* OR rub*) AND (ball OR football) ~10, (investigat* OR meet* OR discuss* OR question) AND (championship OR Jan* 18 OR 1/18), investigat* AND (ball OR football OR Ind* OR Colts) ~10, (equilib* OR atmosphere* OR climat* OR environment* OR test* OR experiment) AND (ball OR football) ~10". http://deadspin.com/the-full-story-of-tom-bradys-destroyed-cell-phone-1722190784
pump* is in the pool cover e-mail
Ok, so they were in "flood the investigation with reams of irrelevant data" mode after destroying the data that was requested. Got it.
But how does that fit in with his refusal to comply with the investigation's original request because of the precedent it would set?
From the hearing Ted Wells testified “I did not tell Mr Brady at any time that he would be subject to punishment for not giving … not turning over the documents. I did not say anything like that."
Also from the hearing, there is this exchange between Kessler and Brady
Q. During that time, did they ever tell you that if you didn't turn over some texts or e-mails or respond to that that you were going to be disciplined in any way, you know, that you were going to be violating some, you know, specific policy about that or anything like that? Did they ever tell you that?
A. No.
Q. If you had been informed by them and they said look, this is your duty to cooperate, would you then have produced them no matter what your agents and your counsel said?
A. Yes.
I don't get the expectation that every request from the investigation needs to be accompanied by a statement about any possible punishments for failure to comply with it. Wouldn't you expect at least some of that responsibility to fall on his own counsel?
-
When the 2 pounds report, the deflator text and the ballboy in the bathroom were reported, I thought the pats did it.
Then two things happened. The actual measurements came out and the drop could be explained by the ideal gas law.
But the text and the bathroom visit still looms and the coincidence is tough to swallow.
So let's say that brady conspired in the scheme, that means that either:
A) the deflator takes the balls in the bathroom and decides that for some reason he's not going to take air out this time
B) the deflator takes maaaybe .01 out of the balls
If you believe in the ideal gas law AND you believe that brady is guilty then you must believe in A or B. So which is it?
Option B is ridiculous.
Option A means there is no violation, at least for this game.
Is there an option C? What am I missing?
C) he took a leak
Not sure why that is hard to believe.
Im with you. I want to hear from the people who think brady is lying. I think I just want people to admit that there wasn't even a violation. That seems to get lost in this mess.
On one hand, you have poorly done measurements that don't prove or discount that a violation occurred. On the other hand, you have a number of texts that imply that such a violation was occurring. You can't really ignore that any more than you can ignore the ideal gas law arguments.
-
When the 2 pounds report, the deflator text and the ballboy in the bathroom were reported, I thought the pats did it.
Then two things happened. The actual measurements came out and the drop could be explained by the ideal gas law.
But the text and the bathroom visit still looms and the coincidence is tough to swallow.
So let's say that brady conspired in the scheme, that means that either:
A) the deflator takes the balls in the bathroom and decides that for some reason he's not going to take air out this time
B) the deflator takes maaaybe .01 out of the balls
If you believe in the ideal gas law AND you believe that brady is guilty then you must believe in A or B. So which is it?
Option B is ridiculous.
Option A means there is no violation, at least for this game.
Is there an option C? What am I missing?
C) he took a leak
Not sure why that is hard to believe.
Im with you. I want to hear from the people who think brady is lying. I think I just want people to admit that there wasn't even a violation. That seems to get lost in this mess.
On one hand, you have poorly done measurements that don't prove or discount that a violation occurred. On the other hand, you have a number of texts that imply that such a violation was occurring. You can't really ignore that any more than you can ignore the ideal gas law arguments.
But the clearest text messages of all happen when they talk about exact PSI numbers. In both of those cases there is the opposite of showing they were illegally deflating footballs. One time they said the balls were at 16 and the refs screwed them over. Well the refs could not screw them over if they were illegally deflating footballs after they were measured. The other one says the balls were supposed to be at 13 PSI, which one again shows nothing illegal. Both of these things make the deflator comment mean something else besides illegally deflating footballs. And while the story about weight loss is hard to believe that is an actual thing and the NFL has had programming talking about deflating as in weight loss in the past.
So then what text messages exactly are we talking about here? And something I was really wondering is when did they take a look at the text messages for both of these two? It was at least a couple weeks after the AFC Championship game right? I just find it hard to believe that these two guys never texted anything really specific about it after all of this happened. But maybe I am missing something there. They just do not seem to be very careful with what they text each other based on the Brady bashing they did.
-
When the 2 pounds report, the deflator text and the ballboy in the bathroom were reported, I thought the pats did it.
Then two things happened. The actual measurements came out and the drop could be explained by the ideal gas law.
But the text and the bathroom visit still looms and the coincidence is tough to swallow.
So let's say that brady conspired in the scheme, that means that either:
A) the deflator takes the balls in the bathroom and decides that for some reason he's not going to take air out this time
B) the deflator takes maaaybe .01 out of the balls
If you believe in the ideal gas law AND you believe that brady is guilty then you must believe in A or B. So which is it?
Option B is ridiculous.
Option A means there is no violation, at least for this game.
Is there an option C? What am I missing?
C) he took a leak
Not sure why that is hard to believe.
Im with you. I want to hear from the people who think brady is lying. I think I just want people to admit that there wasn't even a violation. That seems to get lost in this mess.
On one hand, you have poorly done measurements that don't prove or discount that a violation occurred. On the other hand, you have a number of texts that imply that such a violation was occurring. You can't really ignore that any more than you can ignore the ideal gas law arguments.
I guess it's about interpretation:
• If (as Brady did after the Jets game) a QB complains that the footballs were overinflated and he wants them deflated—not necessarily to illegal levels, but softer than the illegal 16 psi they were before (guess the league doesn't have a problem with overinflated footballs) ...
• and let's say that QB gets on the equipment guy's case about it ...
• and the equipment guy (as happens with so many of us on the job) gets a little annoyed with that and complains to a co-worker, in the course of which he jokingly refers to himself as Brady's "deflator" ...
then I see nothing that sets off a red flag, nothing that doesn't make sense or seems out of place given the context in which the texts occurred.
If using the word "deflator" is enough evidence for the NFL's high court to conclude that footballs have not simply been brought down to lower (but acceptable) PSI levels, but have in fact been changed to illegally low levels (again, remembering that the NFL apparently has no problem with illegally overinflated footballs), and thus deserving of a severe penalty, then that's a judicial system in need of serious reform.
-
When the 2 pounds report, the deflator text and the ballboy in the bathroom were reported, I thought the pats did it.
Then two things happened. The actual measurements came out and the drop could be explained by the ideal gas law.
But the text and the bathroom visit still looms and the coincidence is tough to swallow.
So let's say that brady conspired in the scheme, that means that either:
A) the deflator takes the balls in the bathroom and decides that for some reason he's not going to take air out this time
B) the deflator takes maaaybe .01 out of the balls
If you believe in the ideal gas law AND you believe that brady is guilty then you must believe in A or B. So which is it?
Option B is ridiculous.
Option A means there is no violation, at least for this game.
Is there an option C? What am I missing?
That's only if you believe that the Wells report got it wrong regarding which gauge was used, and if you further assume that environmental factors led to over 25% of the balls still being outside the scientific range.
-
So, as part of the appeals process, Brady submits some emails completely unrelated to deflategate (in an effort to convince people he's trying to cooperate). Since they were made public (as the rest of the appeal was), he can now claim that he was right to not turn over texts because they'd obviously be leaked, and he was understandably worried that all of his personal (non deflate-gate related) texts, which the investigation *never asked to have* would also be leaked? I hope nobody's seeing anything else when they look at that.
The email release was ordered by Judge Berman, wasn't it?
Yeah but that didnt fit Tim's narrative.
But anyways I am so sick of this. Brady clearly had some level of guilt. But I still find the punishment imposed on the Patriots egregious. A first round pick when the Wells report specifically exonerates Kraft and Bellicheck? I get a 4 game Brady suspension but I dont get that.
I don't really see what his comment (or yours) have to do with the part of my post that was bolded. Why would Brady turn over texts about a pool cover in response to a request for texts related to deflate-gate? Why would anyone consider that to be cooperation?
"To try and reconcile the record and fully cooperate with the investigation after I was disciplined in May, we turned over detailed pages of cell phone records and all of the emails that Mr. Wells requested,” Brady wrote. “We even contacted the phone company to see if there was any possible way we could retrieve any/all of the actual text messages from my old phone. In short, we exhausted every possibility to give the NFL everything we could and offered to go thru the identity for every text and phone call during the relevant time. Regardless, the NFL knows that Mr. Wells already had ALL relevant communications with Patriots personnel that either Mr. Wells saw or that I was questioned about in my appeal hearing.” http://larrybrownsports.com/football/tom-brady-turned-over-emails-cell-phone-records/268756
"On June 3 his forensic examiner catalogued all 5,317 emails Brady sent or received between Sept. 1, 2014 and March 1, 2015. These emails were searched for the following terms:
k-ball, kball, gage, air-pump, airpump, needle, pin, PSI, pounds per square inch, 12.5, bladder, McNally, Bird, 1 pound, 1 lb, one pound, one lb, 2 pound, 2 lb, two pound, two lb, gaug* [the * means that all variations of “gaug” were included, such as gauge, gauging, gauged etc.], pump*, inflat*, deflat*, (game OR kick*) ball ~2 [this means Brady’s emails were searched to see whether the words “game” or “kick*” were found within two words of “ball”], (prep* OR rub*) AND (ball OR football) ~10, (investigat* OR meet* OR discuss* OR question) AND (championship OR Jan* 18 OR 1/18), investigat* AND (ball OR football OR Ind* OR Colts) ~10, (equilib* OR atmosphere* OR climat* OR environment* OR test* OR experiment) AND (ball OR football) ~10". http://deadspin.com/the-full-story-of-tom-bradys-destroyed-cell-phone-1722190784
pump* is in the pool cover e-mail
Ok, so they were in "flood the investigation with reams of irrelevant data" mode after destroying the data that was requested. Got it.
But how does that fit in with his refusal to comply with the investigation's original request because of the precedent it would set?
From the hearing Ted Wells testified “I did not tell Mr Brady at any time that he would be subject to punishment for not giving … not turning over the documents. I did not say anything like that."
Also from the hearing, there is this exchange between Kessler and Brady
Q. During that time, did they ever tell you that if you didn't turn over some texts or e-mails or respond to that that you were going to be disciplined in any way, you know, that you were going to be violating some, you know, specific policy about that or anything like that? Did they ever tell you that?
A. No.
Q. If you had been informed by them and they said look, this is your duty to cooperate, would you then have produced them no matter what your agents and your counsel said?
A. Yes.
I don't get the expectation that every request from the investigation needs to be accompanied by a statement about any possible punishments for failure to comply with it. Wouldn't you expect at least some of that responsibility to fall on his own counsel?
No. There was no legal obligation to turn over the phone or to provide electronic communication. It was a basic discovery dispute that Wells did not challenge. It's not the lawyers fault the NFL would use such nonsensical reasoning to determine guilt in absence of real evidence that would be thrown out of every court in the country.
-
So, as part of the appeals process, Brady submits some emails completely unrelated to deflategate (in an effort to convince people he's trying to cooperate). Since they were made public (as the rest of the appeal was), he can now claim that he was right to not turn over texts because they'd obviously be leaked, and he was understandably worried that all of his personal (non deflate-gate related) texts, which the investigation *never asked to have* would also be leaked? I hope nobody's seeing anything else when they look at that.
The email release was ordered by Judge Berman, wasn't it?
Yeah but that didnt fit Tim's narrative.
But anyways I am so sick of this. Brady clearly had some level of guilt. But I still find the punishment imposed on the Patriots egregious. A first round pick when the Wells report specifically exonerates Kraft and Bellicheck? I get a 4 game Brady suspension but I dont get that.
I don't really see what his comment (or yours) have to do with the part of my post that was bolded. Why would Brady turn over texts about a pool cover in response to a request for texts related to deflate-gate? Why would anyone consider that to be cooperation?
"To try and reconcile the record and fully cooperate with the investigation after I was disciplined in May, we turned over detailed pages of cell phone records and all of the emails that Mr. Wells requested,” Brady wrote. “We even contacted the phone company to see if there was any possible way we could retrieve any/all of the actual text messages from my old phone. In short, we exhausted every possibility to give the NFL everything we could and offered to go thru the identity for every text and phone call during the relevant time. Regardless, the NFL knows that Mr. Wells already had ALL relevant communications with Patriots personnel that either Mr. Wells saw or that I was questioned about in my appeal hearing.” http://larrybrownsports.com/football/tom-brady-turned-over-emails-cell-phone-records/268756
"On June 3 his forensic examiner catalogued all 5,317 emails Brady sent or received between Sept. 1, 2014 and March 1, 2015. These emails were searched for the following terms:
k-ball, kball, gage, air-pump, airpump, needle, pin, PSI, pounds per square inch, 12.5, bladder, McNally, Bird, 1 pound, 1 lb, one pound, one lb, 2 pound, 2 lb, two pound, two lb, gaug* [the * means that all variations of “gaug” were included, such as gauge, gauging, gauged etc.], pump*, inflat*, deflat*, (game OR kick*) ball ~2 [this means Brady’s emails were searched to see whether the words “game” or “kick*” were found within two words of “ball”], (prep* OR rub*) AND (ball OR football) ~10, (investigat* OR meet* OR discuss* OR question) AND (championship OR Jan* 18 OR 1/18), investigat* AND (ball OR football OR Ind* OR Colts) ~10, (equilib* OR atmosphere* OR climat* OR environment* OR test* OR experiment) AND (ball OR football) ~10". http://deadspin.com/the-full-story-of-tom-bradys-destroyed-cell-phone-1722190784
pump* is in the pool cover e-mail
Ok, so they were in "flood the investigation with reams of irrelevant data" mode after destroying the data that was requested. Got it.
But how does that fit in with his refusal to comply with the investigation's original request because of the precedent it would set?
From the hearing Ted Wells testified “I did not tell Mr Brady at any time that he would be subject to punishment for not giving … not turning over the documents. I did not say anything like that."
Also from the hearing, there is this exchange between Kessler and Brady
Q. During that time, did they ever tell you that if you didn't turn over some texts or e-mails or respond to that that you were going to be disciplined in any way, you know, that you were going to be violating some, you know, specific policy about that or anything like that? Did they ever tell you that?
A. No.
Q. If you had been informed by them and they said look, this is your duty to cooperate, would you then have produced them no matter what your agents and your counsel said?
A. Yes.
I don't get the expectation that every request from the investigation needs to be accompanied by a statement about any possible punishments for failure to comply with it. Wouldn't you expect at least some of that responsibility to fall on his own counsel?
No. There was no legal obligation to turn over the phone or to provide electronic communication. It was a basic discovery dispute that Wells did not challenge. It's not the lawyers fault the NFL would use such nonsensical reasoning to determine guilt in absence of real evidence that would be thrown out of every court in the country.
This wasn't a court of law. There was no claim that it was, and the punishment was based on conclusions that contained phrases like "more likely than not". You're trying to apply standards that apparently don't fit the situation.
And while there was no "legal" obligation to provide the electronic communication, the nfl had apparently punished a player in the past for a lack of cooperation, so it should have been clear that there could be consequences for that action.
-
So, as part of the appeals process, Brady submits some emails completely unrelated to deflategate (in an effort to convince people he's trying to cooperate). Since they were made public (as the rest of the appeal was), he can now claim that he was right to not turn over texts because they'd obviously be leaked, and he was understandably worried that all of his personal (non deflate-gate related) texts, which the investigation *never asked to have* would also be leaked? I hope nobody's seeing anything else when they look at that.
The email release was ordered by Judge Berman, wasn't it?
Yeah but that didnt fit Tim's narrative.
But anyways I am so sick of this. Brady clearly had some level of guilt. But I still find the punishment imposed on the Patriots egregious. A first round pick when the Wells report specifically exonerates Kraft and Bellicheck? I get a 4 game Brady suspension but I dont get that.
I don't really see what his comment (or yours) have to do with the part of my post that was bolded. Why would Brady turn over texts about a pool cover in response to a request for texts related to deflate-gate? Why would anyone consider that to be cooperation?
"To try and reconcile the record and fully cooperate with the investigation after I was disciplined in May, we turned over detailed pages of cell phone records and all of the emails that Mr. Wells requested,” Brady wrote. “We even contacted the phone company to see if there was any possible way we could retrieve any/all of the actual text messages from my old phone. In short, we exhausted every possibility to give the NFL everything we could and offered to go thru the identity for every text and phone call during the relevant time. Regardless, the NFL knows that Mr. Wells already had ALL relevant communications with Patriots personnel that either Mr. Wells saw or that I was questioned about in my appeal hearing.” http://larrybrownsports.com/football/tom-brady-turned-over-emails-cell-phone-records/268756
"On June 3 his forensic examiner catalogued all 5,317 emails Brady sent or received between Sept. 1, 2014 and March 1, 2015. These emails were searched for the following terms:
k-ball, kball, gage, air-pump, airpump, needle, pin, PSI, pounds per square inch, 12.5, bladder, McNally, Bird, 1 pound, 1 lb, one pound, one lb, 2 pound, 2 lb, two pound, two lb, gaug* [the * means that all variations of “gaug” were included, such as gauge, gauging, gauged etc.], pump*, inflat*, deflat*, (game OR kick*) ball ~2 [this means Brady’s emails were searched to see whether the words “game” or “kick*” were found within two words of “ball”], (prep* OR rub*) AND (ball OR football) ~10, (investigat* OR meet* OR discuss* OR question) AND (championship OR Jan* 18 OR 1/18), investigat* AND (ball OR football OR Ind* OR Colts) ~10, (equilib* OR atmosphere* OR climat* OR environment* OR test* OR experiment) AND (ball OR football) ~10". http://deadspin.com/the-full-story-of-tom-bradys-destroyed-cell-phone-1722190784
pump* is in the pool cover e-mail
Ok, so they were in "flood the investigation with reams of irrelevant data" mode after destroying the data that was requested. Got it.
But how does that fit in with his refusal to comply with the investigation's original request because of the precedent it would set?
From the hearing Ted Wells testified “I did not tell Mr Brady at any time that he would be subject to punishment for not giving … not turning over the documents. I did not say anything like that."
Also from the hearing, there is this exchange between Kessler and Brady
Q. During that time, did they ever tell you that if you didn't turn over some texts or e-mails or respond to that that you were going to be disciplined in any way, you know, that you were going to be violating some, you know, specific policy about that or anything like that? Did they ever tell you that?
A. No.
Q. If you had been informed by them and they said look, this is your duty to cooperate, would you then have produced them no matter what your agents and your counsel said?
A. Yes.
I don't get the expectation that every request from the investigation needs to be accompanied by a statement about any possible punishments for failure to comply with it. Wouldn't you expect at least some of that responsibility to fall on his own counsel?
No. There was no legal obligation to turn over the phone or to provide electronic communication. It was a basic discovery dispute that Wells did not challenge. It's not the lawyers fault the NFL would use such nonsensical reasoning to determine guilt in absence of real evidence that would be thrown out of every court in the country.
This wasn't a court of law. There was no claim that it was, and the punishment was based on conclusions that contained phrases like "more likely than not". You're trying to apply standards that apparently don't fit the situation.
And while there was no "legal" obligation to provide the electronic communication, the nfl had apparently punished a player in the past for a lack of cooperation, so it should have been clear that there could be consequences for that action.
If it was "clear", it would've been spelled out. Heck, the NFL can't even get it straight with this notion.
-
^ agreed, kind of. I can imagine that the NFL wouldn't specify because they wouldn't imagine someone would say no -- they're kind of dumb like that.
edit: foiled by the page division.
-
When the 2 pounds report, the deflator text and the ballboy in the bathroom were reported, I thought the pats did it.
Then two things happened. The actual measurements came out and the drop could be explained by the ideal gas law.
But the text and the bathroom visit still looms and the coincidence is tough to swallow.
So let's say that brady conspired in the scheme, that means that either:
A) the deflator takes the balls in the bathroom and decides that for some reason he's not going to take air out this time
B) the deflator takes maaaybe .01 out of the balls
If you believe in the ideal gas law AND you believe that brady is guilty then you must believe in A or B. So which is it?
Option B is ridiculous.
Option A means there is no violation, at least for this game.
Is there an option C? What am I missing?
C) he took a leak
Not sure why that is hard to believe.
Im with you. I want to hear from the people who think brady is lying. I think I just want people to admit that there wasn't even a violation. That seems to get lost in this mess.
On one hand, you have poorly done measurements that don't prove or discount that a violation occurred. On the other hand, you have a number of texts that imply that such a violation was occurring. You can't really ignore that any more than you can ignore the ideal gas law arguments.
That's false. The texts only insinuate a potential of guilt IF a violation did occur (even that hasn't been proved or acknowledged). The text by themselves are not a smoking gun, in particular since teams are allowed to prepare their own balls so there are a myriad of context in which you could apply those text messages. And further more, if it implicates anything it's from an organization/equipment personnel standpoint... nothing with Tom Brady.
All the texts have shown are that Tom Brady liked his balls prepared properly, and Jastremski felt pressured to make sure those balls were prepared appropriately, it's his job after all, to the point that he [Brady] instructed someone to make sure the Refs are aware of the regulations.
All I've seen from all the evidence as presented is that if a violation did occur it was at the hands of the equipment people. Why they did it if true? Only they can answer it. Job security would be one (if they were being deemed as preparing the balls incorrectly and such).
Violations of rules that weren't even handed to players, just so we're clear on that part.
-
<^ agreed, kind of. I can imagine that the NFL wouldn't specify because they wouldn't imagine someone would say no -- they're kind of dumb like that.
edit: foiled by the page division.
Fixed it for you. :)
-
When the 2 pounds report, the deflator text and the ballboy in the bathroom were reported, I thought the pats did it.
Then two things happened. The actual measurements came out and the drop could be explained by the ideal gas law.
But the text and the bathroom visit still looms and the coincidence is tough to swallow.
So let's say that brady conspired in the scheme, that means that either:
A) the deflator takes the balls in the bathroom and decides that for some reason he's not going to take air out this time
B) the deflator takes maaaybe .01 out of the balls
If you believe in the ideal gas law AND you believe that brady is guilty then you must believe in A or B. So which is it?
Option B is ridiculous.
Option A means there is no violation, at least for this game.
Is there an option C? What am I missing?
That's only if you believe that the Wells report got it wrong regarding which gauge was used, and if you further assume that environmental factors led to over 25% of the balls still being outside the scientific range.
I've already explained the valid and expected reasons why some balls would fall below the range and that overall, or on average, the measurements of the balls fell within the expected range.
Exponent's logic to determine the gauge was totaly flawed. They found that since the non logo gauge was closer to a master gauge that it was more likely the non logo gauge was used despite what Walt Anderson said. They also bought a dozen or more store bought gauges which measured closer to the non logo gauge. Of course all the gauges they bought coincidentally was the exact same model as the non logo gauge. ::)
Here's why that logic is flawed. They chose not to test either the Patriots or Colt's gauge and they don't know which gauge they were closer to. Also, even if both the Colts' and the Pats' gauges were perfectly aligned with the master gauge, it still tells you nothing. If it was just 3 degrees warmer in the rooms they set the balls, it would be more likely that the logo gauge was used. Keep in mind that the room the ref measured the balls in pregame was set to 67-71 while the locker room they measured the balls at half time was 71-74.
I find their logic extremely suspicious and here's why. If you want to make your best estimation to which gauge was used, you would obtain the Colt's and the Pats gauge, talk to the equipment managers about their process of preparing the balls including rubbing them down which raises psi and when they set the psi level relative to that. And as I already pointed out, check the thermostats of the rooms it was done in.
Both Wells and Exponent pointed out that the process I mentioned was irrelevant to determine the starting psi level of the footballs because the ref did not measure them for an hour after the balls were delivered to him. And that's correct. But it is very relevant to determine which gauge was used which was imperative to the report. Why or how did they overlook this? Exponent is smart, so how could they overlook something so very obvious in replace of such a flawed methodology? Because they were not interested in getting facts, but proving a certain narrative. They made several mistakes, some obvious to any thinking non scientist and some less obvious that were caught by scientists and staticians. What?? How could I make such an accusation? Exponent is infamous for exactly this. They are currently in contempt of court (maybe not the right terminology) for refusing to support their work which a judge thought was bunk.
If you want to understand the science and Exponent's biggest mistake in logic, watch this video. (You can also read Steve McIntyre's blog.)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx0P3NErcNo
It breaks down the science very well and points out that the balls most likely weren't tampered with. It also points out that the worst case scenario, only about 0.35 psi was removed which isn't enough for a human to notice, therefore is absurd. Hmmm, that number sounds familiar (the calibration difference between the two gauges). Especially when running such a risky scheme using a part time, minimum wage, obese employee who acts like a clown.
-
<^ agreed, kind of. I can imagine that the NFL wouldn't specify because they wouldn't imagine someone would say no -- they're kind of dumb like that.
edit: foiled by the page division.
Fixed it for you. :)
TP
-
So, as part of the appeals process, Brady submits some emails completely unrelated to deflategate (in an effort to convince people he's trying to cooperate). Since they were made public (as the rest of the appeal was), he can now claim that he was right to not turn over texts because they'd obviously be leaked, and he was understandably worried that all of his personal (non deflate-gate related) texts, which the investigation *never asked to have* would also be leaked? I hope nobody's seeing anything else when they look at that.
The email release was ordered by Judge Berman, wasn't it?
Yeah but that didnt fit Tim's narrative.
But anyways I am so sick of this. Brady clearly had some level of guilt. But I still find the punishment imposed on the Patriots egregious. A first round pick when the Wells report specifically exonerates Kraft and Bellicheck? I get a 4 game Brady suspension but I dont get that.
I don't really see what his comment (or yours) have to do with the part of my post that was bolded. Why would Brady turn over texts about a pool cover in response to a request for texts related to deflate-gate? Why would anyone consider that to be cooperation?
"To try and reconcile the record and fully cooperate with the investigation after I was disciplined in May, we turned over detailed pages of cell phone records and all of the emails that Mr. Wells requested,” Brady wrote. “We even contacted the phone company to see if there was any possible way we could retrieve any/all of the actual text messages from my old phone. In short, we exhausted every possibility to give the NFL everything we could and offered to go thru the identity for every text and phone call during the relevant time. Regardless, the NFL knows that Mr. Wells already had ALL relevant communications with Patriots personnel that either Mr. Wells saw or that I was questioned about in my appeal hearing.” http://larrybrownsports.com/football/tom-brady-turned-over-emails-cell-phone-records/268756
"On June 3 his forensic examiner catalogued all 5,317 emails Brady sent or received between Sept. 1, 2014 and March 1, 2015. These emails were searched for the following terms:
k-ball, kball, gage, air-pump, airpump, needle, pin, PSI, pounds per square inch, 12.5, bladder, McNally, Bird, 1 pound, 1 lb, one pound, one lb, 2 pound, 2 lb, two pound, two lb, gaug* [the * means that all variations of “gaug” were included, such as gauge, gauging, gauged etc.], pump*, inflat*, deflat*, (game OR kick*) ball ~2 [this means Brady’s emails were searched to see whether the words “game” or “kick*” were found within two words of “ball”], (prep* OR rub*) AND (ball OR football) ~10, (investigat* OR meet* OR discuss* OR question) AND (championship OR Jan* 18 OR 1/18), investigat* AND (ball OR football OR Ind* OR Colts) ~10, (equilib* OR atmosphere* OR climat* OR environment* OR test* OR experiment) AND (ball OR football) ~10". http://deadspin.com/the-full-story-of-tom-bradys-destroyed-cell-phone-1722190784
pump* is in the pool cover e-mail
Ok, so they were in "flood the investigation with reams of irrelevant data" mode after destroying the data that was requested. Got it.
But how does that fit in with his refusal to comply with the investigation's original request because of the precedent it would set?
From the hearing Ted Wells testified “I did not tell Mr Brady at any time that he would be subject to punishment for not giving … not turning over the documents. I did not say anything like that."
Also from the hearing, there is this exchange between Kessler and Brady
Q. During that time, did they ever tell you that if you didn't turn over some texts or e-mails or respond to that that you were going to be disciplined in any way, you know, that you were going to be violating some, you know, specific policy about that or anything like that? Did they ever tell you that?
A. No.
Q. If you had been informed by them and they said look, this is your duty to cooperate, would you then have produced them no matter what your agents and your counsel said?
A. Yes.
I don't get the expectation that every request from the investigation needs to be accompanied by a statement about any possible punishments for failure to comply with it. Wouldn't you expect at least some of that responsibility to fall on his own counsel?
No. There was no legal obligation to turn over the phone or to provide electronic communication. It was a basic discovery dispute that Wells did not challenge. It's not the lawyers fault the NFL would use such nonsensical reasoning to determine guilt in absence of real evidence that would be thrown out of every court in the country.
This wasn't a court of law. There was no claim that it was, and the punishment was based on conclusions that contained phrases like "more likely than not". You're trying to apply standards that apparently don't fit the situation.
And while there was no "legal" obligation to provide the electronic communication, the nfl had apparently punished a player in the past for a lack of cooperation, so it should have been clear that there could be consequences for that action.
Bball, you are right that it was not a court of law. Nothing close to it. Finally, a point we agree on.
-
So, as part of the appeals process, Brady submits some emails completely unrelated to deflategate (in an effort to convince people he's trying to cooperate). Since they were made public (as the rest of the appeal was), he can now claim that he was right to not turn over texts because they'd obviously be leaked, and he was understandably worried that all of his personal (non deflate-gate related) texts, which the investigation *never asked to have* would also be leaked? I hope nobody's seeing anything else when they look at that.
The email release was ordered by Judge Berman, wasn't it?
Yeah but that didnt fit Tim's narrative.
But anyways I am so sick of this. Brady clearly had some level of guilt. But I still find the punishment imposed on the Patriots egregious. A first round pick when the Wells report specifically exonerates Kraft and Bellicheck? I get a 4 game Brady suspension but I dont get that.
I don't really see what his comment (or yours) have to do with the part of my post that was bolded. Why would Brady turn over texts about a pool cover in response to a request for texts related to deflate-gate? Why would anyone consider that to be cooperation?
"To try and reconcile the record and fully cooperate with the investigation after I was disciplined in May, we turned over detailed pages of cell phone records and all of the emails that Mr. Wells requested,” Brady wrote. “We even contacted the phone company to see if there was any possible way we could retrieve any/all of the actual text messages from my old phone. In short, we exhausted every possibility to give the NFL everything we could and offered to go thru the identity for every text and phone call during the relevant time. Regardless, the NFL knows that Mr. Wells already had ALL relevant communications with Patriots personnel that either Mr. Wells saw or that I was questioned about in my appeal hearing.” http://larrybrownsports.com/football/tom-brady-turned-over-emails-cell-phone-records/268756
"On June 3 his forensic examiner catalogued all 5,317 emails Brady sent or received between Sept. 1, 2014 and March 1, 2015. These emails were searched for the following terms:
k-ball, kball, gage, air-pump, airpump, needle, pin, PSI, pounds per square inch, 12.5, bladder, McNally, Bird, 1 pound, 1 lb, one pound, one lb, 2 pound, 2 lb, two pound, two lb, gaug* [the * means that all variations of “gaug” were included, such as gauge, gauging, gauged etc.], pump*, inflat*, deflat*, (game OR kick*) ball ~2 [this means Brady’s emails were searched to see whether the words “game” or “kick*” were found within two words of “ball”], (prep* OR rub*) AND (ball OR football) ~10, (investigat* OR meet* OR discuss* OR question) AND (championship OR Jan* 18 OR 1/18), investigat* AND (ball OR football OR Ind* OR Colts) ~10, (equilib* OR atmosphere* OR climat* OR environment* OR test* OR experiment) AND (ball OR football) ~10". http://deadspin.com/the-full-story-of-tom-bradys-destroyed-cell-phone-1722190784
pump* is in the pool cover e-mail
Ok, so they were in "flood the investigation with reams of irrelevant data" mode after destroying the data that was requested. Got it.
But how does that fit in with his refusal to comply with the investigation's original request because of the precedent it would set?
From the hearing Ted Wells testified “I did not tell Mr Brady at any time that he would be subject to punishment for not giving … not turning over the documents. I did not say anything like that."
Also from the hearing, there is this exchange between Kessler and Brady
Q. During that time, did they ever tell you that if you didn't turn over some texts or e-mails or respond to that that you were going to be disciplined in any way, you know, that you were going to be violating some, you know, specific policy about that or anything like that? Did they ever tell you that?
A. No.
Q. If you had been informed by them and they said look, this is your duty to cooperate, would you then have produced them no matter what your agents and your counsel said?
A. Yes.
I don't get the expectation that every request from the investigation needs to be accompanied by a statement about any possible punishments for failure to comply with it. Wouldn't you expect at least some of that responsibility to fall on his own counsel?
No. There was no legal obligation to turn over the phone or to provide electronic communication. It was a basic discovery dispute that Wells did not challenge. It's not the lawyers fault the NFL would use such nonsensical reasoning to determine guilt in absence of real evidence that would be thrown out of every court in the country.
This wasn't a court of law. There was no claim that it was, and the punishment was based on conclusions that contained phrases like "more likely than not". You're trying to apply standards that apparently don't fit the situation.
And while there was no "legal" obligation to provide the electronic communication, the nfl had apparently punished a player in the past for a lack of cooperation, so it should have been clear that there could be consequences for that action.
If it was "clear", it would've been spelled out. Heck, the NFL can't even get it straight with this notion.
So you're saying, for the sake of clarity, that every single request the nfl makes would come with a list of possible punishments for failing to comply? I don't think that's very realistic. I'd guess that before Brady refused the request, he'd have consulted with someone who was in some way representing his interests. Whoever that was should have looked into the issue before advising him.
-
So, as part of the appeals process, Brady submits some emails completely unrelated to deflategate (in an effort to convince people he's trying to cooperate). Since they were made public (as the rest of the appeal was), he can now claim that he was right to not turn over texts because they'd obviously be leaked, and he was understandably worried that all of his personal (non deflate-gate related) texts, which the investigation *never asked to have* would also be leaked? I hope nobody's seeing anything else when they look at that.
The email release was ordered by Judge Berman, wasn't it?
Possibly, but I from everything I heard, the investigation wasn't requesting emails related to pool covers.
Requesting something that doesn't exist and then roundly blasting the person for failure to produce it is a wonderful tactic. I heard it is related to some of the reasons behind the "innocent until proven guilty" presumption.
-
So, as part of the appeals process, Brady submits some emails completely unrelated to deflategate (in an effort to convince people he's trying to cooperate). Since they were made public (as the rest of the appeal was), he can now claim that he was right to not turn over texts because they'd obviously be leaked, and he was understandably worried that all of his personal (non deflate-gate related) texts, which the investigation *never asked to have* would also be leaked? I hope nobody's seeing anything else when they look at that.
The email release was ordered by Judge Berman, wasn't it?
Yeah but that didnt fit Tim's narrative.
But anyways I am so sick of this. Brady clearly had some level of guilt. But I still find the punishment imposed on the Patriots egregious. A first round pick when the Wells report specifically exonerates Kraft and Bellicheck? I get a 4 game Brady suspension but I dont get that.
I don't really see what his comment (or yours) have to do with the part of my post that was bolded. Why would Brady turn over texts about a pool cover in response to a request for texts related to deflate-gate? Why would anyone consider that to be cooperation?
"To try and reconcile the record and fully cooperate with the investigation after I was disciplined in May, we turned over detailed pages of cell phone records and all of the emails that Mr. Wells requested,” Brady wrote. “We even contacted the phone company to see if there was any possible way we could retrieve any/all of the actual text messages from my old phone. In short, we exhausted every possibility to give the NFL everything we could and offered to go thru the identity for every text and phone call during the relevant time. Regardless, the NFL knows that Mr. Wells already had ALL relevant communications with Patriots personnel that either Mr. Wells saw or that I was questioned about in my appeal hearing.” http://larrybrownsports.com/football/tom-brady-turned-over-emails-cell-phone-records/268756
"On June 3 his forensic examiner catalogued all 5,317 emails Brady sent or received between Sept. 1, 2014 and March 1, 2015. These emails were searched for the following terms:
k-ball, kball, gage, air-pump, airpump, needle, pin, PSI, pounds per square inch, 12.5, bladder, McNally, Bird, 1 pound, 1 lb, one pound, one lb, 2 pound, 2 lb, two pound, two lb, gaug* [the * means that all variations of “gaug” were included, such as gauge, gauging, gauged etc.], pump*, inflat*, deflat*, (game OR kick*) ball ~2 [this means Brady’s emails were searched to see whether the words “game” or “kick*” were found within two words of “ball”], (prep* OR rub*) AND (ball OR football) ~10, (investigat* OR meet* OR discuss* OR question) AND (championship OR Jan* 18 OR 1/18), investigat* AND (ball OR football OR Ind* OR Colts) ~10, (equilib* OR atmosphere* OR climat* OR environment* OR test* OR experiment) AND (ball OR football) ~10". http://deadspin.com/the-full-story-of-tom-bradys-destroyed-cell-phone-1722190784
pump* is in the pool cover e-mail
Ok, so they were in "flood the investigation with reams of irrelevant data" mode after destroying the data that was requested. Got it.
But how does that fit in with his refusal to comply with the investigation's original request because of the precedent it would set?
From the hearing Ted Wells testified “I did not tell Mr Brady at any time that he would be subject to punishment for not giving … not turning over the documents. I did not say anything like that."
Also from the hearing, there is this exchange between Kessler and Brady
Q. During that time, did they ever tell you that if you didn't turn over some texts or e-mails or respond to that that you were going to be disciplined in any way, you know, that you were going to be violating some, you know, specific policy about that or anything like that? Did they ever tell you that?
A. No.
Q. If you had been informed by them and they said look, this is your duty to cooperate, would you then have produced them no matter what your agents and your counsel said?
A. Yes.
I don't get the expectation that every request from the investigation needs to be accompanied by a statement about any possible punishments for failure to comply with it. Wouldn't you expect at least some of that responsibility to fall on his own counsel?
No. There was no legal obligation to turn over the phone or to provide electronic communication. It was a basic discovery dispute that Wells did not challenge. It's not the lawyers fault the NFL would use such nonsensical reasoning to determine guilt in absence of real evidence that would be thrown out of every court in the country.
This wasn't a court of law. There was no claim that it was, and the punishment was based on conclusions that contained phrases like "more likely than not". You're trying to apply standards that apparently don't fit the situation.
And while there was no "legal" obligation to provide the electronic communication, the nfl had apparently punished a player in the past for a lack of cooperation, so it should have been clear that there could be consequences for that action.
If it was "clear", it would've been spelled out. Heck, the NFL can't even get it straight with this notion.
So you're saying, for the sake of clarity, that every single request the nfl makes would come with a list of possible punishments for failing to comply? I don't think that's very realistic. I'd guess that before Brady refused the request, he'd have consulted with someone who was in some way representing his interests. Whoever that was should have looked into the issue before advising him.
What were they supposed to look into? The only time someone was fined for not handing over their cell phone was when Brett Favre was fine $50,000 for sending young female NFL employees pictures of his penis from his cell phone which was obviously the center of that case. How were they supposed to know that it would lead to a $1 million fine, a first and fourth round pick to the team, and a four game suspension for Brady?
Wells testified that he did not tell them that failure to produce the phone would penalize them, nevermind be the primary factor in these punishments. The NFL is making things up as they go along as well as telling many lies. There is no way to deal with that.
-
So, as part of the appeals process, Brady submits some emails completely unrelated to deflategate (in an effort to convince people he's trying to cooperate). Since they were made public (as the rest of the appeal was), he can now claim that he was right to not turn over texts because they'd obviously be leaked, and he was understandably worried that all of his personal (non deflate-gate related) texts, which the investigation *never asked to have* would also be leaked? I hope nobody's seeing anything else when they look at that.
The email release was ordered by Judge Berman, wasn't it?
Yeah but that didnt fit Tim's narrative.
But anyways I am so sick of this. Brady clearly had some level of guilt. But I still find the punishment imposed on the Patriots egregious. A first round pick when the Wells report specifically exonerates Kraft and Bellicheck? I get a 4 game Brady suspension but I dont get that.
I don't really see what his comment (or yours) have to do with the part of my post that was bolded. Why would Brady turn over texts about a pool cover in response to a request for texts related to deflate-gate? Why would anyone consider that to be cooperation?
"To try and reconcile the record and fully cooperate with the investigation after I was disciplined in May, we turned over detailed pages of cell phone records and all of the emails that Mr. Wells requested,” Brady wrote. “We even contacted the phone company to see if there was any possible way we could retrieve any/all of the actual text messages from my old phone. In short, we exhausted every possibility to give the NFL everything we could and offered to go thru the identity for every text and phone call during the relevant time. Regardless, the NFL knows that Mr. Wells already had ALL relevant communications with Patriots personnel that either Mr. Wells saw or that I was questioned about in my appeal hearing.” http://larrybrownsports.com/football/tom-brady-turned-over-emails-cell-phone-records/268756
"On June 3 his forensic examiner catalogued all 5,317 emails Brady sent or received between Sept. 1, 2014 and March 1, 2015. These emails were searched for the following terms:
k-ball, kball, gage, air-pump, airpump, needle, pin, PSI, pounds per square inch, 12.5, bladder, McNally, Bird, 1 pound, 1 lb, one pound, one lb, 2 pound, 2 lb, two pound, two lb, gaug* [the * means that all variations of “gaug” were included, such as gauge, gauging, gauged etc.], pump*, inflat*, deflat*, (game OR kick*) ball ~2 [this means Brady’s emails were searched to see whether the words “game” or “kick*” were found within two words of “ball”], (prep* OR rub*) AND (ball OR football) ~10, (investigat* OR meet* OR discuss* OR question) AND (championship OR Jan* 18 OR 1/18), investigat* AND (ball OR football OR Ind* OR Colts) ~10, (equilib* OR atmosphere* OR climat* OR environment* OR test* OR experiment) AND (ball OR football) ~10". http://deadspin.com/the-full-story-of-tom-bradys-destroyed-cell-phone-1722190784
pump* is in the pool cover e-mail
Ok, so they were in "flood the investigation with reams of irrelevant data" mode after destroying the data that was requested. Got it.
But how does that fit in with his refusal to comply with the investigation's original request because of the precedent it would set?
From the hearing Ted Wells testified “I did not tell Mr Brady at any time that he would be subject to punishment for not giving … not turning over the documents. I did not say anything like that."
Also from the hearing, there is this exchange between Kessler and Brady
Q. During that time, did they ever tell you that if you didn't turn over some texts or e-mails or respond to that that you were going to be disciplined in any way, you know, that you were going to be violating some, you know, specific policy about that or anything like that? Did they ever tell you that?
A. No.
Q. If you had been informed by them and they said look, this is your duty to cooperate, would you then have produced them no matter what your agents and your counsel said?
A. Yes.
I don't get the expectation that every request from the investigation needs to be accompanied by a statement about any possible punishments for failure to comply with it. Wouldn't you expect at least some of that responsibility to fall on his own counsel?
No. There was no legal obligation to turn over the phone or to provide electronic communication. It was a basic discovery dispute that Wells did not challenge. It's not the lawyers fault the NFL would use such nonsensical reasoning to determine guilt in absence of real evidence that would be thrown out of every court in the country.
This wasn't a court of law. There was no claim that it was, and the punishment was based on conclusions that contained phrases like "more likely than not". You're trying to apply standards that apparently don't fit the situation.
And while there was no "legal" obligation to provide the electronic communication, the nfl had apparently punished a player in the past for a lack of cooperation, so it should have been clear that there could be consequences for that action.
If it was "clear", it would've been spelled out. Heck, the NFL can't even get it straight with this notion.
So you're saying, for the sake of clarity, that every single request the nfl makes would come with a list of possible punishments for failing to comply? I don't think that's very realistic. I'd guess that before Brady refused the request, he'd have consulted with someone who was in some way representing his interests. Whoever that was should have looked into the issue before advising him.
What were they supposed to look into? The only time someone was fined for not handing over their cell phone was when Brett Favre was fine $50,000 for sending young female NFL employees pictures of his penis from his cell phone which was obviously the center of that case. How were they supposed to know that it would lead to a $1 million fine, a first and fourth round pick to the team, and a four game suspension for Brady?
Wells testified that he did not tell them that failure to produce the phone would penalize them, nevermind be the primary factor in these punishments. The NFL is making things up as they go along as well as telling many lies. There is no way to deal with that.
Nailed it. That is pretty apparent & the gist of what's going on with the Federal Court case, not the nonsense of did he/didn't he that apparently has no smoking gun. Regardless, its a process thing now, not the deflating nonsense.
-
Wells testified that he did not tell them that failure to produce the phone would penalize them, nevermind be the primary factor in these punishments. The NFL is making things up as they go along as well as telling many lies. There is no way to deal with that.
Nailed it. That is pretty apparent & the gist of what's going on with the Federal Court case, not the nonsense of did he/didn't he that apparently has no smoking gun. Regardless, its a process thing now, not the deflating nonsense.
Of course they are. First, the investigation was "independent". Then it wasn't. Then Goodell apparently cited atourney-client privilege when requesting to hand over his correspondence with Wells (!). And now the NFL is telling us it doesn't really matter.
I don't see how Goodell can keep his job given the monumental botch job he made out of this case.
edit: I'm assuming this already made the rounds, but I'll link to it nonetheless: http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2015/07/29/pot-kettle-black-roger-goodell-cites-attorney-client-privilege-to-hide-correspondence-with-deflategate-investigators-law-firm/
-
Wells testified that he did not tell them that failure to produce the phone would penalize them, nevermind be the primary factor in these punishments. The NFL is making things up as they go along as well as telling many lies. There is no way to deal with that.
Nailed it. That is pretty apparent & the gist of what's going on with the Federal Court case, not the nonsense of did he/didn't he that apparently has no smoking gun. Regardless, its a process thing now, not the deflating nonsense.
Of course they are. First, the investigation was "independent". Then it wasn't. Then Wells apparently cited atourney-client privilege during the appeal proceedings (!). And now the NFL is telling us it doesn't really matter.
I don't see how Goodell can keep his job given the monumental botch job he made out of this case.
He'll probably keep it because he's a great target to take the heat off the owners. The sad thing is that they could bring almost anyone in there for that position & they would probably give the NFL the same results and a helluva lot better PR (let's face it, it can't get much worse that this league office bunch).
-
When the 2 pounds report, the deflator text and the ballboy in the bathroom were reported, I thought the pats did it.
Then two things happened. The actual measurements came out and the drop could be explained by the ideal gas law.
But the text and the bathroom visit still looms and the coincidence is tough to swallow.
So let's say that brady conspired in the scheme, that means that either:
A) the deflator takes the balls in the bathroom and decides that for some reason he's not going to take air out this time
B) the deflator takes maaaybe .01 out of the balls
If you believe in the ideal gas law AND you believe that brady is guilty then you must believe in A or B. So which is it?
Option B is ridiculous.
Option A means there is no violation, at least for this game.
Is there an option C? What am I missing?
That's only if you believe that the Wells report got it wrong regarding which gauge was used, and if you further assume that environmental factors led to over 25% of the balls still being outside the scientific range.
That's the gauge the ref said he remembered using. I find it curious as to why Ted didn't believe him. As far as the 25% of the balls being outside, I guess I'm trusting that scientist who won the nobel prize on wellsreportincontext. The ball intercepted by the Colts was measured three times and the numbers are 11.35, 11.45 and 11.75 psi. The gauges simply aren't accurate.
I just find it hard to believe that McNally would deflate only 25% of the balls and by such a small margin.
We can argue which gauge was used but if we have to argue that fact, then the whole case should be thrown out.
-
When the 2 pounds report, the deflator text and the ballboy in the bathroom were reported, I thought the pats did it.
Then two things happened. The actual measurements came out and the drop could be explained by the ideal gas law.
But the text and the bathroom visit still looms and the coincidence is tough to swallow.
So let's say that brady conspired in the scheme, that means that either:
A) the deflator takes the balls in the bathroom and decides that for some reason he's not going to take air out this time
B) the deflator takes maaaybe .01 out of the balls
If you believe in the ideal gas law AND you believe that brady is guilty then you must believe in A or B. So which is it?
Option B is ridiculous.
Option A means there is no violation, at least for this game.
Is there an option C? What am I missing?
That's only if you believe that the Wells report got it wrong regarding which gauge was used, and if you further assume that environmental factors led to over 25% of the balls still being outside the scientific range.
I've already explained the valid and expected reasons why some balls would fall below the range and that overall, or on average, the measurements of the balls fell within the expected range.
Exponent's logic to determine the gauge was totaly flawed. They found that since the non logo gauge was closer to a master gauge that it was more likely the non logo gauge was used despite what Walt Anderson said. They also bought a dozen or more store bought gauges which measured closer to the non logo gauge. Of course all the gauges they bought coincidentally was the exact same model as the non logo gauge. ::)
Here's why that logic is flawed. They chose not to test either the Patriots or Colt's gauge and they don't know which gauge they were closer to. Also, even if both the Colts' and the Pats' gauges were perfectly aligned with the master gauge, it still tells you nothing. If it was just 3 degrees warmer in the rooms they set the balls, it would be more likely that the logo gauge was used. Keep in mind that the room the ref measured the balls in pregame was set to 67-71 while the locker room they measured the balls at half time was 71-74.
I find their logic extremely suspicious and here's why. If you want to make your best estimation to which gauge was used, you would obtain the Colt's and the Pats gauge, talk to the equipment managers about their process of preparing the balls including rubbing them down which raises psi and when they set the psi level relative to that. And as I already pointed out, check the thermostats of the rooms it was done in.
Both Wells and Exponent pointed out that the process I mentioned was irrelevant to determine the starting psi level of the footballs because the ref did not measure them for an hour after the balls were delivered to him. And that's correct. But it is very relevant to determine which gauge was used which was imperative to the report. Why or how did they overlook this? Exponent is smart, so how could they overlook something so very obvious in replace of such a flawed methodology? Because they were not interested in getting facts, but proving a certain narrative. They made several mistakes, some obvious to any thinking non scientist and some less obvious that were caught by scientists and staticians. What?? How could I make such an accusation? Exponent is infamous for exactly this. They are currently in contempt of court (maybe not the right terminology) for refusing to support their work which a judge thought was bunk.
If you want to understand the science and Exponent's biggest mistake in logic, watch this video. (You can also read Steve McIntyre's blog.)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx0P3NErcNo
It breaks down the science very well and points out that the balls most likely weren't tampered with. It also points out that the worst case scenario, only about 0.35 psi was removed which isn't enough for a human to notice, therefore is absurd. Hmmm, that number sounds familiar (the calibration difference between the two gauges). Especially when running such a risky scheme using a part time, minimum wage, obese employee who acts like a clown.
That's a pretty weak ob of breaking down the science, and even at that he points out that the balls *most likely* weren't tampered with. You keep reading these questionable reports and deciding that "most likely" means "definitely". It doesn't.
-
So, as part of the appeals process, Brady submits some emails completely unrelated to deflategate (in an effort to convince people he's trying to cooperate). Since they were made public (as the rest of the appeal was), he can now claim that he was right to not turn over texts because they'd obviously be leaked, and he was understandably worried that all of his personal (non deflate-gate related) texts, which the investigation *never asked to have* would also be leaked? I hope nobody's seeing anything else when they look at that.
The email release was ordered by Judge Berman, wasn't it?
Yeah but that didnt fit Tim's narrative.
But anyways I am so sick of this. Brady clearly had some level of guilt. But I still find the punishment imposed on the Patriots egregious. A first round pick when the Wells report specifically exonerates Kraft and Bellicheck? I get a 4 game Brady suspension but I dont get that.
I don't really see what his comment (or yours) have to do with the part of my post that was bolded. Why would Brady turn over texts about a pool cover in response to a request for texts related to deflate-gate? Why would anyone consider that to be cooperation?
"To try and reconcile the record and fully cooperate with the investigation after I was disciplined in May, we turned over detailed pages of cell phone records and all of the emails that Mr. Wells requested,” Brady wrote. “We even contacted the phone company to see if there was any possible way we could retrieve any/all of the actual text messages from my old phone. In short, we exhausted every possibility to give the NFL everything we could and offered to go thru the identity for every text and phone call during the relevant time. Regardless, the NFL knows that Mr. Wells already had ALL relevant communications with Patriots personnel that either Mr. Wells saw or that I was questioned about in my appeal hearing.” http://larrybrownsports.com/football/tom-brady-turned-over-emails-cell-phone-records/268756
"On June 3 his forensic examiner catalogued all 5,317 emails Brady sent or received between Sept. 1, 2014 and March 1, 2015. These emails were searched for the following terms:
k-ball, kball, gage, air-pump, airpump, needle, pin, PSI, pounds per square inch, 12.5, bladder, McNally, Bird, 1 pound, 1 lb, one pound, one lb, 2 pound, 2 lb, two pound, two lb, gaug* [the * means that all variations of “gaug” were included, such as gauge, gauging, gauged etc.], pump*, inflat*, deflat*, (game OR kick*) ball ~2 [this means Brady’s emails were searched to see whether the words “game” or “kick*” were found within two words of “ball”], (prep* OR rub*) AND (ball OR football) ~10, (investigat* OR meet* OR discuss* OR question) AND (championship OR Jan* 18 OR 1/18), investigat* AND (ball OR football OR Ind* OR Colts) ~10, (equilib* OR atmosphere* OR climat* OR environment* OR test* OR experiment) AND (ball OR football) ~10". http://deadspin.com/the-full-story-of-tom-bradys-destroyed-cell-phone-1722190784
pump* is in the pool cover e-mail
Ok, so they were in "flood the investigation with reams of irrelevant data" mode after destroying the data that was requested. Got it.
But how does that fit in with his refusal to comply with the investigation's original request because of the precedent it would set?
From the hearing Ted Wells testified “I did not tell Mr Brady at any time that he would be subject to punishment for not giving … not turning over the documents. I did not say anything like that."
Also from the hearing, there is this exchange between Kessler and Brady
Q. During that time, did they ever tell you that if you didn't turn over some texts or e-mails or respond to that that you were going to be disciplined in any way, you know, that you were going to be violating some, you know, specific policy about that or anything like that? Did they ever tell you that?
A. No.
Q. If you had been informed by them and they said look, this is your duty to cooperate, would you then have produced them no matter what your agents and your counsel said?
A. Yes.
I don't get the expectation that every request from the investigation needs to be accompanied by a statement about any possible punishments for failure to comply with it. Wouldn't you expect at least some of that responsibility to fall on his own counsel?
No. There was no legal obligation to turn over the phone or to provide electronic communication. It was a basic discovery dispute that Wells did not challenge. It's not the lawyers fault the NFL would use such nonsensical reasoning to determine guilt in absence of real evidence that would be thrown out of every court in the country.
This wasn't a court of law. There was no claim that it was, and the punishment was based on conclusions that contained phrases like "more likely than not". You're trying to apply standards that apparently don't fit the situation.
And while there was no "legal" obligation to provide the electronic communication, the nfl had apparently punished a player in the past for a lack of cooperation, so it should have been clear that there could be consequences for that action.
Bball, you are right that it was not a court of law. Nothing close to it. Finally, a point we agree on.
Yes, and with that should come the realization that the level of proof isn't the same as in a criminal court.
-
So, as part of the appeals process, Brady submits some emails completely unrelated to deflategate (in an effort to convince people he's trying to cooperate). Since they were made public (as the rest of the appeal was), he can now claim that he was right to not turn over texts because they'd obviously be leaked, and he was understandably worried that all of his personal (non deflate-gate related) texts, which the investigation *never asked to have* would also be leaked? I hope nobody's seeing anything else when they look at that.
The email release was ordered by Judge Berman, wasn't it?
Possibly, but I from everything I heard, the investigation wasn't requesting emails related to pool covers.
Requesting something that doesn't exist and then roundly blasting the person for failure to produce it is a wonderful tactic. I heard it is related to some of the reasons behind the "innocent until proven guilty" presumption.
That's a fairly handy claim when a likely reason what was requested doesn't exist is the person destroying it after the request was made.
-
What no one seems to be able to answer is what Goodell wanted to find on Brady's phone.
If he simply wanted unfettered access to everything on the phone, I think that's a radical overstep and I don't blame Brady at all for not trusting the NFL with his private emails, pictures, etc. that would undoubtedly be leaked (let's face it, there are probably Giselle pics on that phone).
If he wanted specific emails or texts, what exactly didn't he get? Brady already gave him a lot of information. And if he wanted to know what he said to the locker room guys, he already has their end of the texts. He didn't need Brady's texts to see that.
I just feel like all the Brady-bashers want to talk in generalities how Brady should have provided more. But none of them seem to actually be able to articulate specifically what this supposed middle ground would have been between giving Goodell his whole phone and providing "relevant" material.
I mean if you were accused of something at work and your employer wanted to have access to everything on your entire cell phone, would you really trust him or her to see everything? I know I wouldn't.
-
Yes, and with that should come the realization that the level of proof isn't the same as in a criminal court.
This is now a labor dispute about due process, and the burden of proof is all but irrelevant.
-
So, as part of the appeals process, Brady submits some emails completely unrelated to deflategate (in an effort to convince people he's trying to cooperate). Since they were made public (as the rest of the appeal was), he can now claim that he was right to not turn over texts because they'd obviously be leaked, and he was understandably worried that all of his personal (non deflate-gate related) texts, which the investigation *never asked to have* would also be leaked? I hope nobody's seeing anything else when they look at that.
The email release was ordered by Judge Berman, wasn't it?
Possibly, but I from everything I heard, the investigation wasn't requesting emails related to pool covers.
Requesting something that doesn't exist and then roundly blasting the person for failure to produce it is a wonderful tactic. I heard it is related to some of the reasons behind the "innocent until proven guilty" presumption.
That's a fairly handy claim when a likely reason what was requested doesn't exist is the person destroying it after the request was made.
Last time I checked, you can't destroy text messages on other people's phones.
-
When the 2 pounds report, the deflator text and the ballboy in the bathroom were reported, I thought the pats did it.
Then two things happened. The actual measurements came out and the drop could be explained by the ideal gas law.
But the text and the bathroom visit still looms and the coincidence is tough to swallow.
So let's say that brady conspired in the scheme, that means that either:
A) the deflator takes the balls in the bathroom and decides that for some reason he's not going to take air out this time
B) the deflator takes maaaybe .01 out of the balls
If you believe in the ideal gas law AND you believe that brady is guilty then you must believe in A or B. So which is it?
Option B is ridiculous.
Option A means there is no violation, at least for this game.
Is there an option C? What am I missing?
That's only if you believe that the Wells report got it wrong regarding which gauge was used, and if you further assume that environmental factors led to over 25% of the balls still being outside the scientific range.
I've already explained the valid and expected reasons why some balls would fall below the range and that overall, or on average, the measurements of the balls fell within the expected range.
Exponent's logic to determine the gauge was totaly flawed. They found that since the non logo gauge was closer to a master gauge that it was more likely the non logo gauge was used despite what Walt Anderson said. They also bought a dozen or more store bought gauges which measured closer to the non logo gauge. Of course all the gauges they bought coincidentally was the exact same model as the non logo gauge. ::)
Here's why that logic is flawed. They chose not to test either the Patriots or Colt's gauge and they don't know which gauge they were closer to. Also, even if both the Colts' and the Pats' gauges were perfectly aligned with the master gauge, it still tells you nothing. If it was just 3 degrees warmer in the rooms they set the balls, it would be more likely that the logo gauge was used. Keep in mind that the room the ref measured the balls in pregame was set to 67-71 while the locker room they measured the balls at half time was 71-74.
I find their logic extremely suspicious and here's why. If you want to make your best estimation to which gauge was used, you would obtain the Colt's and the Pats gauge, talk to the equipment managers about their process of preparing the balls including rubbing them down which raises psi and when they set the psi level relative to that. And as I already pointed out, check the thermostats of the rooms it was done in.
Both Wells and Exponent pointed out that the process I mentioned was irrelevant to determine the starting psi level of the footballs because the ref did not measure them for an hour after the balls were delivered to him. And that's correct. But it is very relevant to determine which gauge was used which was imperative to the report. Why or how did they overlook this? Exponent is smart, so how could they overlook something so very obvious in replace of such a flawed methodology? Because they were not interested in getting facts, but proving a certain narrative. They made several mistakes, some obvious to any thinking non scientist and some less obvious that were caught by scientists and staticians. What?? How could I make such an accusation? Exponent is infamous for exactly this. They are currently in contempt of court (maybe not the right terminology) for refusing to support their work which a judge thought was bunk.
If you want to understand the science and Exponent's biggest mistake in logic, watch this video. (You can also read Steve McIntyre's blog.)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx0P3NErcNo
It breaks down the science very well and points out that the balls most likely weren't tampered with. It also points out that the worst case scenario, only about 0.35 psi was removed which isn't enough for a human to notice, therefore is absurd. Hmmm, that number sounds familiar (the calibration difference between the two gauges). Especially when running such a risky scheme using a part time, minimum wage, obese employee who acts like a clown.
That's a pretty weak ob of breaking down the science, and even at that he points out that the balls *most likely* weren't tampered with. You keep reading these questionable reports and deciding that "most likely" means "definitely". It doesn't.
Oh I agree, but that is exactly my problem. The NFL said he most likely knew and then punished him as if he definitely did it and they had a video tape of it. Do you think the 4 game suspension was right? I just cannot see how someone can truly feel that way based on how much evidence is on both sides. A 1 game suspension sure, but 4? That is beyond wild to me.
-
When the 2 pounds report, the deflator text and the ballboy in the bathroom were reported, I thought the pats did it.
Then two things happened. The actual measurements came out and the drop could be explained by the ideal gas law.
But the text and the bathroom visit still looms and the coincidence is tough to swallow.
So let's say that brady conspired in the scheme, that means that either:
A) the deflator takes the balls in the bathroom and decides that for some reason he's not going to take air out this time
B) the deflator takes maaaybe .01 out of the balls
If you believe in the ideal gas law AND you believe that brady is guilty then you must believe in A or B. So which is it?
Option B is ridiculous.
Option A means there is no violation, at least for this game.
Is there an option C? What am I missing?
That's only if you believe that the Wells report got it wrong regarding which gauge was used, and if you further assume that environmental factors led to over 25% of the balls still being outside the scientific range.
I've already explained the valid and expected reasons why some balls would fall below the range and that overall, or on average, the measurements of the balls fell within the expected range.
Exponent's logic to determine the gauge was totaly flawed. They found that since the non logo gauge was closer to a master gauge that it was more likely the non logo gauge was used despite what Walt Anderson said. They also bought a dozen or more store bought gauges which measured closer to the non logo gauge. Of course all the gauges they bought coincidentally was the exact same model as the non logo gauge. ::)
Here's why that logic is flawed. They chose not to test either the Patriots or Colt's gauge and they don't know which gauge they were closer to. Also, even if both the Colts' and the Pats' gauges were perfectly aligned with the master gauge, it still tells you nothing. If it was just 3 degrees warmer in the rooms they set the balls, it would be more likely that the logo gauge was used. Keep in mind that the room the ref measured the balls in pregame was set to 67-71 while the locker room they measured the balls at half time was 71-74.
I find their logic extremely suspicious and here's why. If you want to make your best estimation to which gauge was used, you would obtain the Colt's and the Pats gauge, talk to the equipment managers about their process of preparing the balls including rubbing them down which raises psi and when they set the psi level relative to that. And as I already pointed out, check the thermostats of the rooms it was done in.
Both Wells and Exponent pointed out that the process I mentioned was irrelevant to determine the starting psi level of the footballs because the ref did not measure them for an hour after the balls were delivered to him. And that's correct. But it is very relevant to determine which gauge was used which was imperative to the report. Why or how did they overlook this? Exponent is smart, so how could they overlook something so very obvious in replace of such a flawed methodology? Because they were not interested in getting facts, but proving a certain narrative. They made several mistakes, some obvious to any thinking non scientist and some less obvious that were caught by scientists and staticians. What?? How could I make such an accusation? Exponent is infamous for exactly this. They are currently in contempt of court (maybe not the right terminology) for refusing to support their work which a judge thought was bunk.
If you want to understand the science and Exponent's biggest mistake in logic, watch this video. (You can also read Steve McIntyre's blog.)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx0P3NErcNo
It breaks down the science very well and points out that the balls most likely weren't tampered with. It also points out that the worst case scenario, only about 0.35 psi was removed which isn't enough for a human to notice, therefore is absurd. Hmmm, that number sounds familiar (the calibration difference between the two gauges). Especially when running such a risky scheme using a part time, minimum wage, obese employee who acts like a clown.
That's a pretty weak ob of breaking down the science, and even at that he points out that the balls *most likely* weren't tampered with. You keep reading these questionable reports and deciding that "most likely" means "definitely". It doesn't.
What? It's not weak. First of all, I figured most of this out myself when I read the report. Second of all, I can point you to many other scientific breakdowns. Third, no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner. Fourth, the worst case, unlikely scenario, even according to Exponent, was that only a few tenths of a psi was removed and that is an irrelevant amount. Fifth, the balls measured as they were expected as per the gauge the ref said he used and therefore there was no reason for any suspicion in the first place except for pure ignorance.
-
So, as part of the appeals process, Brady submits some emails completely unrelated to deflategate (in an effort to convince people he's trying to cooperate). Since they were made public (as the rest of the appeal was), he can now claim that he was right to not turn over texts because they'd obviously be leaked, and he was understandably worried that all of his personal (non deflate-gate related) texts, which the investigation *never asked to have* would also be leaked? I hope nobody's seeing anything else when they look at that.
The email release was ordered by Judge Berman, wasn't it?
Yeah but that didnt fit Tim's narrative.
But anyways I am so sick of this. Brady clearly had some level of guilt. But I still find the punishment imposed on the Patriots egregious. A first round pick when the Wells report specifically exonerates Kraft and Bellicheck? I get a 4 game Brady suspension but I dont get that.
I don't really see what his comment (or yours) have to do with the part of my post that was bolded. Why would Brady turn over texts about a pool cover in response to a request for texts related to deflate-gate? Why would anyone consider that to be cooperation?
"To try and reconcile the record and fully cooperate with the investigation after I was disciplined in May, we turned over detailed pages of cell phone records and all of the emails that Mr. Wells requested,” Brady wrote. “We even contacted the phone company to see if there was any possible way we could retrieve any/all of the actual text messages from my old phone. In short, we exhausted every possibility to give the NFL everything we could and offered to go thru the identity for every text and phone call during the relevant time. Regardless, the NFL knows that Mr. Wells already had ALL relevant communications with Patriots personnel that either Mr. Wells saw or that I was questioned about in my appeal hearing.” http://larrybrownsports.com/football/tom-brady-turned-over-emails-cell-phone-records/268756
"On June 3 his forensic examiner catalogued all 5,317 emails Brady sent or received between Sept. 1, 2014 and March 1, 2015. These emails were searched for the following terms:
k-ball, kball, gage, air-pump, airpump, needle, pin, PSI, pounds per square inch, 12.5, bladder, McNally, Bird, 1 pound, 1 lb, one pound, one lb, 2 pound, 2 lb, two pound, two lb, gaug* [the * means that all variations of “gaug” were included, such as gauge, gauging, gauged etc.], pump*, inflat*, deflat*, (game OR kick*) ball ~2 [this means Brady’s emails were searched to see whether the words “game” or “kick*” were found within two words of “ball”], (prep* OR rub*) AND (ball OR football) ~10, (investigat* OR meet* OR discuss* OR question) AND (championship OR Jan* 18 OR 1/18), investigat* AND (ball OR football OR Ind* OR Colts) ~10, (equilib* OR atmosphere* OR climat* OR environment* OR test* OR experiment) AND (ball OR football) ~10". http://deadspin.com/the-full-story-of-tom-bradys-destroyed-cell-phone-1722190784
pump* is in the pool cover e-mail
Ok, so they were in "flood the investigation with reams of irrelevant data" mode after destroying the data that was requested. Got it.
But how does that fit in with his refusal to comply with the investigation's original request because of the precedent it would set?
From the hearing Ted Wells testified “I did not tell Mr Brady at any time that he would be subject to punishment for not giving … not turning over the documents. I did not say anything like that."
Also from the hearing, there is this exchange between Kessler and Brady
Q. During that time, did they ever tell you that if you didn't turn over some texts or e-mails or respond to that that you were going to be disciplined in any way, you know, that you were going to be violating some, you know, specific policy about that or anything like that? Did they ever tell you that?
A. No.
Q. If you had been informed by them and they said look, this is your duty to cooperate, would you then have produced them no matter what your agents and your counsel said?
A. Yes.
I don't get the expectation that every request from the investigation needs to be accompanied by a statement about any possible punishments for failure to comply with it. Wouldn't you expect at least some of that responsibility to fall on his own counsel?
No. There was no legal obligation to turn over the phone or to provide electronic communication. It was a basic discovery dispute that Wells did not challenge. It's not the lawyers fault the NFL would use such nonsensical reasoning to determine guilt in absence of real evidence that would be thrown out of every court in the country.
This wasn't a court of law. There was no claim that it was, and the punishment was based on conclusions that contained phrases like "more likely than not". You're trying to apply standards that apparently don't fit the situation.
And while there was no "legal" obligation to provide the electronic communication, the nfl had apparently punished a player in the past for a lack of cooperation, so it should have been clear that there could be consequences for that action.
Bball, you are right that it was not a court of law. Nothing close to it. Finally, a point we agree on.
Yes, and with that should come the realization that the level of proof isn't the same as in a criminal court.
Or a civil court. Or any court.
-
So, as part of the appeals process, Brady submits some emails completely unrelated to deflategate (in an effort to convince people he's trying to cooperate). Since they were made public (as the rest of the appeal was), he can now claim that he was right to not turn over texts because they'd obviously be leaked, and he was understandably worried that all of his personal (non deflate-gate related) texts, which the investigation *never asked to have* would also be leaked? I hope nobody's seeing anything else when they look at that.
The email release was ordered by Judge Berman, wasn't it?
Yeah but that didnt fit Tim's narrative.
But anyways I am so sick of this. Brady clearly had some level of guilt. But I still find the punishment imposed on the Patriots egregious. A first round pick when the Wells report specifically exonerates Kraft and Bellicheck? I get a 4 game Brady suspension but I dont get that.
I don't really see what his comment (or yours) have to do with the part of my post that was bolded. Why would Brady turn over texts about a pool cover in response to a request for texts related to deflate-gate? Why would anyone consider that to be cooperation?
"To try and reconcile the record and fully cooperate with the investigation after I was disciplined in May, we turned over detailed pages of cell phone records and all of the emails that Mr. Wells requested,” Brady wrote. “We even contacted the phone company to see if there was any possible way we could retrieve any/all of the actual text messages from my old phone. In short, we exhausted every possibility to give the NFL everything we could and offered to go thru the identity for every text and phone call during the relevant time. Regardless, the NFL knows that Mr. Wells already had ALL relevant communications with Patriots personnel that either Mr. Wells saw or that I was questioned about in my appeal hearing.” http://larrybrownsports.com/football/tom-brady-turned-over-emails-cell-phone-records/268756
"On June 3 his forensic examiner catalogued all 5,317 emails Brady sent or received between Sept. 1, 2014 and March 1, 2015. These emails were searched for the following terms:
k-ball, kball, gage, air-pump, airpump, needle, pin, PSI, pounds per square inch, 12.5, bladder, McNally, Bird, 1 pound, 1 lb, one pound, one lb, 2 pound, 2 lb, two pound, two lb, gaug* [the * means that all variations of “gaug” were included, such as gauge, gauging, gauged etc.], pump*, inflat*, deflat*, (game OR kick*) ball ~2 [this means Brady’s emails were searched to see whether the words “game” or “kick*” were found within two words of “ball”], (prep* OR rub*) AND (ball OR football) ~10, (investigat* OR meet* OR discuss* OR question) AND (championship OR Jan* 18 OR 1/18), investigat* AND (ball OR football OR Ind* OR Colts) ~10, (equilib* OR atmosphere* OR climat* OR environment* OR test* OR experiment) AND (ball OR football) ~10". http://deadspin.com/the-full-story-of-tom-bradys-destroyed-cell-phone-1722190784
pump* is in the pool cover e-mail
Ok, so they were in "flood the investigation with reams of irrelevant data" mode after destroying the data that was requested. Got it.
But how does that fit in with his refusal to comply with the investigation's original request because of the precedent it would set?
From the hearing Ted Wells testified “I did not tell Mr Brady at any time that he would be subject to punishment for not giving … not turning over the documents. I did not say anything like that."
Also from the hearing, there is this exchange between Kessler and Brady
Q. During that time, did they ever tell you that if you didn't turn over some texts or e-mails or respond to that that you were going to be disciplined in any way, you know, that you were going to be violating some, you know, specific policy about that or anything like that? Did they ever tell you that?
A. No.
Q. If you had been informed by them and they said look, this is your duty to cooperate, would you then have produced them no matter what your agents and your counsel said?
A. Yes.
I don't get the expectation that every request from the investigation needs to be accompanied by a statement about any possible punishments for failure to comply with it. Wouldn't you expect at least some of that responsibility to fall on his own counsel?
No. There was no legal obligation to turn over the phone or to provide electronic communication. It was a basic discovery dispute that Wells did not challenge. It's not the lawyers fault the NFL would use such nonsensical reasoning to determine guilt in absence of real evidence that would be thrown out of every court in the country.
This wasn't a court of law. There was no claim that it was, and the punishment was based on conclusions that contained phrases like "more likely than not". You're trying to apply standards that apparently don't fit the situation.
And while there was no "legal" obligation to provide the electronic communication, the nfl had apparently punished a player in the past for a lack of cooperation, so it should have been clear that there could be consequences for that action.
If it was "clear", it would've been spelled out. Heck, the NFL can't even get it straight with this notion.
So you're saying, for the sake of clarity, that every single request the nfl makes would come with a list of possible punishments for failing to comply? I don't think that's very realistic. I'd guess that before Brady refused the request, he'd have consulted with someone who was in some way representing his interests. Whoever that was should have looked into the issue before advising him.
What were they supposed to look into? The only time someone was fined for not handing over their cell phone was when Brett Favre was fine $50,000 for sending young female NFL employees pictures of his penis from his cell phone which was obviously the center of that case. How were they supposed to know that it would lead to a $1 million fine, a first and fourth round pick to the team, and a four game suspension for Brady?
Wells testified that he did not tell them that failure to produce the phone would penalize them, nevermind be the primary factor in these punishments. The NFL is making things up as they go along as well as telling many lies. There is no way to deal with that.
I don't think that the team's punishment was wholly based on Brady not cooperating with the investigation. Beyond that, though, since Favre had been punished for not cooperating with an investigation, Brady's advisers should have known that there could have been repercussions for not turning over the texts and informed Brady of that.
-
What no one seems to be able to answer is what Goodell wanted to find on Brady's phone.
If he simply wanted unfettered access to everything on the phone, I think that's a radical overstep and I don't blame Brady at all for not trusting the NFL with his private emails, pictures, etc. that would undoubtedly be leaked (let's face it, there are probably Giselle pics on that phone).
If he wanted specific emails or texts, what exactly didn't he get? Brady already gave him a lot of information. And if he wanted to know what he said to the locker room guys, he already has their end of the texts. He didn't need Brady's texts to see that.
I just feel like all the Brady-bashers want to talk in generalities how Brady should have provided more. But none of them seem to actually be able to articulate specifically what this supposed middle ground would have been between giving Goodell his whole phone and providing "relevant" material.
I mean if you were accused of something at work and your employer wanted to have access to everything on your entire cell phone, would you really trust him or her to see everything? I know I wouldn't.
It's obvious. He wanted topless photos of the biggest super model in the world and is p---ed Brady wouldn't give it to him. ;D
-
I don't think that the team's punishment was wholly based on Brady not cooperating with the investigation. Beyond that, though, since Favre had been punished for not cooperating with an investigation, Brady's advisers should have known that there could have been repercussions for not turning over the texts and informed Brady of that.
No, of course. A lot of the punishment was based on the Colts and the Ravens expecting to see the Patriots punished.
-
I don't think that the team's punishment was wholly based on Brady not cooperating with the investigation. Beyond that, though, since Favre had been punished for not cooperating with an investigation, Brady's advisers should have known that there could have been repercussions for not turning over the texts and informed Brady of that.
No, of course. A lot of the punishment was based on the Colts and the Ravens expecting to see the Patriots punished.
Yes, because the Colts and Ravens basically run the league.
-
So, as part of the appeals process, Brady submits some emails completely unrelated to deflategate (in an effort to convince people he's trying to cooperate). Since they were made public (as the rest of the appeal was), he can now claim that he was right to not turn over texts because they'd obviously be leaked, and he was understandably worried that all of his personal (non deflate-gate related) texts, which the investigation *never asked to have* would also be leaked? I hope nobody's seeing anything else when they look at that.
The email release was ordered by Judge Berman, wasn't it?
Yeah but that didnt fit Tim's narrative.
But anyways I am so sick of this. Brady clearly had some level of guilt. But I still find the punishment imposed on the Patriots egregious. A first round pick when the Wells report specifically exonerates Kraft and Bellicheck? I get a 4 game Brady suspension but I dont get that.
I don't really see what his comment (or yours) have to do with the part of my post that was bolded. Why would Brady turn over texts about a pool cover in response to a request for texts related to deflate-gate? Why would anyone consider that to be cooperation?
"To try and reconcile the record and fully cooperate with the investigation after I was disciplined in May, we turned over detailed pages of cell phone records and all of the emails that Mr. Wells requested,” Brady wrote. “We even contacted the phone company to see if there was any possible way we could retrieve any/all of the actual text messages from my old phone. In short, we exhausted every possibility to give the NFL everything we could and offered to go thru the identity for every text and phone call during the relevant time. Regardless, the NFL knows that Mr. Wells already had ALL relevant communications with Patriots personnel that either Mr. Wells saw or that I was questioned about in my appeal hearing.” http://larrybrownsports.com/football/tom-brady-turned-over-emails-cell-phone-records/268756
"On June 3 his forensic examiner catalogued all 5,317 emails Brady sent or received between Sept. 1, 2014 and March 1, 2015. These emails were searched for the following terms:
k-ball, kball, gage, air-pump, airpump, needle, pin, PSI, pounds per square inch, 12.5, bladder, McNally, Bird, 1 pound, 1 lb, one pound, one lb, 2 pound, 2 lb, two pound, two lb, gaug* [the * means that all variations of “gaug” were included, such as gauge, gauging, gauged etc.], pump*, inflat*, deflat*, (game OR kick*) ball ~2 [this means Brady’s emails were searched to see whether the words “game” or “kick*” were found within two words of “ball”], (prep* OR rub*) AND (ball OR football) ~10, (investigat* OR meet* OR discuss* OR question) AND (championship OR Jan* 18 OR 1/18), investigat* AND (ball OR football OR Ind* OR Colts) ~10, (equilib* OR atmosphere* OR climat* OR environment* OR test* OR experiment) AND (ball OR football) ~10". http://deadspin.com/the-full-story-of-tom-bradys-destroyed-cell-phone-1722190784
pump* is in the pool cover e-mail
Ok, so they were in "flood the investigation with reams of irrelevant data" mode after destroying the data that was requested. Got it.
But how does that fit in with his refusal to comply with the investigation's original request because of the precedent it would set?
From the hearing Ted Wells testified “I did not tell Mr Brady at any time that he would be subject to punishment for not giving … not turning over the documents. I did not say anything like that."
Also from the hearing, there is this exchange between Kessler and Brady
Q. During that time, did they ever tell you that if you didn't turn over some texts or e-mails or respond to that that you were going to be disciplined in any way, you know, that you were going to be violating some, you know, specific policy about that or anything like that? Did they ever tell you that?
A. No.
Q. If you had been informed by them and they said look, this is your duty to cooperate, would you then have produced them no matter what your agents and your counsel said?
A. Yes.
I don't get the expectation that every request from the investigation needs to be accompanied by a statement about any possible punishments for failure to comply with it. Wouldn't you expect at least some of that responsibility to fall on his own counsel?
No. There was no legal obligation to turn over the phone or to provide electronic communication. It was a basic discovery dispute that Wells did not challenge. It's not the lawyers fault the NFL would use such nonsensical reasoning to determine guilt in absence of real evidence that would be thrown out of every court in the country.
This wasn't a court of law. There was no claim that it was, and the punishment was based on conclusions that contained phrases like "more likely than not". You're trying to apply standards that apparently don't fit the situation.
And while there was no "legal" obligation to provide the electronic communication, the nfl had apparently punished a player in the past for a lack of cooperation, so it should have been clear that there could be consequences for that action.
If it was "clear", it would've been spelled out. Heck, the NFL can't even get it straight with this notion.
So you're saying, for the sake of clarity, that every single request the nfl makes would come with a list of possible punishments for failing to comply? I don't think that's very realistic. I'd guess that before Brady refused the request, he'd have consulted with someone who was in some way representing his interests. Whoever that was should have looked into the issue before advising him.
What were they supposed to look into? The only time someone was fined for not handing over their cell phone was when Brett Favre was fine $50,000 for sending young female NFL employees pictures of his penis from his cell phone which was obviously the center of that case. How were they supposed to know that it would lead to a $1 million fine, a first and fourth round pick to the team, and a four game suspension for Brady?
Wells testified that he did not tell them that failure to produce the phone would penalize them, nevermind be the primary factor in these punishments. The NFL is making things up as they go along as well as telling many lies. There is no way to deal with that.
I don't think that the team's punishment was wholly based on Brady not cooperating with the investigation. Beyond that, though, since Favre had been punished for not cooperating with an investigation, Brady's advisers should have known that there could have been repercussions for not turning over the texts and informed Brady of that.
I'm sure the notion of a fine for not cooperating was breached. (See $50,000 for Favre is that particular incident). However, I'm not sure anyone realized the NFL was gonna make things up on the fly and throw a 4 game suspension at him without pay. Which is going to cost a helluva lot more than $50,000.
Brady settles for a fine. Pretty sure of that.
-
So, as part of the appeals process, Brady submits some emails completely unrelated to deflategate (in an effort to convince people he's trying to cooperate). Since they were made public (as the rest of the appeal was), he can now claim that he was right to not turn over texts because they'd obviously be leaked, and he was understandably worried that all of his personal (non deflate-gate related) texts, which the investigation *never asked to have* would also be leaked? I hope nobody's seeing anything else when they look at that.
The email release was ordered by Judge Berman, wasn't it?
Possibly, but I from everything I heard, the investigation wasn't requesting emails related to pool covers.
Requesting something that doesn't exist and then roundly blasting the person for failure to produce it is a wonderful tactic. I heard it is related to some of the reasons behind the "innocent until proven guilty" presumption.
That's a fairly handy claim when a likely reason what was requested doesn't exist is the person destroying it after the request was made.
Last time I checked, you can't destroy text messages on other people's phones.
Which makes sense, as Brady wasn't punished for destroying texts on other people's phones.
-
I don't think that the team's punishment was wholly based on Brady not cooperating with the investigation. Beyond that, though, since Favre had been punished for not cooperating with an investigation, Brady's advisers should have known that there could have been repercussions for not turning over the texts and informed Brady of that.
No, of course. A lot of the punishment was based on the Colts and the Ravens expecting to see the Patriots punished.
Yes, because the Colts and Ravens basically run the league.http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/07/opinions/dowd-nfl-brady-investigation/
No, but the colts are incredibly vocal, constantly advocating rule changes when they lose, were probably one of the original leaks to the indy journalist, and had the direct ear of mime kensil, who hares belichek, hates the pats, and spearheaded the whole thing.
-
I don't think that the team's punishment was wholly based on Brady not cooperating with the investigation. Beyond that, though, since Favre had been punished for not cooperating with an investigation, Brady's advisers should have known that there could have been repercussions for not turning over the texts and informed Brady of that.
No, of course. A lot of the punishment was based on the Colts and the Ravens expecting to see the Patriots punished.
Yes, because the Colts and Ravens basically run the league.
It's beyond evident that the Colts/Ravens said "jump", and the league said "how high". The communication is on the public docket.
http://deadspin.com/here-are-the-emails-that-helped-start-ballghazi-1722170637
-
So, as part of the appeals process, Brady submits some emails completely unrelated to deflategate (in an effort to convince people he's trying to cooperate). Since they were made public (as the rest of the appeal was), he can now claim that he was right to not turn over texts because they'd obviously be leaked, and he was understandably worried that all of his personal (non deflate-gate related) texts, which the investigation *never asked to have* would also be leaked? I hope nobody's seeing anything else when they look at that.
The email release was ordered by Judge Berman, wasn't it?
Yeah but that didnt fit Tim's narrative.
But anyways I am so sick of this. Brady clearly had some level of guilt. But I still find the punishment imposed on the Patriots egregious. A first round pick when the Wells report specifically exonerates Kraft and Bellicheck? I get a 4 game Brady suspension but I dont get that.
I don't really see what his comment (or yours) have to do with the part of my post that was bolded. Why would Brady turn over texts about a pool cover in response to a request for texts related to deflate-gate? Why would anyone consider that to be cooperation?
"To try and reconcile the record and fully cooperate with the investigation after I was disciplined in May, we turned over detailed pages of cell phone records and all of the emails that Mr. Wells requested,” Brady wrote. “We even contacted the phone company to see if there was any possible way we could retrieve any/all of the actual text messages from my old phone. In short, we exhausted every possibility to give the NFL everything we could and offered to go thru the identity for every text and phone call during the relevant time. Regardless, the NFL knows that Mr. Wells already had ALL relevant communications with Patriots personnel that either Mr. Wells saw or that I was questioned about in my appeal hearing.” http://larrybrownsports.com/football/tom-brady-turned-over-emails-cell-phone-records/268756
"On June 3 his forensic examiner catalogued all 5,317 emails Brady sent or received between Sept. 1, 2014 and March 1, 2015. These emails were searched for the following terms:
k-ball, kball, gage, air-pump, airpump, needle, pin, PSI, pounds per square inch, 12.5, bladder, McNally, Bird, 1 pound, 1 lb, one pound, one lb, 2 pound, 2 lb, two pound, two lb, gaug* [the * means that all variations of “gaug” were included, such as gauge, gauging, gauged etc.], pump*, inflat*, deflat*, (game OR kick*) ball ~2 [this means Brady’s emails were searched to see whether the words “game” or “kick*” were found within two words of “ball”], (prep* OR rub*) AND (ball OR football) ~10, (investigat* OR meet* OR discuss* OR question) AND (championship OR Jan* 18 OR 1/18), investigat* AND (ball OR football OR Ind* OR Colts) ~10, (equilib* OR atmosphere* OR climat* OR environment* OR test* OR experiment) AND (ball OR football) ~10". http://deadspin.com/the-full-story-of-tom-bradys-destroyed-cell-phone-1722190784
pump* is in the pool cover e-mail
Ok, so they were in "flood the investigation with reams of irrelevant data" mode after destroying the data that was requested. Got it.
But how does that fit in with his refusal to comply with the investigation's original request because of the precedent it would set?
From the hearing Ted Wells testified “I did not tell Mr Brady at any time that he would be subject to punishment for not giving … not turning over the documents. I did not say anything like that."
Also from the hearing, there is this exchange between Kessler and Brady
Q. During that time, did they ever tell you that if you didn't turn over some texts or e-mails or respond to that that you were going to be disciplined in any way, you know, that you were going to be violating some, you know, specific policy about that or anything like that? Did they ever tell you that?
A. No.
Q. If you had been informed by them and they said look, this is your duty to cooperate, would you then have produced them no matter what your agents and your counsel said?
A. Yes.
I don't get the expectation that every request from the investigation needs to be accompanied by a statement about any possible punishments for failure to comply with it. Wouldn't you expect at least some of that responsibility to fall on his own counsel?
No. There was no legal obligation to turn over the phone or to provide electronic communication. It was a basic discovery dispute that Wells did not challenge. It's not the lawyers fault the NFL would use such nonsensical reasoning to determine guilt in absence of real evidence that would be thrown out of every court in the country.
This wasn't a court of law. There was no claim that it was, and the punishment was based on conclusions that contained phrases like "more likely than not". You're trying to apply standards that apparently don't fit the situation.
And while there was no "legal" obligation to provide the electronic communication, the nfl had apparently punished a player in the past for a lack of cooperation, so it should have been clear that there could be consequences for that action.
If it was "clear", it would've been spelled out. Heck, the NFL can't even get it straight with this notion.
So you're saying, for the sake of clarity, that every single request the nfl makes would come with a list of possible punishments for failing to comply? I don't think that's very realistic. I'd guess that before Brady refused the request, he'd have consulted with someone who was in some way representing his interests. Whoever that was should have looked into the issue before advising him.
What were they supposed to look into? The only time someone was fined for not handing over their cell phone was when Brett Favre was fine $50,000 for sending young female NFL employees pictures of his penis from his cell phone which was obviously the center of that case. How were they supposed to know that it would lead to a $1 million fine, a first and fourth round pick to the team, and a four game suspension for Brady?
Wells testified that he did not tell them that failure to produce the phone would penalize them, nevermind be the primary factor in these punishments. The NFL is making things up as they go along as well as telling many lies. There is no way to deal with that.
I don't think that the team's punishment was wholly based on Brady not cooperating with the investigation. Beyond that, though, since Favre had been punished for not cooperating with an investigation, Brady's advisers should have known that there could have been repercussions for not turning over the texts and informed Brady of that.
I'm sure the notion of a fine for not cooperating was breached. (See $50,000 for Favre is that particular incident). However, I'm not sure anyone realized the NFL was gonna make things up on the fly and throw a 4 game suspension at him without pay. Which is going to cost a helluva lot more than $50,000.
Brady settles for a fine. Pretty sure of that.
So if Brady's advisers told him that he might get fined, then you'd have to fault them for telling Brady he wouldn't get more of a punishment than that without checking into the situation. You'd also have to wonder how accurate Brady's "I had no idea you could get punished for that" claim was.
-
When the 2 pounds report, the deflator text and the ballboy in the bathroom were reported, I thought the pats did it.
Then two things happened. The actual measurements came out and the drop could be explained by the ideal gas law.
But the text and the bathroom visit still looms and the coincidence is tough to swallow.
So let's say that brady conspired in the scheme, that means that either:
A) the deflator takes the balls in the bathroom and decides that for some reason he's not going to take air out this time
B) the deflator takes maaaybe .01 out of the balls
If you believe in the ideal gas law AND you believe that brady is guilty then you must believe in A or B. So which is it?
Option B is ridiculous.
Option A means there is no violation, at least for this game.
Is there an option C? What am I missing?
That's only if you believe that the Wells report got it wrong regarding which gauge was used, and if you further assume that environmental factors led to over 25% of the balls still being outside the scientific range.
I've already explained the valid and expected reasons why some balls would fall below the range and that overall, or on average, the measurements of the balls fell within the expected range.
Exponent's logic to determine the gauge was totaly flawed. They found that since the non logo gauge was closer to a master gauge that it was more likely the non logo gauge was used despite what Walt Anderson said. They also bought a dozen or more store bought gauges which measured closer to the non logo gauge. Of course all the gauges they bought coincidentally was the exact same model as the non logo gauge. ::)
Here's why that logic is flawed. They chose not to test either the Patriots or Colt's gauge and they don't know which gauge they were closer to. Also, even if both the Colts' and the Pats' gauges were perfectly aligned with the master gauge, it still tells you nothing. If it was just 3 degrees warmer in the rooms they set the balls, it would be more likely that the logo gauge was used. Keep in mind that the room the ref measured the balls in pregame was set to 67-71 while the locker room they measured the balls at half time was 71-74.
I find their logic extremely suspicious and here's why. If you want to make your best estimation to which gauge was used, you would obtain the Colt's and the Pats gauge, talk to the equipment managers about their process of preparing the balls including rubbing them down which raises psi and when they set the psi level relative to that. And as I already pointed out, check the thermostats of the rooms it was done in.
Both Wells and Exponent pointed out that the process I mentioned was irrelevant to determine the starting psi level of the footballs because the ref did not measure them for an hour after the balls were delivered to him. And that's correct. But it is very relevant to determine which gauge was used which was imperative to the report. Why or how did they overlook this? Exponent is smart, so how could they overlook something so very obvious in replace of such a flawed methodology? Because they were not interested in getting facts, but proving a certain narrative. They made several mistakes, some obvious to any thinking non scientist and some less obvious that were caught by scientists and staticians. What?? How could I make such an accusation? Exponent is infamous for exactly this. They are currently in contempt of court (maybe not the right terminology) for refusing to support their work which a judge thought was bunk.
If you want to understand the science and Exponent's biggest mistake in logic, watch this video. (You can also read Steve McIntyre's blog.)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx0P3NErcNo
It breaks down the science very well and points out that the balls most likely weren't tampered with. It also points out that the worst case scenario, only about 0.35 psi was removed which isn't enough for a human to notice, therefore is absurd. Hmmm, that number sounds familiar (the calibration difference between the two gauges). Especially when running such a risky scheme using a part time, minimum wage, obese employee who acts like a clown.
That's a pretty weak ob of breaking down the science, and even at that he points out that the balls *most likely* weren't tampered with. You keep reading these questionable reports and deciding that "most likely" means "definitely". It doesn't.
What? It's not weak. First of all, I figured most of this out myself when I read the report. Second of all, I can point you to many other scientific breakdowns. Third, no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner. Fourth, the worst case, unlikely scenario, even according to Exponent, was that only a few tenths of a psi was removed and that is an irrelevant amount. Fifth, the balls measured as they were expected as per the gauge the ref said he used and therefore there was no reason for any suspicion in the first place except for pure ignorance.
Trust me, it's weak. And, for the record, "no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner" is what I've been saying all along, which you've been disagreeing with.
-
I don't think that the team's punishment was wholly based on Brady not cooperating with the investigation. Beyond that, though, since Favre had been punished for not cooperating with an investigation, Brady's advisers should have known that there could have been repercussions for not turning over the texts and informed Brady of that.
No, of course. A lot of the punishment was based on the Colts and the Ravens expecting to see the Patriots punished.
Yes, because the Colts and Ravens basically run the league.http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/07/opinions/dowd-nfl-brady-investigation/
No, but the colts are incredibly vocal, constantly advocating rule changes when they lose, were probably one of the original leaks to the indy journalist, and had the direct ear of mime kensil, who hares belichek, hates the pats, and spearheaded the whole thing.
The Colts angle even showed up on ESPN, as the first panelist ESPN interviewed after the news of Brady's denied appeal came out was none other than former Colts executive Bill Polian, who—of course—acted like Brady had committed the most heinous of football-related crimes.
-
I don't think that the team's punishment was wholly based on Brady not cooperating with the investigation. Beyond that, though, since Favre had been punished for not cooperating with an investigation, Brady's advisers should have known that there could have been repercussions for not turning over the texts and informed Brady of that.
No, of course. A lot of the punishment was based on the Colts and the Ravens expecting to see the Patriots punished.
Yes, because the Colts and Ravens basically run the league.
i mean, it was pretty much the colts who made it so defensive backs can't play physical down the field
You could say that the colts are the reason quarterback #s are so inflated
-
So, as part of the appeals process, Brady submits some emails completely unrelated to deflategate (in an effort to convince people he's trying to cooperate). Since they were made public (as the rest of the appeal was), he can now claim that he was right to not turn over texts because they'd obviously be leaked, and he was understandably worried that all of his personal (non deflate-gate related) texts, which the investigation *never asked to have* would also be leaked? I hope nobody's seeing anything else when they look at that.
The email release was ordered by Judge Berman, wasn't it?
Yeah but that didnt fit Tim's narrative.
But anyways I am so sick of this. Brady clearly had some level of guilt. But I still find the punishment imposed on the Patriots egregious. A first round pick when the Wells report specifically exonerates Kraft and Bellicheck? I get a 4 game Brady suspension but I dont get that.
I don't really see what his comment (or yours) have to do with the part of my post that was bolded. Why would Brady turn over texts about a pool cover in response to a request for texts related to deflate-gate? Why would anyone consider that to be cooperation?
"To try and reconcile the record and fully cooperate with the investigation after I was disciplined in May, we turned over detailed pages of cell phone records and all of the emails that Mr. Wells requested,” Brady wrote. “We even contacted the phone company to see if there was any possible way we could retrieve any/all of the actual text messages from my old phone. In short, we exhausted every possibility to give the NFL everything we could and offered to go thru the identity for every text and phone call during the relevant time. Regardless, the NFL knows that Mr. Wells already had ALL relevant communications with Patriots personnel that either Mr. Wells saw or that I was questioned about in my appeal hearing.” http://larrybrownsports.com/football/tom-brady-turned-over-emails-cell-phone-records/268756
"On June 3 his forensic examiner catalogued all 5,317 emails Brady sent or received between Sept. 1, 2014 and March 1, 2015. These emails were searched for the following terms:
k-ball, kball, gage, air-pump, airpump, needle, pin, PSI, pounds per square inch, 12.5, bladder, McNally, Bird, 1 pound, 1 lb, one pound, one lb, 2 pound, 2 lb, two pound, two lb, gaug* [the * means that all variations of “gaug” were included, such as gauge, gauging, gauged etc.], pump*, inflat*, deflat*, (game OR kick*) ball ~2 [this means Brady’s emails were searched to see whether the words “game” or “kick*” were found within two words of “ball”], (prep* OR rub*) AND (ball OR football) ~10, (investigat* OR meet* OR discuss* OR question) AND (championship OR Jan* 18 OR 1/18), investigat* AND (ball OR football OR Ind* OR Colts) ~10, (equilib* OR atmosphere* OR climat* OR environment* OR test* OR experiment) AND (ball OR football) ~10". http://deadspin.com/the-full-story-of-tom-bradys-destroyed-cell-phone-1722190784
pump* is in the pool cover e-mail
Ok, so they were in "flood the investigation with reams of irrelevant data" mode after destroying the data that was requested. Got it.
But how does that fit in with his refusal to comply with the investigation's original request because of the precedent it would set?
From the hearing Ted Wells testified “I did not tell Mr Brady at any time that he would be subject to punishment for not giving … not turning over the documents. I did not say anything like that."
Also from the hearing, there is this exchange between Kessler and Brady
Q. During that time, did they ever tell you that if you didn't turn over some texts or e-mails or respond to that that you were going to be disciplined in any way, you know, that you were going to be violating some, you know, specific policy about that or anything like that? Did they ever tell you that?
A. No.
Q. If you had been informed by them and they said look, this is your duty to cooperate, would you then have produced them no matter what your agents and your counsel said?
A. Yes.
I don't get the expectation that every request from the investigation needs to be accompanied by a statement about any possible punishments for failure to comply with it. Wouldn't you expect at least some of that responsibility to fall on his own counsel?
No. There was no legal obligation to turn over the phone or to provide electronic communication. It was a basic discovery dispute that Wells did not challenge. It's not the lawyers fault the NFL would use such nonsensical reasoning to determine guilt in absence of real evidence that would be thrown out of every court in the country.
This wasn't a court of law. There was no claim that it was, and the punishment was based on conclusions that contained phrases like "more likely than not". You're trying to apply standards that apparently don't fit the situation.
And while there was no "legal" obligation to provide the electronic communication, the nfl had apparently punished a player in the past for a lack of cooperation, so it should have been clear that there could be consequences for that action.
If it was "clear", it would've been spelled out. Heck, the NFL can't even get it straight with this notion.
So you're saying, for the sake of clarity, that every single request the nfl makes would come with a list of possible punishments for failing to comply? I don't think that's very realistic. I'd guess that before Brady refused the request, he'd have consulted with someone who was in some way representing his interests. Whoever that was should have looked into the issue before advising him.
What were they supposed to look into? The only time someone was fined for not handing over their cell phone was when Brett Favre was fine $50,000 for sending young female NFL employees pictures of his penis from his cell phone which was obviously the center of that case. How were they supposed to know that it would lead to a $1 million fine, a first and fourth round pick to the team, and a four game suspension for Brady?
Wells testified that he did not tell them that failure to produce the phone would penalize them, nevermind be the primary factor in these punishments. The NFL is making things up as they go along as well as telling many lies. There is no way to deal with that.
I don't think that the team's punishment was wholly based on Brady not cooperating with the investigation. Beyond that, though, since Favre had been punished for not cooperating with an investigation, Brady's advisers should have known that there could have been repercussions for not turning over the texts and informed Brady of that.
I'm sure the notion of a fine for not cooperating was breached. (See $50,000 for Favre is that particular incident). However, I'm not sure anyone realized the NFL was gonna make things up on the fly and throw a 4 game suspension at him without pay. Which is going to cost a helluva lot more than $50,000.
Brady settles for a fine. Pretty sure of that.
So if Brady's advisers told him that he might get fined, then you'd have to fault them for telling Brady he wouldn't get more of a punishment than that without checking into the situation. You'd also have to wonder how accurate Brady's "I had no idea you could get punished for that" claim was.
Tim, there isn't a precedent for this. There is nothing even close. You have the benefit of 20/20 here. Are they going to outline every possible scenario under the sun ever conceived or spell out ramifications based on NFL precedent? The NFL made up things on the fly here and have continually "moved the goal posts" based on the timeline of events.
That's why this whole sham of a process is in a federal court right now.
-
So, as part of the appeals process, Brady submits some emails completely unrelated to deflategate (in an effort to convince people he's trying to cooperate). Since they were made public (as the rest of the appeal was), he can now claim that he was right to not turn over texts because they'd obviously be leaked, and he was understandably worried that all of his personal (non deflate-gate related) texts, which the investigation *never asked to have* would also be leaked? I hope nobody's seeing anything else when they look at that.
The email release was ordered by Judge Berman, wasn't it?
Possibly, but I from everything I heard, the investigation wasn't requesting emails related to pool covers.
Requesting something that doesn't exist and then roundly blasting the person for failure to produce it is a wonderful tactic. I heard it is related to some of the reasons behind the "innocent until proven guilty" presumption.
That's a fairly handy claim when a likely reason what was requested doesn't exist is the person destroying it after the request was made.
You seem pretty entrenched in your position on this.
-
Trust me, it's weak. And, for the record, "no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner" is what I've been saying all along, which you've been disagreeing with.
The case in point is that no-one can say for sure one way or the other. Which means that the actual value of the scientific part of the report as evidence is, well, junk. As most statistical "inference" done with 10-20 observations should be.
-
I don't think that the team's punishment was wholly based on Brady not cooperating with the investigation. Beyond that, though, since Favre had been punished for not cooperating with an investigation, Brady's advisers should have known that there could have been repercussions for not turning over the texts and informed Brady of that.
No, of course. A lot of the punishment was based on the Colts and the Ravens expecting to see the Patriots punished.
Yes, because the Colts and Ravens basically run the league.
It's beyond evident that the Colts/Ravens said "jump", and the league said "how high". The communication is on the public docket.
http://deadspin.com/here-are-the-emails-that-helped-start-ballghazi-1722170637
It's at least evident that the balls were measured at halftime because of those emails. I don't know that they have a "severely punish the pats even if you find no evidence" air about them.
-
I don't think that the team's punishment was wholly based on Brady not cooperating with the investigation. Beyond that, though, since Favre had been punished for not cooperating with an investigation, Brady's advisers should have known that there could have been repercussions for not turning over the texts and informed Brady of that.
No, of course. A lot of the punishment was based on the Colts and the Ravens expecting to see the Patriots punished.
Yes, because the Colts and Ravens basically run the league.
It's beyond evident that the Colts/Ravens said "jump", and the league said "how high". The communication is on the public docket.
http://deadspin.com/here-are-the-emails-that-helped-start-ballghazi-1722170637
It's at least evident that the balls were measured at halftime because of those emails. I don't know that they have a "severely punish the pats even if you find no evidence" air about them.
No, it's also evident that several people on the other side of the fence are twisting the truth, e.g. the Ravens ("we didn't tip off anyone") and Vincent and co ("we didn't know until halftime").
-
So, as part of the appeals process, Brady submits some emails completely unrelated to deflategate (in an effort to convince people he's trying to cooperate). Since they were made public (as the rest of the appeal was), he can now claim that he was right to not turn over texts because they'd obviously be leaked, and he was understandably worried that all of his personal (non deflate-gate related) texts, which the investigation *never asked to have* would also be leaked? I hope nobody's seeing anything else when they look at that.
The email release was ordered by Judge Berman, wasn't it?
Possibly, but I from everything I heard, the investigation wasn't requesting emails related to pool covers.
Requesting something that doesn't exist and then roundly blasting the person for failure to produce it is a wonderful tactic. I heard it is related to some of the reasons behind the "innocent until proven guilty" presumption.
That's a fairly handy claim when a likely reason what was requested doesn't exist is the person destroying it after the request was made.
You seem pretty entrenched in your position on this.
That Brady had his phone destroyed? Yes, it's one of the few things we seem to know for sure.
-
Now, slander/defamation is incredibly difficult to prove in the US, but...
http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/13409212/jim-turner-former-miami-dolphins-ol-coach-file-defamation-lawsuit-attorney-ted-wells
-
When the 2 pounds report, the deflator text and the ballboy in the bathroom were reported, I thought the pats did it.
Then two things happened. The actual measurements came out and the drop could be explained by the ideal gas law.
But the text and the bathroom visit still looms and the coincidence is tough to swallow.
So let's say that brady conspired in the scheme, that means that either:
A) the deflator takes the balls in the bathroom and decides that for some reason he's not going to take air out this time
B) the deflator takes maaaybe .01 out of the balls
If you believe in the ideal gas law AND you believe that brady is guilty then you must believe in A or B. So which is it?
Option B is ridiculous.
Option A means there is no violation, at least for this game.
Is there an option C? What am I missing?
That's only if you believe that the Wells report got it wrong regarding which gauge was used, and if you further assume that environmental factors led to over 25% of the balls still being outside the scientific range.
I've already explained the valid and expected reasons why some balls would fall below the range and that overall, or on average, the measurements of the balls fell within the expected range.
Exponent's logic to determine the gauge was totaly flawed. They found that since the non logo gauge was closer to a master gauge that it was more likely the non logo gauge was used despite what Walt Anderson said. They also bought a dozen or more store bought gauges which measured closer to the non logo gauge. Of course all the gauges they bought coincidentally was the exact same model as the non logo gauge. ::)
Here's why that logic is flawed. They chose not to test either the Patriots or Colt's gauge and they don't know which gauge they were closer to. Also, even if both the Colts' and the Pats' gauges were perfectly aligned with the master gauge, it still tells you nothing. If it was just 3 degrees warmer in the rooms they set the balls, it would be more likely that the logo gauge was used. Keep in mind that the room the ref measured the balls in pregame was set to 67-71 while the locker room they measured the balls at half time was 71-74.
I find their logic extremely suspicious and here's why. If you want to make your best estimation to which gauge was used, you would obtain the Colt's and the Pats gauge, talk to the equipment managers about their process of preparing the balls including rubbing them down which raises psi and when they set the psi level relative to that. And as I already pointed out, check the thermostats of the rooms it was done in.
Both Wells and Exponent pointed out that the process I mentioned was irrelevant to determine the starting psi level of the footballs because the ref did not measure them for an hour after the balls were delivered to him. And that's correct. But it is very relevant to determine which gauge was used which was imperative to the report. Why or how did they overlook this? Exponent is smart, so how could they overlook something so very obvious in replace of such a flawed methodology? Because they were not interested in getting facts, but proving a certain narrative. They made several mistakes, some obvious to any thinking non scientist and some less obvious that were caught by scientists and staticians. What?? How could I make such an accusation? Exponent is infamous for exactly this. They are currently in contempt of court (maybe not the right terminology) for refusing to support their work which a judge thought was bunk.
If you want to understand the science and Exponent's biggest mistake in logic, watch this video. (You can also read Steve McIntyre's blog.)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx0P3NErcNo
It breaks down the science very well and points out that the balls most likely weren't tampered with. It also points out that the worst case scenario, only about 0.35 psi was removed which isn't enough for a human to notice, therefore is absurd. Hmmm, that number sounds familiar (the calibration difference between the two gauges). Especially when running such a risky scheme using a part time, minimum wage, obese employee who acts like a clown.
That's a pretty weak ob of breaking down the science, and even at that he points out that the balls *most likely* weren't tampered with. You keep reading these questionable reports and deciding that "most likely" means "definitely". It doesn't.
What? It's not weak. First of all, I figured most of this out myself when I read the report. Second of all, I can point you to many other scientific breakdowns. Third, no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner. Fourth, the worst case, unlikely scenario, even according to Exponent, was that only a few tenths of a psi was removed and that is an irrelevant amount. Fifth, the balls measured as they were expected as per the gauge the ref said he used and therefore there was no reason for any suspicion in the first place except for pure ignorance.
Trust me, it's weak. And, for the record, "no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner" is what I've been saying all along, which you've been disagreeing with.
Trust you?! A week ago you had no clue about the science after more than six months of expressing your opinion about the subject and I had to correct you. You incorrectly thought it was impossible that science could even explain a 1.1 psi drop. I worked it out myself back in January. It's so easy to calculate and you still had it wrong. So, no I do not trust you.
I'm supposed to trust a guy who failed at a middle school science problem that only required arithmetic in which he had over six months to figure out over myself, Ivy league deans, physics professors, world renowned staticians, and chemistry Nobel Laureates? Thanks for the laugh.
-
For the record, Ballghazi is a better name than DeflateGate.
-
For the record, Ballghazi is a better name than DeflateGate.
Framegate isn't bad either
-
When the 2 pounds report, the deflator text and the ballboy in the bathroom were reported, I thought the pats did it.
Then two things happened. The actual measurements came out and the drop could be explained by the ideal gas law.
But the text and the bathroom visit still looms and the coincidence is tough to swallow.
So let's say that brady conspired in the scheme, that means that either:
A) the deflator takes the balls in the bathroom and decides that for some reason he's not going to take air out this time
B) the deflator takes maaaybe .01 out of the balls
If you believe in the ideal gas law AND you believe that brady is guilty then you must believe in A or B. So which is it?
Option B is ridiculous.
Option A means there is no violation, at least for this game.
Is there an option C? What am I missing?
That's only if you believe that the Wells report got it wrong regarding which gauge was used, and if you further assume that environmental factors led to over 25% of the balls still being outside the scientific range.
I've already explained the valid and expected reasons why some balls would fall below the range and that overall, or on average, the measurements of the balls fell within the expected range.
Exponent's logic to determine the gauge was totaly flawed. They found that since the non logo gauge was closer to a master gauge that it was more likely the non logo gauge was used despite what Walt Anderson said. They also bought a dozen or more store bought gauges which measured closer to the non logo gauge. Of course all the gauges they bought coincidentally was the exact same model as the non logo gauge. ::)
Here's why that logic is flawed. They chose not to test either the Patriots or Colt's gauge and they don't know which gauge they were closer to. Also, even if both the Colts' and the Pats' gauges were perfectly aligned with the master gauge, it still tells you nothing. If it was just 3 degrees warmer in the rooms they set the balls, it would be more likely that the logo gauge was used. Keep in mind that the room the ref measured the balls in pregame was set to 67-71 while the locker room they measured the balls at half time was 71-74.
I find their logic extremely suspicious and here's why. If you want to make your best estimation to which gauge was used, you would obtain the Colt's and the Pats gauge, talk to the equipment managers about their process of preparing the balls including rubbing them down which raises psi and when they set the psi level relative to that. And as I already pointed out, check the thermostats of the rooms it was done in.
Both Wells and Exponent pointed out that the process I mentioned was irrelevant to determine the starting psi level of the footballs because the ref did not measure them for an hour after the balls were delivered to him. And that's correct. But it is very relevant to determine which gauge was used which was imperative to the report. Why or how did they overlook this? Exponent is smart, so how could they overlook something so very obvious in replace of such a flawed methodology? Because they were not interested in getting facts, but proving a certain narrative. They made several mistakes, some obvious to any thinking non scientist and some less obvious that were caught by scientists and staticians. What?? How could I make such an accusation? Exponent is infamous for exactly this. They are currently in contempt of court (maybe not the right terminology) for refusing to support their work which a judge thought was bunk.
If you want to understand the science and Exponent's biggest mistake in logic, watch this video. (You can also read Steve McIntyre's blog.)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx0P3NErcNo
It breaks down the science very well and points out that the balls most likely weren't tampered with. It also points out that the worst case scenario, only about 0.35 psi was removed which isn't enough for a human to notice, therefore is absurd. Hmmm, that number sounds familiar (the calibration difference between the two gauges). Especially when running such a risky scheme using a part time, minimum wage, obese employee who acts like a clown.
That's a pretty weak ob of breaking down the science, and even at that he points out that the balls *most likely* weren't tampered with. You keep reading these questionable reports and deciding that "most likely" means "definitely". It doesn't.
What? It's not weak. First of all, I figured most of this out myself when I read the report. Second of all, I can point you to many other scientific breakdowns. Third, no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner. Fourth, the worst case, unlikely scenario, even according to Exponent, was that only a few tenths of a psi was removed and that is an irrelevant amount. Fifth, the balls measured as they were expected as per the gauge the ref said he used and therefore there was no reason for any suspicion in the first place except for pure ignorance.
Trust me, it's weak. And, for the record, "no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner" is what I've been saying all along, which you've been disagreeing with.
Trust you?! A week ago you had no clue about the science after more than six months of expressing your opinion about the subject and I had to correct you. You incorrectly thought it was impossible that science could even explain a 1.1 psi drop. I worked it out myself back in January. It's so easy to calculate and you still had it wrong. So, no I do not trust you.
I'm supposed to trust a guy who failed at a middle school science problem who he had over six months to figure out over myself, Ivy league deans, physics professors, world renowned staticians, and chemistry Nobel Laureates? Thanks for the laugh.
I think we've already established that your trust on this issue is based on whether a claim supports the pats even half as much as you think it does. It's true that I didn't consider the effect of atmospheric pressure in my *initial* calculation, it's equally obvious that you don't know much about what you're discussing.
To summarize that report, the guy claimed that the colts balls had higher PSIs that the pats balls because the air in them had warmed more, didn't offer any explanation whatsoever as to why that pattern wasn't apparent in the pats balls (the balls measured last had less pressure than most of the balls measured before them), and then simply declared the amount of under-inflation in the pats balls to be "statistically insignificant". This seems to have escaped your attention, apparently you didn't read that on the internet (oops, I mean work it out yourself).
-
For the record, Ballghazi is a better name than DeflateGate.
Sure, and you've got the Brady phone/Hillary email server parallel.
-
precisely (tinfoil hat, activate!), plus everything gets the -Gate suffix. It's beyond passe at this point.
-
When the 2 pounds report, the deflator text and the ballboy in the bathroom were reported, I thought the pats did it.
Then two things happened. The actual measurements came out and the drop could be explained by the ideal gas law.
But the text and the bathroom visit still looms and the coincidence is tough to swallow.
So let's say that brady conspired in the scheme, that means that either:
A) the deflator takes the balls in the bathroom and decides that for some reason he's not going to take air out this time
B) the deflator takes maaaybe .01 out of the balls
If you believe in the ideal gas law AND you believe that brady is guilty then you must believe in A or B. So which is it?
Option B is ridiculous.
Option A means there is no violation, at least for this game.
Is there an option C? What am I missing?
That's only if you believe that the Wells report got it wrong regarding which gauge was used, and if you further assume that environmental factors led to over 25% of the balls still being outside the scientific range.
I've already explained the valid and expected reasons why some balls would fall below the range and that overall, or on average, the measurements of the balls fell within the expected range.
Exponent's logic to determine the gauge was totaly flawed. They found that since the non logo gauge was closer to a master gauge that it was more likely the non logo gauge was used despite what Walt Anderson said. They also bought a dozen or more store bought gauges which measured closer to the non logo gauge. Of course all the gauges they bought coincidentally was the exact same model as the non logo gauge. ::)
Here's why that logic is flawed. They chose not to test either the Patriots or Colt's gauge and they don't know which gauge they were closer to. Also, even if both the Colts' and the Pats' gauges were perfectly aligned with the master gauge, it still tells you nothing. If it was just 3 degrees warmer in the rooms they set the balls, it would be more likely that the logo gauge was used. Keep in mind that the room the ref measured the balls in pregame was set to 67-71 while the locker room they measured the balls at half time was 71-74.
I find their logic extremely suspicious and here's why. If you want to make your best estimation to which gauge was used, you would obtain the Colt's and the Pats gauge, talk to the equipment managers about their process of preparing the balls including rubbing them down which raises psi and when they set the psi level relative to that. And as I already pointed out, check the thermostats of the rooms it was done in.
Both Wells and Exponent pointed out that the process I mentioned was irrelevant to determine the starting psi level of the footballs because the ref did not measure them for an hour after the balls were delivered to him. And that's correct. But it is very relevant to determine which gauge was used which was imperative to the report. Why or how did they overlook this? Exponent is smart, so how could they overlook something so very obvious in replace of such a flawed methodology? Because they were not interested in getting facts, but proving a certain narrative. They made several mistakes, some obvious to any thinking non scientist and some less obvious that were caught by scientists and staticians. What?? How could I make such an accusation? Exponent is infamous for exactly this. They are currently in contempt of court (maybe not the right terminology) for refusing to support their work which a judge thought was bunk.
If you want to understand the science and Exponent's biggest mistake in logic, watch this video. (You can also read Steve McIntyre's blog.)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx0P3NErcNo
It breaks down the science very well and points out that the balls most likely weren't tampered with. It also points out that the worst case scenario, only about 0.35 psi was removed which isn't enough for a human to notice, therefore is absurd. Hmmm, that number sounds familiar (the calibration difference between the two gauges). Especially when running such a risky scheme using a part time, minimum wage, obese employee who acts like a clown.
That's a pretty weak ob of breaking down the science, and even at that he points out that the balls *most likely* weren't tampered with. You keep reading these questionable reports and deciding that "most likely" means "definitely". It doesn't.
What? It's not weak. First of all, I figured most of this out myself when I read the report. Second of all, I can point you to many other scientific breakdowns. Third, no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner. Fourth, the worst case, unlikely scenario, even according to Exponent, was that only a few tenths of a psi was removed and that is an irrelevant amount. Fifth, the balls measured as they were expected as per the gauge the ref said he used and therefore there was no reason for any suspicion in the first place except for pure ignorance.
Trust me, it's weak. And, for the record, "no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner" is what I've been saying all along, which you've been disagreeing with.
Trust you?! A week ago you had no clue about the science after more than six months of expressing your opinion about the subject and I had to correct you. You incorrectly thought it was impossible that science could even explain a 1.1 psi drop. I worked it out myself back in January. It's so easy to calculate and you still had it wrong. So, no I do not trust you.
I'm supposed to trust a guy who failed at a middle school science problem who he had over six months to figure out over myself, Ivy league deans, physics professors, world renowned staticians, and chemistry Nobel Laureates? Thanks for the laugh.
I think we've already established that your trust on this issue is based on whether a claim supports the pats even half as much as you think it does. It's true that I didn't consider the effect of atmospheric pressure in my *initial* calculation, it's equally obvious that you don't know much about what you're discussing.
To summarize that report, the guy claimed that the colts balls had higher PSIs that the pats balls because the air in them had warmed more, didn't offer any explanation whatsoever as to why that pattern wasn't apparent in the pats balls (the balls measured last had less pressure than most of the balls measured before them), and then simply declared the amount of under-inflation in the pats balls to be "statistically insignificant". This seems to have escaped your attention, apparently you didn't read that on the internet (oops, I mean work it out yourself).
It's true that after seven months of writing your opinions, you still had not considered atmospheric pressure? Nothing after that is worth reading. Sorry, but you do not match up with the people whose work your are criticizing, not even close. You do not pass 8th grade science.
And honestly, everything you wrote is wrong. I don't mean to be a jerk, it just is. The video I posted as well as the very many high end intellectuals who have written on the subject have adressed every thing you just questioned. They did not just declare things to be scientifically insignificant, they used common practice standards as was explained in that video and by so many others.
-
When the 2 pounds report, the deflator text and the ballboy in the bathroom were reported, I thought the pats did it.
Then two things happened. The actual measurements came out and the drop could be explained by the ideal gas law.
But the text and the bathroom visit still looms and the coincidence is tough to swallow.
So let's say that brady conspired in the scheme, that means that either:
A) the deflator takes the balls in the bathroom and decides that for some reason he's not going to take air out this time
B) the deflator takes maaaybe .01 out of the balls
If you believe in the ideal gas law AND you believe that brady is guilty then you must believe in A or B. So which is it?
Option B is ridiculous.
Option A means there is no violation, at least for this game.
Is there an option C? What am I missing?
That's only if you believe that the Wells report got it wrong regarding which gauge was used, and if you further assume that environmental factors led to over 25% of the balls still being outside the scientific range.
I've already explained the valid and expected reasons why some balls would fall below the range and that overall, or on average, the measurements of the balls fell within the expected range.
Exponent's logic to determine the gauge was totaly flawed. They found that since the non logo gauge was closer to a master gauge that it was more likely the non logo gauge was used despite what Walt Anderson said. They also bought a dozen or more store bought gauges which measured closer to the non logo gauge. Of course all the gauges they bought coincidentally was the exact same model as the non logo gauge. ::)
Here's why that logic is flawed. They chose not to test either the Patriots or Colt's gauge and they don't know which gauge they were closer to. Also, even if both the Colts' and the Pats' gauges were perfectly aligned with the master gauge, it still tells you nothing. If it was just 3 degrees warmer in the rooms they set the balls, it would be more likely that the logo gauge was used. Keep in mind that the room the ref measured the balls in pregame was set to 67-71 while the locker room they measured the balls at half time was 71-74.
I find their logic extremely suspicious and here's why. If you want to make your best estimation to which gauge was used, you would obtain the Colt's and the Pats gauge, talk to the equipment managers about their process of preparing the balls including rubbing them down which raises psi and when they set the psi level relative to that. And as I already pointed out, check the thermostats of the rooms it was done in.
Both Wells and Exponent pointed out that the process I mentioned was irrelevant to determine the starting psi level of the footballs because the ref did not measure them for an hour after the balls were delivered to him. And that's correct. But it is very relevant to determine which gauge was used which was imperative to the report. Why or how did they overlook this? Exponent is smart, so how could they overlook something so very obvious in replace of such a flawed methodology? Because they were not interested in getting facts, but proving a certain narrative. They made several mistakes, some obvious to any thinking non scientist and some less obvious that were caught by scientists and staticians. What?? How could I make such an accusation? Exponent is infamous for exactly this. They are currently in contempt of court (maybe not the right terminology) for refusing to support their work which a judge thought was bunk.
If you want to understand the science and Exponent's biggest mistake in logic, watch this video. (You can also read Steve McIntyre's blog.)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx0P3NErcNo
It breaks down the science very well and points out that the balls most likely weren't tampered with. It also points out that the worst case scenario, only about 0.35 psi was removed which isn't enough for a human to notice, therefore is absurd. Hmmm, that number sounds familiar (the calibration difference between the two gauges). Especially when running such a risky scheme using a part time, minimum wage, obese employee who acts like a clown.
That's a pretty weak ob of breaking down the science, and even at that he points out that the balls *most likely* weren't tampered with. You keep reading these questionable reports and deciding that "most likely" means "definitely". It doesn't.
What? It's not weak. First of all, I figured most of this out myself when I read the report. Second of all, I can point you to many other scientific breakdowns. Third, no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner. Fourth, the worst case, unlikely scenario, even according to Exponent, was that only a few tenths of a psi was removed and that is an irrelevant amount. Fifth, the balls measured as they were expected as per the gauge the ref said he used and therefore there was no reason for any suspicion in the first place except for pure ignorance.
Trust me, it's weak. And, for the record, "no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner" is what I've been saying all along, which you've been disagreeing with.
Trust you?! A week ago you had no clue about the science after more than six months of expressing your opinion about the subject and I had to correct you. You incorrectly thought it was impossible that science could even explain a 1.1 psi drop. I worked it out myself back in January. It's so easy to calculate and you still had it wrong. So, no I do not trust you.
I'm supposed to trust a guy who failed at a middle school science problem who he had over six months to figure out over myself, Ivy league deans, physics professors, world renowned staticians, and chemistry Nobel Laureates? Thanks for the laugh.
I think we've already established that your trust on this issue is based on whether a claim supports the pats even half as much as you think it does. It's true that I didn't consider the effect of atmospheric pressure in my *initial* calculation, it's equally obvious that you don't know much about what you're discussing.
To summarize that report, the guy claimed that the colts balls had higher PSIs that the pats balls because the air in them had warmed more, didn't offer any explanation whatsoever as to why that pattern wasn't apparent in the pats balls (the balls measured last had less pressure than most of the balls measured before them), and then simply declared the amount of under-inflation in the pats balls to be "statistically insignificant". This seems to have escaped your attention, apparently you didn't read that on the internet (oops, I mean work it out yourself).
It's true that after seven months of writing your opinions, you still had not considered atmospheric pressure? Nothing after that is worth reading. Sorry, but you do not match up with the people whose work your are criticizing, not even close. You do not pass 8th grade science.
When you get a chance, have someone explain what the word "initial" means. Hopefully someone from the pro-Brady camp, so you'll be more willing to listen to them. The only comment that I made before that was that the nfl would never be able to determine what happened based on their measurements, which is certainly the case.
And honestly, everything you wrote is wrong. I don't mean to be a jerk, it just is. The video I posted as well as they very many high end intellectuals who have written on the subject have adressed every thing you just questioned. They did not just declare things to be scientifically insignificant, they used common practice standards as was explained in that video and by so many others.
Ok, I'll bite. What was the explanation (from the video) for why the pats balls didn't follow the expected pattern of balls being measured later having higher psi than the pats balls measured earlier (when they were colder)?
-
precisely (tinfoil hat, activate!), plus everything gets the -Gate suffix. It's beyond passe at this point.
While it's beyond passe, the "people get into more trouble for the cover-up than the crime" aspect never gets old. It's practically unavoidable.
-
So, as part of the appeals process, Brady submits some emails completely unrelated to deflategate (in an effort to convince people he's trying to cooperate). Since they were made public (as the rest of the appeal was), he can now claim that he was right to not turn over texts because they'd obviously be leaked, and he was understandably worried that all of his personal (non deflate-gate related) texts, which the investigation *never asked to have* would also be leaked? I hope nobody's seeing anything else when they look at that.
The email release was ordered by Judge Berman, wasn't it?
Yeah but that didnt fit Tim's narrative.
But anyways I am so sick of this. Brady clearly had some level of guilt. But I still find the punishment imposed on the Patriots egregious. A first round pick when the Wells report specifically exonerates Kraft and Bellicheck? I get a 4 game Brady suspension but I dont get that.
I don't really see what his comment (or yours) have to do with the part of my post that was bolded. Why would Brady turn over texts about a pool cover in response to a request for texts related to deflate-gate? Why would anyone consider that to be cooperation?
"To try and reconcile the record and fully cooperate with the investigation after I was disciplined in May, we turned over detailed pages of cell phone records and all of the emails that Mr. Wells requested,” Brady wrote. “We even contacted the phone company to see if there was any possible way we could retrieve any/all of the actual text messages from my old phone. In short, we exhausted every possibility to give the NFL everything we could and offered to go thru the identity for every text and phone call during the relevant time. Regardless, the NFL knows that Mr. Wells already had ALL relevant communications with Patriots personnel that either Mr. Wells saw or that I was questioned about in my appeal hearing.” http://larrybrownsports.com/football/tom-brady-turned-over-emails-cell-phone-records/268756
"On June 3 his forensic examiner catalogued all 5,317 emails Brady sent or received between Sept. 1, 2014 and March 1, 2015. These emails were searched for the following terms:
k-ball, kball, gage, air-pump, airpump, needle, pin, PSI, pounds per square inch, 12.5, bladder, McNally, Bird, 1 pound, 1 lb, one pound, one lb, 2 pound, 2 lb, two pound, two lb, gaug* [the * means that all variations of “gaug” were included, such as gauge, gauging, gauged etc.], pump*, inflat*, deflat*, (game OR kick*) ball ~2 [this means Brady’s emails were searched to see whether the words “game” or “kick*” were found within two words of “ball”], (prep* OR rub*) AND (ball OR football) ~10, (investigat* OR meet* OR discuss* OR question) AND (championship OR Jan* 18 OR 1/18), investigat* AND (ball OR football OR Ind* OR Colts) ~10, (equilib* OR atmosphere* OR climat* OR environment* OR test* OR experiment) AND (ball OR football) ~10". http://deadspin.com/the-full-story-of-tom-bradys-destroyed-cell-phone-1722190784
pump* is in the pool cover e-mail
Ok, so they were in "flood the investigation with reams of irrelevant data" mode after destroying the data that was requested. Got it.
But how does that fit in with his refusal to comply with the investigation's original request because of the precedent it would set?
From the hearing Ted Wells testified “I did not tell Mr Brady at any time that he would be subject to punishment for not giving … not turning over the documents. I did not say anything like that."
Also from the hearing, there is this exchange between Kessler and Brady
Q. During that time, did they ever tell you that if you didn't turn over some texts or e-mails or respond to that that you were going to be disciplined in any way, you know, that you were going to be violating some, you know, specific policy about that or anything like that? Did they ever tell you that?
A. No.
Q. If you had been informed by them and they said look, this is your duty to cooperate, would you then have produced them no matter what your agents and your counsel said?
A. Yes.
I don't get the expectation that every request from the investigation needs to be accompanied by a statement about any possible punishments for failure to comply with it. Wouldn't you expect at least some of that responsibility to fall on his own counsel?
No. There was no legal obligation to turn over the phone or to provide electronic communication. It was a basic discovery dispute that Wells did not challenge. It's not the lawyers fault the NFL would use such nonsensical reasoning to determine guilt in absence of real evidence that would be thrown out of every court in the country.
This wasn't a court of law. There was no claim that it was, and the punishment was based on conclusions that contained phrases like "more likely than not". You're trying to apply standards that apparently don't fit the situation.
And while there was no "legal" obligation to provide the electronic communication, the nfl had apparently punished a player in the past for a lack of cooperation, so it should have been clear that there could be consequences for that action.
If it was "clear", it would've been spelled out. Heck, the NFL can't even get it straight with this notion.
So you're saying, for the sake of clarity, that every single request the nfl makes would come with a list of possible punishments for failing to comply? I don't think that's very realistic. I'd guess that before Brady refused the request, he'd have consulted with someone who was in some way representing his interests. Whoever that was should have looked into the issue before advising him.
What were they supposed to look into? The only time someone was fined for not handing over their cell phone was when Brett Favre was fine $50,000 for sending young female NFL employees pictures of his penis from his cell phone which was obviously the center of that case. How were they supposed to know that it would lead to a $1 million fine, a first and fourth round pick to the team, and a four game suspension for Brady?
Wells testified that he did not tell them that failure to produce the phone would penalize them, nevermind be the primary factor in these punishments. The NFL is making things up as they go along as well as telling many lies. There is no way to deal with that.
I don't think that the team's punishment was wholly based on Brady not cooperating with the investigation. Beyond that, though, since Favre had been punished for not cooperating with an investigation, Brady's advisers should have known that there could have been repercussions for not turning over the texts and informed Brady of that.
I'm sure the notion of a fine for not cooperating was breached. (See $50,000 for Favre is that particular incident). However, I'm not sure anyone realized the NFL was gonna make things up on the fly and throw a 4 game suspension at him without pay. Which is going to cost a helluva lot more than $50,000.
Brady settles for a fine. Pretty sure of that.
So if Brady's advisers told him that he might get fined, then you'd have to fault them for telling Brady he wouldn't get more of a punishment than that without checking into the situation. You'd also have to wonder how accurate Brady's "I had no idea you could get punished for that" claim was.
Tim, there isn't a precedent for this. There is nothing even close. You have the benefit of 20/20 here. Are they going to outline every possible scenario under the sun ever conceived or spell out ramifications based on NFL precedent? The NFL made up things on the fly here and have continually "moved the goal posts" based on the timeline of events.
That's why this whole sham of a process is in a federal court right now.
Yes, the punishments were shocking. But that's not really the same as "nobody's ever been punished for that before" which I've heard a lot (not from you).
-
When the 2 pounds report, the deflator text and the ballboy in the bathroom were reported, I thought the pats did it.
Then two things happened. The actual measurements came out and the drop could be explained by the ideal gas law.
But the text and the bathroom visit still looms and the coincidence is tough to swallow.
So let's say that brady conspired in the scheme, that means that either:
A) the deflator takes the balls in the bathroom and decides that for some reason he's not going to take air out this time
B) the deflator takes maaaybe .01 out of the balls
If you believe in the ideal gas law AND you believe that brady is guilty then you must believe in A or B. So which is it?
Option B is ridiculous.
Option A means there is no violation, at least for this game.
Is there an option C? What am I missing?
That's only if you believe that the Wells report got it wrong regarding which gauge was used, and if you further assume that environmental factors led to over 25% of the balls still being outside the scientific range.
I've already explained the valid and expected reasons why some balls would fall below the range and that overall, or on average, the measurements of the balls fell within the expected range.
Exponent's logic to determine the gauge was totaly flawed. They found that since the non logo gauge was closer to a master gauge that it was more likely the non logo gauge was used despite what Walt Anderson said. They also bought a dozen or more store bought gauges which measured closer to the non logo gauge. Of course all the gauges they bought coincidentally was the exact same model as the non logo gauge. ::)
Here's why that logic is flawed. They chose not to test either the Patriots or Colt's gauge and they don't know which gauge they were closer to. Also, even if both the Colts' and the Pats' gauges were perfectly aligned with the master gauge, it still tells you nothing. If it was just 3 degrees warmer in the rooms they set the balls, it would be more likely that the logo gauge was used. Keep in mind that the room the ref measured the balls in pregame was set to 67-71 while the locker room they measured the balls at half time was 71-74.
I find their logic extremely suspicious and here's why. If you want to make your best estimation to which gauge was used, you would obtain the Colt's and the Pats gauge, talk to the equipment managers about their process of preparing the balls including rubbing them down which raises psi and when they set the psi level relative to that. And as I already pointed out, check the thermostats of the rooms it was done in.
Both Wells and Exponent pointed out that the process I mentioned was irrelevant to determine the starting psi level of the footballs because the ref did not measure them for an hour after the balls were delivered to him. And that's correct. But it is very relevant to determine which gauge was used which was imperative to the report. Why or how did they overlook this? Exponent is smart, so how could they overlook something so very obvious in replace of such a flawed methodology? Because they were not interested in getting facts, but proving a certain narrative. They made several mistakes, some obvious to any thinking non scientist and some less obvious that were caught by scientists and staticians. What?? How could I make such an accusation? Exponent is infamous for exactly this. They are currently in contempt of court (maybe not the right terminology) for refusing to support their work which a judge thought was bunk.
If you want to understand the science and Exponent's biggest mistake in logic, watch this video. (You can also read Steve McIntyre's blog.)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx0P3NErcNo
It breaks down the science very well and points out that the balls most likely weren't tampered with. It also points out that the worst case scenario, only about 0.35 psi was removed which isn't enough for a human to notice, therefore is absurd. Hmmm, that number sounds familiar (the calibration difference between the two gauges). Especially when running such a risky scheme using a part time, minimum wage, obese employee who acts like a clown.
That's a pretty weak ob of breaking down the science, and even at that he points out that the balls *most likely* weren't tampered with. You keep reading these questionable reports and deciding that "most likely" means "definitely". It doesn't.
What? It's not weak. First of all, I figured most of this out myself when I read the report. Second of all, I can point you to many other scientific breakdowns. Third, no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner. Fourth, the worst case, unlikely scenario, even according to Exponent, was that only a few tenths of a psi was removed and that is an irrelevant amount. Fifth, the balls measured as they were expected as per the gauge the ref said he used and therefore there was no reason for any suspicion in the first place except for pure ignorance.
Trust me, it's weak. And, for the record, "no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner" is what I've been saying all along, which you've been disagreeing with.
Trust you?! A week ago you had no clue about the science after more than six months of expressing your opinion about the subject and I had to correct you. You incorrectly thought it was impossible that science could even explain a 1.1 psi drop. I worked it out myself back in January. It's so easy to calculate and you still had it wrong. So, no I do not trust you.
I'm supposed to trust a guy who failed at a middle school science problem who he had over six months to figure out over myself, Ivy league deans, physics professors, world renowned staticians, and chemistry Nobel Laureates? Thanks for the laugh.
I think we've already established that your trust on this issue is based on whether a claim supports the pats even half as much as you think it does. It's true that I didn't consider the effect of atmospheric pressure in my *initial* calculation, it's equally obvious that you don't know much about what you're discussing.
To summarize that report, the guy claimed that the colts balls had higher PSIs that the pats balls because the air in them had warmed more, didn't offer any explanation whatsoever as to why that pattern wasn't apparent in the pats balls (the balls measured last had less pressure than most of the balls measured before them), and then simply declared the amount of under-inflation in the pats balls to be "statistically insignificant". This seems to have escaped your attention, apparently you didn't read that on the internet (oops, I mean work it out yourself).
It's true that after seven months of writing your opinions, you still had not considered atmospheric pressure? Nothing after that is worth reading. Sorry, but you do not match up with the people whose work your are criticizing, not even close. You do not pass 8th grade science.
When you get a chance, have someone explain what the word "initial" means. Hopefully someone from the pro-Brady camp, so you'll be more willing to listen to them. The only comment that I made before that was that the nfl would never be able to determine what happened based on their measurements, which has certainly the case.
And honestly, everything you wrote is wrong. I don't mean to be a jerk, it just is. The video I posted as well as they very many high end intellectuals who have written on the subject have adressed every thing you just questioned. They did not just declare things to be scientifically insignificant, they used common practice standards as was explained in that video and by so many others.
Ok, I'll bite. What was the explanation (from the video) for why the pats balls didn't follow the expected pattern of balls being measured later having higher psi than the pats balls measured earlier (when they were colder)?
Initial: existing or occurring at the beginning. We are now six plus months into this and you have written your opionions many, many times before understanding your "initial" mistake. We are well beyond "initial" and if I did not correct you, you would still be pushing your wrong "initial" "calculations".
The video gave 4 scenarios for explanations for the ball pressures. Obviously, you did not watch the whole video. Two scenarios by two scenarios. Order of measurements: Pats balls measured, Pats balls inflated, Colts balls measured; Pats balls measured, Colts balls measured, Pats balls inflated. Calculated for both the logo and non logo gauge. (You seriously did not watch the video you are criticizing. Why I'm explaining this two you, I dont know since will just make something else up.) The video created 4 quadrants for the 4 scenarios. They found that under 3 of the scenarios, the balls measured within the range of statistical significance. Only under the non logo gauge, Pats balls measured, Colts balls measured, Pats balls inflated scenario did the Pats ball fall outside of statistical significance. And in that scenario, the Patriots balls fell 0.35 psi outside of range. Of course this scenario means the ref was wrong about which gauge he used, the refs were misleading when they said they ran out of time measuring the Colts balls, and it doesn't make any sense since the 0.35psi is not noticeable to the human touch (and coincidentally the difference between the calibibration difference between the two gauges, hmmm).
Sigh, what's next? Smh.
-
An interesting article:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/07/opinions/dowd-nfl-brady-investigation/?iid=ob_article_footer_expansion&iref=obnetwork (http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/07/opinions/dowd-nfl-brady-investigation/?iid=ob_article_footer_expansion&iref=obnetwork)
By:
John M. Dowd served as Special Counsel to three commissioners of Major League Baseball in the investigations of Pete Rose, George Steinbrenner, and others. As a federal prosecutor, he conducted the internal investigation of the FBI and of Congressman Dan Flood of Pennsylvania. He is also the author of is the author of www.DeflategateFacts.com. The views expressed are his own.
Not sure if Mr. Dowd has a reason for any bias in this but he has pretty strong opinions.
By telling Brady they didn't "want to take access" to his cellphone, the league effectively set Brady up for an ambush when he was unable to produce it upon appeal. By failing to notify Brady that not producing his phone would result in discipline for non-cooperation, the league denied him his fundamental right to a notice of charge and the right to defend against it. And by repeatedly shifting its goal posts on what was expected of him -- and what could be used against him -- the NFL's investigation lost its fairness and integrity.
and
The NFL's fundamental failure to conduct an expeditious, fair, honest and consistent approach to rules enforcement undermines the entire game. The league needs to reconsider its suspension of Tom Brady, and use this unfortunate episode as an opportunity to correct a terrible injustice to one the greatest quarterbacks in NFL history.
And on the question of precedent for being penalized for noncooperation, he clarifies this:
No player has ever been suspended for failing to cooperate before.
Players have been penalized (fined) but never suspended.
-
Details on that Jim Turner lawsuit filed earlier today (former Dolphins coach). Where have we seen this headline before? :P
Jim Turner’s lawyer accuses Ted Wells of giving NFL what it wanted
NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith has described the outcome of the league’s “independent” investigation of the Patriots as the client getting what the client wanted. Former Dolphins offensive line coach Jim Turner believes that’s not the first time this has happened.
In a press release issued Monday regarding Turner’s suit against Ted Wells and the Paul, Weiss law firm, Turner accuses Wells of “echo[ing] the NFL’s predetermined conclusion that [Jonathan] Martin was the innocent victim of bullying and harassment and ignored and mischaracterized what really occurred in the Dolphins locker room.”
(Patriots fans are currently sporting their shocked faces.)
Turner, through lawyer Peter Ginsberg, contends that the NFL’s investigation had more to do with responding to public pressure than getting to the truth, and that the NFL “could not afford to be perceived as insensitive or unwilling to take harassment seriously.”
Turner specifically claims that Wells and his firm “withheld and ignored key information from the final Report, including testimony and potential testimony of several former and current Dolphins players and coaches.” Turner contends that Wells and his firm “falsely accused [Turner] of helping to create the atmosphere that allowed bullying and harassment to happen.”
Said Ginsberg to close the press release: “The Defendants, reflecting the NFL’s and Commissioner Goodell’s mindset, ignored and simply did not care that they were sacrificing the reputations and careers of people like Jim Turner in order to fashion a public relations campaign designed solely to ‘protect the shield.’ It takes someone like Jim, with courage and conviction, to stand up against the NFL machine and its law firm hired guns.”
It indeed takes plenty of courage for Turner to do this, because filing a lawsuit definitely not one of the steps for getting back into the NFL. With more than a full year passed since Turner was fired by the Dolphins, that’s apparently not happening anyway. So why not fight back?
-
An interesting article:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/07/opinions/dowd-nfl-brady-investigation/?iid=ob_article_footer_expansion&iref=obnetwork (http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/07/opinions/dowd-nfl-brady-investigation/?iid=ob_article_footer_expansion&iref=obnetwork)
By:
John M. Dowd served as Special Counsel to three commissioners of Major League Baseball in the investigations of Pete Rose, George Steinbrenner, and others. As a federal prosecutor, he conducted the internal investigation of the FBI and of Congressman Dan Flood of Pennsylvania. He is also the author of is the author of www.DeflategateFacts.com. The views expressed are his own.
Not sure if Mr. Dowd has a reason for any bias in this but he has pretty strong opinions.
By telling Brady they didn't "want to take access" to his cellphone, the league effectively set Brady up for an ambush when he was unable to produce it upon appeal. By failing to notify Brady that not producing his phone would result in discipline for non-cooperation, the league denied him his fundamental right to a notice of charge and the right to defend against it. And by repeatedly shifting its goal posts on what was expected of him -- and what could be used against him -- the NFL's investigation lost its fairness and integrity.
and
The NFL's fundamental failure to conduct an expeditious, fair, honest and consistent approach to rules enforcement undermines the entire game. The league needs to reconsider its suspension of Tom Brady, and use this unfortunate episode as an opportunity to correct a terrible injustice to one the greatest quarterbacks in NFL history.
And on the question of precedent for being penalized for noncooperation, he clarifies this:
No player has ever been suspended for failing to cooperate before.
Players have been penalized (fined) but never suspended.
I believe Dowd said he is a Steelers fan. He's just outraged by the awful work of someone who also works in this limited field. It's a good article, but his website on the subject is even better. http://www.deflategatefacts.com
-
Yeah, Dowd has come out and said he's a Steelers fan so that Pats bias cry can go out the window on this one.
-
For the record, Ballghazi is a better name than DeflateGate.
Sure, and you've got the Brady phone/Hillary email server parallel.
And there's the breakthrough. Brady didn't toss his phone because he had naked pictures of Gisele, but rather, because he was having an affair with Hillary. Knowing that his hot texts with HC would become public and remembering what Elin Nordegren did to Tiger's car, he dumped the phone. And Hillary Clinton, knowing that government emails would be retained, used her personal email accounts.
Mike
-
When the 2 pounds report, the deflator text and the ballboy in the bathroom were reported, I thought the pats did it.
Then two things happened. The actual measurements came out and the drop could be explained by the ideal gas law.
But the text and the bathroom visit still looms and the coincidence is tough to swallow.
So let's say that brady conspired in the scheme, that means that either:
A) the deflator takes the balls in the bathroom and decides that for some reason he's not going to take air out this time
B) the deflator takes maaaybe .01 out of the balls
If you believe in the ideal gas law AND you believe that brady is guilty then you must believe in A or B. So which is it?
Option B is ridiculous.
Option A means there is no violation, at least for this game.
Is there an option C? What am I missing?
That's only if you believe that the Wells report got it wrong regarding which gauge was used, and if you further assume that environmental factors led to over 25% of the balls still being outside the scientific range.
I've already explained the valid and expected reasons why some balls would fall below the range and that overall, or on average, the measurements of the balls fell within the expected range.
Exponent's logic to determine the gauge was totaly flawed. They found that since the non logo gauge was closer to a master gauge that it was more likely the non logo gauge was used despite what Walt Anderson said. They also bought a dozen or more store bought gauges which measured closer to the non logo gauge. Of course all the gauges they bought coincidentally was the exact same model as the non logo gauge. ::)
Here's why that logic is flawed. They chose not to test either the Patriots or Colt's gauge and they don't know which gauge they were closer to. Also, even if both the Colts' and the Pats' gauges were perfectly aligned with the master gauge, it still tells you nothing. If it was just 3 degrees warmer in the rooms they set the balls, it would be more likely that the logo gauge was used. Keep in mind that the room the ref measured the balls in pregame was set to 67-71 while the locker room they measured the balls at half time was 71-74.
I find their logic extremely suspicious and here's why. If you want to make your best estimation to which gauge was used, you would obtain the Colt's and the Pats gauge, talk to the equipment managers about their process of preparing the balls including rubbing them down which raises psi and when they set the psi level relative to that. And as I already pointed out, check the thermostats of the rooms it was done in.
Both Wells and Exponent pointed out that the process I mentioned was irrelevant to determine the starting psi level of the footballs because the ref did not measure them for an hour after the balls were delivered to him. And that's correct. But it is very relevant to determine which gauge was used which was imperative to the report. Why or how did they overlook this? Exponent is smart, so how could they overlook something so very obvious in replace of such a flawed methodology? Because they were not interested in getting facts, but proving a certain narrative. They made several mistakes, some obvious to any thinking non scientist and some less obvious that were caught by scientists and staticians. What?? How could I make such an accusation? Exponent is infamous for exactly this. They are currently in contempt of court (maybe not the right terminology) for refusing to support their work which a judge thought was bunk.
If you want to understand the science and Exponent's biggest mistake in logic, watch this video. (You can also read Steve McIntyre's blog.)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx0P3NErcNo
It breaks down the science very well and points out that the balls most likely weren't tampered with. It also points out that the worst case scenario, only about 0.35 psi was removed which isn't enough for a human to notice, therefore is absurd. Hmmm, that number sounds familiar (the calibration difference between the two gauges). Especially when running such a risky scheme using a part time, minimum wage, obese employee who acts like a clown.
That's a pretty weak ob of breaking down the science, and even at that he points out that the balls *most likely* weren't tampered with. You keep reading these questionable reports and deciding that "most likely" means "definitely". It doesn't.
What? It's not weak. First of all, I figured most of this out myself when I read the report. Second of all, I can point you to many other scientific breakdowns. Third, no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner. Fourth, the worst case, unlikely scenario, even according to Exponent, was that only a few tenths of a psi was removed and that is an irrelevant amount. Fifth, the balls measured as they were expected as per the gauge the ref said he used and therefore there was no reason for any suspicion in the first place except for pure ignorance.
Trust me, it's weak. And, for the record, "no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner" is what I've been saying all along, which you've been disagreeing with.
Trust you?! A week ago you had no clue about the science after more than six months of expressing your opinion about the subject and I had to correct you. You incorrectly thought it was impossible that science could even explain a 1.1 psi drop. I worked it out myself back in January. It's so easy to calculate and you still had it wrong. So, no I do not trust you.
I'm supposed to trust a guy who failed at a middle school science problem who he had over six months to figure out over myself, Ivy league deans, physics professors, world renowned staticians, and chemistry Nobel Laureates? Thanks for the laugh.
I think we've already established that your trust on this issue is based on whether a claim supports the pats even half as much as you think it does. It's true that I didn't consider the effect of atmospheric pressure in my *initial* calculation, it's equally obvious that you don't know much about what you're discussing.
To summarize that report, the guy claimed that the colts balls had higher PSIs that the pats balls because the air in them had warmed more, didn't offer any explanation whatsoever as to why that pattern wasn't apparent in the pats balls (the balls measured last had less pressure than most of the balls measured before them), and then simply declared the amount of under-inflation in the pats balls to be "statistically insignificant". This seems to have escaped your attention, apparently you didn't read that on the internet (oops, I mean work it out yourself).
It's true that after seven months of writing your opinions, you still had not considered atmospheric pressure? Nothing after that is worth reading. Sorry, but you do not match up with the people whose work your are criticizing, not even close. You do not pass 8th grade science.
When you get a chance, have someone explain what the word "initial" means. Hopefully someone from the pro-Brady camp, so you'll be more willing to listen to them. The only comment that I made before that was that the nfl would never be able to determine what happened based on their measurements, which has certainly the case.
And honestly, everything you wrote is wrong. I don't mean to be a jerk, it just is. The video I posted as well as they very many high end intellectuals who have written on the subject have adressed every thing you just questioned. They did not just declare things to be scientifically insignificant, they used common practice standards as was explained in that video and by so many others.
Ok, I'll bite. What was the explanation (from the video) for why the pats balls didn't follow the expected pattern of balls being measured later having higher psi than the pats balls measured earlier (when they were colder)?
Initial: existing or occurring at the beginning. We are now six plus months into this and you have written your opionions many, many times before understanding your "initial" mistake. We are well beyond "initial" and if I did not correct you, you would still be pushing your wrong "initial" "calculations".
You stopped too early when you went to learn what initial means. It also means first, as in "the first time I calculated psi loss". I haven't spent the last months writing my opinions on this, you're just making things up.
The video gave 4 scenarios for explanations for the ball pressures. Obviously, you did not watch the whole video. Two scenarios by two scenarios. Order of measurements: Pats balls measured, Pats balls inflated, Colts balls measured; Pats balls measured, Colts balls measured, Pats balls inflated. Calculated for both the logo and non logo gauge. (You seriously did not watch the video you are criticizing. Why I'm explaining this two you, I dont know since will just make something else up.) The video created 4 quadrants for the 4 scenarios. They found that under 3 of the scenarios, the balls measured within the range of statistical significance. Only under the non logo gauge, Pats balls measured, Colts balls measured, Pats balls inflated scenario did the Pats ball fall outside of statistical significance. And in that scenario, the Patriots balls fell 0.35 psi outside of range. Of course this scenario means the ref was wrong about which gauge he used, the refs were misleading when they said they ran out of time measuring the Colts balls, and it doesn't make any sense since the 0.35psi is not noticeable to the human touch (and coincidentally the difference between the calibibration difference between the two gauges, hmmm).
So in other words, no explanation at all about why the pats balls didn't follow the same pattern as the colts balls (the predicted pattern), just a claim that the under-inflation was statistically insignificant. Which is what I said, if you can remember that far back.
-
For the record, Ballghazi is a better name than DeflateGate.
Sure, and you've got the Brady phone/Hillary email server parallel.
And there's the breakthrough. Brady didn't toss his phone because he had naked pictures of Gisele, but rather, because he was having an affair with Hillary. Knowing that his hot texts with HC would become public and remembering what Elin Nordegren did to Tiger's car, he dumped the phone. And Hillary Clinton, knowing that government emails would be retained, used her personal email accounts.
Mike
Apparently he tossed it because he's foolish enough to download a bunch of contracts onto it and leave them there.
-
When the 2 pounds report, the deflator text and the ballboy in the bathroom were reported, I thought the pats did it.
Then two things happened. The actual measurements came out and the drop could be explained by the ideal gas law.
But the text and the bathroom visit still looms and the coincidence is tough to swallow.
So let's say that brady conspired in the scheme, that means that either:
A) the deflator takes the balls in the bathroom and decides that for some reason he's not going to take air out this time
B) the deflator takes maaaybe .01 out of the balls
If you believe in the ideal gas law AND you believe that brady is guilty then you must believe in A or B. So which is it?
Option B is ridiculous.
Option A means there is no violation, at least for this game.
Is there an option C? What am I missing?
That's only if you believe that the Wells report got it wrong regarding which gauge was used, and if you further assume that environmental factors led to over 25% of the balls still being outside the scientific range.
I've already explained the valid and expected reasons why some balls would fall below the range and that overall, or on average, the measurements of the balls fell within the expected range.
Exponent's logic to determine the gauge was totaly flawed. They found that since the non logo gauge was closer to a master gauge that it was more likely the non logo gauge was used despite what Walt Anderson said. They also bought a dozen or more store bought gauges which measured closer to the non logo gauge. Of course all the gauges they bought coincidentally was the exact same model as the non logo gauge. ::)
Here's why that logic is flawed. They chose not to test either the Patriots or Colt's gauge and they don't know which gauge they were closer to. Also, even if both the Colts' and the Pats' gauges were perfectly aligned with the master gauge, it still tells you nothing. If it was just 3 degrees warmer in the rooms they set the balls, it would be more likely that the logo gauge was used. Keep in mind that the room the ref measured the balls in pregame was set to 67-71 while the locker room they measured the balls at half time was 71-74.
I find their logic extremely suspicious and here's why. If you want to make your best estimation to which gauge was used, you would obtain the Colt's and the Pats gauge, talk to the equipment managers about their process of preparing the balls including rubbing them down which raises psi and when they set the psi level relative to that. And as I already pointed out, check the thermostats of the rooms it was done in.
Both Wells and Exponent pointed out that the process I mentioned was irrelevant to determine the starting psi level of the footballs because the ref did not measure them for an hour after the balls were delivered to him. And that's correct. But it is very relevant to determine which gauge was used which was imperative to the report. Why or how did they overlook this? Exponent is smart, so how could they overlook something so very obvious in replace of such a flawed methodology? Because they were not interested in getting facts, but proving a certain narrative. They made several mistakes, some obvious to any thinking non scientist and some less obvious that were caught by scientists and staticians. What?? How could I make such an accusation? Exponent is infamous for exactly this. They are currently in contempt of court (maybe not the right terminology) for refusing to support their work which a judge thought was bunk.
If you want to understand the science and Exponent's biggest mistake in logic, watch this video. (You can also read Steve McIntyre's blog.)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx0P3NErcNo
It breaks down the science very well and points out that the balls most likely weren't tampered with. It also points out that the worst case scenario, only about 0.35 psi was removed which isn't enough for a human to notice, therefore is absurd. Hmmm, that number sounds familiar (the calibration difference between the two gauges). Especially when running such a risky scheme using a part time, minimum wage, obese employee who acts like a clown.
That's a pretty weak ob of breaking down the science, and even at that he points out that the balls *most likely* weren't tampered with. You keep reading these questionable reports and deciding that "most likely" means "definitely". It doesn't.
What? It's not weak. First of all, I figured most of this out myself when I read the report. Second of all, I can point you to many other scientific breakdowns. Third, no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner. Fourth, the worst case, unlikely scenario, even according to Exponent, was that only a few tenths of a psi was removed and that is an irrelevant amount. Fifth, the balls measured as they were expected as per the gauge the ref said he used and therefore there was no reason for any suspicion in the first place except for pure ignorance.
Trust me, it's weak. And, for the record, "no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner" is what I've been saying all along, which you've been disagreeing with.
Trust you?! A week ago you had no clue about the science after more than six months of expressing your opinion about the subject and I had to correct you. You incorrectly thought it was impossible that science could even explain a 1.1 psi drop. I worked it out myself back in January. It's so easy to calculate and you still had it wrong. So, no I do not trust you.
I'm supposed to trust a guy who failed at a middle school science problem who he had over six months to figure out over myself, Ivy league deans, physics professors, world renowned staticians, and chemistry Nobel Laureates? Thanks for the laugh.
I think we've already established that your trust on this issue is based on whether a claim supports the pats even half as much as you think it does. It's true that I didn't consider the effect of atmospheric pressure in my *initial* calculation, it's equally obvious that you don't know much about what you're discussing.
To summarize that report, the guy claimed that the colts balls had higher PSIs that the pats balls because the air in them had warmed more, didn't offer any explanation whatsoever as to why that pattern wasn't apparent in the pats balls (the balls measured last had less pressure than most of the balls measured before them), and then simply declared the amount of under-inflation in the pats balls to be "statistically insignificant". This seems to have escaped your attention, apparently you didn't read that on the internet (oops, I mean work it out yourself).
It's true that after seven months of writing your opinions, you still had not considered atmospheric pressure? Nothing after that is worth reading. Sorry, but you do not match up with the people whose work your are criticizing, not even close. You do not pass 8th grade science.
When you get a chance, have someone explain what the word "initial" means. Hopefully someone from the pro-Brady camp, so you'll be more willing to listen to them. The only comment that I made before that was that the nfl would never be able to determine what happened based on their measurements, which has certainly the case.
And honestly, everything you wrote is wrong. I don't mean to be a jerk, it just is. The video I posted as well as they very many high end intellectuals who have written on the subject have adressed every thing you just questioned. They did not just declare things to be scientifically insignificant, they used common practice standards as was explained in that video and by so many others.
Ok, I'll bite. What was the explanation (from the video) for why the pats balls didn't follow the expected pattern of balls being measured later having higher psi than the pats balls measured earlier (when they were colder)?
Initial: existing or occurring at the beginning. We are now six plus months into this and you have written your opionions many, many times before understanding your "initial" mistake. We are well beyond "initial" and if I did not correct you, you would still be pushing your wrong "initial" "calculations".
You stopped too early when you went to learn what initial means. It also means first, as in "the first time I calculated psi loss". I haven't spent the last months writing my opinions on this, you're just making things up.
The video gave 4 scenarios for explanations for the ball pressures. Obviously, you did not watch the whole video. Two scenarios by two scenarios. Order of measurements: Pats balls measured, Pats balls inflated, Colts balls measured; Pats balls measured, Colts balls measured, Pats balls inflated. Calculated for both the logo and non logo gauge. (You seriously did not watch the video you are criticizing. Why I'm explaining this two you, I dont know since will just make something else up.) The video created 4 quadrants for the 4 scenarios. They found that under 3 of the scenarios, the balls measured within the range of statistical significance. Only under the non logo gauge, Pats balls measured, Colts balls measured, Pats balls inflated scenario did the Pats ball fall outside of statistical significance. And in that scenario, the Patriots balls fell 0.35 psi outside of range. Of course this scenario means the ref was wrong about which gauge he used, the refs were misleading when they said they ran out of time measuring the Colts balls, and it doesn't make any sense since the 0.35psi is not noticeable to the human touch (and coincidentally the difference between the calibibration difference between the two gauges, hmmm).
So in other words, no explanation at all about why the pats balls didn't follow the same pattern as the colts balls (the predicted pattern), just a claim that the under-inflation was statistically insignificant. Which is what I said, if you can remember that far back.
They did depending on the scenario. I explained it. The video explained it. Good God, man. If only you spent as much time learning as you do writing. Smh.
-
When the 2 pounds report, the deflator text and the ballboy in the bathroom were reported, I thought the pats did it.
Then two things happened. The actual measurements came out and the drop could be explained by the ideal gas law.
But the text and the bathroom visit still looms and the coincidence is tough to swallow.
So let's say that brady conspired in the scheme, that means that either:
A) the deflator takes the balls in the bathroom and decides that for some reason he's not going to take air out this time
B) the deflator takes maaaybe .01 out of the balls
If you believe in the ideal gas law AND you believe that brady is guilty then you must believe in A or B. So which is it?
Option B is ridiculous.
Option A means there is no violation, at least for this game.
Is there an option C? What am I missing?
That's only if you believe that the Wells report got it wrong regarding which gauge was used, and if you further assume that environmental factors led to over 25% of the balls still being outside the scientific range.
I've already explained the valid and expected reasons why some balls would fall below the range and that overall, or on average, the measurements of the balls fell within the expected range.
Exponent's logic to determine the gauge was totaly flawed. They found that since the non logo gauge was closer to a master gauge that it was more likely the non logo gauge was used despite what Walt Anderson said. They also bought a dozen or more store bought gauges which measured closer to the non logo gauge. Of course all the gauges they bought coincidentally was the exact same model as the non logo gauge. ::)
Here's why that logic is flawed. They chose not to test either the Patriots or Colt's gauge and they don't know which gauge they were closer to. Also, even if both the Colts' and the Pats' gauges were perfectly aligned with the master gauge, it still tells you nothing. If it was just 3 degrees warmer in the rooms they set the balls, it would be more likely that the logo gauge was used. Keep in mind that the room the ref measured the balls in pregame was set to 67-71 while the locker room they measured the balls at half time was 71-74.
I find their logic extremely suspicious and here's why. If you want to make your best estimation to which gauge was used, you would obtain the Colt's and the Pats gauge, talk to the equipment managers about their process of preparing the balls including rubbing them down which raises psi and when they set the psi level relative to that. And as I already pointed out, check the thermostats of the rooms it was done in.
Both Wells and Exponent pointed out that the process I mentioned was irrelevant to determine the starting psi level of the footballs because the ref did not measure them for an hour after the balls were delivered to him. And that's correct. But it is very relevant to determine which gauge was used which was imperative to the report. Why or how did they overlook this? Exponent is smart, so how could they overlook something so very obvious in replace of such a flawed methodology? Because they were not interested in getting facts, but proving a certain narrative. They made several mistakes, some obvious to any thinking non scientist and some less obvious that were caught by scientists and staticians. What?? How could I make such an accusation? Exponent is infamous for exactly this. They are currently in contempt of court (maybe not the right terminology) for refusing to support their work which a judge thought was bunk.
If you want to understand the science and Exponent's biggest mistake in logic, watch this video. (You can also read Steve McIntyre's blog.)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx0P3NErcNo
It breaks down the science very well and points out that the balls most likely weren't tampered with. It also points out that the worst case scenario, only about 0.35 psi was removed which isn't enough for a human to notice, therefore is absurd. Hmmm, that number sounds familiar (the calibration difference between the two gauges). Especially when running such a risky scheme using a part time, minimum wage, obese employee who acts like a clown.
That's a pretty weak ob of breaking down the science, and even at that he points out that the balls *most likely* weren't tampered with. You keep reading these questionable reports and deciding that "most likely" means "definitely". It doesn't.
What? It's not weak. First of all, I figured most of this out myself when I read the report. Second of all, I can point you to many other scientific breakdowns. Third, no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner. Fourth, the worst case, unlikely scenario, even according to Exponent, was that only a few tenths of a psi was removed and that is an irrelevant amount. Fifth, the balls measured as they were expected as per the gauge the ref said he used and therefore there was no reason for any suspicion in the first place except for pure ignorance.
Trust me, it's weak. And, for the record, "no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner" is what I've been saying all along, which you've been disagreeing with.
Trust you?! A week ago you had no clue about the science after more than six months of expressing your opinion about the subject and I had to correct you. You incorrectly thought it was impossible that science could even explain a 1.1 psi drop. I worked it out myself back in January. It's so easy to calculate and you still had it wrong. So, no I do not trust you.
I'm supposed to trust a guy who failed at a middle school science problem who he had over six months to figure out over myself, Ivy league deans, physics professors, world renowned staticians, and chemistry Nobel Laureates? Thanks for the laugh.
I think we've already established that your trust on this issue is based on whether a claim supports the pats even half as much as you think it does. It's true that I didn't consider the effect of atmospheric pressure in my *initial* calculation, it's equally obvious that you don't know much about what you're discussing.
To summarize that report, the guy claimed that the colts balls had higher PSIs that the pats balls because the air in them had warmed more, didn't offer any explanation whatsoever as to why that pattern wasn't apparent in the pats balls (the balls measured last had less pressure than most of the balls measured before them), and then simply declared the amount of under-inflation in the pats balls to be "statistically insignificant". This seems to have escaped your attention, apparently you didn't read that on the internet (oops, I mean work it out yourself).
It's true that after seven months of writing your opinions, you still had not considered atmospheric pressure? Nothing after that is worth reading. Sorry, but you do not match up with the people whose work your are criticizing, not even close. You do not pass 8th grade science.
When you get a chance, have someone explain what the word "initial" means. Hopefully someone from the pro-Brady camp, so you'll be more willing to listen to them. The only comment that I made before that was that the nfl would never be able to determine what happened based on their measurements, which has certainly the case.
And honestly, everything you wrote is wrong. I don't mean to be a jerk, it just is. The video I posted as well as they very many high end intellectuals who have written on the subject have adressed every thing you just questioned. They did not just declare things to be scientifically insignificant, they used common practice standards as was explained in that video and by so many others.
Ok, I'll bite. What was the explanation (from the video) for why the pats balls didn't follow the expected pattern of balls being measured later having higher psi than the pats balls measured earlier (when they were colder)?
Initial: existing or occurring at the beginning. We are now six plus months into this and you have written your opionions many, many times before understanding your "initial" mistake. We are well beyond "initial" and if I did not correct you, you would still be pushing your wrong "initial" "calculations".
You stopped too early when you went to learn what initial means. It also means first, as in "the first time I calculated psi loss". I haven't spent the last months writing my opinions on this, you're just making things up.
The video gave 4 scenarios for explanations for the ball pressures. Obviously, you did not watch the whole video. Two scenarios by two scenarios. Order of measurements: Pats balls measured, Pats balls inflated, Colts balls measured; Pats balls measured, Colts balls measured, Pats balls inflated. Calculated for both the logo and non logo gauge. (You seriously did not watch the video you are criticizing. Why I'm explaining this two you, I dont know since will just make something else up.) The video created 4 quadrants for the 4 scenarios. They found that under 3 of the scenarios, the balls measured within the range of statistical significance. Only under the non logo gauge, Pats balls measured, Colts balls measured, Pats balls inflated scenario did the Pats ball fall outside of statistical significance. And in that scenario, the Patriots balls fell 0.35 psi outside of range. Of course this scenario means the ref was wrong about which gauge he used, the refs were misleading when they said they ran out of time measuring the Colts balls, and it doesn't make any sense since the 0.35psi is not noticeable to the human touch (and coincidentally the difference between the calibibration difference between the two gauges, hmmm).
So in other words, no explanation at all about why the pats balls didn't follow the same pattern as the colts balls (the predicted pattern), just a claim that the under-inflation was statistically insignificant. Which is what I said, if you can remember that far back.
They did depending on the scenario. I explained it. The video explained it. Good God, man. If only you spent as much time learning as you do writing. Smh.
If they'd been able to explain it, the explanation would have held for all the scenarios. You didn't explain it either.
-
When the 2 pounds report, the deflator text and the ballboy in the bathroom were reported, I thought the pats did it.
Then two things happened. The actual measurements came out and the drop could be explained by the ideal gas law.
But the text and the bathroom visit still looms and the coincidence is tough to swallow.
So let's say that brady conspired in the scheme, that means that either:
A) the deflator takes the balls in the bathroom and decides that for some reason he's not going to take air out this time
B) the deflator takes maaaybe .01 out of the balls
If you believe in the ideal gas law AND you believe that brady is guilty then you must believe in A or B. So which is it?
Option B is ridiculous.
Option A means there is no violation, at least for this game.
Is there an option C? What am I missing?
That's only if you believe that the Wells report got it wrong regarding which gauge was used, and if you further assume that environmental factors led to over 25% of the balls still being outside the scientific range.
I've already explained the valid and expected reasons why some balls would fall below the range and that overall, or on average, the measurements of the balls fell within the expected range.
Exponent's logic to determine the gauge was totaly flawed. They found that since the non logo gauge was closer to a master gauge that it was more likely the non logo gauge was used despite what Walt Anderson said. They also bought a dozen or more store bought gauges which measured closer to the non logo gauge. Of course all the gauges they bought coincidentally was the exact same model as the non logo gauge. ::)
Here's why that logic is flawed. They chose not to test either the Patriots or Colt's gauge and they don't know which gauge they were closer to. Also, even if both the Colts' and the Pats' gauges were perfectly aligned with the master gauge, it still tells you nothing. If it was just 3 degrees warmer in the rooms they set the balls, it would be more likely that the logo gauge was used. Keep in mind that the room the ref measured the balls in pregame was set to 67-71 while the locker room they measured the balls at half time was 71-74.
I find their logic extremely suspicious and here's why. If you want to make your best estimation to which gauge was used, you would obtain the Colt's and the Pats gauge, talk to the equipment managers about their process of preparing the balls including rubbing them down which raises psi and when they set the psi level relative to that. And as I already pointed out, check the thermostats of the rooms it was done in.
Both Wells and Exponent pointed out that the process I mentioned was irrelevant to determine the starting psi level of the footballs because the ref did not measure them for an hour after the balls were delivered to him. And that's correct. But it is very relevant to determine which gauge was used which was imperative to the report. Why or how did they overlook this? Exponent is smart, so how could they overlook something so very obvious in replace of such a flawed methodology? Because they were not interested in getting facts, but proving a certain narrative. They made several mistakes, some obvious to any thinking non scientist and some less obvious that were caught by scientists and staticians. What?? How could I make such an accusation? Exponent is infamous for exactly this. They are currently in contempt of court (maybe not the right terminology) for refusing to support their work which a judge thought was bunk.
If you want to understand the science and Exponent's biggest mistake in logic, watch this video. (You can also read Steve McIntyre's blog.)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx0P3NErcNo
It breaks down the science very well and points out that the balls most likely weren't tampered with. It also points out that the worst case scenario, only about 0.35 psi was removed which isn't enough for a human to notice, therefore is absurd. Hmmm, that number sounds familiar (the calibration difference between the two gauges). Especially when running such a risky scheme using a part time, minimum wage, obese employee who acts like a clown.
That's a pretty weak ob of breaking down the science, and even at that he points out that the balls *most likely* weren't tampered with. You keep reading these questionable reports and deciding that "most likely" means "definitely". It doesn't.
What? It's not weak. First of all, I figured most of this out myself when I read the report. Second of all, I can point you to many other scientific breakdowns. Third, no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner. Fourth, the worst case, unlikely scenario, even according to Exponent, was that only a few tenths of a psi was removed and that is an irrelevant amount. Fifth, the balls measured as they were expected as per the gauge the ref said he used and therefore there was no reason for any suspicion in the first place except for pure ignorance.
Trust me, it's weak. And, for the record, "no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner" is what I've been saying all along, which you've been disagreeing with.
Trust you?! A week ago you had no clue about the science after more than six months of expressing your opinion about the subject and I had to correct you. You incorrectly thought it was impossible that science could even explain a 1.1 psi drop. I worked it out myself back in January. It's so easy to calculate and you still had it wrong. So, no I do not trust you.
I'm supposed to trust a guy who failed at a middle school science problem who he had over six months to figure out over myself, Ivy league deans, physics professors, world renowned staticians, and chemistry Nobel Laureates? Thanks for the laugh.
I think we've already established that your trust on this issue is based on whether a claim supports the pats even half as much as you think it does. It's true that I didn't consider the effect of atmospheric pressure in my *initial* calculation, it's equally obvious that you don't know much about what you're discussing.
To summarize that report, the guy claimed that the colts balls had higher PSIs that the pats balls because the air in them had warmed more, didn't offer any explanation whatsoever as to why that pattern wasn't apparent in the pats balls (the balls measured last had less pressure than most of the balls measured before them), and then simply declared the amount of under-inflation in the pats balls to be "statistically insignificant". This seems to have escaped your attention, apparently you didn't read that on the internet (oops, I mean work it out yourself).
It's true that after seven months of writing your opinions, you still had not considered atmospheric pressure? Nothing after that is worth reading. Sorry, but you do not match up with the people whose work your are criticizing, not even close. You do not pass 8th grade science.
When you get a chance, have someone explain what the word "initial" means. Hopefully someone from the pro-Brady camp, so you'll be more willing to listen to them. The only comment that I made before that was that the nfl would never be able to determine what happened based on their measurements, which has certainly the case.
And honestly, everything you wrote is wrong. I don't mean to be a jerk, it just is. The video I posted as well as they very many high end intellectuals who have written on the subject have adressed every thing you just questioned. They did not just declare things to be scientifically insignificant, they used common practice standards as was explained in that video and by so many others.
Ok, I'll bite. What was the explanation (from the video) for why the pats balls didn't follow the expected pattern of balls being measured later having higher psi than the pats balls measured earlier (when they were colder)?
Initial: existing or occurring at the beginning. We are now six plus months into this and you have written your opionions many, many times before understanding your "initial" mistake. We are well beyond "initial" and if I did not correct you, you would still be pushing your wrong "initial" "calculations".
You stopped too early when you went to learn what initial means. It also means first, as in "the first time I calculated psi loss". I haven't spent the last months writing my opinions on this, you're just making things up.
The video gave 4 scenarios for explanations for the ball pressures. Obviously, you did not watch the whole video. Two scenarios by two scenarios. Order of measurements: Pats balls measured, Pats balls inflated, Colts balls measured; Pats balls measured, Colts balls measured, Pats balls inflated. Calculated for both the logo and non logo gauge. (You seriously did not watch the video you are criticizing. Why I'm explaining this two you, I dont know since will just make something else up.) The video created 4 quadrants for the 4 scenarios. They found that under 3 of the scenarios, the balls measured within the range of statistical significance. Only under the non logo gauge, Pats balls measured, Colts balls measured, Pats balls inflated scenario did the Pats ball fall outside of statistical significance. And in that scenario, the Patriots balls fell 0.35 psi outside of range. Of course this scenario means the ref was wrong about which gauge he used, the refs were misleading when they said they ran out of time measuring the Colts balls, and it doesn't make any sense since the 0.35psi is not noticeable to the human touch (and coincidentally the difference between the calibibration difference between the two gauges, hmmm).
So in other words, no explanation at all about why the pats balls didn't follow the same pattern as the colts balls (the predicted pattern), just a claim that the under-inflation was statistically insignificant. Which is what I said, if you can remember that far back.
They did depending on the scenario. I explained it. The video explained it. Good God, man. If only you spent as much time learning as you do writing. Smh.
If they'd been able to explain it, the explanation would have held for all the scenarios. You didn't explain it either.
? Impossible. It depends on the timing of when the balls were measured. The balls come to equilibrium quickly and that is important. This has been explained ad nauseam. You are demanding something that is phsyically impossible. Based on the most obvious assumptions per what the refs said, they balls measured as expected.
-
Yeah, Dowd has come out and said he's a Steelers fan so that Pats bias cry can go out the window on this one.
I am on board with most if not all of what Dowd is writing but I just find it odd that he is being so vocal. I am suspicious that he has some past beef with Wells or the NFL but I don't know.
-
I keep trying to come up with a parallel and it is hard but here goes.
Think if there was a police department that suspended a cop for tampering with evidence to help himself get promoted. It all came about after they do a rushed inventory of the evidence room and find that something is missing (and subsequently leak this to the press, permanently harming the cops reputation). Oh, they were tipped off by another cop was known not to like the accused cop in part because the tipper cop lost the promotion to the accused cop.
They look into it, find some strange emails between the accused cop and the evidence room clerk's assistant (not a cop, just a low level employee) and have film of the clerk's assistance going into the bathroom with papers that he routinely carries from the evidence room to a court room (but isn't supposed to take into the bathroom).
Then, after a 4 month investigation, they find out that the inventory they took was flawed because they didn't account for the fact that evidence dries out and when they weighed the evidence, they didn't know what scale to use and aren't really sure what the evidence weighed in the first place, and in the end, they weren't sure that anything was even missing but there was a chance that maybe depending on what assumptions you make that some very small amount of evidence was missing. Of course this potentially tampered with evidence was not impacted enough to have any barring on the case or the promotion.
Based on the independent investigation, the cop is suspended big time.
So 5 months later, during the accused cop's appeal (he has maintained his innocence all along), they ask for his phone. The cop (in the union) didn't need to provide his phone but the other assistant guy did and provided it months ago. The union guy had gotten a new phone along the way and "destroyed" his old phone because it included messages about cases and other sensitive information. Hmmmm, "sounds fishy to me" the investigators say to themselves.
The final conclusion from the investigation appeal? "Even though we don't know for sure if anything was missing from the evidence room, we believe that destroying of the phone proves that the cop was hiding something so he will be suspended for more probably than not, hiding something about an infraction that more probably than didn't happen". Oh, and our investigation that we said was independent? It wasn't independent because we don't think it needed to be independent. And we are not going to allow anymore to be said about that due to client privilege.
Then the cops takes this to a real court where a real judge reviews the facts and provide a verdict that.........
(fill in the rest yourself or wait a few weeks).
-
I keep trying to come up with a parallel and it is hard but here goes.
Think if there was a police department that suspended a cop for tampering with evidence to help himself get promoted. It all came about after they do a rushed inventory of the evidence room and find that something is missing (and subsequently leak this to the press, permanently harming the cops reputation). Oh, they were tipped off by another cop was known not to like the accused cop in part because the tipper cop lost the promotion to the accused cop.
They look into it, find some strange emails between the accused cop and the evidence room clerk's assistant (not a cop, just a low level employee) and have film of the clerk's assistance going into the bathroom with papers that he routinely carries from the evidence room to a court room (but isn't supposed to take into the bathroom).
Then, after a 4 month investigation, they find out that the inventory they took was flawed because they didn't account for the fact that evidence dries out and when they weighed the evidence, they didn't know what scale to use and aren't really sure what the evidence weighed in the first place, and in the end, they weren't sure that anything was even missing but there was a chance that maybe depending on what assumptions you make that some very small amount of evidence was missing. Of course this potentially tampered with evidence was not impacted enough to have any barring on the case or the promotion.
Based on the independent investigation, the cop is suspended big time.
So 5 months later, during the accused cop's appeal (he has maintained his innocence all along), they ask for his phone. The cop (in the union) didn't need to provide his phone but the other assistant guy did and provided it months ago. The union guy had gotten a new phone along the way and "destroyed" his old phone because it included messages about cases and other sensitive information. Hmmmm, "sounds fishy to me" the investigators say to themselves.
The final conclusion from the investigation appeal? "Even though we don't know for sure if anything was missing from the evidence room, we believe that destroying of the phone proves that the cop was hiding something so he will be suspended for more probably than not, hiding something about an infraction that more probably than didn't happen". Oh, and our investigation that we said was independent? It wasn't independent because we don't think it needed to be independent. And we are not going to allow anymore to be said about that due to client privilege.
Then the cops takes this to a real court where a real judge reviews the facts and provide a verdict that.........
(fill in the rest yourself or wait a few weeks).
How about this? A bank was robbed of hundreds of thousands from its vault. A tip points to a bank executive from a rival executive. All fingers then point at that executive. They then learn that the armored truck arrived earlier than thought and all the cash is accounted for. Still, the powers that be choose not to point this out and investigate this executive. This executive is well to do and earns a good salary, but there are some e-mails that suggest he likes wealth and even once discussed bank security which he is not specifically responsible for. The powers that be then learn that there is possibly $100 missing, but aren't sure because an accounting error may explain it. An independent audit finds that the $100 is most definately an accounting error but can't say positively, but it's not that much money, easy to write off, and would not make sense for this executive to steal such a small amount of money considering the risk, his wealth, and his salary. Still, the powers that be prosecute and convict the executive over the e-mails that he likes wealth and once discussed security.
-
Yeah, Dowd has come out and said he's a Steelers fan so that Pats bias cry can go out the window on this one.
I am on board with most if not all of what Dowd is writing but I just find it odd that he is being so vocal. I am suspicious that he has some past beef with Wells or the NFL but I don't know.
It's the type of matter he has been involved with and as he has expressed that he is shocked and outraged by the stupidity and injustice of what has transpired. Investigating this kind of thing is a small industry, if you could even call it that, and he feels himself to be a rare expert on the subject.
-
I keep trying to come up with a parallel and it is hard but here goes.
Think if there was a police department that suspended a cop for tampering with evidence to help himself get promoted. It all came about after they do a rushed inventory of the evidence room and find that something is missing (and subsequently leak this to the press, permanently harming the cops reputation). Oh, they were tipped off by another cop was known not to like the accused cop in part because the tipper cop lost the promotion to the accused cop.
They look into it, find some strange emails between the accused cop and the evidence room clerk's assistant (not a cop, just a low level employee) and have film of the clerk's assistance going into the bathroom with papers that he routinely carries from the evidence room to a court room (but isn't supposed to take into the bathroom).
Then, after a 4 month investigation, they find out that the inventory they took was flawed because they didn't account for the fact that evidence dries out and when they weighed the evidence, they didn't know what scale to use and aren't really sure what the evidence weighed in the first place, and in the end, they weren't sure that anything was even missing but there was a chance that maybe depending on what assumptions you make that some very small amount of evidence was missing. Of course this potentially tampered with evidence was not impacted enough to have any barring on the case or the promotion.
Based on the independent investigation, the cop is suspended big time.
So 5 months later, during the accused cop's appeal (he has maintained his innocence all along), they ask for his phone. The cop (in the union) didn't need to provide his phone but the other assistant guy did and provided it months ago. The union guy had gotten a new phone along the way and "destroyed" his old phone because it included messages about cases and other sensitive information. Hmmmm, "sounds fishy to me" the investigators say to themselves.
The final conclusion from the investigation appeal? "Even though we don't know for sure if anything was missing from the evidence room, we believe that destroying of the phone proves that the cop was hiding something so he will be suspended for more probably than not, hiding something about an infraction that more probably than didn't happen". Oh, and our investigation that we said was independent? It wasn't independent because we don't think it needed to be independent. And we are not going to allow anymore to be said about that due to client privilege.
Then the cops takes this to a real court where a real judge reviews the facts and provide a verdict that.........
(fill in the rest yourself or wait a few weeks).
Just a quick fix, but something more accurate would be them asking him for his phone early on. He doesn't give them the phone and later destroys it. At the end of the investigation, he gets a slap on the wrist for the evidence thing but a larger punishment for the phone thing.
-
When the 2 pounds report, the deflator text and the ballboy in the bathroom were reported, I thought the pats did it.
Then two things happened. The actual measurements came out and the drop could be explained by the ideal gas law.
But the text and the bathroom visit still looms and the coincidence is tough to swallow.
So let's say that brady conspired in the scheme, that means that either:
A) the deflator takes the balls in the bathroom and decides that for some reason he's not going to take air out this time
B) the deflator takes maaaybe .01 out of the balls
If you believe in the ideal gas law AND you believe that brady is guilty then you must believe in A or B. So which is it?
Option B is ridiculous.
Option A means there is no violation, at least for this game.
Is there an option C? What am I missing?
That's only if you believe that the Wells report got it wrong regarding which gauge was used, and if you further assume that environmental factors led to over 25% of the balls still being outside the scientific range.
I've already explained the valid and expected reasons why some balls would fall below the range and that overall, or on average, the measurements of the balls fell within the expected range.
Exponent's logic to determine the gauge was totaly flawed. They found that since the non logo gauge was closer to a master gauge that it was more likely the non logo gauge was used despite what Walt Anderson said. They also bought a dozen or more store bought gauges which measured closer to the non logo gauge. Of course all the gauges they bought coincidentally was the exact same model as the non logo gauge. ::)
Here's why that logic is flawed. They chose not to test either the Patriots or Colt's gauge and they don't know which gauge they were closer to. Also, even if both the Colts' and the Pats' gauges were perfectly aligned with the master gauge, it still tells you nothing. If it was just 3 degrees warmer in the rooms they set the balls, it would be more likely that the logo gauge was used. Keep in mind that the room the ref measured the balls in pregame was set to 67-71 while the locker room they measured the balls at half time was 71-74.
I find their logic extremely suspicious and here's why. If you want to make your best estimation to which gauge was used, you would obtain the Colt's and the Pats gauge, talk to the equipment managers about their process of preparing the balls including rubbing them down which raises psi and when they set the psi level relative to that. And as I already pointed out, check the thermostats of the rooms it was done in.
Both Wells and Exponent pointed out that the process I mentioned was irrelevant to determine the starting psi level of the footballs because the ref did not measure them for an hour after the balls were delivered to him. And that's correct. But it is very relevant to determine which gauge was used which was imperative to the report. Why or how did they overlook this? Exponent is smart, so how could they overlook something so very obvious in replace of such a flawed methodology? Because they were not interested in getting facts, but proving a certain narrative. They made several mistakes, some obvious to any thinking non scientist and some less obvious that were caught by scientists and staticians. What?? How could I make such an accusation? Exponent is infamous for exactly this. They are currently in contempt of court (maybe not the right terminology) for refusing to support their work which a judge thought was bunk.
If you want to understand the science and Exponent's biggest mistake in logic, watch this video. (You can also read Steve McIntyre's blog.)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx0P3NErcNo
It breaks down the science very well and points out that the balls most likely weren't tampered with. It also points out that the worst case scenario, only about 0.35 psi was removed which isn't enough for a human to notice, therefore is absurd. Hmmm, that number sounds familiar (the calibration difference between the two gauges). Especially when running such a risky scheme using a part time, minimum wage, obese employee who acts like a clown.
That's a pretty weak ob of breaking down the science, and even at that he points out that the balls *most likely* weren't tampered with. You keep reading these questionable reports and deciding that "most likely" means "definitely". It doesn't.
What? It's not weak. First of all, I figured most of this out myself when I read the report. Second of all, I can point you to many other scientific breakdowns. Third, no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner. Fourth, the worst case, unlikely scenario, even according to Exponent, was that only a few tenths of a psi was removed and that is an irrelevant amount. Fifth, the balls measured as they were expected as per the gauge the ref said he used and therefore there was no reason for any suspicion in the first place except for pure ignorance.
Trust me, it's weak. And, for the record, "no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner" is what I've been saying all along, which you've been disagreeing with.
Trust you?! A week ago you had no clue about the science after more than six months of expressing your opinion about the subject and I had to correct you. You incorrectly thought it was impossible that science could even explain a 1.1 psi drop. I worked it out myself back in January. It's so easy to calculate and you still had it wrong. So, no I do not trust you.
I'm supposed to trust a guy who failed at a middle school science problem who he had over six months to figure out over myself, Ivy league deans, physics professors, world renowned staticians, and chemistry Nobel Laureates? Thanks for the laugh.
I think we've already established that your trust on this issue is based on whether a claim supports the pats even half as much as you think it does. It's true that I didn't consider the effect of atmospheric pressure in my *initial* calculation, it's equally obvious that you don't know much about what you're discussing.
To summarize that report, the guy claimed that the colts balls had higher PSIs that the pats balls because the air in them had warmed more, didn't offer any explanation whatsoever as to why that pattern wasn't apparent in the pats balls (the balls measured last had less pressure than most of the balls measured before them), and then simply declared the amount of under-inflation in the pats balls to be "statistically insignificant". This seems to have escaped your attention, apparently you didn't read that on the internet (oops, I mean work it out yourself).
It's true that after seven months of writing your opinions, you still had not considered atmospheric pressure? Nothing after that is worth reading. Sorry, but you do not match up with the people whose work your are criticizing, not even close. You do not pass 8th grade science.
When you get a chance, have someone explain what the word "initial" means. Hopefully someone from the pro-Brady camp, so you'll be more willing to listen to them. The only comment that I made before that was that the nfl would never be able to determine what happened based on their measurements, which has certainly the case.
And honestly, everything you wrote is wrong. I don't mean to be a jerk, it just is. The video I posted as well as they very many high end intellectuals who have written on the subject have adressed every thing you just questioned. They did not just declare things to be scientifically insignificant, they used common practice standards as was explained in that video and by so many others.
Ok, I'll bite. What was the explanation (from the video) for why the pats balls didn't follow the expected pattern of balls being measured later having higher psi than the pats balls measured earlier (when they were colder)?
Initial: existing or occurring at the beginning. We are now six plus months into this and you have written your opionions many, many times before understanding your "initial" mistake. We are well beyond "initial" and if I did not correct you, you would still be pushing your wrong "initial" "calculations".
You stopped too early when you went to learn what initial means. It also means first, as in "the first time I calculated psi loss". I haven't spent the last months writing my opinions on this, you're just making things up.
The video gave 4 scenarios for explanations for the ball pressures. Obviously, you did not watch the whole video. Two scenarios by two scenarios. Order of measurements: Pats balls measured, Pats balls inflated, Colts balls measured; Pats balls measured, Colts balls measured, Pats balls inflated. Calculated for both the logo and non logo gauge. (You seriously did not watch the video you are criticizing. Why I'm explaining this two you, I dont know since will just make something else up.) The video created 4 quadrants for the 4 scenarios. They found that under 3 of the scenarios, the balls measured within the range of statistical significance. Only under the non logo gauge, Pats balls measured, Colts balls measured, Pats balls inflated scenario did the Pats ball fall outside of statistical significance. And in that scenario, the Patriots balls fell 0.35 psi outside of range. Of course this scenario means the ref was wrong about which gauge he used, the refs were misleading when they said they ran out of time measuring the Colts balls, and it doesn't make any sense since the 0.35psi is not noticeable to the human touch (and coincidentally the difference between the calibibration difference between the two gauges, hmmm).
So in other words, no explanation at all about why the pats balls didn't follow the same pattern as the colts balls (the predicted pattern), just a claim that the under-inflation was statistically insignificant. Which is what I said, if you can remember that far back.
They did depending on the scenario. I explained it. The video explained it. Good God, man. If only you spent as much time learning as you do writing. Smh.
If they'd been able to explain it, the explanation would have held for all the scenarios. You didn't explain it either.
? Impossible. It depends on the timing of when the balls were measured. The balls come to equilibrium quickly and that is important. This has been explained ad nauseam. You are demanding something that is phsyically impossible. Based on the most obvious assumptions per what the refs said, they balls measured as expected.
You're part way there. The balls come to equilibrium quickly, and that is important. The longer the balls are in the warmer room, the warmer they get (until they get to equilibrium). The warmer they get, the closer to the original psi they get. So the last balls they measure should be very close to the original psi levels. That clearly didn't happen with the pats balls. You don't explain that, and the video certainly doesn't.
-
Yes, the punishments were shocking. But that's not really the same as "nobody's ever been punished for that before" which I've heard a lot (not from you).
Oh please. Between the sticky towels, silicone uniforms, and heated balls, we know precisely how much punishment the NFL has deemed necessary for equipment violations aimed at potential competitive advantage.
-
Yes, the punishments were shocking. But that's not really the same as "nobody's ever been punished for that before" which I've heard a lot (not from you).
Oh please. Between the sticky towels, silicone uniforms, and heated balls, we know precisely how much punishment the NFL has deemed necessary for equipment violations aimed at potential competitive advantage.
True, but the discussion IIRC was about failure to cooperate with an investigation.
-
When the 2 pounds report, the deflator text and the ballboy in the bathroom were reported, I thought the pats did it.
Then two things happened. The actual measurements came out and the drop could be explained by the ideal gas law.
But the text and the bathroom visit still looms and the coincidence is tough to swallow.
So let's say that brady conspired in the scheme, that means that either:
A) the deflator takes the balls in the bathroom and decides that for some reason he's not going to take air out this time
B) the deflator takes maaaybe .01 out of the balls
If you believe in the ideal gas law AND you believe that brady is guilty then you must believe in A or B. So which is it?
Option B is ridiculous.
Option A means there is no violation, at least for this game.
Is there an option C? What am I missing?
That's only if you believe that the Wells report got it wrong regarding which gauge was used, and if you further assume that environmental factors led to over 25% of the balls still being outside the scientific range.
I've already explained the valid and expected reasons why some balls would fall below the range and that overall, or on average, the measurements of the balls fell within the expected range.
Exponent's logic to determine the gauge was totaly flawed. They found that since the non logo gauge was closer to a master gauge that it was more likely the non logo gauge was used despite what Walt Anderson said. They also bought a dozen or more store bought gauges which measured closer to the non logo gauge. Of course all the gauges they bought coincidentally was the exact same model as the non logo gauge. ::)
Here's why that logic is flawed. They chose not to test either the Patriots or Colt's gauge and they don't know which gauge they were closer to. Also, even if both the Colts' and the Pats' gauges were perfectly aligned with the master gauge, it still tells you nothing. If it was just 3 degrees warmer in the rooms they set the balls, it would be more likely that the logo gauge was used. Keep in mind that the room the ref measured the balls in pregame was set to 67-71 while the locker room they measured the balls at half time was 71-74.
I find their logic extremely suspicious and here's why. If you want to make your best estimation to which gauge was used, you would obtain the Colt's and the Pats gauge, talk to the equipment managers about their process of preparing the balls including rubbing them down which raises psi and when they set the psi level relative to that. And as I already pointed out, check the thermostats of the rooms it was done in.
Both Wells and Exponent pointed out that the process I mentioned was irrelevant to determine the starting psi level of the footballs because the ref did not measure them for an hour after the balls were delivered to him. And that's correct. But it is very relevant to determine which gauge was used which was imperative to the report. Why or how did they overlook this? Exponent is smart, so how could they overlook something so very obvious in replace of such a flawed methodology? Because they were not interested in getting facts, but proving a certain narrative. They made several mistakes, some obvious to any thinking non scientist and some less obvious that were caught by scientists and staticians. What?? How could I make such an accusation? Exponent is infamous for exactly this. They are currently in contempt of court (maybe not the right terminology) for refusing to support their work which a judge thought was bunk.
If you want to understand the science and Exponent's biggest mistake in logic, watch this video. (You can also read Steve McIntyre's blog.)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx0P3NErcNo
It breaks down the science very well and points out that the balls most likely weren't tampered with. It also points out that the worst case scenario, only about 0.35 psi was removed which isn't enough for a human to notice, therefore is absurd. Hmmm, that number sounds familiar (the calibration difference between the two gauges). Especially when running such a risky scheme using a part time, minimum wage, obese employee who acts like a clown.
That's a pretty weak ob of breaking down the science, and even at that he points out that the balls *most likely* weren't tampered with. You keep reading these questionable reports and deciding that "most likely" means "definitely". It doesn't.
What? It's not weak. First of all, I figured most of this out myself when I read the report. Second of all, I can point you to many other scientific breakdowns. Third, no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner. Fourth, the worst case, unlikely scenario, even according to Exponent, was that only a few tenths of a psi was removed and that is an irrelevant amount. Fifth, the balls measured as they were expected as per the gauge the ref said he used and therefore there was no reason for any suspicion in the first place except for pure ignorance.
Trust me, it's weak. And, for the record, "no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner" is what I've been saying all along, which you've been disagreeing with.
Trust you?! A week ago you had no clue about the science after more than six months of expressing your opinion about the subject and I had to correct you. You incorrectly thought it was impossible that science could even explain a 1.1 psi drop. I worked it out myself back in January. It's so easy to calculate and you still had it wrong. So, no I do not trust you.
I'm supposed to trust a guy who failed at a middle school science problem who he had over six months to figure out over myself, Ivy league deans, physics professors, world renowned staticians, and chemistry Nobel Laureates? Thanks for the laugh.
I think we've already established that your trust on this issue is based on whether a claim supports the pats even half as much as you think it does. It's true that I didn't consider the effect of atmospheric pressure in my *initial* calculation, it's equally obvious that you don't know much about what you're discussing.
To summarize that report, the guy claimed that the colts balls had higher PSIs that the pats balls because the air in them had warmed more, didn't offer any explanation whatsoever as to why that pattern wasn't apparent in the pats balls (the balls measured last had less pressure than most of the balls measured before them), and then simply declared the amount of under-inflation in the pats balls to be "statistically insignificant". This seems to have escaped your attention, apparently you didn't read that on the internet (oops, I mean work it out yourself).
It's true that after seven months of writing your opinions, you still had not considered atmospheric pressure? Nothing after that is worth reading. Sorry, but you do not match up with the people whose work your are criticizing, not even close. You do not pass 8th grade science.
When you get a chance, have someone explain what the word "initial" means. Hopefully someone from the pro-Brady camp, so you'll be more willing to listen to them. The only comment that I made before that was that the nfl would never be able to determine what happened based on their measurements, which has certainly the case.
And honestly, everything you wrote is wrong. I don't mean to be a jerk, it just is. The video I posted as well as they very many high end intellectuals who have written on the subject have adressed every thing you just questioned. They did not just declare things to be scientifically insignificant, they used common practice standards as was explained in that video and by so many others.
Ok, I'll bite. What was the explanation (from the video) for why the pats balls didn't follow the expected pattern of balls being measured later having higher psi than the pats balls measured earlier (when they were colder)?
Initial: existing or occurring at the beginning. We are now six plus months into this and you have written your opionions many, many times before understanding your "initial" mistake. We are well beyond "initial" and if I did not correct you, you would still be pushing your wrong "initial" "calculations".
You stopped too early when you went to learn what initial means. It also means first, as in "the first time I calculated psi loss". I haven't spent the last months writing my opinions on this, you're just making things up.
The video gave 4 scenarios for explanations for the ball pressures. Obviously, you did not watch the whole video. Two scenarios by two scenarios. Order of measurements: Pats balls measured, Pats balls inflated, Colts balls measured; Pats balls measured, Colts balls measured, Pats balls inflated. Calculated for both the logo and non logo gauge. (You seriously did not watch the video you are criticizing. Why I'm explaining this two you, I dont know since will just make something else up.) The video created 4 quadrants for the 4 scenarios. They found that under 3 of the scenarios, the balls measured within the range of statistical significance. Only under the non logo gauge, Pats balls measured, Colts balls measured, Pats balls inflated scenario did the Pats ball fall outside of statistical significance. And in that scenario, the Patriots balls fell 0.35 psi outside of range. Of course this scenario means the ref was wrong about which gauge he used, the refs were misleading when they said they ran out of time measuring the Colts balls, and it doesn't make any sense since the 0.35psi is not noticeable to the human touch (and coincidentally the difference between the calibibration difference between the two gauges, hmmm).
So in other words, no explanation at all about why the pats balls didn't follow the same pattern as the colts balls (the predicted pattern), just a claim that the under-inflation was statistically insignificant. Which is what I said, if you can remember that far back.
They did depending on the scenario. I explained it. The video explained it. Good God, man. If only you spent as much time learning as you do writing. Smh.
If they'd been able to explain it, the explanation would have held for all the scenarios. You didn't explain it either.
? Impossible. It depends on the timing of when the balls were measured. The balls come to equilibrium quickly and that is important. This has been explained ad nauseam. You are demanding something that is phsyically impossible. Based on the most obvious assumptions per what the refs said, they balls measured as expected.
You're part way there. The balls come to equilibrium quickly, and that is important. The longer the balls are in the warmer room, the warmer they get (until they get to equilibrium). The warmer they get, the closer to the original psi they get. So the last balls they measure should be very close to the original psi levels. That clearly didn't happen with the pats balls. You don't explain that, and the video certainly doesn't.
You can't seriously be asking that question. It has been explained. It's accounted for in the transient curves.
-
Yes, the punishments were shocking. But that's not really the same as "nobody's ever been punished for that before" which I've heard a lot (not from you).
Oh please. Between the sticky towels, silicone uniforms, and heated balls, we know precisely how much punishment the NFL has deemed necessary for equipment violations aimed at potential competitive advantage.
True, but the discussion IIRC was about failure to cooperate with an investigation.
How did that continue past the $50,000 that Farve got?
Also, Gostkowski refused to provide his cellphone in the investigation of the K-ball that was tacked into the Wells report, and wasn't disciplined (the report conveniently brushes that one under the rug).
And while we're at it, a refresher -- there was an NFL employee stealing game balls to sell them for profit. Except this fact is not mentioned anywhere in the report, and the whole thing is roundly ignored with the conclusion that "removing the K1 ball had no effect on the outcome of the game". Coincidentally, that seems to be the only place where Wells cares about this -- as he makes no mention how the second half of the Colts game turned out (while playing with fully inflated balls).
-
Great takes here for people that think the punishment was within the rules of the CBA.
http://www.footballbyfootball.com/column/myth-busted-cba-is-no-magic-wand-for-roger-goodell
-
http://larrybrownsports.com/football/tom-brady-doesnt-want-to-admit-guilt/269955
Despite Judge Richard Berman urging the NFL and NFL Players Association to engage in “further good-faith settlement efforts,” Dan Graziano of ESPN reports that the two sides remain “extremely” far apart. Apparently no progress has been made toward a settlement since before Roger Goodell announced that Brady’s four-game suspension would be upheld.
The issue, of course, is that Brady truly believes he is guilty of nothing. Because of that, he seems willing to fight until the suspension is overturned completely.
“To this point, the Brady side has held firm that they don’t want to accept any kind of suspension or don’t want to admit any guilt,” Graziano reported. “They don’t feel like he did anything wrong.”
However, Graziano noted that Brady might be inclined to accept a one-game suspension once Berman starts his own “arm-twisting.”
“If the league came to Brady and said, ‘OK, one-game suspension and admission of guilt,’ you’d think he would have to take that at this point because the fear of losing the case in front of a judge and having to serve a four-game,” Graziano said.
Brady’s reputation has always been the larger issue in the case. He can live with missing one or even a few games, but he can’t live with the NFL labeling him a cheater. If there’s some way the league could present the language so that it seemed like Brady was being suspended strictly for a lack of cooperation, he might be more inclined to accept.
-
Yes, the punishments were shocking. But that's not really the same as "nobody's ever been punished for that before" which I've heard a lot (not from you).
Oh please. Between the sticky towels, silicone uniforms, and heated balls, we know precisely how much punishment the NFL has deemed necessary for equipment violations aimed at potential competitive advantage.
True, but the discussion IIRC was about failure to cooperate with an investigation.
"Failure to cooperate" is debatable, as seen on this thread.
But regardless of Brady's level of cooperation, this "investigation" shouldn't have occurred in the first place. If someone tries to bulldoze me even though I'm innocent—or if I committed only a minor offense—I'm gonna be a little peeved, and probably a little "uncooperative."
For some reason, the league has been out to get Brady from the start. And when the physical evidence didn't pan out, they went after him for "failure to cooperate" ... with something that shouldn't have been an issue in the first place.
-
So... Roger Goodell just threw Ted Wells under the bus when asked why the NFL didn't bother to correct the initial false information that was leaked.
-
So... Roger Goodell just threw Ted Wells under the bus when asked why the NFL didn't bother to correct the initial false information that was leaked.
Saw that. Even though the timeline doesn't exactly line up. Mort's tweet came out on Jan 20th while Wells wasn't even named independent arbitrator until the 23rd.
Also, evidently Goodell flip flopped again on whether Wells was independent or not. Going back to independent even though the NFL briefs filed last week said it didn't have to be.
What a joke
-
So... Roger Goodell just threw Ted Wells under the bus when asked why the NFL didn't bother to correct the initial false information that was leaked.
Also, he once again called the investigation "independent"... even after the league conceded in court documents that it wasn't.
-
Flip or no flip he is the law. I doubt he cares about if it was legal investigation or not. He got the example he wanted and went through with the execution of his sentence.
Brady at this point is almost a distraction to the Pats. He is not going to win this fight.
percent of all fans surveyed, and 76 percent of self-described "avid" fans, supported the NFL's decision to suspend Brady for four games, fine the Patriots $1 million and take away a first-round and fourth-round draft pick from the team for its involvement in the using underinflated footballs during a January playoff game. In addition, 54 percent of all fans and 69 percent of avid fans think Brady "cheated," while 52 percent overall and 63 percent of avid fans think, regardless of Brady's actions, that the Patriots cheated.
The poll also found that 85 percent of all fans, and 80 percent of avid fans, think that other teams do similar things. Only 6 percent of all fans, and 12 percent of avid fans, think it was limited to the Patriots.
While fans support the decision to suspend Brady, they also strongly support him as a Hall of Fame candidate -- 63 percent of all fans, and 73 percent of avid fans, say they support his eventual enshrinement in Canton. But only 52 percent overall see him as a good role model.
Per the report, the survey interviewed a random national sample of 504 adul
http://www.nj.com/giants/index.ssf/2015/05/what_percentage_of_football_fans_think_patriots_to.html
With support like that he is not going to change his mind.
-
Flip or no flip he is the law. I doubt he cares about if it was legal investigation or not. He got the example he wanted and went through with the execution of his sentence.
This is all fine and dandy, but it's a labor dispute re: a collectively bargained contract. And the law is Judge Berman.
-
Flip or no flip he is the law. I doubt he cares about if it was legal investigation or not. He got the example he wanted and went through with the execution of his sentence.
Brady at this point is almost a distraction to the Pats. He is not going to win this fight.
percent of all fans surveyed, and 76 percent of self-described "avid" fans, supported the NFL's decision to suspend Brady for four games, fine the Patriots $1 million and take away a first-round and fourth-round draft pick from the team for its involvement in the using underinflated footballs during a January playoff game. In addition, 54 percent of all fans and 69 percent of avid fans think Brady "cheated," while 52 percent overall and 63 percent of avid fans think, regardless of Brady's actions, that the Patriots cheated.
The poll also found that 85 percent of all fans, and 80 percent of avid fans, think that other teams do similar things. Only 6 percent of all fans, and 12 percent of avid fans, think it was limited to the Patriots.
While fans support the decision to suspend Brady, they also strongly support him as a Hall of Fame candidate -- 63 percent of all fans, and 73 percent of avid fans, say they support his eventual enshrinement in Canton. But only 52 percent overall see him as a good role model.
Per the report, the survey interviewed a random national sample of 504 adul
http://www.nj.com/giants/index.ssf/2015/05/what_percentage_of_football_fans_think_patriots_to.html
With support like that he is not going to change his mind.
What does a public opinion poll have to do about anything here? It's irrelevant at the stage this thing is at. At this point, it's in a federal court and questions the kind of law that Goodell may or may not have.
Also, that poll is three months old (not that I'd expect much change between then & now)
-
Flip or no flip he is the law.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaahahhaa.
I should explain:
Can't you just picture Goodell dressed up in a Judge Dredd Zentai saying "I am the Law" over and over again to a mirror?
Also:
http://twitter.com/BenVolin/status/631209304452898817/photo/1
-
Hard to keep up if someone posted this already
http://deadspin.com/roger-goodell-on-why-nfl-didnt-correct-espns-ballghazi-1723482608
At this point it is pretty funny to see the kind of coverage going on at sports illustrated, Deadspin, profootball talks and basically any sport website you can find compared to ESPN. Will ESPN ever get embarrassed?
-
this has to be the dumbest scandal of all time.
how much air was the ball? really? sigh
I have to say, my Sunday's are so much more pleasant without football in them, you guys should really try it this year. So much advertising in NFL, don't know how people can sit on the couch that long.
-
When the 2 pounds report, the deflator text and the ballboy in the bathroom were reported, I thought the pats did it.
Then two things happened. The actual measurements came out and the drop could be explained by the ideal gas law.
But the text and the bathroom visit still looms and the coincidence is tough to swallow.
So let's say that brady conspired in the scheme, that means that either:
A) the deflator takes the balls in the bathroom and decides that for some reason he's not going to take air out this time
B) the deflator takes maaaybe .01 out of the balls
If you believe in the ideal gas law AND you believe that brady is guilty then you must believe in A or B. So which is it?
Option B is ridiculous.
Option A means there is no violation, at least for this game.
Is there an option C? What am I missing?
That's only if you believe that the Wells report got it wrong regarding which gauge was used, and if you further assume that environmental factors led to over 25% of the balls still being outside the scientific range.
I've already explained the valid and expected reasons why some balls would fall below the range and that overall, or on average, the measurements of the balls fell within the expected range.
Exponent's logic to determine the gauge was totaly flawed. They found that since the non logo gauge was closer to a master gauge that it was more likely the non logo gauge was used despite what Walt Anderson said. They also bought a dozen or more store bought gauges which measured closer to the non logo gauge. Of course all the gauges they bought coincidentally was the exact same model as the non logo gauge. ::)
Here's why that logic is flawed. They chose not to test either the Patriots or Colt's gauge and they don't know which gauge they were closer to. Also, even if both the Colts' and the Pats' gauges were perfectly aligned with the master gauge, it still tells you nothing. If it was just 3 degrees warmer in the rooms they set the balls, it would be more likely that the logo gauge was used. Keep in mind that the room the ref measured the balls in pregame was set to 67-71 while the locker room they measured the balls at half time was 71-74.
I find their logic extremely suspicious and here's why. If you want to make your best estimation to which gauge was used, you would obtain the Colt's and the Pats gauge, talk to the equipment managers about their process of preparing the balls including rubbing them down which raises psi and when they set the psi level relative to that. And as I already pointed out, check the thermostats of the rooms it was done in.
Both Wells and Exponent pointed out that the process I mentioned was irrelevant to determine the starting psi level of the footballs because the ref did not measure them for an hour after the balls were delivered to him. And that's correct. But it is very relevant to determine which gauge was used which was imperative to the report. Why or how did they overlook this? Exponent is smart, so how could they overlook something so very obvious in replace of such a flawed methodology? Because they were not interested in getting facts, but proving a certain narrative. They made several mistakes, some obvious to any thinking non scientist and some less obvious that were caught by scientists and staticians. What?? How could I make such an accusation? Exponent is infamous for exactly this. They are currently in contempt of court (maybe not the right terminology) for refusing to support their work which a judge thought was bunk.
If you want to understand the science and Exponent's biggest mistake in logic, watch this video. (You can also read Steve McIntyre's blog.)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx0P3NErcNo
It breaks down the science very well and points out that the balls most likely weren't tampered with. It also points out that the worst case scenario, only about 0.35 psi was removed which isn't enough for a human to notice, therefore is absurd. Hmmm, that number sounds familiar (the calibration difference between the two gauges). Especially when running such a risky scheme using a part time, minimum wage, obese employee who acts like a clown.
That's a pretty weak ob of breaking down the science, and even at that he points out that the balls *most likely* weren't tampered with. You keep reading these questionable reports and deciding that "most likely" means "definitely". It doesn't.
What? It's not weak. First of all, I figured most of this out myself when I read the report. Second of all, I can point you to many other scientific breakdowns. Third, no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner. Fourth, the worst case, unlikely scenario, even according to Exponent, was that only a few tenths of a psi was removed and that is an irrelevant amount. Fifth, the balls measured as they were expected as per the gauge the ref said he used and therefore there was no reason for any suspicion in the first place except for pure ignorance.
Trust me, it's weak. And, for the record, "no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner" is what I've been saying all along, which you've been disagreeing with.
Trust you?! A week ago you had no clue about the science after more than six months of expressing your opinion about the subject and I had to correct you. You incorrectly thought it was impossible that science could even explain a 1.1 psi drop. I worked it out myself back in January. It's so easy to calculate and you still had it wrong. So, no I do not trust you.
I'm supposed to trust a guy who failed at a middle school science problem who he had over six months to figure out over myself, Ivy league deans, physics professors, world renowned staticians, and chemistry Nobel Laureates? Thanks for the laugh.
I think we've already established that your trust on this issue is based on whether a claim supports the pats even half as much as you think it does. It's true that I didn't consider the effect of atmospheric pressure in my *initial* calculation, it's equally obvious that you don't know much about what you're discussing.
To summarize that report, the guy claimed that the colts balls had higher PSIs that the pats balls because the air in them had warmed more, didn't offer any explanation whatsoever as to why that pattern wasn't apparent in the pats balls (the balls measured last had less pressure than most of the balls measured before them), and then simply declared the amount of under-inflation in the pats balls to be "statistically insignificant". This seems to have escaped your attention, apparently you didn't read that on the internet (oops, I mean work it out yourself).
It's true that after seven months of writing your opinions, you still had not considered atmospheric pressure? Nothing after that is worth reading. Sorry, but you do not match up with the people whose work your are criticizing, not even close. You do not pass 8th grade science.
When you get a chance, have someone explain what the word "initial" means. Hopefully someone from the pro-Brady camp, so you'll be more willing to listen to them. The only comment that I made before that was that the nfl would never be able to determine what happened based on their measurements, which has certainly the case.
And honestly, everything you wrote is wrong. I don't mean to be a jerk, it just is. The video I posted as well as they very many high end intellectuals who have written on the subject have adressed every thing you just questioned. They did not just declare things to be scientifically insignificant, they used common practice standards as was explained in that video and by so many others.
Ok, I'll bite. What was the explanation (from the video) for why the pats balls didn't follow the expected pattern of balls being measured later having higher psi than the pats balls measured earlier (when they were colder)?
Initial: existing or occurring at the beginning. We are now six plus months into this and you have written your opionions many, many times before understanding your "initial" mistake. We are well beyond "initial" and if I did not correct you, you would still be pushing your wrong "initial" "calculations".
You stopped too early when you went to learn what initial means. It also means first, as in "the first time I calculated psi loss". I haven't spent the last months writing my opinions on this, you're just making things up.
The video gave 4 scenarios for explanations for the ball pressures. Obviously, you did not watch the whole video. Two scenarios by two scenarios. Order of measurements: Pats balls measured, Pats balls inflated, Colts balls measured; Pats balls measured, Colts balls measured, Pats balls inflated. Calculated for both the logo and non logo gauge. (You seriously did not watch the video you are criticizing. Why I'm explaining this two you, I dont know since will just make something else up.) The video created 4 quadrants for the 4 scenarios. They found that under 3 of the scenarios, the balls measured within the range of statistical significance. Only under the non logo gauge, Pats balls measured, Colts balls measured, Pats balls inflated scenario did the Pats ball fall outside of statistical significance. And in that scenario, the Patriots balls fell 0.35 psi outside of range. Of course this scenario means the ref was wrong about which gauge he used, the refs were misleading when they said they ran out of time measuring the Colts balls, and it doesn't make any sense since the 0.35psi is not noticeable to the human touch (and coincidentally the difference between the calibibration difference between the two gauges, hmmm).
So in other words, no explanation at all about why the pats balls didn't follow the same pattern as the colts balls (the predicted pattern), just a claim that the under-inflation was statistically insignificant. Which is what I said, if you can remember that far back.
They did depending on the scenario. I explained it. The video explained it. Good God, man. If only you spent as much time learning as you do writing. Smh.
If they'd been able to explain it, the explanation would have held for all the scenarios. You didn't explain it either.
? Impossible. It depends on the timing of when the balls were measured. The balls come to equilibrium quickly and that is important. This has been explained ad nauseam. You are demanding something that is phsyically impossible. Based on the most obvious assumptions per what the refs said, they balls measured as expected.
You're part way there. The balls come to equilibrium quickly, and that is important. The longer the balls are in the warmer room, the warmer they get (until they get to equilibrium). The warmer they get, the closer to the original psi they get. So the last balls they measure should be very close to the original psi levels. That clearly didn't happen with the pats balls. You don't explain that, and the video certainly doesn't.
You can't seriously be asking that question. It has been explained. It's accounted for in the transient curves.
The curves in his chart don't answer the question, in fact they support the validity of the question. In no way does the video address the subject. If you can point me to the time in the video when they specifically talk about the discrepancy I pointed out, fine. If not, it's a fairly safe assumption that you don't really understand what we're discussing.
-
So... Roger Goodell just threw Ted Wells under the bus when asked why the NFL didn't bother to correct the initial false information that was leaked.
From the article linked in celticsclay's post, I'm not sure that he did. He seems to be saying that they were solely focused on getting the Wells investigation up and running and not on any public discussion of deflate-gate, not that it was up to Wells to correct the erroneous report. It's still obviously an absurd argument.
-
When the 2 pounds report, the deflator text and the ballboy in the bathroom were reported, I thought the pats did it.
Then two things happened. The actual measurements came out and the drop could be explained by the ideal gas law.
But the text and the bathroom visit still looms and the coincidence is tough to swallow.
So let's say that brady conspired in the scheme, that means that either:
A) the deflator takes the balls in the bathroom and decides that for some reason he's not going to take air out this time
B) the deflator takes maaaybe .01 out of the balls
If you believe in the ideal gas law AND you believe that brady is guilty then you must believe in A or B. So which is it?
Option B is ridiculous.
Option A means there is no violation, at least for this game.
Is there an option C? What am I missing?
That's only if you believe that the Wells report got it wrong regarding which gauge was used, and if you further assume that environmental factors led to over 25% of the balls still being outside the scientific range.
I've already explained the valid and expected reasons why some balls would fall below the range and that overall, or on average, the measurements of the balls fell within the expected range.
Exponent's logic to determine the gauge was totaly flawed. They found that since the non logo gauge was closer to a master gauge that it was more likely the non logo gauge was used despite what Walt Anderson said. They also bought a dozen or more store bought gauges which measured closer to the non logo gauge. Of course all the gauges they bought coincidentally was the exact same model as the non logo gauge. ::)
Here's why that logic is flawed. They chose not to test either the Patriots or Colt's gauge and they don't know which gauge they were closer to. Also, even if both the Colts' and the Pats' gauges were perfectly aligned with the master gauge, it still tells you nothing. If it was just 3 degrees warmer in the rooms they set the balls, it would be more likely that the logo gauge was used. Keep in mind that the room the ref measured the balls in pregame was set to 67-71 while the locker room they measured the balls at half time was 71-74.
I find their logic extremely suspicious and here's why. If you want to make your best estimation to which gauge was used, you would obtain the Colt's and the Pats gauge, talk to the equipment managers about their process of preparing the balls including rubbing them down which raises psi and when they set the psi level relative to that. And as I already pointed out, check the thermostats of the rooms it was done in.
Both Wells and Exponent pointed out that the process I mentioned was irrelevant to determine the starting psi level of the footballs because the ref did not measure them for an hour after the balls were delivered to him. And that's correct. But it is very relevant to determine which gauge was used which was imperative to the report. Why or how did they overlook this? Exponent is smart, so how could they overlook something so very obvious in replace of such a flawed methodology? Because they were not interested in getting facts, but proving a certain narrative. They made several mistakes, some obvious to any thinking non scientist and some less obvious that were caught by scientists and staticians. What?? How could I make such an accusation? Exponent is infamous for exactly this. They are currently in contempt of court (maybe not the right terminology) for refusing to support their work which a judge thought was bunk.
If you want to understand the science and Exponent's biggest mistake in logic, watch this video. (You can also read Steve McIntyre's blog.)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx0P3NErcNo
It breaks down the science very well and points out that the balls most likely weren't tampered with. It also points out that the worst case scenario, only about 0.35 psi was removed which isn't enough for a human to notice, therefore is absurd. Hmmm, that number sounds familiar (the calibration difference between the two gauges). Especially when running such a risky scheme using a part time, minimum wage, obese employee who acts like a clown.
That's a pretty weak ob of breaking down the science, and even at that he points out that the balls *most likely* weren't tampered with. You keep reading these questionable reports and deciding that "most likely" means "definitely". It doesn't.
What? It's not weak. First of all, I figured most of this out myself when I read the report. Second of all, I can point you to many other scientific breakdowns. Third, no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner. Fourth, the worst case, unlikely scenario, even according to Exponent, was that only a few tenths of a psi was removed and that is an irrelevant amount. Fifth, the balls measured as they were expected as per the gauge the ref said he used and therefore there was no reason for any suspicion in the first place except for pure ignorance.
Trust me, it's weak. And, for the record, "no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner" is what I've been saying all along, which you've been disagreeing with.
Trust you?! A week ago you had no clue about the science after more than six months of expressing your opinion about the subject and I had to correct you. You incorrectly thought it was impossible that science could even explain a 1.1 psi drop. I worked it out myself back in January. It's so easy to calculate and you still had it wrong. So, no I do not trust you.
I'm supposed to trust a guy who failed at a middle school science problem who he had over six months to figure out over myself, Ivy league deans, physics professors, world renowned staticians, and chemistry Nobel Laureates? Thanks for the laugh.
I think we've already established that your trust on this issue is based on whether a claim supports the pats even half as much as you think it does. It's true that I didn't consider the effect of atmospheric pressure in my *initial* calculation, it's equally obvious that you don't know much about what you're discussing.
To summarize that report, the guy claimed that the colts balls had higher PSIs that the pats balls because the air in them had warmed more, didn't offer any explanation whatsoever as to why that pattern wasn't apparent in the pats balls (the balls measured last had less pressure than most of the balls measured before them), and then simply declared the amount of under-inflation in the pats balls to be "statistically insignificant". This seems to have escaped your attention, apparently you didn't read that on the internet (oops, I mean work it out yourself).
It's true that after seven months of writing your opinions, you still had not considered atmospheric pressure? Nothing after that is worth reading. Sorry, but you do not match up with the people whose work your are criticizing, not even close. You do not pass 8th grade science.
When you get a chance, have someone explain what the word "initial" means. Hopefully someone from the pro-Brady camp, so you'll be more willing to listen to them. The only comment that I made before that was that the nfl would never be able to determine what happened based on their measurements, which has certainly the case.
And honestly, everything you wrote is wrong. I don't mean to be a jerk, it just is. The video I posted as well as they very many high end intellectuals who have written on the subject have adressed every thing you just questioned. They did not just declare things to be scientifically insignificant, they used common practice standards as was explained in that video and by so many others.
Ok, I'll bite. What was the explanation (from the video) for why the pats balls didn't follow the expected pattern of balls being measured later having higher psi than the pats balls measured earlier (when they were colder)?
Initial: existing or occurring at the beginning. We are now six plus months into this and you have written your opionions many, many times before understanding your "initial" mistake. We are well beyond "initial" and if I did not correct you, you would still be pushing your wrong "initial" "calculations".
You stopped too early when you went to learn what initial means. It also means first, as in "the first time I calculated psi loss". I haven't spent the last months writing my opinions on this, you're just making things up.
The video gave 4 scenarios for explanations for the ball pressures. Obviously, you did not watch the whole video. Two scenarios by two scenarios. Order of measurements: Pats balls measured, Pats balls inflated, Colts balls measured; Pats balls measured, Colts balls measured, Pats balls inflated. Calculated for both the logo and non logo gauge. (You seriously did not watch the video you are criticizing. Why I'm explaining this two you, I dont know since will just make something else up.) The video created 4 quadrants for the 4 scenarios. They found that under 3 of the scenarios, the balls measured within the range of statistical significance. Only under the non logo gauge, Pats balls measured, Colts balls measured, Pats balls inflated scenario did the Pats ball fall outside of statistical significance. And in that scenario, the Patriots balls fell 0.35 psi outside of range. Of course this scenario means the ref was wrong about which gauge he used, the refs were misleading when they said they ran out of time measuring the Colts balls, and it doesn't make any sense since the 0.35psi is not noticeable to the human touch (and coincidentally the difference between the calibibration difference between the two gauges, hmmm).
So in other words, no explanation at all about why the pats balls didn't follow the same pattern as the colts balls (the predicted pattern), just a claim that the under-inflation was statistically insignificant. Which is what I said, if you can remember that far back.
They did depending on the scenario. I explained it. The video explained it. Good God, man. If only you spent as much time learning as you do writing. Smh.
If they'd been able to explain it, the explanation would have held for all the scenarios. You didn't explain it either.
? Impossible. It depends on the timing of when the balls were measured. The balls come to equilibrium quickly and that is important. This has been explained ad nauseam. You are demanding something that is phsyically impossible. Based on the most obvious assumptions per what the refs said, they balls measured as expected.
You're part way there. The balls come to equilibrium quickly, and that is important. The longer the balls are in the warmer room, the warmer they get (until they get to equilibrium). The warmer they get, the closer to the original psi they get. So the last balls they measure should be very close to the original psi levels. That clearly didn't happen with the pats balls. You don't explain that, and the video certainly doesn't.
You can't seriously be asking that question. It has been explained. It's accounted for in the transient curves.
The curves in his chart don't answer the question, in fact they support the validity of the question. In no way does the video address the subject. If you can point me to the time in the video when they specifically talk about the discrepancy I pointed out, fine. If not, it's a fairly safe assumption that you don't really understand what we're discussing.
The Patriots balls were measured first and therefore would not be close to their pre-game psi levels. This was explained in the video. It's even explained in Exponent's report. It's not a point of contention. The video walked through four scenarios and this was demonstrated, if not spelled out, in all four scenarios.
The point of the video was that if the Colts balls were measured late in the half and after the Patriots' balls were reinflated, which is consistent with statements by the refs that they ran out of time measuring the Colts balls, then the Colts balls would have lined up with the Pats balls along the transient curves. Dean Snyder testified to this at the appeal and it was the main point of AEI's report.
-
When the 2 pounds report, the deflator text and the ballboy in the bathroom were reported, I thought the pats did it.
Then two things happened. The actual measurements came out and the drop could be explained by the ideal gas law.
But the text and the bathroom visit still looms and the coincidence is tough to swallow.
So let's say that brady conspired in the scheme, that means that either:
A) the deflator takes the balls in the bathroom and decides that for some reason he's not going to take air out this time
B) the deflator takes maaaybe .01 out of the balls
If you believe in the ideal gas law AND you believe that brady is guilty then you must believe in A or B. So which is it?
Option B is ridiculous.
Option A means there is no violation, at least for this game.
Is there an option C? What am I missing?
That's only if you believe that the Wells report got it wrong regarding which gauge was used, and if you further assume that environmental factors led to over 25% of the balls still being outside the scientific range.
I've already explained the valid and expected reasons why some balls would fall below the range and that overall, or on average, the measurements of the balls fell within the expected range.
Exponent's logic to determine the gauge was totaly flawed. They found that since the non logo gauge was closer to a master gauge that it was more likely the non logo gauge was used despite what Walt Anderson said. They also bought a dozen or more store bought gauges which measured closer to the non logo gauge. Of course all the gauges they bought coincidentally was the exact same model as the non logo gauge. ::)
Here's why that logic is flawed. They chose not to test either the Patriots or Colt's gauge and they don't know which gauge they were closer to. Also, even if both the Colts' and the Pats' gauges were perfectly aligned with the master gauge, it still tells you nothing. If it was just 3 degrees warmer in the rooms they set the balls, it would be more likely that the logo gauge was used. Keep in mind that the room the ref measured the balls in pregame was set to 67-71 while the locker room they measured the balls at half time was 71-74.
I find their logic extremely suspicious and here's why. If you want to make your best estimation to which gauge was used, you would obtain the Colt's and the Pats gauge, talk to the equipment managers about their process of preparing the balls including rubbing them down which raises psi and when they set the psi level relative to that. And as I already pointed out, check the thermostats of the rooms it was done in.
Both Wells and Exponent pointed out that the process I mentioned was irrelevant to determine the starting psi level of the footballs because the ref did not measure them for an hour after the balls were delivered to him. And that's correct. But it is very relevant to determine which gauge was used which was imperative to the report. Why or how did they overlook this? Exponent is smart, so how could they overlook something so very obvious in replace of such a flawed methodology? Because they were not interested in getting facts, but proving a certain narrative. They made several mistakes, some obvious to any thinking non scientist and some less obvious that were caught by scientists and staticians. What?? How could I make such an accusation? Exponent is infamous for exactly this. They are currently in contempt of court (maybe not the right terminology) for refusing to support their work which a judge thought was bunk.
If you want to understand the science and Exponent's biggest mistake in logic, watch this video. (You can also read Steve McIntyre's blog.)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx0P3NErcNo
It breaks down the science very well and points out that the balls most likely weren't tampered with. It also points out that the worst case scenario, only about 0.35 psi was removed which isn't enough for a human to notice, therefore is absurd. Hmmm, that number sounds familiar (the calibration difference between the two gauges). Especially when running such a risky scheme using a part time, minimum wage, obese employee who acts like a clown.
That's a pretty weak ob of breaking down the science, and even at that he points out that the balls *most likely* weren't tampered with. You keep reading these questionable reports and deciding that "most likely" means "definitely". It doesn't.
What? It's not weak. First of all, I figured most of this out myself when I read the report. Second of all, I can point you to many other scientific breakdowns. Third, no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner. Fourth, the worst case, unlikely scenario, even according to Exponent, was that only a few tenths of a psi was removed and that is an irrelevant amount. Fifth, the balls measured as they were expected as per the gauge the ref said he used and therefore there was no reason for any suspicion in the first place except for pure ignorance.
Trust me, it's weak. And, for the record, "no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner" is what I've been saying all along, which you've been disagreeing with.
Trust you?! A week ago you had no clue about the science after more than six months of expressing your opinion about the subject and I had to correct you. You incorrectly thought it was impossible that science could even explain a 1.1 psi drop. I worked it out myself back in January. It's so easy to calculate and you still had it wrong. So, no I do not trust you.
I'm supposed to trust a guy who failed at a middle school science problem who he had over six months to figure out over myself, Ivy league deans, physics professors, world renowned staticians, and chemistry Nobel Laureates? Thanks for the laugh.
I think we've already established that your trust on this issue is based on whether a claim supports the pats even half as much as you think it does. It's true that I didn't consider the effect of atmospheric pressure in my *initial* calculation, it's equally obvious that you don't know much about what you're discussing.
To summarize that report, the guy claimed that the colts balls had higher PSIs that the pats balls because the air in them had warmed more, didn't offer any explanation whatsoever as to why that pattern wasn't apparent in the pats balls (the balls measured last had less pressure than most of the balls measured before them), and then simply declared the amount of under-inflation in the pats balls to be "statistically insignificant". This seems to have escaped your attention, apparently you didn't read that on the internet (oops, I mean work it out yourself).
It's true that after seven months of writing your opinions, you still had not considered atmospheric pressure? Nothing after that is worth reading. Sorry, but you do not match up with the people whose work your are criticizing, not even close. You do not pass 8th grade science.
When you get a chance, have someone explain what the word "initial" means. Hopefully someone from the pro-Brady camp, so you'll be more willing to listen to them. The only comment that I made before that was that the nfl would never be able to determine what happened based on their measurements, which has certainly the case.
And honestly, everything you wrote is wrong. I don't mean to be a jerk, it just is. The video I posted as well as they very many high end intellectuals who have written on the subject have adressed every thing you just questioned. They did not just declare things to be scientifically insignificant, they used common practice standards as was explained in that video and by so many others.
Ok, I'll bite. What was the explanation (from the video) for why the pats balls didn't follow the expected pattern of balls being measured later having higher psi than the pats balls measured earlier (when they were colder)?
Initial: existing or occurring at the beginning. We are now six plus months into this and you have written your opionions many, many times before understanding your "initial" mistake. We are well beyond "initial" and if I did not correct you, you would still be pushing your wrong "initial" "calculations".
You stopped too early when you went to learn what initial means. It also means first, as in "the first time I calculated psi loss". I haven't spent the last months writing my opinions on this, you're just making things up.
The video gave 4 scenarios for explanations for the ball pressures. Obviously, you did not watch the whole video. Two scenarios by two scenarios. Order of measurements: Pats balls measured, Pats balls inflated, Colts balls measured; Pats balls measured, Colts balls measured, Pats balls inflated. Calculated for both the logo and non logo gauge. (You seriously did not watch the video you are criticizing. Why I'm explaining this two you, I dont know since will just make something else up.) The video created 4 quadrants for the 4 scenarios. They found that under 3 of the scenarios, the balls measured within the range of statistical significance. Only under the non logo gauge, Pats balls measured, Colts balls measured, Pats balls inflated scenario did the Pats ball fall outside of statistical significance. And in that scenario, the Patriots balls fell 0.35 psi outside of range. Of course this scenario means the ref was wrong about which gauge he used, the refs were misleading when they said they ran out of time measuring the Colts balls, and it doesn't make any sense since the 0.35psi is not noticeable to the human touch (and coincidentally the difference between the calibibration difference between the two gauges, hmmm).
So in other words, no explanation at all about why the pats balls didn't follow the same pattern as the colts balls (the predicted pattern), just a claim that the under-inflation was statistically insignificant. Which is what I said, if you can remember that far back.
They did depending on the scenario. I explained it. The video explained it. Good God, man. If only you spent as much time learning as you do writing. Smh.
If they'd been able to explain it, the explanation would have held for all the scenarios. You didn't explain it either.
? Impossible. It depends on the timing of when the balls were measured. The balls come to equilibrium quickly and that is important. This has been explained ad nauseam. You are demanding something that is phsyically impossible. Based on the most obvious assumptions per what the refs said, they balls measured as expected.
You're part way there. The balls come to equilibrium quickly, and that is important. The longer the balls are in the warmer room, the warmer they get (until they get to equilibrium). The warmer they get, the closer to the original psi they get. So the last balls they measure should be very close to the original psi levels. That clearly didn't happen with the pats balls. You don't explain that, and the video certainly doesn't.
You can't seriously be asking that question. It has been explained. It's accounted for in the transient curves.
The curves in his chart don't answer the question, in fact they support the validity of the question. In no way does the video address the subject. If you can point me to the time in the video when they specifically talk about the discrepancy I pointed out, fine. If not, it's a fairly safe assumption that you don't really understand what we're discussing.
The Patriots balls were measured first and therefore would not be close to their pre-game psi levels. This was explained in the video. It's even explained in Exponent's report. It's not a point of contention. The video walked through four scenarios and this was demonstrated, if not spelled out, in all four scenarios.
The point of the video was that if the Colts balls were measured late in the half and after the Patriots' balls were reinflated, which is consistent with statements by the refs that they ran out of time measuring the Colts balls, then the Colts balls would have lined up with the Pats balls along the transient curves. Dean Snyder testified to this at the appeal and it was the main point of AEI's report.
That's nice, but the question that I was asking wasn't at all related to the Colts balls.
-
Apparently the NFL has slightly changed its tune and now is saying that it's willing to settle if Brady accepts the findings of the Wells Report.
Seems like a very empty offer given what an exercise in buffoonery the report was.
http://abc13.com/sports/nfl-wont-settle-if-tom-brady-wont-accept-findings-of-wells-report/923910/
-
Apparently the NFL has slightly changed its tune and now is saying that it's willing to settle if Brady accepts the findings of the Wells Report.
Seems like a very empty offer given what an exercise in buffoonery the report was.
http://abc13.com/sports/nfl-wont-settle-if-tom-brady-wont-accept-findings-of-wells-report/923910/
I wonder how many seconds it took for Brady's team to squash that settlement offer? 1-2?
-
The NFL was always willing to settle, they have just always wanted Brady to admit guilt and accept a suspension (though it would have been reduced). Brady has never wanted to admit guilt or accept any sort of suspension so settlement talks got nowhere.
-
Haven't had a chance to listen to this yet because I'm at work, but here's yet another national voice calling for Goodell to be fired:
http://www.npr.org/2015/08/12/431675644/deford-when-deflategate-dust-settles-put-goodell-out-to-pasture
-
The NFL was always willing to settle, they have just always wanted Brady to admit guilt and accept a suspension (though it would have been reduced). Brady has never wanted to admit guilt or accept any sort of suspension so settlement talks got nowhere.
I feel one thing that gets overlooked is this: if anyone on this board got in trouble with the law for any reason (say a speeding ticket) and the authorities had botched the investigation as much as the NFL has up to this point, would you accept anything less than a total exoneration?
I mean, even if you were going 65 in a 55 (which is essentially the worst Brady did if he did anything at all), would you accept your punishment if the police weren't even sure the radar guns were calibrated correctly and if they even got the right car? And more to the point, wouldn't the police have dropped the charges at this point, realizing they didn't even have a case?
-
My guess is Brady would accept a fine in a settlement and leave it at that. No admission of guilt & zero games of suspension. I'm sure his lawyers are offering that. The problem is that the league has too much of an ego to accept this and feels like they have to "win" at all costs for the PR aspect of things. Anything else would make them look weak again.
Heck, this whole thing really shouldn't have resulted in anything but a fine way back in January but the league decided to blow it out of proportion.
-
My guess is Brady would accept a fine in a settlement and leave it at that. No admission of guilt & zero games of suspension. I'm sure his lawyers are offering that. The problem is that the league has too much of an ego to accept this and feels like they have to "win" at all costs for the PR aspect of things. Anything else would make them look weak again.
Heck, this whole thing really shouldn't have resulted in anything but a fine way back in January but the league decided to blow it out of proportion.
Yeah, this is essentially what has been reported all along: Brady will accept a fine, but no suspension. And he won't publicly admit guilt.
-
My guess is Brady would accept a fine in a settlement and leave it at that. No admission of guilt & zero games of suspension. I'm sure his lawyers are offering that. The problem is that the league has too much of an ego to accept this and feels like they have to "win" at all costs for the PR aspect of things. Anything else would make them look weak again.
Heck, this whole thing really shouldn't have resulted in anything but a fine way back in January but the league decided to blow it out of proportion.
Yeah, this is essentially what has been reported all along: Brady will accept a fine, but no suspension. And he won't publicly admit guilt.
And with nothing out there in regards to a smoking gun & Wells' "probably at least generally aware" nonsense, I think he'd be nuts to accept any settlement that illustrates guilt.
-
Wouldn't an admission of guilt at this point be an admission that he perjured himself, also?
Not really much of a settlement offer if that's the case.
-
Goodell reminds me a bit of Coach McGuirk?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acMmqY_bUEE
-
The NFL was always willing to settle, they have just always wanted Brady to admit guilt and accept a suspension (though it would have been reduced). Brady has never wanted to admit guilt or accept any sort of suspension so settlement talks got nowhere.
I feel one thing that gets overlooked is this: if anyone on this board got in trouble with the law for any reason (say a speeding ticket) and the authorities had botched the investigation as much as the NFL has up to this point, would you accept anything less than a total exoneration?
I mean, even if you were going 65 in a 55 (which is essentially the worst Brady did if he did anything at all), would you accept your punishment if the police weren't even sure the radar guns were calibrated correctly and if they even got the right car? And more to the point, wouldn't the police have dropped the charges at this point, realizing they didn't even have a case?
It maybe more so if innocent that he refuses even a fine. I know when I had a bogus ticket and was told I still had to pay a $15 court fee. I spoke up and told judge that was not right, that the officer should pay, especially since I took a day off work to fight the bogus ticket. Judge waived fee.
-
I mean, even if you were going 65 in a 55 (which is essentially the worst Brady did if he did anything at all), would you accept your punishment if the police weren't even sure the radar guns were calibrated correctly and if they even got the right car? And more to the point, wouldn't the police have dropped the charges at this point, realizing they didn't even have a case?
If it were just a fine I think I'd have just paid up at some point to get the whole thing over with.
But if the police had accused me of a felony, or some other offense leading to jail time, and they had botched every step of the process so badly, there's no way I'd accept a deal that would put that offense on my record, even if I could get off with probation.
Of course, jail time, or having a felony on your record, is far worse than being suspended from work and admitting you cheated, even if it affects you professionally in a very serious way.
-
Goodell reminds me a bit of Coach McGuirk?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acMmqY_bUEE
Home Movies is my favorite H John Benjamin thing, even ahead of Archer.
-
Yahoo's Dan Wetzel rips Goodell but good:
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/brady-vs--goodell-hits-new-battleground--but-theme-remains--nfl-isn-t-fighting-fair--062446546.html
-
For those of you on Twitter. @PPVSRB is a great follow right now. Essentially doing a play by play of today's proceedings.
-
Goodell reminds me a bit of Coach McGuirk?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acMmqY_bUEE
Home Movies is my favorite H John Benjamin thing, even ahead of Archer.
Yeah Home Movies is unimpeachable.
-
https://twitter.com/PPVSRB
Follow the timeline. Judge Berman is grilling the NFL to high heaven at the moment.
-
Interesting argument by Kessler: ""Even the NFL...does not try to contend any player can be disciplined for being aware of someone else’s conduct."
That might pull the rug out on all of this: does this mean that the NFL can now go after any player who was "generally aware" that their teammate was using steroids or stickum on his gloves?
-
Some of you guys are forgetting evidence like this -
Jastremski: I have a big needle for u this week
McNally: Better be surrounded by cash and newkicks….or its a rugby sunday
McNally: [Expletive] tom
Jastremski: Maybe u will have some nice size 11s in ur locker
McNally: Tom must really be working your balls hard this week
-
This "play by play" is pretty amazing to read.
Never thought court could be so entertaining. ;)
-
So far I think I like this judge.
-
Some of you guys are forgetting evidence like this -
Jastremski: I have a big needle for u this week
McNally: Better be surrounded by cash and newkicks….or its a rugby sunday
McNally: [Expletive] tom
Jastremski: Maybe u will have some nice size 11s in ur locker
McNally: Tom must really be working your balls hard this week
Evidence of what? That these two guys are knuckleheads who like to talk crap about one of their bosses?
Very easy to construct a plausible context for those texts that doesn't involve any intentional rule breaking by Brady.
It's obvious from the transcript of the hearing back in June that Brady is very particular about how the footballs are prepared. He probably is not an entirely easy guy to work for in that regard. So it wouldn't surprise me at all if these guys like to blow off steam by complaining about it and joking about messing with the balls to get back at Tom.
-
Some of you guys are forgetting evidence like this -
Jastremski: I have a big needle for u this week
McNally: Better be surrounded by cash and newkicks….or its a rugby sunday
McNally: [Expletive] tom
Jastremski: Maybe u will have some nice size 11s in ur locker
McNally: Tom must really be working your balls hard this week
Evidence of what? That these two guys are knuckleheads who like to talk crap about one of their bosses?
Very easy to construct a plausible context for those texts that doesn't involve any intentional rule breaking by Brady.
It's obvious from the transcript of the hearing back in June that Brady is very particular about how the footballs are prepared. He probably is not an entirely easy guy to work for in that regard. So it wouldn't surprise me at all if these guys like to blow off steam by complaining about it and joking about messing with the balls to get back at Tom.
It's also not implausible they were willing to go the extra mile and tamper to please TB even without being specifically instructed to do so. Although I suspect if this were the case, they'd been thrown under the bus by now.
-
That Twitter account gained about 21,000 new followers this morning. Pretty impressive.
If you're on the Brady side of things, I can't imagine you're too disappointed on how things went.
If you're on the NFL side, well.... not so much.
-
As the reporter pointed out, it sounds like very little that was talked about was actually the legally relevant stuff.
The biggest part was the discussion of holding players accountable for awareness of the conduct of other people. All the judge needs to do is find that there is no basis in the CBA for disciplining players on that basis and Brady will be in a great spot.
-
Some of you guys are forgetting evidence like this -
Jastremski: I have a big needle for u this week
McNally: Better be surrounded by cash and newkicks….or its a rugby sunday
McNally: [Expletive] tom
Jastremski: Maybe u will have some nice size 11s in ur locker
McNally: Tom must really be working your balls hard this week
Evidence of what? That these two guys are knuckleheads who like to talk crap about one of their bosses?
Very easy to construct a plausible context for those texts that doesn't involve any intentional rule breaking by Brady.
It's obvious from the transcript of the hearing back in June that Brady is very particular about how the footballs are prepared. He probably is not an entirely easy guy to work for in that regard. So it wouldn't surprise me at all if these guys like to blow off steam by complaining about it and joking about messing with the balls to get back at Tom.
It's also not implausible they were willing to go the extra mile and tamper to please TB even without being specifically instructed to do so. Although I suspect if this were the case, they'd been thrown under the bus by now.
So then why was it implied there was a reward for the ballboy who did end up being rewarded after the game?
It's hard to believe it was a random gift with all the other suspicious texts and activities going on.
-
BTW I am rooting for Brady. I just think he was in on this.
-
So then why was it implied there was a reward for the ballboy who did end up being rewarded after the game?
It's hard to believe it was a random gift with all the other suspicious texts and activities going on.
Except that it's established that Brady does that sort of thing all of the time. Unless you think he's bribing everybody in the workplace with gifts and autographs.
I think it's entirely possible Brady was in on this, though again, I think it's silly to make any sort of deal out of it because I think the majority of QBs in the league are involved in such things.
The point is, though, that the evidence doesn't really establish what the NFL claims it does. The evidence they've presented has many plausible explanations, one of which is that Brady was involved in a conspiracy to deflate game balls.
-
Some of you guys are forgetting evidence like this -
Jastremski: I have a big needle for u this week
McNally: Better be surrounded by cash and newkicks….or its a rugby sunday
McNally: [Expletive] tom
Jastremski: Maybe u will have some nice size 11s in ur locker
McNally: Tom must really be working your balls hard this week
Evidence of what? That these two guys are knuckleheads who like to talk crap about one of their bosses?
Very easy to construct a plausible context for those texts that doesn't involve any intentional rule breaking by Brady.
It's obvious from the transcript of the hearing back in June that Brady is very particular about how the footballs are prepared. He probably is not an entirely easy guy to work for in that regard. So it wouldn't surprise me at all if these guys like to blow off steam by complaining about it and joking about messing with the balls to get back at Tom.
It's also not implausible they were willing to go the extra mile and tamper to please TB even without being specifically instructed to do so. Although I suspect if this were the case, they'd been thrown under the bus by now.
So then why was it implied there was a reward for the ballboy who did end up being rewarded after the game?
It's hard to believe it was a random gift with all the other suspicious texts and activities going on.
Pretty sure that if I was exectuting a risky scheme to help someone worth $150 million cheat at their profession, I'd want more than a pair of sneaks.
-
So then why was it implied there was a reward for the ballboy who did end up being rewarded after the game?
It's hard to believe it was a random gift with all the other suspicious texts and activities going on.
1. The alleged consideration ("new kicks") that McNally received came from Jastremski.
2. It's hard to argue that something done relatively routinely, such as signing stuff for an employee, constitutes "random gift".
-
So then why was it implied there was a reward for the ballboy who did end up being rewarded after the game?
It's hard to believe it was a random gift with all the other suspicious texts and activities going on.
1. The alleged consideration ("new kicks") that McNally received came from Jastremski.
2. It's hard to argue that something done relatively routinely, such as signing stuff for an employee, constitutes "random gift".
It's also kind of odd that they would be so careless to discuss the payoff, but so careful to not once mention that they were deflating footballs.
-
So then why was it implied there was a reward for the ballboy who did end up being rewarded after the game?
It's hard to believe it was a random gift with all the other suspicious texts and activities going on.
1. The alleged consideration ("new kicks") that McNally received came from Jastremski.
2. It's hard to argue that something done relatively routinely, such as signing stuff for an employee, constitutes "random gift".
It's also kind of odd that they would be so careless to discuss the payoff, but so careful to not once mention that they were deflating footballs.
that isn't really that odd
-
that isn't really that odd
These are middle-aged men referring to each other as "dorito dink". Expect anything.
-
that isn't really that odd
These are middle-aged men referring to each other as "dorito dink". Expect anything.
Yeah, everything about the "text-gate" portion of deflate-gate is that odd, from the texts between those two goons to Brady's 100 or so texts a day on his phone.
-
McCann said his sources are telling him Berman will absolutely vacate the suspension
-
McCann said his sources are telling him Berman will absolutely vacate the suspension
Well, in context, it's:
Alan Milstein, who's litigated against NFL and tried cases before Judge Berman, told me: “Berman will absolutely vacate Brady's suspension.”
I don't see that as anything more than guesswork.
-
McCann said his sources are telling him Berman will absolutely vacate the suspension
Well, in context, it's:
Alan Milstein, who's litigated against NFL and tried cases before Judge Berman, told me: “Berman will absolutely vacate Brady's suspension.”
I don't see that as anything more than guesswork.
-
Interesting argument by Kessler: ""Even the NFL...does not try to contend any player can be disciplined for being aware of someone else’s conduct."
That might pull the rug out on all of this: does this mean that the NFL can now go after any player who was "generally aware" that their teammate was using steroids or stickum on his gloves?
Yes of course. Because such things violate the integrity of the shield. Nothing matters more.
-
So then why was it implied there was a reward for the ballboy who did end up being rewarded after the game?
It's hard to believe it was a random gift with all the other suspicious texts and activities going on.
Except that it's established that Brady does that sort of thing all of the time. Unless you think he's bribing everybody in the workplace with gifts and autographs.
I think it's entirely possible Brady was in on this, though again, I think it's silly to make any sort of deal out of it because I think the majority of QBs in the league are involved in such things.
The point is, though, that the evidence doesn't really establish what the NFL claims it does. The evidence they've presented has many plausible explanations, one of which is that Brady was involved in a conspiracy to deflate game balls.
I agree that other teams are most likely cheating and that the NFL probably didnt have the direct evidence to suspend Brady.
It's probably unfair that this happened to Brady but when you break the rules, these things can happen.
Still hoping he gets 0 games and shuts everyone up this year with his play.
-
McCann said his sources are telling him Berman will absolutely vacate the suspension
Would be a first that a Federal Judge is leaking his decision to the press. I highly doubt that.
-
The real solution to this insanity would be just to make a rule that says each team can do whatever it wants with its own balls. Rodgers likes them overinflated, Brady likes them the opposite. Just remove that rule, and the problem goes away.
-
The real solution to this insanity would be just to make a rule that says each team can do whatever it wants with its own balls. Rodgers likes them overinflated, Brady likes them the opposite. Just remove that rule, and the problem goes away.
Hear, hear. This rule never should've existed.
-
McCann said his sources are telling him Berman will absolutely vacate the suspension
Well, in context, it's:
Alan Milstein, who's litigated against NFL and tried cases before Judge Berman, told me: “Berman will absolutely vacate Brady's suspension.”
I don't see that as anything more than guesswork.
It's educated guesswork based on practicing before the same judge and litigating against the NFL.
-
So then why was it implied there was a reward for the ballboy who did end up being rewarded after the game?
It's hard to believe it was a random gift with all the other suspicious texts and activities going on.
Except that it's established that Brady does that sort of thing all of the time. Unless you think he's bribing everybody in the workplace with gifts and autographs.
I think it's entirely possible Brady was in on this, though again, I think it's silly to make any sort of deal out of it because I think the majority of QBs in the league are involved in such things.
The point is, though, that the evidence doesn't really establish what the NFL claims it does. The evidence they've presented has many plausible explanations, one of which is that Brady was involved in a conspiracy to deflate game balls.
At the risk of being extemporaneous...
/ thread.
-
Steven Brown nydaily news reporter somehow snuck a phone in and live tweeted everything in the courtroom. What a hero.
-
Steven Brown nydaily news reporter somehow snuck a phone in and live tweeted everything in the courtroom. What a hero.
He was tweeting from the press box. He's a federal court reporter.
-
So it's completely legit? On the radio they made it seem like he wasn't supposed to be. Oh well.
-
Thanks for clearing that up Pho.
-
The real solution to this insanity would be just to make a rule that says each team can do whatever it wants with its own balls. Rodgers likes them overinflated, Brady likes them the opposite. Just remove that rule, and the problem goes away.
The real solution should be the referees have one set of properly inflated footballs that they're in possession of and both teams use.
-
McCann said his sources are telling him Berman will absolutely vacate the suspension
Well, in context, it's:
Alan Milstein, who's litigated against NFL and tried cases before Judge Berman, told me: “Berman will absolutely vacate Brady's suspension.”
I don't see that as anything more than guesswork.
It's educated guesswork based on practicing before the same judge and litigating against the NFL.
... which is about as useful as the random guy off the streets educated guesswork.
I practice in front of the same group of judges daily, against the same attorneys. I don't think any of us can guess definitively what a judge will do in a complicated case.
-
... which is about as useful as the random guy off the streets educated guesswork.
I practice in front of the same group of judges daily, against the same attorneys. I don't think any of us can guess definitively what a judge will do in a complicated case.
Well, not guessing definitively is not the same as being as useful as the random guy off the street. Some guesses are better than others.
-
The real solution to this insanity would be just to make a rule that says each team can do whatever it wants with its own balls. Rodgers likes them overinflated, Brady likes them the opposite. Just remove that rule, and the problem goes away.
The real solution should be the referees have one set of properly inflated footballs that they're in possession of and both teams use.
There should definitely be a PSI minimum. I don't really see a need for a maximum outside of K balls. If someone wants to throw/run/catch with an overly inflated ball, all the more power to them.
-
The real solution to this insanity would be just to make a rule that says each team can do whatever it wants with its own balls. Rodgers likes them overinflated, Brady likes them the opposite. Just remove that rule, and the problem goes away.
The real solution should be the referees have one set of properly inflated footballs that they're in possession of and both teams use.
That would work too. But unlike in any other sport, the condition of the ball doesn't really affect the other team all that much. So what's the harm in allowing teams to do whatever they want with it? If under-inflating the balls really is a huge competitive advantage, everyone will start doing it. But given what guys like Aaron Rodgers have said about liking over-inflated balls, it just seems like a matter of personal preference.
-
The real solution to this insanity would be just to make a rule that says each team can do whatever it wants with its own balls. Rodgers likes them overinflated, Brady likes them the opposite. Just remove that rule, and the problem goes away.
The real solution should be the referees have one set of properly inflated footballs that they're in possession of and both teams use.
There should definitely be a PSI minimum. I don't really see a need for a maximum outside of K balls. If someone wants to throw/run/catch with an overly inflated ball, all the more power to them.
I don't know. If a team wants balls that don't travel as far in the air, then more power to them. They may fumble less, but the velocity won't be there on the throws and there may be more interceptions.
Overall, it just doesn't really matter.
-
The real solution to this insanity would be just to make a rule that says each team can do whatever it wants with its own balls. Rodgers likes them overinflated, Brady likes them the opposite. Just remove that rule, and the problem goes away.
The real solution should be the referees have one set of properly inflated footballs that they're in possession of and both teams use.
There should definitely be a PSI minimum. I don't really see a need for a maximum outside of K balls. If someone wants to throw/run/catch with an overly inflated ball, all the more power to them.
I don't know. If a team wants balls that don't travel as far in the air, then more power to them. They may fumble less, but the velocity won't be there on the throws and there may be more interceptions.
Overall, it just doesn't really matter.
Overall, it's amazing that something so hilariously stupid ended up in Federal court. The NFL clearly never thought balls were a big deal. It's not a particular point of emphasis in the rulebook, and they clearly have no issue with teams doing whatever prep work they deem fit to footballs before we hit game day.
It's too bad that Goodell chose to listen to two sore losers.
-
The real solution to this insanity would be just to make a rule that says each team can do whatever it wants with its own balls. Rodgers likes them overinflated, Brady likes them the opposite. Just remove that rule, and the problem goes away.
The real solution should be the referees have one set of properly inflated footballs that they're in possession of and both teams use.
There should definitely be a PSI minimum. I don't really see a need for a maximum outside of K balls. If someone wants to throw/run/catch with an overly inflated ball, all the more power to them.
I don't know. If a team wants balls that don't travel as far in the air, then more power to them. They may fumble less, but the velocity won't be there on the throws and there may be more interceptions.
Overall, it just doesn't really matter.
Overall, it's amazing that something so hilariously stupid ended up in Federal court. The NFL clearly never thought balls were a big deal. It's not a particular point of emphasis in the rulebook, and they clearly have no issue with teams doing whatever prep work they deem fit to footballs before we hit game day.
It's too bad that Goodell chose to listen to two sore losers.
Agreed.
And to add on to what I said before, I don't see how letting teams determine ball pressure is really any different than letting teams choose turf vs. grass. Or any different in baseball when teams can control the actual size of a field.
If anything, ball pressure is a lot less extreme, since the it only affects the team using the balls, not both teams as the other scenarios do.
-
it says a lot about how farcical american culture has become when the biggest story on TV is reality star donald trump leading the polls, and the second-biggest story is that the pats might have deflated their footballs by ~.6 PSI.
let's go 'murica!
-
The real solution to this insanity would be just to make a rule that says each team can do whatever it wants with its own balls. Rodgers likes them overinflated, Brady likes them the opposite. Just remove that rule, and the problem goes away.
The real solution should be the referees have one set of properly inflated footballs that they're in possession of and both teams use.
There should definitely be a PSI minimum. I don't really see a need for a maximum outside of K balls. If someone wants to throw/run/catch with an overly inflated ball, all the more power to them.
I don't know. If a team wants balls that don't travel as far in the air, then more power to them. They may fumble less, but the velocity won't be there on the throws and there may be more interceptions.
Overall, it just doesn't really matter.
Overall, it's amazing that something so hilariously stupid ended up in Federal court. The NFL clearly never thought balls were a big deal. It's not a particular point of emphasis in the rulebook, and they clearly have no issue with teams doing whatever prep work they deem fit to footballs before we hit game day.
It's too bad that Goodell chose to listen to two sore losers.
I have no problem with the league listening to two sore losers. They should investigate stuff like that.
My problem is pretty much everything that transpired AFTER that; misinformation, media leaks, incorrect information not being corrected, arbitrary enforcement of rules, having no clue about the climate's effect on footballs, bias, making up stuff on the fly, turning a molehill into a mountain, etc.......
-
The real solution to this insanity would be just to make a rule that says each team can do whatever it wants with its own balls. Rodgers likes them overinflated, Brady likes them the opposite. Just remove that rule, and the problem goes away.
The real solution should be the referees have one set of properly inflated footballs that they're in possession of and both teams use.
That would work too. But unlike in any other sport, the condition of the ball doesn't really affect the other team all that much. So what's the harm in allowing teams to do whatever they want with it? If under-inflating the balls really is a huge competitive advantage, everyone will start doing it. But given what guys like Aaron Rodgers have said about liking over-inflated balls, it just seems like a matter of personal preference.
The thing is that just opens the door for some problems. I mean you could have teams that intentionally use a barely inflated ball on one play so it is under thrown or wobbles in the wind. Next play, put in a very hard ball and throw a rocket. Next play use a mid sized ball. It could give a pretty large advantage to the offense since the defense never knows what type of ball is being used.
In no other ball team sport do the teams control the ball. It is always done by the officials so they can check for compliance (i.e. baseball umps remove scuffed balls, balls with foreign substance, etc.) Heck the NFL officials could even have 3 different ball pressures if it is really an issue - high, middle, low and the team could just pick one for the situation (so a kicker may want the high pressure while the QB may want a middle or low pressure). Personally I think the league should just standardize it and control it. Have a guy that ensures all balls are at 13 psi (or whatever). That way everyone is always using the same ball.
-
... which is about as useful as the random guy off the streets educated guesswork.
I practice in front of the same group of judges daily, against the same attorneys. I don't think any of us can guess definitively what a judge will do in a complicated case.
Well, not guessing definitively is not the same as being as useful as the random guy off the street. Some guesses are better than others.
Yes, and if the source had provided some context, maybe his opinion would have some value. The "he absolutely will vacate the suspension" is sheer nonsense, though. I doubt even his law clerks can make a statement like that with any degree of confidence at this stage.
If it was an easy case, sure. If it was an ideological case, sure. In an arbitration dispute where the central question is whether the arbitrator should be deferred to? The guy on the street probably has as much insight, at least in terms of what the judge "absolutely" will do.
-
I have a feeling the judge is pushing so hard for the sides to settle because on the one hand he doesn't want to completely override an arbitrator, but on the other hand, he thinks this whole thing is at best blown out of proportion, at worst completely bogus.
-
I have a feeling the judge is pushing so hard for the sides to settle because on the one hand he doesn't want to completely override an arbitrator, but on the other hand, he thinks this whole thing is at best blown out of proportion, at worst completely bogus.
Doesn't want to lose the free season tickets in the frozen envelope someone slipped him on behalf of TGH, more like.
-
I've often found that when a judge is particularly hard on one side, the judge is doing so because that is the side the judge thinks need to be pushed hard on to reach a settlement. All judges want all cases settled as no judge every really wants to decide the fate of two entities/people. It is of course their job, but it is always better when the two sides settle because both sides can at least live with the result.
I've also found that isn't a very good way to determine what a judge will ultimately do. Sure sometimes a judge rules like you would think, but just as often the judge sides with the party he was being particularly hard on. Makes appeals more difficult since the losing side got everything it wanted.
-
... which is about as useful as the random guy off the streets educated guesswork.
I practice in front of the same group of judges daily, against the same attorneys. I don't think any of us can guess definitively what a judge will do in a complicated case.
Well, not guessing definitively is not the same as being as useful as the random guy off the street. Some guesses are better than others.
Yes, and if the source had provided some context, maybe his opinion would have some value. The "he absolutely will vacate the suspension" is sheer nonsense, though. I doubt even his law clerks can make a statement like that with any degree of confidence at this stage.
If it was an easy case, sure. If it was an ideological case, sure. In an arbitration dispute where the central question is whether the arbitrator should be deferred to? The guy on the street probably has as much insight, at least in terms of what the judge "absolutely" will do.
Roy, Were you surprised by the degree to which the judge focused on the merits of the NFL's claim against Brady? I was. I thought the focus was going to be on due process related stuff.
-
... which is about as useful as the random guy off the streets educated guesswork.
I practice in front of the same group of judges daily, against the same attorneys. I don't think any of us can guess definitively what a judge will do in a complicated case.
Well, not guessing definitively is not the same as being as useful as the random guy off the street. Some guesses are better than others.
Yes, and if the source had provided some context, maybe his opinion would have some value. The "he absolutely will vacate the suspension" is sheer nonsense, though. I doubt even his law clerks can make a statement like that with any degree of confidence at this stage.
If it was an easy case, sure. If it was an ideological case, sure. In an arbitration dispute where the central question is whether the arbitrator should be deferred to? The guy on the street probably has as much insight, at least in terms of what the judge "absolutely" will do.
Roy, Were you surprised by the degree to which the judge focused on the merits of the NFL's claim against Brady? I was. I thought the focus was going to be on due process related stuff.
He did that to push settlement.
-
The judge is really ripping into the NFL. This is looking more and more like Brady will be vacated or at worst, get one game.
Hopefully the owners come to their senses and can Goodell. And their financial success is not a reason to keep Goodell around. A monkey could make money for the owners given the popularity of football in America.
And the monkey would probably do better job with discipline.
-
Seems like more & more of the national media is coming around to how inept the NFL league office looks in this case.
Just following Stephen Berman's blow by blow account of today's proceedings on Twitter, it certainly sounded like he was extremely critical of NFL procedure here.
A lot of people have been chiming in on this particular statement by Berman via @PPVSRB regarding Pash;
Stephen Brown ?@PPVSRB 2h2 hours ago Manhattan, NY
Berman: "I believe some arbitration awards have been vacated" because a witness was not allowed to be called without explanation.
-
There's also been rumblings that Brady will accept guilt (and the suspension, although it would probably be reduced) if it's made explicit that his suspension was for disobeying the NFL, rather than the findings of the Wells Report.
The NFL, so far, isn't going for it.
-
There's also been rumblings that Brady will accept guilt (and the suspension, although it would probably be reduced) if it's made explicit that his suspension was for disobeying the NFL, rather than the findings of the Wells Report.
The NFL, so far, isn't going for it.
I saw the Schefty report this mornign. Couldn't figure out who leaked that out there although hunch says the league. Jeff Howe & Rapoport came out in the past hour or so & basically shot that down that saying sources were telling them that Brady isn't willing to accept any suspension in a settlement.
-
Yeah that's a bit of a weird one since, on the face of it, it makes no sense as a stance in principle and makes even less sense to leak -- unless you believe that Brady is obsessed with the idea that he'll become the NFL's version of Barry Bonds if he cops to guilt in exchange for a shortened suspension, which would jive nicely with the denials issued later in the day, since that's hardly a sentiment that can be expressed publicly.
No idea if that has any factual bearing on that, it's just the path that makes the most sense to me.
-
A one or two game suspension based on lack of cooperation, at this point, seems like it'd be an outstanding resolution for the NFL. The judge has been openly skeptical of the NFL's positions from the beginning.
I have to imagine Brady is actually pushing for reduction of the punishment to a heavy fine and a public admission of guilt re: lack of cooperation and nothing else. The NFL then goes ahead and leaks this story about Brady accepting a suspension on the same ground, hoping to incite media pressure for Brady to accept a substantial reduction in his suspension.
My guess -- Brady holds fast unless the NFL drops the suspension entirely. He'll take his chances with the judge otherwise.
-
It's interesting to think that the NFL filed to have this case heard in New York court because they expected a more sympathetic judge. If Berman is a more sympathetic judge, I am curious what would have happened if the case was in Minnesota (where the player's union wanted it).
Would the Minnesota judge have immediately vacated the suspension and made the NFL give back the draft picks and the fine?
-
I've often found that when a judge is particularly hard on one side, the judge is doing so because that is the side the judge thinks need to be pushed hard on to reach a settlement. All judges want all cases settled as no judge every really wants to decide the fate of two entities/people. It is of course their job, but it is always better when the two sides settle because both sides can at least live with the result.
I've also found that isn't a very good way to determine what a judge will ultimately do. Sure sometimes a judge rules like you would think, but just as often the judge sides with the party he was being particularly hard on. Makes appeals more difficult since the losing side got everything it wanted.
Good point. I was also thinking he may disagree with how the NFL conducted their case against Brady but he might not be able to legally do much except voice his disagreement with them.
-
guys like polian on espn keep saying that it is whether or not the process was followed properly, and that it is unlikely for the NFL to be overturned on that narrow basis. While I understand that courts are very deferential to arbitration awards, for good reason, I see a lot of holes in the NFL following the process properly. Particularly punishing Brady for a conduct violation that is not spelled out in the CBA. It is my understanding that the CBA sets out discipline for drug test violations, so for the league to make this analogy does not hold up logically.
I still can't believe it has come to this. What a waste of time.
-
guys like polian on espn keep saying that it is whether or not the process was followed properly, and that it is unlikely for the NFL to be overturned on that narrow basis. While I understand that courts are very deferential to arbitration awards, for good reason, I see a lot of holes in the NFL following the process properly. Particularly punishing Brady for a conduct violation that is not spelled out in the CBA. It is my understanding that the CBA sets out discipline for drug test violations, so for the league to make this analogy does not hold up logically.
I still can't believe it has come to this. What a waste of time.
It's great that ESPN relies so much on a former Colts executive for an unbiased assessment of the Patriots. ::)
-
It's interesting to think that the NFL filed to have this case heard in New York court because they expected a more sympathetic judge. If Berman is a more sympathetic judge, I am curious what would have happened if the case was in Minnesota (where the player's union wanted it).
Would the Minnesota judge have immediately vacated the suspension and made the NFL give back the draft picks and the fine?
I've heard numerous times that the judge has no say with regard to the draft picks. I wonder if anyone can provide the actual legal reason for why the judge can't rule that the NFL's processes and conclusions are faulty and that all penalites that stemmed from faulty processes and conclusions should be voided. I am sure the reason rests in the actual claim being addressed in the case, but as a non-lawyer I don't understand a judge's limitations. Lawyers please explain -- thanks.
-
Because the suit is an appeal filed by the NFLPA in regard to Brady's four-game suspension, rather than a lawsuit from the Patriots in regards to the punishment as a whole.
disclosure: not a lawyer, and the above is my best guess as someone who is not.
-
On a side note, Deflagate and the C's "Summer of attaining Reasonably Talented Assets (SORTA)", is getting me sky-high in anticipation of my favorite sports time of year -- Basketball-Football season.
I absolutely can't wait!
-
On a side note, Deflagate and the C's "Summer of attaining Reasonably Talented Assets (SORTA)", is getting me sky-high in anticipation of my favorite sports time of year -- Basketball-Football season.
I absolutely can't wait!
No doubt. And I'll go one step further and say I love it when basketball, football, and the MLB playoffs are going concurrently.
-
It's interesting to think that the NFL filed to have this case heard in New York court because they expected a more sympathetic judge. If Berman is a more sympathetic judge, I am curious what would have happened if the case was in Minnesota (where the player's union wanted it).
Don't forget that any decision has to survive on appeal. The NFL has won in the Second Circuit before, I believe.
-
Bill Simmons just had two retweets up where different people were saying the rumors about Brady accepting a settlement are categorically false. It sounds like the league is leaking again....
-
On a side note, Deflagate and the C's "Summer of attaining Reasonably Talented Assets (SORTA)", is getting me sky-high in anticipation of my favorite sports time of year -- Basketball-Football season.
Summer of Reasonably Talented Acquisitions just fits the acronym a little better :P
-
On a side note, Deflagate and the C's "Summer of attaining Reasonably Talented Assets (SORTA)", is getting me sky-high in anticipation of my favorite sports time of year -- Basketball-Football season.
Summer of Reasonably Talented Acquisitions just fits the acronym a little better :P
Uhhh -- I was so close, but have to agree yours is better! I took acronymist-license with the lower-case 'a' in attaining. But you've went and done it better.
I am excited about the year nonetheless -- hoping that SORTA is just the beginning.
-
It's interesting to think that the NFL filed to have this case heard in New York court because they expected a more sympathetic judge. If Berman is a more sympathetic judge, I am curious what would have happened if the case was in Minnesota (where the player's union wanted it).
Don't forget that any decision has to survive on appeal. The NFL has won in the Second Circuit before, I believe.
I don't think Brady is worried about it surviving an appeal. I think I heard appeals were running two years in that circuit. And then at worst, they'd send it back to Berman who could side with Brady on another issue. But that is so far away, I doubt the NFL actually keeps it in the news that long. Apparently there are owners who are upset this is dragging into this season, I can't imagine there would be a ton of support for it two seasons from now.
More than likely though, IF Berman sides with Brady and vacates the suspension, he'd do so on several issues saying each issues is enough to decide in Brady's favor. Then an appeals court would have to reject him on each issue which would be unlikely.
Berman has already show he has picked the Well's report apart with his questioning of the Well's report not mentioning Brady was "generally aware" ON the day of the game. The NFL just said, we thought it was obvious to which Berman just shook his head.
That doesn't seem like a judge trying to nudge the NFL to a deal to me, that looks like a Judge who is fully invested in this case and already made up his mind. The fact that he was shaking his head "yes" which Kessler was talking and peppering Nash with questions makes me think he has already made up his mind.
I don't know this judge though so... never know.
-
Wouldn't that be hilarious. Nothing sticks to TeFlon Tommy Brady. Than he can make another 100 million off Teflon pans. Herald you can use my title but just give credit to Celtics Blog.
So glad the judge agrees with rationale human beings.
-
Bill Simmons just had two retweets up where different people were saying the rumors about Brady accepting a settlement are categorically false. It sounds like the league is leaking again....
What's the incentive for the NFL to leak that, though? The Judge has strongly urged settlement. The NFL has no incentive to look like it's the one not bending.
I anything, I buy the original report that Brady would take two games. The NFL may not want to settle due to precedent reasons (i.e., it doesn't want to encourage players to go to Federal Court, and may be better in the long run with a favorable decision from the 2nd Circuit), but I don't think they gain anything by falsely leaking that Brady is being the more reasonable party.
-
I anything, I buy the original report that Brady would take two games.
I think this will be the compromise, too.
-
Bill Simmons just had two retweets up where different people were saying the rumors about Brady accepting a settlement are categorically false. It sounds like the league is leaking again....
What's the incentive for the NFL to leak that, though? The Judge has strongly urged settlement. The NFL has no incentive to look like it's the one not bending.
Perhaps the NFL might hope that there would be calls from the Boston-area media for Brady to just accept the reduced suspension as "what's best for the team."
If it's out there that Brady has the chance to only sit out one or two games without having to admit to cheating, it could make Brady look selfish to continue to stand on his demand that the suspension be wiped out entirely.
-
I anything, I buy the original report that Brady would take two games.
I think this will be the compromise, too.
I think that would have been the compromise 4 months ago (I think that was what I called, actually). Not so sure about it today.
-
I anything, I buy the original report that Brady would take two games.
I think this will be the compromise, too.
I think that would have been the compromise 4 months ago (I think that was what I called, actually). Not so sure about it today.
I don't think there is a shot in hell that Brady's reps agree to that sort of compromise as things stand at the moment.
-
Precisely.
Nice to see Richard Sherman saying nice things about it, too.
-
I've been in cases where the judge has made every ruling against my side, significantly questioned and hammered my side far more than the other side, etc. only to then have the judge rule in my client's favor. Makes an appeal almost impossible if you give the side you will ultimately rule against everything they want. In this case, it also seems that the NFL's settlement position is the more unreasonable position (i.e. requiring Brady to acknowledge the Wells Report and essentially admit guilt) and thus that is the side I would be hammering on if I wanted to force a settlement. That is basically law 101 for mediators, arbitrators, judges, etc. It doesn't mean he won't rule against the NFL, I just wouldn't stake any significant dollars on it. Outward appearances are often deceiving from judges.
-
I've been in cases where the judge has made every ruling against my side, significantly questioned and hammered my side far more than the other side, etc. only to then have the judge rule in my client's favor. Makes an appeal almost impossible if you give the side you will ultimately rule against everything they want. In this case, it also seems that the NFL's settlement position is the more unreasonable position (i.e. requiring Brady to acknowledge the Wells Report and essentially admit guilt) and thus that is the side I would be hammering on if I wanted to force a settlement. That is basically law 101 for mediators, arbitrators, judges, etc. It doesn't mean he won't rule against the NFL, I just wouldn't stake any significant dollars on it. Outward appearances are often deceiving from judges.
Yeah, judging a case based upon a Judge's questions is, frankly, stupid. I'm a former law clerk, and a lot of times, my judge asked the winning side tougher questions because she knew what she was going to do, and wanted further argument to fill in the weak gaps in a potential opinion. Of course, there were cases where she asked the losing side the more skeptical questions, too, because she was, well, skeptical.
Oral argument is fairly unimportant in my experience. It's mostly briefs + clerk research from my experience.
-
Bill Simmons just had two retweets up where different people were saying the rumors about Brady accepting a settlement are categorically false. It sounds like the league is leaking again....
What's the incentive for the NFL to leak that, though? The Judge has strongly urged settlement. The NFL has no incentive to look like it's the one not bending.
Perhaps the NFL might hope that there would be calls from the Boston-area media for Brady to just accept the reduced suspension as "what's best for the team."
If it's out there that Brady has the chance to only sit out one or two games without having to admit to cheating, it could make Brady look selfish to continue to stand on his demand that the suspension be wiped out entirely.
Wouldn't that make more sense if the report was the NFL was offering 2 games? Here, the report is that Brady is being reasonable, but that the NFL is being stubborn. That doesn't help the NFL.
-
Bill Simmons just had two retweets up where different people were saying the rumors about Brady accepting a settlement are categorically false. It sounds like the league is leaking again....
What's the incentive for the NFL to leak that, though? The Judge has strongly urged settlement. The NFL has no incentive to look like it's the one not bending.
I anything, I buy the original report that Brady would take two games. The NFL may not want to settle due to precedent reasons (i.e., it doesn't want to encourage players to go to Federal Court, and may be better in the long run with a favorable decision from the 2nd Circuit), but I don't think they gain anything by falsely leaking that Brady is being the more reasonable party.
I don't see how Brady could take two games, even if it's just for non-cooperation. He wouldn't have dragged it out this long to get "sort of acquitted." He wants his name clear.
Mike
-
Bill Simmons just had two retweets up where different people were saying the rumors about Brady accepting a settlement are categorically false. It sounds like the league is leaking again....
What's the incentive for the NFL to leak that, though? The Judge has strongly urged settlement. The NFL has no incentive to look like it's the one not bending.
Perhaps the NFL might hope that there would be calls from the Boston-area media for Brady to just accept the reduced suspension as "what's best for the team."
If it's out there that Brady has the chance to only sit out one or two games without having to admit to cheating, it could make Brady look selfish to continue to stand on his demand that the suspension be wiped out entirely.
Wouldn't that make more sense if the report was the NFL was offering 2 games? Here, the report is that Brady is being reasonable, but that the NFL is being stubborn. That doesn't help the NFL.
Initially there were reports Brady was willing to accept a reduced suspension along with an admission that he was wrong to not cooperate more with the NFL. Then, very quickly, reports came out denying that Brady was willing to accept any kind of suspension at all.
-
I've been in cases where the judge has made every ruling against my side, significantly questioned and hammered my side far more than the other side, etc. only to then have the judge rule in my client's favor. Makes an appeal almost impossible if you give the side you will ultimately rule against everything they want. In this case, it also seems that the NFL's settlement position is the more unreasonable position (i.e. requiring Brady to acknowledge the Wells Report and essentially admit guilt) and thus that is the side I would be hammering on if I wanted to force a settlement. That is basically law 101 for mediators, arbitrators, judges, etc. It doesn't mean he won't rule against the NFL, I just wouldn't stake any significant dollars on it. Outward appearances are often deceiving from judges.
Yeah, judging a case based upon a Judge's questions is, frankly, stupid. I'm a former law clerk, and a lot of times, my judge asked the winning side tougher questions because she knew what she was going to do, and wanted further argument to fill in the weak gaps in a potential opinion. Of course, there were cases where she asked the losing side the more skeptical questions, too, because she was, well, skeptical.
Oral argument is fairly unimportant in my experience. It's mostly briefs + clerk research from my experience.
You probably read the briefs. Whose are more persuasive?
-
I've read most of the brief that the NFLPA originally submitted. It seems to me like they've got a very strong case re the arbitrator lacking impartiality and lack of notice for the punishment (i.e. not based in the CBA).
As I understand it, the NFL's position is essentially -- the court has to give deference to the arbitrator, Goodell had a right to be the arbitrator, and so the court must basically affirm the decision that he made as arbitrator.
The NFL's position is a strong one, but I think they're asking for a really, really generous interpretation of the league's powers under labor law. More or less a rubber stamp of any decision they choose to make. Some judges probably would side with the NFL. I hope Berman does not.
But hey, I'm a pro-labor liberal, and a Pats fan to boot.
-
This deference for an arbitrator's decision is being vastly overrated in this case. This deference is based on the decision of an "independent" arbitrator. The crux of the Brady case is that Goodell was "evidently partial" which is a valid ground to vacate an arbitration award ie. he did not "fairly" evaluate all of the evidence and indeed manufactured "facts" in his appeal decision by "worksmithing" the Wells Report which did not even reference the deflation "scheme" to the Colts game. Given the record, ignoring the Judge's questions, the Judge can easily vacate this arbitration decision and order the NFL to appoint an truly independent arbitrator. I would suggest there is a 90% chance that this is what he will do as it will not create any new precedent for CBAs.
-
This deference for an arbitrator's decision is being vastly overrated in this case. This deference is based on the decision of an "independent" arbitrator. The crux of the Brady case is that Goodell was "evidently partial" which is a valid ground to vacate an arbitration award ie. he did not "fairly" evaluate all of the evidence and indeed manufactured "facts" in his appeal decision by "worksmithing" the Wells Report which did not even reference the deflation "scheme" to the Colts game. Given the record, ignoring the Judge's questions, the Judge can easily vacate this arbitration decision and order the NFL to appoint an truly independent arbitrator. I would suggest there is a 90% chance that this is what he will do as it will not create any new precedent for CBAs.
That seems reasonable to me.
-
This deference for an arbitrator's decision is being vastly overrated in this case. This deference is based on the decision of an "independent" arbitrator. The crux of the Brady case is that Goodell was "evidently partial" which is a valid ground to vacate an arbitration award ie. he did not "fairly" evaluate all of the evidence and indeed manufactured "facts" in his appeal decision by "worksmithing" the Wells Report which did not even reference the deflation "scheme" to the Colts game. Given the record, ignoring the Judge's questions, the Judge can easily vacate this arbitration decision and order the NFL to appoint an truly independent arbitrator. I would suggest there is a 90% chance that this is what he will do as it will not create any new precedent for CBAs.
That seems reasonable to me.
Doesn't that overturn the will of both the Union and the NFL as stated in the CBA, though? I don't think there's any doubt that Goddell wasn't truly independent from the Wells investigation. I'm not sure that matters, though, when the written, collectively bargained contract between the parties allows Goddell to arbitrate in these circumstances.
-
This deference for an arbitrator's decision is being vastly overrated in this case. This deference is based on the decision of an "independent" arbitrator. The crux of the Brady case is that Goodell was "evidently partial" which is a valid ground to vacate an arbitration award ie. he did not "fairly" evaluate all of the evidence and indeed manufactured "facts" in his appeal decision by "worksmithing" the Wells Report which did not even reference the deflation "scheme" to the Colts game. Given the record, ignoring the Judge's questions, the Judge can easily vacate this arbitration decision and order the NFL to appoint an truly independent arbitrator. I would suggest there is a 90% chance that this is what he will do as it will not create any new precedent for CBAs.
That seems reasonable to me.
Doesn't that overturn the will of both the Union and the NFL as stated in the CBA, though? I don't think there's any doubt that Goddell wasn't truly independent from the Wells investigation. I'm not sure that matters, though, when the written, collectively bargained contract between the parties allows Goddell to arbitrate in these circumstances.
I do not believe that this non-impartial, non-noticed, non-due processed (appeal team had no access to data, was denied certain witnesses), arbitrary punishment, and ignoring the specific most applicable part of the cba in favor of a broad general clause is contrary to the will of th union in their cba. Any single of those violates labor law and is enough to vacate the punishment, and a cba is not carte blanche to ignore labor rights.
-
Trying to figure out why the heck the court would ask John Mara to get directly involved in settlement talks here. Luckily he declined but wasn't the conflict of interest there apparent to begin with?
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/08/20/report-mara-declined-to-get-involved-in-brady-settlement-talks/
-
I've read most of the brief that the NFLPA originally submitted. It seems to me like they've got a very strong case re the arbitrator lacking impartiality and lack of notice for the punishment (i.e. not based in the CBA).
I haven't fully read any documents, but from what I read the "lack of notice" argument has been successfully used by the union in the past, but it was for cases where the league set a new rule in place after an incident occurred and then tried to punish the transgression under a rule that didn't exist at the time it occurred. That doesn't seem to be what's happening here.
-
I've read most of the brief that the NFLPA originally submitted. It seems to me like they've got a very strong case re the arbitrator lacking impartiality and lack of notice for the punishment (i.e. not based in the CBA).
I haven't fully read any documents, but from what I read the "lack of notice" argument has been successfully used by the union in the past, but it was for cases where the league set a new rule in place after an incident occurred and then tried to punish the transgression under a rule that didn't exist at the time it occurred. That doesn't seem to be what's happening here.
From my understanding of it, the "lack of notice" issue here is that the Wells report cites the investigation pursuant to the competitive integrity policy. The problem is that this particular policy applies to non-playing personnel and the players don't receive notice on this policy.
-
This is pretty much how I understand the law, too:
espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/13479971/fooled-judge-deflategate-case-nfl-win-end-new-england-patriots-tom-brady
-
This is pretty much how I understand the law, too:
espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/13479971/fooled-judge-deflategate-case-nfl-win-end-new-england-patriots-tom-brady
The comments of the article are great.
Munson had been bizarrely pro-goodell the entire time. I think there is no way to know how berman will rule. However, he could legally rule either way. Arbitrators are not infallible dictators.
Info about munson
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1991-04-17/news/9102040136_1_settlement-check-lawyer-disciplinary-supreme-court
Interesting quotes
Christopher Adams
Lester, the next time you cite the Garvey opinion, have whatever paralegal at the NFL picked the quotes for you actually read the entire opinion, particularly the part that states "It is only when the arbitrator strays from interpretation and application of the agreement and effectively 'dispense his own brand of industrial justice' that his decision may be unenforceable. Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 597 (1960). Berman could very well find that Goodell strayed here both in the interpretation of what he could do under the agreement (the suspension based on a provision that applied to teams, not players), and his completely baffling refusal to allow Brady's lawyers to view the evidence underlying the findings of the Wells report and apply attorney/client privelege to Pash and refusing to allow his tesimony regarding his input on a document which Gooddell relied upon completely to make his initial decision and decision in the arbitration hearing.
I know the NFL pays ESPN - and consequently, you - to side with them on these issues. But for the love of God, if you're going to act like a lawyer on even an infotainment website, do your homework.
2 hours ago
S. Code ? 10 - Same; vacation; grounds; rehearing
(a) In any of the following cases the United States court in and for the district wherein the award was made may make an order vacating the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration
(1) where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means;
(2) where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them;
(3) where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced; or
(4) where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.
-
This is pretty much how I understand the law, too:
espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/13479971/fooled-judge-deflategate-case-nfl-win-end-new-england-patriots-tom-brady
I am an engineer, not a lawyer, so I understand the ideal gas law a lot better than all of the legal intricacies but I did read the referenced article but also some of the responses. Curious what the lawyers here think about the responses.
Regarding the Ideal Gas Law, keep in mind that there is no proof that the balls were even deflated. I think that tends to get lost. The assumption is "come on, they must have done something" but that something that they may have done wasn't even enough to be measured.
Christopher Adams ·
Alexandria, Virginia
Lester, the next time you cite the Garvey opinion, have whatever paralegal at the NFL picked the quotes for you actually read the entire opinion, particularly the part that states "It is only when the arbitrator strays from interpretation and application of the agreement and effectively 'dispenses his own brand of industrial justice' that his decision may be unenforceable. Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 597 (1960). Berman could very well find that Goodell strayed here both in the interpretation of what he could do under the agreement (the suspension based on a provision that applied to teams, not players), and his completely baffling refusal to allow Brady's lawyers to view the evidence underlying the findings of the Wells report and apply attorney/client privelege to Pash and refusing to allow his tesimony regarding his input on a document which Gooddell relied upon completely to make his initial decision and decision in the arbitration hearing.
I know the NFL pays ESPN - and consequently, you - to side with them on these issues. But for the love of God, if you're going to act like a lawyer on even an infotainment website, do your homework.
Jared Carson ·
Kansas State University
9 U.S. Code § 10 - Same; vacation; grounds; rehearing
(a) In any of the following cases the United States court in and for the district wherein the award was made may make an order vacating the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration—
(1) where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means;
(2) where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them;
(3) where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced; or
(4) where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.
-
Munson's got his preferences but I don't think he writes things without thinking them through, so there's that.
-
Stephanie Stradley (who I think has been really good in the past few weeks) was pretty hard on Munson's take on this & wrote about how she thought the "over-reliance on Garvey has been misplaced". If you're on Twitter & interested in Deflategate, you should definitely give her a follow.
As an aside, I read up on the Garvey case and it's a pretty interesting story. Goes back to the 1980s when MLB was in a heap load of trouble involving collusion.
-
I too have been baffled at Munson's interpretation of this case. I think every attorney should immediately recognize, this case isn't like Garvey and isn't like many, if any, arbitration case we have ever seen.
Rarely is an arbiter actually biased, which is why many of these cases get settled in favor of the arbiter. Here we have an obvious conflict of interest. There are also problems with the evidence, whether the CBA covers the items Goodell says they cover, the NFL's changing standard it just made up, not making witnesses available and on and on and on.
Affirming this decision would essentially mean Goodell can suspend any player at any time for whatever it wants, citing it as an integrity issue. The problem is, equipment issues aren't integrity issues as applied to stickum on towels and even warming footballs in a heater, which consequently changes the air pressure in the balls. There was actually even a warning prior to the heating of balls that it wasn't allowed, yet the team still did it. How much were they fined? Who was suspended?
There is no difference in what the Patriots are accused of doing and what Carolina or Minnesota, whichever team it was... which is how big of an integrity issue ball pressure was to the NFL before it was the Patriots, I don't even know which team it was, did. None. I defy anyone to come up with a reasonable conclusion of how letting a tiny bit of air out of a ball and heating up a ball with a heater on the sidelines during a game differ in relation to the integrity of the game. The only difference is that one team definitely did it, were caught on camera doing it, and admitted doing it. The other had a five million dollar investigation which came back inconclusive at best. Which one was detrimental to the integrity of the game?
Which way this goes I have no idea, but Munson's conclusions are really missing the facts of the case and whether the CBA covers this at all.
-
Didn't the NFLPA agree to have a "biased" arbitrator though? Doesn't that separate this from other arbitrations?
-
At this point I am not believing any story on deflategate coming from ESPN. They have consistently looked like a mouthpiece for the NFL during this situation.
-
At this point I am not believing any story on deflategate coming from ESPN. They have consistently looked like a mouthpiece for the NFL during this situation.
(https://omskivar.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/2680765-nicolas_cage_you_dont_say.jpg?w=604)
-
From Munson's ESPN article:
"The best they [NFLPA] have come up with in their briefs and arguments in support of Brady are vague assertions of "fundamental fairness" and the "evident partiality" of Goodell as the arbitrator.
The problem with these assertions is that the NFLPA agreed in collective bargaining that Goodell would be the final authority in conduct detrimental cases, and, as the arbitrator, Goodell decides on all issues of fairness. They agreed to a partial arbitrator, and they agreed to his notions of fairness."
During the hearing Berman has made statements such as:
. "There has to be some basic process of fairness that needs to be followed,” (In response to Goodell denying the NFLPA access to documents from the investigation)
. "Under the law the arbitrator doesn't have the authority to determine evidence will be cumulative" (in response to Goodell denying NFLPA to interview Pash as a witness)
. That Goodell made a "quantum leap" from general awareness to scheme in his ruling.
. "I’m trying to figure out what is the direct evidence that implicates Mr. Brady in that deflation…in that bathroom…on Jan. 18" He even had Kessler read a direct quote from Brady that he instructed the ball to be 12.5.
So it sounds like Berman is open to "fundamental fairness" and the "evident partiality".
Also, Goodell lied in his ruling about Brady's sworn in testimony about the conversations with Jastremski. Goodell stated in his ruling that Brady testified that he did not speak to Jastremski about DeflateGate and only about preparation for the Super Bowl. In his ruling Goodell found it not to be credible that Brady would not have discussed Deflategate. This was a significant part of his explanation to how he came to his decision. But when the transcripts were released, it was revealed that Brady did in fact testify to speaking with Jastremski about deflategate and extensively so.
I'm not a lawyer, but isn't it a problem that the arbitrator lied about the defendant's sworn in testimony and then used that lie to determine the defendant's guilt? Wouldn't this speak to "fundamental fairness" and the "evident partiality"? That doesn't sound vague to me.
-
I'm not a lawyer, but isn't it a problem that the arbitrator lied about the defendant's sworn in testimony and then used that lie to determine the defendant's guilt? Wouldn't this speak to "fundamental fairness" and the "evident partiality"? That doesn't sound vague to me.
On those particular points, it doesn't matter. The Supreme Court has said that even when an arbitrator gets the law wrong, the award will still be upheld. Getting a fact wrong, or misstating it, isn't enough to overturn an arbitrator award.
I'm sympathetic to some of the other arguments in terms of a lack of due process, but ultimately, I'm not sure that that matters.
-
I'm not a lawyer, but isn't it a problem that the arbitrator lied about the defendant's sworn in testimony and then used that lie to determine the defendant's guilt? Wouldn't this speak to "fundamental fairness" and the "evident partiality"? That doesn't sound vague to me.
On those particular points, it doesn't matter. The Supreme Court has said that even when an arbitrator gets the law wrong, the award will still be upheld. Getting a fact wrong, or misstating it, isn't enough to overturn an arbitrator award.
I'm sympathetic to some of the other arguments in terms of a lack of due process, but ultimately, I'm not sure that that matters.
I don't know how you can say it was getting a fact wrong or misstating it. Goodell had the transcripts and Brady talked about those conversations multiple times during his testimony. It was an outright lie and the arbitrator used that lie to determine guilt. And that's not getting the law wrong, it's getting the facts wrong. No, it was lying about the facts.
How could that possibly not be a violation of general fairness? If that's acceptable, what else is acceptable?
-
Affirming this decision would essentially mean Goodell can suspend any player at any time for whatever it wants, citing it as an integrity issue. The problem is, equipment issues aren't integrity issues as applied to stickum on towels and even warming footballs in a heater, which consequently changes the air pressure in the balls. There was actually even a warning prior to the heating of balls that it wasn't allowed, yet the team still did it. How much were they fined? Who was suspended?
There is no difference in what the Patriots are accused of doing and what Carolina or Minnesota, whichever team it was... which is how big of an integrity issue ball pressure was to the NFL before it was the Patriots, I don't even know which team it was, did. None. I defy anyone to come up with a reasonable conclusion of how letting a tiny bit of air out of a ball and heating up a ball with a heater on the sidelines during a game differ in relation to the integrity of the game. The only difference is that one team definitely did it, were caught on camera doing it, and admitted doing it. The other had a five million dollar investigation which came back inconclusive at best. Which one was detrimental to the integrity of the game?
This is basically what this case boils down to for me. I know there are legal issues, but laws are imperfect, as is the enforcement of them—not that we shouldn't have laws, but things should be fair. And there is absolutely nothing fair about issuing a mere warning to teams that messed with equipment on national TV but throwing the book at a team whose guilt can't even be conclusively shown.
-
I'm not a lawyer, but isn't it a problem that the arbitrator lied about the defendant's sworn in testimony and then used that lie to determine the defendant's guilt? Wouldn't this speak to "fundamental fairness" and the "evident partiality"? That doesn't sound vague to me.
On those particular points, it doesn't matter. The Supreme Court has said that even when an arbitrator gets the law wrong, the award will still be upheld. Getting a fact wrong, or misstating it, isn't enough to overturn an arbitrator award.
I'm sympathetic to some of the other arguments in terms of a lack of due process, but ultimately, I'm not sure that that matters.
What about the fact where Berman said awards had been vacated in the past for not making key witnesses available.
-
Let me be clear to take the following with a grain of salt. It comes from the BSMW boards but sounds like a rather intelligent breakdown of this Garvey thing & how it applies.
This is probably a good time to talk a little about the Garvey case, what it said, and what it means.
Garvey (yes, it's Steve, and no, it doesn't involve paternity) arose from the final collusion lawsuit/settlement between MLB and the MLBPA in 1990. Under the terms of the final settlement, a big payment (I think it was $260m) was paid to the union. Part of the agreement was a "framework" for distribution of the award to players under which aggrieved players would submit claims to the MLBPA, and if the claim was rejected, the player could go to an arbitrator, who would determine whether they were entitled to an award (i.e. whether they had been colluded against).
Garvey submitted a claim for $3m saying that the Padres had offered to extend his contract in 1985, then withdrew the extension offer due to owner collusion. It was denied; the MLBPA said he didn't provide any evidence of an extension offer. He appealed to arbitration. As part of his arb hearing, he submitted a letter from Ballard Smith, the Padres' GM in 1985, stating that Garvey had been offered an extension, which had been withdrawn. The arbitrator asked for more evidence on the claim, which he didn't get. He then ruled against Garvey, saying that he found the Smith letter very suspect, given Smith's statements in the past denying collusion and denying that Garvey was offered an extension.
Garvey appealed to the local Federal district court to vacate the arbitration award (or lack thereof). This is where it gets tricky.
1) The District court (Southern District of CA) denied his motion.
2) Garvey appealed that decision to the 9th Circuit
3) The 9th Circuit reversed the District Court's opinion, arguing that the arbitrator's refusal to consider the Smith letter was "inexplicable" and "bordered on the irrational". The reversal came with an order sending the case back to the District Court to vacate the award. ("Garvey I")
4) The District Court vacated the award, and sent the case back to the arbitrator for re-arbitration.
5) Garvey appealed the District Court order sending the case back to arbitration to the 9th Circuit.
6) The 9th Circuit heard the appeal and sent the case back to the District Court, and ordered the District Court to enter a judgment ordering the arbitrator to give Garvey his $3M. ("Garvey II")
7) The MLBPA appealed the 9th Circuit's order to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, in a per curiam decision (= one that is not specifically authored by a justice, but considered authored by all concurring justices), threw out both of the 9th Circuit decisions and upheld the original District Court denial of Garvey's appeal. The substance of their opinion:
1) It's not the place of the courts to second-guess an arbitrator's factual conclusions. The court only analyzes whether the arbitrator's conclusions arise from the contract in question (i.e. is it the issue that the parties understood was being arbitrated), and even then only a conclusion that isn't even colorably related to the contract would be subject to vacatur.
2) Even if the court finds that vacatur is proper (either the decision is outside the scope of the contract, or the required fair procedure isn't present), the remedy is just vacating the award, and (if the contract permits), letting it be re-arbitrated. The court does not have the right to step in and decide the factual question itself (which the SupCt found the 9th Circuit did), because that is not what the parties bargained for, and it would be usurping the proper and agreed-upon role of the arbitrator under the contract.
The tl;dr takeaway from the case is that if you agree to an arbitrator, you're stuck with him if he's a moron, unless he gave you significant unfairness in process.
The Garvey case is HIGHLY relevant to this case in the abstract, because it definitively states that Brady cannot sue on the grounds that Roger Goodell made a factually incorrect conclusion, even if he could prove that (theoretically) in a court of law.
But, of course, that's not what the NFLPA is arguing. Nowhere in any of the filings will you see a direct claim along the lines of "the award should be overturned because Brady didn't do it." The NFLPA is arguing failures of procedure, and failures of scope -- both of which are clearly relevant and sustainable grounds for vacatur under Garvey (via its citation of a different controlling case, Paperworkers vs. Misco, Inc., that dealt with vacatur on procedural grounds).
-
At this point I am not believing any story on deflategate coming from ESPN. They have consistently looked like a mouthpiece for the NFL during this situation.
(https://omskivar.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/2680765-nicolas_cage_you_dont_say.jpg?w=604)
lol TP
-
I'm not a lawyer, but isn't it a problem that the arbitrator lied about the defendant's sworn in testimony and then used that lie to determine the defendant's guilt? Wouldn't this speak to "fundamental fairness" and the "evident partiality"? That doesn't sound vague to me.
On those particular points, it doesn't matter. The Supreme Court has said that even when an arbitrator gets the law wrong, the award will still be upheld. Getting a fact wrong, or misstating it, isn't enough to overturn an arbitrator award.
I'm sympathetic to some of the other arguments in terms of a lack of due process, but ultimately, I'm not sure that that matters.
Kessler did not raise this subject in his arguments on Wednesday so he obviously doesn't think it matters either. I just can't believe that doesn't matter. This was an important factor in Goodell's ruling as it led to Goodell not trusting Brady's credibility.
Goodell found that Brady’s increased communications with Jastremski after the AFC Championship game “undermine[d] any suggestion that the communications addressed only preparation of footballs for the Super Bowl rather than the tampering allegations”
But Kessler asked Brady multiple times about Brady's conversations with Jastremski and Brady repeatedly said they talked about deflategate as well as ball prep for the SB. In cross examination, Reisner asked Brady about each and every communication and Brady again repeatedly said they discussed deflategate. Then Goodell interjected and here are his questions:
COMMISSIONER GOODELL: So you asked him if he had done it?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER GOODELL: And he said no?
THE WITNESS: Yes, he said he didn't do it.
COMMISSIONER GOODELL: Did you ask him if he knew anybody else that had done it?
THE WITNESS: No, because I obviously didn't know that there was a -- that Mr. McNally -- I didn't know what his responsibilities were at the time. So John said, "We didn't do anything."
Unless Goodell has Alzheimers, this isn't just getting a fact wrong or a misstatement of a fact. It is an undeniable outright lie important to the case. Goodell used his own lie to determine guilt.
I understand deference to an arbitrator's judgment, but if the arbitrator's judgment is based ofF misstated facts or in this case his own lie, it's unbelievable. Seriously, what if Goodell said that Brady confessed? Would that just be a misstated fact as well?
-
Lol. When this thread was created, I would have never guessed it'd reach this many pages.
If this isn't the biggest case of "much ado about nothing" then I don't know what is.
-
Lol. When this thread was created, I would have never guessed it'd reach this many pages.
If this isn't the biggest case of "much ado about nothing" then I don't know what is.
All because some highly paid NFL execs forgot their 9th grade science. Just watch Berman's ruling get appealed and this thing go on for another two years. Fun fun.
-
Lol. When this thread was created, I would have never guessed it'd reach this many pages.
If this isn't the biggest case of "much ado about nothing" then I don't know what is.
Agreed. Mostly driven by dislike for the Pats.
Couple of psi of air pressure, and children are starving in Africa. Geez.
-
Couple important points:
- Roger Goodell is a clown.
- ESPN is a joke.
- Patriot haters live in a land of make believe.
-
(http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=75779.0;attach=6041)
-
Didn't the NFLPA agree to have a "biased" arbitrator though? Doesn't that separate this from other arbitrations?
No, they agreed to let Goodell hear the appeals. Nowhere did the NFLPA agree to have a biased arbitrator decide their cases. But, lets say they did. Lets say the CBA states, "Goodell will hear all appeals and his bias toward one side or the other is not a factor." The NFL would still lose because federal law says an arbiter can't be biased. Just like you can never contractually agree to waive negligence, you can't agree not to follow federal law.
When given the opportunity by Berman to defend Goodell as an impartial arbiter, Nash simply said Goodell wasn't required by the CBA to be impartial. True, but federal law does require him to be impartial and to boot, the CBA doesn't mention his impartially at all. Ambiguous language in contracts are to be construed against the side who wrote them. I assume that would be the NFL in this case.
The more I think about this case, the more I'm leaning toward not only will Brady win at least a new arbitration hearing with an impartial arbiter, but that this is the only possible outcome.
-
While it looks good now for the Patriots, I wouldnt be surprised at all if the NFL won.
-
Didn't the NFLPA agree to have a "biased" arbitrator though? Doesn't that separate this from other arbitrations?
No, they agreed to let Goodell hear the appeals. Nowhere did the NFLPA agree to have a biased arbitrator decide their cases. But, lets say they did. Lets say the CBA states, "Goodell will hear all appeals and his bias toward one side or the other is not a factor." The NFL would still lose because federal law says an arbiter can't be biased. Just like you can never contractually agree to waive negligence, you can't agree not to follow federal law.
When given the opportunity by Berman to defend Goodell as an impartial arbiter, Nash simply said Goodell wasn't required by the CBA to be impartial. True, but federal law does require him to be impartial and to boot, the CBA doesn't mention his impartially at all. Ambiguous language in contracts are to be construed against the side who wrote them. I assume that would be the NFL in this case.
The more I think about this case, the more I'm leaning toward not only will Brady win at least a new arbitration hearing with an impartial arbiter, but that this is the only possible outcome.
Um, you can waive negligence in most states. happens all the time in fact.
Goodell is biased and the NFLPA knew it. That is what happens when you let the original decision maker be the arbitrator.
-
Couple important points:
- Roger Goodell is a clown.
- ESPN is a joke.
- Patriot haters live in a land of make believe.
- As do the fervent Patriots supporters
- Tom Brady isn't particularly credible
- The "deflator" and "I was referring to selling season tickets" excuses are laughable
Very few folks are viewing this one neutrally.
-
Um, you can waive negligence in most states. happens all the time in fact.
Yeah. I think the general rule is that you can't waive professional negligence -- i.e., malpractice -- beforehand, but general negligence is waived frequently.
-
I've read most of the brief that the NFLPA originally submitted. It seems to me like they've got a very strong case re the arbitrator lacking impartiality and lack of notice for the punishment (i.e. not based in the CBA).
I haven't fully read any documents, but from what I read the "lack of notice" argument has been successfully used by the union in the past, but it was for cases where the league set a new rule in place after an incident occurred and then tried to punish the transgression under a rule that didn't exist at the time it occurred. That doesn't seem to be what's happening here.
From my understanding of it, the "lack of notice" issue here is that the Wells report cites the investigation pursuant to the competitive integrity policy. The problem is that this particular policy applies to non-playing personnel and the players don't receive notice on this policy.
Thanks.
-
Couple important points:
- Roger Goodell is a clown.
- ESPN is a joke.
- Patriot haters live in a land of make believe.
- As do the fervent Patriots supporters
- Tom Brady isn't particularly credible
- The "deflator" and "I was referring to selling season tickets" excuses are laughable
Very few folks are viewing this one neutrally.
This is off topic. Just pointing out I find it interesting when people are fans of 1 team in a region, but not another team in another sport in the same region. I know plenty of people like this, one in particular with a strange mix of Yankees and Jets fan, but likes the Celtics and Bruins.
-
The more I think about this case, the more I'm leaning toward not only will Brady win at least a new arbitration hearing with an impartial arbiter, but that this is the only possible outcome.
Is this case about confirming the arbitration or confirming the suspension?
-
The more I think about this case, the more I'm leaning toward not only will Brady win at least a new arbitration hearing with an impartial arbiter, but that this is the only possible outcome.
Is this case about confirming the arbitration or confirming the suspension?
Both, if Berman kicks it back to arbitration and the second arbiter decides on the merits of the case and the penalty. Berman can't impose his theory of the right outcome on the case. He can determine procedural issues and arbiter impartiality/honesty.
-
Couple important points:
- Roger Goodell is a clown.
- ESPN is a joke.
- Patriot haters live in a land of make believe.
- As do the fervent Patriots supporters
- Tom Brady isn't particularly credible
- The "deflator" and "I was referring to selling season tickets" excuses are laughable
Very few folks are viewing this one neutrally.
The explanations for "deflator" and "I was referring to selling season tickets" aren't laughable. These texts were selected out of thousands over an 8 month span. You can be suspicious of the explanations, but to dismiss them entirely is hardly reasonable.
-
Couple important points:
- Roger Goodell is a clown.
- ESPN is a joke.
- Patriot haters live in a land of make believe.
- As do the fervent Patriots supporters
- Tom Brady isn't particularly credible
- The "deflator" and "I was referring to selling season tickets" excuses are laughable
Very few folks are viewing this one neutrally.
The explanations for "deflator" and "I was referring to selling season tickets" aren't laughable. These texts were selected out of thousands over an 8 month span. You can be suspicious of the explanations, but to dismiss them entirely is hardly reasonable.
No, "laughable" was the right word. I dismiss the explanations entirely, particularly the season tickets explanation. That explanation has literally zero credibility.
-
Couple important points:
- Roger Goodell is a clown.
- ESPN is a joke.
- Patriot haters live in a land of make believe.
- As do the fervent Patriots supporters
- Tom Brady isn't particularly credible
- The "deflator" and "I was referring to selling season tickets" excuses are laughable
Very few folks are viewing this one neutrally.
The explanations for "deflator" and "I was referring to selling season tickets" aren't laughable. These texts were selected out of thousands over an 8 month span. You can be suspicious of the explanations, but to dismiss them entirely is hardly reasonable.
No, "laughable" was the right word. I dismiss the explanations entirely, particularly the season tickets explanation. That explanation has literally zero credibility.
So he wasn't selling tickets? There isn't a third guy who says that he told Jastremski that McNally must have been under stress in doing so and who also said he would be willing to talk to Wells about the conversation? All three men are lying about this and you know that?
-
I've been in cases where the judge has made every ruling against my side, significantly questioned and hammered my side far more than the other side, etc. only to then have the judge rule in my client's favor. Makes an appeal almost impossible if you give the side you will ultimately rule against everything they want. In this case, it also seems that the NFL's settlement position is the more unreasonable position (i.e. requiring Brady to acknowledge the Wells Report and essentially admit guilt) and thus that is the side I would be hammering on if I wanted to force a settlement. That is basically law 101 for mediators, arbitrators, judges, etc. It doesn't mean he won't rule against the NFL, I just wouldn't stake any significant dollars on it. Outward appearances are often deceiving from judges.
Yeah, judging a case based upon a Judge's questions is, frankly, stupid. I'm a former law clerk, and a lot of times, my judge asked the winning side tougher questions because she knew what she was going to do, and wanted further argument to fill in the weak gaps in a potential opinion. Of course, there were cases where she asked the losing side the more skeptical questions, too, because she was, well, skeptical.
Oral argument is fairly unimportant in my experience. It's mostly briefs + clerk research from my experience.
You probably read the briefs. Whose are more persuasive?
Sorry, Roy, just curious if you read both briefs, and whose you found more persuasive?
-
I've been in cases where the judge has made every ruling against my side, significantly questioned and hammered my side far more than the other side, etc. only to then have the judge rule in my client's favor. Makes an appeal almost impossible if you give the side you will ultimately rule against everything they want. In this case, it also seems that the NFL's settlement position is the more unreasonable position (i.e. requiring Brady to acknowledge the Wells Report and essentially admit guilt) and thus that is the side I would be hammering on if I wanted to force a settlement. That is basically law 101 for mediators, arbitrators, judges, etc. It doesn't mean he won't rule against the NFL, I just wouldn't stake any significant dollars on it. Outward appearances are often deceiving from judges.
Yeah, judging a case based upon a Judge's questions is, frankly, stupid. I'm a former law clerk, and a lot of times, my judge asked the winning side tougher questions because she knew what she was going to do, and wanted further argument to fill in the weak gaps in a potential opinion. Of course, there were cases where she asked the losing side the more skeptical questions, too, because she was, well, skeptical.
Oral argument is fairly unimportant in my experience. It's mostly briefs + clerk research from my experience.
You probably read the briefs. Whose are more persuasive?
Sorry, Roy, just curious if you read both briefs, and whose you found more persuasive?
I haven't. My guess is that they're both fairly persuasive, since they probably cost $700 per hour to write.
-
Couple important points:
- Roger Goodell is a clown.
- ESPN is a joke.
- Patriot haters live in a land of make believe.
- As do the fervent Patriots supporters
- Tom Brady isn't particularly credible
- The "deflator" and "I was referring to selling season tickets" excuses are laughable
Very few folks are viewing this one neutrally.
The explanations for "deflator" and "I was referring to selling season tickets" aren't laughable. These texts were selected out of thousands over an 8 month span. You can be suspicious of the explanations, but to dismiss them entirely is hardly reasonable.
No, "laughable" was the right word. I dismiss the explanations entirely, particularly the season tickets explanation. That explanation has literally zero credibility.
So he wasn't selling tickets? There isn't a third guy who says that he told Jastremski that McNally must have been under stress in doing so and who also said he would be willing to talk to Wells about the conversation? All three men are lying about this and you know that?
There is a 0% chance that that conversation was about selling tickets. No reasonable person could believe that it was, in context. So yes, I unequivocally know that that explanation for that text is a lie.
-
Couple important points:
- Roger Goodell is a clown.
- ESPN is a joke.
- Patriot haters live in a land of make believe.
- As do the fervent Patriots supporters
- Tom Brady isn't particularly credible
- The "deflator" and "I was referring to selling season tickets" excuses are laughable
Very few folks are viewing this one neutrally.
The explanations for "deflator" and "I was referring to selling season tickets" aren't laughable. These texts were selected out of thousands over an 8 month span. You can be suspicious of the explanations, but to dismiss them entirely is hardly reasonable.
No, "laughable" was the right word. I dismiss the explanations entirely, particularly the season tickets explanation. That explanation has literally zero credibility.
So he wasn't selling tickets? There isn't a third guy who says that he told Jastremski that McNally must have been under stress in doing so and who also said he would be willing to talk to Wells about the conversation? All three men are lying about this and you know that?
There is a 0% chance that that conversation was about selling tickets. No reasonable person could believe that it was, in context. So yes, I unequivocally know that that explanation for that text is a lie.
No, you do not unequivocally know that. You are just speculating. It was a perfectly reasonable explanation confirmed by all three parties. It is impossible for you to know that they were all lying. Wells interrogated McNally for over 7 hours and Jastremski for, I think, 4 hours and he couldn't get them to slip up. And he declined to speak to the third guy. It's fair to doubt them, but 0% chance... no.
As far as context, you do not know what other communication these guys had, you only know the text messages Wells put in the report.
-
Couple important points:
- Roger Goodell is a clown.
- ESPN is a joke.
- Patriot haters live in a land of make believe.
- As do the fervent Patriots supporters
- Tom Brady isn't particularly credible
- The "deflator" and "I was referring to selling season tickets" excuses are laughable
Very few folks are viewing this one neutrally.
The explanations for "deflator" and "I was referring to selling season tickets" aren't laughable. These texts were selected out of thousands over an 8 month span. You can be suspicious of the explanations, but to dismiss them entirely is hardly reasonable.
No, "laughable" was the right word. I dismiss the explanations entirely, particularly the season tickets explanation. That explanation has literally zero credibility.
It seems like you believe they were doing something which is totally understandable as there are strong points to that. But there are very strong points on the other side. The main thing is that through all of those text messages from those two guys the clearest thing is a message where they explicitly say the balls should have been at 13 psi for the Jets game. So if you believe the deflator comment is related, which it sounds like you do what is your explanation for the Jets game? That Brady figured a team he always struggles against he wouldn't have them deflate the balls? That I am sorry is more laughable than the explanation when deflate is a term used in weight loss frequently. Even done by the NFL a few years ago as they had a piece about that. I have yet to hear one explanation for that Jets game from someone who believes they were doing something.
-
Couple important points:
- Roger Goodell is a clown.
- ESPN is a joke.
- Patriot haters live in a land of make believe.
- As do the fervent Patriots supporters
- Tom Brady isn't particularly credible
- The "deflator" and "I was referring to selling season tickets" excuses are laughable
Very few folks are viewing this one neutrally.
The explanations for "deflator" and "I was referring to selling season tickets" aren't laughable. These texts were selected out of thousands over an 8 month span. You can be suspicious of the explanations, but to dismiss them entirely is hardly reasonable.
No, "laughable" was the right word. I dismiss the explanations entirely, particularly the season tickets explanation. That explanation has literally zero credibility.
It seems like you believe they were doing something which is totally understandable as there are strong points to that. But there are very strong points on the other side. The main thing is that through all of those text messages from those two guys the clearest thing is a message where they explicitly say the balls should have been at 13 psi for the Jets game. So if you believe the deflator comment is related, which it sounds like you do what is your explanation for the Jets game? That Brady figured a team he always struggles against he wouldn't have them deflate the balls? That I am sorry is more laughable than the explanation when deflate is a term used in weight loss frequently. Even done by the NFL a few years ago as they had a piece about that. I have yet to hear one explanation for that Jets game from someone who believes they were doing something.
Yeah, and McNally is loose with his terminology throughout his texts. There's humor throughout his texts. He's that kind of guy which is what Tedy Bruschi and others have said about him. He goes by the name "Bird" afterall. And let's not forget that the guy he was talking to prepares footballs for a living. He inflates and deflates footballs a hundred plus times a week. It's not weird for words from your daily job to enter your vernacular for other related meanings. There is another text from Bird using "deflate" for a meaning that had nothing to do with ball pressure. Are we supposed ignore that?
And of course, your point about the "13 psi" text contradicts any notion there was any scheme until after the October Jets game. The fact that Brady asked for the psi rules after that game and telling Jastremski to show them to the refs contradicts as well. It's unfortunate that Wells listed that text once in the middle of his report and listed texts that it contradicts 20-25 times throughout it. It's unfortunate that so many who express their opinion so frequently on this subject ignore that text as it doesn't fit their narrative.
-
Couple important points:
- Roger Goodell is a clown.
- ESPN is a joke.
- Patriot haters live in a land of make believe.
- As do the fervent Patriots supporters
- Tom Brady isn't particularly credible
- The "deflator" and "I was referring to selling season tickets" excuses are laughable
Very few folks are viewing this one neutrally.
Okay, I'll play.
So, in context, on May 9, 2014, McNally called himself, "the deflator" for what reason? Using everything we know what's the most logical explanation for it?
-
In May of 2014, if it was McNally's job was to deflate footballs after in-game approval, then why did Brady and the Patriots give NFL refs a copy of PSI rule in October 2014?
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25259755/tom-brady-says-pats-gave-refs-a-copy-of-psi-rule-in-october
-
What if McNally's job was to deflate the balls to fit Tom's preferences --- within the range prescribed by the rules?
We have heard that the balls are often over-inflated, and that Tom's stated preference is for them to be on the lower end of the range.
So, couldn't McNally refer to himself, jokingly or otherwise, as "the deflator" in that context? Especially if Tom frequently makes a big deal out of the balls being prepared to his specifications, including making sure they are not overinflated?
That's a plausible explanation that doesn't involve rule-breaking.
-
Couple important points:
- Roger Goodell is a clown.
- ESPN is a joke.
- Patriot haters live in a land of make believe.
- As do the fervent Patriots supporters
- Tom Brady isn't particularly credible
- The "deflator" and "I was referring to selling season tickets" excuses are laughable
Very few folks are viewing this one neutrally.
This is off topic. Just pointing out I find it interesting when people are fans of 1 team in a region, but not another team in another sport in the same region. I know plenty of people like this, one in particular with a strange mix of Yankees and Jets fan, but likes the Celtics and Bruins.
This baffles me too. I don't see how a person can like any Boston team and NOT despise every New York team. Especially the dang Jets.
-
What if McNally's job was to deflate the balls to fit Tom's preferences --- within the range prescribed by the rules?
We have heard that the balls are often over-inflated, and that Tom's stated preference is for them to be on the lower end of the range.
So, couldn't McNally refer to himself, jokingly or otherwise, as "the deflator" in that context? Especially if Tom frequently makes a big deal out of the balls being prepared to his specifications, including making sure they are not overinflated?
That's a plausible explanation that doesn't involve rule-breaking.
Absolutely.
-
In May of 2014, if it was McNally's job was to deflate footballs after in-game approval, then why did Brady and the Patriots give NFL refs a copy of PSI rule in October 2014?
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25259755/tom-brady-says-pats-gave-refs-a-copy-of-psi-rule-in-october
Bringing the ref's attention to the rules doesn't exactly seem like a smart thing when you are about to break those rules.
And why would Jastremski expect the balls to be about 13 in October if they were running a scheme going back to May to deflate the balls to under 12.5? It doesn't add up.
-
What if McNally's job was to deflate the balls to fit Tom's preferences --- within the range prescribed by the rules?
We have heard that the balls are often over-inflated, and that Tom's stated preference is for them to be on the lower end of the range.
So, couldn't McNally refer to himself, jokingly or otherwise, as "the deflator" in that context? Especially if Tom frequently makes a big deal out of the balls being prepared to his specifications, including making sure they are not overinflated?
That's a plausible explanation that doesn't involve rule-breaking.
Absolutely.
I don't agree with this. McNally is in the ref's locker room when they test the balls. If he sees the balls being overinflated, he can point out the rules at that time.
-
In May of 2014, if it was McNally's job was to deflate footballs after in-game approval, then why did Brady and the Patriots give NFL refs a copy of PSI rule in October 2014?
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25259755/tom-brady-says-pats-gave-refs-a-copy-of-psi-rule-in-october
Bringing the ref's attention to the rules doesn't exactly seem like a smart thing when you are about to break those rules.
And why would Jastremski expect the balls to be about 13 in October if they were running a scheme going back to May to deflate the balls to under 12.5? It doesn't add up.
About to break them? The Deflator had already been established, McNally described himself as "the deflator" 6 months before that October game. Darn right it doesn't add up.
-
What if McNally's job was to deflate the balls to fit Tom's preferences --- within the range prescribed by the rules?
We have heard that the balls are often over-inflated, and that Tom's stated preference is for them to be on the lower end of the range.
So, couldn't McNally refer to himself, jokingly or otherwise, as "the deflator" in that context? Especially if Tom frequently makes a big deal out of the balls being prepared to his specifications, including making sure they are not overinflated?
That's a plausible explanation that doesn't involve rule-breaking.
Absolutely.
I don't agree with this. McNally is in the ref's locker room when they test the balls. If he sees the balls being overinflated, he can point out the rules at that time.
Part of the prep can cause the PSI levels to raise. So McNally could be the deflator of the balls before they are presented to the refs. Depends on when the prep is done.
Anyway, I don't read too much into text lingo. WE DO KNOW, BASED ON THE TIMELINE, WHAT THE DEFLATOR DOESN'T MEAN, HOWEVER.
-
What if McNally's job was to deflate the balls to fit Tom's preferences --- within the range prescribed by the rules?
We have heard that the balls are often over-inflated, and that Tom's stated preference is for them to be on the lower end of the range.
So, couldn't McNally refer to himself, jokingly or otherwise, as "the deflator" in that context? Especially if Tom frequently makes a big deal out of the balls being prepared to his specifications, including making sure they are not overinflated?
That's a plausible explanation that doesn't involve rule-breaking.
Absolutely.
I don't agree with this. McNally is in the ref's locker room when they test the balls. If he sees the balls being overinflated, he can point out the rules at that time.
Perhaps. It's also plausible that the refs don't take instruction from the teams' ball attendants while prepping the balls.
Again, the point is that there are plausible explanations based on the evidence that don't involve intentional rule breaking.
-
Roy H. Do you agree that it wouldn't make much sense for Brady and the Patriots to present the game officials with the PSI rule in October in 2014, if they were already deflating the balls after approval before May of 2014?
-
Roy H. Do you agree that it wouldn't make much sense for Brady and the Patriots to present the game officials with the PSI rule in October in 2014, if they were already deflating the balls after approval before May of 2014?
No idea. Maybe it happened at a game where the Pats couldn't deflate balls for whatever reason, so they were playing it straight. That's more plausible than the season tickets explanation.
-
Some perfectly legal deflation of the balls is apparently part of the process of preparing the balls based on the fact that in one Jets game, it was discovered that the balls that were given to Brady to play with were at 16 Psig. We don't know exactly what the temperature was when the balls measured 16 psig but this is far enough above the maximum range of 13.5 psig that unless the balls were 150F or something like that, the balls were either delivered over-pressurized or over pumped somewhere along the way.
Deflating balls before the refs check the balls is fine, it is only deflating balls after the refs check the balls that would be a violation of the integrity of the game (sarcasm). In the particular case for which Brady was suspended, there is no evidence that the balls were deflated after inspection by the refs. In fact the half time measurements (ignoring all other evidence) make it more probable than not that the balls were not deflated in any way.
All of the other evidence is just noise. If they had found that the Patriots balls were consistently and unambiguously deflated by say 2 psig (hmmm, where have I heard that), then I would look at all of the other evidence (text quotes and visit to bathroom) differently. But there is no body here and in fact the person suspected of being murdered turned up in good health. Yet someone is on trial because a colleague of the suspect sent a text to another colleague where he claimed in a very general sense, to be a "killer" and there are 90 seconds where he can't account for his whereabouts. Ergo, they must have done something; there must be a conspiracy.
The Mortensen leak in particular framed public opinion and from then on, people have been a victim of confirmation bias. It is very hard to change your mind on something like this. It is just how people are wired. Had the first reports been, "the balls have been measured and appear to be in the expect range when temperature is taken into consideration but we have some suspicious texts and a suspicious visit to the bathroom so we are investigating", wouldn't that have dramatically changed the narrative from that point forward?
I am an engineer and I work with the ideal gas law (and other gas laws) so I understand gas laws much better than I understand jurisprudence law. When I heard the story that the balls were tested and (whatever it was) 13 of 16 were 2 psig under, my first thought was how were the balls tested but I am sure that I am in the vast minority on that. It did not sound good for the Pats based on those early reports, that is for sure and if you formed an opinion based on that information (which I think it is fair to say that the vast majority did), it is going to be much harder for you to change your opinion.
This is especially true for the NFL Execs. They not only formed their opinions but in some cases went public, in other cases made private statements (we gotcha) and in all cases put in motion an expensive and elaborate investigation and penalty process that was supposed to provide confirmation that all these execs were right all along. It is no longer about anything else other than proving the NFL execs were right all along.
-
ESPN just posted what I think is a really great interview with Cleveland's Joe Thomas. (http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13494837/joe-thomas-cleveland-browns-backs-tom-brady-rips-nfl-witch-hunts) Sums up quite well how I feel about this whole circus. Some excerpts:
BEREA, Ohio -- Joe Thomas does not think the punishment fits the crime in the Deflategate saga.
"I would equate what [Tom Brady] did to driving 66 [mph] in a 65 speed zone, and getting the death penalty," Thomas said Sunday after the Cleveland Browns' training camp practice.
"If you want [quarterbacks] to play with a brand new football that comes out of the box, then make that the rule," Thomas said. "If you're going to allow them to break it in because you want more passing yards, then let them do whatever they want.
"Who cares if they throw a football that has no air pressure? What does it matter? Why don't we let the quarterbacks do whatever they want to the football? I don't understand why there's any rules."
Thomas called the minimum pressures for footballs "arbitrary."
Thomas said Brady is not a cheater.
"I think he's trying to do everything he can to gain a competitive advantage to help him do his job better, which is to throw the football," Thomas said. "Why should we be punishing a guy that wants to do his job better?"
-
What if McNally's job was to deflate the balls to fit Tom's preferences --- within the range prescribed by the rules?
We have heard that the balls are often over-inflated, and that Tom's stated preference is for them to be on the lower end of the range.
So, couldn't McNally refer to himself, jokingly or otherwise, as "the deflator" in that context? Especially if Tom frequently makes a big deal out of the balls being prepared to his specifications, including making sure they are not overinflated?
That's a plausible explanation that doesn't involve rule-breaking.
By the way this is still a violation if it happens after the balls are approved by the referee.
-
Roy H. Do you agree that it wouldn't make much sense for Brady and the Patriots to present the game officials with the PSI rule in October in 2014, if they were already deflating the balls after approval before May of 2014?
No idea. Maybe it happened at a game where the Pats couldn't deflate balls for whatever reason, so they were playing it straight. That's more plausible than the season tickets explanation.
So far, I have convinced myself of a handful of things:
1. There is certainly something here the Patriots don't want to admit to. It may or may not be deflating game balls after inspection.
2. The deflator explanation is so dumb (and the alternative argument fits the narrative so poorly) that it just must be true.
3. The season tickets story doesn't make much sense.
None of these indicate any particular involvement of Brady in anything. Heck, even the fact that he signed balls for McNally didn't mean that he was aware that anything was done in violation of the rules.
-
What if McNally's job was to deflate the balls to fit Tom's preferences --- within the range prescribed by the rules?
We have heard that the balls are often over-inflated, and that Tom's stated preference is for them to be on the lower end of the range.
So, couldn't McNally refer to himself, jokingly or otherwise, as "the deflator" in that context? Especially if Tom frequently makes a big deal out of the balls being prepared to his specifications, including making sure they are not overinflated?
That's a plausible explanation that doesn't involve rule-breaking.
By the way this is still a violation if it happens after the balls are approved by the referee.
I had a feeling this was the case. Technically, you're not allowed to do anything to the balls after the refs have approved them.
Nevertheless, it's a much different matter if your ball guy is adjusting the balls to be on the lower end of the legal range (because the refs have inflated them like beach balls), as opposed to deflating them well below it.
If that was the violation -- and I think it's a strong possibility -- then a fine is really all that should have happened, especially in light of precedent (e.g. Vikings punishment).
-
Roy H. Do you agree that it wouldn't make much sense for Brady and the Patriots to present the game officials with the PSI rule in October in 2014, if they were already deflating the balls after approval before May of 2014?
No idea. Maybe it happened at a game where the Pats couldn't deflate balls for whatever reason, so they were playing it straight. That's more plausible than the season tickets explanation.
So far, I have convinced myself of a handful of things:
1. There is certainly something here the Patriots don't want to admit to. It may or may not be deflating game balls after inspection.
2. The deflator explanation is so dumb (and the alternative argument fits the narrative so poorly) that it just must be true.
3. The season tickets story doesn't make much sense.
None of these indicate any particular involvement of Brady in anything. Heck, even the fact that he signed balls for McNally didn't mean that he was aware that anything was done in violation of the rules.
That season tickets story came after the Jets game where the balls were overinflated and the one where Jastremski said the balls should have been 13. There is some contradiction there.
Also, regarding that story, Wells and Jastremski would have had to foresee Wells asking them about that four month old single text, gotten together and concocted the story which involved a mutual friend who is not a team employee, and this friend would have been ok being brought into this national attention receiving investigation and been willing to lie. He even volunteered to be interviewed by a high powered attorney running the investigation. That's one heck of a friend. Is that really more probably than the story just simply being true?
-
We also learned that you can be a courtroom sketch artist and be drunk on the job. Don't forget that.
-
We also learned that you can be a courtroom sketch artist and be drunk on the job. Don't forget that.
I didn't realize that was an actual job. But yes, that one was good for a couple of good laughs that day.
-
Roy H. Do you agree that it wouldn't make much sense for Brady and the Patriots to present the game officials with the PSI rule in October in 2014, if they were already deflating the balls after approval before May of 2014?
No idea. Maybe it happened at a game where the Pats couldn't deflate balls for whatever reason, so they were playing it straight. That's more plausible than the season tickets explanation.
So far, I have convinced myself of a handful of things:
1. There is certainly something here the Patriots don't want to admit to. It may or may not be deflating game balls after inspection.
2. The deflator explanation is so dumb (and the alternative argument fits the narrative so poorly) that it just must be true.
3. The season tickets story doesn't make much sense.
None of these indicate any particular involvement of Brady in anything. Heck, even the fact that he signed balls for McNally didn't mean that he was aware that anything was done in violation of the rules.
That season tickets story came after the Jets game where the balls were overinflated and the one where Jastremski said the balls should have been 13. There is some contradiction there.
Also, regarding that story, Wells and Jastremski would have had to foresee Wells asking them about that four month old single text, gotten together and concocted the story which involved a mutual friend who is not a team employee, and this friend would have been ok being brought into this national attention receiving investigation and been willing to lie. He even volunteered to be interviewed by a high powered attorney running the investigation. That's one heck of a friend. Is that really more probably than the story just simply being true?
As koz says, the "season tickets" explanation doesn't necessarily implicate Brady in an illegal scheme, but come on.
McNally: Tom sucks…im going make that next ball a [expletive] balloon
Jastremski: Talked to him last night. He actually brought you up and said you must have a lot of stress trying to get them done…
You think this text message exchange is:
1. Not about Tom Brady; and
2. Is about season tickets?
Again, it's not necessarily a smoking gun, but you have to wonder why the Patriots are giving such a strained (i.e., fictional) interpretation.
-
McNally: Tom sucks…im going make that next ball a [expletive] balloon
Jastremski: Talked to him last night. He actually brought you up and said you must have a lot of stress trying to get them done…
You think this text message exchange is:
1. Not about Tom Brady; and
2. Is about season tickets?
Again, it's not necessarily a smoking gun, but you have to wonder why the Patriots are giving such a strained (i.e., fictional) interpretation.
I have no doubt there's something that the Patriots are unwilling to disclose. But that's not what's all this is about.
You have a text in which Person A communicates to Person B something that Person C allegedly said. In the practical absence of corroborating evidence that Tom Brady _actually_ said this (or any corroborating evidence of what he actually said), I find it hard to justify how he's being hit with an unprecedented punishment when the league has barely proven the scheme he's allegedly ringleading even existed (at least Berman seems to think so...)
-
We also learned that you can be a courtroom sketch artist and be drunk on the job. Don't forget that.
I didn't realize that was an actual job. But yes, that one was good for a couple of good laughs that day.
The sketch was pretty funny. The one of Don Yee didn't get much attention, but was probably the worst.
(http://a.abcnews.com/images/Sports/ht_don_yee_headshot_wings_tl_150512_4x3_992.jpg)
(http://cdn.pastemagazine.com/www/system/images/photo_albums/brady-sketch/large/brady-sketch-2.JPG?1384968217)
-
McNally: Tom sucks…im going make that next ball a [expletive] balloon
Jastremski: Talked to him last night. He actually brought you up and said you must have a lot of stress trying to get them done…
You think this text message exchange is:
1. Not about Tom Brady; and
2. Is about season tickets?
Again, it's not necessarily a smoking gun, but you have to wonder why the Patriots are giving such a strained (i.e., fictional) interpretation.
I have no doubt there's something that the Patriots are unwilling to disclose. But that's not what's all this is about.
You have a text in which Person A communicates to Person B something that Person C allegedly said. In the practical absence of corroborating evidence that Tom Brady _actually_ said this (or any corroborating evidence of what he actually said), I find it hard to justify how he's being hit with an unprecedented punishment when the league has barely proven the scheme he's allegedly ringleading even existed (at least Berman seems to think so...)
Oh, I agree. It's cheating, but it's fairly minimal cheating. If I recommended a penalty, it would have been 1 game plus one additional game check, which incorporates the penalty for not complying with the investigation. Two games should have been the max. That said, the NFL being heavy-handed didn't really surprise anybody.
-
Roy H. Do you agree that it wouldn't make much sense for Brady and the Patriots to present the game officials with the PSI rule in October in 2014, if they were already deflating the balls after approval before May of 2014?
No idea. Maybe it happened at a game where the Pats couldn't deflate balls for whatever reason, so they were playing it straight. That's more plausible than the season tickets explanation.
So far, I have convinced myself of a handful of things:
1. There is certainly something here the Patriots don't want to admit to. It may or may not be deflating game balls after inspection.
2. The deflator explanation is so dumb (and the alternative argument fits the narrative so poorly) that it just must be true.
3. The season tickets story doesn't make much sense.
None of these indicate any particular involvement of Brady in anything. Heck, even the fact that he signed balls for McNally didn't mean that he was aware that anything was done in violation of the rules.
That season tickets story came after the Jets game where the balls were overinflated and the one where Jastremski said the balls should have been 13. There is some contradiction there.
Also, regarding that story, Wells and Jastremski would have had to foresee Wells asking them about that four month old single text, gotten together and concocted the story which involved a mutual friend who is not a team employee, and this friend would have been ok being brought into this national attention receiving investigation and been willing to lie. He even volunteered to be interviewed by a high powered attorney running the investigation. That's one heck of a friend. Is that really more probably than the story just simply being true?
As koz says, the "season tickets" explanation doesn't necessarily implicate Brady in an illegal scheme, but come on.
McNally: Tom sucks…im going make that next ball a [expletive] balloon
Jastremski: Talked to him last night. He actually brought you up and said you must have a lot of stress trying to get them done…
You think this text message exchange is:
1. Not about Tom Brady; and
2. Is about season tickets?
Again, it's not necessarily a smoking gun, but you have to wonder why the Patriots are giving such a strained (i.e., fictional) interpretation.
And you don't know that there was not another conversation going on about the tickets which is what their explanation was. I agree it's suspicious looking at that text message alone, but when considering all things about the case and the fact Wells had thousands of texts to pick and choose from, I don't find it convincing. Jastremski and McNally did not know what they were going to be questioned about by Wells who had them for 12 hours combined and they never mixed up their story. And the fact that there's a third guy who said that he made that comment, that's just not enough to be convinced that they were lying and covering up a ball tampering scheme.
-
And you don't know that there was not another conversation going on about the tickets which is what their explanation was. I agree it's suspicious looking at that text message alone, but when considering all things about the case and the fact Wells had thousands of texts to pick and choose from, I don't find it convincing. Jastremski and McNally did not know what they were going to be questioned about by Wells who had them for 12 hours combined and they never mixed up their story. And the fact that there's a third guy who said that he made that comment, that's just not enough to be convinced that they were lying and covering up a ball tampering scheme.
Then why aren't McNally / Jastremski / the Patriots saying "Hey, this was all taken out of context. There were five intervening texts in between the ones Wells quoted, and here's what they said"?
If there were additional texts that make the conversation make sense, why haven't we seen them from anybody?
-
Roy H. Do you agree that it wouldn't make much sense for Brady and the Patriots to present the game officials with the PSI rule in October in 2014, if they were already deflating the balls after approval before May of 2014?
No idea. Maybe it happened at a game where the Pats couldn't deflate balls for whatever reason, so they were playing it straight. That's more plausible than the season tickets explanation.
So far, I have convinced myself of a handful of things:
1. There is certainly something here the Patriots don't want to admit to. It may or may not be deflating game balls after inspection.
2. The deflator explanation is so dumb (and the alternative argument fits the narrative so poorly) that it just must be true.
3. The season tickets story doesn't make much sense.
None of these indicate any particular involvement of Brady in anything. Heck, even the fact that he signed balls for McNally didn't mean that he was aware that anything was done in violation of the rules.
That season tickets story came after the Jets game where the balls were overinflated and the one where Jastremski said the balls should have been 13. There is some contradiction there.
Also, regarding that story, Wells and Jastremski would have had to foresee Wells asking them about that four month old single text, gotten together and concocted the story which involved a mutual friend who is not a team employee, and this friend would have been ok being brought into this national attention receiving investigation and been willing to lie. He even volunteered to be interviewed by a high powered attorney running the investigation. That's one heck of a friend. Is that really more probably than the story just simply being true?
As koz says, the "season tickets" explanation doesn't necessarily implicate Brady in an illegal scheme, but come on.
McNally: Tom sucks…im going make that next ball a [expletive] balloon
Jastremski: Talked to him last night. He actually brought you up and said you must have a lot of stress trying to get them done…
You think this text message exchange is:
1. Not about Tom Brady; and
2. Is about season tickets?
Again, it's not necessarily a smoking gun, but you have to wonder why the Patriots are giving such a strained (i.e., fictional) interpretation.
And you don't know that there was not another conversation going on about the tickets which is what their explanation was. I agree it's suspicious looking at that text message alone, but when considering all things about the case and the fact Wells had thousands of texts to pick and choose from, I don't find it convincing. Jastremski and McNally did not know what they were going to be questioned about by Wells who had them for 12 hours combined and they never mixed up their story. And the fact that there's a third guy who said that he made that comment, that's just not enough to be convinced that they were lying and covering up a ball tampering scheme.
I still have to go back to the science and the ball measurements. The evidence that they were tampering with the balls is weak at best. You would have to assume that the ref was wrong about which gauge he used and that they were only removing just three to four tenths of a psi which coincidentally is the calibration difference between the two gauges. That's laughable.
I don't think it would be difficult to find single texts that could infer guilt about tampering with balls when searching through at least 8 months of text messages of two guys who handle footballs especially when they are friends and use a lot of jokes and hyperbole in their text messages.
-
And you don't know that there was not another conversation going on about the tickets which is what their explanation was. I agree it's suspicious looking at that text message alone, but when considering all things about the case and the fact Wells had thousands of texts to pick and choose from, I don't find it convincing. Jastremski and McNally did not know what they were going to be questioned about by Wells who had them for 12 hours combined and they never mixed up their story. And the fact that there's a third guy who said that he made that comment, that's just not enough to be convinced that they were lying and covering up a ball tampering scheme.
Then why aren't McNally / Jastremski / the Patriots saying "Hey, this was all taken out of context. There were five intervening texts in between the ones Wells quoted, and here's what they said"?
If there were additional texts that make the conversation make sense, why haven't we seen them from anybody?
They haven't spoken publicly, but according to the Patriots, they did say that it was taken out of context and that there was another conversation going on. I don't know if that conversation was over the phone, in person, or what. The third guy said that he did make that comment. He's not a team emoloyee, he has a respectable career. I know if two of my buddies were involved in a conspiracy that was under the nation's spotlight and was being investigated by a high powered attorney and they asked me to lie about some story they made up to cover for them, I'd say sorry but no. Keep me out of it. It's not like they committed a crime and were facing prison time.
And of course there was another text written the exact same day as that text that stated the balls should have been 13 which directly contradicts the inference you are drawing.
-
Several random points throughout the thread since I haven't been on the last several days. First off, you can't waive negligence to whomever said that. Some States may have refined the definition of negligence to different versions and are calling the old negligence gross negligence but that is first year law school. It is the nature of negligence.
Person A telling person B that person C said "XYZ" is classic hearsay. There is a reason it isn't allowed without hitting one of the exceptions. If you want to know what C said, you ask C. I assume they did, didn't like it, so they went with what A said. Person A wasn't under oath when he made that statement, taking it as fact is irresponsible.
Thirdly, just in general about evidence. Testimony is direct evidence. You can not believe the direct evidence, but you not believing it doesn't magically raise the evidence bar to 50.1% guilt. You need evidence to contradict direct testimony that outweighs it. To say three people are lying without actual proof is pathetic work by Wells.
If you say, what does this email mean and the person says, "its about losing weight," your opinion that it isn't doesn't outweigh the person's direct testimony. Saying it does is dishonest and mangling our jurisprudence system.
Finally, every one of these points Wells makes has to be more likely than not. If even one fails then his whole case does. Such as the balls being intentionally deflated. If that isn't more likely than not, then the entire case can't be more likely than not. While I am not sure this is being reviewed by Berman it is important to see just how deceptive Wells was with reaching his conclusion.
To add to that last point though. Goodell has a duty, legal term, as an arbiter to not be partial to one side or the other. A better way of saying that would be fair. I haven't really looked into the case law on it, but I would assume an investigator on which the arbiter is relying would be under that same duty. Clearly Wells wasn't being fair. He simply dismisses all direct evidence as non believable while making wild leaps about other things that he takes for fact.
-
Several random points throughout the thread since I haven't been on the last several days. First off, you can't waive negligence to whomever said that. Some States may have refined the definition of negligence to different versions and are calling the old negligence gross negligence but that is first year law school. It is the nature of negligence.
Person A telling person B that person C said "XYZ" is classic hearsay. There is a reason it isn't allowed without hitting one of the exceptions. If you want to know what C said, you ask C. I assume they did, didn't like it, so they went with what A said. Person A wasn't under oath when he made that statement, taking it as fact is irresponsible.
Thirdly, just in general about evidence. Testimony is direct evidence. You can not believe the direct evidence, but you not believing it doesn't magically raise the evidence bar to 50.1% guilt. You need evidence to contradict direct testimony that outweighs it. To say three people are lying without actual proof is pathetic work by Wells.
If you say, what does this email mean and the person says, "its about losing weight," your opinion that it isn't doesn't outweigh the person's direct testimony. Saying it does is dishonest and mangling our jurisprudence system.
Finally, every one of these points Wells makes has to be more likely than not. If even one fails then his whole case does. Such as the balls being intentionally deflated. If that isn't more likely than not, then the entire case can't be more likely than not. While I am not sure this is being reviewed by Berman it is important to see just how deceptive Wells was with reaching his conclusion.
To add to that last point though. Goodell has a duty, legal term, as an arbiter to not be partial to one side or the other. A better way of saying that would be fair. I haven't really looked into the case law on it, but I would assume an investigator on which the arbiter is relying would be under that same duty. Clearly Wells wasn't being fair. He simply dismisses all direct evidence as non believable while making wild leaps about other things that he takes for fact.
Great post IMO. First TP I have given in over a calendar year
-
We also learned that you can be a courtroom sketch artist and be drunk on the job. Don't forget that.
I didn't realize that was an actual job. But yes, that one was good for a couple of good laughs that day.
The sketch was pretty funny. The one of Don Yee didn't get much attention, but was probably the worst.
(http://a.abcnews.com/images/Sports/ht_don_yee_headshot_wings_tl_150512_4x3_992.jpg)
(http://cdn.pastemagazine.com/www/system/images/photo_albums/brady-sketch/large/brady-sketch-2.JPG?1384968217)
Or the best. 'Don Yee: Emoji' has a nice ring to it.
-
First off, you can't waive negligence to whomever said that.
Of course you can. Are you saying that waivers / limitations of liability for negligence are per se unenforceable? That is just a misstatement of the law. There are probably tens of thousands of citations to this proposition, but we'll go with this cite from the Volokh Conspiracy:
The California Supreme Court issued an interesting decision this week on the enforceability of liability waivers in standard form contracts. At issue in City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court, -- Cal.Rptr.3d -- (2007 WL 2027806), was a release from liability for "any negligent act" signed by a parent as part of an enrollment contract that allowed her daughter to participate in a camp for disabled children run by the city of Santa Barbara. The court ruled, 6-1, that the contract was enforceable as to allegations of ordinary negligence, but not gross negligence. This wasn't surprising; it is standard hornbook law that such waivers in the context of recreational activities are enforceable as to ordinary negligence but not as to gross negligence, although a few jurisdictions won't even enforce waivers for ordinary negligence. But it is interesting that, according to the court, it had never actually addressed this issue (although for decades Witkin on California Law has claimed that the majority rule applies in the Golden State).
Some States may have refined the definition of negligence to different versions and are calling the old negligence gross negligence but that is first year law school. It is the nature of negligence.
I was fairly attentive in law school, and overall I enjoyed the experience, but I never was taught this concept. I would like to think that that's because it's not true.
Oftentimes (but not in every jurisdiction) you can't waive gross negligence. You can't waive legal malpractice or medical malpractice. However, general, ordinary negligence? That's waiveable in a contract, so long as the waiver is clear, knowing, and voluntary.
You need evidence to contradict direct testimony that outweighs it. To say three people are lying without actual proof is pathetic work by Wells
There is a lot of nuance here. You're not arguing that a finder of fact has to accept all testimony as true unless it's rebutted, are you? Because that's obviously not the case.
Theoretically, there needs to be some evidence other than the fact that you know a suspect is lying based upon your assessment of his credibility. However, that evidence of guilt doesn't have to directly contradict the testimony you have rejected as non-credible. For instance, in the presence instance, Wells can find guilt is more likely than not based simply on his assessment of credibility and the fact that several footballs didn't conform to the ideal gas law, even if it is assumed that the gauge most favorable to the Patriots was used.
If there's a minimal level of evidence showing deflation of the balls, and then the finder of fact assesses the key witnesses to be non-credible, that's enough to sustain a civil level of proof. Piggy-backing on that with contradictory / non-credible testimony, lack of cooperation, etc. is probably enough for a finder of fact to reasonably find guilt linking Brady.
A lot is made about this being an arbitration award, but in terms of the evidence, I can't imagine any appellate court in the country would reverse the verdict for sufficiency of evidence if a judge / jury found the Patriots civilly guilty.
To me, the real issues are relate to procedure and punishment. I think it's crystal clear that a reasonable fact-finder could have found guilt here.
-
We also learned that you can be a courtroom sketch artist and be drunk on the job. Don't forget that.
I didn't realize that was an actual job. But yes, that one was good for a couple of good laughs that day.
The sketch was pretty funny. The one of Don Yee didn't get much attention, but was probably the worst.
(http://a.abcnews.com/images/Sports/ht_don_yee_headshot_wings_tl_150512_4x3_992.jpg)
(http://cdn.pastemagazine.com/www/system/images/photo_albums/brady-sketch/large/brady-sketch-2.JPG?1384968217)
Or the best. 'Don Yee: Emoji' has a nice ring to it.
I like this one.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMOxAyXUMAA9-TU.jpg)
She just drew a stereotypical picture of an Asian guy. ;D She had a bad day.
-
First off, you can't waive negligence to whomever said that.
Of course you can. Are you saying that waivers / limitations of liability for negligence are per se unenforceable? That is just a misstatement of the law. There are probably tens of thousands of citations to this proposition, but we'll go with this cite from the Volokh Conspiracy:
The California Supreme Court issued an interesting decision this week on the enforceability of liability waivers in standard form contracts. At issue in City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court, -- Cal.Rptr.3d -- (2007 WL 2027806), was a release from liability for "any negligent act" signed by a parent as part of an enrollment contract that allowed her daughter to participate in a camp for disabled children run by the city of Santa Barbara. The court ruled, 6-1, that the contract was enforceable as to allegations of ordinary negligence, but not gross negligence. This wasn't surprising; it is standard hornbook law that such waivers in the context of recreational activities are enforceable as to ordinary negligence but not as to gross negligence, although a few jurisdictions won't even enforce waivers for ordinary negligence. But it is interesting that, according to the court, it had never actually addressed this issue (although for decades Witkin on California Law has claimed that the majority rule applies in the Golden State).
Some States may have refined the definition of negligence to different versions and are calling the old negligence gross negligence but that is first year law school. It is the nature of negligence.
I was fairly attentive in law school, and overall I enjoyed the experience, but I never was taught this concept. I would like to think that that's because it's not true.
Oftentimes (but not in every jurisdiction) you can't waive gross negligence. You can't waive legal malpractice or medical malpractice. However, general, ordinary negligence? That's waiveable in a contract, so long as the waiver is clear, knowing, and voluntary.
You need evidence to contradict direct testimony that outweighs it. To say three people are lying without actual proof is pathetic work by Wells
There is a lot of nuance here. You're not arguing that a finder of fact has to accept all testimony as true unless it's rebutted, are you? Because that's obviously not the case.
Theoretically, there needs to be some evidence other than the fact that you know a suspect is lying based upon your assessment of his credibility. However, that evidence of guilt doesn't have to directly contradict the testimony you have rejected as non-credible. For instance, in the presence instance, Wells can find guilt is more likely than not based simply on his assessment of credibility and the fact that several footballs didn't conform to the ideal gas law, even if it is assumed that the gauge most favorable to the Patriots was used.
If there's a minimal level of evidence showing deflation of the balls, and then the finder of fact assesses the key witnesses to be non-credible, that's enough to sustain a civil level of proof. Piggy-backing on that with contradictory / non-credible testimony, lack of cooperation, etc. is probably enough for a finder of fact to reasonably find guilt linking Brady.
A lot is made about this being an arbitration award, but in terms of the evidence, I can't imagine any appellate court in the country would reverse the verdict for sufficiency of evidence if a judge / jury found the Patriots civilly guilty.
To me, the real issues are relate to procedure and punishment. I think it's crystal clear that a reasonable fact-finder could have found guilt here.
thanks Roy, TP. Saved me the response.
-
http://espn.go.com/pdf/2015/0804/goodell_arbitration.pdf
Page 150 is where the NFLPA expert testimony is regarding the Exponent testing. Lots of problems beyond the arbitrary assumptions used to come up with a suspect conclusion. These objections have been out there since the Wells Report was published and never adequately addressed.
-
And you don't know that there was not another conversation going on about the tickets which is what their explanation was. I agree it's suspicious looking at that text message alone, but when considering all things about the case and the fact Wells had thousands of texts to pick and choose from, I don't find it convincing. Jastremski and McNally did not know what they were going to be questioned about by Wells who had them for 12 hours combined and they never mixed up their story. And the fact that there's a third guy who said that he made that comment, that's just not enough to be convinced that they were lying and covering up a ball tampering scheme.
Then why aren't McNally / Jastremski / the Patriots saying "Hey, this was all taken out of context. There were five intervening texts in between the ones Wells quoted, and here's what they said"?
If there were additional texts that make the conversation make sense, why haven't we seen them from anybody?
Possibly more "Brady is a __" stuff. Seems that stuff was too rampant to give everyone those texts. I wish I could see those. It would be funny. Also makes Brady more typical demanding or micro-manage boss type. New England fans would seriously be disappointed in the person if he rides the team's staff hard.
-
And you don't know that there was not another conversation going on about the tickets which is what their explanation was. I agree it's suspicious looking at that text message alone, but when considering all things about the case and the fact Wells had thousands of texts to pick and choose from, I don't find it convincing. Jastremski and McNally did not know what they were going to be questioned about by Wells who had them for 12 hours combined and they never mixed up their story. And the fact that there's a third guy who said that he made that comment, that's just not enough to be convinced that they were lying and covering up a ball tampering scheme.
Then why aren't McNally / Jastremski / the Patriots saying "Hey, this was all taken out of context. There were five intervening texts in between the ones Wells quoted, and here's what they said"?
If there were additional texts that make the conversation make sense, why haven't we seen them from anybody?
Possibly more "Brady is a __" stuff. Seems that stuff was too rampant to give everyone those texts. I wish I could see those. It would be funny. Also makes Brady more typical demanding or micro-manage boss type. New England fans would seriously be disappointed in the person if he rides the team's staff hard.
This all went down after a game where the balls were found to be at 16 psig. Brady probably did get in some people's kitchen over that. 16 psig vs. 12.5 psig is enough to affect his throwing, just like if the balls were at 9 instead of 12.5. Why is this surprising to anyone, fan of Brady or otherwise? As I understand it, he got the rules printed out, told these guys they had to push back on the Refs if they tried to give them over inflated balls and probably in general told them "don't let this happen again" in a not so nice tone.
McNally then wrote the disparaging texts about Brady. This is also probably when he referred to himself as the deflator meaning he had to deflate the balls from 16 psig to 12.5 psig. Brady did not tell him to deflate the balls though. Brady said show the refs the rules and make sure they don't over inflate the balls.
Clearly, the most incriminating "evidence" in all of this the text reference to himself as deflator. I can't honestly offer a reasonable explanation for what this really was supposed to mean based on what I have seen/read. But a penalty based on this when all other evidence goes in the other direction (including and most importantly the actual measurements of the balls on the day in question)?
I continue to be dumbfound that anyone can still think there was some big conspiracy here (or even a small conspiracy)
I can understand why the NFL would want to look into this based on the deflator text and the video of McNally going into the bathroom. But once they investigated this, they should have been impartial enough to say "nothing here". But no, the NFL had already made up its mind, made premature statements, orchestrated leaks and otherwise made it so this whole thing became about saving face. This is just so clear now and becoming more clear with every new release of information.
-
And you don't know that there was not another conversation going on about the tickets which is what their explanation was. I agree it's suspicious looking at that text message alone, but when considering all things about the case and the fact Wells had thousands of texts to pick and choose from, I don't find it convincing. Jastremski and McNally did not know what they were going to be questioned about by Wells who had them for 12 hours combined and they never mixed up their story. And the fact that there's a third guy who said that he made that comment, that's just not enough to be convinced that they were lying and covering up a ball tampering scheme.
Then why aren't McNally / Jastremski / the Patriots saying "Hey, this was all taken out of context. There were five intervening texts in between the ones Wells quoted, and here's what they said"?
If there were additional texts that make the conversation make sense, why haven't we seen them from anybody?
Possibly more "Brady is a __" stuff. Seems that stuff was too rampant to give everyone those texts. I wish I could see those. It would be funny. Also makes Brady more typical demanding or micro-manage boss type. New England fans would seriously be disappointed in the person if he rides the team's staff hard.
This all went down after a game where the balls were found to be at 16 psig. Brady probably did get in some people's kitchen over that. 16 psig vs. 12.5 psig is enough to affect his throwing, just like if the balls were at 9 instead of 12.5. Why is this surprising to anyone, fan of Brady or otherwise? As I understand it, he got the rules printed out, told these guys they had to push back on the Refs if they tried to give them over inflated balls and probably in general told them "don't let this happen again" in a not so nice tone.
McNally then wrote the disparaging texts about Brady. This is also probably when he referred to himself as the deflator meaning he had to deflate the balls from 16 psig to 12.5 psig. Brady did not tell him to deflate the balls though. Brady said show the refs the rules and make sure they don't over inflate the balls.
Clearly, the most incriminating "evidence" in all of this the text reference to himself as deflator. I can't honestly offer a reasonable explanation for what this really was supposed to mean based on what I have seen/read. But a penalty based on this when all other evidence goes in the other direction (including and most importantly the actual measurements of the balls on the day in question)?
I continue to be dumbfound that anyone can still think there was some big conspiracy here (or even a small conspiracy)
I can understand why the NFL would want to look into this based on the deflator text and the video of McNally going into the bathroom. But once they investigated this, they should have been impartial enough to say "nothing here". But no, the NFL had already made up its mind, made premature statements, orchestrated leaks and otherwise made it so this whole thing became about saving face. This is just so clear now and becoming more clear with every new release of information.
McNally first called himself the deflator in May of 2014.
The PSI problem and rule printout occurred in October of 2014.
-
This thing is so beyond the "did they/didn't they deflate" aspect of things at this point. IMO, it's flimsy at best. Predictably you're seeing pro-Pats people saying No & those who aren't fans said Yes. Pretty expected.
The focus really should be on the NFL and their handling of these "crisis'" that pop up. Seemingly, one case after another (Bountygate, Starcaps, Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson, etc..) have been botched by this league office. No consistencies on punishments, reactive rather than proactive handling of situations, PR minded rulings, a faulty system where the commissioner is jury, judge, executioner. Something needs to be done to fix the system because after Deflategate, you can be sure that another crisis will pop up that Goodell & Co. will manage to botch.
Deflategate should've ended with a fine and that being the end of it. Not this stupid circus.
-
And you don't know that there was not another conversation going on about the tickets which is what their explanation was. I agree it's suspicious looking at that text message alone, but when considering all things about the case and the fact Wells had thousands of texts to pick and choose from, I don't find it convincing. Jastremski and McNally did not know what they were going to be questioned about by Wells who had them for 12 hours combined and they never mixed up their story. And the fact that there's a third guy who said that he made that comment, that's just not enough to be convinced that they were lying and covering up a ball tampering scheme.
Then why aren't McNally / Jastremski / the Patriots saying "Hey, this was all taken out of context. There were five intervening texts in between the ones Wells quoted, and here's what they said"?
If there were additional texts that make the conversation make sense, why haven't we seen them from anybody?
Possibly more "Brady is a __" stuff. Seems that stuff was too rampant to give everyone those texts. I wish I could see those. It would be funny. Also makes Brady more typical demanding or micro-manage boss type. New England fans would seriously be disappointed in the person if he rides the team's staff hard.
This all went down after a game where the balls were found to be at 16 psig. Brady probably did get in some people's kitchen over that. 16 psig vs. 12.5 psig is enough to affect his throwing, just like if the balls were at 9 instead of 12.5. Why is this surprising to anyone, fan of Brady or otherwise? As I understand it, he got the rules printed out, told these guys they had to push back on the Refs if they tried to give them over inflated balls and probably in general told them "don't let this happen again" in a not so nice tone.
McNally then wrote the disparaging texts about Brady. This is also probably when he referred to himself as the deflator meaning he had to deflate the balls from 16 psig to 12.5 psig. Brady did not tell him to deflate the balls though. Brady said show the refs the rules and make sure they don't over inflate the balls.
Clearly, the most incriminating "evidence" in all of this the text reference to himself as deflator. I can't honestly offer a reasonable explanation for what this really was supposed to mean based on what I have seen/read. But a penalty based on this when all other evidence goes in the other direction (including and most importantly the actual measurements of the balls on the day in question)?
I continue to be dumbfound that anyone can still think there was some big conspiracy here (or even a small conspiracy)
I can understand why the NFL would want to look into this based on the deflator text and the video of McNally going into the bathroom. But once they investigated this, they should have been impartial enough to say "nothing here". But no, the NFL had already made up its mind, made premature statements, orchestrated leaks and otherwise made it so this whole thing became about saving face. This is just so clear now and becoming more clear with every new release of information.
McNally first called himself the deflator in May of 2014.
The PSI problem and rule printout occurred in October of 2014.
thanks for clarifying. This makes the comment even less relevant to the issue at hand in my opinion.
-
This thing is so beyond the "did they/didn't they deflate" aspect of things at this point. IMO, it's flimsy at best. Predictably you're seeing pro-Pats people saying No & those who aren't fans said Yes. Pretty expected.
The focus really should be on the NFL and their handling of these "crisis'" that pop up. Seemingly, one case after another (Bountygate, Starcaps, Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson, etc..) have been botched by this league office. No consistencies on punishments, reactive rather than proactive handling of situations, PR minded rulings, a faulty system where the commissioner is jury, judge, executioner. Something needs to be done to fix the system because after Deflategate, you can be sure that another crisis will pop up that Goodell & Co. will manage to botch.
Deflategate should've ended with a fine and that being the end of it. Not this stupid circus.
The NFL is trying hard to show that this incident violates the "integrity of the game", but stickum on the gloves and silicone on the jersey simply constitute "competitive advantage". It's just dumb beyond belief.
-
This thing is so beyond the "did they/didn't they deflate" aspect of things at this point. IMO, it's flimsy at best. Predictably you're seeing pro-Pats people saying No & those who aren't fans said Yes. Pretty expected.
The focus really should be on the NFL and their handling of these "crisis'" that pop up. Seemingly, one case after another (Bountygate, Starcaps, Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson, etc..) have been botched by this league office. No consistencies on punishments, reactive rather than proactive handling of situations, PR minded rulings, a faulty system where the commissioner is jury, judge, executioner. Something needs to be done to fix the system because after Deflategate, you can be sure that another crisis will pop up that Goodell & Co. will manage to botch.
Deflategate should've ended with a fine and that being the end of it. Not this stupid circus.
The NFL is trying hard to show that this incident violates the "integrity of the game", but stickum on the gloves and silicone on the jersey simply constitute "competitive advantage". It's just dumb beyond belief.
And "heating" of the balls on the sideline results in a fine yet deflation that may or may not have been caused by mother nature (amazing the NFL has been around for 90 something years & didn't know impact of weather on balls) results in a mulit-million investigation and suspension.
-
Solid piece by Stephanie Stradley in the Houston Chronicle
Why the Deflategate case matters
A lawyer explains: If the NFL gets its way, then no player or team is safe
By Stephanie Stradley August 25, 2015
Tom Brady has his lawyers. The NFL has theirs. But who represents what's good for football? Photo: Mary Altaffer, Associated Press Photo: Mary Altaffer, Associated Press Tom Brady has his lawyers. The NFL has theirs. But who represents what's good for football?
How did a dispute over NFL football ball tampering end up in a United States federal court?
Judge Richard Berman is likely wondering the same thing. "I became a federal court judge for this??!?"
He has done just about everything to encourage the NFL and Tom Brady to work on a settlement before the season starts.
How?
He fast-tracked the case ahead of more important matters. He repeatedly ordered them to engage in settlement talks. Reportedly, the court asked the NFL to involve Giants owner John Mara to help move talks forward.
He has done everything to encourage settlement short of hiring an airplane banner: SETTLE THIS CASE BECAUSE IT IS DUMB.
Judge Berman did not allow the parties to seal confidential documents. He knows fans can help be a settlement pressure point too, by exposing embarrassing things.
Fans (and team owners) sensibly have no time, inclination or expertise to look through thousands of pages of documents.
As the court filings show, however, all fanbases should be concerned about league discipline process. Arbitrary process issues aren't as flashy as the details of Brady's emails and his phone habits, but they are much more important to the actual integrity of the NFL.
GRAY MATTERS
Dr. Red Duke, on the Life Flight Helipad at Memorial Hermann - Texas Medical Center on June 2, 2008. © 2008 Robert Seale.
Robert Seale Photography
www.robertseale.com
832-654-9572 Red Duke, my medical hero Serena Williams celebra tras ganar un punto ante Heather Watson en el partido por la tercera ronda del torneo de Wimbledon, el viernes 3 de julio de 2015. (AP Foto/Kirsty Wigglesworth) Tennis, in all its brutal glory Deflategate
Over/under on how many games Tom Brady will miss by suspension: 1.5 Why the Deflategate case matters Author Dayna Steele and her mother, Fran Nicholson. Mom's Alzheimer's. Facebook. And a big glass of wine. Banda El Recodo Not Mexican enough?
The NFL has its lawyers. Brady has his. Think of me as your lawyer for what is actually good for fans and the game.
In the last two public hearings, Judge Berman hammered the NFL side of the case, raising issues that should be important to fans, things like:
• Can commissioner Roger Goodell do anything he wants to any player if he merely declares, "It goes to the integrity of the game"?
• How did Goodell pick a four-game suspension versus a fine versus anything other punishment he could pull out of a hat?
• What happens to the next player who is accused of being "generally aware" of a NFL rule violation?
• If Tom Brady's electronic communications were important to a ball deflation conspiracy, why didn't the NFL give notice to Brady and his lawyers of how important it was to its decision?
• Did NFL investigator Ted Wells even know that a miniscule fine schedule existed for equipment violations?
• Why is this even a DeflateGate? There is no evidence in the record that Brady liked playing with footballs below the pressures allowed in the rules. How can the NFL make an inference that because there's evidence Tom Brady liked 12.5-13 psi balls that he truly in his heart wanted them less than that?
• Does it matter at all that the alleged ball deflation scheme didn't seem to affect competitive balance in the Colts-Patriots game?
• If the NFL were so confident in the "independence" of its report, why didn't it allow NFL Senior VP, General Counsel and named co-author Jeff Pash to testify about any alterations he may have made to the document?
• Wells said Brady was "generally aware" of a scheme by others to deflate footballs and "fully cooperated" except for not wanting to provide the contents of his private electronics due to advice of counsel. Goodell ruled that the evidence fully supported his findings that Brady participated in a "tampering scheme" and "willfully obstructed" the investigation. So which is it?
• And why did Wells and Goodell in their findings ignore much of the basic direct evidence that was favorable to Brady?
So what was the robotic NFL legal answer to Judge Berman's concerns?
Goodell has full discretion to decide what the facts and discipline are to uphold the integrity of the game. Issues of notice, consistency, fairness, independence, process are irrelevant.
The NFL says the Collective Bargaining Agreement allows Goodell to do whatever he wants as long as he goes through the pageantry of arbitration. The NFL Players Association says the NFL isn't really following the CBA and NFL rules as written and informed by labor law.
Yes, this is an oversimplification, but, as your fan lawyer, this is what you need to know about the NFL's legal argument:
If the NFL is right, every single player and team is at risk.
If there is no reasonable way for a team or player to prove his innocence once the process starts...
If the violation can be a pet issue the league never cared about before...
If giving notice of what the rule you violated and potential punishment isn't important...
If something can turn into a ---Gate based on an anonymous source with unknown motives...
Then no team, and no player, is safe from harm to reputation and severe penalties.
If Judge Berman makes a ruling, he knows this is a lose-lose-lose for everyone. He'd have to bother with writing an unassailable opinion on something this ridiculous. The losing party would appeal. The uncertain legal process would drag out for years.
As for fans? Nobody became a sports fan to watch Law & Order: NFL.
-
And "heating" of the balls on the sideline results in a fine yet deflation that may or may not have been caused by mother nature (amazing the NFL has been around for 90 something years & didn't know impact of weather on balls) results in a mulit-million investigation and suspension.
Well, no-one ever gave a squat. I'm guessing the operating assumption was that given that the refs handle the ball on each snap, it should be immediately obvious to them when a ball is unfit for play. Which is perfectly reasonable.
-
Solid piece by Stephanie Stradley in the Houston Chronicle
Stradley has been on top of this from the beginning. She wrote a handful of things, all of them worth the read.
-
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/patriots_nfl/the_blitz/2015/08/judge_no_settlement_on_deflategate_ruling_coming_soon
Judge Richard M. Berman announced this morning that there will be no settlement between Tom Brady and the NFL in regards to "Deflategate."
Berman said he will rule by the Sept. 4 deadline, most likely tomorrow or Wednesday.
"We did not reach settlement … the parties tried quite hard," said Berman. "In some cases (settlement) doesn't happen. This is one of those cases."
Worth noting that no matter who loses there will be an appeal.
-
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/patriots_nfl/the_blitz/2015/08/judge_no_settlement_on_deflategate_ruling_coming_soon
Judge Richard M. Berman announced this morning that there will be no settlement between Tom Brady and the NFL in regards to "Deflategate."
Berman said he will rule by the Sept. 4 deadline, most likely tomorrow or Wednesday.
"We did not reach settlement … the parties tried quite hard," said Berman. "In some cases (settlement) doesn't happen. This is one of those cases."
Worth noting that no matter who loses there will be an appeal.
The good news for the Pats is that if Brady wins, the suspension gets vacated, even if the NFL appeals. If Brady loses, Brady tries to get an injunction and the appeal doesn't get heard until the season is already over.
So, even if the suspension is upheld, Brady might not serve it until next year.
-
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/patriots_nfl/the_blitz/2015/08/judge_no_settlement_on_deflategate_ruling_coming_soon
Judge Richard M. Berman announced this morning that there will be no settlement between Tom Brady and the NFL in regards to "Deflategate."
Berman said he will rule by the Sept. 4 deadline, most likely tomorrow or Wednesday.
"We did not reach settlement … the parties tried quite hard," said Berman. "In some cases (settlement) doesn't happen. This is one of those cases."
Worth noting that no matter who loses there will be an appeal.
The good news for the Pats is that if Brady wins, the suspension gets vacated, even if the NFL appeals. If Brady loses, Brady tries to get an injunction and the appeal doesn't get heard until the season is already over.
So, even if the suspension is upheld, Brady might not serve it until next year.
dream scenario, Brady doesn't get suspended but NFL appeals and wins, and he gets suspended next season
then we win 2015-2016 super bowl to repeat and Brady retires
-
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/patriots_nfl/the_blitz/2015/08/judge_no_settlement_on_deflategate_ruling_coming_soon
Judge Richard M. Berman announced this morning that there will be no settlement between Tom Brady and the NFL in regards to "Deflategate."
Berman said he will rule by the Sept. 4 deadline, most likely tomorrow or Wednesday.
"We did not reach settlement … the parties tried quite hard," said Berman. "In some cases (settlement) doesn't happen. This is one of those cases."
Worth noting that no matter who loses there will be an appeal.
The good news for the Pats is that if Brady wins, the suspension gets vacated, even if the NFL appeals. If Brady loses, Brady tries to get an injunction and the appeal doesn't get heard until the season is already over.
So, even if the suspension is upheld, Brady might not serve it until next year.
dream scenario, Brady doesn't get suspended but NFL appeals and wins, and he gets suspended next season
then we win 2015-2016 super bowl to repeat and Brady retires
Brady isn't retiring. He wants to play 7 more years.
Goodell, on the other hand, may not be around by 2016.
-
First off, you can't waive negligence to whomever said that.
Of course you can. Are you saying that waivers / limitations of liability for negligence are per se unenforceable? That is just a misstatement of the law. There are probably tens of thousands of citations to this proposition, but we'll go with this cite from the Volokh Conspiracy:
The California Supreme Court issued an interesting decision this week on the enforceability of liability waivers in standard form contracts. At issue in City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court, -- Cal.Rptr.3d -- (2007 WL 2027806), was a release from liability for "any negligent act" signed by a parent as part of an enrollment contract that allowed her daughter to participate in a camp for disabled children run by the city of Santa Barbara. The court ruled, 6-1, that the contract was enforceable as to allegations of ordinary negligence, but not gross negligence. This wasn't surprising; it is standard hornbook law that such waivers in the context of recreational activities are enforceable as to ordinary negligence but not as to gross negligence, although a few jurisdictions won't even enforce waivers for ordinary negligence. But it is interesting that, according to the court, it had never actually addressed this issue (although for decades Witkin on California Law has claimed that the majority rule applies in the Golden State).
Some States may have refined the definition of negligence to different versions and are calling the old negligence gross negligence but that is first year law school. It is the nature of negligence.
I was fairly attentive in law school, and overall I enjoyed the experience, but I never was taught this concept. I would like to think that that's because it's not true.
Oftentimes (but not in every jurisdiction) you can't waive gross negligence. You can't waive legal malpractice or medical malpractice. However, general, ordinary negligence? That's waiveable in a contract, so long as the waiver is clear, knowing, and voluntary.
You need evidence to contradict direct testimony that outweighs it. To say three people are lying without actual proof is pathetic work by Wells
There is a lot of nuance here. You're not arguing that a finder of fact has to accept all testimony as true unless it's rebutted, are you? Because that's obviously not the case.
Theoretically, there needs to be some evidence other than the fact that you know a suspect is lying based upon your assessment of his credibility. However, that evidence of guilt doesn't have to directly contradict the testimony you have rejected as non-credible. For instance, in the presence instance, Wells can find guilt is more likely than not based simply on his assessment of credibility and the fact that several footballs didn't conform to the ideal gas law, even if it is assumed that the gauge most favorable to the Patriots was used.
If there's a minimal level of evidence showing deflation of the balls, and then the finder of fact assesses the key witnesses to be non-credible, that's enough to sustain a civil level of proof. Piggy-backing on that with contradictory / non-credible testimony, lack of cooperation, etc. is probably enough for a finder of fact to reasonably find guilt linking Brady.
A lot is made about this being an arbitration award, but in terms of the evidence, I can't imagine any appellate court in the country would reverse the verdict for sufficiency of evidence if a judge / jury found the Patriots civilly guilty.
To me, the real issues are relate to procedure and punishment. I think it's crystal clear that a reasonable fact-finder could have found guilt here.
On the negligence, that is for recreational activities, particularly sports and then it doesn't include gross negligence. But that really doesn't even have anything to do with this case and isn't worth getting side tracked over. I'll admit, in certain very specific instances negligence can be waived. I apologize for that error.
My point on the testimony is that if three people are cross examined, they are the only direct witnesses, and they all say the same thing, you not believing them isn't more than half of the evidence. It is no evidence. You have to have some evidence to refute it no? It can't just be I don't believe you so that is weighted more than your three direct evidence testimony. That is ludicrous.
There is NO unconverted evidence at all on the prosecution side. The only direct evidence the NFL has is very weak scientific evidence that Wells himself discounts as unreliable. Everything is Wells saying, "this text means this and this text means that," like he wrote them. That isn't evidence, it is opinion. If you really look at what he is saying it doesn't even make sense.
He says McNally calling himself the "deflator" in May 2014 shows guilt in Jan 2015. But then he gives his opinion that this all started after Brady got mad in the NY Jets game about the balls being 16lbs in October of 2014. Is McNally a freaking time traveler? Nowhere does Wells give any "evidence" of a scheme going on for years. Never is it mentioned that this has been a pattern. If it had been going on that long, why were the balls in NY an issue? Why did Brady have to drag out the rule book? Wells specifically says that McNally taking the balls was unusual and that no referees had seen that before. So when was McNally sneaking the balls away to deflate them back in 2013/14?
To say that is more powerful than three people's testimony, and at least Brady's sworn testimony (i'm not sure the other guys testimony was sworn) is very disingenuous. It makes a mockery of testimony if Wells and Goodell can simply say, "I don't believe these people, I'll go with what I believe." If you have a mountain of evidence on your side, sure you can say it outweighs three people's testimony, but they basically have nothing, even after extensive interviews. If a skilled lawyer like Wells can't trip up two yahoos like Jastremski and McNally after several hours of questioning, either Wells stinks at his job or maybe they were telling the truth.
-
::)
Gary Myers
?@garymyersNYDN
NFL never made formal settlement offer, but indicated willing to cut suspension to 3 games if Brady admitted DeflateGate guilt. No deal.
-
::)
Gary Myers
?@garymyersNYDN
NFL never made formal settlement offer, but indicated willing to cut suspension to 3 games if Brady admitted DeflateGate guilt. No deal.[/quote}
no compromise! keep pushing!
-
::)
Gary Myers
?@garymyersNYDN
NFL never made formal settlement offer, but indicated willing to cut suspension to 3 games if Brady admitted DeflateGate guilt. No deal.
So basically they weren't willing to settle at all. Three games and guilt? Pah-lease!
-
This is really ridiculous. Goodell is acting like a child. I just don't get how the NFL can say with a straight face that Brady's alleged crime is on par with using steroids or other major crimes that have resulted in 3 to 4 game suspensions throughout the history of the NFL.
-
Not a fan of the Patriots, not a fan of Brady... but I'm really hoping for Goodell's demise.
-
This is really ridiculous. Goodell is acting like a child. I just don't get how the NFL can say with a straight face that Brady's alleged crime is on par with using steroids or other major crimes that have resulted in 3 to 4 game suspensions throughout the history of the NFL.
Don't forget the 1st and 4th round picks, as well as the $1M. Goodell really is going all-in on this one.
-
::)
Gary Myers
?@garymyersNYDN
NFL never made formal settlement offer, but indicated willing to cut suspension to 3 games if Brady admitted DeflateGate guilt. No deal.
That's basically an offer that says "Kiss my behind."
-
::)
Gary Myers
?@garymyersNYDN
NFL never made formal settlement offer, but indicated willing to cut suspension to 3 games if Brady admitted DeflateGate guilt. No deal.
So basically they weren't willing to settle at all. Three games and guilt? Pah-lease!
Pretty much, unless they really expected Brady to admit to perjury. #NotHappening.
-
I'm a die hard NFL fan but this whole thing has really made me unhappy with the league. I'm one of those guys who watches all day on Sunday and haven't missed a Pats game in years. But after all this I have a hard time getting excited about the start of football and most likely will not watch half the NFL games I usually do. The NFL has made a mistake here and I hope it effects them.
-
::)
Gary Myers
?@garymyersNYDN
NFL never made formal settlement offer, but indicated willing to cut suspension to 3 games if Brady admitted DeflateGate guilt. No deal.
So basically they weren't willing to settle at all. Three games and guilt? Pah-lease!
Do we know what Brady's position was? I mean if Brady was saying I will not accept any games and won't admit anything, why would you expect the NFL to be much less than they were at.
-
::)
Gary Myers
?@garymyersNYDN
NFL never made formal settlement offer, but indicated willing to cut suspension to 3 games if Brady admitted DeflateGate guilt. No deal.
So basically they weren't willing to settle at all. Three games and guilt? Pah-lease!
Do we know what Brady's position was? I mean if Brady was saying I will not accept any games and won't admit anything, why would you expect the NFL to be much less than they were at.
Brady is willing to accept a fine and supposedly was open to accepting one game. Demanding him to admit to the crime of perjury is hardly an acceptable starting point of a settlement.
-
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely".
-
::)
Gary Myers
?@garymyersNYDN
NFL never made formal settlement offer, but indicated willing to cut suspension to 3 games if Brady admitted DeflateGate guilt. No deal.
So basically they weren't willing to settle at all. Three games and guilt? Pah-lease!
Do we know what Brady's position was? I mean if Brady was saying I will not accept any games and won't admit anything, why would you expect the NFL to be much less than they were at.
Brady is willing to accept a fine and supposedly was open to accepting one game. Demanding him to admit to the crime of perjury is hardly an acceptable starting point of a settlement.
The whole point of a compromise is that both sides start at extremes and work their way towards a common ground in the center. Doesn't make sense for the NFL to start much lower than what they did.
-
::)
Gary Myers
?@garymyersNYDN
NFL never made formal settlement offer, but indicated willing to cut suspension to 3 games if Brady admitted DeflateGate guilt. No deal.
So basically they weren't willing to settle at all. Three games and guilt? Pah-lease!
Do we know what Brady's position was? I mean if Brady was saying I will not accept any games and won't admit anything, why would you expect the NFL to be much less than they were at.
Brady is willing to accept a fine and supposedly was open to accepting one game. Demanding him to admit to the crime of perjury is hardly an acceptable starting point of a settlement.
The whole point of a compromise is that both sides start at extremes and work their way towards a common ground in the center. Doesn't make sense for the NFL to start much lower than what they did.
It was above and beyond the punishment that they issued and they weren't willing to take it off the table. That's not an attempt to compromise.
-
::)
Gary Myers
?@garymyersNYDN
NFL never made formal settlement offer, but indicated willing to cut suspension to 3 games if Brady admitted DeflateGate guilt. No deal.
So basically they weren't willing to settle at all. Three games and guilt? Pah-lease!
Do we know what Brady's position was? I mean if Brady was saying I will not accept any games and won't admit anything, why would you expect the NFL to be much less than they were at.
Brady is willing to accept a fine and supposedly was open to accepting one game. Demanding him to admit to the crime of perjury is hardly an acceptable starting point of a settlement.
The whole point of a compromise is that both sides start at extremes and work their way towards a common ground in the center. Doesn't make sense for the NFL to start much lower than what they did.
I understand your point but I think there is "lowballing" vs. "good faith negotiation". One is a game and the other is real. If you were selling your house for $300,000 and I came in at an offer of $200,000 -- you may not think I was serious about trying to buy the house.
-
The whole point of a compromise is that both sides start at extremes and work their way towards a common ground in the center. Doesn't make sense for the NFL to start much lower than what they did.
Sure, but at this point in the process, you'd think the sides would have found more middle ground than "3 games and admission of guilt + crime of perjury."
-
https://twitter.com/amilst44
Here are takeaways from today. First, a bit unusual for the Judge making the decision to engage in settlement discussions and not Magistrate
Second, asking counsel if they wanted to add anything for the record tells me the Judge has his decision and thinks an appeal is likely.
Both sides, but certainly Brady's, believe whatever Judge Berman decides will be affirmed on appeal.
Because of that, if Brady losses, which I doubt, an appeal carries the great risk of having to sit out four games at the end of the season,
Only the NFL is certain to appeal. So the Judge's comments, if anything, suggest a Brady win.
-
Anything can happen, but I suspect Berman realized a settlement was extremely unlikely before the second hearing and his questions at that hearing indicated which way he was leaning.
-
The whole point of a compromise is that both sides start at extremes and work their way towards a common ground in the center. Doesn't make sense for the NFL to start much lower than what they did.
Sure, but at this point in the process, you'd think the sides would have found more middle ground than "3 games and admission of guilt + crime of perjury."
Not if Brady was at no suspension at all. If both sides are taking unreasonable positions (at least to the other), then neither side is going to move first. Pretty classic negotiation.
-
The whole point of a compromise is that both sides start at extremes and work their way towards a common ground in the center. Doesn't make sense for the NFL to start much lower than what they did.
Sure, but at this point in the process, you'd think the sides would have found more middle ground than "3 games and admission of guilt + crime of perjury."
Not if Brady was at no suspension at all. If both sides are taking unreasonable positions (at least to the other), then neither side is going to move first. Pretty classic negotiation.
Yeah, exactly. To Patriots fans, 3 games and an admission of guilt is an unreasonable position. To the NFL, 1 game and no admission is unreasonable. It's hard to criticize one side and not the other in terms of failure to reach settlement.
I'm curious if two games plus Brady "not contesting" the findings of the arbitration would have been satisfactory to either side, and if so, which side turned it down.
-
The whole point of a compromise is that both sides start at extremes and work their way towards a common ground in the center. Doesn't make sense for the NFL to start much lower than what they did.
Sure, but at this point in the process, you'd think the sides would have found more middle ground than "3 games and admission of guilt + crime of perjury."
Not if Brady was at no suspension at all. If both sides are taking unreasonable positions (at least to the other), then neither side is going to move first. Pretty classic negotiation.
Yeah, exactly. To Patriots fans, 3 games and an admission of guilt is an unreasonable position. To the NFL, 1 game and no admission is unreasonable. It's hard to criticize one side and not the other in terms of failure to reach settlement.
I'm curious if two games plus Brady "not contesting" the findings of the arbitration would have been satisfactory to either side, and if so, which side turned it down.
In the context of the Wells Report findings ("general awareness", "more likely than not", the PSI levels being off (as conceded in Wells Report) by about 0.1 to 0.2 of a PSI), the schedule of fines for equipment violations set forth in the rule book, the high likelihood that any deflation was caused by operation of the ideal gas law, the "deflategate" texts from the two guys dated months before the Colts play-off game, that Brady never was found to ask for any balls below the 12.5 legal limit, that other equipment tampering has either been ignored or admonished with warning (Vikings heating balls), that refusal to turn over phones has only met wtih a fine (Brett Favre), to suggest the NFL's position of 3 games was just as reasonable as Brady's offer of a one game suspension, is nonsensical to me.
This is 31 teams ganging up on the team that is the most successful football team in this century, out of jealousy and spite. And for a perceived lack of sufficient punishment for Spygate.
-
The whole point of a compromise is that both sides start at extremes and work their way towards a common ground in the center. Doesn't make sense for the NFL to start much lower than what they did.
Sure, but at this point in the process, you'd think the sides would have found more middle ground than "3 games and admission of guilt + crime of perjury."
Not if Brady was at no suspension at all. If both sides are taking unreasonable positions (at least to the other), then neither side is going to move first. Pretty classic negotiation.
Yeah, exactly. To Patriots fans, 3 games and an admission of guilt is an unreasonable position. To the NFL, 1 game and no admission is unreasonable. It's hard to criticize one side and not the other in terms of failure to reach settlement.
I'm curious if two games plus Brady "not contesting" the findings of the arbitration would have been satisfactory to either side, and if so, which side turned it down.
And frankly we have no idea if Brady even offered to accept a one game suspension. The reports are along the lines of he would have accepted a 1 game suspension, not that it was ever offered. There is a very large difference between those two things.
-
In the context of the Wells Report findings ("general awareness", "more likely than not", the PSI levels being off (as conceded in Wells Report) by about 0.1 to 0.2 of a PSI), the schedule of fines for equipment violations set forth in the rule book, the high likelihood that any deflation was caused by operation of the ideal gas law, the "deflategate" texts from the two guys dated months before the Colts play-off game, that Brady never was found to ask for any balls below the 12.5 legal limit, that other equipment tampering has either been ignored or admonished with warning (Vikings heating balls), that refusal to turn over phones has only met wtih a fine (Brett Favre), to suggest the NFL's position of 3 games was just as reasonable as Brady's offer of a one game suspension, is nonsensical to me.
I still don't understand why people knock the "more likely than not" standard. It's been the burden of proof in civil cases for literally hundreds of years. It's hardly shocking, or worthy of criticism.
As for the other issues, you don't really examine the evidence at this stage. It's not about who has the facts on their side. Rather, it's about who has a stronger legal position. Most experts concede that that is the NFL, although the Judge in this matter may rely on procedural issues to vacate the arbitration award. (I'd be very surprised if the Judge made a finding that Goddell was partial, though. That would essentially render that portion of the CBA meaningless, and Judges in general won't touch collectively bargained agreements).
So, yes, in terms of the strength of legal positions, the NFL's offer of 3 games is on par with Brady's offer of 1 game.
-
I'm curious if two games plus Brady "not contesting" the findings of the arbitration would have been satisfactory to either side, and if so, which side turned it down.
My suspicion is that Brady's half would have turned it down because of the 'not contesting' part of it. From the look of it, he really believes (like most Patriots fans) that everything he did was within the realm of legitimacy, both on the field and in following his legal team's advice off the field.
The Patriots have to see how Jimmy G will do anyway. Brady is old, and more importantly his legacy is already sewn up -- a legacy that isn't legitimately affected by Deflategate in anyway unless he stops fighting the findings of the Wells Report. I think that's much more important for him than playing a month of NFL football.
-
This is 31 teams ganging up on the team that is the most successful football team in this century, out of jealousy and spite. And for a perceived lack of sufficient punishment for Spygate.
No, I don't think so, although I think it is a popular narrative for Patriots fans. IMO it was a perfect storm of a noteworthy/newsy team being caught doing something fairly run-of-the-mill, but certainly illegal, that the NFL front office decided to use as a foolproof way to reassert some of their authority among the eyes of the viewership and their owners. Of course, the fact that it blew up in their face is the delicious twist to it.
Was the fine increased because of previous organizational behavior? Certainly. Is it a witch hunt to 'get' the Patriots? I don't think so. Just because you get a bigger fine for driving with a suspended license the second time doesn't mean the court is out to get you, you know?
-
I am going to post some thoughts as a prediction so I can be on the record and see how I do. I am an engineer, not a lawyer so the Ideal Gas Law is my strength, not jurisprudence. As an engineer, I see no proof that the balls were even tampered with so in my mind, nothing else really matters. But I am an engineer and not a judge and I believe the judge, based on reported statements, is not seeing that point as definitively as me. He seems to think that the guys may have done something even if Brady did not specifically order it.
On the law side, based on what I have read, I think the judge can rule that even though the collective bargaining agreement does stipulate that Goodell can arbitrate these matters, there is still an implied requirement for the NFL to execute this role in a reasonably fair manner. I predict that the judge is going to say that the NFL abused the power granted to them in the CBA and went way overboard. If this had actually been a fair and reasonable arbitration, then the judge would be very reluctant to overturn but since the NFL turned this into a kangaroo court, it is not really arbitration and the judge should have much more latitude to overturn.
The ruling will be in favor of Brady and the NFL will be ordered to rehear the arbitration but to do so in a way that meets the standard of a real arbitration if they want it to be upheld. What happens from there, who knows. I am not sure that there is a scenario where Goodell can preside over an arbitration and have it be fair.
-
In the context of the Wells Report findings ("general awareness", "more likely than not", the PSI levels being off (as conceded in Wells Report) by about 0.1 to 0.2 of a PSI), the schedule of fines for equipment violations set forth in the rule book, the high likelihood that any deflation was caused by operation of the ideal gas law, the "deflategate" texts from the two guys dated months before the Colts play-off game, that Brady never was found to ask for any balls below the 12.5 legal limit, that other equipment tampering has either been ignored or admonished with warning (Vikings heating balls), that refusal to turn over phones has only met wtih a fine (Brett Favre), to suggest the NFL's position of 3 games was just as reasonable as Brady's offer of a one game suspension, is nonsensical to me.
I still don't understand why people knock the "more likely than not" standard. It's been the burden of proof in civil cases for literally hundreds of years. It's hardly shocking, or worthy of criticism.
As for the other issues, you don't really examine the evidence at this stage. It's not about who has the facts on their side. Rather, it's about who has a stronger legal position. Most experts concede that that is the NFL, although the Judge in this matter may rely on procedural issues to vacate the arbitration award. (I'd be very surprised if the Judge made a finding that Goddell was partial, though. That would essentially render that portion of the CBA meaningless, and Judges in general won't touch collectively bargained agreements).
So, yes, in terms of the strength of legal positions, the NFL's offer of 3 games is on par with Brady's offer of 1 game.
The problem is that when you combine the findings of the Wells report: "more likely than not" + "at least generally aware", you have a punishment that doesn't fit the crime. This is partially because civil law standard is intended to be used in proceedings that typically result in monetary fines.
Another problem is that you go from "at least generally aware" in the Wells report to "orchestrating a conspiracy" on appeal and it just doesn't add up.
-
I am going to post some thoughts as a prediction so I can be on the record and see how I do. I am an engineer, not a lawyer so the Ideal Gas Law is my strength, not jurisprudence. As an engineer, I see no proof that the balls were even tampered with so in my mind, nothing else really matters. But I am an engineer and not a judge and I believe the judge, based on reported statements, is not seeing that point as definitively as me. He seems to think that the guys may have done something even if Brady did not specifically order it.
The problem is that whether or not the balls were deflated is not on trial here. Therefore, what anyone thinks on that matter is irrelevant. The judge is going to rule on whether Goodell appropriately levied his punishment under the CBA -- although I am unsure whether his task is to confirm the penalty itself or the arbitration result.
-
Just because you get a bigger fine for driving with a suspended license the second time doesn't mean the court is out to get you, you know?
I think it's more like the local cops pulling over the town heel for going 42 in a 30. The guy they pull over happens to be a notorious jerk -- hollering at women, getting too drunk in bars, and he also owns a local business and recently laid off some of the cops' friends.
So they contrive excuses to search his car so they can find his stash of weed that he keeps under the seat. They put him in jail for the night. They fine him the highest possible amount. And then they impound his car and make him jump through hoops for two weeks just to get it back.
-
The whole point of a compromise is that both sides start at extremes and work their way towards a common ground in the center. Doesn't make sense for the NFL to start much lower than what they did.
Sure, but at this point in the process, you'd think the sides would have found more middle ground than "3 games and admission of guilt + crime of perjury."
Not if Brady was at no suspension at all. If both sides are taking unreasonable positions (at least to the other), then neither side is going to move first. Pretty classic negotiation.
Yeah, exactly. To Patriots fans, 3 games and an admission of guilt is an unreasonable position. To the NFL, 1 game and no admission is unreasonable. It's hard to criticize one side and not the other in terms of failure to reach settlement.
I'm curious if two games plus Brady "not contesting" the findings of the arbitration would have been satisfactory to either side, and if so, which side turned it down.
Reduced suspension to 2 games and Brady saying nothing seems like a reasonable outcome for both sides, to me. Brady doesn't get to comment on the NFL backing down, or how this demonstrates that there wasn't sufficient evidence, or whatever. Shut your mouth, sit out two weeks, and play when you get back.
I still don't understand why people knock the "more likely than not" standard. It's been the burden of proof in civil cases for literally hundreds of years. It's hardly shocking, or worthy of criticism.
I think what gets people is that proving something that is vague and tepid to begin with -- "general awareness" -- by a legitimate but relatively forgiving standard of "more likely than not" really makes the punishment seem excessive.
"More likely than not" that you were "generally aware" of something sounds, from a common sense perspective, like a fairly low likelihood that you were really heavily involved in anything. It sounds like guilt by association. Which in this case, it kinda is.
-
I am going to post some thoughts as a prediction so I can be on the record and see how I do. I am an engineer, not a lawyer so the Ideal Gas Law is my strength, not jurisprudence. As an engineer, I see no proof that the balls were even tampered with so in my mind, nothing else really matters. But I am an engineer and not a judge and I believe the judge, based on reported statements, is not seeing that point as definitively as me. He seems to think that the guys may have done something even if Brady did not specifically order it.
The problem is that whether or not the balls were deflated is not on trial here. Therefore, what anyone thinks on that matter is irrelevant. The judge is going to rule on whether Goodell appropriately levied his punishment under the CBA -- although I am unsure whether his task is to confirm the penalty itself or the arbitration result.
I agree that "whether or not the balls were deflated is not on trial" to a point. The judge did ask a lot of questions about the evidence and the what exactly it was that Brady may or may not have been aware of. I agree that the judge is not going to rule "I vacate because I don't believe the NFL proved the balls were deflated" but he seemed to be concerned about what and when the infraction may be/have occurred as this goes to the reasonableness of the overall arbitration process.
My point is that this so called arbitration by Goodell is not going to be given the same deference that a real arbitration process would be given. This is just my opinion or prediction. To some degree, I am incorporating some points I heard Roger Abrams make on TV. He is a Law Professor at Northeastern and has worked on MLB labor cases as I understand it. Of course basing my opinion on my interpretation of his opinion means that I don't expect anyone to take this very seriously or to have this change their mind on the issue. It is just fun to play along at home, like watching Jeopardy.
Way back when, when Goodell released the 4 game suspension and the fines and draft picks, I predicted that Goodell would lose his job over this. I still think the NFL is going to move on from Goodell, not right away, but at a convenient time in the relatively near future. But who knows what the NFL will do.
-
Just because you get a bigger fine for driving with a suspended license the second time doesn't mean the court is out to get you, you know?
I think it's more like the local cops pulling over the town heel for going 42 in a 30. The guy they pull over happens to be a notorious jerk -- hollering at women, getting too drunk in bars, and he also owns a local business and recently laid off some of the cops' friends.
So they contrive excuses to search his car so they can find his stash of weed that he keeps under the seat. They put him in jail for the night. They fine him the highest possible amount. And then they impound his car and make him jump through hoops for two weeks just to get it back.
Hahahahahah well I was trying to be diplomatic but yeah your equivocation works much better.
-
Well, one thing to know about the law is that when judges feel like the evidence is really poor (i.e. the case is a loser on the "merits") but they only have the authority to look at the procedure (i.e the "law"), they are much more inclined to invent creative reasons to invalidate the decision before them. This is a sort of "legal fiction" that gets spun by judges.
The decision says one thing, but the reasons for their decision may be between the lines.
-
Brady has reportedly told the NFL he would not accept a suspension of any length and will not admit guilt, and would only accept punishment for not fully cooperating in Ted Wells’s Deflategate investigation.
http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/08/31/deflategate-nfl-settlement-offer-tom-brady (http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/08/31/deflategate-nfl-settlement-offer-tom-brady)
matches more what I thought, Brady never actually offered to accept a 1 game suspension, but only after the talks broke off his team carefully released a statement saying he would have accepted a 1 game suspension to make the NFL look like the bad guy. Again classic negotiating through the press.
-
Brady has reportedly told the NFL he would not accept a suspension of any length and will not admit guilt, and would only accept punishment for not fully cooperating in Ted Wells’s Deflategate investigation.
http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/08/31/deflategate-nfl-settlement-offer-tom-brady (http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/08/31/deflategate-nfl-settlement-offer-tom-brady)
matches more what I thought, Brady never actually offered to accept a 1 game suspension, but only after the talks broke off his team carefully released a statement saying he would have accepted a 1 game suspension to make the NFL look like the bad guy. Again classic negotiating through the press.
Or he offered up the possibility of serving a 1 game suspension as part of a package the NFL would never accept. Tomaytoe Tohmahtoe, though.
-
Seems like neither side ever really approached the negotiations with a willingness to make a competitive offer.
-
Seems like neither side ever really approached the negotiations with a willingness to make a competitive offer.
I don't think settlement would've served either side given the circumstances of this case.
-
Agreed -- as soon as Kraft backed off on his lawsuit it became extraordinarily unlikely.
-
In the context of the Wells Report findings ("general awareness", "more likely than not", the PSI levels being off (as conceded in Wells Report) by about 0.1 to 0.2 of a PSI), the schedule of fines for equipment violations set forth in the rule book, the high likelihood that any deflation was caused by operation of the ideal gas law, the "deflategate" texts from the two guys dated months before the Colts play-off game, that Brady never was found to ask for any balls below the 12.5 legal limit, that other equipment tampering has either been ignored or admonished with warning (Vikings heating balls), that refusal to turn over phones has only met wtih a fine (Brett Favre), to suggest the NFL's position of 3 games was just as reasonable as Brady's offer of a one game suspension, is nonsensical to me.
I still don't understand why people knock the "more likely than not" standard. It's been the burden of proof in civil cases for literally hundreds of years. It's hardly shocking, or worthy of criticism.
As for the other issues, you don't really examine the evidence at this stage. It's not about who has the facts on their side. Rather, it's about who has a stronger legal position. Most experts concede that that is the NFL, although the Judge in this matter may rely on procedural issues to vacate the arbitration award. (I'd be very surprised if the Judge made a finding that Goddell was partial, though. That would essentially render that portion of the CBA meaningless, and Judges in general won't touch collectively bargained agreements).
So, yes, in terms of the strength of legal positions, the NFL's offer of 3 games is on par with Brady's offer of 1 game.
I think people generally knock it because this situation is like a criminal prosecution. Civil disputes are usually about contract language or culpability not whether or not something happened.
Personally, I'm fine with the standard, I just don't think the NFL came anywhere close to meeting it. In fact, it is no standard at all if you can dismiss all the evidence you don't like and turn your opinions into evidence on your side. That is the inherent difficulty in letting one side do all the investigation, interviews, weighing of the evidence and handing out the penalties. Add to that not letting the other side see evidence or cross the co-author of the report leads to this entire process being a sham and not an arbitration.
While people can say the NFLPA gave Goodell this power, they did not agree to waive all due process. As far as I can tell, due process wasn't addressed in the CBA. The NFL never said there wouldn't be due process and the NFLPA never waived it.
With that said, I can't see the NFL prevailing. If Berman agrees the NFL does not owe the NFLPA a fair process that would go against Federal Law which requires it. If Berman allows Goodell to be a partial arbiter, it would go against Federal Law. It would set the precedent that Goodell doesn't really even owe the players anything other than appearing before him during an arbitration hearing. He wouldn't have to have an investigation, allow the players to cross anyone, or even pay attention in the arbitration hearing. I can't see that happening. Guess we will know by Friday.
-
Agreed -- as soon as Kraft backed off on his lawsuit it became extraordinarily unlikely.
He never actually backed off on a lawsuit, he said he wouldn't go to the League's arbitration. He could still sue the league for say, fraud or conspiracy to commit fraud. I'm sure there are other things.
-
Agreed -- as soon as Kraft backed off on his lawsuit it became extraordinarily unlikely.
He never actually backed off on a lawsuit, he said he wouldn't go to the League's arbitration. He could still sue the league for say, fraud or conspiracy to commit fraud. I'm sure there are other things.
Kraft's not going to do anything, IMO.
-
Correct. He gave up when he decided not to appeal the league's fine, not that it was ever in doubt what he would do -- this is a guy who left his wife's deathbed to work on labor negotiations. He's not going to rock the boat.
This is also the reason Goodell isn't going to get fired. The NFL doesn't care about anything other than 'the integrity of the shield' and if people are focused on how bad Goodell is at his job, rather than, say, how the league exploits communities for their own financial gain, the shield is fine.
-
Correct. He gave up when he decided not to appeal the league's fine, not that it was ever in doubt -- this is a guy who left his wife's deathbed to work on labor negotiations. He's not going to rock the boat.
There's also the legacy thing too. Hall of Fame as well as his son eventually taking over the team.
-
Ah! Too fast response!
-
If Brady wins, I'd like to see Kraft sue the NFL, if for no other reason than to blow this thing up so much that the other owners have no other choice but to fire Goodell.
-
If Brady wins, I'd like to see Kraft sue the NFL, if for no other reason than to blow this thing up so much that the other owners have no other choice but to fire Goodell.
The unfortunate thing is that even if Brady wins this thing, his team is most likely still going to be out that 1st & 4th rounder and a million bucks. It was just look even more ridiculous.
I just can't see Kraft rocking the ship with a lawsuit. Once the Brady part of Deflategate is put to bed, I think that's it.
-
Seems like neither side ever really approached the negotiations with a willingness to make a competitive offer.
I don't think settlement would've served either side given the circumstances of this case.
The NFL dug themselves a pretty deep trench, yeah.
-
If Brady wins, I'd like to see Kraft sue the NFL, if for no other reason than to blow this thing up so much that the other owners have no other choice but to fire Goodell.
But suing the NFL would not be in Kraft's best interests, and neither would replacing Goodell.
-
Seems like neither side ever really approached the negotiations with a willingness to make a competitive offer.
I don't think settlement would've served either side given the circumstances of this case.
The NFL dug themselves a pretty deep trench, yeah.
They did seem to go all in on this relatively early so any backing off for them would look extremely bad. They passed the point of no return when they decided to address this thing with a cough...independent...cough report by Wells rather than nip it in the bud and just issue a fine or something.
If Brady is truly innocent, then he had no reason to budge whatsoever. I could understand him accepting a fine or something for "non-cooperation" but that's about it.
-
If Brady wins, I'd like to see Kraft sue the NFL, if for no other reason than to blow this thing up so much that the other owners have no other choice but to fire Goodell.
But suing the NFL would not be in Kraft's best interests, and neither would replacing Goodell.
Well, I think eventually, if the NFL kept getting its butt kicked in court or even if matters like this kept going to court, something would have to be done.
More likely, it would be addressing Goodell's powers as judge, jury, executioner rather than just axing the guy. I've said it here a million times, the owners probably love him because he essentially takes the fall for everything and deflects things off the actual owners. Plus, they're making a crapload of money (although I think anyone in that position could make them boatloads of money).
-
An article in today's Financial Post (a Canadian business newspaper) hammers the NFL on the science.
http://business.financialpost.com/f...-science-could-have-wrongly-smeared-tom-brady
"Cheap pressure gauges – and confusion about basic science – could have wrongly smeared Tom Brady as an NFL cheat
Playing out on the sports pages this summer has been yet another example of distorted pseudo-science – the Deflategate scandal – an incident which, in my opinion, would not have been an issue without defective scientific and statistical analysis by Exponent, the NFL’s technical consultants, and defective peer review by Daniel Marlow of Princeton. The NFL’s suspension of Tom Brady is under appeal and a decision is expected on Sept. 4, but the appeal will not turn on the underlying science and statistics, but on procedural issues of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. But any fair-minded person ought to be repulsed (though perhaps not surprised) that the decision will rely in any way on pseudo science."....
-
If Brady wins, I'd like to see Kraft sue the NFL, if for no other reason than to blow this thing up so much that the other owners have no other choice but to fire Goodell.
But suing the NFL would not be in Kraft's best interests, and neither would replacing Goodell.
Well, I think eventually, if the NFL kept getting its butt kicked in court or even if matters like this kept going to court, something would have to be done.
More likely, it would be addressing Goodell's powers as judge, jury, executioner rather than just axing the guy. I've said it here a million times, the owners probably love him because he essentially takes the fall for everything and deflects things off the actual owners. Plus, they're making a crapload of money (although I think anyone in that position could make them boatloads of money).
And that's the thing. I don't necessarily think it's in Kraft's best interest or the League's to keep Goodell around.
First, I truly feel that nearly any semi-competent person could make money for the NFL given it's enormous popularity. It's not like Goodell had to really push the networks that much to give the league enormous amounts of cash.
Second, the NFL is obsessed with maintaining this clean image, but I think it matters less for the NFL than it does other sports. It's a violent sport and I don't think people really expect stand-up citizens in it. Moreover, I think you can make the argument that Goodell's perpetual botching of discipline is causing the league way more harm than if he just had overlooked it (not that I support that, but as an observation).
Finally, even if Goodell is helping the league a little bit and his successor is slightly less effective at making the league money, how is that really affecting Kraft? He makes 500 million instead of 525 million?
It just seems to me that Kraft is an integrity guy and that if he perceives that Goodell is corrupt, he'll go after him even if it meant losing a little money just as he did when he chose to keep the Pats in MA over a much sweeter deal in CT.
-
You would be right if Kraft really was an integrity guy. I don't know if that's actually the case when it comes to the workings of the NFL.
-
I think blaming Goodell is misdirected. He is just doing the work of the other owners, who are trying to punish the Patriots for their arrogance, and pushing of the envelope. This entire thing was based on the urban legend that the Patriots were deflating footballs, probably around for years. The same one that accused them of interfering with radio frequencies, bugging locker rooms, stretching the eligible receiver rules. Problem is, that the vast majority of owners will always win in the end, because they will always control the league. Poor Roger is beholden to their directive. If they told him to drop the charges or to settle, it would have happened. The last thing he wants to do is lose his $35mm annual salary.
-
I think blaming Goodell is misdirected. He is just doing the work of the other owners, who are trying to punish the Patriots for their arrogance, and pushing of the envelope. This entire thing was based on the urban legend that the Patriots were deflating footballs, probably around for years. The same one that accused them of interfering with radio frequencies, bugging locker rooms, stretching the eligible receiver rules. Problem is, that the vast majority of owners will always win in the end, because they will always control the league. Poor Roger is beholden to their directive. If they told him to drop the charges or to settle, it would have happened. The last thing he wants to do is lose his $35mm annual salary.
If Goodell didn't have the support of a good number of prominent owners, he would have been instructed to back off long ago.
-
If I were the Judge in this case, I'd temporarily set aside the arbitration award as it did not follow federal law because, a) the arbiter was not independent, b) the investigator who derived his authority from the arbiter was not independent and c) the NFLPA was not afforded due process in several areas which I don't want to list here. I'd say, any of these problems would alone be enough to set aside the arbitration.
Then, at the expense of the NFL, I'd appoint an independent investigator AND a new neutral arbiter to start the process over looking at both the NFL and the Patriots and Brady. Everyone now would be under penalty of perjury in a Federal Court and also face contempt charges for not compliance.
I'd then give the NFL the option to drop the case and get the temporary part of the order changed to permanent or if they really think Brady and the Patriots are guilty, let them pursue it to the end with due process. It seems like if each side believes they are right, that should suit both parties. Then they don't have to clog up the appellate courts, I don't risk getting my ruling overturned and we can get back to hearing important cases.
If the NFL drops it, and I were Brady and innocent, I'd sue the NFL and all those involved for defamation. Would I win? More likely than not, no. But I'd try to get all the dirt out of the NFL and Goodell and put them through what they put me through. If Pash took out all the innocent stuff from the Wells report then published it, I'm not sure that isn't a winning case.
-
What have they put him through? A hard life making millions upon millions while being married to a super model, banging the nanny and getting away with it?
Yeah, real aggrieved lifestyle there.
edit: if you're trying to say that he's innocent of getting his footballs treated, then I suggest you move out from under the rock and find a new place to live. The issue has never really been about whether or not he asked for his balls to be altered from regulation (he did. I would bet thousands of dollars he did. Every NFL player does it, to some degree -- we've seen this ad nauseum over the last few months) the issue has always been about the disproportionate punishment and Goodell's authority to issue inconsistent discipline with impunity.
-
What have they put him through? A hard life making millions upon millions while being married to a super model, banging the nanny and getting away with it?
Yeah, real aggrieved lifestyle there.
edit: if you're trying to say that he's innocent of getting his footballs treated, then I suggest you move out from under the rock and find a new place to live. The issue has never really been about whether or not he asked for his balls to be altered from regulation (he did. I would bet thousands of dollars he did. Every NFL player does it, to some degree -- we've seen this ad nauseum over the last few months) the issue has always been about the disproportionate punishment and Goodell's authority to issue inconsistent discipline with impunity.
banging the nanny? what is this, Star Magazine?
-
Whoops that was Arnold Schwarzenegger. Regardless, I agree, that is definitely the part of my post that deserves your attention and comment. Absolutely solid thinking.
-
Whoops that was Arnold Schwarzenegger. Regardless, I agree, that is definitely the part of my post that deserves your attention and comment. Absolutely solid thinking.
Ben Affleck too.
-
Who was on the plane with Brady, thus proving that Matt Damon was the second gunman on the grassy knoll.
-
Whoops that was Arnold Schwarzenegger. Regardless, I agree, that is definitely the part of my post that deserves your attention and comment. Absolutely solid thinking.
Ben Affleck too.
And Heidi Klum (or was that the bodyguard).
-
We can call him Al.
defeated by the page break!
-
People actually falling for this tweet. SMH :P
Judge Berman ?@judgeberman 1h1 hour ago
I will be announcing my ruling on Tom Brady's suspension today via Twitter at 4pm EST
-
People actually falling for this tweet. SMH :P
Judge Berman ?@judgeberman 1h1 hour ago
I will be announcing my ruling on Tom Brady's suspension today via Twitter at 4pm EST
Haha. Sadly, there's probably a day in our future when stuff like this will happen.
-
For what it's worth.
Bob McGovern
?@BobMcGovernJr
Richard Berman just issued an order saying he anticipates issuing his decision and order by the end of the week. #deflategate
-
The ironic thing is that months ago people were joking that the Wells Report was going to come out late Friday afternoon on one of these holiday weekends (Memorial, July 4th, Labor Day), we might actually get this ruling on that day.
-
It seems like the judge really wants no part of ruling on this. IMO this means he either thinks the whole suit is ridiculous and/or he thinks a fair ruling is somewhere in the middle.
I could very well see the NFL winning simply because the Judge thinks that Brady deserves more than no punishment at all.
-
It seems like the judge really wants no part of ruling on this. IMO this means he either thinks the whole suit is ridiculous and/or he thinks a fair ruling is somewhere in the middle.
I could very well see the NFL winning simply because the Judge thinks that Brady deserves more than no punishment at all.
I suspect it means he does not want to set a precedent and even more so, he knows his ruling will be appealed and will then drag out for possibly a couple of years. Therefore, he believes a settlement would have been better for everybody.
-
Texans owner Bob McNair with some head scratching comments.
HOUSTON -- Texans owner Bob McNair said J.J. Watt would not have destroyed his cell phone if he faced the same situation as New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady had with his dispute with the NFL over deflated footballs.
McNair made his comments Tuesday in an appearance on Texans radio on Houston's Sports Radio 610.
"If it was J.J. Watt, I think he would have been cooperative, and it wouldn't be a question. ... I don't think J.J. would destroy his cell phone."
Texans owner Bob McNair
"What escalated the whole thing is that Brady and the Patriots were going to cooperate fully, and then when it came down to it, they didn't," McNair said. "If it was J.J. Watt, I think he would have been cooperative, and it wouldn't be a question. ... I don't think J.J. would destroy his cell phone."
After an investigation the NFL determined Brady and two ball boys conspired to deflate footballs in their 45-7 win over the Indianapolis Colts. Brady was suspended four games, then appealed the suspension to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, who denied his appeal. He is now appealing the decision in federal court.
The radio hosts asked McNair on Tuesday if Watt would have been comfortable with his due process if faced with the same situation. The Texans host the Patriots on Dec. 13.
"Is there anything conclusive there? No, you don't have any conclusive evidence," McNair said. "But the whole idea is we want to make sure we have a competitive playing field that's level for everybody ... don't want people breaking the rules."
McNair added: "In the minds of somebody in that organization, they thought it was important. They thought it would give them a competitive advantage, and that's why they did it ... You just want to eliminate that kind of situation if you can."
-
Texans owner Bob McNair with some head scratching comments.
HOUSTON -- Texans owner Bob McNair said J.J. Watt would not have destroyed his cell phone if he faced the same situation as New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady had with his dispute with the NFL over deflated footballs.
McNair made his comments Tuesday in an appearance on Texans radio on Houston's Sports Radio 610.
"If it was J.J. Watt, I think he would have been cooperative, and it wouldn't be a question. ... I don't think J.J. would destroy his cell phone."
Texans owner Bob McNair
"What escalated the whole thing is that Brady and the Patriots were going to cooperate fully, and then when it came down to it, they didn't," McNair said. "If it was J.J. Watt, I think he would have been cooperative, and it wouldn't be a question. ... I don't think J.J. would destroy his cell phone."
After an investigation the NFL determined Brady and two ball boys conspired to deflate footballs in their 45-7 win over the Indianapolis Colts. Brady was suspended four games, then appealed the suspension to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, who denied his appeal. He is now appealing the decision in federal court.
The radio hosts asked McNair on Tuesday if Watt would have been comfortable with his due process if faced with the same situation. The Texans host the Patriots on Dec. 13.
"Is there anything conclusive there? No, you don't have any conclusive evidence," McNair said. "But the whole idea is we want to make sure we have a competitive playing field that's level for everybody ... don't want people breaking the rules."
McNair added: "In the minds of somebody in that organization, they thought it was important. They thought it would give them a competitive advantage, and that's why they did it ... You just want to eliminate that kind of situation if you can."
Stephanie Stradley @StephStradley
McNair doesn't know truth of #Deflategate any more than Kraft knew truth of #Bountygate & #Bullygate. That is why -gates will keep happening
Stephanie Stradley ?@StephStradley 12m12 minutes ago
Bob McNair is a reasonable owner Reasonable owners don't read 1000s of pgs of documents They rely on NFL/news reports That are often wrong
-
Texans owner Bob McNair with some head scratching comments.
HOUSTON -- Texans owner Bob McNair said J.J. Watt would not have destroyed his cell phone if he faced the same situation as New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady had with his dispute with the NFL over deflated footballs.
McNair made his comments Tuesday in an appearance on Texans radio on Houston's Sports Radio 610.
"If it was J.J. Watt, I think he would have been cooperative, and it wouldn't be a question. ... I don't think J.J. would destroy his cell phone."
Texans owner Bob McNair
"What escalated the whole thing is that Brady and the Patriots were going to cooperate fully, and then when it came down to it, they didn't," McNair said. "If it was J.J. Watt, I think he would have been cooperative, and it wouldn't be a question. ... I don't think J.J. would destroy his cell phone."
After an investigation the NFL determined Brady and two ball boys conspired to deflate footballs in their 45-7 win over the Indianapolis Colts. Brady was suspended four games, then appealed the suspension to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, who denied his appeal. He is now appealing the decision in federal court.
The radio hosts asked McNair on Tuesday if Watt would have been comfortable with his due process if faced with the same situation. The Texans host the Patriots on Dec. 13.
"Is there anything conclusive there? No, you don't have any conclusive evidence," McNair said. "But the whole idea is we want to make sure we have a competitive playing field that's level for everybody ... don't want people breaking the rules."
McNair added: "In the minds of somebody in that organization, they thought it was important. They thought it would give them a competitive advantage, and that's why they did it ... You just want to eliminate that kind of situation if you can."
I didn't realize that Watt might be in the position of preparing footballs. :P
-
Last night, PFT surmised that free-agent kicker Jay Feely may have told Judge Richard M. Berman about the 2009 incident involving a Jets kicking ball during Feely’s unexpected trip to court in his capacity as a member of the NFL Players Association’s Executive Committee.
As it turns out, Feely did.
Appearing on The Doug Gottlieb Show, Feely said that he explained to Judge Berman the situation arising from a Jets-Patriots game.
“We talked about the similarities in that case and the differences in the way the NFL responded,” Feely said. “I didn’t get in trouble. I had no culpability in that case.”
As the kicker, Feely presumably would have been at least “generally aware” of the use of an unapproved piece of equipment by a Jets equipment employee, who was suspended as a result of the incident. But Feely was neither questioned nor disciplined.
It’s an important point, because the failure to investigate or to discipline Feely under similar circumstances shows that the NFL may have been acting arbitrarily in Brady’s case.
By Friday, we’ll find out whether Judge Berman agrees.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/09/01/feely-did-indeed-tell-judge-berman-about-the-jets-k-ball-incident/
-
Texans owner Bob McNair with some head scratching comments.
HOUSTON -- Texans owner Bob McNair said J.J. Watt would not have destroyed his cell phone if he faced the same situation as New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady had with his dispute with the NFL over deflated footballs.
McNair made his comments Tuesday in an appearance on Texans radio on Houston's Sports Radio 610.
"If it was J.J. Watt, I think he would have been cooperative, and it wouldn't be a question. ... I don't think J.J. would destroy his cell phone."
Texans owner Bob McNair
"What escalated the whole thing is that Brady and the Patriots were going to cooperate fully, and then when it came down to it, they didn't," McNair said. "If it was J.J. Watt, I think he would have been cooperative, and it wouldn't be a question. ... I don't think J.J. would destroy his cell phone."
After an investigation the NFL determined Brady and two ball boys conspired to deflate footballs in their 45-7 win over the Indianapolis Colts. Brady was suspended four games, then appealed the suspension to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, who denied his appeal. He is now appealing the decision in federal court.
The radio hosts asked McNair on Tuesday if Watt would have been comfortable with his due process if faced with the same situation. The Texans host the Patriots on Dec. 13.
"Is there anything conclusive there? No, you don't have any conclusive evidence," McNair said. "But the whole idea is we want to make sure we have a competitive playing field that's level for everybody ... don't want people breaking the rules."
McNair added: "In the minds of somebody in that organization, they thought it was important. They thought it would give them a competitive advantage, and that's why they did it ... You just want to eliminate that kind of situation if you can."
I didn't realize that Watt might be in the position of preparing footballs. :P
Watt does everything.
-
The longer this goes, the more I think it means Berman is siding with Brady. If he were ruling for the NFL I would think his opinion would be short and not terribly complex, possibly just saying upheld and maybe citing a case or two of Courts deferring to arbitration in CBA agreements.
I don't think he would go through all of the NFLPA's arguments and try to cite why they don't apply with reasoning and cite cases on them.
If he is siding with Brady and the NFLPA he wouldn't just rest it on one issue, he would set a bunch of failures of the NFL to abide by the CBA and how each of them means the NFL can't win. That sets up a much more difficult appeal for the NFL because the Appellate Court then has to reject each of the points and that would be hard to do.
That would take his clerks a lot longer to fashion than simply citing a couple cases and saying the Court defers to the arbiter.
-
The Associated Press ?@AP 9m9 minutes ago
BREAKING: Tom Brady beats NFL in 'Deflategate' court case, judge nullifies league's 4-game suspension.
-
Berman nullifies the suspension. Not on ESPN, but on Mike Reiss Twitter.
Down with Goodell!
https://mobile.twitter.com/MikeReiss/status/639441217844023296
-
Well, I hate to say I told you so.... Oh hell what am I saying, I love it.
-
Welp, that was 6 months well spent.
-
Welp, that was 6 months well spent.
Witch hunt.
-
Now time to fire Goodell.
-
So they overturn the suspension and apparently the internet firewall at work no longer blocks the forums.
Today is a good day.
-
So they overturn the suspension and apparently the internet firewall at work no longer blocks the forums.
Today is a good day.
Welcome back to the grid, Faf. It's been too long!
-
The Patriots get Brady back, the NFL gets one last news cycle before next week (not counting the final roster cutting day), and everyone is going to tune in because no one has shut up about football for the entire offseason.
And we get Faf back. Looks like wins all around.
-
Some light reading.
http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show.php?db=special&id=484
-
Link's not working for me.
-
EDIT: Ah, screw it. Too much of a mess to try & quote.
-
Link's not working for me.
Takes a bit to load.
-
The NFL may have had the stronger legal argument, but no judge could let such a dishonest witch hunt stand. Awesome!
As the Financial Post reported a couple days ago, "any fair-minded person ought to be repulsed that the decision will rely in any way on pseudo science." The judge agreed.
-
Link's not working for me.
Takes a bit to load.
Yeah I was getting error screens. Working now.
-
Now the NFL needs to fire Goodell.
I doubt he will do it, but I would love to see Brady sue for defamation. So many lies told by the NFL.
-
How many more times is the NFL gonna get their butts kicked in court before they realize that the process needs to be changed (and maybe the people)?
Bountygate, AP, Ray Rice, now Brady.....
-
I'm still not onboard with the fire Goodell thinking, by the way (even though I agree that he's an idiot). Anyone care to convince me?
-
I'm still not onboard with the fire Goodell thinking, by the way (even though I agree that he's an idiot). Anyone care to convince me?
He won't get fired but I think the team owners should start thinking twice about the current league office.
-
I'm still not onboard with the fire Goodell thinking, by the way (even though I agree that he's an idiot). Anyone care to convince me?
He's basically botched every major disciplinary action that comes his way. Even using a coin flip approach about what to do would have yielded better results.
When your failure rate is this high, you should lose your job.
-
I'm still not onboard with the fire Goodell thinking, by the way (even though I agree that he's an idiot). Anyone care to convince me?
(http://s3-ak.buzzfeed.com/static/2014-09/8/10/campaign_images/webdr11/new-video-shows-ravens-ray-rice-brutally-knocking-2-2095-1410185999-0_dblbig.jpg)
-
I'm still not onboard with the fire Goodell thinking, by the way (even though I agree that he's an idiot). Anyone care to convince me?
If he's reflecting the owners wishes I guess he should stay as he's pleasing his bosses.
If you consider his job protecting the image of the NFL, maintaining a relationship with the players, and maintaining the power of his office. He's done all of that extremely poorly. I would fire him myself.
-
Link's not working for me.
Takes a bit to load.
Yeah I was getting error screens. Working now.
What, only 40 pages? I am disappoint.
-
So awesome! While anything can happen in the courts, I have always been steadfast with my position regarding Tom's innocence (and I do think this reflects innocence).
Now, regarding those draft picks and the $1M...
-
I think this is the first time that I've ever enjoyed reading ESPN comments. The salt!
-
I am going to post some thoughts as a prediction so I can be on the record and see how I do. I am an engineer, not a lawyer so the Ideal Gas Law is my strength, not jurisprudence. As an engineer, I see no proof that the balls were even tampered with so in my mind, nothing else really matters. But I am an engineer and not a judge and I believe the judge, based on reported statements, is not seeing that point as definitively as me. He seems to think that the guys may have done something even if Brady did not specifically order it.
On the law side, based on what I have read, I think the judge can rule that even though the collective bargaining agreement does stipulate that Goodell can arbitrate these matters, there is still an implied requirement for the NFL to execute this role in a reasonably fair manner. I predict that the judge is going to say that the NFL abused the power granted to them in the CBA and went way overboard. If this had actually been a fair and reasonable arbitration, then the judge would be very reluctant to overturn but since the NFL turned this into a kangaroo court, it is not really arbitration and the judge should have much more latitude to overturn.
The ruling will be in favor of Brady and the NFL will be ordered to rehear the arbitration but to do so in a way that meets the standard of a real arbitration if they want it to be upheld. What happens from there, who knows. I am not sure that there is a scenario where Goodell can preside over an arbitration and have it be fair.
Yes!!!!!!
A rare case where I am actually right. Yes, I am patting myself on the back but this is a special situation. Foxboro should be rocking tonight.
Go Pats!!!!!
Good for Judge Berman.
Roger's days are numbered. He has done a poor job of player discipline and should be replaced.
Look out Pittsburgh, you are going to see one fired up Brady on Thursday.
-
I am going to post some thoughts as a prediction so I can be on the record and see how I do. I am an engineer, not a lawyer so the Ideal Gas Law is my strength, not jurisprudence. As an engineer, I see no proof that the balls were even tampered with so in my mind, nothing else really matters. But I am an engineer and not a judge and I believe the judge, based on reported statements, is not seeing that point as definitively as me. He seems to think that the guys may have done something even if Brady did not specifically order it.
On the law side, based on what I have read, I think the judge can rule that even though the collective bargaining agreement does stipulate that Goodell can arbitrate these matters, there is still an implied requirement for the NFL to execute this role in a reasonably fair manner. I predict that the judge is going to say that the NFL abused the power granted to them in the CBA and went way overboard. If this had actually been a fair and reasonable arbitration, then the judge would be very reluctant to overturn but since the NFL turned this into a kangaroo court, it is not really arbitration and the judge should have much more latitude to overturn.
The ruling will be in favor of Brady and the NFL will be ordered to rehear the arbitration but to do so in a way that meets the standard of a real arbitration if they want it to be upheld. What happens from there, who knows. I am not sure that there is a scenario where Goodell can preside over an arbitration and have it be fair.
Yes!!!!!!
A rare case where I am actually right. Yes, I am patting myself on the back but this is a special situation. Foxboro should be rocking tonight.
Go Pats!!!!!
Good for Judge Berman.
Roger's days are numbered. He has done a poor job of player discipline and should be replaced.
Look out Pittsburgh, you are going to see one fired up Brady on Thursday.
Only partially right. Berman just vacated the suspension altogether instead of reordering arbitration.
-
So awesome! While anything can happen in the courts, I have always been steadfast with my position regarding Tom's innocence (and I do think this reflects innocence).
Now, regarding those draft picks and the $1M...
In his ruling, Berman points out the the Patriots ownership and coaching staff were exonerated. I wonder if Kraft will point to that to try to get the picks back. I doubt it, but I hope so.
-
So awesome! While anything can happen in the courts, I have always been steadfast with my position regarding Tom's innocence (and I do think this reflects innocence).
Now, regarding those draft picks and the $1M...
Except it doesn't reflect innocence. Innocence was of no part in the court case. This isn't to attack you but frustration with the entire conversation; both sides, those who look at this as a vindication of Brady and The Patriots, and those who yell cheaters, etc (neither a position I really enjoy). This is a judgement on The NFL's process of investigation and discipline. It has no comment upon any innocence or guilt.
It a) distorts the purpose to use it is any proof of innocence (no matter what may be true --- it also makes one look foolish for using it is as proof of innocence as that is readily debunked), and b) actually distracts from the bigger and more important issue which is the ridiculousness of The NFL and Roger Goodell's practices and procedures as commissioner. This spreads far beyond Brady and involves a myriad of issues, all of which this finding critiques. It that sense it is far bigger than Brady.
-
(Giggling like a little school girl)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_Jkya1O_Sk
-
Also I don't know how many of you have seen this but it is glorious:
http://gawker-labs.com/goodell_punishment/#
-
Schefty calling this an embarrassment for the NFL. Not even hyperbole, IMO.
It is.
-
So he plays the whole year or does this come back later?
-
Has ESPN trotted out Lester Munson yet?
-
I am going to post some thoughts as a prediction so I can be on the record and see how I do. I am an engineer, not a lawyer so the Ideal Gas Law is my strength, not jurisprudence. As an engineer, I see no proof that the balls were even tampered with so in my mind, nothing else really matters. But I am an engineer and not a judge and I believe the judge, based on reported statements, is not seeing that point as definitively as me. He seems to think that the guys may have done something even if Brady did not specifically order it.
On the law side, based on what I have read, I think the judge can rule that even though the collective bargaining agreement does stipulate that Goodell can arbitrate these matters, there is still an implied requirement for the NFL to execute this role in a reasonably fair manner. I predict that the judge is going to say that the NFL abused the power granted to them in the CBA and went way overboard. If this had actually been a fair and reasonable arbitration, then the judge would be very reluctant to overturn but since the NFL turned this into a kangaroo court, it is not really arbitration and the judge should have much more latitude to overturn.
The ruling will be in favor of Brady and the NFL will be ordered to rehear the arbitration but to do so in a way that meets the standard of a real arbitration if they want it to be upheld. What happens from there, who knows. I am not sure that there is a scenario where Goodell can preside over an arbitration and have it be fair.
Yes!!!!!!
A rare case where I am actually right. Yes, I am patting myself on the back but this is a special situation. Foxboro should be rocking tonight.
Go Pats!!!!!
Good for Judge Berman.
Roger's days are numbered. He has done a poor job of player discipline and should be replaced.
Look out Pittsburgh, you are going to see one fired up Brady on Thursday.
Only partially right. Berman just vacated the suspension altogether instead of reordering arbitration.
Details, details, I am still claiming victory.
I guess this mean the NFL can't appear? So this is done? Over? (as it should be). Other than Goodell being replaced of course.
-
They can appeal, they are appealing (I believe). The 'real' heart of the matter is that Brady will not have to serve the suspension this season (if at all).
-
Has ESPN trotted out Lester Munson yet?
One guy who definitely should get fired.
Can't imagine Goodell getting fired, with 3+ years at $41M per, but he should be. Empty suit.
-
Can someone delete this thread now. I am a Celtics fan, don't want to read about this nonsense any longer. Thank you.
-
Can someone delete this thread now. I am a Celtics fan, don't want to read about this nonsense any longer. Thank you.
No, they can't. If you don't want to read about this nonsense... well, don't read it?
-
Has ESPN trotted out Lester Munson yet?
nope just that genius Chris Carter ha......
-
Has ESPN trotted out Lester Munson yet?
One guy who definitely should get fired.
Can't imagine Goodell getting fired, with 3+ years at $41M per, but he should be. Empty suit.
Goodell's job is to take a punch for the owners. I don't imagine he could have been freelancing on this one -- but it's shocking to see there is at least one (and probably considerably more) owner that is so blind, jealous, and bitter to even attempt to see this stunt through (and yes, arbitrary and capricious punishment for alleged minor infraction can't be seen as anything other than a stunt).
-
Can someone delete this thread now. I am a Celtics fan, don't want to read about this nonsense any longer. Thank you.
I am a Celtics fan and would like to continue reading about this nonsense.
It appears we are at a draw. Blame democracy.
-
Simmons doing a little victory lap this morning.
Bill Simmons ?@BillSimmons 21m21 minutes ago
I learned today that, sometimes, a poorly planned and executed sting operation/witch hunt/smear campaign does NOT hold up in federal court.
-
I'm still not onboard with the fire Goodell thinking, by the way (even though I agree that he's an idiot). Anyone care to convince me?
Do you agree there are probably any number of people who could do a better job?
Seems like a good reason to fire a dude making tens of millions of dollars a year to me.
-
So does Brady go after the NFL for slander and/or does Kraft go after the NFL for the picks and fine back?
At the very least, I feel like Brady and Kraft should at least threaten to do both unless Goodell drops any notion of an appeal.
-
So does Brady go after the NFL for slander and/or does Kraft go after the NFL for the picks and fine back?
At the very least, I feel like Brady and Kraft should at least threaten to do both unless Goodell drops any notion of an appeal.
The finding was about the dispute process, not on the facts of the matter. It doesn't comment on that directly though if you read the opinion is pretty clear the Judge didn't think much of the "independent" investigation.
Thus you really aren't given ammo for slander/defamation or anything like that.
-
And also the answer would be "no" in all likelihood anyway. Kraft and Brady are not boat-rockers.
I'm still not onboard with the fire Goodell thinking, by the way (even though I agree that he's an idiot). Anyone care to convince me?
Do you agree there are probably any number of people who could do a better job?
Seems like a good reason to fire a dude making tens of millions of dollars a year to me.
Do a better job at what, though? As a commissioner, or as the guy who can totally and utterly screw up everything without alienating the fanbase or painting his bosses (the owners) as hideous and terrible people because he can sincerely claim that he's trying to protect the integrity of the shield?
Goodell wasn't the reason you could still buy women's Ray Rice shirts weeks after the video leaked, but Goodell is the one guy shouldering all the blame for how the league handled that situation and he didn't so much as bat an eye. There's an immense value in that for the NFL, which is reflected in his salary.
-
So does Brady go after the NFL for slander and/or does Kraft go after the NFL for the picks and fine back?
At the very least, I feel like Brady and Kraft should at least threaten to do both unless Goodell drops any notion of an appeal.
The finding was about the dispute process, not on the facts of the matter. It doesn't comment on that directly though if you read the opinion is pretty clear the Judge didn't think much of the "independent" investigation.
Thus you really aren't given ammo for slander/defamation or anything like that.
Oh, I agree. But it could definitely be some useful ammunition in at least trying to persuade Goodell to end this now. After this embarrassment, does he want to risk two more damaging lawsuits?
-
Also I don't know how many of you have seen this but it is glorious:
http://gawker-labs.com/goodell_punishment/#
There really is a website for everything.
Mike
-
So does Brady go after the NFL for slander and/or does Kraft go after the NFL for the picks and fine back?
At the very least, I feel like Brady and Kraft should at least threaten to do both unless Goodell drops any notion of an appeal.
The finding was about the dispute process, not on the facts of the matter. It doesn't comment on that directly though if you read the opinion is pretty clear the Judge didn't think much of the "independent" investigation.
Thus you really aren't given ammo for slander/defamation or anything like that.
Oh, I agree. But it could definitely be some useful ammunition in at least trying to persuade Goodell to end this now. After this embarrassment, does he want to risk two more damaging lawsuits?
Conversely, I think Brady is done with lawsuits and just wants to get all this crap behind him. I doubt he wants to open up the Pandora's box of a slander suit. He won't.
-
Goodell just issued statement saying they will appeal.
-
Goodell just issued statement saying they will appeal.
Of course. Because of "integrity" & "protecting the shield". SMH. :P
-
Was there any doubt, though? There's no way they weren't going to appeal it.
-
Also I don't know how many of you have seen this but it is glorious:
http://gawker-labs.com/goodell_punishment/#
There really is a website for everything.
Mike
I beat a baby to death with a puppy and only got 10 games.
-
Also I don't know how many of you have seen this but it is glorious:
http://gawker-labs.com/goodell_punishment/#
There really is a website for everything.
Mike
I beat a baby to death with a puppy and only got 10 games.
No fair. I drank a glass of water and got nine.
Mike
-
The longer this goes, the more I think it means Berman is siding with Brady. If he were ruling for the NFL I would think his opinion would be short and not terribly complex, possibly just saying upheld and maybe citing a case or two of Courts deferring to arbitration in CBA agreements.
I don't think he would go through all of the NFLPA's arguments and try to cite why they don't apply with reasoning and cite cases on them.
If he is siding with Brady and the NFLPA he wouldn't just rest it on one issue, he would set a bunch of failures of the NFL to abide by the CBA and how each of them means the NFL can't win. That sets up a much more difficult appeal for the NFL because the Appellate Court then has to reject each of the points and that would be hard to do.
That would take his clerks a lot longer to fashion than simply citing a couple cases and saying the Court defers to the arbiter.
This guy sure knew what he was talking about! TP! ;D
-
Anything can happen, but I suspect Berman realized a settlement was extremely unlikely before the second hearing and his questions at that hearing indicated which way he was leaning.
Dan Wetzel ?@DanWetzel 2h2 hours ago
Berman's ruling is remarkably consistent to his mocking of NFL in second Brady hearing. Embarrassing defeat for Goodell
Called it.
-
NFL will appeal.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CN_dEr1WcAAej9o.jpg:large)
-
Also I don't know how many of you have seen this but it is glorious:
http://gawker-labs.com/goodell_punishment/#
There really is a website for everything.
Mike
I beat a baby to death with a puppy and only got 10 games.
No fair. I drank a glass of water and got nine.
Mike
I pooped in a box and mailed it to Chris Mortenson and only got 6 games. Though to be fair there wasn't any video.
-
Steph Stradley is killing it on twitter.
Stephanie Stradley ?@StephStradley 41s41 seconds ago
Stephanie Stradley retweeted Codfish Johnny
Yes. When I started reading source docs, I was shocked at v+ poor evidence quality. Not at issue on appeal but gross
Stephanie Stradley added,
Codfish Johnny @CodfishJohnny
@StephStradley J. Berman called infraction "alleged" repeatedly. Strong signal of irrelevant but personal belief in Brady's innocence.
FWIW, anyone who didn't see Brady outcome being a good possibility was legally ill-informed: http://www.stradleylaw.com/deflategate-legal-judge-berman-speaks/
That last one was a shot at Munson.
-
Stradley, McCann, among others were on top of this thing from almost the very start. Really seemed to nail it start to finish.
As for the ESPN people? Ummm.... not so much.
-
Stradley, McCann, among others were on top of this thing from almost the very start. Really seemed to nail it start to finish.
As for the ESPN people? Ummm.... not so much.
Munson was way off base. He initially said that Berman would not take the case, then he said it was a slam dunk in favor of the NFL.
Now he's saying the NFL has a strong argument for appeal. At what point should people stop listening to him?
-
Also I don't know how many of you have seen this but it is glorious:
http://gawker-labs.com/goodell_punishment/#
There really is a website for everything.
Mike
I beat a baby to death with a puppy and only got 10 games.
No fair. I drank a glass of water and got nine.
Mike
I pooped in a box and mailed it to Chris Mortenson and only got 6 games. Though to be fair there wasn't any video.
I slept with Goodell's wife and then punched him in the face. I was suspended indefinately.
-
I got two games for stopping traffic to save a kitten. There is no justice.
Stradley, McCann, among others were on top of this thing from almost the very start. Really seemed to nail it start to finish.
As for the ESPN people? Ummm.... not so much.
Munson was way off base. He initially said that Berman would not take the case, then he said it was a slam dunk in favor of the NFL.
Now he's saying the NFL has a strong argument for appeal. At what point should people stop listening to him?
Just because someone is incorrect does not mean you should stop listening to them, if only to figure out why he's coming to the wrong conclusions.
I figure that's something that gets reiterated every summer on CB.
-
NFL should have never targeted Brady with so little evidence of involvement. If Goodell would have looked at things independently letting all statements and testimony be viewed in a fairly manner he would have dropped the suspension himself in the apeal. Clearly Goodell had sided with the bad investigation and didn't give Brady's legal team a fair chance to prove innocence or doubt. It's one thing to let owners gang up on another owner on little proof because all they had to state is balls were under and your staff took balls where they weren't supposed to, gas law or not you are punished. They have no proof of actual wrong doing by Brady himself except a failure to provide phone texts which proves nothing in terms on involvement.
-
Alan Milstein ?@amilst44 3h3 hours ago
Without being too philosophical, this is a victory for anyone compelled to arbitrate. You still are entitled to justice.
I like this summation best so far. Goodell still had to act as an independent arbitrator even in a forced arbitration. Something Munson never acknowledged.
-
NFL should have never targeted Brady with so little evidence of involvement. If Goodell would have looked at things independently letting all statements and testimony be viewed in a fairly manner he would have dropped the suspension himself in the apeal. Clearly Goodell had sided with the bad investigation and didn't give Brady's legal team a fair chance to prove innocence or doubt. It's one thing to let owners gang up on another owner on little proof because all they had to state is balls were under and your staff took balls where they weren't supposed to, gas law or not you are punished. They have no proof of actual wrong doing by Brady himself except a failure to provide phone texts which proves nothing in terms on involvement.
The punishment was almost certainly born out of Brady's alleged failure to cooperate, rather than his wrongdoing.
-
I got two games for stopping traffic to save a kitten. There is no justice.
Stradley, McCann, among others were on top of this thing from almost the very start. Really seemed to nail it start to finish.
As for the ESPN people? Ummm.... not so much.
Munson was way off base. He initially said that Berman would not take the case, then he said it was a slam dunk in favor of the NFL.
Now he's saying the NFL has a strong argument for appeal. At what point should people stop listening to him?
Just because someone is incorrect does not mean you should stop listening to them, if only to figure out why he's coming to the wrong conclusions.
I figure that's something that gets reiterated every summer on CB.
Completely agree. In this case the reason not to listen to Munson is that pretty much everyone at ESPN has spouted pro NFL misinformation. With so many factual inaccuracies that made Brady look bad coming from ESPN, there is a strong reason not to listen to Munson.
-
NFL should have never targeted Brady with so little evidence of involvement. If Goodell would have looked at things independently letting all statements and testimony be viewed in a fairly manner he would have dropped the suspension himself in the apeal. Clearly Goodell had sided with the bad investigation and didn't give Brady's legal team a fair chance to prove innocence or doubt. It's one thing to let owners gang up on another owner on little proof because all they had to state is balls were under and your staff took balls where they weren't supposed to, gas law or not you are punished. They have no proof of actual wrong doing by Brady himself except a failure to provide phone texts which proves nothing in terms on involvement.
The punishment was almost certainly born out of Brady's alleged failure to cooperate, rather than his wrongdoing.
I agree it was. However that decision is still one made on suspicion not evidence. A fair arbitrator would not be able to come to that conclusion. Should had just set a fine for not cooperating and been done with it.
-
NFL should have never targeted Brady with so little evidence of involvement. If Goodell would have looked at things independently letting all statements and testimony be viewed in a fairly manner he would have dropped the suspension himself in the apeal. Clearly Goodell had sided with the bad investigation and didn't give Brady's legal team a fair chance to prove innocence or doubt. It's one thing to let owners gang up on another owner on little proof because all they had to state is balls were under and your staff took balls where they weren't supposed to, gas law or not you are punished. They have no proof of actual wrong doing by Brady himself except a failure to provide phone texts which proves nothing in terms on involvement.
The punishment was almost certainly born out of Brady's alleged failure to cooperate, rather than his wrongdoing.
Possibly. Or Goodell, once he realized he had scant direct evidence of Brady's involvement, took the "lack of cooperation" angle to try to save face.
Just reading some of today's coverage of this on ESPN, and I found this bit to be quite hilarious:
The Colts, according to a team spokesman, have no comment on the ruling. That’s been the franchise’s approach from the start because their focus has strictly been on getting better on the field, so they can try to surpass New England and the rest of the AFC to reach the Super Bowl.
First, this is, in fact, what their focus should be.
But second ... Really? REALLY?!? How can anyone say, with a straight face, that the Colts' focus, from the start, has been on getting better so they can beat the Patriots on the field, when they're the ones who started this whole circus, most likely because they couldn't beat the Pats on the field? Ridiculous.
-
NFL should have never targeted Brady with so little evidence of involvement. If Goodell would have looked at things independently letting all statements and testimony be viewed in a fairly manner he would have dropped the suspension himself in the apeal. Clearly Goodell had sided with the bad investigation and didn't give Brady's legal team a fair chance to prove innocence or doubt. It's one thing to let owners gang up on another owner on little proof because all they had to state is balls were under and your staff took balls where they weren't supposed to, gas law or not you are punished. They have no proof of actual wrong doing by Brady himself except a failure to provide phone texts which proves nothing in terms on involvement.
The punishment was almost certainly born out of Brady's alleged failure to cooperate, rather than his wrongdoing.
Except that when given the chance to articulate this to the judge, the NFL could not say what part of the suspension was from the non-cooperation vs. the deflation that may or may not have occurred. Furthermore, when asked why four games, the NFL kept arguing it was like using steroids, so that's why four games. Since steroids are a misdeed, I would be led to conclude the opposite of your statement, if I were forced to conclude that there was any rational consideration behind the suspension at all.
-
Welp, that was 6 months well spent.
Witch hunt.
Completely and utterly. Grigson and Goodell can start a support group to console each other.
-
I got two games for stopping traffic to save a kitten. There is no justice.
Stradley, McCann, among others were on top of this thing from almost the very start. Really seemed to nail it start to finish.
As for the ESPN people? Ummm.... not so much.
Munson was way off base. He initially said that Berman would not take the case, then he said it was a slam dunk in favor of the NFL.
Now he's saying the NFL has a strong argument for appeal. At what point should people stop listening to him?
Just because someone is incorrect does not mean you should stop listening to them, if only to figure out why he's coming to the wrong conclusions.
I figure that's something that gets reiterated every summer on CB.
Sure, but he didn't just say the NFL had the stronger argument. He said it was basically a slam dunk. Nearly every other lawyer reporting on this, even ones who felt the NFL had the stronger argument, ripped him for it and he did not back down. I'm with Stradley who said, "anyone who didn't see Brady outcome being a good possibility was legally ill-informed".
That would be like me saying I'm a basketball expert and back in June saying that Golden State has zero chance of beating the Cavs. You would not give me any credibility after that.
-
NFL should have never targeted Brady with so little evidence of involvement. If Goodell would have looked at things independently letting all statements and testimony be viewed in a fairly manner he would have dropped the suspension himself in the apeal. Clearly Goodell had sided with the bad investigation and didn't give Brady's legal team a fair chance to prove innocence or doubt. It's one thing to let owners gang up on another owner on little proof because all they had to state is balls were under and your staff took balls where they weren't supposed to, gas law or not you are punished. They have no proof of actual wrong doing by Brady himself except a failure to provide phone texts which proves nothing in terms on involvement.
The punishment was almost certainly born out of Brady's alleged failure to cooperate, rather than his wrongdoing.
Except that when given the chance to articulate this to the judge, the NFL could not say what part of the suspension was from the non-cooperation vs. the deflation that may or may not have occurred. Furthermore, when asked why four games, the NFL kept arguing it was like using steroids, so that's why four games. Since steroids are a misdeed, I would be led to conclude the opposite of your statement, if I were forced to conclude that there was any rational consideration behind the suspension at all.
Yeah, I don't think 'rational consideration' is part of it. The NFL can say what they want while arguing in court -- I maintain that the truth of the suspension was for insubordination, whether or not the facts detail it as such.
-
I got two games for stopping traffic to save a kitten. There is no justice.
Stradley, McCann, among others were on top of this thing from almost the very start. Really seemed to nail it start to finish.
As for the ESPN people? Ummm.... not so much.
Munson was way off base. He initially said that Berman would not take the case, then he said it was a slam dunk in favor of the NFL.
Now he's saying the NFL has a strong argument for appeal. At what point should people stop listening to him?
Just because someone is incorrect does not mean you should stop listening to them, if only to figure out why he's coming to the wrong conclusions.
I figure that's something that gets reiterated every summer on CB.
Sure, but he didn't just say the NFL had the stronger argument. He said it was basically a slam dunk. Nearly every other lawyer reporting on this, even ones who felt the NFL had the stronger argument, ripped him for it and he did not back down. I'm with Stradley who said, "anyone who didn't see Brady outcome being a good possibility was legally ill-informed".
That would be like me saying I'm a basketball expert and back in June saying that Golden State has zero chance of beating the Cavs. You would not give me any credibility after that.
I know a few basketball experts that pegged Cleveland to win it. Being an expert and being correct all the time are not correlative, in my experience.
-
I got two games for stopping traffic to save a kitten. There is no justice.
Stradley, McCann, among others were on top of this thing from almost the very start. Really seemed to nail it start to finish.
As for the ESPN people? Ummm.... not so much.
Munson was way off base. He initially said that Berman would not take the case, then he said it was a slam dunk in favor of the NFL.
Now he's saying the NFL has a strong argument for appeal. At what point should people stop listening to him?
Just because someone is incorrect does not mean you should stop listening to them, if only to figure out why he's coming to the wrong conclusions.
I figure that's something that gets reiterated every summer on CB.
Sure, but he didn't just say the NFL had the stronger argument. He said it was basically a slam dunk. Nearly every other lawyer reporting on this, even ones who felt the NFL had the stronger argument, ripped him for it and he did not back down. I'm with Stradley who said, "anyone who didn't see Brady outcome being a good possibility was legally ill-informed".
That would be like me saying I'm a basketball expert and back in June saying that Golden State has zero chance of beating the Cavs. You would not give me any credibility after that.
I know a few basketball experts that pegged Cleveland to win it. Being an expert and being correct all the time are not correlative, in my experience.
But they didn't say Golden State had zero chance which is what Munson was saying and why he was so roundly criticized.
-
Sure. I'm not defending him in particular (in fact I think I've said that I disagreed with his assessments more or less constantly in this thread) rather pointing out the value of paying attention to viewpoints that don't coincide with yours.
-
Sure. I'm not defending him in particular (in fact I think I've said that I disagreed with his assessments more or less constantly in this thread) rather pointing out the value of paying attention to viewpoints that don't coincide with yours.
I'm not criticizing other lawyers who said the NFL had the stronger argument. I respected those opinions.
-
Sure. I'm not defending him in particular (in fact I think I've said that I disagreed with his assessments more or less constantly in this thread) rather pointing out the value of paying attention to viewpoints that don't coincide with yours.
I'm not criticizing other lawyers who said the NFL had the stronger argument. I respected those opinions.
The thing that irked me with Munson was the arrogance he had every step of the way where he was applauding the Wells Report and basically calling the court case a slamdunk for the NFL. He just seemed to be carrying water for the NFL throughout the whole process.
This recaps it pretty well.
http://thebiglead.com/2015/09/03/lester-munson-espns-legal-expert-is-probably-still-convinced-that-tom-brady-has-no-chance/
-
Sure. I'm not defending him in particular (in fact I think I've said that I disagreed with his assessments more or less constantly in this thread) rather pointing out the value of paying attention to viewpoints that don't coincide with yours.
I'm not criticizing other lawyers who said the NFL had the stronger argument. I respected those opinions.
The thing that irked me with Munson was the arrogance he had every step of the way where he was applauding the Wells Report and basically calling the court case a slamdunk for the NFL. He just seemed to be carrying water for the NFL throughout the whole process.
This recaps it pretty well.
http://thebiglead.com/2015/09/03/lester-munson-espns-legal-expert-is-probably-still-convinced-that-tom-brady-has-no-chance/
Either he is not a very good lawyer or he had some bias on this.
-
That's fair. Since I'm not a Pats fan (or a fan of the NFL) I don't care much about tone when it comes to this case.
-
However I have no doubt that the Patriots fans will store this as yet another arrow in their largely-imagined "everyone in the NFL hates us because we're sooooooo goooooood" quiver. That is a certainty.
-
However I have no doubt that the Patriots fans will store this as yet another arrow in their largely-imagined "everyone in the NFL hates us because we're sooooooo goooooood" quiver. That is a certainty.
I think Belichick is going to use this to motivate his players.
-
I don't watch nfl or new england patriots but I supported Tom Brady because I don't like roger goodell
-
roger goodell be like
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oncmL69ZEJ8
-
For the life of me I couldn't understand why Munson and some others were so confident in the NFL's case. To me it seemed like they read the first line of precedent cases but not the text. The law is pretty clear that Judges can set aside rulings when A, B or C happen and A, B and C all happened. So much so I thought, and posted somewhere in this thread I couldn't see it going for the NFL.
-
However I have no doubt that the Patriots fans will store this as yet another arrow in their largely-imagined "everyone in the NFL hates us because we're sooooooo goooooood" quiver. That is a certainty.
People all over this blog hate Lebron. When the Yankees were dominant, people hated them. If you talk to big baseball fans of NL teams they all seem to hate the Cardinals. Great teams have always and will always be hated. When a team like the Patriots is so dominant for so long they are going to attract a huge band of "haters".
The Seahawks have been great for 2 years and everyone is already starting to hate them.
It is really difficult to find a really dominant sports team that is not hated. Sure each one comes with their excuses "I hate Lebron because he flops and is ignorant" or "I hate the Yankees because they buy all their players" or "I hate the Cardinals because they just think they are above it all"- real quote from a Reds fan, promptly agreed to by a dodgers fan
Tons of people hate Real Madrid, Barcelona, Chelsea, Manchester United, Manchester City and all the dominant soccer clubs. why? because they always win.
In baseball the Giants seem to have largely avoided mass hatred but their world series wins like the Red Sox have been punctuated by periods of serious suck.
There is a lot of validity to the "everyone hates us cus we are good" line of thought.
Allow me to list a few more:
Duke basketball
Hurricanes of late 80's
Bad Boy Pistons
The Cowboys when they were nasty (early 90s)
Tim Tebow picked up some haters in college, same with Jameis and Alabama
The SEC for football.
the list goes on. Great teams tend to be hated.
Then take into account that outside of Duke Basketball and the SEC(which being a conference is a little differerent) the Patriots dominance has lasted longer than any of these teams.
-
For those that don't know The Teflon Don, was the famous gangster John Gotti. And earlier I posted that they got nothing on Teflon Tom and I'm sticking to it.
How dare they accuse the Golden boy of anything. I know it's just a big scheme to get more money but geesh. All the world's a stage.
-
However I have no doubt that the Patriots fans will store this as yet another arrow in their largely-imagined "everyone in the NFL hates us because we're sooooooo goooooood" quiver. That is a certainty.
Largely imagined? That went out the window around midnight after the AFC championship game, when the league, three rival teams and a law firm paid 5 million dollars engaged in a witch hunt, sting operation to stain the reputation of the greatest QB of all time and the best franchise of the current millennium.
-
Well, I will say that Munson is consistent.
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/13572474/nfl-appeal-tom-brady-decision-lead-precedent-setting-court-ruling-lester-munson-writes
Q: The league announced it will appeal the ruling, so what happens now and what are the league's chances?
A: The league says it will not ask a court for the suspension to be upheld as it appeals the case, so Brady can play immediately. But there are reasons the league can and probably will succeed in its appeal of Berman's ruling:
First, the league's legal position remains strong. The rule that prevents federal judges from interfering with arbitrators' decisions is a powerful doctrine in American law. Berman's unexpected reasoning on the "notice" issue and on other issues is questionable. The most comparable decision in the rich history of NFL litigation was the similarly surprising ruling by U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin in 2004 that would have allowed Maurice Clarett to enter the draft before the three-year period specified in the collective bargaining agreement. Like Berman's decision, the Clarett victory was a surprise to legal experts, and the NFL succeeded in reversing the ruling in an appeal.
A second reason for the NFL to file an appeal is that the appeal would be in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, a venue that the league selected when it filed the Brady case. League attorneys raced to the courthouse ahead of the Brady team to file litigation to keep this decision in the 2nd Circuit. The league has been successful in this court on previous occasions.
Finally, it is easy to envision the league attorneys thinking: "We just had the wrong judge." If so, why not take the case to three different judges in the higher court and see what happens? It will not happen quickly, but this is an appeal the NFL can win.
-
However I have no doubt that the Patriots fans will store this as yet another arrow in their largely-imagined "everyone in the NFL hates us because we're sooooooo goooooood" quiver. That is a certainty.
Largely imagined? That went out the window around midnight after the AFC championship game, when the league, three rival teams and a law firm paid 5 million dollars engaged in a witch hunt, sting operation to stain the reputation of the greatest QB of all time and the best franchise of the current millennium.
Largely imagined. The entire deflategate debacle had/has much less to do with anything to do with The Patriots (although, as Donoghus has said throughout, the fact that they're a very well known franchise certainly escalated it) and much more to do with the national front office reeling from a series of PR blunders and circling in on an opportunity for the commissioner to reassert his authority on something that a child couldn't screw up.
The fact that he screwed it up is, of course, a whole lot of fun.
-
Also I wasn't aware that Deflategate had anything to do with Joe Montana. :P
-
At this point I'm mystified that anybody could say that Berman's reasoning is "questionable" or "surprising." I think the points he discussed in the ruling have been well-developed, much-discussed, and are fairly straightforward.
Goodell punished Brady for something that is not specifically listed as a punishable offense for players in the CBA, and the punishment that he chose was drastically more severe than any written punishment guideline that the league can reference. On top of that, there's simply no precedent for punishing a player with a 4 game suspension for either tampering with equipment or impeding a league investigation.
Munson really sounds like a league shill.
-
However I have no doubt that the Patriots fans will store this as yet another arrow in their largely-imagined "everyone in the NFL hates us because we're sooooooo goooooood" quiver. That is a certainty.
Largely imagined? That went out the window around midnight after the AFC championship game, when the league, three rival teams and a law firm paid 5 million dollars engaged in a witch hunt, sting operation to stain the reputation of the greatest QB of all time and the best franchise of the current millennium.
Largely imagined. The entire deflategate debacle had/has much less to do with anything to do with The Patriots (although, as Donoghus has said throughout, the fact that they're a very well known franchise certainly escalated it) and much more to do with the national front office reeling from a series of PR blunders and circling in on an opportunity for the commissioner to reassert his authority on something that a child couldn't screw up.
The fact that he screwed it up is, of course, a whole lot of fun.
In order to get the public support behind the NFL again they needed to pick a target that was largely hated among football fans. While I agree that the NFL was trying to reassert its authority, there is no other team in the league that the NFL could attack and have it be a pr win.
It is not largely imagined, the hate is real. In fact, the hate for the Patriots is what made this a viable PR strategy to begin with. Other teams have been fined for cheating but the Patriots are the only team that consistently gets tabbed as cheaters by the general public.
-
NFL should have never targeted Brady with so little evidence of involvement. If Goodell would have looked at things independently letting all statements and testimony be viewed in a fairly manner he would have dropped the suspension himself in the apeal. Clearly Goodell had sided with the bad investigation and didn't give Brady's legal team a fair chance to prove innocence or doubt. It's one thing to let owners gang up on another owner on little proof because all they had to state is balls were under and your staff took balls where they weren't supposed to, gas law or not you are punished. They have no proof of actual wrong doing by Brady himself except a failure to provide phone texts which proves nothing in terms on involvement.
The punishment was almost certainly born out of Brady's alleged failure to cooperate, rather than his wrongdoing.
Which is why from the beginning Brady could have made this whole thing go away if he had said something like
"It is true that I prefer the footballs to be less inflated, but I have never directed anyone to have the footballs at any level that is not within the legal confines. If the footballs were lower than the legal limit, it was not my intent and I apologize if my preference for lower (but legal) inflated balls in any way contributed to the footballs being below the legal limits in the Colts game. I will cooperate fully with any NFL investigation into this issue."
You know and then he actually need to cooperate fully.
Goes away with a fine. The problem is the that is not the Patriot way.
-
At this point I'm mystified that anybody could say that Berman's reasoning is "questionable" or "surprising." I think the points he discussed in the ruling have been well-developed, much-discussed, and are fairly straightforward.
Goodell punished Brady for something that is not specifically listed as a punishable offense for players in the CBA, and the punishment that he chose was drastically more severe than any written punishment guideline that the league can reference. On top of that, there's simply no precedent for punishing a player with a 4 game suspension for either tampering with equipment or impeding a league investigation.
Munson really sounds like a league shill.
TP for this.
-
However I have no doubt that the Patriots fans will store this as yet another arrow in their largely-imagined "everyone in the NFL hates us because we're sooooooo goooooood" quiver. That is a certainty.
Largely imagined? That went out the window around midnight after the AFC championship game, when the league, three rival teams and a law firm paid 5 million dollars engaged in a witch hunt, sting operation to stain the reputation of the greatest QB of all time and the best franchise of the current millennium.
Largely imagined. The entire deflategate debacle had/has much less to do with anything to do with The Patriots (although, as Donoghus has said throughout, the fact that they're a very well known franchise certainly escalated it) and much more to do with the national front office reeling from a series of PR blunders and circling in on an opportunity for the commissioner to reassert his authority on something that a child couldn't screw up.
The fact that he screwed it up is, of course, a whole lot of fun.
In order to get the public support behind the NFL again they needed to pick a target that was largely hated among football fans. While I agree that the NFL was trying to reassert its authority, there is no other team in the league that the NFL could attack and have it be a pr win.
It is not largely imagined, the hate is real. In fact, the hate for the Patriots is what made this a viable PR strategy to begin with. Other teams have been fined for cheating but the Patriots are the only team that consistently gets tabbed as cheaters by the general public.
I don't think this is true -- you could have picked any massively successful franchise and done something similar: Seattle would be the most obvious example -- but I do think that the Pats history of rule-skirting did them no favors in this instance.
-
Like I've said all along, anyone who objectively looked at the evidence, timelines etc. knew this case belonged in the garbage. Glad it finally ended up there. I hope the Patriots pursue their unjustly lost picks now too. Goodell should be fired.
-
NFL should have never targeted Brady with so little evidence of involvement. If Goodell would have looked at things independently letting all statements and testimony be viewed in a fairly manner he would have dropped the suspension himself in the apeal. Clearly Goodell had sided with the bad investigation and didn't give Brady's legal team a fair chance to prove innocence or doubt. It's one thing to let owners gang up on another owner on little proof because all they had to state is balls were under and your staff took balls where they weren't supposed to, gas law or not you are punished. They have no proof of actual wrong doing by Brady himself except a failure to provide phone texts which proves nothing in terms on involvement.
The punishment was almost certainly born out of Brady's alleged failure to cooperate, rather than his wrongdoing.
Which is why from the beginning Brady could have made this whole thing go away if he had said something like
"It is true that I prefer the footballs to be less inflated, but I have never directed anyone to have the footballs at any level that is not within the legal confines. If the footballs were lower than the legal limit, it was not my intent and I apologize if my preference for lower (but legal) inflated balls in any way contributed to the footballs being below the legal limits in the Colts game. I will cooperate fully with any NFL investigation into this issue."
You know and then he actually need to cooperate fully.
Goes away with a fine. The problem is the that is not the Patriot way.
I would agree with this. On the other hand, I really like the Circle Jerks and I'm kind of partial to their song Deny Everything, so I'm torn.
-
However I have no doubt that the Patriots fans will store this as yet another arrow in their largely-imagined "everyone in the NFL hates us because we're sooooooo goooooood" quiver. That is a certainty.
Largely imagined? That went out the window around midnight after the AFC championship game, when the league, three rival teams and a law firm paid 5 million dollars engaged in a witch hunt, sting operation to stain the reputation of the greatest QB of all time and the best franchise of the current millennium.
Largely imagined. The entire deflategate debacle had/has much less to do with anything to do with The Patriots (although, as Donoghus has said throughout, the fact that they're a very well known franchise certainly escalated it) and much more to do with the national front office reeling from a series of PR blunders and circling in on an opportunity for the commissioner to reassert his authority on something that a child couldn't screw up.
The fact that he screwed it up is, of course, a whole lot of fun.
In order to get the public support behind the NFL again they needed to pick a target that was largely hated among football fans. While I agree that the NFL was trying to reassert its authority, there is no other team in the league that the NFL could attack and have it be a pr win.
It is not largely imagined, the hate is real. In fact, the hate for the Patriots is what made this a viable PR strategy to begin with. Other teams have been fined for cheating but the Patriots are the only team that consistently gets tabbed as cheaters by the general public.
I don't think this is true -- you could have picked any massively successful franchise and done something similar: Seattle would be the most obvious example -- but I do think that the Pats history of rule-skirting did them no favors in this instance.
If in the last 4 years the Patriots had 7 players disciplined for PED do you think people would be talking about it? That is the case with the Seahawks and yet we hear nothing about it.
http://yourteamcheats.com/SEA
I'm sure all the teams in Seattle's division hate the Seahawks, but there is no way the hate for the Seahawks comes close to the hate for the Patriots.
Turn on any tv station there is and you will see players who have been beaten by the Patriots taking every opportunity to speak ill of them, this simply isn't true of other teams.
-
NFL should have never targeted Brady with so little evidence of involvement. If Goodell would have looked at things independently letting all statements and testimony be viewed in a fairly manner he would have dropped the suspension himself in the apeal. Clearly Goodell had sided with the bad investigation and didn't give Brady's legal team a fair chance to prove innocence or doubt. It's one thing to let owners gang up on another owner on little proof because all they had to state is balls were under and your staff took balls where they weren't supposed to, gas law or not you are punished. They have no proof of actual wrong doing by Brady himself except a failure to provide phone texts which proves nothing in terms on involvement.
The punishment was almost certainly born out of Brady's alleged failure to cooperate, rather than his wrongdoing.
Which is why from the beginning Brady could have made this whole thing go away if he had said something like
"It is true that I prefer the footballs to be less inflated, but I have never directed anyone to have the footballs at any level that is not within the legal confines. If the footballs were lower than the legal limit, it was not my intent and I apologize if my preference for lower (but legal) inflated balls in any way contributed to the footballs being below the legal limits in the Colts game. I will cooperate fully with any NFL investigation into this issue."
You know and then he actually need to cooperate fully.
Goes away with a fine. The problem is the that is not the Patriot way.
I would agree with this. On the other hand, I really like the Circle Jerks and I'm kind of partial to their song Deny Everything, so I'm torn.
Yes, I've noticed you are trolling Patriots fans for your own enjoyment.
[EDITED]No need for that
Edit: I didn't mean it as an insult. I was just kidding with him.
-
For those keeping track; Mort hasn't tweeted yet today.
-
However I have no doubt that the Patriots fans will store this as yet another arrow in their largely-imagined "everyone in the NFL hates us because we're sooooooo goooooood" quiver. That is a certainty.
Tons of people hate Real Madrid, Barcelona, Chelsea, Manchester United, Manchester City and all the dominant soccer clubs. why? because they always win.
I hate all the english clubs because they have more money than the other leagues and it's largely undeserved, not because they always win, which they don't. Even mid table clubs are loaded because of their tv deal. I hate Barcelona because they are treated differently than all other clubs when they act shady. I don't hate Real Madrid but I don't like the way they treat their players.
-
The most entertaining part in this has been the war of words between certain morning radio hosts and a NY Post columnist. Talk about a battle of the hacks.
-
The most entertaining part in this has been the war of words between certain morning radio hosts and a NY Post columnist. Talk about a battle of the hacks.
No winners there although I think Bartie Boy takes trolling & faux outrage to a whole 'nother level.
-
The most entertaining part in this has been the war of words between certain morning radio hosts and a NY Post columnist. Talk about a battle of the hacks.
No winners there although I think Bartie Boy takes trolling & faux outrage to a whole 'nother level.
He does, but Callahan and Minihane are just insufferable. I still wonder why anyone would agree to call into their show.
-
NFL should have never targeted Brady with so little evidence of involvement. If Goodell would have looked at things independently letting all statements and testimony be viewed in a fairly manner he would have dropped the suspension himself in the apeal. Clearly Goodell had sided with the bad investigation and didn't give Brady's legal team a fair chance to prove innocence or doubt. It's one thing to let owners gang up on another owner on little proof because all they had to state is balls were under and your staff took balls where they weren't supposed to, gas law or not you are punished. They have no proof of actual wrong doing by Brady himself except a failure to provide phone texts which proves nothing in terms on involvement.
The punishment was almost certainly born out of Brady's alleged failure to cooperate, rather than his wrongdoing.
Which is why from the beginning Brady could have made this whole thing go away if he had said something like
"It is true that I prefer the footballs to be less inflated, but I have never directed anyone to have the footballs at any level that is not within the legal confines. If the footballs were lower than the legal limit, it was not my intent and I apologize if my preference for lower (but legal) inflated balls in any way contributed to the footballs being below the legal limits in the Colts game. I will cooperate fully with any NFL investigation into this issue."
You know and then he actually need to cooperate fully.
Goes away with a fine. The problem is the that is not the Patriot way.
I would agree with this. On the other hand, I really like the Circle Jerks and I'm kind of partial to their song Deny Everything, so I'm torn.
Yes, I've noticed you are trolling Patriots fans for your own enjoyment.
[EDITED]No need for that
Edit: I didn't mean it as an insult. I was just kidding with him.
I'm not trolling anyone? I take bemused satisfaction in the way that personal fandom affects the interpretation of sports events. ;D
-
However I have no doubt that the Patriots fans will store this as yet another arrow in their largely-imagined "everyone in the NFL hates us because we're sooooooo goooooood" quiver. That is a certainty.
Largely imagined? That went out the window around midnight after the AFC championship game, when the league, three rival teams and a law firm paid 5 million dollars engaged in a witch hunt, sting operation to stain the reputation of the greatest QB of all time and the best franchise of the current millennium.
Largely imagined. The entire deflategate debacle had/has much less to do with anything to do with The Patriots (although, as Donoghus has said throughout, the fact that they're a very well known franchise certainly escalated it) and much more to do with the national front office reeling from a series of PR blunders and circling in on an opportunity for the commissioner to reassert his authority on something that a child couldn't screw up.
The fact that he screwed it up is, of course, a whole lot of fun.
In order to get the public support behind the NFL again they needed to pick a target that was largely hated among football fans. While I agree that the NFL was trying to reassert its authority, there is no other team in the league that the NFL could attack and have it be a pr win.
It is not largely imagined, the hate is real. In fact, the hate for the Patriots is what made this a viable PR strategy to begin with. Other teams have been fined for cheating but the Patriots are the only team that consistently gets tabbed as cheaters by the general public.
I don't think this is true -- you could have picked any massively successful franchise and done something similar: Seattle would be the most obvious example -- but I do think that the Pats history of rule-skirting did them no favors in this instance.
If in the last 4 years the Patriots had 7 players disciplined for PED do you think people would be talking about it? That is the case with the Seahawks and yet we hear nothing about it.
http://yourteamcheats.com/SEA
I'm sure all the teams in Seattle's division hate the Seahawks, but there is no way the hate for the Seahawks comes close to the hate for the Patriots.
Turn on any tv station there is and you will see players who have been beaten by the Patriots taking every opportunity to speak ill of them, this simply isn't true of other teams.
I think that you, as a Patriots fan, are much more inclined to seek out comments pertaining to the Patriots than the Seahawks -- who have received a mountain of criticism (usually of the call in radio show variety) about their various PED suspensions.
-
However I have no doubt that the Patriots fans will store this as yet another arrow in their largely-imagined "everyone in the NFL hates us because we're sooooooo goooooood" quiver. That is a certainty.
Largely imagined? That went out the window around midnight after the AFC championship game, when the league, three rival teams and a law firm paid 5 million dollars engaged in a witch hunt, sting operation to stain the reputation of the greatest QB of all time and the best franchise of the current millennium.
Largely imagined. The entire deflategate debacle had/has much less to do with anything to do with The Patriots (although, as Donoghus has said throughout, the fact that they're a very well known franchise certainly escalated it) and much more to do with the national front office reeling from a series of PR blunders and circling in on an opportunity for the commissioner to reassert his authority on something that a child couldn't screw up.
The fact that he screwed it up is, of course, a whole lot of fun.
In order to get the public support behind the NFL again they needed to pick a target that was largely hated among football fans. While I agree that the NFL was trying to reassert its authority, there is no other team in the league that the NFL could attack and have it be a pr win.
It is not largely imagined, the hate is real. In fact, the hate for the Patriots is what made this a viable PR strategy to begin with. Other teams have been fined for cheating but the Patriots are the only team that consistently gets tabbed as cheaters by the general public.
I don't think this is true -- you could have picked any massively successful franchise and done something similar: Seattle would be the most obvious example -- but I do think that the Pats history of rule-skirting did them no favors in this instance.
If in the last 4 years the Patriots had 7 players disciplined for PED do you think people would be talking about it? That is the case with the Seahawks and yet we hear nothing about it.
http://yourteamcheats.com/SEA
I'm sure all the teams in Seattle's division hate the Seahawks, but there is no way the hate for the Seahawks comes close to the hate for the Patriots.
Turn on any tv station there is and you will see players who have been beaten by the Patriots taking every opportunity to speak ill of them, this simply isn't true of other teams.
I think that you, as a Patriots fan, are much more inclined to seek out comments pertaining to the Patriots than the Seahawks -- who have received a mountain of criticism (usually of the call in radio show variety) about their various PED suspensions.
Did the Seahawk stuff lead the network news when it happened? What happened in the past 9 months or so is on a whole different level, IMO.
Sure, some of this is obviously paranoia coming from Pats fans and the regionally instilled from birth mentality of "us against the world" but let's not kid ourselves that the Patriots are the NFL team with the biggest target on their back at the moment.
And if social media/24 hours news cycle existed back then, the same thing would've been happening to the Steelers or the '70s or the Niners of the '80s. The Cowboys certainly were garnering much of the attention in the 1990s (although much of that was self-inflicted).
-
NFL should have never targeted Brady with so little evidence of involvement. If Goodell would have looked at things independently letting all statements and testimony be viewed in a fairly manner he would have dropped the suspension himself in the apeal. Clearly Goodell had sided with the bad investigation and didn't give Brady's legal team a fair chance to prove innocence or doubt. It's one thing to let owners gang up on another owner on little proof because all they had to state is balls were under and your staff took balls where they weren't supposed to, gas law or not you are punished. They have no proof of actual wrong doing by Brady himself except a failure to provide phone texts which proves nothing in terms on involvement.
The punishment was almost certainly born out of Brady's alleged failure to cooperate, rather than his wrongdoing.
Which is why from the beginning Brady could have made this whole thing go away if he had said something like
"It is true that I prefer the footballs to be less inflated, but I have never directed anyone to have the footballs at any level that is not within the legal confines. If the footballs were lower than the legal limit, it was not my intent and I apologize if my preference for lower (but legal) inflated balls in any way contributed to the footballs being below the legal limits in the Colts game. I will cooperate fully with any NFL investigation into this issue."
You know and then he actually need to cooperate fully.
Goes away with a fine. The problem is the that is not the Patriot way.
I would agree with this. On the other hand, I really like the Circle Jerks and I'm kind of partial to their song Deny Everything, so I'm torn.
Yes, I've noticed you are trolling Patriots fans for your own enjoyment.
[EDITED]No need for that
Edit: I didn't mean it as an insult. I was just kidding with him.
I'm not trolling anyone? I take bemused satisfaction in the way that personal fandom affects the interpretation of sports events. ;D
Uh huh. Sorry if my post came across as a shot. I didn't mean it that way. The picture of a troll at a keyboard was pretty funny though.
-
I just got through reading Berman's decision. He eviscerates the NFL. While he wasn't ruling on evidence, he made his opinion on the evidence clear by putting words like independent, allegedly, and integrity in quotation marks which was completely unnecessary. Even a few of the footnotes were shots at the NFL about evidence and pointed out Brady's second half performance in the Indy game. Awesome.
-
However I have no doubt that the Patriots fans will store this as yet another arrow in their largely-imagined "everyone in the NFL hates us because we're sooooooo goooooood" quiver. That is a certainty.
Largely imagined? That went out the window around midnight after the AFC championship game, when the league, three rival teams and a law firm paid 5 million dollars engaged in a witch hunt, sting operation to stain the reputation of the greatest QB of all time and the best franchise of the current millennium.
Largely imagined. The entire deflategate debacle had/has much less to do with anything to do with The Patriots (although, as Donoghus has said throughout, the fact that they're a very well known franchise certainly escalated it) and much more to do with the national front office reeling from a series of PR blunders and circling in on an opportunity for the commissioner to reassert his authority on something that a child couldn't screw up.
The fact that he screwed it up is, of course, a whole lot of fun.
In order to get the public support behind the NFL again they needed to pick a target that was largely hated among football fans. While I agree that the NFL was trying to reassert its authority, there is no other team in the league that the NFL could attack and have it be a pr win.
It is not largely imagined, the hate is real. In fact, the hate for the Patriots is what made this a viable PR strategy to begin with. Other teams have been fined for cheating but the Patriots are the only team that consistently gets tabbed as cheaters by the general public.
I don't think this is true -- you could have picked any massively successful franchise and done something similar: Seattle would be the most obvious example -- but I do think that the Pats history of rule-skirting did them no favors in this instance.
If in the last 4 years the Patriots had 7 players disciplined for PED do you think people would be talking about it? That is the case with the Seahawks and yet we hear nothing about it.
http://yourteamcheats.com/SEA
I'm sure all the teams in Seattle's division hate the Seahawks, but there is no way the hate for the Seahawks comes close to the hate for the Patriots.
Turn on any tv station there is and you will see players who have been beaten by the Patriots taking every opportunity to speak ill of them, this simply isn't true of other teams.
I think that you, as a Patriots fan, are much more inclined to seek out comments pertaining to the Patriots than the Seahawks -- who have received a mountain of criticism (usually of the call in radio show variety) about their various PED suspensions.
Not sure I am inclined to seek it out but I sure am more cognizant of people saying negative things about the Patriots than other teams. That however, doesn't mean that the Patriots aren't the most hated team in the league (if it's not the Pats then I'm not sure who is).
My opinion that there are a lot of anti Patriots sentiment really stems from going to BC, where about half the people are from out of state and pretty much all those people rooted against the Pats. It didn't matter what team those BC students were a fan of, they all hated the Patriots and weren't shy about letting me know it.
Now that is all just my opinion. It is a fact that anytime there is a negative story about the Pats, the people you see on TV discussing it are ex players, coaches and gms that lost to the Patriots. You simply do not see the same unanimous hate from former NFL people for other teams.
-
NFL should have never targeted Brady with so little evidence of involvement. If Goodell would have looked at things independently letting all statements and testimony be viewed in a fairly manner he would have dropped the suspension himself in the apeal. Clearly Goodell had sided with the bad investigation and didn't give Brady's legal team a fair chance to prove innocence or doubt. It's one thing to let owners gang up on another owner on little proof because all they had to state is balls were under and your staff took balls where they weren't supposed to, gas law or not you are punished. They have no proof of actual wrong doing by Brady himself except a failure to provide phone texts which proves nothing in terms on involvement.
The punishment was almost certainly born out of Brady's alleged failure to cooperate, rather than his wrongdoing.
Which is why from the beginning Brady could have made this whole thing go away if he had said something like
"It is true that I prefer the footballs to be less inflated, but I have never directed anyone to have the footballs at any level that is not within the legal confines. If the footballs were lower than the legal limit, it was not my intent and I apologize if my preference for lower (but legal) inflated balls in any way contributed to the footballs being below the legal limits in the Colts game. I will cooperate fully with any NFL investigation into this issue."
You know and then he actually need to cooperate fully.
Goes away with a fine. The problem is the that is not the Patriot way.
I would agree with this. On the other hand, I really like the Circle Jerks and I'm kind of partial to their song Deny Everything, so I'm torn.
Yes, I've noticed you are trolling Patriots fans for your own enjoyment.
[EDITED]No need for that
Edit: I didn't mean it as an insult. I was just kidding with him.
I'm not trolling anyone? I take bemused satisfaction in the way that personal fandom affects the interpretation of sports events. ;D
Uh huh. Sorry if my post came across as a shot. I didn't mean it that way. The picture of a troll at a keyboard was pretty funny though.
No worries, didn't take it as one. Didn't get to see the troll although I'm sure it was nothing but flattering.
-
However I have no doubt that the Patriots fans will store this as yet another arrow in their largely-imagined "everyone in the NFL hates us because we're sooooooo goooooood" quiver. That is a certainty.
Largely imagined? That went out the window around midnight after the AFC championship game, when the league, three rival teams and a law firm paid 5 million dollars engaged in a witch hunt, sting operation to stain the reputation of the greatest QB of all time and the best franchise of the current millennium.
Largely imagined. The entire deflategate debacle had/has much less to do with anything to do with The Patriots (although, as Donoghus has said throughout, the fact that they're a very well known franchise certainly escalated it) and much more to do with the national front office reeling from a series of PR blunders and circling in on an opportunity for the commissioner to reassert his authority on something that a child couldn't screw up.
The fact that he screwed it up is, of course, a whole lot of fun.
In order to get the public support behind the NFL again they needed to pick a target that was largely hated among football fans. While I agree that the NFL was trying to reassert its authority, there is no other team in the league that the NFL could attack and have it be a pr win.
It is not largely imagined, the hate is real. In fact, the hate for the Patriots is what made this a viable PR strategy to begin with. Other teams have been fined for cheating but the Patriots are the only team that consistently gets tabbed as cheaters by the general public.
I don't think this is true -- you could have picked any massively successful franchise and done something similar: Seattle would be the most obvious example -- but I do think that the Pats history of rule-skirting did them no favors in this instance.
If in the last 4 years the Patriots had 7 players disciplined for PED do you think people would be talking about it? That is the case with the Seahawks and yet we hear nothing about it.
http://yourteamcheats.com/SEA
I'm sure all the teams in Seattle's division hate the Seahawks, but there is no way the hate for the Seahawks comes close to the hate for the Patriots.
Turn on any tv station there is and you will see players who have been beaten by the Patriots taking every opportunity to speak ill of them, this simply isn't true of other teams.
I think that you, as a Patriots fan, are much more inclined to seek out comments pertaining to the Patriots than the Seahawks -- who have received a mountain of criticism (usually of the call in radio show variety) about their various PED suspensions.
Did the Seahawk stuff lead the network news when it happened? What happened in the past 9 months or so is on a whole different level, IMO.
Sure, some of this is obviously paranoia coming from Pats fans and the regionally instilled from birth mentality of "us against the world" but let's not kid ourselves that the Patriots are the NFL team with the biggest target on their back at the moment.
And if social media/24 hours news cycle existed back then, the same thing would've been happening to the Steelers or the '70s or the Niners of the '80s. The Cowboys certainly were garnering much of the attention in the 1990s (although much of that was self-inflicted).
The Seahawks stuff definitely made national news when it happened. I agree that the last 9 months have been totally absurd, but I also think that it would have been the same sort of circus had it been, say, Seattle or San Fran or Denver, assuming the same actions by the team and the league.
-
However I have no doubt that the Patriots fans will store this as yet another arrow in their largely-imagined "everyone in the NFL hates us because we're sooooooo goooooood" quiver. That is a certainty.
Largely imagined? That went out the window around midnight after the AFC championship game, when the league, three rival teams and a law firm paid 5 million dollars engaged in a witch hunt, sting operation to stain the reputation of the greatest QB of all time and the best franchise of the current millennium.
Largely imagined. The entire deflategate debacle had/has much less to do with anything to do with The Patriots (although, as Donoghus has said throughout, the fact that they're a very well known franchise certainly escalated it) and much more to do with the national front office reeling from a series of PR blunders and circling in on an opportunity for the commissioner to reassert his authority on something that a child couldn't screw up.
The fact that he screwed it up is, of course, a whole lot of fun.
In order to get the public support behind the NFL again they needed to pick a target that was largely hated among football fans. While I agree that the NFL was trying to reassert its authority, there is no other team in the league that the NFL could attack and have it be a pr win.
It is not largely imagined, the hate is real. In fact, the hate for the Patriots is what made this a viable PR strategy to begin with. Other teams have been fined for cheating but the Patriots are the only team that consistently gets tabbed as cheaters by the general public.
I don't think this is true -- you could have picked any massively successful franchise and done something similar: Seattle would be the most obvious example -- but I do think that the Pats history of rule-skirting did them no favors in this instance.
If in the last 4 years the Patriots had 7 players disciplined for PED do you think people would be talking about it? That is the case with the Seahawks and yet we hear nothing about it.
http://yourteamcheats.com/SEA
I'm sure all the teams in Seattle's division hate the Seahawks, but there is no way the hate for the Seahawks comes close to the hate for the Patriots.
Turn on any tv station there is and you will see players who have been beaten by the Patriots taking every opportunity to speak ill of them, this simply isn't true of other teams.
I think that you, as a Patriots fan, are much more inclined to seek out comments pertaining to the Patriots than the Seahawks -- who have received a mountain of criticism (usually of the call in radio show variety) about their various PED suspensions.
Not sure I am inclined to seek it out but I sure am more cognizant of people saying negative things about the Patriots than other teams. That however, doesn't mean that the Patriots aren't the most hated team in the league (if it's not the Pats then I'm not sure who is).
My opinion that there are a lot of anti Patriots sentiment really stems from going to BC, where about half the people are from out of state and pretty much all those people rooted against the Pats. It didn't matter what team those BC students were a fan of, they all hated the Patriots and weren't shy about letting me know it.
Now that is all just my opinion. It is a fact that anytime there is a negative story about the Pats, the people you see on TV discussing it are ex players, coaches and gms that lost to the Patriots. You simply do not see the same unanimous hate from former NFL people for other teams.
As an aside: I'm not sure who I hated more when I lived in Boston -- BC fans or Red Sox fans. There's a special kind of hell that exists on the green line when the Sox are playing and the students are back in school. :D
-
New England Patriots supporters seem to have a complex and are very defensive of criticism of their team. I sympathize with Patriots supporters because we Juve supporters are the same way. Patriots criticism seems to feel personal to their supporters in the same way criticism of Juve seems personal to us.
-
New England Patriots supporters seem to have a complex and are very defensive of criticism of their team. I sympathize with Patriots supporters because we Juve supporters are the same way. Patriots criticism seems to feel personal to their supporters in the same way criticism of Juve seems personal to us.
That's not just Pats fans. That's Boston sports fans. Maybe it's a Puritan thing. Who knows.
-
However I have no doubt that the Patriots fans will store this as yet another arrow in their largely-imagined "everyone in the NFL hates us because we're sooooooo goooooood" quiver. That is a certainty.
Largely imagined? That went out the window around midnight after the AFC championship game, when the league, three rival teams and a law firm paid 5 million dollars engaged in a witch hunt, sting operation to stain the reputation of the greatest QB of all time and the best franchise of the current millennium.
Largely imagined. The entire deflategate debacle had/has much less to do with anything to do with The Patriots (although, as Donoghus has said throughout, the fact that they're a very well known franchise certainly escalated it) and much more to do with the national front office reeling from a series of PR blunders and circling in on an opportunity for the commissioner to reassert his authority on something that a child couldn't screw up.
The fact that he screwed it up is, of course, a whole lot of fun.
In order to get the public support behind the NFL again they needed to pick a target that was largely hated among football fans. While I agree that the NFL was trying to reassert its authority, there is no other team in the league that the NFL could attack and have it be a pr win.
It is not largely imagined, the hate is real. In fact, the hate for the Patriots is what made this a viable PR strategy to begin with. Other teams have been fined for cheating but the Patriots are the only team that consistently gets tabbed as cheaters by the general public.
I don't think this is true -- you could have picked any massively successful franchise and done something similar: Seattle would be the most obvious example -- but I do think that the Pats history of rule-skirting did them no favors in this instance.
If in the last 4 years the Patriots had 7 players disciplined for PED do you think people would be talking about it? That is the case with the Seahawks and yet we hear nothing about it.
http://yourteamcheats.com/SEA
I'm sure all the teams in Seattle's division hate the Seahawks, but there is no way the hate for the Seahawks comes close to the hate for the Patriots.
Turn on any tv station there is and you will see players who have been beaten by the Patriots taking every opportunity to speak ill of them, this simply isn't true of other teams.
I think that you, as a Patriots fan, are much more inclined to seek out comments pertaining to the Patriots than the Seahawks -- who have received a mountain of criticism (usually of the call in radio show variety) about their various PED suspensions.
Not sure I am inclined to seek it out but I sure am more cognizant of people saying negative things about the Patriots than other teams. That however, doesn't mean that the Patriots aren't the most hated team in the league (if it's not the Pats then I'm not sure who is).
My opinion that there are a lot of anti Patriots sentiment really stems from going to BC, where about half the people are from out of state and pretty much all those people rooted against the Pats. It didn't matter what team those BC students were a fan of, they all hated the Patriots and weren't shy about letting me know it.
Now that is all just my opinion. It is a fact that anytime there is a negative story about the Pats, the people you see on TV discussing it are ex players, coaches and gms that lost to the Patriots. You simply do not see the same unanimous hate from former NFL people for other teams.
As an aside: I'm not sure who I hated more when I lived in Boston -- BC fans or Red Sox fans. There's a special kind of hell that exists on the green line when the Sox are playing and the students are back in school. :D
If you are seeing BC students because you are taking the B line then it is your fault for taking the slowest of the green line routes.
I just moved to Beacon street and I am starting to hate the Red Sox fans that are slowing my commute.
-
However I have no doubt that the Patriots fans will store this as yet another arrow in their largely-imagined "everyone in the NFL hates us because we're sooooooo goooooood" quiver. That is a certainty.
Largely imagined? That went out the window around midnight after the AFC championship game, when the league, three rival teams and a law firm paid 5 million dollars engaged in a witch hunt, sting operation to stain the reputation of the greatest QB of all time and the best franchise of the current millennium.
Largely imagined. The entire deflategate debacle had/has much less to do with anything to do with The Patriots (although, as Donoghus has said throughout, the fact that they're a very well known franchise certainly escalated it) and much more to do with the national front office reeling from a series of PR blunders and circling in on an opportunity for the commissioner to reassert his authority on something that a child couldn't screw up.
The fact that he screwed it up is, of course, a whole lot of fun.
In order to get the public support behind the NFL again they needed to pick a target that was largely hated among football fans. While I agree that the NFL was trying to reassert its authority, there is no other team in the league that the NFL could attack and have it be a pr win.
It is not largely imagined, the hate is real. In fact, the hate for the Patriots is what made this a viable PR strategy to begin with. Other teams have been fined for cheating but the Patriots are the only team that consistently gets tabbed as cheaters by the general public.
I don't think this is true -- you could have picked any massively successful franchise and done something similar: Seattle would be the most obvious example -- but I do think that the Pats history of rule-skirting did them no favors in this instance.
If in the last 4 years the Patriots had 7 players disciplined for PED do you think people would be talking about it? That is the case with the Seahawks and yet we hear nothing about it.
http://yourteamcheats.com/SEA
I'm sure all the teams in Seattle's division hate the Seahawks, but there is no way the hate for the Seahawks comes close to the hate for the Patriots.
Turn on any tv station there is and you will see players who have been beaten by the Patriots taking every opportunity to speak ill of them, this simply isn't true of other teams.
I think that you, as a Patriots fan, are much more inclined to seek out comments pertaining to the Patriots than the Seahawks -- who have received a mountain of criticism (usually of the call in radio show variety) about their various PED suspensions.
Not sure I am inclined to seek it out but I sure am more cognizant of people saying negative things about the Patriots than other teams. That however, doesn't mean that the Patriots aren't the most hated team in the league (if it's not the Pats then I'm not sure who is).
My opinion that there are a lot of anti Patriots sentiment really stems from going to BC, where about half the people are from out of state and pretty much all those people rooted against the Pats. It didn't matter what team those BC students were a fan of, they all hated the Patriots and weren't shy about letting me know it.
Now that is all just my opinion. It is a fact that anytime there is a negative story about the Pats, the people you see on TV discussing it are ex players, coaches and gms that lost to the Patriots. You simply do not see the same unanimous hate from former NFL people for other teams.
As an aside: I'm not sure who I hated more when I lived in Boston -- BC fans or Red Sox fans. There's a special kind of hell that exists on the green line when the Sox are playing and the students are back in school. :D
If you are seeing BC students because you are taking the B line then it is your fault for taking the slowest of the green line routes.
I just moved to Beacon street and I am starting to hate the Red Sox fans that are slowing my commute.
Should've moved across the river to Somerville/Cambridge after graduating. ;)
(Not that the Red Line was much better)
-
Should've moved across the river to Somerville/Cambridge after graduating. ;)
(Not that the Red Line was much better)
Nothing compares to the green line in rush hour. I'd rather walk.
-
NFL will appeal, I think they just should have taken their lumps, but they have a lot of money to throw around.
-
However I have no doubt that the Patriots fans will store this as yet another arrow in their largely-imagined "everyone in the NFL hates us because we're sooooooo goooooood" quiver. That is a certainty.
Largely imagined? That went out the window around midnight after the AFC championship game, when the league, three rival teams and a law firm paid 5 million dollars engaged in a witch hunt, sting operation to stain the reputation of the greatest QB of all time and the best franchise of the current millennium.
Largely imagined. The entire deflategate debacle had/has much less to do with anything to do with The Patriots (although, as Donoghus has said throughout, the fact that they're a very well known franchise certainly escalated it) and much more to do with the national front office reeling from a series of PR blunders and circling in on an opportunity for the commissioner to reassert his authority on something that a child couldn't screw up.
The fact that he screwed it up is, of course, a whole lot of fun.
In order to get the public support behind the NFL again they needed to pick a target that was largely hated among football fans. While I agree that the NFL was trying to reassert its authority, there is no other team in the league that the NFL could attack and have it be a pr win.
It is not largely imagined, the hate is real. In fact, the hate for the Patriots is what made this a viable PR strategy to begin with. Other teams have been fined for cheating but the Patriots are the only team that consistently gets tabbed as cheaters by the general public.
I don't think this is true -- you could have picked any massively successful franchise and done something similar: Seattle would be the most obvious example -- but I do think that the Pats history of rule-skirting did them no favors in this instance.
If in the last 4 years the Patriots had 7 players disciplined for PED do you think people would be talking about it? That is the case with the Seahawks and yet we hear nothing about it.
http://yourteamcheats.com/SEA
I'm sure all the teams in Seattle's division hate the Seahawks, but there is no way the hate for the Seahawks comes close to the hate for the Patriots.
Turn on any tv station there is and you will see players who have been beaten by the Patriots taking every opportunity to speak ill of them, this simply isn't true of other teams.
I think that you, as a Patriots fan, are much more inclined to seek out comments pertaining to the Patriots than the Seahawks -- who have received a mountain of criticism (usually of the call in radio show variety) about their various PED suspensions.
Not sure I am inclined to seek it out but I sure am more cognizant of people saying negative things about the Patriots than other teams. That however, doesn't mean that the Patriots aren't the most hated team in the league (if it's not the Pats then I'm not sure who is).
My opinion that there are a lot of anti Patriots sentiment really stems from going to BC, where about half the people are from out of state and pretty much all those people rooted against the Pats. It didn't matter what team those BC students were a fan of, they all hated the Patriots and weren't shy about letting me know it.
Now that is all just my opinion. It is a fact that anytime there is a negative story about the Pats, the people you see on TV discussing it are ex players, coaches and gms that lost to the Patriots. You simply do not see the same unanimous hate from former NFL people for other teams.
As an aside: I'm not sure who I hated more when I lived in Boston -- BC fans or Red Sox fans. There's a special kind of hell that exists on the green line when the Sox are playing and the students are back in school. :D
If you are seeing BC students because you are taking the B line then it is your fault for taking the slowest of the green line routes.
I just moved to Beacon street and I am starting to hate the Red Sox fans that are slowing my commute.
Should've moved across the river to Somerville/Cambridge after graduating. ;)
(Not that the Red Line was much better)
I used to live in cambridge, but moved to Brookline because it was cheaper.
If you had told me when I was in high school in Arlington that Brookline would be cheaper than Cambridge and Somerville after I graduated college I would have thought you were crazy. Now it is the undisputed truth (at least for rentals)
-
Left Somerville for Chicago in '09. Its amazing how gentrified/pricey Somerville has become since I left.
-
I used to live in cambridge, but moved to Brookline because it was cheaper.
If you had told me when I was in high school in Arlington that Brookline would be cheaper than Cambridge and Somerville after I graduated college I would have thought you were crazy. Now it is the undisputed truth (at least for rentals)
Probably more expensive if you're trying to buy, too -- just a different type of housing stock.
-
New England Patriots supporters seem to have a complex and are very defensive of criticism of their team. I sympathize with Patriots supporters because we Juve supporters are the same way. Patriots criticism seems to feel personal to their supporters in the same way criticism of Juve seems personal to us.
That's not just Pats fans. That's Boston sports fans. Maybe it's a Puritan thing. Who knows.
I do see the parallels of calciopoli and the patriots scandals tho
http://m.goal.com/s/en/news/1717/editorial/2010/04/09/1870791/calciopoli-debate-it-is-about-time-juventus-questioned-why?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F
http://m.goal.com/s/en/news/1717/editorial/2011/06/17/2535702/revealed-the-calciopoli-evidence-that-shows-luciano-moggi-is-the-
-
Left Somerville for Chicago in '09. Its amazing how gentrified/pricey Somerville has become since I left.
It's too bad that the school system hasn't caught up yet. I'd hate to have to move when Jr. is old enough for school.
-
However I have no doubt that the Patriots fans will store this as yet another arrow in their largely-imagined "everyone in the NFL hates us because we're sooooooo goooooood" quiver. That is a certainty.
Largely imagined? That went out the window around midnight after the AFC championship game, when the league, three rival teams and a law firm paid 5 million dollars engaged in a witch hunt, sting operation to stain the reputation of the greatest QB of all time and the best franchise of the current millennium.
Largely imagined. The entire deflategate debacle had/has much less to do with anything to do with The Patriots (although, as Donoghus has said throughout, the fact that they're a very well known franchise certainly escalated it) and much more to do with the national front office reeling from a series of PR blunders and circling in on an opportunity for the commissioner to reassert his authority on something that a child couldn't screw up.
The fact that he screwed it up is, of course, a whole lot of fun.
In order to get the public support behind the NFL again they needed to pick a target that was largely hated among football fans. While I agree that the NFL was trying to reassert its authority, there is no other team in the league that the NFL could attack and have it be a pr win.
It is not largely imagined, the hate is real. In fact, the hate for the Patriots is what made this a viable PR strategy to begin with. Other teams have been fined for cheating but the Patriots are the only team that consistently gets tabbed as cheaters by the general public.
I don't think this is true -- you could have picked any massively successful franchise and done something similar: Seattle would be the most obvious example -- but I do think that the Pats history of rule-skirting did them no favors in this instance.
If in the last 4 years the Patriots had 7 players disciplined for PED do you think people would be talking about it? That is the case with the Seahawks and yet we hear nothing about it.
http://yourteamcheats.com/SEA
I'm sure all the teams in Seattle's division hate the Seahawks, but there is no way the hate for the Seahawks comes close to the hate for the Patriots.
Turn on any tv station there is and you will see players who have been beaten by the Patriots taking every opportunity to speak ill of them, this simply isn't true of other teams.
I think that you, as a Patriots fan, are much more inclined to seek out comments pertaining to the Patriots than the Seahawks -- who have received a mountain of criticism (usually of the call in radio show variety) about their various PED suspensions.
Not sure I am inclined to seek it out but I sure am more cognizant of people saying negative things about the Patriots than other teams. That however, doesn't mean that the Patriots aren't the most hated team in the league (if it's not the Pats then I'm not sure who is).
My opinion that there are a lot of anti Patriots sentiment really stems from going to BC, where about half the people are from out of state and pretty much all those people rooted against the Pats. It didn't matter what team those BC students were a fan of, they all hated the Patriots and weren't shy about letting me know it.
Now that is all just my opinion. It is a fact that anytime there is a negative story about the Pats, the people you see on TV discussing it are ex players, coaches and gms that lost to the Patriots. You simply do not see the same unanimous hate from former NFL people for other teams.
As an aside: I'm not sure who I hated more when I lived in Boston -- BC fans or Red Sox fans. There's a special kind of hell that exists on the green line when the Sox are playing and the students are back in school. :D
If you are seeing BC students because you are taking the B line then it is your fault for taking the slowest of the green line routes.
I just moved to Beacon street and I am starting to hate the Red Sox fans that are slowing my commute.
No easier way to get to the Paradise, unfortunately. Particularly if you're, you know, under the influence. But yeah, I haven't lived in Cambridge in years: I can't imagine it's any cheaper now. Had a few friends that rented a house in Brookline -- also not cheap.
Also, I do not approve of the Paradise's new(ish, idk when it started) beer pricing. $5 for a tall boy of the cheap stuff is brutal.
-
As an aside: I'm not sure who I hated more when I lived in Boston -- BC fans or Red Sox fans. There's a special kind of hell that exists on the green line when the Sox are playing and the students are back in school. :D
Aren't you making the point that you argued against by saying this? Yes, Boston sports fan are a little annoying to the outside world and especially when the team of choice (recently the Patriots) are on a winning streak. But isn't this exactly why non-Pats fans reveled in the glow of what appeared initially to be a successful sting operation against them?
I am not sure if this perception affected Goodell but it does appear plausible that it did (in the case of certain Jets alumni) influence some in the decision chain, which impacted Goodell indirectly.
I used to live in Northwest Vermont where there are about as many Yankees and Giants fans as there are Red Sox and Patriots fan. I don't hate the Giants like I do the Yankees but there is no doubt that I would experience Schadenfreude http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/schadenfreude (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/schadenfreude) if this had happened to the Yankees much as I believe many fans felt this when it looked like the Pats had been caught. I have heard it first hand from friends across the country and I don't think it is imagined or exaggerated.
-
Hey, I used to live in Northwestern(ish) Vermont! Well aware of the weird sports division in those parts, one of my old bosses was a die hard Giants fan.
My point was specifically about riding the B line when it gets mobbed with Red Sox fans and BC students, typically in various states of alcoholic impairment and exercising extreme volume in the tight confines of, well, the B line. Nothing to do with their teams.
(Fwiw:I'm a Red Sox fan, I don't have anything for or against BC.)
-
As an aside: I'm not sure who I hated more when I lived in Boston -- BC fans or Red Sox fans. There's a special kind of hell that exists on the green line when the Sox are playing and the students are back in school. :D
Aren't you making the point that you argued against by saying this? Yes, Boston sports fan are a little annoying to the outside world and especially when the team of choice (recently the Patriots) are on a winning streak. But isn't this exactly why non-Pats fans reveled in the glow of what appeared initially to be a successful sting operation against them?
I am not sure if this perception affected Goodell but it does appear plausible that it did (in the case of certain Jets alumni) influence some in the decision chain, which impacted Goodell indirectly.
I used to live in Northwest Vermont where there are about as many Yankees and Giants fans as there are Red Sox and Patriots fan. I don't hate the Giants like I do the Yankees but there is no doubt that I would experience Schadenfreude http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/schadenfreude (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/schadenfreude) if this had happened to the Yankees much as I believe many fans felt this when it looked like the Pats had been caught. I have heard it first hand from friends across the country and I don't think it is imagined or exaggerated.
Wow. TP for bringing the thread back on topic after we got side tracked discussing commutes and rental prices.
Although I don't really see the connection, he isn't saying anything bad about the Sox fans or BC students other than they make his commute much worse.
-
As an aside: I'm not sure who I hated more when I lived in Boston -- BC fans or Red Sox fans. There's a special kind of hell that exists on the green line when the Sox are playing and the students are back in school. :D
Aren't you making the point that you argued against by saying this? Yes, Boston sports fan are a little annoying to the outside world and especially when the team of choice (recently the Patriots) are on a winning streak. But isn't this exactly why non-Pats fans reveled in the glow of what appeared initially to be a successful sting operation against them?
I am not sure if this perception affected Goodell but it does appear plausible that it did (in the case of certain Jets alumni) influence some in the decision chain, which impacted Goodell indirectly.
I used to live in Northwest Vermont where there are about as many Yankees and Giants fans as there are Red Sox and Patriots fan. I don't hate the Giants like I do the Yankees but there is no doubt that I would experience Schadenfreude http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/schadenfreude (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/schadenfreude) if this had happened to the Yankees much as I believe many fans felt this when it looked like the Pats had been caught. I have heard it first hand from friends across the country and I don't think it is imagined or exaggerated.
Wow. TP for bringing the thread back on topic after we got side tracked discussing commutes and rental prices.
Although I don't really see the connection, he isn't saying anything bad about the Sox fans or BC students other than they make his commute much worse.
Come on, talking about Boston area rentals was WAY more fun and you know it. ;D
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CN_fj3eWgAEWGiU.jpg:large)
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CN_fj3eWgAEWGiU.jpg:large)
HAhaahahahahaha
Twitter doesn't like to show up:
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CN_fj3eWgAEWGiU.jpg
-
However I have no doubt that the Patriots fans will store this as yet another arrow in their largely-imagined "everyone in the NFL hates us because we're sooooooo goooooood" quiver. That is a certainty.
Tons of people hate Real Madrid, Barcelona, Chelsea, Manchester United, Manchester City and all the dominant soccer clubs. why? because they always win.
I hate all the english clubs because they have more money than the other leagues and it's largely undeserved, not because they always win, which they don't. Even mid table clubs are loaded because of their tv deal. I hate Barcelona because they are treated differently than all other clubs when they act shady. I don't hate Real Madrid but I don't like the way they treat their players.
but in conclusion you hate or dislike every single team I listed. I mean ive convinced myself I hate lebron cus hes a prima donna and Edited. Profanity and masked profanity are against forum rules and may result in discipline.es about calls when he gets them 100% of the time etc etc but lets face it I probably just hate Lebron because he is absolutely dominant.
I guess Bayern would be the best example against my claim, but other than them I really cant think of any long time dominant club that people dont hate pretty widely
-
However I have no doubt that the Patriots fans will store this as yet another arrow in their largely-imagined "everyone in the NFL hates us because we're sooooooo goooooood" quiver. That is a certainty.
Largely imagined? That went out the window around midnight after the AFC championship game, when the league, three rival teams and a law firm paid 5 million dollars engaged in a witch hunt, sting operation to stain the reputation of the greatest QB of all time and the best franchise of the current millennium.
Largely imagined. The entire deflategate debacle had/has much less to do with anything to do with The Patriots (although, as Donoghus has said throughout, the fact that they're a very well known franchise certainly escalated it) and much more to do with the national front office reeling from a series of PR blunders and circling in on an opportunity for the commissioner to reassert his authority on something that a child couldn't screw up.
The fact that he screwed it up is, of course, a whole lot of fun.
In order to get the public support behind the NFL again they needed to pick a target that was largely hated among football fans. While I agree that the NFL was trying to reassert its authority, there is no other team in the league that the NFL could attack and have it be a pr win.
It is not largely imagined, the hate is real. In fact, the hate for the Patriots is what made this a viable PR strategy to begin with. Other teams have been fined for cheating but the Patriots are the only team that consistently gets tabbed as cheaters by the general public.
I don't think this is true -- you could have picked any massively successful franchise and done something similar: Seattle would be the most obvious example -- but I do think that the Pats history of rule-skirting did them no favors in this instance.
If in the last 4 years the Patriots had 7 players disciplined for PED do you think people would be talking about it? That is the case with the Seahawks and yet we hear nothing about it.
http://yourteamcheats.com/SEA
I'm sure all the teams in Seattle's division hate the Seahawks, but there is no way the hate for the Seahawks comes close to the hate for the Patriots.
Turn on any tv station there is and you will see players who have been beaten by the Patriots taking every opportunity to speak ill of them, this simply isn't true of other teams.
I think that you, as a Patriots fan, are much more inclined to seek out comments pertaining to the Patriots than the Seahawks -- who have received a mountain of criticism (usually of the call in radio show variety) about their various PED suspensions.
Did the Seahawk stuff lead the network news when it happened? What happened in the past 9 months or so is on a whole different level, IMO.
Sure, some of this is obviously paranoia coming from Pats fans and the regionally instilled from birth mentality of "us against the world" but let's not kid ourselves that the Patriots are the NFL team with the biggest target on their back at the moment.
And if social media/24 hours news cycle existed back then, the same thing would've been happening to the Steelers or the '70s or the Niners of the '80s. The Cowboys certainly were garnering much of the attention in the 1990s (although much of that was self-inflicted).
The Seahawks stuff definitely made national news when it happened. I agree that the last 9 months have been totally absurd, but I also think that it would have been the same sort of circus had it been, say, Seattle or San Fran or Denver, assuming the same actions by the team and the league.
It would have been a circus, but not the same circus. The Patriots recent history with Spygate and whatever else make them a pretty big target - bigger arguably than any other team. So many people hate Bill Belichick. So many people hate Tom Brady. It just all fit together in a nice, neat narrative and moreover the timing was perfect - something for NFL starved people to talk about after the SuperBowl but before the Draft, then after the Draft but before Regular Season.
-
However I have no doubt that the Patriots fans will store this as yet another arrow in their largely-imagined "everyone in the NFL hates us because we're sooooooo goooooood" quiver. That is a certainty.
Tons of people hate Real Madrid, Barcelona, Chelsea, Manchester United, Manchester City and all the dominant soccer clubs. why? because they always win.
I hate all the english clubs because they have more money than the other leagues and it's largely undeserved, not because they always win, which they don't. Even mid table clubs are loaded because of their tv deal. I hate Barcelona because they are treated differently than all other clubs when they act shady. I don't hate Real Madrid but I don't like the way they treat their players.
but in conclusion you hate or dislike every single team I listed. I mean ive convinced myself I hate lebron cus hes a prima donna and ****es about calls when he gets them 100% of the time etc etc but lets face it I probably just hate Lebron because he is absolutely dominant.
I guess Bayern would be the best example against my claim, but other than them I really cant think of any long time dominant club that people dont hate pretty widely
The english clubs you listed are the big clubs in england but they do not dominate Europe. Their domestic success has nothing to do with whether I hate them, I'm not a premier league fan so them winning their domestic league has no affect on me or my club. They are strong clubs in Europe but do not dominate, nobody really dominates Europe but I would say the three biggest clubs are Barcelona and Real Madrid and Bayern Munich. I would say the second tier is in no particular order Juve, PSG, Atletico Madrid, Chelsea and Manchester City.
I gave my reasons why I hate or dislike certain clubs, success is not a reason for me hating anyone, I'm not threatened by any of them lol
-
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/09/03/falcons-owner-says-it-might-be-time-to-look-at-commissioners-power/
“I would have rather seen it end with a positive ruling for the NFL,” Blank said. “I understand why the commissioner and the league feel as strongly as it does about trying to protect the rights that for decades have been collectively bargained. I think that is important.
“I don’t think they should be re-bargained in a federal court. Having said that, I think the commissioner and the ownership around the league have to be prepared to look at things, look at change and change may be appropriate.”
-
I know I've already said this, but I just want to say this again one more time before I go to bed: Goodell needs to be fired. The man is such a buffoon. He literally has made the exact wrong decision on major disciplinary decisions every single time--the type of decisions where one would have been better doing the exact opposite of what he did.
And or that type of decision he should be canned and truly out of work altogether. Any solid business person could negotiate a good TV deal for the NFL in this market.
-
I know I've already said this, but I just want to say this again one more time before I go to bed: Goodell needs to be fired. The man is such a buffoon. He literally has made the exact wrong decision on major disciplinary decisions every single time--the type of decisions where one would have been better doing the exact opposite of what he did.
And or that type of decision he should be canned and truly out of work altogether. Any solid business person could negotiate a good TV deal for the NFL in this market.
Hypothesized he was likely an athlete that never made it... he just comes off that way to me.
If you enjoy playing the "bash someone with stereotypes" game, Google says he fits the bill:
-3 sport athlete in HS
-played 4 different positions in HS football
-attended the ever-historic Washington & Jefferson college, but didn't play after blowing out his knee at age 17
-father was a Republican Senator in NY
When you're having a bad day, he seems like a fine person to place in a box and criticize b/c his past is exactly what you would've expected.
-
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/09/03/falcons-owner-says-it-might-be-time-to-look-at-commissioners-power/
“I would have rather seen it end with a positive ruling for the NFL,” Blank said. “I understand why the commissioner and the league feel as strongly as it does about trying to protect the rights that for decades have been collectively bargained. I think that is important.
“I don’t think they should be re-bargained in a federal court. Having said that, I think the commissioner and the ownership around the league have to be prepared to look at things, look at change and change may be appropriate.”
The Falcons got docked a pick for pumping in extra crowd noise at their stadium, had the NFL came down as harshly as they did against the Pats for that then Blank would be very upset. I think this is a great example of jealousy/ believing that in order for the Patriots to be so good they must have cheated because the Falcons can't have continued success.
-
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/09/03/falcons-owner-says-it-might-be-time-to-look-at-commissioners-power/
“I would have rather seen it end with a positive ruling for the NFL,” Blank said. “I understand why the commissioner and the league feel as strongly as it does about trying to protect the rights that for decades have been collectively bargained. I think that is important.
“I don’t think they should be re-bargained in a federal court. Having said that, I think the commissioner and the ownership around the league have to be prepared to look at things, look at change and change may be appropriate.”
The Falcons got docked a pick for pumping in extra crowd noise at their stadium, had the NFL came down as harshly as they did against the Pats for that then Blank would be very upset. I think this is a great example of jealousy/ believing that in order for the Patriots to be so good they must have cheated because the Falcons can't have continued success.
That doesn't really seem to be the crux of the point, though -- as I'm reading it he thinks that a curbing of Goodell's/the commish's power (which, at this point, everyone is in agreement on) should come from CBA negotiations between the league and the NLFPA, not based on a court ruling independent of that bartering process.
I don't think I agree with that, though.
-
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/09/03/falcons-owner-says-it-might-be-time-to-look-at-commissioners-power/
“I would have rather seen it end with a positive ruling for the NFL,” Blank said. “I understand why the commissioner and the league feel as strongly as it does about trying to protect the rights that for decades have been collectively bargained. I think that is important.
“I don’t think they should be re-bargained in a federal court. Having said that, I think the commissioner and the ownership around the league have to be prepared to look at things, look at change and change may be appropriate.”
The Falcons got docked a pick for pumping in extra crowd noise at their stadium, had the NFL came down as harshly as they did against the Pats for that then Blank would be very upset. I think this is a great example of jealousy/ believing that in order for the Patriots to be so good they must have cheated because the Falcons can't have continued success.
That doesn't really seem to be the crux of the point, though -- as I'm reading it he thinks that a curbing of Goodell's/the commish's power (which, at this point, everyone is in agreement on) should come from CBA negotiations between the league and the NLFPA, not based on a court ruling independent of that bartering process.
I don't think I agree with that, though.
I think there must be some jealousy - as any objective person would think that the Patriots / Brady punishment was far too harsh, but I agree with you. It sounds as though he thought things would have just been 'easier' if the NFL won; however, now things have to be thoroughly re-examined and that is a pain in the butt for everybody. The court re-decision makes things a little dicier in his mind.
But, on a slightly unrelated note - yes, Goodell should absolutely be fired.
-
I think folks will rue that they won, because if the NFL wins the appeal the suspensions could come later in the season. They may not but imagine the hysteria.
-
I think folks will rue that they won, because if the NFL wins the appeal the suspensions could come later in the season. They may not but imagine the hysteria.
From the timeline I've read, nothing with the appeal process could impact 2015. That can is kicked until at least 2016 for the time being.
-
It'll be an interesting side note if Hardy appeals his suspension. He is reportedly thinking of doing so based on Brady's "win". Goodell will be in the news more than he wants.
-
I think folks will rue that they won, because if the NFL wins the appeal the suspensions could come later in the season. They may not but imagine the hysteria.
From the timeline I've read, nothing with the appeal process could impact 2015. That can is kicked until at least 2016 for the time being.
As a Pats fan, I hope the NFL loses its appeal, but—should the NFL win and get Brady's suspension reinstated for next season—it would be so sweet to see the Pats win the Super Bowl this year and then Brady retire so he'd never have to serve the suspension.
-
I know I've already said this, but I just want to say this again one more time before I go to bed: Goodell needs to be fired. The man is such a buffoon. He literally has made the exact wrong decision on major disciplinary decisions every single time--the type of decisions where one would have been better doing the exact opposite of what he did.
And or that type of decision he should be canned and truly out of work altogether. Any solid business person could negotiate a good TV deal for the NFL in this market.
I've heard people say he won't get fired because the NFL has made so much money during his tenure, but I really think that any one of us could have his job and the NFL would still make tons of money. Football is just that popular in this country.
-
I know I've already said this, but I just want to say this again one more time before I go to bed: Goodell needs to be fired. The man is such a buffoon. He literally has made the exact wrong decision on major disciplinary decisions every single time--the type of decisions where one would have been better doing the exact opposite of what he did.
And or that type of decision he should be canned and truly out of work altogether. Any solid business person could negotiate a good TV deal for the NFL in this market.
I've heard people say he won't get fired because the NFL has made so much money during his tenure, but I really think that any one of us could have his job and the NFL would still make tons of money. Football is just that popular in this country.
I don't know if it was Maury Brown or someone else that labeled Goodell a "useful idiot". Think its a pretty solid label.
I do think you could put a handful of other people in that position and the machine would run itself and you would imagine it would improve from a public relations standpoint, if nothing else.
Problem is that I think the owners are content with having a target like Goodell taking all the arrows for them.
-
I know I've already said this, but I just want to say this again one more time before I go to bed: Goodell needs to be fired. The man is such a buffoon. He literally has made the exact wrong decision on major disciplinary decisions every single time--the type of decisions where one would have been better doing the exact opposite of what he did.
And or that type of decision he should be canned and truly out of work altogether. Any solid business person could negotiate a good TV deal for the NFL in this market.
I've heard people say he won't get fired because the NFL has made so much money during his tenure, but I really think that any one of us could have his job and the NFL would still make tons of money. Football is just that popular in this country.
And anyone defending Goodell should ask themselves this question: would any of these messes have happened under a Paul Tagliabue, David Stern, or Adam Silver? I think not--at least not to this degree of ridiculousness.
So this notion that Goodell isn't replaceable is ridiculous. Maybe he does some things well--but that isn't good enough to be the commissioner of the biggest sport in America.
-
I know I've already said this, but I just want to say this again one more time before I go to bed: Goodell needs to be fired. The man is such a buffoon. He literally has made the exact wrong decision on major disciplinary decisions every single time--the type of decisions where one would have been better doing the exact opposite of what he did.
And or that type of decision he should be canned and truly out of work altogether. Any solid business person could negotiate a good TV deal for the NFL in this market.
I've heard people say he won't get fired because the NFL has made so much money during his tenure, but I really think that any one of us could have his job and the NFL would still make tons of money. Football is just that popular in this country.
I don't know if it was Maury Brown or someone else that labeled Goodell a "useful idiot". Think its a pretty solid label.
I do think you could put a handful of other people in that position and the machine would run itself and you would imagine it would improve from a public relations standpoint, if nothing else.
Problem is that I think the owners are content with having a target like Goodell taking all the arrows for them.
Precisely. It's not that Goodell isn't replaceable -- in many ways the man is a moron, of course he's replacable -- it's that there's no reason to replace him. Can I get a show of hands of the fans here who won't watch the Patriots this season until Goodell is replaced?
(http://desperateexes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/CRICKETS-CRICKETS-EVERYWHERE.jpg)
-
I'm still not onboard with the fire Goodell thinking, by the way (even though I agree that he's an idiot). Anyone care to convince me?
Do you agree there are probably any number of people who could do a better job?
Seems like a good reason to fire a dude making tens of millions of dollars a year to me.
Do a better job at what, though? As a commissioner, or as the guy who can totally and utterly screw up everything without alienating the fanbase or painting his bosses (the owners) as hideous and terrible people because he can sincerely claim that he's trying to protect the integrity of the shield?
Goodell wasn't the reason you could still buy women's Ray Rice shirts weeks after the video leaked, but Goodell is the one guy shouldering all the blame for how the league handled that situation and he didn't so much as bat an eye. There's an immense value in that for the NFL, which is reflected in his salary.
OK, I think I can agree that Goodell is probably as good as anybody at being a public relations punching bag. He's a magician, in that sense -- pay attention to this stuff I'm doing very noticeably over here so that you don't focus on all of the stuff going on behind me.
If you think the commissioner could play a different, more positive, progressive role -- define that however you like -- then I think there are probably better options out there.
-
The issue is less about fans watching or not watching NFL games though it's an important consideration. It's about whether advertisers and sponsors will lower their willingness to pay to support the product. Goodell frequently bungles the public facing stuff like punishment. As an owner does that give you confidence about the private contractual stuff Goodell is doing with sponsors?
-
I'm still not onboard with the fire Goodell thinking, by the way (even though I agree that he's an idiot). Anyone care to convince me?
Do you agree there are probably any number of people who could do a better job?
Seems like a good reason to fire a dude making tens of millions of dollars a year to me.
Do a better job at what, though? As a commissioner, or as the guy who can totally and utterly screw up everything without alienating the fanbase or painting his bosses (the owners) as hideous and terrible people because he can sincerely claim that he's trying to protect the integrity of the shield?
Goodell wasn't the reason you could still buy women's Ray Rice shirts weeks after the video leaked, but Goodell is the one guy shouldering all the blame for how the league handled that situation and he didn't so much as bat an eye. There's an immense value in that for the NFL, which is reflected in his salary.
OK, I think I can agree that Goodell is probably as good as anybody at being a public relations punching bag. He's a magician, in that sense -- pay attention to this stuff I'm doing very noticeably over here so that you don't focus on all of the stuff going on behind me.
If you think the commissioner could play a different, more positive, progressive role -- define that however you like -- then I think there are probably better options out there.
Exactly. And there's plenty of other people out there who could be equally good punching bags but get the league into far fewer situations where they would need to be the punching bag.
I think that's what people are overlooking--yes Goodell can take bullets for the league, but he also gets them into these situations to begin with. The owners would be far better off if they could find someone who could make these situations go away before they even start.
-
A) The NFL isn't a progressive institution in any sense of the word. Their prime prerogative is to keep people from talking about the fact that the sport itself leaves its players maimed mentally and physically. If you're not talking about that, then they're fine. The worst thing coming down the pipeline in the future would be something that definitively links football to CTE. Anything else is secondary in concern -- they actually dont care about players beating up women: that's why Greg Hardy is serving 4 games, because there's no footage out there. Back to Ray Rice, because he's such a good example, he sold a lot of jerseys after he was booted, because people are stupid.
B) The NFL has, far and away, the least sophisticated fan base in all of professional sports. It is one of the largest, and it is one of the most diverse, but it is not interested in nuance and thoughtfulness. And if you don't believe me I have roughly 75 thousand light beers and a whole bunch of Ford F150's to sell you.
C) Goodell doesn't create these situations, and up until deflategate you could argue that he was hamhanded but never in the wrong ethically -- take your pick, but he's going up against a guy who knocked out his wife, a guy who beat his kids, or people paying other people to actively injure players. Did he screw up all of those? Yes, but the idea that these people shouldn't have been punished is not part of the equation, because of course they should have.
-
A) The NFL isn't a progressive institution in any sense of the word. Their prime prerogative is to keep people from talking about the fact that the sport itself leaves its players maimed mentally and physically. If you're not talking about that, then they're fine. The worst thing coming down the pipeline in the future would be something that definitively links football to CTE. Anything else is secondary in concern -- they actually dont care about players beating up women: that's why Greg Hardy is serving 4 games, because there's no footage out there. Back to Ray Rice, because he's such a good example, he sold a lot of jerseys after he was booted, because people are stupid.
B) The NFL has, far and away, the least sophisticated fan base in all of professional sports. It is one of the largest, and it is one of the most diverse, but it is not interested in nuance and thoughtfulness. And if you don't believe me I have roughly 75 thousand light beers and a whole bunch of Ford F150's to sell you.
C) Goodell doesn't create these situations, and up until deflategate you could argue that he was hamhanded but never in the wrong ethically -- take your pick, but he's going up against a guy who knocked out his wife, a guy who beat his kids, or people paying other people to actively injure players. Did he screw up all of those? Yes, but the idea that these people shouldn't have been punished is not part of the equation, because of course they should have.
But look at what Adam Silver did with the whole Donald Sterling fiasco. He had handled quickly, efficiently, and appropriately. So this notion that Goodell is "doing the best he can" I think is a bunch of crap. If Adam Silver or David Stern were running the NFL, they'd do a much better job.
-
That is an apples to chainsaws comparison, and I never said that Goodell was doing the best he can. I would suggest rereading my posts if that is the conclusion you drew from them.
-
That is an apples to chainsaws comparison, and I never said that Goodell was doing the best he can. I would suggest rereading my posts if that is the conclusion you drew from them.
I get it. But what's the point of going into the nuances of it all when clearly the NFL could do better?
We're not talking about a toll collector here where the standard might be that "he's not bad." We're talking about the leader of the most popular sport in America. If there are better people out there for the job, he should be canned regardless of mitigating factors.
-
A) The NFL isn't a progressive institution in any sense of the word. Their prime prerogative is to keep people from talking about the fact that the sport itself leaves its players maimed mentally and physically. If you're not talking about that, then they're fine. The worst thing coming down the pipeline in the future would be something that definitively links football to CTE. Anything else is secondary in concern -- they actually dont care about players beating up women: that's why Greg Hardy is serving 4 games, because there's no footage out there. Back to Ray Rice, because he's such a good example, he sold a lot of jerseys after he was booted, because people are stupid.
B) The NFL has, far and away, the least sophisticated fan base in all of professional sports. It is one of the largest, and it is one of the most diverse, but it is not interested in nuance and thoughtfulness. And if you don't believe me I have roughly 75 thousand light beers and a whole bunch of Ford F150's to sell you.
I think you're 100% right.
That doesn't mean I think a better commissioner couldn't choose to be a leader for the sport and try to push to take the sport in a more positive direction. Why would the owners want such a commissioner? For the long term health of the league.
I think maintaining the status quo is great for the NFL while the league continues to print money in the present, but I think the background stuff will catch up to them eventually and force them to address the very serious issues that the league has with racism, misogyny, violence, and CTE.
A commissioner like that would have to be backed by a mandate from ownership to drastically change the culture of how the league manages its image and its business, of course. So it won't happen anytime soon.
-
That is an apples to chainsaws comparison, and I never said that Goodell was doing the best he can. I would suggest rereading my posts if that is the conclusion you drew from them.
I get it. But what's the point of going into the nuances of it all when clearly the NFL could do better?
We're not talking about a toll collector here where the standard might be that "he's not bad." We're talking about the leader of the most popular sport in America. If there are better people out there for the job, he should be canned regardless of mitigating factors.
You keep saying that there are better people out there for the job, but I remain unconvinced that in the present there is anyone more suited to the owner's purposes than Goodell. That's the disagreement, not that there wouldn't be better candidates in regards to merit or resume.
I think that what you guys are saying has a lot of merit in a vacuum, but I don't think the ownership is going to look that far into the future because, frankly, I don't think many of them are smart enough to do so/are too old to really care. You would need to see a few more owners that are Jed York's age before anything substantial shifted.
-
That is an apples to chainsaws comparison, and I never said that Goodell was doing the best he can. I would suggest rereading my posts if that is the conclusion you drew from them.
I get it. But what's the point of going into the nuances of it all when clearly the NFL could do better?
We're not talking about a toll collector here where the standard might be that "he's not bad." We're talking about the leader of the most popular sport in America. If there are better people out there for the job, he should be canned regardless of mitigating factors.
You keep saying that there are better people out there for the job, but I remain unconvinced that in the present there is anyone more suited to the owner's purposes than Goodell. That's the disagreement, not that there wouldn't be better candidates in regards to merit or resume.
I think that what you guys are saying has a lot of merit in a vacuum, but I don't think the ownership is going to look that far into the future because, frankly, I don't think many of them are smart enough to do so/are too old to really care. You would need to see a few more owners that are Jed York's age before anything substantial shifted.
But what does Goodell that is so good for the league?
Get good TV deals? Any high end business person could do that given the popularity of the NFL.
Take bullets for the league? Anyone offered what Goodell is getting paid could do that.
I'm not saying that the league is going to have a culture change. I'm saying that even if the NFL wants to continue to go on crazy witch hunts and mismanage things, there are people out there that could do a better job than Goodell. As much as a witch hunt as this has been with Brady, Goodell could have still won had he not botched literally every step along the way.
-
That is an apples to chainsaws comparison, and I never said that Goodell was doing the best he can. I would suggest rereading my posts if that is the conclusion you drew from them.
I get it. But what's the point of going into the nuances of it all when clearly the NFL could do better?
We're not talking about a toll collector here where the standard might be that "he's not bad." We're talking about the leader of the most popular sport in America. If there are better people out there for the job, he should be canned regardless of mitigating factors.
You keep saying that there are better people out there for the job, but I remain unconvinced that in the present there is anyone more suited to the owner's purposes than Goodell. That's the disagreement, not that there wouldn't be better candidates in regards to merit or resume.
I think that what you guys are saying has a lot of merit in a vacuum, but I don't think the ownership is going to look that far into the future because, frankly, I don't think many of them are smart enough to do so/are too old to really care. You would need to see a few more owners that are Jed York's age before anything substantial shifted.
But what does Goodell that is so good for the league?
Get good TV deals? Any high end business person could do that given the popularity of the NFL.
Take bullets for the league? Anyone offered what Goodell is getting paid could do that.
I'm not saying that the league is going to have a culture change. I'm saying that even if the NFL wants to continue to go on crazy witch hunts and mismanage things, there are people out there that could do a better job than Goodell. As much as a witch hunt as this has been with Brady, Goodell could have still won had he not botched literally every step along the way.
Just because they are, it doesn't mean the league is going to do anything about it.
It's the most popular sport in the country...by a mile. It's printing money hand over fist right now and even these debacles don't seem to be putting a dent in television ratings. Sure, the public perception of the league isn't pretty right now but its not exactly doing anything, on a tangible basis, yet to hurt them.
-
A) The NFL isn't a progressive institution in any sense of the word. Their prime prerogative is to keep people from talking about the fact that the sport itself leaves its players maimed mentally and physically. If you're not talking about that, then they're fine. The worst thing coming down the pipeline in the future would be something that definitively links football to CTE. Anything else is secondary in concern -- they actually dont care about players beating up women: that's why Greg Hardy is serving 4 games, because there's no footage out there. Back to Ray Rice, because he's such a good example, he sold a lot of jerseys after he was booted, because people are stupid.
B) The NFL has, far and away, the least sophisticated fan base in all of professional sports. It is one of the largest, and it is one of the most diverse, but it is not interested in nuance and thoughtfulness. And if you don't believe me I have roughly 75 thousand light beers and a whole bunch of Ford F150's to sell you.
C) Goodell doesn't create these situations, and up until deflategate you could argue that he was hamhanded but never in the wrong ethically -- take your pick, but he's going up against a guy who knocked out his wife, a guy who beat his kids, or people paying other people to actively injure players. Did he screw up all of those? Yes, but the idea that these people shouldn't have been punished is not part of the equation, because of course they should have.
Agree with everything here, although I would say Hockey fans are worse than football fans in terms of sophistication
-
That is an apples to chainsaws comparison, and I never said that Goodell was doing the best he can. I would suggest rereading my posts if that is the conclusion you drew from them.
I get it. But what's the point of going into the nuances of it all when clearly the NFL could do better?
We're not talking about a toll collector here where the standard might be that "he's not bad." We're talking about the leader of the most popular sport in America. If there are better people out there for the job, he should be canned regardless of mitigating factors.
You keep saying that there are better people out there for the job, but I remain unconvinced that in the present there is anyone more suited to the owner's purposes than Goodell. That's the disagreement, not that there wouldn't be better candidates in regards to merit or resume.
I think that what you guys are saying has a lot of merit in a vacuum, but I don't think the ownership is going to look that far into the future because, frankly, I don't think many of them are smart enough to do so/are too old to really care. You would need to see a few more owners that are Jed York's age before anything substantial shifted.
But what does Goodell that is so good for the league?
Get good TV deals? Any high end business person could do that given the popularity of the NFL.
Take bullets for the league? Anyone offered what Goodell is getting paid could do that.
I'm not saying that the league is going to have a culture change. I'm saying that even if the NFL wants to continue to go on crazy witch hunts and mismanage things, there are people out there that could do a better job than Goodell. As much as a witch hunt as this has been with Brady, Goodell could have still won had he not botched literally every step along the way.
Just because they are, it doesn't mean the league is going to do anything about it.
It's the most popular sport in the country...by a mile. It's printing money hand over fist right now and even these debacles don't seem to be putting a dent in television ratings. Sure, the public perception of the league isn't pretty right now but its not exactly doing anything, on a tangible basis, yet to hurt them.
I get it all. But as I said, I'm not even talking about a better commissioner from some sort of pie in the sky, rose-tinted, Utopian perspective. I'm saying that even if the owners just wanted some lackey to take bullets and orders for them and leave the league a moral mess, they could find someone better than Goodell at doing that.
-
That is an apples to chainsaws comparison, and I never said that Goodell was doing the best he can. I would suggest rereading my posts if that is the conclusion you drew from them.
I get it. But what's the point of going into the nuances of it all when clearly the NFL could do better?
We're not talking about a toll collector here where the standard might be that "he's not bad." We're talking about the leader of the most popular sport in America. If there are better people out there for the job, he should be canned regardless of mitigating factors.
You keep saying that there are better people out there for the job, but I remain unconvinced that in the present there is anyone more suited to the owner's purposes than Goodell. That's the disagreement, not that there wouldn't be better candidates in regards to merit or resume.
I think that what you guys are saying has a lot of merit in a vacuum, but I don't think the ownership is going to look that far into the future because, frankly, I don't think many of them are smart enough to do so/are too old to really care. You would need to see a few more owners that are Jed York's age before anything substantial shifted.
But what does Goodell that is so good for the league?
Get good TV deals? Any high end business person could do that given the popularity of the NFL.
Take bullets for the league? Anyone offered what Goodell is getting paid could do that.
I'm not saying that the league is going to have a culture change. I'm saying that even if the NFL wants to continue to go on crazy witch hunts and mismanage things, there are people out there that could do a better job than Goodell. As much as a witch hunt as this has been with Brady, Goodell could have still won had he not botched literally every step along the way.
Just because they are, it doesn't mean the league is going to do anything about it.
It's the most popular sport in the country...by a mile. It's printing money hand over fist right now and even these debacles don't seem to be putting a dent in television ratings. Sure, the public perception of the league isn't pretty right now but its not exactly doing anything, on a tangible basis, yet to hurt them.
I get it all. But as I said, I'm not even talking about a better commissioner from some sort of pie in the sky, rose-tinted, Utopian perspective. I'm saying that even if the owners just wanted some lackey to take bullets and orders for them and leave the league a moral mess, they could find someone better than Goodell at doing that.
And I get that. But it doesn't mean that the owners are going to listen to you (or much of the greater public) and do a [dang] thing about it.
-
A) The NFL isn't a progressive institution in any sense of the word. Their prime prerogative is to keep people from talking about the fact that the sport itself leaves its players maimed mentally and physically. If you're not talking about that, then they're fine. The worst thing coming down the pipeline in the future would be something that definitively links football to CTE. Anything else is secondary in concern -- they actually dont care about players beating up women: that's why Greg Hardy is serving 4 games, because there's no footage out there. Back to Ray Rice, because he's such a good example, he sold a lot of jerseys after he was booted, because people are stupid.
You mean the medical conclusions from the autopsies of one active and several former players weren't enough?!
-
NFL should have never targeted Brady with so little evidence of involvement. If Goodell would have looked at things independently letting all statements and testimony be viewed in a fairly manner he would have dropped the suspension himself in the apeal. Clearly Goodell had sided with the bad investigation and didn't give Brady's legal team a fair chance to prove innocence or doubt. It's one thing to let owners gang up on another owner on little proof because all they had to state is balls were under and your staff took balls where they weren't supposed to, gas law or not you are punished. They have no proof of actual wrong doing by Brady himself except a failure to provide phone texts which proves nothing in terms on involvement.
The punishment was almost certainly born out of Brady's alleged failure to cooperate, rather than his wrongdoing.
Which is why from the beginning Brady could have made this whole thing go away if he had said something like
"It is true that I prefer the footballs to be less inflated, but I have never directed anyone to have the footballs at any level that is not within the legal confines. If the footballs were lower than the legal limit, it was not my intent and I apologize if my preference for lower (but legal) inflated balls in any way contributed to the footballs being below the legal limits in the Colts game. I will cooperate fully with any NFL investigation into this issue."
You know and then he actually need to cooperate fully.
Goes away with a fine. The problem is the that is not the Patriot way.
I would agree with this. On the other hand, I really like the Circle Jerks and I'm kind of partial to their song Deny Everything, so I'm torn.
It also would have gone away if Goodell would have used some fair judgement and just fined him the $5512 as was previously done and then instituted some procedures for measuring the balls for all teams and all games rather than going for a draconian sentence.
-
The nfl will never fire goodell. They love him. Even kraft will forgive him. Even if you are horrible at your job and are the worst team in the nfl you will make tons of money as a nfl owner. Also the owners love that all the criticism goes to goodell and the criticism results in no lost money. We don't even know who most of the nfl owners are, when we criticize the nfl it's goodell we criticize and think of, not some owner we have never seen before, and the owners love it that way.
-
The nfl will never fire goodell. They love him. Even kraft will forgive him. Even if you are horrible at your job and are the worst team in the nfl you will make tons of money as a nfl owner. Also the owners love that all the criticism goes to goodell and the criticism results in no lost money. We don't even know who most of the nfl owners are, when we criticize the nfl it's goodell we criticize and think of, not some owner we have never seen before, and the owners love it that way.
yeah but the criticism of late has been the direct result of Goddell's actions and his bungling of some high profile cases.
-
The nfl will never fire goodell. They love him. Even kraft will forgive him. Even if you are horrible at your job and are the worst team in the nfl you will make tons of money as a nfl owner. Also the owners love that all the criticism goes to goodell and the criticism results in no lost money. We don't even know who most of the nfl owners are, when we criticize the nfl it's goodell we criticize and think of, not some owner we have never seen before, and the owners love it that way.
yeah but the criticism of late has been the direct result of Goddell's actions and his bungling of some high profile cases.
The owners run goodell, I'm sure they were calling the shots, and he gets all the criticism
-
A) The NFL isn't a progressive institution in any sense of the word. Their prime prerogative is to keep people from talking about the fact that the sport itself leaves its players maimed mentally and physically. If you're not talking about that, then they're fine. The worst thing coming down the pipeline in the future would be something that definitively links football to CTE. Anything else is secondary in concern -- they actually dont care about players beating up women: that's why Greg Hardy is serving 4 games, because there's no footage out there. Back to Ray Rice, because he's such a good example, he sold a lot of jerseys after he was booted, because people are stupid.
You mean the medical conclusions from the autopsies of one active and several former players weren't enough?!
I think it's going to play out similarly to tobacco companies and lung cancer -- but as soon as there's no doubt, the game is going to be impossible to insure at the Pop Warner/youth level, which will reallocate those athletes into other sports, which will cripple the game overall.
-
A) The NFL isn't a progressive institution in any sense of the word. Their prime prerogative is to keep people from talking about the fact that the sport itself leaves its players maimed mentally and physically. If you're not talking about that, then they're fine. The worst thing coming down the pipeline in the future would be something that definitively links football to CTE. Anything else is secondary in concern -- they actually dont care about players beating up women: that's why Greg Hardy is serving 4 games, because there's no footage out there. Back to Ray Rice, because he's such a good example, he sold a lot of jerseys after he was booted, because people are stupid.
You mean the medical conclusions from the autopsies of one active and several former players weren't enough?!
I think it's going to play out similarly to tobacco companies and lung cancer -- but as soon as there's no doubt, the game is going to be impossible to insure at the Pop Warner/youth level, which will reallocate those athletes into other sports, which will cripple the game overall.
I can't wait until the nfl crumbles.
-
NFL should have never targeted Brady with so little evidence of involvement. If Goodell would have looked at things independently letting all statements and testimony be viewed in a fairly manner he would have dropped the suspension himself in the apeal. Clearly Goodell had sided with the bad investigation and didn't give Brady's legal team a fair chance to prove innocence or doubt. It's one thing to let owners gang up on another owner on little proof because all they had to state is balls were under and your staff took balls where they weren't supposed to, gas law or not you are punished. They have no proof of actual wrong doing by Brady himself except a failure to provide phone texts which proves nothing in terms on involvement.
The punishment was almost certainly born out of Brady's alleged failure to cooperate, rather than his wrongdoing.
Which is why from the beginning Brady could have made this whole thing go away if he had said something like
"It is true that I prefer the footballs to be less inflated, but I have never directed anyone to have the footballs at any level that is not within the legal confines. If the footballs were lower than the legal limit, it was not my intent and I apologize if my preference for lower (but legal) inflated balls in any way contributed to the footballs being below the legal limits in the Colts game. I will cooperate fully with any NFL investigation into this issue."
You know and then he actually need to cooperate fully.
Goes away with a fine. The problem is the that is not the Patriot way.
Naive to think that is all he had to say to make this go away.
-
The nfl will never fire goodell. They love him. Even kraft will forgive him. Even if you are horrible at your job and are the worst team in the nfl you will make tons of money as a nfl owner. Also the owners love that all the criticism goes to goodell and the criticism results in no lost money. We don't even know who most of the nfl owners are, when we criticize the nfl it's goodell we criticize and think of, not some owner we have never seen before, and the owners love it that way.
yeah but the criticism of late has been the direct result of Goddell's actions and his bungling of some high profile cases.
The owners run goodell, I'm sure they were calling the shots, and he gets all the criticism
The owners don't love him so much as they are stuck with him at this point. I think SI had an article today that cited a $150M buyout clause in Goodells contract. So, he's not going anywhere.
-
150 million is not that big of deal in the NFL. It's about 3 years of his salary. If they want to get rid of him that won't stop them.
-
I'd love to have seen the negotiation between Goodell and the NFL owners. They offer 40 million a year and he insists on a multi-year deal with a 150M buyout clause.
Now if the NFL had said "sorry, just 1 year at a time" or " no buyout", goodell would have turned down the $40M? He had a better offer elsewhere?
-
That is an apples to chainsaws comparison, and I never said that Goodell was doing the best he can. I would suggest rereading my posts if that is the conclusion you drew from them.
I get it. But what's the point of going into the nuances of it all when clearly the NFL could do better?
We're not talking about a toll collector here where the standard might be that "he's not bad." We're talking about the leader of the most popular sport in America. If there are better people out there for the job, he should be canned regardless of mitigating factors.
You keep saying that there are better people out there for the job, but I remain unconvinced that in the present there is anyone more suited to the owner's purposes than Goodell. That's the disagreement, not that there wouldn't be better candidates in regards to merit or resume.
I think that what you guys are saying has a lot of merit in a vacuum, but I don't think the ownership is going to look that far into the future because, frankly, I don't think many of them are smart enough to do so/are too old to really care. You would need to see a few more owners that are Jed York's age before anything substantial shifted.
What is the benefit to the owners right now with respect to Deflategate?
There isn't any.
I think it's crazy to sit here and try to defend Goodell's course of action in this.
If he was truly a qualified commissioner he would have told the owners that this case is not the one to go to the wall on. His value to the owners is greater if he is able to offer wise judgement for situations like this and to orchestrate a better outcome for the NFL. This means that he needs to be his own man in the face of pressure from some of the owners.
To sit there and try to defend him as he's doing his job being a punching bag is, in my opinion, crazy.
-
That is an apples to chainsaws comparison, and I never said that Goodell was doing the best he can. I would suggest rereading my posts if that is the conclusion you drew from them.
I get it. But what's the point of going into the nuances of it all when clearly the NFL could do better?
We're not talking about a toll collector here where the standard might be that "he's not bad." We're talking about the leader of the most popular sport in America. If there are better people out there for the job, he should be canned regardless of mitigating factors.
You keep saying that there are better people out there for the job, but I remain unconvinced that in the present there is anyone more suited to the owner's purposes than Goodell. That's the disagreement, not that there wouldn't be better candidates in regards to merit or resume.
I think that what you guys are saying has a lot of merit in a vacuum, but I don't think the ownership is going to look that far into the future because, frankly, I don't think many of them are smart enough to do so/are too old to really care. You would need to see a few more owners that are Jed York's age before anything substantial shifted.
What is the benefit to the owners right now with respect to Deflategate?
There isn't any.
I think it's crazy to sit here and try to defend Goodell's course of action in this.
If he was truly a qualified commissioner he would have told the owners that this case is not the one to go to the wall on. His value to the owners is greater if he is able to offer wise judgement for situations like this and to orchestrate a better outcome for the NFL. This means that he needs to be his own man in the face of pressure from some of the owners.
To sit there and try to defend him as he's doing his job being a punching bag is, in my opinion, crazy.
The benefit has already been successfully accomplished. The NFL has totally distracted the media and fans from the real issues of domestic abuse and brain injuries , actually has managed to make most people forget about those issues. A complete win from their perspective.
-
That is an apples to chainsaws comparison, and I never said that Goodell was doing the best he can. I would suggest rereading my posts if that is the conclusion you drew from them.
I get it. But what's the point of going into the nuances of it all when clearly the NFL could do better?
We're not talking about a toll collector here where the standard might be that "he's not bad." We're talking about the leader of the most popular sport in America. If there are better people out there for the job, he should be canned regardless of mitigating factors.
You keep saying that there are better people out there for the job, but I remain unconvinced that in the present there is anyone more suited to the owner's purposes than Goodell. That's the disagreement, not that there wouldn't be better candidates in regards to merit or resume.
I think that what you guys are saying has a lot of merit in a vacuum, but I don't think the ownership is going to look that far into the future because, frankly, I don't think many of them are smart enough to do so/are too old to really care. You would need to see a few more owners that are Jed York's age before anything substantial shifted.
What is the benefit to the owners right now with respect to Deflategate?
There isn't any.
I think it's crazy to sit here and try to defend Goodell's course of action in this.
If he was truly a qualified commissioner he would have told the owners that this case is not the one to go to the wall on. His value to the owners is greater if he is able to offer wise judgement for situations like this and to orchestrate a better outcome for the NFL. This means that he needs to be his own man in the face of pressure from some of the owners.
To sit there and try to defend him as he's doing his job being a punching bag is, in my opinion, crazy.
The benefit has already been successfully accomplished. The NFL has totally distracted the media and fans from the real issues of domestic abuse and brain injuries , actually has managed to make most people forget about those issues. A complete win from their perspective.
Considering that Brady's harsh punishment has brought back how Goodell mishandled those situations, I don't think that's really accurate. He could've accomplished this same thing, and to a better degree, if he hadn't gone after Brady. Focus on the punishment for the Patriots and move on would've been the correct call from that perspective.
-
Looks like the NFL is now using ESPN (again). This time to leak "new" info regarding Spygate. Seems like the league is smarting from losing the Deflategate case. Ugh... this stuff will never end.
From PFT:
Report: Patriots’ Spygate cheating was widespread over many years
Posted by Michael David Smith on September 8, 2015, 9:16 AM EDT
Just days after Tom Brady’s Deflategate suspension was overturned, new attention is being given on the earlier Patriots cheating scandal, known as Spygate.
An ESPN Outside the Lines report, citing interviews with more than 90 sources around the NFL, says that the Spygate cheating lasted “at least 40 games over a period of several seasons from 2000 to 2007,” and that the league never fully investigated all the accusations against the team.
According to the report, the taping of opponents’ signals reached the point where the Patriots had diagrams of the stolen signals that they could use during games.
The report also says that other teams were much more upset about the Patriots’ cheating than they let on, because NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell convinced the rest of the league not to press the issue. Former Rams coach Mike Martz, whose team lost to the Patriots in Belichick’s first Super Bowl, said he was pressured by a “panicked” Goodell to issue a statement saying he was satisfied by the league’s investigation of the Patriots. Martz said he agreed to go along with Goodell’s request to issue a statement backing the league not because he was completely satisfied by the investigation, but because Goodell convinced Martz that a prolonged scandal could badly damage the league.
Anyone who thought the Deflategate ruling was going to end any talk of the Patriots cheating is sorely mistaken. Both Deflategate and Spygate are stories that will have legs.
-
Wow, I just saw that. Unbelievable. Way to go, NFL-ESPN. Ask Bill Cowler his thoughts. He laughs about Spy Gate. Says that every team was video taping and stealing hand signals. Ever team. Why do we see the coordinators cover their lips when barking out plays?? Yet not one word of this fact from the "breaking" ESPN story. This is pathetic. I really doubt Goodell is behind this story, though, because it makes him look bad, like a shill for the Pats back then.
-
So the NFL...cough...I mean ESPN is really going to dredge up something from 8 years ago that the organization was punished for?
Oh, and it comes up less than a week since the NFL got defeated in court involving a member from that same team in a different high profile controversy? C'mon.......
This just reeks of trying to save face or, even worse, a simple smear job. :P
-
So the NFL...cough...I mean ESPN is really going to dredge up something from 8 years ago that the organization was punished for?
Oh, and it comes up less than a week since the NFL got defeated in court involving a member from that same team in a different high profile controversy? C'mon.......
This just reeks of trying to save face or, even worse, a simple smear job. :P
No question it does that, but it also might answer the question as to why the NFL came down so hard on the Patriots for some deflated footballs. I mean that is a pretty common theme throughout this thread, why punish the Patriots so harshly for something that other teams get a slap on the wrist for? Well now you have your answer, those other teams weren't undergoing widespread cheating for years.
The Patriots have always played fast and loose with the rules, so any rule violation, no matter how minor, is going to be looked at differently with the Patriots than any other organization. It is the whole live by the sword die by the sword mentality. when you skirt the line, you had better [dang] well make sure you don't cross it.
-
Correct me if I am wrong, but filming opponents was never illegal in the NFL, as long as it happens from a booth and not from the field.
-
Looks like the NFL is now using ESPN (again). This time to leak "new" info regarding Spygate. Seems like the league is smarting from losing the Deflategate case. Ugh... this stuff will never end.
It seems the author was on Mike and Mike today talking about this magnificent piece of investigative journalism.
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/13533995/split-nfl-new-england-patriots-apart
-
Looks like the NFL is now using ESPN (again). This time to leak "new" info regarding Spygate. Seems like the league is smarting from losing the Deflategate case. Ugh... this stuff will never end.
It seems the author was on Mike and Mike today talking about this magnificent piece of investigative journalism.
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/13533995/split-nfl-new-england-patriots-apart
Btw, Goodell comes across pretty awful in that piece. Not exactly glowing stuff on the NFL's part there.
-
Looks like the NFL is now using ESPN (again). This time to leak "new" info regarding Spygate. Seems like the league is smarting from losing the Deflategate case. Ugh... this stuff will never end.
It seems the author was on Mike and Mike today talking about this magnificent piece of investigative journalism.
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/13533995/split-nfl-new-england-patriots-apart
Btw, Goodell comes across pretty awful in that piece. Not exactly glowing stuff on the NFL's part there.
I think we've reached a general agreement that this whole thing was driven by Vincent and/or Kensil and/or Pash and/or a group of highly motivated owners.
Those people would have no issue leaking something that makes Goodell look bad.
-
So the NFL...cough...I mean ESPN is really going to dredge up something from 8 years ago that the organization was punished for?
Oh, and it comes up less than a week since the NFL got defeated in court involving a member from that same team in a different high profile controversy? C'mon.......
This just reeks of trying to save face or, even worse, a simple smear job. :P
No question it does that, but it also might answer the question as to why the NFL came down so hard on the Patriots for some deflated footballs. I mean that is a pretty common theme throughout this thread, why punish the Patriots so harshly for something that other teams get a slap on the wrist for? Well now you have your answer, those other teams weren't undergoing widespread cheating for years.
The Patriots have always played fast and loose with the rules, so any rule violation, no matter how minor, is going to be looked at differently with the Patriots than any other organization. It is the whole live by the sword die by the sword mentality. when you skirt the line, you had better [dang] well make sure you don't cross it.
You are completely ignoring the fact that Bill Cowler, coach of the Pittsburgh Steelers during the period all of this time during which video taping occurred, says that every team was doing this. Why don't you acknoweledge this? What does Cowler have to gain by making his observation? And certainly he is quailifed to make it, he coached one of our biggest competitiors vying for Super Bowls during that era.
-
So the NFL...cough...I mean ESPN is really going to dredge up something from 8 years ago that the organization was punished for?
Oh, and it comes up less than a week since the NFL got defeated in court involving a member from that same team in a different high profile controversy? C'mon.......
This just reeks of trying to save face or, even worse, a simple smear job. :P
No question it does that, but it also might answer the question as to why the NFL came down so hard on the Patriots for some deflated footballs. I mean that is a pretty common theme throughout this thread, why punish the Patriots so harshly for something that other teams get a slap on the wrist for? Well now you have your answer, those other teams weren't undergoing widespread cheating for years.
The Patriots have always played fast and loose with the rules, so any rule violation, no matter how minor, is going to be looked at differently with the Patriots than any other organization. It is the whole live by the sword die by the sword mentality. when you skirt the line, you had better [dang] well make sure you don't cross it.
You are completely ignoring the fact that Bill Cowler, coach of the Pittsburgh Steelers during the period all of this time during which video taping occurred, says that every team was doing this. Why don't you acknoweledge this? What does Cowler have to gain by making his observation? And certainly he is quailifed to make it, he coached one of our biggest competitiors vying for Super Bowls during that era.
stealing signals and illegally videotaping aren't the same thing. The Steelers never illegally videotaped.
-
"Then the Patriots' coach, Bill Belichick, the cheating program's mastermind, spoke."
High quality journalism right there.
When will ESPN be releasing the other 31 articles detailing the exploits of the rest of the NFL franchises over the past 15 years?
-
When will ESPN be releasing the other 31 articles detailing the exploits of the rest of the NFL franchises over the past 15 years?
You misspelled "fierce competitiveness". :P
-
What? We need something to cover two more days? Ok, got it.
-
Does ESPN ever expect to have any access to the Patriots going forward? Between the Deflategate mess & this, why would anyone from the Pats deal with that network?
-
What? We need something to cover two more days? Ok, got it.
;D
-
Does ESPN ever expect to have any access to the Patriots going forward? Between the Deflategate mess & this, why would anyone from the Pats deal with that network?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/sports/football/espn-extends-deal-with-nfl-for-15-billion.html?_r=0
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-08-27/why-does-espn-pay-four-times-more-for-nfl-games-than-nbc-cbs-and-fox
-
Simmons is having a field day with this piece.
-
So the NFL...cough...I mean ESPN is really going to dredge up something from 8 years ago that the organization was punished for?
Oh, and it comes up less than a week since the NFL got defeated in court involving a member from that same team in a different high profile controversy? C'mon.......
This just reeks of trying to save face or, even worse, a simple smear job. :P
No question it does that, but it also might answer the question as to why the NFL came down so hard on the Patriots for some deflated footballs. I mean that is a pretty common theme throughout this thread, why punish the Patriots so harshly for something that other teams get a slap on the wrist for? Well now you have your answer, those other teams weren't undergoing widespread cheating for years.
The Patriots have always played fast and loose with the rules, so any rule violation, no matter how minor, is going to be looked at differently with the Patriots than any other organization. It is the whole live by the sword die by the sword mentality. when you skirt the line, you had better [dang] well make sure you don't cross it.
You are completely ignoring the fact that Bill Cowler, coach of the Pittsburgh Steelers during the period all of this time during which video taping occurred, says that every team was doing this. Why don't you acknoweledge this? What does Cowler have to gain by making his observation? And certainly he is quailifed to make it, he coached one of our biggest competitiors vying for Super Bowls during that era.
stealing signals and illegally videotaping aren't the same thing. The Steelers never illegally videotaped.
Every team was video taping signals from 2001 through 2006. Every team. That is what Cowler said. The ESPN article (and you) mislead others by saying only the Patriots were doing this. This widespread practice caused the NFL sent out a memo to teams saying that they must stop it. Belichick disingenuously interpreted the memo by claiming it only applied to real time usage, and in so doing, was reprimanded (I would argue, severely) for this in 2007. Do you really want to continue to claim that other teams were not video taping other team's signal calling during 2001-06?
-
Just curious, can anyone account for Belichick's whereabouts on November 22, 1963?
Mike
-
So the NFL...cough...I mean ESPN is really going to dredge up something from 8 years ago that the organization was punished for?
Oh, and it comes up less than a week since the NFL got defeated in court involving a member from that same team in a different high profile controversy? C'mon.......
This just reeks of trying to save face or, even worse, a simple smear job. :P
No question it does that, but it also might answer the question as to why the NFL came down so hard on the Patriots for some deflated footballs. I mean that is a pretty common theme throughout this thread, why punish the Patriots so harshly for something that other teams get a slap on the wrist for? Well now you have your answer, those other teams weren't undergoing widespread cheating for years.
The Patriots have always played fast and loose with the rules, so any rule violation, no matter how minor, is going to be looked at differently with the Patriots than any other organization. It is the whole live by the sword die by the sword mentality. when you skirt the line, you had better [dang] well make sure you don't cross it.
You are completely ignoring the fact that Bill Cowler, coach of the Pittsburgh Steelers during the period all of this time during which video taping occurred, says that every team was doing this. Why don't you acknoweledge this? What does Cowler have to gain by making his observation? And certainly he is quailifed to make it, he coached one of our biggest competitiors vying for Super Bowls during that era.
stealing signals and illegally videotaping aren't the same thing. The Steelers never illegally videotaped.
Every team was video taping signals from 2001 through 2006. Every team. That is what Cowler said. The ESPN article (and you) mislead others by saying only the Patriots were doing this. This widespread practice caused the NFL sent out a memo to teams saying that they must stop it. Belichick disingenuously interpreted the memo by claiming it only applied to real time usage, and in so doing, was reprimanded (I would argue, severely) for this in 2007. Do you really want to continue to claim that other teams were not video taping other team's signal calling during 2001-06?
This was common practice league wide since the mid 80s. And they weren't being sneaky about it. The guy had a large camera and was in full view of the refs, league officials, and opposing players and coaches. Belichick was arrogant and ignored the memo as he felt he had a better understanding of the rule than the commissioner. All he had to do was move the cameraman off the sidelines to a designated area for filming. Belichick should have been punished and he was, but it's much ado about nothing. The Patriots went on to win 17 straight games after stopping the practice.
-
Even more evidence that ESPN is simply a shill for the NFL
-
So the NFL...cough...I mean ESPN is really going to dredge up something from 8 years ago that the organization was punished for?
Oh, and it comes up less than a week since the NFL got defeated in court involving a member from that same team in a different high profile controversy? C'mon.......
This just reeks of trying to save face or, even worse, a simple smear job. :P
No question it does that, but it also might answer the question as to why the NFL came down so hard on the Patriots for some deflated footballs. I mean that is a pretty common theme throughout this thread, why punish the Patriots so harshly for something that other teams get a slap on the wrist for? Well now you have your answer, those other teams weren't undergoing widespread cheating for years.
The Patriots have always played fast and loose with the rules, so any rule violation, no matter how minor, is going to be looked at differently with the Patriots than any other organization. It is the whole live by the sword die by the sword mentality. when you skirt the line, you had better [dang] well make sure you don't cross it.
You are completely ignoring the fact that Bill Cowler, coach of the Pittsburgh Steelers during the period all of this time during which video taping occurred, says that every team was doing this. Why don't you acknoweledge this? What does Cowler have to gain by making his observation? And certainly he is quailifed to make it, he coached one of our biggest competitiors vying for Super Bowls during that era.
stealing signals and illegally videotaping aren't the same thing. The Steelers never illegally videotaped.
Every team was video taping signals from 2001 through 2006. Every team. That is what Cowler said. The ESPN article (and you) mislead others by saying only the Patriots were doing this. This widespread practice caused the NFL sent out a memo to teams saying that they must stop it. Belichick disingenuously interpreted the memo by claiming it only applied to real time usage, and in so doing, was reprimanded (I would argue, severely) for this in 2007. Do you really want to continue to claim that other teams were not video taping other team's signal calling during 2001-06?
except Cowher didn't actually say that. He said
“The only thing they got caught (was) doing it with a camera,” Cowher said, referring to the Patriots. “We had people that always tried to steal signals. Stealing someone’s signals was a part of the game, and everyone attempted to do that.”
According to Cowher, his team used wristbands to try to identify opponents’ verbal signals that were being yelled out on the field.
But hey, let's not let facts get in the way.
-
Even more evidence that ESPN is simply a shill for the NFL
I'm not sure this is even it. That article was as hard on Goodell as it was the Patriots - it painted him as a power-hungry, incompetent snake who cares more about perception than truth.
I honestly think it was just written for page views from 31 angry fanbases who are angry at the Patriots and Goodell regarding Deflategate. It was also written with seemingly very little understanding of what Spygate was and why the Patriots were punished. Unfortunately, this will be effective. Most fans are looking for support for their preconceived bias, not truth - and this article feeds perfectly into that. If an unnamed source's close friend says they videotaped the 2002 Rams' pre-SB walkthrough, then that's as good as fact, right?
-
So the NFL...cough...I mean ESPN is really going to dredge up something from 8 years ago that the organization was punished for?
Oh, and it comes up less than a week since the NFL got defeated in court involving a member from that same team in a different high profile controversy? C'mon.......
This just reeks of trying to save face or, even worse, a simple smear job. :P
No question it does that, but it also might answer the question as to why the NFL came down so hard on the Patriots for some deflated footballs. I mean that is a pretty common theme throughout this thread, why punish the Patriots so harshly for something that other teams get a slap on the wrist for? Well now you have your answer, those other teams weren't undergoing widespread cheating for years.
The Patriots have always played fast and loose with the rules, so any rule violation, no matter how minor, is going to be looked at differently with the Patriots than any other organization. It is the whole live by the sword die by the sword mentality. when you skirt the line, you had better [dang] well make sure you don't cross it.
You are completely ignoring the fact that Bill Cowler, coach of the Pittsburgh Steelers during the period all of this time during which video taping occurred, says that every team was doing this. Why don't you acknoweledge this? What does Cowler have to gain by making his observation? And certainly he is quailifed to make it, he coached one of our biggest competitiors vying for Super Bowls during that era.
stealing signals and illegally videotaping aren't the same thing. The Steelers never illegally videotaped.
Every team was video taping signals from 2001 through 2006. Every team. That is what Cowler said. The ESPN article (and you) mislead others by saying only the Patriots were doing this. This widespread practice caused the NFL sent out a memo to teams saying that they must stop it. Belichick disingenuously interpreted the memo by claiming it only applied to real time usage, and in so doing, was reprimanded (I would argue, severely) for this in 2007. Do you really want to continue to claim that other teams were not video taping other team's signal calling during 2001-06?
This was common practice league wide since the mid 80s. And they weren't being sneaky about it. The guy had a large camera and was in full view of the refs, league officials, and opposing players and coaches. Belichick was arrogant and ignored the memo as he felt he had a better understanding of the rule than the commissioner. All he had to do was move the cameraman off the sidelines to a designated area for filming. Belichick should have been punished and he was, but it's much ado about nothing. The Patriots went on to win 17 straight games after stopping the practice.
You actually were not allowed to video tape signals. Doesn't matter where the camera was, you weren't allowed to do it. Period. That is why the punishment was fairly severe, if it has just been a case where a guy was in the wrong spot, you don't see that punishment.
-
Even more evidence that ESPN is simply a shill for the NFL
I'm not sure this is even it. That article was as hard on Goodell as it was the Patriots - it painted him as a power-hungry, incompetent snake who cares more about perception than truth.
This article was put out there by owners unhappy with the fact that the Patriots haven't gotten their "comeuppance." Equally frustrated by Goodell's inability to truly punish the Pats as they are with the Pats' ability to "get away with" cheating.
-
Just curious, can anyone account for Belichick's whereabouts on November 22, 1963?
Mike
LOL. TP.
-
I'm fairly certain ESPN posted that because a lot of people keep asking the question, why come down so hard on the Patriots for something pretty minor and with flimsy evidence. The article clearly answers that question.
-
So the NFL...cough...I mean ESPN is really going to dredge up something from 8 years ago that the organization was punished for?
Oh, and it comes up less than a week since the NFL got defeated in court involving a member from that same team in a different high profile controversy? C'mon.......
This just reeks of trying to save face or, even worse, a simple smear job. :P
No question it does that, but it also might answer the question as to why the NFL came down so hard on the Patriots for some deflated footballs. I mean that is a pretty common theme throughout this thread, why punish the Patriots so harshly for something that other teams get a slap on the wrist for? Well now you have your answer, those other teams weren't undergoing widespread cheating for years.
The Patriots have always played fast and loose with the rules, so any rule violation, no matter how minor, is going to be looked at differently with the Patriots than any other organization. It is the whole live by the sword die by the sword mentality. when you skirt the line, you had better [dang] well make sure you don't cross it.
You are completely ignoring the fact that Bill Cowler, coach of the Pittsburgh Steelers during the period all of this time during which video taping occurred, says that every team was doing this. Why don't you acknoweledge this? What does Cowler have to gain by making his observation? And certainly he is quailifed to make it, he coached one of our biggest competitiors vying for Super Bowls during that era.
stealing signals and illegally videotaping aren't the same thing. The Steelers never illegally videotaped.
Every team was video taping signals from 2001 through 2006. Every team. That is what Cowler said. The ESPN article (and you) mislead others by saying only the Patriots were doing this. This widespread practice caused the NFL sent out a memo to teams saying that they must stop it. Belichick disingenuously interpreted the memo by claiming it only applied to real time usage, and in so doing, was reprimanded (I would argue, severely) for this in 2007. Do you really want to continue to claim that other teams were not video taping other team's signal calling during 2001-06?
except Cowher didn't actually say that. He said
“The only thing they got caught (was) doing it with a camera,” Cowher said, referring to the Patriots. “We had people that always tried to steal signals. Stealing someone’s signals was a part of the game, and everyone attempted to do that.”
According to Cowher, his team used wristbands to try to identify opponents’ verbal signals that were being yelled out on the field.
But hey, let's not let facts get in the way.
Ethically speaking, I don't see any difference. Either way, you're "stealing" signals—which, for the record, I think is fine; I don't think there should be some "unwritten rule" (as there seems to be in baseball, too) where teams can openly give signals but opponents are supposed to, what? Look away? It's stupid. Of course teams are going to try to figure out the opposition, and they should be able to try to do that.
I'm guessing that Belichick looks at some of these rules, sees the lack of logic behind them, and figures, "Ah, what the heck, let's give this a shot." And I completely agree. There's no ethical difference between seeing signals and taping them. Both are examples of "stealing" signals. But if you're going to rely on signals that opponents can see, it's your own dang fault if they get "stolen." Similarly, what's the logic of the NFL's psi range of 12.5 to 13.5 (or whatever it is precisely)? Why not 12.4? Or 13.7? Or 12, or 14? Is there science behind that? Seems arbitrary to me.
Besides all this, if Belichick and/or the Patriots weren't punished severely enough for some folks' liking, that's Goodell's fault. And when are people going to realize that NE was just as successful (maybe more so) after Spygate as before? Just like they were more successful against the Colts in the second half with "legit" footballs.
-
So the NFL...cough...I mean ESPN is really going to dredge up something from 8 years ago that the organization was punished for?
Oh, and it comes up less than a week since the NFL got defeated in court involving a member from that same team in a different high profile controversy? C'mon.......
This just reeks of trying to save face or, even worse, a simple smear job. :P
No question it does that, but it also might answer the question as to why the NFL came down so hard on the Patriots for some deflated footballs. I mean that is a pretty common theme throughout this thread, why punish the Patriots so harshly for something that other teams get a slap on the wrist for? Well now you have your answer, those other teams weren't undergoing widespread cheating for years.
The Patriots have always played fast and loose with the rules, so any rule violation, no matter how minor, is going to be looked at differently with the Patriots than any other organization. It is the whole live by the sword die by the sword mentality. when you skirt the line, you had better [dang] well make sure you don't cross it.
You are completely ignoring the fact that Bill Cowler, coach of the Pittsburgh Steelers during the period all of this time during which video taping occurred, says that every team was doing this. Why don't you acknoweledge this? What does Cowler have to gain by making his observation? And certainly he is quailifed to make it, he coached one of our biggest competitiors vying for Super Bowls during that era.
stealing signals and illegally videotaping aren't the same thing. The Steelers never illegally videotaped.
Every team was video taping signals from 2001 through 2006. Every team. That is what Cowler said. The ESPN article (and you) mislead others by saying only the Patriots were doing this. This widespread practice caused the NFL sent out a memo to teams saying that they must stop it. Belichick disingenuously interpreted the memo by claiming it only applied to real time usage, and in so doing, was reprimanded (I would argue, severely) for this in 2007. Do you really want to continue to claim that other teams were not video taping other team's signal calling during 2001-06?
This was common practice league wide since the mid 80s. And they weren't being sneaky about it. The guy had a large camera and was in full view of the refs, league officials, and opposing players and coaches. Belichick was arrogant and ignored the memo as he felt he had a better understanding of the rule than the commissioner. All he had to do was move the cameraman off the sidelines to a designated area for filming. Belichick should have been punished and he was, but it's much ado about nothing. The Patriots went on to win 17 straight games after stopping the practice.
You actually were not allowed to video tape signals. Doesn't matter where the camera was, you weren't allowed to do it. Period. That is why the punishment was fairly severe, if it has just been a case where a guy was in the wrong spot, you don't see that punishment.
"Videotaping opposing coaches is not illegal in the NFL but there are designated areas allowed by the league to do such taping." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_New_England_Patriots_videotaping_controversy
"COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT SPYGATE
YOU'RE WRONG IF YOU THINK: Filming you opponents' signals is prohibited by the league and is therefore a serious cheating infraction.
REALITY: Filming your opponents' signals is -- and always has been -- completely legal, even today. After a league memo to all clubs in 2006, however, you can't do it from a location where the team could potentially use it during the same game.
As Coach Bill Belichick noted in 2015, 80,000 people can see his team's defensive signals: millions more if a TV camera pans by them. The signals are not meant to be hidden, just as in baseball a third-base coach's signals are not meant to be hidden. They should, however, be properly encrypted, but that is the signaling team's responsibility.
Every single NFL team films every single game they play from multiple angles. As they do this, are they supposed to locate and black out the one part of the stadium where the defensive coach is? Should it be a roaming dot if he moves? Obviously not, because the sidelines are just another part of the larger football field and game."
http://yourteamcheats.com/what-is-spygate
-
So the NFL...cough...I mean ESPN is really going to dredge up something from 8 years ago that the organization was punished for?
Oh, and it comes up less than a week since the NFL got defeated in court involving a member from that same team in a different high profile controversy? C'mon.......
This just reeks of trying to save face or, even worse, a simple smear job. :P
No question it does that, but it also might answer the question as to why the NFL came down so hard on the Patriots for some deflated footballs. I mean that is a pretty common theme throughout this thread, why punish the Patriots so harshly for something that other teams get a slap on the wrist for? Well now you have your answer, those other teams weren't undergoing widespread cheating for years.
The Patriots have always played fast and loose with the rules, so any rule violation, no matter how minor, is going to be looked at differently with the Patriots than any other organization. It is the whole live by the sword die by the sword mentality. when you skirt the line, you had better [dang] well make sure you don't cross it.
You are completely ignoring the fact that Bill Cowler, coach of the Pittsburgh Steelers during the period all of this time during which video taping occurred, says that every team was doing this. Why don't you acknoweledge this? What does Cowler have to gain by making his observation? And certainly he is quailifed to make it, he coached one of our biggest competitiors vying for Super Bowls during that era.
stealing signals and illegally videotaping aren't the same thing. The Steelers never illegally videotaped.
Every team was video taping signals from 2001 through 2006. Every team. That is what Cowler said. The ESPN article (and you) mislead others by saying only the Patriots were doing this. This widespread practice caused the NFL sent out a memo to teams saying that they must stop it. Belichick disingenuously interpreted the memo by claiming it only applied to real time usage, and in so doing, was reprimanded (I would argue, severely) for this in 2007. Do you really want to continue to claim that other teams were not video taping other team's signal calling during 2001-06?
This was common practice league wide since the mid 80s. And they weren't being sneaky about it. The guy had a large camera and was in full view of the refs, league officials, and opposing players and coaches. Belichick was arrogant and ignored the memo as he felt he had a better understanding of the rule than the commissioner. All he had to do was move the cameraman off the sidelines to a designated area for filming. Belichick should have been punished and he was, but it's much ado about nothing. The Patriots went on to win 17 straight games after stopping the practice.
You actually were not allowed to video tape signals. Doesn't matter where the camera was, you weren't allowed to do it. Period. That is why the punishment was fairly severe, if it has just been a case where a guy was in the wrong spot, you don't see that punishment.
"Videotaping opposing coaches is not illegal in the NFL but there are designated areas allowed by the league to do such taping." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_New_England_Patriots_videotaping_controversy
"COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT SPYGATE
YOU'RE WRONG IF YOU THINK: Filming you opponents' signals is prohibited by the league and is therefore a serious cheating infraction.
REALITY: Filming your opponents' signals is -- and always has been -- completely legal, even today. After a league memo to all clubs in 2006, however, you can't do it from a location where the team could potentially use it during the same game.
As Coach Bill Belichick noted in 2015, 80,000 people can see his team's defensive signals: millions more if a TV camera pans by them. The signals are not meant to be hidden, just as in baseball a third-base coach's signals are not meant to be hidden. They should, however, be properly encrypted, but that is the signaling team's responsibility.
Every single NFL team films every single game they play from multiple angles. As they do this, are they supposed to locate and black out the one part of the stadium where the defensive coach is? Should it be a roaming dot if he moves? Obviously not, because the sidelines are just another part of the larger football field and game."
http://yourteamcheats.com/what-is-spygate
Good point. As I said just a couple posts above, I see no ethical difference between seeing and taping signals. And it's unreasonable to expect people to look away when opponents are giving signals. And the whole deal with "It's okay to tape from spot X but not spot Y" is just silly. Makes no sense. Just like it makes no sense to say 12.5psi is okay but 12.4psi is illegal. Why? Is there really a difference? No, of course not. So many unreasonable expectations and so many people on power trips (*cough*Goodell*cough*). Nearly everything the Patriots do is wrong, we're told, and all other teams are squeaky clean—even though they're using stickum on gloves, silicone on jerseys, PEDs, and heating footballs on the sidelines. SMH.
-
IMO, a big part of the problem there was that the league had sent out a memo about videotaping and Belichick sorta just thumbed his nose at it. Didn't exactly endear himself to the league there.
-
So the NFL...cough...I mean ESPN is really going to dredge up something from 8 years ago that the organization was punished for?
Oh, and it comes up less than a week since the NFL got defeated in court involving a member from that same team in a different high profile controversy? C'mon.......
This just reeks of trying to save face or, even worse, a simple smear job. :P
No question it does that, but it also might answer the question as to why the NFL came down so hard on the Patriots for some deflated footballs. I mean that is a pretty common theme throughout this thread, why punish the Patriots so harshly for something that other teams get a slap on the wrist for? Well now you have your answer, those other teams weren't undergoing widespread cheating for years.
The Patriots have always played fast and loose with the rules, so any rule violation, no matter how minor, is going to be looked at differently with the Patriots than any other organization. It is the whole live by the sword die by the sword mentality. when you skirt the line, you had better [dang] well make sure you don't cross it.
You are completely ignoring the fact that Bill Cowler, coach of the Pittsburgh Steelers during the period all of this time during which video taping occurred, says that every team was doing this. Why don't you acknoweledge this? What does Cowler have to gain by making his observation? And certainly he is quailifed to make it, he coached one of our biggest competitiors vying for Super Bowls during that era.
stealing signals and illegally videotaping aren't the same thing. The Steelers never illegally videotaped.
Every team was video taping signals from 2001 through 2006. Every team. That is what Cowler said. The ESPN article (and you) mislead others by saying only the Patriots were doing this. This widespread practice caused the NFL sent out a memo to teams saying that they must stop it. Belichick disingenuously interpreted the memo by claiming it only applied to real time usage, and in so doing, was reprimanded (I would argue, severely) for this in 2007. Do you really want to continue to claim that other teams were not video taping other team's signal calling during 2001-06?
This was common practice league wide since the mid 80s. And they weren't being sneaky about it. The guy had a large camera and was in full view of the refs, league officials, and opposing players and coaches. Belichick was arrogant and ignored the memo as he felt he had a better understanding of the rule than the commissioner. All he had to do was move the cameraman off the sidelines to a designated area for filming. Belichick should have been punished and he was, but it's much ado about nothing. The Patriots went on to win 17 straight games after stopping the practice.
You actually were not allowed to video tape signals. Doesn't matter where the camera was, you weren't allowed to do it. Period. That is why the punishment was fairly severe, if it has just been a case where a guy was in the wrong spot, you don't see that punishment.
"Videotaping opposing coaches is not illegal in the NFL but there are designated areas allowed by the league to do such taping." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_New_England_Patriots_videotaping_controversy
"COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT SPYGATE
YOU'RE WRONG IF YOU THINK: Filming you opponents' signals is prohibited by the league and is therefore a serious cheating infraction.
REALITY: Filming your opponents' signals is -- and always has been -- completely legal, even today. After a league memo to all clubs in 2006, however, you can't do it from a location where the team could potentially use it during the same game.
As Coach Bill Belichick noted in 2015, 80,000 people can see his team's defensive signals: millions more if a TV camera pans by them. The signals are not meant to be hidden, just as in baseball a third-base coach's signals are not meant to be hidden. They should, however, be properly encrypted, but that is the signaling team's responsibility.
Every single NFL team films every single game they play from multiple angles. As they do this, are they supposed to locate and black out the one part of the stadium where the defensive coach is? Should it be a roaming dot if he moves? Obviously not, because the sidelines are just another part of the larger football field and game."
http://yourteamcheats.com/what-is-spygate
This is from the league directive sent in 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.''
So you can't tape signals from anywhere in the stadium during the game, which is basically what I said. You should never rely on Wikipedia for your information.
-
So the NFL...cough...I mean ESPN is really going to dredge up something from 8 years ago that the organization was punished for?
Oh, and it comes up less than a week since the NFL got defeated in court involving a member from that same team in a different high profile controversy? C'mon.......
This just reeks of trying to save face or, even worse, a simple smear job. :P
No question it does that, but it also might answer the question as to why the NFL came down so hard on the Patriots for some deflated footballs. I mean that is a pretty common theme throughout this thread, why punish the Patriots so harshly for something that other teams get a slap on the wrist for? Well now you have your answer, those other teams weren't undergoing widespread cheating for years.
The Patriots have always played fast and loose with the rules, so any rule violation, no matter how minor, is going to be looked at differently with the Patriots than any other organization. It is the whole live by the sword die by the sword mentality. when you skirt the line, you had better [dang] well make sure you don't cross it.
You are completely ignoring the fact that Bill Cowler, coach of the Pittsburgh Steelers during the period all of this time during which video taping occurred, says that every team was doing this. Why don't you acknoweledge this? What does Cowler have to gain by making his observation? And certainly he is quailifed to make it, he coached one of our biggest competitiors vying for Super Bowls during that era.
stealing signals and illegally videotaping aren't the same thing. The Steelers never illegally videotaped.
Every team was video taping signals from 2001 through 2006. Every team. That is what Cowler said. The ESPN article (and you) mislead others by saying only the Patriots were doing this. This widespread practice caused the NFL sent out a memo to teams saying that they must stop it. Belichick disingenuously interpreted the memo by claiming it only applied to real time usage, and in so doing, was reprimanded (I would argue, severely) for this in 2007. Do you really want to continue to claim that other teams were not video taping other team's signal calling during 2001-06?
except Cowher didn't actually say that. He said
“The only thing they got caught (was) doing it with a camera,” Cowher said, referring to the Patriots. “We had people that always tried to steal signals. Stealing someone’s signals was a part of the game, and everyone attempted to do that.”
According to Cowher, his team used wristbands to try to identify opponents’ verbal signals that were being yelled out on the field.
But hey, let's not let facts get in the way.
Ethically speaking, I don't see any difference. Either way, you're "stealing" signals—which, for the record, I think is fine; I don't think there should be some "unwritten rule" (as there seems to be in baseball, too) where teams can openly give signals but opponents are supposed to, what? Look away? It's stupid. Of course teams are going to try to figure out the opposition, and they should be able to try to do that.
I'm guessing that Belichick looks at some of these rules, sees the lack of logic behind them, and figures, "Ah, what the heck, let's give this a shot." And I completely agree. There's no ethical difference between seeing signals and taping them. Both are examples of "stealing" signals. But if you're going to rely on signals that opponents can see, it's your own dang fault if they get "stolen." Similarly, what's the logic of the NFL's psi range of 12.5 to 13.5 (or whatever it is precisely)? Why not 12.4? Or 13.7? Or 12, or 14? Is there science behind that? Seems arbitrary to me.
Besides all this, if Belichick and/or the Patriots weren't punished severely enough for some folks' liking, that's Goodell's fault. And when are people going to realize that NE was just as successful (maybe more so) after Spygate as before? Just like they were more successful against the Colts in the second half with "legit" footballs.
There is a fairly big difference between taping signals and just observing signals. One allows you to watch it over and over again to learn patterns, one does not. That is why the rule is in place and that is why "stealing signals" is a lot different than "taping signals". One is against the rules and one is not.
-
Hey NFL, why don't you do a probe into this if you are so concerned about competitive advantages....
starts at the 2:06 mark
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0Fzg5RB0e4
-
So the NFL...cough...I mean ESPN is really going to dredge up something from 8 years ago that the organization was punished for?
Oh, and it comes up less than a week since the NFL got defeated in court involving a member from that same team in a different high profile controversy? C'mon.......
This just reeks of trying to save face or, even worse, a simple smear job. :P
No question it does that, but it also might answer the question as to why the NFL came down so hard on the Patriots for some deflated footballs. I mean that is a pretty common theme throughout this thread, why punish the Patriots so harshly for something that other teams get a slap on the wrist for? Well now you have your answer, those other teams weren't undergoing widespread cheating for years.
The Patriots have always played fast and loose with the rules, so any rule violation, no matter how minor, is going to be looked at differently with the Patriots than any other organization. It is the whole live by the sword die by the sword mentality. when you skirt the line, you had better [dang] well make sure you don't cross it.
You are completely ignoring the fact that Bill Cowler, coach of the Pittsburgh Steelers during the period all of this time during which video taping occurred, says that every team was doing this. Why don't you acknoweledge this? What does Cowler have to gain by making his observation? And certainly he is quailifed to make it, he coached one of our biggest competitiors vying for Super Bowls during that era.
stealing signals and illegally videotaping aren't the same thing. The Steelers never illegally videotaped.
Every team was video taping signals from 2001 through 2006. Every team. That is what Cowler said. The ESPN article (and you) mislead others by saying only the Patriots were doing this. This widespread practice caused the NFL sent out a memo to teams saying that they must stop it. Belichick disingenuously interpreted the memo by claiming it only applied to real time usage, and in so doing, was reprimanded (I would argue, severely) for this in 2007. Do you really want to continue to claim that other teams were not video taping other team's signal calling during 2001-06?
This was common practice league wide since the mid 80s. And they weren't being sneaky about it. The guy had a large camera and was in full view of the refs, league officials, and opposing players and coaches. Belichick was arrogant and ignored the memo as he felt he had a better understanding of the rule than the commissioner. All he had to do was move the cameraman off the sidelines to a designated area for filming. Belichick should have been punished and he was, but it's much ado about nothing. The Patriots went on to win 17 straight games after stopping the practice.
You actually were not allowed to video tape signals. Doesn't matter where the camera was, you weren't allowed to do it. Period. That is why the punishment was fairly severe, if it has just been a case where a guy was in the wrong spot, you don't see that punishment.
"Videotaping opposing coaches is not illegal in the NFL but there are designated areas allowed by the league to do such taping." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_New_England_Patriots_videotaping_controversy
"COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT SPYGATE
YOU'RE WRONG IF YOU THINK: Filming you opponents' signals is prohibited by the league and is therefore a serious cheating infraction.
REALITY: Filming your opponents' signals is -- and always has been -- completely legal, even today. After a league memo to all clubs in 2006, however, you can't do it from a location where the team could potentially use it during the same game.
As Coach Bill Belichick noted in 2015, 80,000 people can see his team's defensive signals: millions more if a TV camera pans by them. The signals are not meant to be hidden, just as in baseball a third-base coach's signals are not meant to be hidden. They should, however, be properly encrypted, but that is the signaling team's responsibility.
Every single NFL team films every single game they play from multiple angles. As they do this, are they supposed to locate and black out the one part of the stadium where the defensive coach is? Should it be a roaming dot if he moves? Obviously not, because the sidelines are just another part of the larger football field and game."
http://yourteamcheats.com/what-is-spygate
This is from the league directive sent in 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.''
So you can't tape signals from anywhere in the stadium during the game, which is basically what I said. You should never rely on Wikipedia for your information.
You are not reading closely enough. It is not allowed where it can be accessed by the team to use in the game which is what you quoted says. There are, however, designated locations for filming where it is allowed.
This has been sitting on Wikipedia's website for nearly 8 years and the NFL has never attempted to correct it and that is because it is correct.
-
So the NFL...cough...I mean ESPN is really going to dredge up something from 8 years ago that the organization was punished for?
Oh, and it comes up less than a week since the NFL got defeated in court involving a member from that same team in a different high profile controversy? C'mon.......
This just reeks of trying to save face or, even worse, a simple smear job. :P
No question it does that, but it also might answer the question as to why the NFL came down so hard on the Patriots for some deflated footballs. I mean that is a pretty common theme throughout this thread, why punish the Patriots so harshly for something that other teams get a slap on the wrist for? Well now you have your answer, those other teams weren't undergoing widespread cheating for years.
The Patriots have always played fast and loose with the rules, so any rule violation, no matter how minor, is going to be looked at differently with the Patriots than any other organization. It is the whole live by the sword die by the sword mentality. when you skirt the line, you had better [dang] well make sure you don't cross it.
You are completely ignoring the fact that Bill Cowler, coach of the Pittsburgh Steelers during the period all of this time during which video taping occurred, says that every team was doing this. Why don't you acknoweledge this? What does Cowler have to gain by making his observation? And certainly he is quailifed to make it, he coached one of our biggest competitiors vying for Super Bowls during that era.
stealing signals and illegally videotaping aren't the same thing. The Steelers never illegally videotaped.
Every team was video taping signals from 2001 through 2006. Every team. That is what Cowler said. The ESPN article (and you) mislead others by saying only the Patriots were doing this. This widespread practice caused the NFL sent out a memo to teams saying that they must stop it. Belichick disingenuously interpreted the memo by claiming it only applied to real time usage, and in so doing, was reprimanded (I would argue, severely) for this in 2007. Do you really want to continue to claim that other teams were not video taping other team's signal calling during 2001-06?
except Cowher didn't actually say that. He said
“The only thing they got caught (was) doing it with a camera,” Cowher said, referring to the Patriots. “We had people that always tried to steal signals. Stealing someone’s signals was a part of the game, and everyone attempted to do that.”
According to Cowher, his team used wristbands to try to identify opponents’ verbal signals that were being yelled out on the field.
But hey, let's not let facts get in the way.
Ethically speaking, I don't see any difference. Either way, you're "stealing" signals—which, for the record, I think is fine; I don't think there should be some "unwritten rule" (as there seems to be in baseball, too) where teams can openly give signals but opponents are supposed to, what? Look away? It's stupid. Of course teams are going to try to figure out the opposition, and they should be able to try to do that.
I'm guessing that Belichick looks at some of these rules, sees the lack of logic behind them, and figures, "Ah, what the heck, let's give this a shot." And I completely agree. There's no ethical difference between seeing signals and taping them. Both are examples of "stealing" signals. But if you're going to rely on signals that opponents can see, it's your own dang fault if they get "stolen." Similarly, what's the logic of the NFL's psi range of 12.5 to 13.5 (or whatever it is precisely)? Why not 12.4? Or 13.7? Or 12, or 14? Is there science behind that? Seems arbitrary to me.
Besides all this, if Belichick and/or the Patriots weren't punished severely enough for some folks' liking, that's Goodell's fault. And when are people going to realize that NE was just as successful (maybe more so) after Spygate as before? Just like they were more successful against the Colts in the second half with "legit" footballs.
There is a fairly big difference between taping signals and just observing signals. One allows you to watch it over and over again to learn patterns, one does not. That is why the rule is in place and that is why "stealing signals" is a lot different than "taping signals". One is against the rules and one is not.
This is an excerpt from article going into history of video-taping of signals. (Why do you keep insisting that only the Patriots did this??)
"It’s not known when someone first filmed coaching signals. It goes back at least to 1990 when Marty Schottenheimer coached Kansas City. Both on a Fox pregame show and on WFAN, a New York radio station, Jimmy Johnson, who coached the Dallas Cowboys to two Super Bowl Championships, said he also had staffers tape opposing coaches.
Johnson said teams could tape signals from the press box, but sometimes the press box was on the wrong side of the field. In that case, the cameraman filmed from the sidelines. Johnson, who also had interns search other teams’ trash for discarded notes and game plans, said taping coaches wasn’t worth the effort and abandoned it.
Johnson learned the procedure in 1990 from Mark Hatley, a Kansas Cityscout, who taught him how Marty Schottenheimer’s Chiefs did it. Johnson praised one Schottenheimer assistant, Howard Mudd, as “the best in the entire league at stealing signals.” During much of the current decade, including their Super Bowl year, Mudd worked for the Indianapolis Colts.
One of Belichick’s fiercest Spygate critics and Mudd’s boss from 2002-2008 with the Colts, Tony Dungy, also served on Schottenheimer’s Kansas City staff. Other notable Schottenheimer assistants in Kansas City include Herm Edwards, who later served as the Jets' head coach before returning to the Chiefs in that capacity.
Edwards was so familiar with taping tactics that he waved to the Patriots' camera recording him. Long time Steelers' coach Bill Cowher also worked for Schottenheimer in Kansas City. During his career,Schottenheimer also coached the Cleveland Browns, Washington Redskins, and San Diego Chargers.
During Schottenheimer’s first few seasons in Kansas City, offenses still used hand signals too, meaning his defense also benefited from deciphering signals.
The media reports as if filming opposing coaches is a violation of NFL rules. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell shares this belief and apparently based his punishment on it."
-
Even more evidence that ESPN is simply a shill for the NFL
I'm not sure this is even it. That article was as hard on Goodell as it was the Patriots - it painted him as a power-hungry, incompetent snake who cares more about perception than truth.
This article was put out there by owners unhappy with the fact that the Patriots haven't gotten their "comeuppance." Equally frustrated by Goodell's inability to truly punish the Pats as they are with the Pats' ability to "get away with" cheating.
Yeah, I can buy that theory. I'd be very surprised if this was put out there by Goddell, because as mentioned, it makes him look like he completely bungled the Spygate investigation. (ESPN isn't being particularly kind to Goddell about his role in the first investigation, either.)
If it wasn't Goddell, and it obviously wasn't the Patriots, it's got to be opposing teams / owners. I'd guess AFC rivals.
-
Even more evidence that ESPN is simply a shill for the NFL
I'm not sure this is even it. That article was as hard on Goodell as it was the Patriots - it painted him as a power-hungry, incompetent snake who cares more about perception than truth.
This article was put out there by owners unhappy with the fact that the Patriots haven't gotten their "comeuppance." Equally frustrated by Goodell's inability to truly punish the Pats as they are with the Pats' ability to "get away with" cheating.
Yeah, I can buy that theory. I'd be very surprised if this was put out there by Goddell, because as mentioned, it makes him look like he completely bungled the Spygate investigation. (ESPN isn't being particularly kind to Goddell about his role in the first investigation, either.)
If it wasn't Goddell, and it obviously wasn't the Patriots, it's got to be opposing teams / owners. I'd guess AFC rivals.
I tend to agree. I just wonder, what the heck do they plan to accomplish here?
Try to spin things to appease Ravens/Colts fans from a PR standpoint? Basically say that justice tried to be served but the Commissioner screwed it up? A "don't look at us, we tried" thing?
-
So the NFL...cough...I mean ESPN is really going to dredge up something from 8 years ago that the organization was punished for?
Oh, and it comes up less than a week since the NFL got defeated in court involving a member from that same team in a different high profile controversy? C'mon.......
This just reeks of trying to save face or, even worse, a simple smear job. :P
No question it does that, but it also might answer the question as to why the NFL came down so hard on the Patriots for some deflated footballs. I mean that is a pretty common theme throughout this thread, why punish the Patriots so harshly for something that other teams get a slap on the wrist for? Well now you have your answer, those other teams weren't undergoing widespread cheating for years.
The Patriots have always played fast and loose with the rules, so any rule violation, no matter how minor, is going to be looked at differently with the Patriots than any other organization. It is the whole live by the sword die by the sword mentality. when you skirt the line, you had better [dang] well make sure you don't cross it.
You are completely ignoring the fact that Bill Cowler, coach of the Pittsburgh Steelers during the period all of this time during which video taping occurred, says that every team was doing this. Why don't you acknoweledge this? What does Cowler have to gain by making his observation? And certainly he is quailifed to make it, he coached one of our biggest competitiors vying for Super Bowls during that era.
stealing signals and illegally videotaping aren't the same thing. The Steelers never illegally videotaped.
Every team was video taping signals from 2001 through 2006. Every team. That is what Cowler said. The ESPN article (and you) mislead others by saying only the Patriots were doing this. This widespread practice caused the NFL sent out a memo to teams saying that they must stop it. Belichick disingenuously interpreted the memo by claiming it only applied to real time usage, and in so doing, was reprimanded (I would argue, severely) for this in 2007. Do you really want to continue to claim that other teams were not video taping other team's signal calling during 2001-06?
except Cowher didn't actually say that. He said
“The only thing they got caught (was) doing it with a camera,” Cowher said, referring to the Patriots. “We had people that always tried to steal signals. Stealing someone’s signals was a part of the game, and everyone attempted to do that.”
According to Cowher, his team used wristbands to try to identify opponents’ verbal signals that were being yelled out on the field.
But hey, let's not let facts get in the way.
Ethically speaking, I don't see any difference. Either way, you're "stealing" signals—which, for the record, I think is fine; I don't think there should be some "unwritten rule" (as there seems to be in baseball, too) where teams can openly give signals but opponents are supposed to, what? Look away? It's stupid. Of course teams are going to try to figure out the opposition, and they should be able to try to do that.
I'm guessing that Belichick looks at some of these rules, sees the lack of logic behind them, and figures, "Ah, what the heck, let's give this a shot." And I completely agree. There's no ethical difference between seeing signals and taping them. Both are examples of "stealing" signals. But if you're going to rely on signals that opponents can see, it's your own dang fault if they get "stolen." Similarly, what's the logic of the NFL's psi range of 12.5 to 13.5 (or whatever it is precisely)? Why not 12.4? Or 13.7? Or 12, or 14? Is there science behind that? Seems arbitrary to me.
Besides all this, if Belichick and/or the Patriots weren't punished severely enough for some folks' liking, that's Goodell's fault. And when are people going to realize that NE was just as successful (maybe more so) after Spygate as before? Just like they were more successful against the Colts in the second half with "legit" footballs.
There is a fairly big difference between taping signals and just observing signals. One allows you to watch it over and over again to learn patterns, one does not. That is why the rule is in place and that is why "stealing signals" is a lot different than "taping signals". One is against the rules and one is not.
This is an excerpt from article going into history of video-taping of signals. (Why do you keep insisting that only the Patriots did this??)
"It’s not known when someone first filmed coaching signals. It goes back at least to 1990 when Marty Schottenheimer coached Kansas City. Both on a Fox pregame show and on WFAN, a New York radio station, Jimmy Johnson, who coached the Dallas Cowboys to two Super Bowl Championships, said he also had staffers tape opposing coaches.
Johnson said teams could tape signals from the press box, but sometimes the press box was on the wrong side of the field. In that case, the cameraman filmed from the sidelines. Johnson, who also had interns search other teams’ trash for discarded notes and game plans, said taping coaches wasn’t worth the effort and abandoned it.
Johnson learned the procedure in 1990 from Mark Hatley, a Kansas Cityscout, who taught him how Marty Schottenheimer’s Chiefs did it. Johnson praised one Schottenheimer assistant, Howard Mudd, as “the best in the entire league at stealing signals.” During much of the current decade, including their Super Bowl year, Mudd worked for the Indianapolis Colts.
One of Belichick’s fiercest Spygate critics and Mudd’s boss from 2002-2008 with the Colts, Tony Dungy, also served on Schottenheimer’s Kansas City staff. Other notable Schottenheimer assistants in Kansas City include Herm Edwards, who later served as the Jets' head coach before returning to the Chiefs in that capacity.
Edwards was so familiar with taping tactics that he waved to the Patriots' camera recording him. Long time Steelers' coach Bill Cowher also worked for Schottenheimer in Kansas City. During his career,Schottenheimer also coached the Cleveland Browns, Washington Redskins, and San Diego Chargers.
During Schottenheimer’s first few seasons in Kansas City, offenses still used hand signals too, meaning his defense also benefited from deciphering signals.
The media reports as if filming opposing coaches is a violation of NFL rules. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell shares this belief and apparently based his punishment on it."
But that is why the NFL cracked down on it and issued the mandate in 2006 which the Patriots clearly violated.
-
So the NFL...cough...I mean ESPN is really going to dredge up something from 8 years ago that the organization was punished for?
Oh, and it comes up less than a week since the NFL got defeated in court involving a member from that same team in a different high profile controversy? C'mon.......
This just reeks of trying to save face or, even worse, a simple smear job. :P
No question it does that, but it also might answer the question as to why the NFL came down so hard on the Patriots for some deflated footballs. I mean that is a pretty common theme throughout this thread, why punish the Patriots so harshly for something that other teams get a slap on the wrist for? Well now you have your answer, those other teams weren't undergoing widespread cheating for years.
The Patriots have always played fast and loose with the rules, so any rule violation, no matter how minor, is going to be looked at differently with the Patriots than any other organization. It is the whole live by the sword die by the sword mentality. when you skirt the line, you had better [dang] well make sure you don't cross it.
You are completely ignoring the fact that Bill Cowler, coach of the Pittsburgh Steelers during the period all of this time during which video taping occurred, says that every team was doing this. Why don't you acknoweledge this? What does Cowler have to gain by making his observation? And certainly he is quailifed to make it, he coached one of our biggest competitiors vying for Super Bowls during that era.
stealing signals and illegally videotaping aren't the same thing. The Steelers never illegally videotaped.
Every team was video taping signals from 2001 through 2006. Every team. That is what Cowler said. The ESPN article (and you) mislead others by saying only the Patriots were doing this. This widespread practice caused the NFL sent out a memo to teams saying that they must stop it. Belichick disingenuously interpreted the memo by claiming it only applied to real time usage, and in so doing, was reprimanded (I would argue, severely) for this in 2007. Do you really want to continue to claim that other teams were not video taping other team's signal calling during 2001-06?
This was common practice league wide since the mid 80s. And they weren't being sneaky about it. The guy had a large camera and was in full view of the refs, league officials, and opposing players and coaches. Belichick was arrogant and ignored the memo as he felt he had a better understanding of the rule than the commissioner. All he had to do was move the cameraman off the sidelines to a designated area for filming. Belichick should have been punished and he was, but it's much ado about nothing. The Patriots went on to win 17 straight games after stopping the practice.
You actually were not allowed to video tape signals. Doesn't matter where the camera was, you weren't allowed to do it. Period. That is why the punishment was fairly severe, if it has just been a case where a guy was in the wrong spot, you don't see that punishment.
"Videotaping opposing coaches is not illegal in the NFL but there are designated areas allowed by the league to do such taping." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_New_England_Patriots_videotaping_controversy
"COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT SPYGATE
YOU'RE WRONG IF YOU THINK: Filming you opponents' signals is prohibited by the league and is therefore a serious cheating infraction.
REALITY: Filming your opponents' signals is -- and always has been -- completely legal, even today. After a league memo to all clubs in 2006, however, you can't do it from a location where the team could potentially use it during the same game.
As Coach Bill Belichick noted in 2015, 80,000 people can see his team's defensive signals: millions more if a TV camera pans by them. The signals are not meant to be hidden, just as in baseball a third-base coach's signals are not meant to be hidden. They should, however, be properly encrypted, but that is the signaling team's responsibility.
Every single NFL team films every single game they play from multiple angles. As they do this, are they supposed to locate and black out the one part of the stadium where the defensive coach is? Should it be a roaming dot if he moves? Obviously not, because the sidelines are just another part of the larger football field and game."
http://yourteamcheats.com/what-is-spygate
This is from the league directive sent in 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.''
So you can't tape signals from anywhere in the stadium during the game, which is basically what I said. You should never rely on Wikipedia for your information.
You are not reading closely enough. It is not allowed where it can be accessed by the team to use in the game which is what you quoted says. There are, however, designated locations for filming where it is allowed.
This has been sitting on Wikipedia's website for nearly 8 years and the NFL has never attempted to correct it and that is because it is correct.
Here is a 2008 article on it http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=chadiha_jeffri&id=3017423 (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=chadiha_jeffri&id=3017423)
a quote pertinent to this point Added one NFC personnel director: "What the Patriots did is extremely rare because it's against the rules. It's one of those things that if it's not Bill Belichick involved, you wonder if the coach survives something like that. What is more normal is something like a guy sitting in a press box trying to steal signs by looking at the coaches. That's why the home team usually has its back to the press box when they're in their own stadium."
and another "This is the first time I've heard of somebody doing what New England did," one AFC personnel director said. "It wouldn't surprise me if somebody else has tried it in the past but the bottom line is that it's illegal. We all get the same memos from the league each season telling us what we can't do."
And let's also remember that with the increase of technology you can record something from anywhere it be on the field in a matter of seconds. So you basically can't video tape the opposing sideline during the game you are playing anymore.
The Patriots violated the rules, they got caught, they got punished, but the punishment was fairly light by most accounts. Some believe Goodell even went to Kraft and told him, look if you get caught cheating again, I'm dropping the hammer. That was deflategate. That is why the penalty for some deflated footballs seems so harsh. When you are dealing with an organization that is known to skirt the rules and walk the line between legal and illegal, and when you catch them in the act, you drop the hammer on them. That is the only way they learn.
-
Even more evidence that ESPN is simply a shill for the NFL
I'm not sure this is even it. That article was as hard on Goodell as it was the Patriots - it painted him as a power-hungry, incompetent snake who cares more about perception than truth.
This article was put out there by owners unhappy with the fact that the Patriots haven't gotten their "comeuppance." Equally frustrated by Goodell's inability to truly punish the Pats as they are with the Pats' ability to "get away with" cheating.
Yeah, I can buy that theory. I'd be very surprised if this was put out there by Goddell, because as mentioned, it makes him look like he completely bungled the Spygate investigation. (ESPN isn't being particularly kind to Goddell about his role in the first investigation, either.)
If it wasn't Goddell, and it obviously wasn't the Patriots, it's got to be opposing teams / owners. I'd guess AFC rivals.
I tend to agree. I just wonder, what the heck do they plan to accomplish here?
Try to spin things to appease Ravens/Colts fans from a PR standpoint? Basically say that justice tried to be served but the Commissioner screwed it up? A "don't look at us, we tried" thing?
I think that's right. Also, if you're the Jets / Dolphins / Bills, it's easier for fans to excuse your failures if you've got a scapegoat to point to. A lot of fanbases will lap up the "the reason we can't win is because the Pats have been cheating, and the NFL / courts have let them get away with it" argument.
-
Regarding the allegations... the DeflateGate stuff didn't bother me, and Spygate was relatively minor.
The only allegation that really disgusts me, if true, is sending personnel into the locker room to steal play sheets. To me, the opposing locker room should be off-limits, and stealing play calls ahead of time is just blatant cheating. IF this actually happened, and IF Goddell overlooked it, I think it's a serious breach of the best interests of the game. Much like the St. Louis Cardinals hacking thing, I think espionage like this is a step too far, and should have had severe consequences (again, if proven).
-
So the NFL...cough...I mean ESPN is really going to dredge up something from 8 years ago that the organization was punished for?
Oh, and it comes up less than a week since the NFL got defeated in court involving a member from that same team in a different high profile controversy? C'mon.......
This just reeks of trying to save face or, even worse, a simple smear job. :P
No question it does that, but it also might answer the question as to why the NFL came down so hard on the Patriots for some deflated footballs. I mean that is a pretty common theme throughout this thread, why punish the Patriots so harshly for something that other teams get a slap on the wrist for? Well now you have your answer, those other teams weren't undergoing widespread cheating for years.
The Patriots have always played fast and loose with the rules, so any rule violation, no matter how minor, is going to be looked at differently with the Patriots than any other organization. It is the whole live by the sword die by the sword mentality. when you skirt the line, you had better [dang] well make sure you don't cross it.
You are completely ignoring the fact that Bill Cowler, coach of the Pittsburgh Steelers during the period all of this time during which video taping occurred, says that every team was doing this. Why don't you acknoweledge this? What does Cowler have to gain by making his observation? And certainly he is quailifed to make it, he coached one of our biggest competitiors vying for Super Bowls during that era.
stealing signals and illegally videotaping aren't the same thing. The Steelers never illegally videotaped.
Every team was video taping signals from 2001 through 2006. Every team. That is what Cowler said. The ESPN article (and you) mislead others by saying only the Patriots were doing this. This widespread practice caused the NFL sent out a memo to teams saying that they must stop it. Belichick disingenuously interpreted the memo by claiming it only applied to real time usage, and in so doing, was reprimanded (I would argue, severely) for this in 2007. Do you really want to continue to claim that other teams were not video taping other team's signal calling during 2001-06?
This was common practice league wide since the mid 80s. And they weren't being sneaky about it. The guy had a large camera and was in full view of the refs, league officials, and opposing players and coaches. Belichick was arrogant and ignored the memo as he felt he had a better understanding of the rule than the commissioner. All he had to do was move the cameraman off the sidelines to a designated area for filming. Belichick should have been punished and he was, but it's much ado about nothing. The Patriots went on to win 17 straight games after stopping the practice.
You actually were not allowed to video tape signals. Doesn't matter where the camera was, you weren't allowed to do it. Period. That is why the punishment was fairly severe, if it has just been a case where a guy was in the wrong spot, you don't see that punishment.
"Videotaping opposing coaches is not illegal in the NFL but there are designated areas allowed by the league to do such taping." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_New_England_Patriots_videotaping_controversy
"COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT SPYGATE
YOU'RE WRONG IF YOU THINK: Filming you opponents' signals is prohibited by the league and is therefore a serious cheating infraction.
REALITY: Filming your opponents' signals is -- and always has been -- completely legal, even today. After a league memo to all clubs in 2006, however, you can't do it from a location where the team could potentially use it during the same game.
As Coach Bill Belichick noted in 2015, 80,000 people can see his team's defensive signals: millions more if a TV camera pans by them. The signals are not meant to be hidden, just as in baseball a third-base coach's signals are not meant to be hidden. They should, however, be properly encrypted, but that is the signaling team's responsibility.
Every single NFL team films every single game they play from multiple angles. As they do this, are they supposed to locate and black out the one part of the stadium where the defensive coach is? Should it be a roaming dot if he moves? Obviously not, because the sidelines are just another part of the larger football field and game."
http://yourteamcheats.com/what-is-spygate
This is from the league directive sent in 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.''
So you can't tape signals from anywhere in the stadium during the game, which is basically what I said. You should never rely on Wikipedia for your information.
You are not reading closely enough. It is not allowed where it can be accessed by the team to use in the game which is what you quoted says. There are, however, designated locations for filming where it is allowed.
This has been sitting on Wikipedia's website for nearly 8 years and the NFL has never attempted to correct it and that is because it is correct.
Here is a 2008 article on it http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=chadiha_jeffri&id=3017423 (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=chadiha_jeffri&id=3017423)
a quote pertinent to this point Added one NFC personnel director: "What the Patriots did is extremely rare because it's against the rules. It's one of those things that if it's not Bill Belichick involved, you wonder if the coach survives something like that. What is more normal is something like a guy sitting in a press box trying to steal signs by looking at the coaches. That's why the home team usually has its back to the press box when they're in their own stadium."
and another "This is the first time I've heard of somebody doing what New England did," one AFC personnel director said. "It wouldn't surprise me if somebody else has tried it in the past but the bottom line is that it's illegal. We all get the same memos from the league each season telling us what we can't do."
And let's also remember that with the increase of technology you can record something from anywhere it be on the field in a matter of seconds. So you basically can't video tape the opposing sideline during the game you are playing anymore.
The Patriots violated the rules, they got caught, they got punished, but the punishment was fairly light by most accounts. Some believe Goodell even went to Kraft and told him, look if you get caught cheating again, I'm dropping the hammer. That was deflategate. That is why the penalty for some deflated footballs seems so harsh. When you are dealing with an organization that is known to skirt the rules and walk the line between legal and illegal, and when you catch them in the act, you drop the hammer on them. That is the only way they learn.
the only way they learn..
They still find ways around rules
And i LOVE it
Bend it til it breaks
-
So the NFL...cough...I mean ESPN is really going to dredge up something from 8 years ago that the organization was punished for?
Oh, and it comes up less than a week since the NFL got defeated in court involving a member from that same team in a different high profile controversy? C'mon.......
This just reeks of trying to save face or, even worse, a simple smear job. :P
No question it does that, but it also might answer the question as to why the NFL came down so hard on the Patriots for some deflated footballs. I mean that is a pretty common theme throughout this thread, why punish the Patriots so harshly for something that other teams get a slap on the wrist for? Well now you have your answer, those other teams weren't undergoing widespread cheating for years.
The Patriots have always played fast and loose with the rules, so any rule violation, no matter how minor, is going to be looked at differently with the Patriots than any other organization. It is the whole live by the sword die by the sword mentality. when you skirt the line, you had better [dang] well make sure you don't cross it.
You are completely ignoring the fact that Bill Cowler, coach of the Pittsburgh Steelers during the period all of this time during which video taping occurred, says that every team was doing this. Why don't you acknoweledge this? What does Cowler have to gain by making his observation? And certainly he is quailifed to make it, he coached one of our biggest competitiors vying for Super Bowls during that era.
stealing signals and illegally videotaping aren't the same thing. The Steelers never illegally videotaped.
Every team was video taping signals from 2001 through 2006. Every team. That is what Cowler said. The ESPN article (and you) mislead others by saying only the Patriots were doing this. This widespread practice caused the NFL sent out a memo to teams saying that they must stop it. Belichick disingenuously interpreted the memo by claiming it only applied to real time usage, and in so doing, was reprimanded (I would argue, severely) for this in 2007. Do you really want to continue to claim that other teams were not video taping other team's signal calling during 2001-06?
except Cowher didn't actually say that. He said
“The only thing they got caught (was) doing it with a camera,” Cowher said, referring to the Patriots. “We had people that always tried to steal signals. Stealing someone’s signals was a part of the game, and everyone attempted to do that.”
According to Cowher, his team used wristbands to try to identify opponents’ verbal signals that were being yelled out on the field.
But hey, let's not let facts get in the way.
Ethically speaking, I don't see any difference. Either way, you're "stealing" signals—which, for the record, I think is fine; I don't think there should be some "unwritten rule" (as there seems to be in baseball, too) where teams can openly give signals but opponents are supposed to, what? Look away? It's stupid. Of course teams are going to try to figure out the opposition, and they should be able to try to do that.
I'm guessing that Belichick looks at some of these rules, sees the lack of logic behind them, and figures, "Ah, what the heck, let's give this a shot." And I completely agree. There's no ethical difference between seeing signals and taping them. Both are examples of "stealing" signals. But if you're going to rely on signals that opponents can see, it's your own dang fault if they get "stolen." Similarly, what's the logic of the NFL's psi range of 12.5 to 13.5 (or whatever it is precisely)? Why not 12.4? Or 13.7? Or 12, or 14? Is there science behind that? Seems arbitrary to me.
Besides all this, if Belichick and/or the Patriots weren't punished severely enough for some folks' liking, that's Goodell's fault. And when are people going to realize that NE was just as successful (maybe more so) after Spygate as before? Just like they were more successful against the Colts in the second half with "legit" footballs.
There is a fairly big difference between taping signals and just observing signals. One allows you to watch it over and over again to learn patterns, one does not. That is why the rule is in place and that is why "stealing signals" is a lot different than "taping signals". One is against the rules and one is not.
In practical terms, yes, there's a difference. But ethically? No, there's no difference—if you're trying to steal signals, you're trying to steal signals. Period. But as I've said before, if you're doing things out in the open, where anyone can see it ...
-
So the NFL...cough...I mean ESPN is really going to dredge up something from 8 years ago that the organization was punished for?
Oh, and it comes up less than a week since the NFL got defeated in court involving a member from that same team in a different high profile controversy? C'mon.......
This just reeks of trying to save face or, even worse, a simple smear job. :P
No question it does that, but it also might answer the question as to why the NFL came down so hard on the Patriots for some deflated footballs. I mean that is a pretty common theme throughout this thread, why punish the Patriots so harshly for something that other teams get a slap on the wrist for? Well now you have your answer, those other teams weren't undergoing widespread cheating for years.
The Patriots have always played fast and loose with the rules, so any rule violation, no matter how minor, is going to be looked at differently with the Patriots than any other organization. It is the whole live by the sword die by the sword mentality. when you skirt the line, you had better [dang] well make sure you don't cross it.
You are completely ignoring the fact that Bill Cowler, coach of the Pittsburgh Steelers during the period all of this time during which video taping occurred, says that every team was doing this. Why don't you acknoweledge this? What does Cowler have to gain by making his observation? And certainly he is quailifed to make it, he coached one of our biggest competitiors vying for Super Bowls during that era.
stealing signals and illegally videotaping aren't the same thing. The Steelers never illegally videotaped.
Every team was video taping signals from 2001 through 2006. Every team. That is what Cowler said. The ESPN article (and you) mislead others by saying only the Patriots were doing this. This widespread practice caused the NFL sent out a memo to teams saying that they must stop it. Belichick disingenuously interpreted the memo by claiming it only applied to real time usage, and in so doing, was reprimanded (I would argue, severely) for this in 2007. Do you really want to continue to claim that other teams were not video taping other team's signal calling during 2001-06?
except Cowher didn't actually say that. He said
“The only thing they got caught (was) doing it with a camera,” Cowher said, referring to the Patriots. “We had people that always tried to steal signals. Stealing someone’s signals was a part of the game, and everyone attempted to do that.”
According to Cowher, his team used wristbands to try to identify opponents’ verbal signals that were being yelled out on the field.
But hey, let's not let facts get in the way.
Ethically speaking, I don't see any difference. Either way, you're "stealing" signals—which, for the record, I think is fine; I don't think there should be some "unwritten rule" (as there seems to be in baseball, too) where teams can openly give signals but opponents are supposed to, what? Look away? It's stupid. Of course teams are going to try to figure out the opposition, and they should be able to try to do that.
I'm guessing that Belichick looks at some of these rules, sees the lack of logic behind them, and figures, "Ah, what the heck, let's give this a shot." And I completely agree. There's no ethical difference between seeing signals and taping them. Both are examples of "stealing" signals. But if you're going to rely on signals that opponents can see, it's your own dang fault if they get "stolen." Similarly, what's the logic of the NFL's psi range of 12.5 to 13.5 (or whatever it is precisely)? Why not 12.4? Or 13.7? Or 12, or 14? Is there science behind that? Seems arbitrary to me.
Besides all this, if Belichick and/or the Patriots weren't punished severely enough for some folks' liking, that's Goodell's fault. And when are people going to realize that NE was just as successful (maybe more so) after Spygate as before? Just like they were more successful against the Colts in the second half with "legit" footballs.
There is a fairly big difference between taping signals and just observing signals. One allows you to watch it over and over again to learn patterns, one does not. That is why the rule is in place and that is why "stealing signals" is a lot different than "taping signals". One is against the rules and one is not.
This is an excerpt from article going into history of video-taping of signals. (Why do you keep insisting that only the Patriots did this??)
"It’s not known when someone first filmed coaching signals. It goes back at least to 1990 when Marty Schottenheimer coached Kansas City. Both on a Fox pregame show and on WFAN, a New York radio station, Jimmy Johnson, who coached the Dallas Cowboys to two Super Bowl Championships, said he also had staffers tape opposing coaches.
Johnson said teams could tape signals from the press box, but sometimes the press box was on the wrong side of the field. In that case, the cameraman filmed from the sidelines. Johnson, who also had interns search other teams’ trash for discarded notes and game plans, said taping coaches wasn’t worth the effort and abandoned it.
Johnson learned the procedure in 1990 from Mark Hatley, a Kansas Cityscout, who taught him how Marty Schottenheimer’s Chiefs did it. Johnson praised one Schottenheimer assistant, Howard Mudd, as “the best in the entire league at stealing signals.” During much of the current decade, including their Super Bowl year, Mudd worked for the Indianapolis Colts.
One of Belichick’s fiercest Spygate critics and Mudd’s boss from 2002-2008 with the Colts, Tony Dungy, also served on Schottenheimer’s Kansas City staff. Other notable Schottenheimer assistants in Kansas City include Herm Edwards, who later served as the Jets' head coach before returning to the Chiefs in that capacity.
Edwards was so familiar with taping tactics that he waved to the Patriots' camera recording him. Long time Steelers' coach Bill Cowher also worked for Schottenheimer in Kansas City. During his career,Schottenheimer also coached the Cleveland Browns, Washington Redskins, and San Diego Chargers.
During Schottenheimer’s first few seasons in Kansas City, offenses still used hand signals too, meaning his defense also benefited from deciphering signals.
The media reports as if filming opposing coaches is a violation of NFL rules. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell shares this belief and apparently based his punishment on it."
But that is why the NFL cracked down on it and issued the mandate in 2006 which the Patriots clearly violated.
OK, but my original point, I think it got lost, is that many, if not all, teams, were video taping the opponent's signals for many years until 2006. Today's ESPN article states that the Patriots were found to have done this, but neglects to mention that other teams did this as well, at least until 2006.
-
So the NFL...cough...I mean ESPN is really going to dredge up something from 8 years ago that the organization was punished for?
Oh, and it comes up less than a week since the NFL got defeated in court involving a member from that same team in a different high profile controversy? C'mon.......
This just reeks of trying to save face or, even worse, a simple smear job. :P
No question it does that, but it also might answer the question as to why the NFL came down so hard on the Patriots for some deflated footballs. I mean that is a pretty common theme throughout this thread, why punish the Patriots so harshly for something that other teams get a slap on the wrist for? Well now you have your answer, those other teams weren't undergoing widespread cheating for years.
The Patriots have always played fast and loose with the rules, so any rule violation, no matter how minor, is going to be looked at differently with the Patriots than any other organization. It is the whole live by the sword die by the sword mentality. when you skirt the line, you had better [dang] well make sure you don't cross it.
You are completely ignoring the fact that Bill Cowler, coach of the Pittsburgh Steelers during the period all of this time during which video taping occurred, says that every team was doing this. Why don't you acknoweledge this? What does Cowler have to gain by making his observation? And certainly he is quailifed to make it, he coached one of our biggest competitiors vying for Super Bowls during that era.
stealing signals and illegally videotaping aren't the same thing. The Steelers never illegally videotaped.
Every team was video taping signals from 2001 through 2006. Every team. That is what Cowler said. The ESPN article (and you) mislead others by saying only the Patriots were doing this. This widespread practice caused the NFL sent out a memo to teams saying that they must stop it. Belichick disingenuously interpreted the memo by claiming it only applied to real time usage, and in so doing, was reprimanded (I would argue, severely) for this in 2007. Do you really want to continue to claim that other teams were not video taping other team's signal calling during 2001-06?
except Cowher didn't actually say that. He said
“The only thing they got caught (was) doing it with a camera,” Cowher said, referring to the Patriots. “We had people that always tried to steal signals. Stealing someone’s signals was a part of the game, and everyone attempted to do that.”
According to Cowher, his team used wristbands to try to identify opponents’ verbal signals that were being yelled out on the field.
But hey, let's not let facts get in the way.
Ethically speaking, I don't see any difference. Either way, you're "stealing" signals—which, for the record, I think is fine; I don't think there should be some "unwritten rule" (as there seems to be in baseball, too) where teams can openly give signals but opponents are supposed to, what? Look away? It's stupid. Of course teams are going to try to figure out the opposition, and they should be able to try to do that.
I'm guessing that Belichick looks at some of these rules, sees the lack of logic behind them, and figures, "Ah, what the heck, let's give this a shot." And I completely agree. There's no ethical difference between seeing signals and taping them. Both are examples of "stealing" signals. But if you're going to rely on signals that opponents can see, it's your own dang fault if they get "stolen." Similarly, what's the logic of the NFL's psi range of 12.5 to 13.5 (or whatever it is precisely)? Why not 12.4? Or 13.7? Or 12, or 14? Is there science behind that? Seems arbitrary to me.
Besides all this, if Belichick and/or the Patriots weren't punished severely enough for some folks' liking, that's Goodell's fault. And when are people going to realize that NE was just as successful (maybe more so) after Spygate as before? Just like they were more successful against the Colts in the second half with "legit" footballs.
There is a fairly big difference between taping signals and just observing signals. One allows you to watch it over and over again to learn patterns, one does not. That is why the rule is in place and that is why "stealing signals" is a lot different than "taping signals". One is against the rules and one is not.
This is an excerpt from article going into history of video-taping of signals. (Why do you keep insisting that only the Patriots did this??)
"It’s not known when someone first filmed coaching signals. It goes back at least to 1990 when Marty Schottenheimer coached Kansas City. Both on a Fox pregame show and on WFAN, a New York radio station, Jimmy Johnson, who coached the Dallas Cowboys to two Super Bowl Championships, said he also had staffers tape opposing coaches.
Johnson said teams could tape signals from the press box, but sometimes the press box was on the wrong side of the field. In that case, the cameraman filmed from the sidelines. Johnson, who also had interns search other teams’ trash for discarded notes and game plans, said taping coaches wasn’t worth the effort and abandoned it.
Johnson learned the procedure in 1990 from Mark Hatley, a Kansas Cityscout, who taught him how Marty Schottenheimer’s Chiefs did it. Johnson praised one Schottenheimer assistant, Howard Mudd, as “the best in the entire league at stealing signals.” During much of the current decade, including their Super Bowl year, Mudd worked for the Indianapolis Colts.
One of Belichick’s fiercest Spygate critics and Mudd’s boss from 2002-2008 with the Colts, Tony Dungy, also served on Schottenheimer’s Kansas City staff. Other notable Schottenheimer assistants in Kansas City include Herm Edwards, who later served as the Jets' head coach before returning to the Chiefs in that capacity.
Edwards was so familiar with taping tactics that he waved to the Patriots' camera recording him. Long time Steelers' coach Bill Cowher also worked for Schottenheimer in Kansas City. During his career,Schottenheimer also coached the Cleveland Browns, Washington Redskins, and San Diego Chargers.
During Schottenheimer’s first few seasons in Kansas City, offenses still used hand signals too, meaning his defense also benefited from deciphering signals.
The media reports as if filming opposing coaches is a violation of NFL rules. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell shares this belief and apparently based his punishment on it."
But that is why the NFL cracked down on it and issued the mandate in 2006 which the Patriots clearly violated.
OK, but my original point, I think it got lost, is that many, if not all, teams, were video taping the opponent's signals for many years until 2006. Today's ESPN article states that the Patriots were found to have done this, but neglects to mention that other teams did this as well, at least until 2006.
the article you have there talks about the 90's, not the 00's. The league in fact started cracking down on it at the end of the 90's, they just reiterated the policy in 2006
-
So the NFL...cough...I mean ESPN is really going to dredge up something from 8 years ago that the organization was punished for?
Oh, and it comes up less than a week since the NFL got defeated in court involving a member from that same team in a different high profile controversy? C'mon.......
This just reeks of trying to save face or, even worse, a simple smear job. :P
No question it does that, but it also might answer the question as to why the NFL came down so hard on the Patriots for some deflated footballs. I mean that is a pretty common theme throughout this thread, why punish the Patriots so harshly for something that other teams get a slap on the wrist for? Well now you have your answer, those other teams weren't undergoing widespread cheating for years.
The Patriots have always played fast and loose with the rules, so any rule violation, no matter how minor, is going to be looked at differently with the Patriots than any other organization. It is the whole live by the sword die by the sword mentality. when you skirt the line, you had better [dang] well make sure you don't cross it.
You are completely ignoring the fact that Bill Cowler, coach of the Pittsburgh Steelers during the period all of this time during which video taping occurred, says that every team was doing this. Why don't you acknoweledge this? What does Cowler have to gain by making his observation? And certainly he is quailifed to make it, he coached one of our biggest competitiors vying for Super Bowls during that era.
stealing signals and illegally videotaping aren't the same thing. The Steelers never illegally videotaped.
Every team was video taping signals from 2001 through 2006. Every team. That is what Cowler said. The ESPN article (and you) mislead others by saying only the Patriots were doing this. This widespread practice caused the NFL sent out a memo to teams saying that they must stop it. Belichick disingenuously interpreted the memo by claiming it only applied to real time usage, and in so doing, was reprimanded (I would argue, severely) for this in 2007. Do you really want to continue to claim that other teams were not video taping other team's signal calling during 2001-06?
except Cowher didn't actually say that. He said
“The only thing they got caught (was) doing it with a camera,” Cowher said, referring to the Patriots. “We had people that always tried to steal signals. Stealing someone’s signals was a part of the game, and everyone attempted to do that.”
According to Cowher, his team used wristbands to try to identify opponents’ verbal signals that were being yelled out on the field.
But hey, let's not let facts get in the way.
Ethically speaking, I don't see any difference. Either way, you're "stealing" signals—which, for the record, I think is fine; I don't think there should be some "unwritten rule" (as there seems to be in baseball, too) where teams can openly give signals but opponents are supposed to, what? Look away? It's stupid. Of course teams are going to try to figure out the opposition, and they should be able to try to do that.
I'm guessing that Belichick looks at some of these rules, sees the lack of logic behind them, and figures, "Ah, what the heck, let's give this a shot." And I completely agree. There's no ethical difference between seeing signals and taping them. Both are examples of "stealing" signals. But if you're going to rely on signals that opponents can see, it's your own dang fault if they get "stolen." Similarly, what's the logic of the NFL's psi range of 12.5 to 13.5 (or whatever it is precisely)? Why not 12.4? Or 13.7? Or 12, or 14? Is there science behind that? Seems arbitrary to me.
Besides all this, if Belichick and/or the Patriots weren't punished severely enough for some folks' liking, that's Goodell's fault. And when are people going to realize that NE was just as successful (maybe more so) after Spygate as before? Just like they were more successful against the Colts in the second half with "legit" footballs.
There is a fairly big difference between taping signals and just observing signals. One allows you to watch it over and over again to learn patterns, one does not. That is why the rule is in place and that is why "stealing signals" is a lot different than "taping signals". One is against the rules and one is not.
In practical terms, yes, there's a difference. But ethically? No, there's no difference—if you're trying to steal signals, you're trying to steal signals. Period. But as I've said before, if you're doing things out in the open, where anyone can see it ...
except you could argue that you aren't really stealing signals if you see them live because everyone can see them. The stealing comes from taping and then analyzing over and over again to actually learn what each signal means.
Or you know stealing playbooks like has also been alleged. Or by bugging the opposing locker-room (like the Patriots have been rumored to have done and that the Saints were punished for doing).
-
Spygate being brought up as reason for coming down hard is silly. The real reason they came down is jealousy and the desire to hurt the Patriots. Why werent the Jets and the other teams that violated taping rules hit like Patriots? Why werent Jags or Colts investigated for deflated footballs? Patriots are being hit because they are not suppose to be possible. The league is supposed to have parity and Pats smack parity in the face.
Now in spygate the Patriots got in trouble for violating a rule the one year the memo was put out that the rule was going to start being enforced. Not for 7 years as ESPN and NFL is trying to imply. Spygate was a problem because the "taping angle" allowed for signals and the play to be filmed at the same time in one frame. Not filming the signals alone or the plays but the fact you taped them together in the same frame. Think about that. It's a silly rule because any novice video editor even in 1990 could piece a side by side frame anyways.
As far as the low level employee going into locker that is overstated to say it was practice. That was not routine and it was joked about within the organization not something they try to do but simply happened. Every team has a story like that of some team leaving something out or dropping a play book in the hallway.
It's all more slander and excuses by the NFL and ESPN to hide the hate the league has for the Pats. It's becoming more obvious the more they continue to push these non-stories.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_NT2LdlIkM&feature=youtu.be
-
Yup, a mere five days after the first real positive Deflategate news the Pats have had in the 9 months of the scandal's existence, the Deflategate thread has suddenly morphed into a "bad things the Pats did during Spygate" thread.
Someone somewhere is, at this very moment, unfurling a "Mission Accomplished" banner.
-
I gotta say, after almost 200 pages this has arrived at a very satisfactory conclusion. Fans that don't like the Patriots get to call them cheaters, fans that do like the Patriots get to call themselves victims, and everybody gets to agree that the league office sucks. And nobody has to change their mind on anything of note. Seems like a best-case scenario to me.
-
Be sure to tune in on Thursday.
-
So the NFL...cough...I mean ESPN is really going to dredge up something from 8 years ago that the organization was punished for?
Oh, and it comes up less than a week since the NFL got defeated in court involving a member from that same team in a different high profile controversy? C'mon.......
This just reeks of trying to save face or, even worse, a simple smear job. :P
No question it does that, but it also might answer the question as to why the NFL came down so hard on the Patriots for some deflated footballs. I mean that is a pretty common theme throughout this thread, why punish the Patriots so harshly for something that other teams get a slap on the wrist for? Well now you have your answer, those other teams weren't undergoing widespread cheating for years.
The Patriots have always played fast and loose with the rules, so any rule violation, no matter how minor, is going to be looked at differently with the Patriots than any other organization. It is the whole live by the sword die by the sword mentality. when you skirt the line, you had better [dang] well make sure you don't cross it.
You are completely ignoring the fact that Bill Cowler, coach of the Pittsburgh Steelers during the period all of this time during which video taping occurred, says that every team was doing this. Why don't you acknoweledge this? What does Cowler have to gain by making his observation? And certainly he is quailifed to make it, he coached one of our biggest competitiors vying for Super Bowls during that era.
stealing signals and illegally videotaping aren't the same thing. The Steelers never illegally videotaped.
Every team was video taping signals from 2001 through 2006. Every team. That is what Cowler said. The ESPN article (and you) mislead others by saying only the Patriots were doing this. This widespread practice caused the NFL sent out a memo to teams saying that they must stop it. Belichick disingenuously interpreted the memo by claiming it only applied to real time usage, and in so doing, was reprimanded (I would argue, severely) for this in 2007. Do you really want to continue to claim that other teams were not video taping other team's signal calling during 2001-06?
except Cowher didn't actually say that. He said
“The only thing they got caught (was) doing it with a camera,” Cowher said, referring to the Patriots. “We had people that always tried to steal signals. Stealing someone’s signals was a part of the game, and everyone attempted to do that.”
According to Cowher, his team used wristbands to try to identify opponents’ verbal signals that were being yelled out on the field.
But hey, let's not let facts get in the way.
Ethically speaking, I don't see any difference. Either way, you're "stealing" signals—which, for the record, I think is fine; I don't think there should be some "unwritten rule" (as there seems to be in baseball, too) where teams can openly give signals but opponents are supposed to, what? Look away? It's stupid. Of course teams are going to try to figure out the opposition, and they should be able to try to do that.
I'm guessing that Belichick looks at some of these rules, sees the lack of logic behind them, and figures, "Ah, what the heck, let's give this a shot." And I completely agree. There's no ethical difference between seeing signals and taping them. Both are examples of "stealing" signals. But if you're going to rely on signals that opponents can see, it's your own dang fault if they get "stolen." Similarly, what's the logic of the NFL's psi range of 12.5 to 13.5 (or whatever it is precisely)? Why not 12.4? Or 13.7? Or 12, or 14? Is there science behind that? Seems arbitrary to me.
Besides all this, if Belichick and/or the Patriots weren't punished severely enough for some folks' liking, that's Goodell's fault. And when are people going to realize that NE was just as successful (maybe more so) after Spygate as before? Just like they were more successful against the Colts in the second half with "legit" footballs.
There is a fairly big difference between taping signals and just observing signals. One allows you to watch it over and over again to learn patterns, one does not. That is why the rule is in place and that is why "stealing signals" is a lot different than "taping signals". One is against the rules and one is not.
In practical terms, yes, there's a difference. But ethically? No, there's no difference—if you're trying to steal signals, you're trying to steal signals. Period. But as I've said before, if you're doing things out in the open, where anyone can see it ...
except you could argue that you aren't really stealing signals if you see them live because everyone can see them. The stealing comes from taping and then analyzing over and over again to actually learn what each signal means.
Or you know stealing playbooks like has also been alleged. Or by bugging the opposing locker-room (like the Patriots have been rumored to have done and that the Saints were punished for doing).
What about people who have great memory—photographic, even? They can remember what they saw, which is equivalent to having it taped. And we don't necessarily know who those people are, so how can they be policed?
As for the other stuff, those are all allegations yet to be proven.
Bottom line: We all know that Belichick pushes the envelope, and I'll concede that it's more probably than not that he sometimes even cheats—which I wouldn't condone—but he's hardly alone in this regard across the NFL. The Pats are really good, so they get targeted—I get that. But the pettiness towards the Pats has reached epic proportions, so much so that a report about decade-old behavior conveniently comes out right after Brady is cleared in another "scandal."
-
So the NFL...cough...I mean ESPN is really going to dredge up something from 8 years ago that the organization was punished for?
Oh, and it comes up less than a week since the NFL got defeated in court involving a member from that same team in a different high profile controversy? C'mon.......
This just reeks of trying to save face or, even worse, a simple smear job. :P
No question it does that, but it also might answer the question as to why the NFL came down so hard on the Patriots for some deflated footballs. I mean that is a pretty common theme throughout this thread, why punish the Patriots so harshly for something that other teams get a slap on the wrist for? Well now you have your answer, those other teams weren't undergoing widespread cheating for years.
The Patriots have always played fast and loose with the rules, so any rule violation, no matter how minor, is going to be looked at differently with the Patriots than any other organization. It is the whole live by the sword die by the sword mentality. when you skirt the line, you had better [dang] well make sure you don't cross it.
You are completely ignoring the fact that Bill Cowler, coach of the Pittsburgh Steelers during the period all of this time during which video taping occurred, says that every team was doing this. Why don't you acknoweledge this? What does Cowler have to gain by making his observation? And certainly he is quailifed to make it, he coached one of our biggest competitiors vying for Super Bowls during that era.
stealing signals and illegally videotaping aren't the same thing. The Steelers never illegally videotaped.
Every team was video taping signals from 2001 through 2006. Every team. That is what Cowler said. The ESPN article (and you) mislead others by saying only the Patriots were doing this. This widespread practice caused the NFL sent out a memo to teams saying that they must stop it. Belichick disingenuously interpreted the memo by claiming it only applied to real time usage, and in so doing, was reprimanded (I would argue, severely) for this in 2007. Do you really want to continue to claim that other teams were not video taping other team's signal calling during 2001-06?
except Cowher didn't actually say that. He said
“The only thing they got caught (was) doing it with a camera,” Cowher said, referring to the Patriots. “We had people that always tried to steal signals. Stealing someone’s signals was a part of the game, and everyone attempted to do that.”
According to Cowher, his team used wristbands to try to identify opponents’ verbal signals that were being yelled out on the field.
But hey, let's not let facts get in the way.
Ethically speaking, I don't see any difference. Either way, you're "stealing" signals—which, for the record, I think is fine; I don't think there should be some "unwritten rule" (as there seems to be in baseball, too) where teams can openly give signals but opponents are supposed to, what? Look away? It's stupid. Of course teams are going to try to figure out the opposition, and they should be able to try to do that.
I'm guessing that Belichick looks at some of these rules, sees the lack of logic behind them, and figures, "Ah, what the heck, let's give this a shot." And I completely agree. There's no ethical difference between seeing signals and taping them. Both are examples of "stealing" signals. But if you're going to rely on signals that opponents can see, it's your own dang fault if they get "stolen." Similarly, what's the logic of the NFL's psi range of 12.5 to 13.5 (or whatever it is precisely)? Why not 12.4? Or 13.7? Or 12, or 14? Is there science behind that? Seems arbitrary to me.
Besides all this, if Belichick and/or the Patriots weren't punished severely enough for some folks' liking, that's Goodell's fault. And when are people going to realize that NE was just as successful (maybe more so) after Spygate as before? Just like they were more successful against the Colts in the second half with "legit" footballs.
There is a fairly big difference between taping signals and just observing signals. One allows you to watch it over and over again to learn patterns, one does not. That is why the rule is in place and that is why "stealing signals" is a lot different than "taping signals". One is against the rules and one is not.
This is an excerpt from article going into history of video-taping of signals. (Why do you keep insisting that only the Patriots did this??)
"It’s not known when someone first filmed coaching signals. It goes back at least to 1990 when Marty Schottenheimer coached Kansas City. Both on a Fox pregame show and on WFAN, a New York radio station, Jimmy Johnson, who coached the Dallas Cowboys to two Super Bowl Championships, said he also had staffers tape opposing coaches.
Johnson said teams could tape signals from the press box, but sometimes the press box was on the wrong side of the field. In that case, the cameraman filmed from the sidelines. Johnson, who also had interns search other teams’ trash for discarded notes and game plans, said taping coaches wasn’t worth the effort and abandoned it.
Johnson learned the procedure in 1990 from Mark Hatley, a Kansas Cityscout, who taught him how Marty Schottenheimer’s Chiefs did it. Johnson praised one Schottenheimer assistant, Howard Mudd, as “the best in the entire league at stealing signals.” During much of the current decade, including their Super Bowl year, Mudd worked for the Indianapolis Colts.
One of Belichick’s fiercest Spygate critics and Mudd’s boss from 2002-2008 with the Colts, Tony Dungy, also served on Schottenheimer’s Kansas City staff. Other notable Schottenheimer assistants in Kansas City include Herm Edwards, who later served as the Jets' head coach before returning to the Chiefs in that capacity.
Edwards was so familiar with taping tactics that he waved to the Patriots' camera recording him. Long time Steelers' coach Bill Cowher also worked for Schottenheimer in Kansas City. During his career,Schottenheimer also coached the Cleveland Browns, Washington Redskins, and San Diego Chargers.
During Schottenheimer’s first few seasons in Kansas City, offenses still used hand signals too, meaning his defense also benefited from deciphering signals.
The media reports as if filming opposing coaches is a violation of NFL rules. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell shares this belief and apparently based his punishment on it."
But that is why the NFL cracked down on it and issued the mandate in 2006 which the Patriots clearly violated.
OK, but my original point, I think it got lost, is that many, if not all, teams, were video taping the opponent's signals for many years until 2006. Today's ESPN article states that the Patriots were found to have done this, but neglects to mention that other teams did this as well, at least until 2006.
the article you have there talks about the 90's, not the 00's. The league in fact started cracking down on it at the end of the 90's, they just reiterated the policy in 2006
The logic of your argument has digressed to the level of that submitted by the NFL in its court filing with Judge Berman.
Let's call it a day, and start talking about something we can agree upon, the Celtics. Have a good one.
-
So the NFL...cough...I mean ESPN is really going to dredge up something from 8 years ago that the organization was punished for?
Oh, and it comes up less than a week since the NFL got defeated in court involving a member from that same team in a different high profile controversy? C'mon.......
This just reeks of trying to save face or, even worse, a simple smear job. :P
No question it does that, but it also might answer the question as to why the NFL came down so hard on the Patriots for some deflated footballs. I mean that is a pretty common theme throughout this thread, why punish the Patriots so harshly for something that other teams get a slap on the wrist for? Well now you have your answer, those other teams weren't undergoing widespread cheating for years.
The Patriots have always played fast and loose with the rules, so any rule violation, no matter how minor, is going to be looked at differently with the Patriots than any other organization. It is the whole live by the sword die by the sword mentality. when you skirt the line, you had better [dang] well make sure you don't cross it.
You are completely ignoring the fact that Bill Cowler, coach of the Pittsburgh Steelers during the period all of this time during which video taping occurred, says that every team was doing this. Why don't you acknoweledge this? What does Cowler have to gain by making his observation? And certainly he is quailifed to make it, he coached one of our biggest competitiors vying for Super Bowls during that era.
stealing signals and illegally videotaping aren't the same thing. The Steelers never illegally videotaped.
Every team was video taping signals from 2001 through 2006. Every team. That is what Cowler said. The ESPN article (and you) mislead others by saying only the Patriots were doing this. This widespread practice caused the NFL sent out a memo to teams saying that they must stop it. Belichick disingenuously interpreted the memo by claiming it only applied to real time usage, and in so doing, was reprimanded (I would argue, severely) for this in 2007. Do you really want to continue to claim that other teams were not video taping other team's signal calling during 2001-06?
except Cowher didn't actually say that. He said
“The only thing they got caught (was) doing it with a camera,” Cowher said, referring to the Patriots. “We had people that always tried to steal signals. Stealing someone’s signals was a part of the game, and everyone attempted to do that.”
According to Cowher, his team used wristbands to try to identify opponents’ verbal signals that were being yelled out on the field.
But hey, let's not let facts get in the way.
Ethically speaking, I don't see any difference. Either way, you're "stealing" signals—which, for the record, I think is fine; I don't think there should be some "unwritten rule" (as there seems to be in baseball, too) where teams can openly give signals but opponents are supposed to, what? Look away? It's stupid. Of course teams are going to try to figure out the opposition, and they should be able to try to do that.
I'm guessing that Belichick looks at some of these rules, sees the lack of logic behind them, and figures, "Ah, what the heck, let's give this a shot." And I completely agree. There's no ethical difference between seeing signals and taping them. Both are examples of "stealing" signals. But if you're going to rely on signals that opponents can see, it's your own dang fault if they get "stolen." Similarly, what's the logic of the NFL's psi range of 12.5 to 13.5 (or whatever it is precisely)? Why not 12.4? Or 13.7? Or 12, or 14? Is there science behind that? Seems arbitrary to me.
Besides all this, if Belichick and/or the Patriots weren't punished severely enough for some folks' liking, that's Goodell's fault. And when are people going to realize that NE was just as successful (maybe more so) after Spygate as before? Just like they were more successful against the Colts in the second half with "legit" footballs.
There is a fairly big difference between taping signals and just observing signals. One allows you to watch it over and over again to learn patterns, one does not. That is why the rule is in place and that is why "stealing signals" is a lot different than "taping signals". One is against the rules and one is not.
This is an excerpt from article going into history of video-taping of signals. (Why do you keep insisting that only the Patriots did this??)
"It’s not known when someone first filmed coaching signals. It goes back at least to 1990 when Marty Schottenheimer coached Kansas City. Both on a Fox pregame show and on WFAN, a New York radio station, Jimmy Johnson, who coached the Dallas Cowboys to two Super Bowl Championships, said he also had staffers tape opposing coaches.
Johnson said teams could tape signals from the press box, but sometimes the press box was on the wrong side of the field. In that case, the cameraman filmed from the sidelines. Johnson, who also had interns search other teams’ trash for discarded notes and game plans, said taping coaches wasn’t worth the effort and abandoned it.
Johnson learned the procedure in 1990 from Mark Hatley, a Kansas Cityscout, who taught him how Marty Schottenheimer’s Chiefs did it. Johnson praised one Schottenheimer assistant, Howard Mudd, as “the best in the entire league at stealing signals.” During much of the current decade, including their Super Bowl year, Mudd worked for the Indianapolis Colts.
One of Belichick’s fiercest Spygate critics and Mudd’s boss from 2002-2008 with the Colts, Tony Dungy, also served on Schottenheimer’s Kansas City staff. Other notable Schottenheimer assistants in Kansas City include Herm Edwards, who later served as the Jets' head coach before returning to the Chiefs in that capacity.
Edwards was so familiar with taping tactics that he waved to the Patriots' camera recording him. Long time Steelers' coach Bill Cowher also worked for Schottenheimer in Kansas City. During his career,Schottenheimer also coached the Cleveland Browns, Washington Redskins, and San Diego Chargers.
During Schottenheimer’s first few seasons in Kansas City, offenses still used hand signals too, meaning his defense also benefited from deciphering signals.
The media reports as if filming opposing coaches is a violation of NFL rules. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell shares this belief and apparently based his punishment on it."
But that is why the NFL cracked down on it and issued the mandate in 2006 which the Patriots clearly violated.
OK, but my original point, I think it got lost, is that many, if not all, teams, were video taping the opponent's signals for many years until 2006. Today's ESPN article states that the Patriots were found to have done this, but neglects to mention that other teams did this as well, at least until 2006.
the article you have there talks about the 90's, not the 00's. The league in fact started cracking down on it at the end of the 90's, they just reiterated the policy in 2006
The logic of your argument has digressed to the level of that submitted by the NFL in its court filing with Judge Berman.
Let's call it a day, and start talking about something we can agree upon, the Celtics. Have a good one.
uh huh. I'm sure your tune change has nothing to do with the strength of my argument. I mean you do the classic insult your opponent when you have nothing else left.
-
Yup, a mere five days after the first real positive Deflategate news the Pats have had in the 9 months of the scandal's existence, the Deflategate thread has suddenly morphed into a "bad things the Pats did during Spygate" thread.
Someone somewhere is, at this very moment, unfurling a "Mission Accomplished" banner.
It's pretty simple. "Resurface Spygate" was the fall back plan for the NFL in the event that it lost its case against Brady. I'd read all the "new" "allegations" with a grain of salt. A grain of salt the size of Salt Lake City.
-
Yup, a mere five days after the first real positive Deflategate news the Pats have had in the 9 months of the scandal's existence, the Deflategate thread has suddenly morphed into a "bad things the Pats did during Spygate" thread.
Someone somewhere is, at this very moment, unfurling a "Mission Accomplished" banner.
It's pretty simple. "Resurface Spygate" was the fall back plan for the NFL in the event that it lost its case against Brady. I'd read all the "new" "allegations" with a grain of salt. A grain of salt the size of Salt Lake City.
the NFL and Goodell is just salty that they lost this whole deflategate thing...the point that this resurfaced a week after the ruling makes it very suspicious on their part. This happened 8 years ago, and they're bringing this up, NOW? 2 days before the game opener?
-
Yup, a mere five days after the first real positive Deflategate news the Pats have had in the 9 months of the scandal's existence, the Deflategate thread has suddenly morphed into a "bad things the Pats did during Spygate" thread.
Someone somewhere is, at this very moment, unfurling a "Mission Accomplished" banner.
It's pretty simple. "Resurface Spygate" was the fall back plan for the NFL in the event that it lost its case against Brady. I'd read all the "new" "allegations" with a grain of salt. A grain of salt the size of Salt Lake City.
Yup. That was my point.
-
Funny that every source in these reports is anonymous. When I was getting my journalism degree, one of the things I learned was that using anonymous sources was a very weak journalistic practice, and to be avoided if at all possible.
-
Funny that every source in these reports is anonymous. When I was getting my journalism degree, one of the things I learned was that using anonymous sources was a very weak journalistic practice, and to be avoided if at all possible.
it's ok though, if it's about the Pats, sources are not needed ;D
-
Funny that every source in these reports is anonymous. When I was getting my journalism degree, one of the things I learned was that using anonymous sources was a very weak journalistic practice, and to be avoided if at all possible.
I don't think they were anonymous they just asked not to be named. Very different.
-
Funny that every source in these reports is anonymous. When I was getting my journalism degree, one of the things I learned was that using anonymous sources was a very weak journalistic practice, and to be avoided if at all possible.
I don't think they were anonymous they just asked not to be named. Very different.
That ESPN article is full of holes (see Reiss' thing on the Martz comment) and a lot of speculation. It's mostly a regurgitation of stuff from 8 years ago with some new, mostly unconfirmed rumors by nameless individuals.
For the most part, that article is a hatchet job. **** for those with a thirst for some Pats blood but that's about it. It's pretty clear.
-
http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/09/08/patriots-cheating-suspicions-bill-belichick-tom-brady (http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/09/08/patriots-cheating-suspicions-bill-belichick-tom-brady)
Just a small sampling of the article is below.
The rest of the league has been on high alert in other ways too. The NFL has changed several rules over the last decade in response to issues raised about the Patriots or to close rule-book loopholes exploited by them, according to three people familiar with the competition committee’s decisions. In 2007, after the Patriots were accused of manipulating coach-to-quarterback radio systems and game clocks, the league mandated neutral operators for both in playoff games. After the Ravens complained about New England’s deployment of ineligible receivers in a playoff game last January, the NFL declared that in the future a formation the Patriots used will be illegal. (The Patriots say they confirmed the legality of the formation with the league before the Ravens game.) “[The Pats] were mentioned [in competition committee meetings] way more than anybody else,” one source familiar with the committee’s discussions in recent years said.
These suspicions may help explain why NFL commissioner Roger Goodell was so determined to investigate the Patriots for Deflategate. SI spoke with dozens of people throughout pro football: team presidents, general managers, head coaches, assistants and players; some are still in prominent positions and others no longer work in the league. While they were mostly reluctant to talk on the record, most believe the Patriots have played fast and loose with league rules for years—breaking them or looking for ways around them—and they want to see the organization held responsible.
In some cases there is no rule explicitly banning the alleged actions. One example: Another AFC team has brought its own sports drinks because the ones the Patriots supply are often late, warm or both. Unethical? Or just gamesmanship? “They’ve created a culture where that type of behavior is encouraged and rewarded,” one team executive says. “Everybody there is supposed to make the visitor uncomfortable—do everything that is borderline against the rules, but clearly against the principles of good sportsmanship.”
Home teams are supposed to provide certain communications equipment, but opponents often don’t trust the Patriots to do it. One team griped to SI that New England supplied a corroded battery pack. Another current head coach brings his own equipment because he doesn’t trust the Patriots to supply anything of quality. A representative of a third team says the Pats provided headset gear that looked “like it had been run over by a lawn mower. Frayed wires, the speaker is all chopped up.?.?.?.” James says that it is league policy for all headset batteries to be changed 30 minutes before a game, and that the team has “always complied with that.” He adds, “We’ve never been cited by the league for doing anything wrong as it pertains to communication device violations.”
Another team executive says, “Anybody who has gone in there in the last five years will tell you some sort of problem or snag they never hit any other place. They are the worst hosts in football.”
One person who knows Belichick well says he does not consider the coach “a cheat.” But he acknowledges that, while others might simply obey a rule, Belichick will search for loopholes and gray areas to exploit—he’ll “study it and take it to the nth degree.
“This guy is two steps ahead of everybody because he is so brilliant. If you’re going to walk the line, every once in a while you’re stepping over. Sometimes somebody has to pull him back in. In his mind, he thinks: I’ll get an advantage and somebody else can figure out if it’s illegal. My job is to coach a football team.”
-
Funny that every source in these reports is anonymous. When I was getting my journalism degree, one of the things I learned was that using anonymous sources was a very weak journalistic practice, and to be avoided if at all possible.
I don't think they were anonymous they just asked not to be named. Very different.
(http://courvo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/splitting-hairs.jpg)
-
"Belichick's starting quarterback has been Tom Brady for 14 seasons. In the seven seasons before the rule change on defensive signals, the Patriots were 86-26. In the seven seasons since, they are 84-28. If Brady has been less effective in his play or Belichick less able to scout the opposition, it hasn't been very apparent."
http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/eagles/20150909_Pats__unfair_edge_on_Eagles_in_Supe__They_were_better.html
-
Funny that every source in these reports is anonymous. When I was getting my journalism degree, one of the things I learned was that using anonymous sources was a very weak journalistic practice, and to be avoided if at all possible.
I don't think they were anonymous they just asked not to be named. Very different.
(http://courvo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/splitting-hairs.jpg)
Come on that isn't splitting hairs. An anonymous source is one that the journalist doesn't know, an unnamed source is one the journalist does know. There is an incredibly large difference between those two things.
-
Funny that every source in these reports is anonymous. When I was getting my journalism degree, one of the things I learned was that using anonymous sources was a very weak journalistic practice, and to be avoided if at all possible.
I don't think they were anonymous they just asked not to be named. Very different.
(http://courvo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/splitting-hairs.jpg)
Come on that isn't splitting hairs. An anonymous source is one that the journalist doesn't know, an unnamed source is one the journalist does know. There is an incredibly large difference between those two things.
They refused to put their names next to their accusations. That's weak. You are splitting hairs and you know what he meant when he said anonymous.
-
Funny that every source in these reports is anonymous. When I was getting my journalism degree, one of the things I learned was that using anonymous sources was a very weak journalistic practice, and to be avoided if at all possible.
I don't think they were anonymous they just asked not to be named. Very different.
(http://courvo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/splitting-hairs.jpg)
Come on that isn't splitting hairs. An anonymous source is one that the journalist doesn't know, an unnamed source is one the journalist does know. There is an incredibly large difference between those two things.
They refused to put their names next to their accusations. That's weak. You are splitting hairs and you know what he meant when he said anonymous.
Most of them still have jobs in the league or would like to in the future. You don't burn your bridges. It is in fact pretty common in investigative journalism to have sources who refuse to be named. Happens all the time. An unnamed source is not an anonymous source though. Two vastly different things.
-
Yeah Moranis is absolutely right here.
-
Funny that every source in these reports is anonymous. When I was getting my journalism degree, one of the things I learned was that using anonymous sources was a very weak journalistic practice, and to be avoided if at all possible.
I don't think they were anonymous they just asked not to be named. Very different.
(http://courvo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/splitting-hairs.jpg)
Come on that isn't splitting hairs. An anonymous source is one that the journalist doesn't know, an unnamed source is one the journalist does know. There is an incredibly large difference between those two things.
They refused to put their names next to their accusations. That's weak. You are splitting hairs and you know what he meant when he said anonymous.
Most of them still have jobs in the league or would like to in the future. You don't burn your bridges. It is in fact pretty common in investigative journalism to have sources who refuse to be named. Happens all the time. An unnamed source is not an anonymous source though. Two vastly different things.
If they are right about their accusations, there would be no reason to fear being blackballed by any team other than the Patriots. It's weak because by making unsubstantiated accusations anonymously, I mean with out allowing their names to be used, the accused cannot adequately defend themselves. It's an underhanded move.
Rumors of playbooks missing from visiting locker rooms and hotels, communication equipment not working, and locker rooms being bugged have floated around the league for decades. No one has ever cared about it before. Now that these accusations are made against the Patriots by unnamed sources without any specific details, people are getting their panties in a twist. It's silly.
-
Yeah Moranis is absolutely right here.
As far as the accused is concerned, it is anonymous. And like I said, Moranis knew exactly what rocknroll meant.
-
Yeah Moranis is absolutely right here.
As far as the accused is concerned, it is anonymous. And like I said, Moranis knew exactly what rocknroll meant.
I'm not sure that's what mr. RnR meant, actually, and touting a degree doesn't mean you're automatically correct (Bobby Jindal has a degree in biology, for example). Furthermore you are making a number of assertions designed to support your favorite team -- which is fine, that's what fans do -- but these assertions are not necessarily tethered to reality.
-
Yeah Moranis is absolutely right here.
As far as the accused is concerned, it is anonymous. And like I said, Moranis knew exactly what rocknroll meant.
that isn't what rocknroll said at all.
-
Yeah Moranis is absolutely right here.
As far as the accused is concerned, it is anonymous. And like I said, Moranis knew exactly what rocknroll meant.
I'm not sure that's what mr. RnR meant, actually. Furthermore you are making a number of assertions designed to support your favorite team -- which is fine, that's what fans do -- but these assertions are not necessarily tethered to reality.
What exactly did I not tether to reality?
-
If they are right about their accusations, there would be no reason to fear being blackballed by any team other than the Patriots.
Rumors of playbooks missing from visiting locker rooms and hotels, communication equipment not working, and locker rooms being bugged have floated around the league for decades. No one has ever cared about it before.
-
If they are right about their accusations, there would be no reason to fear being blackballed by any team other than the Patriots.
Rumors of playbooks missing from visiting locker rooms and hotels, communication equipment not working, and locker rooms being bugged have floated around the league for decades. No one has ever cared about it before.
You have said that you are not a football fan, so you probably have not read about these many stories that have been around for a long time.
I'll give you an example. In the late 80s, Bill Parcells accused the great Bill Walsh repeatedly for tampering with the commuciations equipment. No one ever said the 49ers championships are tainted and Parcells never had problems getting another job.
I've read about playbooks disappearing from locker rooms and visiting hotels since before Belichick was coaching the Patriots. People used to laugh it off.
-
If they are right about their accusations, there would be no reason to fear being blackballed by any team other than the Patriots.
Rumors of playbooks missing from visiting locker rooms and hotels, communication equipment not working, and locker rooms being bugged have floated around the league for decades. No one has ever cared about it before.
You have said that you are not a football fan, so you probably have not read about these many stories that have been around for a long time.
I'll give you an example. In the late 80s, Bill Parcells accused the great Bill Walsh repeatedly for tampering with the commuciations equipment. No one ever said the 49ers championships are tainted and Parcells never had problems getting another job.
I've read about playbooks disappearing from locker rooms and visiting hotels since before Belichick was coaching the Patriots. People used to laugh it off.
Did you read the SI article I posted on the last page? I think it will give you an idea as to why it is a bigger deal now and why the Patriots are of particular note.
-
If they are right about their accusations, there would be no reason to fear being blackballed by any team other than the Patriots.
Rumors of playbooks missing from visiting locker rooms and hotels, communication equipment not working, and locker rooms being bugged have floated around the league for decades. No one has ever cared about it before.
You have said that you are not a football fan, so you probably have not read about these many stories that have been around for a long time.
I'll give you an example. In the late 80s, Bill Parcells accused the great Bill Walsh repeatedly for tampering with the commuciations equipment. No one ever said the 49ers championships are tainted and Parcells never had problems getting another job.
I've read about playbooks disappearing from locker rooms and visiting hotels since before Belichick was coaching the Patriots. People used to laugh it off.
Did you read the SI article I posted on the last page? I think it will give you an idea as to why it is a bigger deal now and why the Patriots are of particular note.
It's a bigger deal because we're in a time of a 24/7 news cycle with a very heavy social media presence so plenty of hot takes can cause a ripple effect throughout the fandom.
Gamesmanship & pushing the envelope with rules is nothing new to the NFL. There is a vast history of it. The problem is that the spotlight on stuff like that is a lot greater now because of the climate we live in.
That SI article speaks as much to paranoia among teams about anything else. Also speaks to how Belichick often pushes the envelope and has sometimes crossed it (see Spygate). There's also a ton of complaining & moaning in there.
-
If they are right about their accusations, there would be no reason to fear being blackballed by any team other than the Patriots.
Rumors of playbooks missing from visiting locker rooms and hotels, communication equipment not working, and locker rooms being bugged have floated around the league for decades. No one has ever cared about it before.
You have said that you are not a football fan, so you probably have not read about these many stories that have been around for a long time.
I'll give you an example. In the late 80s, Bill Parcells accused the great Bill Walsh repeatedly for tampering with the commuciations equipment. No one ever said the 49ers championships are tainted and Parcells never had problems getting another job.
I've read about playbooks disappearing from locker rooms and visiting hotels since before Belichick was coaching the Patriots. People used to laugh it off.
I am not a football fan -- but that does not mean that I do not follow the NFL. There are differences between your examples and the present situation that would be made clear to you if, for example, you were to read that sports illustrated story (or that outside the lines report) without an instinctive inclination that dismisses anything that even thinks about besmirching your beloved Patriots.
As it stands, complaining about 'anonymous sources' is just flailing at a very reasonable situation in light of how the NFL and their teams view talking to the media out of turn (Pro tip: the NFL hates that stuff. Hates it. League-wide).
edit: this is coming across a bit rude. Apologies -- need coffee. Not trying to offend.
-
Dan Wetzel has a hilarious tongue and cheek take on the new "allegations".
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/alleged-locker-room-break-ins--secret-tapes-and-hamptons-parties--the-patriots-way-191617766.html
-
If they are right about their accusations, there would be no reason to fear being blackballed by any team other than the Patriots.
Rumors of playbooks missing from visiting locker rooms and hotels, communication equipment not working, and locker rooms being bugged have floated around the league for decades. No one has ever cared about it before.
You have said that you are not a football fan, so you probably have not read about these many stories that have been around for a long time.
I'll give you an example. In the late 80s, Bill Parcells accused the great Bill Walsh repeatedly for tampering with the commuciations equipment. No one ever said the 49ers championships are tainted and Parcells never had problems getting another job.
I've read about playbooks disappearing from locker rooms and visiting hotels since before Belichick was coaching the Patriots. People used to laugh it off.
Did you read the SI article I posted on the last page? I think it will give you an idea as to why it is a bigger deal now and why the Patriots are of particular note.
Yes and I read lot of paranoia. The only part of the story with any substance is Spygate being rehashed again 8 years later. There was one part of the story about injury reports. Here's an article responding to that. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/09/08/si-com-story-on-pats-has-compelling-but-inaccurate-anecdote/
-
If they are right about their accusations, there would be no reason to fear being blackballed by any team other than the Patriots.
Rumors of playbooks missing from visiting locker rooms and hotels, communication equipment not working, and locker rooms being bugged have floated around the league for decades. No one has ever cared about it before.
You have said that you are not a football fan, so you probably have not read about these many stories that have been around for a long time.
I'll give you an example. In the late 80s, Bill Parcells accused the great Bill Walsh repeatedly for tampering with the commuciations equipment. No one ever said the 49ers championships are tainted and Parcells never had problems getting another job.
I've read about playbooks disappearing from locker rooms and visiting hotels since before Belichick was coaching the Patriots. People used to laugh it off.
I am not a football fan -- but that does not mean that I do not follow the NFL. There are differences between your examples and the present situation that would be made clear to you if, for example, you were to read that sports illustrated story (or that outside the lines report) without an instinctive inclination that dismisses anything that even thinks about besmirching your beloved Patriots.
As it stands, complaining about 'anonymous sources' is just flailing at a very reasonable situation in light of how the NFL and their teams view talking to the media out of turn (Pro tip: the NFL hates that stuff. Hates it. League-wide).
edit: this is coming across a bit rude. Apologies -- need coffee. Not trying to offend.
You don't have to generalize my thinking by claiming I have an instinctive inclination and that am not able to be objective. I'll happily debate each point.
Complaining about "anonymous sources" is legit because the accusations lack details which makes it impossible to defend and impossible to question the accuser. it's underhanded.
-
Did you feel the same way about the scandal for which deflategate is named? Lots of unnamed sources there, too.
-
Did you feel the same way about the scandal for which deflategate is named? Lots of unnamed sources there, too.
Honestly, I thought the Patriots were guilty after reading the first 20 pages of the Wells report. But I read the whole thing and I found it misleading and there were noticeable holes in Exponent's report which I have previously written about in this thread. I don't think it's necessary to continue discussing that. I'm not sure what you mean by anonymous sources unless you are referring to the leaks or the claim that everyone knows they deflate the balls.
-
If they are right about their accusations, there would be no reason to fear being blackballed by any team other than the Patriots.
Rumors of playbooks missing from visiting locker rooms and hotels, communication equipment not working, and locker rooms being bugged have floated around the league for decades. No one has ever cared about it before.
You have said that you are not a football fan, so you probably have not read about these many stories that have been around for a long time.
I'll give you an example. In the late 80s, Bill Parcells accused the great Bill Walsh repeatedly for tampering with the commuciations equipment. No one ever said the 49ers championships are tainted and Parcells never had problems getting another job.
I've read about playbooks disappearing from locker rooms and visiting hotels since before Belichick was coaching the Patriots. People used to laugh it off.
I am not a football fan -- but that does not mean that I do not follow the NFL. There are differences between your examples and the present situation that would be made clear to you if, for example, you were to read that sports illustrated story (or that outside the lines report) without an instinctive inclination that dismisses anything that even thinks about besmirching your beloved Patriots.
As it stands, complaining about 'anonymous sources' is just flailing at a very reasonable situation in light of how the NFL and their teams view talking to the media out of turn (Pro tip: the NFL hates that stuff. Hates it. League-wide).
edit: this is coming across a bit rude. Apologies -- need coffee. Not trying to offend.
You don't have to generalize my thinking by claiming I have an instinctive inclination and that am not able to be objective. I'll happily debate each point.
Complaining about "anonymous sources" is legit because the accusations lack details which makes it impossible to defend and impossible to question the accuser. it's underhanded.
This isn't a court of law or even a NFL investigation though. It is a piece of investigative journalism. In those, unnamed sources are quite common. Heck some of them even use purely anonymous sources, but only after numerous rounds of vetting.
You seem to be mixing up the two and then somehow using that to discredit the piece. Which is fine, you are a fan, that is what fans do, but I somehow don't think if this was the Jets you would have the same opinion.
-
What I found bothersome in this is people ignore the smart game planning and good execution while making excuses. For example, in the 2013 playoffs, the Patriots blew out the Colts. They didn't do anything tricky. They knew the Colts had a weak run defense, so they put a 320 lb lineman in the game as a TE, used a 255 lb fullback and a 250 lb tailback. And they ran right over the Colts line and dominated the game. You would think other teams would learn from this and do the same thing against the Colts in 2014, but no, each team stuck with their regular game plan. In mid 2014, the Pats did the same thing against the Colts and again other teams did not copy the strategy and the Colts reached the AFC Championship. Again, the Pats used a 320 lb OL as TE, a 255 lb fullback, and a 250 lb runningback and ran over the Colts. That's just good coaching and old fashioned physical football. Yet, afterwards people accuse them of cheating. It's sour grapes from around the league.
The eligible lineman used against the Ravens was used by Alabama earlier in the year. Any team could have copied it, but Belichick is the only one to think of it and people complain. Go back a few years ago when they were using their quick no huddle offense. Belichick got that idea from seeing the success Chip Kelly had and brought him in to their training camp and explain how he does it. Other teams could have done this, but no one did. And then they complained that it was unfair and they were bending the rules despite the fact it was totally legit. I could go on...
-
Funny that every source in these reports is anonymous. When I was getting my journalism degree, one of the things I learned was that using anonymous sources was a very weak journalistic practice, and to be avoided if at all possible.
I don't think they were anonymous they just asked not to be named. Very different.
(http://courvo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/splitting-hairs.jpg)
Come on that isn't splitting hairs. An anonymous source is one that the journalist doesn't know, an unnamed source is one the journalist does know. There is an incredibly large difference between those two things.
They refused to put their names next to their accusations. That's weak. You are splitting hairs and you know what he meant when he said anonymous.
Most of them still have jobs in the league or would like to in the future. You don't burn your bridges. It is in fact pretty common in investigative journalism to have sources who refuse to be named. Happens all the time. An unnamed source is not an anonymous source though. Two vastly different things.
You are right in that they are technically different, but for all practical purposes they are the same—because in both cases, the reader is unable to verify the source. Which means the author could be making it up.
-
Did you feel the same way about the scandal for which deflategate is named? Lots of unnamed sources there, too.
Honestly, I thought the Patriots were guilty after reading the first 20 pages of the Wells report. But I read the whole thing and I found it misleading and there were noticeable holes in Exponent's report which I have previously written about in this thread. I don't think it's necessary to continue discussing that. I'm not sure what you mean by anonymous sources unless you are referring to the leaks or the claim that everyone knows they deflate the balls.
Well I was talking about watergate, actually. You know, the scandal that gave deflategate it's name (or at least it's suffix).
-
Funny that every source in these reports is anonymous. When I was getting my journalism degree, one of the things I learned was that using anonymous sources was a very weak journalistic practice, and to be avoided if at all possible.
I don't think they were anonymous they just asked not to be named. Very different.
(http://courvo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/splitting-hairs.jpg)
Come on that isn't splitting hairs. An anonymous source is one that the journalist doesn't know, an unnamed source is one the journalist does know. There is an incredibly large difference between those two things.
They refused to put their names next to their accusations. That's weak. You are splitting hairs and you know what he meant when he said anonymous.
Most of them still have jobs in the league or would like to in the future. You don't burn your bridges. It is in fact pretty common in investigative journalism to have sources who refuse to be named. Happens all the time. An unnamed source is not an anonymous source though. Two vastly different things.
You are right in that they are technically different, but for all practical purposes they are the same—because in both cases, the reader is unable to verify the source. Which means the author could be making it up.
Yeah this is bogus, though -- unless you don't think ESPN has any vested interest in adhering to the facts, which their position in the world of sports would seem to render unlikely.
Rather: if you put a gun to the head of one of the writers, they could give you a source. This almost certainly isn't a Jayson Blair situation -- and anyone with a degree in journalism should know that the difference extends well into 'practical purposes'.
-
If they are right about their accusations, there would be no reason to fear being blackballed by any team other than the Patriots.
Rumors of playbooks missing from visiting locker rooms and hotels, communication equipment not working, and locker rooms being bugged have floated around the league for decades. No one has ever cared about it before.
You have said that you are not a football fan, so you probably have not read about these many stories that have been around for a long time.
I'll give you an example. In the late 80s, Bill Parcells accused the great Bill Walsh repeatedly for tampering with the commuciations equipment. No one ever said the 49ers championships are tainted and Parcells never had problems getting another job.
I've read about playbooks disappearing from locker rooms and visiting hotels since before Belichick was coaching the Patriots. People used to laugh it off.
I am not a football fan -- but that does not mean that I do not follow the NFL. There are differences between your examples and the present situation that would be made clear to you if, for example, you were to read that sports illustrated story (or that outside the lines report) without an instinctive inclination that dismisses anything that even thinks about besmirching your beloved Patriots.
As it stands, complaining about 'anonymous sources' is just flailing at a very reasonable situation in light of how the NFL and their teams view talking to the media out of turn (Pro tip: the NFL hates that stuff. Hates it. League-wide).
edit: this is coming across a bit rude. Apologies -- need coffee. Not trying to offend.
You don't have to generalize my thinking by claiming I have an instinctive inclination and that am not able to be objective. I'll happily debate each point.
Complaining about "anonymous sources" is legit because the accusations lack details which makes it impossible to defend and impossible to question the accuser. it's underhanded.
This isn't a court of law or even a NFL investigation though. It is a piece of investigative journalism. In those, unnamed sources are quite common. Heck some of them even use purely anonymous sources, but only after numerous rounds of vetting.
You seem to be mixing up the two and then somehow using that to discredit the piece. Which is fine, you are a fan, that is what fans do, but I somehow don't think if this was the Jets you would have the same opinion.
I would absolutely find it bs if it was done against the Jets. I thought Bountygate and Bullygate were absurd and I think the suspension given to Hardy is unfair. And no, I'm not mixing up the difference between a court of law and an investigative article. I'm talking about general fairness.
-
Did you feel the same way about the scandal for which deflategate is named? Lots of unnamed sources there, too.
Honestly, I thought the Patriots were guilty after reading the first 20 pages of the Wells report. But I read the whole thing and I found it misleading and there were noticeable holes in Exponent's report which I have previously written about in this thread. I don't think it's necessary to continue discussing that. I'm not sure what you mean by anonymous sources unless you are referring to the leaks or the claim that everyone knows they deflate the balls.
Well I was talking about watergate, actually. You know, the scandal that gave deflategate it's name (or at least it's suffix).
Oh, I was confused by what you meant by "for which it is named". Watergate happened before I was born and I don't really have any strong opinions on it.
-
Funny that every source in these reports is anonymous. When I was getting my journalism degree, one of the things I learned was that using anonymous sources was a very weak journalistic practice, and to be avoided if at all possible.
I don't think they were anonymous they just asked not to be named. Very different.
(http://courvo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/splitting-hairs.jpg)
Come on that isn't splitting hairs. An anonymous source is one that the journalist doesn't know, an unnamed source is one the journalist does know. There is an incredibly large difference between those two things.
They refused to put their names next to their accusations. That's weak. You are splitting hairs and you know what he meant when he said anonymous.
Most of them still have jobs in the league or would like to in the future. You don't burn your bridges. It is in fact pretty common in investigative journalism to have sources who refuse to be named. Happens all the time. An unnamed source is not an anonymous source though. Two vastly different things.
You are right in that they are technically different, but for all practical purposes they are the same—because in both cases, the reader is unable to verify the source. Which means the author could be making it up.
Yeah this is bogus, though -- unless you don't think ESPN has any vested interest in adhering to the facts, which their position in the world of sports would seem to render unlikely.
Rather: if you put a gun to the head of one of the writers, they could give you a source. This almost certainly isn't a Jayson Blair situation -- and anyone with a degree in journalism should know that the difference extends well into 'practical purposes'.
You mean like 11 of the 12 balls are more than 2psi low? If someone doesn't believe in what they say strong enough to go on the record you should be really careful about reporting it. ESPN hasn't seemed to meet that burden regardless of your opinions on their vested interest in adhering to the facts and how their position in the world of sports would seem to render unlikely. Eight years after the fact they were still saying the Patriots taped the Ram's walkthrough even though that had been debunked and apologized for already.
-
Funny that every source in these reports is anonymous. When I was getting my journalism degree, one of the things I learned was that using anonymous sources was a very weak journalistic practice, and to be avoided if at all possible.
I don't think they were anonymous they just asked not to be named. Very different.
(http://courvo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/splitting-hairs.jpg)
Come on that isn't splitting hairs. An anonymous source is one that the journalist doesn't know, an unnamed source is one the journalist does know. There is an incredibly large difference between those two things.
They refused to put their names next to their accusations. That's weak. You are splitting hairs and you know what he meant when he said anonymous.
Most of them still have jobs in the league or would like to in the future. You don't burn your bridges. It is in fact pretty common in investigative journalism to have sources who refuse to be named. Happens all the time. An unnamed source is not an anonymous source though. Two vastly different things.
You are right in that they are technically different, but for all practical purposes they are the same—because in both cases, the reader is unable to verify the source. Which means the author could be making it up.
Yeah this is bogus, though -- unless you don't think ESPN has any vested interest in adhering to the facts, which their position in the world of sports would seem to render unlikely.
Rather: if you put a gun to the head of one of the writers, they could give you a source. This almost certainly isn't a Jayson Blair situation -- and anyone with a degree in journalism should know that the difference extends well into 'practical purposes'.
You mean like 11 of the 12 balls are more than 2psi low? If someone doesn't believe in what they say strong enough to go on the record you should be really careful about reporting it. ESPN hasn't seemed to meet that burden regardless of your opinions on their vested interest in adhering to the facts and how their position in the world of sports would seem to render unlikely. Eight years after the fact they were still saying the Patriots taped the Ram's walkthrough even though that had been debunked and apologized for already.
ESPN made the claim about taping the Rams practice a couple of weeks ago and then apologized for it. Yet, there it was again in yesterday's article.
-
Funny that every source in these reports is anonymous. When I was getting my journalism degree, one of the things I learned was that using anonymous sources was a very weak journalistic practice, and to be avoided if at all possible.
I don't think they were anonymous they just asked not to be named. Very different.
(http://courvo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/splitting-hairs.jpg)
Come on that isn't splitting hairs. An anonymous source is one that the journalist doesn't know, an unnamed source is one the journalist does know. There is an incredibly large difference between those two things.
They refused to put their names next to their accusations. That's weak. You are splitting hairs and you know what he meant when he said anonymous.
Most of them still have jobs in the league or would like to in the future. You don't burn your bridges. It is in fact pretty common in investigative journalism to have sources who refuse to be named. Happens all the time. An unnamed source is not an anonymous source though. Two vastly different things.
You are right in that they are technically different, but for all practical purposes they are the same—because in both cases, the reader is unable to verify the source. Which means the author could be making it up.
Yeah this is bogus, though -- unless you don't think ESPN has any vested interest in adhering to the facts, which their position in the world of sports would seem to render unlikely.
Rather: if you put a gun to the head of one of the writers, they could give you a source. This almost certainly isn't a Jayson Blair situation -- and anyone with a degree in journalism should know that the difference extends well into 'practical purposes'.
You mean like 11 of the 12 balls are more than 2psi low? If someone doesn't believe in what they say strong enough to go on the record you should be really careful about reporting it. ESPN hasn't seemed to meet that burden regardless of your opinions on their vested interest in adhering to the facts and how their position in the world of sports would seem to render unlikely. Eight years after the fact they were still saying the Patriots taped the Ram's walkthrough even though that had been debunked and apologized for already.
That has, actually, nothing to do the differences between an anonymous source and an unnamed source, but sure, if you think that the Outside the Line piece is fabricated because they're quoting people by title rather than given name, that's your prerogative.
-
I'm saying the ESPN is pretty loose with the facts, being from whatever source. They are an entertainment network and not a news network. I don't think they necessarily have any interest in adhering to the facts or they'd do a better job reporting them. They want a story whether they report one or create one.
-
I think that's true in some senses, certainly (the ESPN echo chamber is a well-known phenomenon on slow news days), but I'm not sure the reporting in this OTL story falls under that umbrella.
-
In yesterday's OTL article, the author writes "Goodell tried to assuage his bosses: He ordered the destruction of the tapes and notes, he insisted, so they couldn't be exploited again. Many in the room didn't believe it. And some would conclude it was as if Goodell, Kraft and Belichick had acted like partners, complicit in trying to sweep the scandal's details under the rug while the rest of the league was left wondering how much glory the Patriots' cheating had cost their teams. "Goodell didn't want anybody to know that his gold franchise had won Super Bowls by cheating," a senior executive whose team lost to the Patriots in a Super Bowl now says. "If that gets out, that hurts your business."
Yet, back in December that same author said on a Bill Simmons' podcast:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COaQA_aVAAAtROP.png)
Funny how that nugget didn't make it in the report.
-
The timing and staleness of this Spygate rehash makes it hard to come to any conclusion other than the NFL has it in for the Pats and that the NFL has their mind set on getting them on something, no matter how old. I keep thinking about the story that some NFL exec was running around the sidelines for the Indy game saying more or less, "we gotcha". You don't get that happy about "gotcha-ing" someone unless you have been trying for a while.
Well deflategate went from we gotcha to we look like idiots; so quick, role out an old story and distract everyone from the beat down we just took on the deflategate thing that turned out to be a nothing really happened here thing.
But really, I know, Brady must have known about the scheme to not let air out of the balls. He did get a new phone and McNally did take a leak before the game so even though there was not actually any air let out of the balls (at least the ones that were studied by a team of experts retained by the NFL), Brady must have known about it. And this old story about how the NFL destroyed some tapes proves it.
I wonder how long ESPN is going to play along with this. Think about it. ESPN has put out a story that is in an indirect way trying to say that because Goodell ordered tapes destroyed 7 years ago that it proves that Brady know about "the scheme" to deflate balls (except that it would have to be a scheme to not-deflate the balls, but details, details). Come on ESPN, have some balls and stop publishing this NFL sponsored crap.
-
I think that's true in some senses, certainly (the ESPN echo chamber is a well-known phenomenon on slow news days), but I'm not sure the reporting in this OTL story falls under that umbrella.
I'm sure there is some good reporting that went into that report. There's also some info in there that has already been refuted less than 24 hours later.
IMO, the story here is the equivalent of trying to build a skyscraper on quick sand. It's mostly a rehash that is taking some liberties and includes a lot of speculation. Someone is trying to push an angle here with a story that is 8 years around surrounded by a decade's worth of rumors.
-
Yeah, that's definitely true -- although I think that it may be less of the NFL's efforts than ESPN's content producers deciding that this would make a great stopgap until tomorrow night.
-
Funny that every source in these reports is anonymous. When I was getting my journalism degree, one of the things I learned was that using anonymous sources was a very weak journalistic practice, and to be avoided if at all possible.
I don't think they were anonymous they just asked not to be named. Very different.
(http://courvo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/splitting-hairs.jpg)
Come on that isn't splitting hairs. An anonymous source is one that the journalist doesn't know, an unnamed source is one the journalist does know. There is an incredibly large difference between those two things.
They refused to put their names next to their accusations. That's weak. You are splitting hairs and you know what he meant when he said anonymous.
Most of them still have jobs in the league or would like to in the future. You don't burn your bridges. It is in fact pretty common in investigative journalism to have sources who refuse to be named. Happens all the time. An unnamed source is not an anonymous source though. Two vastly different things.
You are right in that they are technically different, but for all practical purposes they are the same—because in both cases, the reader is unable to verify the source. Which means the author could be making it up.
Yeah this is bogus, though -- unless you don't think ESPN has any vested interest in adhering to the facts, which their position in the world of sports would seem to render unlikely.
Rather: if you put a gun to the head of one of the writers, they could give you a source. This almost certainly isn't a Jayson Blair situation -- and anyone with a degree in journalism should know that the difference extends well into 'practical purposes'.
You mean like 11 of the 12 balls are more than 2psi low? If someone doesn't believe in what they say strong enough to go on the record you should be really careful about reporting it. ESPN hasn't seemed to meet that burden regardless of your opinions on their vested interest in adhering to the facts and how their position in the world of sports would seem to render unlikely. Eight years after the fact they were still saying the Patriots taped the Ram's walkthrough even though that had been debunked and apologized for already.
That has, actually, nothing to do the differences between an anonymous source and an unnamed source, but sure, if you think that the Outside the Line piece is fabricated because they're quoting people by title rather than given name, that's your prerogative.
It is about being more creditable, naming sources does that. Since ESPN has done some pretty bad and skewed reporting on the recent Patriot news its only right to question the context and sources of their reports. There are a lot of things being left out simply to create more of a "story". It's fishing for viewers at the expense of the Patriots IMO.
-
Is anyone here seriously going to argue that if they only had names to attach to the information provided, they'd accept it at face value, rather than immediately searching for any angle possible to discredit those sources? Pretending the anonymity is the sticking point seems very disingenuous.
-
Yeah, that's definitely true -- although I think that it may be less of the NFL's efforts than ESPN's content producers deciding that this would make a great stopgap until tomorrow night.
Interesting take that it is more ESPN and less NFL but what is your rationale for this? I don't know of course anymore than you but by take is just the opposite. I think the NFL is leaking this out on a script orchestrated by Goodell and other higher-up. At a minimum, ESPN is a relatively innocent pansy in this and just running with the stories but at worst, the NFL is saying "here is the story and we order you to run with it" (or we will stop giving you access).
To me, it is time for ESPN to understand that are being fed "crap" by the NFL and they should stand up to it. A 10,000 word piece you not have parts of it refuted so conclusively in just 24 hours. In the past, a leak from an unnamed NFL exec was probably very reliable and required only minimal confirmation. Lately, that is not the case. ESPN is running with things like they have all along but now getting burned. They are not chasing these things down and verifying them.
-
Is anyone here seriously going to argue that if they only had names to attach to the information provided, they'd accept it at face value, rather than immediately searching for any angle possible to discredit those sources? Pretending the anonymity is the sticking point seems very disingenuous.
No one is saying that. They are just thinking, is this some of the same sources that have mislead us before or teams that have gripes for losing again? People don't beleive the story is the full one any more right from the start. ESPN has done this to itself.
-
Yeah, that's definitely true -- although I think that it may be less of the NFL's efforts than ESPN's content producers deciding that this would make a great stopgap until tomorrow night.
Interesting take that it is more ESPN and less NFL but what is your rationale for this? I don't know of course anymore than you but by take is just the opposite. I think the NFL is leaking this out on a script orchestrated by Goodell and other higher-up. At a minimum, ESPN is a relatively innocent pansy in this and just running with the stories but at worst, the NFL is saying "here is the story and we order you to run with it" (or we will stop giving you access).
To me, it is time for ESPN to understand that are being fed "crap" by the NFL and they should stand up to it. A 10,000 word piece you not have parts of it refuted so conclusively in just 24 hours. In the past, a leak from an unnamed NFL exec was probably very reliable and required only minimal confirmation. Lately, that is not the case. ESPN is running with things like they have all along but now getting burned. They are not chasing these things down and verifying them.
My suspicion hinges mostly on the timing -- I was trying to figure out what would be best published (or "updated" since, as has been pointed out a lot of the info is old) that is relevant to Thursday night but won't upset the 'actual' coverage of TNF.
Also I think that the turnaround time, were the NFL actually calling the shots, would be significantly longer than if it was coming out of Bristol -- not shorter.
-
In yesterday's OTL article, the author writes "Goodell tried to assuage his bosses: He ordered the destruction of the tapes and notes, he insisted, so they couldn't be exploited again. Many in the room didn't believe it. And some would conclude it was as if Goodell, Kraft and Belichick had acted like partners, complicit in trying to sweep the scandal's details under the rug while the rest of the league was left wondering how much glory the Patriots' cheating had cost their teams. "Goodell didn't want anybody to know that his gold franchise had won Super Bowls by cheating," a senior executive whose team lost to the Patriots in a Super Bowl now says. "If that gets out, that hurts your business."
Yet, back in December that same author said on a Bill Simmons' podcast:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COaQA_aVAAAtROP.png)
Funny how that nugget didn't make it in the report.
Those aren't necessarily incongruous statements.
-
Yeah, that's definitely true -- although I think that it may be less of the NFL's efforts than ESPN's content producers deciding that this would make a great stopgap until tomorrow night.
Interesting take that it is more ESPN and less NFL but what is your rationale for this? I don't know of course anymore than you but by take is just the opposite. I think the NFL is leaking this out on a script orchestrated by Goodell and other higher-up. At a minimum, ESPN is a relatively innocent pansy in this and just running with the stories but at worst, the NFL is saying "here is the story and we order you to run with it" (or we will stop giving you access).
To me, it is time for ESPN to understand that are being fed "crap" by the NFL and they should stand up to it. A 10,000 word piece you not have parts of it refuted so conclusively in just 24 hours. In the past, a leak from an unnamed NFL exec was probably very reliable and required only minimal confirmation. Lately, that is not the case. ESPN is running with things like they have all along but now getting burned. They are not chasing these things down and verifying them.
My suspicion hinges mostly on the timing -- I was trying to figure out what would be best published (or "updated" since, as has been pointed out a lot of the info is old) that is relevant to Thursday night but won't upset the 'actual' coverage of TNF.
Also I think that the turnaround time, were the NFL actually calling the shots, would be significantly longer than if it was coming out of Bristol -- not shorter.
well that plus it makes the NFL look like total incompetents, especially Goodell.
-
In yesterday's OTL article, the author writes "Goodell tried to assuage his bosses: He ordered the destruction of the tapes and notes, he insisted, so they couldn't be exploited again. Many in the room didn't believe it. And some would conclude it was as if Goodell, Kraft and Belichick had acted like partners, complicit in trying to sweep the scandal's details under the rug while the rest of the league was left wondering how much glory the Patriots' cheating had cost their teams. "Goodell didn't want anybody to know that his gold franchise had won Super Bowls by cheating," a senior executive whose team lost to the Patriots in a Super Bowl now says. "If that gets out, that hurts your business."
Yet, back in December that same author said on a Bill Simmons' podcast:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COaQA_aVAAAtROP.png)
Funny how that nugget didn't make it in the report.
Those aren't necessarily incongruous statements.
Not "necessarily", but there certainly is some contradiction. The owners agreed with destroying the tapes and later complained about it. It certainly is relevant to the article, but did not fit with the narrative. Or maybe, there wasn't enough room in the 10,000 word article for it. The long since debunked story about spying on the Rams was more important. Or the comments about Ernie Adams being weird, socially awkward, having a bad wardrobe, and having a "photographic" memory was more important too.
-
In yesterday's OTL article, the author writes "Goodell tried to assuage his bosses: He ordered the destruction of the tapes and notes, he insisted, so they couldn't be exploited again. Many in the room didn't believe it. And some would conclude it was as if Goodell, Kraft and Belichick had acted like partners, complicit in trying to sweep the scandal's details under the rug while the rest of the league was left wondering how much glory the Patriots' cheating had cost their teams. "Goodell didn't want anybody to know that his gold franchise had won Super Bowls by cheating," a senior executive whose team lost to the Patriots in a Super Bowl now says. "If that gets out, that hurts your business."
Yet, back in December that same author said on a Bill Simmons' podcast:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COaQA_aVAAAtROP.png)
Funny how that nugget didn't make it in the report.
Those aren't necessarily incongruous statements.
Not "necessarily", but there certainly is some contradiction. The owners agreed with destroying the tapes and later complained about it. It certainly is relevant to the article, but did not fit with the narrative. Or maybe, there wasn't enough room in the 10,000 word article for it. The long since debunked story about spying on the Rams was more important. Or the comments about Ernie Adams being weird, socially awkward, having a bad wardrobe, and having a "photographic" memory was more important too.
Or, the owners met after the tapes were already destroyed and were pressured into agreeing that it was a good idea after the fact. If we have learned anything from these ordeals is that Goodell is capable of doing just about anything if he thinks it is in the league's best interest.
-
It's hilarious how paranoid the league is about the Patriots stealing their something. That's tinfoil-hat, Illuminati, reptile conspiracy material right there.
No wonder they all keep losing -- if you spend more time worrying about off the field than on the field stuff, you're likely to get your rear end handed to you on the field.
I'm loving it.
-
In yesterday's OTL article, the author writes "Goodell tried to assuage his bosses: He ordered the destruction of the tapes and notes, he insisted, so they couldn't be exploited again. Many in the room didn't believe it. And some would conclude it was as if Goodell, Kraft and Belichick had acted like partners, complicit in trying to sweep the scandal's details under the rug while the rest of the league was left wondering how much glory the Patriots' cheating had cost their teams. "Goodell didn't want anybody to know that his gold franchise had won Super Bowls by cheating," a senior executive whose team lost to the Patriots in a Super Bowl now says. "If that gets out, that hurts your business."
Yet, back in December that same author said on a Bill Simmons' podcast:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COaQA_aVAAAtROP.png)
Funny how that nugget didn't make it in the report.
Those aren't necessarily incongruous statements.
Not "necessarily", but there certainly is some contradiction. The owners agreed with destroying the tapes and later complained about it. It certainly is relevant to the article, but did not fit with the narrative. Or maybe, there wasn't enough room in the 10,000 word article for it. The long since debunked story about spying on the Rams was more important. Or the comments about Ernie Adams being weird, socially awkward, having a bad wardrobe, and having a "photographic" memory was more important too.
Or, the owners met after the tapes were already destroyed and were pressured into agreeing that it was a good idea after the fact. If we have learned anything from these ordeals is that Goodell is capable of doing just about anything if he thinks it is in the league's best interest.
Moranis, I think your making some good points and it's good to have more than one opinion, but I just can't picture the nfl owners getting pressured into anything. They are very powerful people, have questionable morals, and in my opinion run goodell. I could picture them pressuring goodell, but not the other way around. He works for them. And for the record I'm not a patriots fan or nfl fan. I don't watch at all and try not to pay attention to this sport as much as possible.
-
It's hilarious how paranoid the league is about the Patriots stealing their something. That's tinfoil-hat, Illuminati, reptile conspiracy material right there.
No wonder they all keep losing -- if you spend more time worrying about off the field than on the field stuff, you're likely to get your rear end handed to you on the field.
I'm loving it.
I think there are two main takeaways from the ESPNnarticle. You hit on one of them above.
The other is that the reading public has a voracious appetite for Patriots Gate stuff even if it is rehashed eight year old stuff that has been shown to be false.
-
It's hilarious how paranoid the league is about the Patriots stealing their something. That's tinfoil-hat, Illuminati, reptile conspiracy material right there.
No wonder they all keep losing -- if you spend more time worrying about off the field than on the field stuff, you're likely to get your rear end handed to you on the field.
I'm loving it.
I think there are two main takeaways from the ESPNnarticle. You hit on one of them above.
The other is that the reading public has a voracious appetite for Patriots Gate stuff even if it is rehashed eight year old stuff that has been shown to be false.
Where the Patriots are concerned, "Do Your Job" is great TV, by the way.
-
It's hilarious how paranoid the league is about the Patriots stealing their something. That's tinfoil-hat, Illuminati, reptile conspiracy material right there.
No wonder they all keep losing -- if you spend more time worrying about off the field than on the field stuff, you're likely to get your rear end handed to you on the field.
I'm loving it.
I think there are two main takeaways from the ESPNnarticle. You hit on one of them above.
The other is that the reading public has a voracious appetite for Patriots Gate stuff even if it is rehashed eight year old stuff that has been shown to be false.
Where the Patriots are concerned, "Do Your Job" is great TV, by the way.
It's an excellent program regardless of one's fan affiliation. I thought the scenes on how they came up with the trick plays against the Ravens in the playoffs and the time they spent on the end-of-game decisions and plays in the SB were fascinating. A lot of insights available as to why they're as good as they are besides having Brady.
-
In yesterday's OTL article, the author writes "Goodell tried to assuage his bosses: He ordered the destruction of the tapes and notes, he insisted, so they couldn't be exploited again. Many in the room didn't believe it. And some would conclude it was as if Goodell, Kraft and Belichick had acted like partners, complicit in trying to sweep the scandal's details under the rug while the rest of the league was left wondering how much glory the Patriots' cheating had cost their teams. "Goodell didn't want anybody to know that his gold franchise had won Super Bowls by cheating," a senior executive whose team lost to the Patriots in a Super Bowl now says. "If that gets out, that hurts your business."
Yet, back in December that same author said on a Bill Simmons' podcast:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COaQA_aVAAAtROP.png)
Funny how that nugget didn't make it in the report.
Those aren't necessarily incongruous statements.
Not "necessarily", but there certainly is some contradiction. The owners agreed with destroying the tapes and later complained about it. It certainly is relevant to the article, but did not fit with the narrative. Or maybe, there wasn't enough room in the 10,000 word article for it. The long since debunked story about spying on the Rams was more important. Or the comments about Ernie Adams being weird, socially awkward, having a bad wardrobe, and having a "photographic" memory was more important too.
Or, the owners met after the tapes were already destroyed and were pressured into agreeing that it was a good idea after the fact. If we have learned anything from these ordeals is that Goodell is capable of doing just about anything if he thinks it is in the league's best interest.
Moranis, I think your making some good points and it's good to have more than one opinion, but I just can't picture the nfl owners getting pressured into anything. They are very powerful people, have questionable morals, and in my opinion run goodell. I could picture them pressuring goodell, but not the other way around. He works for them. And for the record I'm not a patriots fan or nfl fan. I don't watch at all and try not to pay attention to this sport as much as possible.
But the tapes were already destroyed at that point in time. What good comes from calling the NFL to task for destroying the tapes if they have already been destroyed. Now sure, if the tapes hadn't already been destroyed I'd agree with you, but after the fact, there is absolutely no good that can come from the Owners openly questioning the league so it gets buried.
-
Well, the Taiwanese animators who parody everything have weighed in. Please set aside your grievances for 2 minutes and just enjoy the funny on this milestone 200th page about balls.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=125&v=NfDJl8_QvmA
-
Belichick as Palpatine is a great touch.
-
Apparently, we missed this (or we didn't, not sure it was talked about in the thread though):
http://nesn.com/2015/05/patriots-told-wells-that-jaguars-caught-colts-ballboys-with-ball-needles-on-sideline/
... and now, there's this:
http://thornography.weei.com/sports/boston/2015/09/16/video-colts-ball-boys-suspicious-activity/
The Colts are a joke.
-
Apparently, we missed this (or we didn't, not sure it was talked about in the thread though):
http://nesn.com/2015/05/patriots-told-wells-that-jaguars-caught-colts-ballboys-with-ball-needles-on-sideline/
... and now, there's this:
http://thornography.weei.com/sports/boston/2015/09/16/video-colts-ball-boys-suspicious-activity/
The Colts are a joke.
i actually haven't seen those before, TP
looks like they've had their hands in the cookie jar. and it lends credence to the idea the the colts might have had the means to tamper with that initial ball that was intercepted. maybe pats' fans paranoia about the colts messing with that first ball was justified.
-
In yesterday's OTL article, the author writes "Goodell tried to assuage his bosses: He ordered the destruction of the tapes and notes, he insisted, so they couldn't be exploited again. Many in the room didn't believe it. And some would conclude it was as if Goodell, Kraft and Belichick had acted like partners, complicit in trying to sweep the scandal's details under the rug while the rest of the league was left wondering how much glory the Patriots' cheating had cost their teams. "Goodell didn't want anybody to know that his gold franchise had won Super Bowls by cheating," a senior executive whose team lost to the Patriots in a Super Bowl now says. "If that gets out, that hurts your business."
Yet, back in December that same author said on a Bill Simmons' podcast:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COaQA_aVAAAtROP.png)
Funny how that nugget didn't make it in the report.
Those aren't necessarily incongruous statements.
Not "necessarily", but there certainly is some contradiction. The owners agreed with destroying the tapes and later complained about it. It certainly is relevant to the article, but did not fit with the narrative. Or maybe, there wasn't enough room in the 10,000 word article for it. The long since debunked story about spying on the Rams was more important. Or the comments about Ernie Adams being weird, socially awkward, having a bad wardrobe, and having a "photographic" memory was more important too.
Or, the owners met after the tapes were already destroyed and were pressured into agreeing that it was a good idea after the fact. If we have learned anything from these ordeals is that Goodell is capable of doing just about anything if he thinks it is in the league's best interest.
Moranis, I think your making some good points and it's good to have more than one opinion, but I just can't picture the nfl owners getting pressured into anything. They are very powerful people, have questionable morals, and in my opinion run goodell. I could picture them pressuring goodell, but not the other way around. He works for them. And for the record I'm not a patriots fan or nfl fan. I don't watch at all and try not to pay attention to this sport as much as possible.
But the tapes were already destroyed at that point in time. What good comes from calling the NFL to task for destroying the tapes if they have already been destroyed. Now sure, if the tapes hadn't already been destroyed I'd agree with you, but after the fact, there is absolutely no good that can come from the Owners openly questioning the league so it gets buried.
The NFL destroyed the tapes, not the Patriots. The Patriots turned the tapes over to the NFL.
-
60 Minutes weighs in, stating that the NFL, not the Patriots, are the cheaters. I agree.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wls6WT0DrFM&feature=youtu.be
-
In yesterday's OTL article, the author writes "Goodell tried to assuage his bosses: He ordered the destruction of the tapes and notes, he insisted, so they couldn't be exploited again. Many in the room didn't believe it. And some would conclude it was as if Goodell, Kraft and Belichick had acted like partners, complicit in trying to sweep the scandal's details under the rug while the rest of the league was left wondering how much glory the Patriots' cheating had cost their teams. "Goodell didn't want anybody to know that his gold franchise had won Super Bowls by cheating," a senior executive whose team lost to the Patriots in a Super Bowl now says. "If that gets out, that hurts your business."
Yet, back in December that same author said on a Bill Simmons' podcast:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COaQA_aVAAAtROP.png)
Funny how that nugget didn't make it in the report.
Those aren't necessarily incongruous statements.
Not "necessarily", but there certainly is some contradiction. The owners agreed with destroying the tapes and later complained about it. It certainly is relevant to the article, but did not fit with the narrative. Or maybe, there wasn't enough room in the 10,000 word article for it. The long since debunked story about spying on the Rams was more important. Or the comments about Ernie Adams being weird, socially awkward, having a bad wardrobe, and having a "photographic" memory was more important too.
Or, the owners met after the tapes were already destroyed and were pressured into agreeing that it was a good idea after the fact. If we have learned anything from these ordeals is that Goodell is capable of doing just about anything if he thinks it is in the league's best interest.
Moranis, I think your making some good points and it's good to have more than one opinion, but I just can't picture the nfl owners getting pressured into anything. They are very powerful people, have questionable morals, and in my opinion run goodell. I could picture them pressuring goodell, but not the other way around. He works for them. And for the record I'm not a patriots fan or nfl fan. I don't watch at all and try not to pay attention to this sport as much as possible.
But the tapes were already destroyed at that point in time. What good comes from calling the NFL to task for destroying the tapes if they have already been destroyed. Now sure, if the tapes hadn't already been destroyed I'd agree with you, but after the fact, there is absolutely no good that can come from the Owners openly questioning the league so it gets buried.
The NFL destroyed the tapes, not the Patriots. The Patriots turned the tapes over to the NFL.
Um, I said that in my post. Not sure why you are posting this.
-
Apparently, we missed this (or we didn't, not sure it was talked about in the thread though):
http://nesn.com/2015/05/patriots-told-wells-that-jaguars-caught-colts-ballboys-with-ball-needles-on-sideline/
... and now, there's this:
http://thornography.weei.com/sports/boston/2015/09/16/video-colts-ball-boys-suspicious-activity/
The Colts are a joke.
That second story actively made everyone who read it just a little bit dumber.
-
So wait, let me get this straight. There is gamesmanship, bending the rules, and maybe even some...gulp...borderline cheating going on among several, if not, all the teams in the NFL?
And there aren't $5 million "independent" investigations & federal lawsuits going on with each & every one of them? And that there "might" be some "selective" witch hunts going on depending on the team that is being accused of it?
This is too much to handle here.
-
So wait, let me get this straight. There is gamesmanship, bending the rules, and maybe even some...gulp...borderline cheating going on among several, if not, all the teams in the NFL?
And there aren't $5 million "independent" investigations & federal lawsuits going on with each & every one of them? And that there "might" be some "selective" witch hunts going on depending on the team that is being accused of it?
This is too much to handle here.
It's ok you should be getting your NFL SURVIVAL PACKtm in the mail. It comes with a picture of the Levi's Stadium, an emblazoned SUPERBOWL 50 patch, a free entrance into both Fan Duel and Draft Kings fantasy drafts, and a 30 rack of Bud Straw-Ber-Rita
-
So wait, let me get this straight. There is gamesmanship, bending the rules, and maybe even some...gulp...borderline cheating going on among several, if not, all the teams in the NFL?
And there aren't $5 million "independent" investigations & federal lawsuits going on with each & every one of them? And that there "might" be some "selective" witch hunts going on depending on the team that is being accused of it?
This is too much to handle here.
It's ok you should be getting your NFL SURVIVAL PACKtm in the mail. It comes with a picture of the Levi's Stadium, an emblazoned SUPERBOWL 50 patch, a free entrance into both Fan Duel and Draft Kings fantasy drafts, and a 30 rack of Bud Straw-Ber-Rita
"Let's hype up our daily, monetized fantasy sports relationships while we decry the fight to legalize sports gambling nationwide"
-
ITS NOT GAMBLING IT IS A GAME OF SKILL
-
http://deadspin.com/you-will-not-win-money-playing-daily-fantasy-1730787990
-
ITS NOT GAMBLING IT IS A GAME OF SKILL
Indeed the best algorithms will win the money.
-
After reviewing the CBS 60 Minutes story, I am getting increasingly angry about the payment of any penalty by the Patriots, particularly the draft picks. I hope there is a ground swell of push back, given the blatant "frame job" that the NFL tried to get away with on the Pats, and how the other teams were all to happy to play along.
-
60 Minutes weighs in, stating that the NFL, not the Patriots, are the cheaters. I agree.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wls6WT0DrFM&feature=youtu.be
TP for this. Very interestsing.
-
After reviewing the CBS 60 Minutes story, I am getting increasingly angry about the payment of any penalty by the Patriots, particularly the draft picks. I hope there is a ground swell of push back, given the blatant "frame job" that the NFL tried to get away with on the Pats, and how the other teams were all to happy to play along.
Don't hold your breath on that one. Pats aren't getting the picks back. I can't see the other 31 owners do anything to benefit the Pats despite what a court and common sense seem to suggest.
Plus, Kraft stood up there and threw his hands up & took the punishment. Unfortunately, he has to swallow it.
-
60 Minutes weighs in, stating that the NFL, not the Patriots, are the cheaters. I agree.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wls6WT0DrFM&feature=youtu.be
TP for this. Very interestsing.
This should be forced viewing before, during and after every NFL game this year. Then make all viewers sign a letter of comprehension before they are allowed to watch their regularly scheduled programming.
-
60 Minutes weighs in, stating that the NFL, not the Patriots, are the cheaters. I agree.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wls6WT0DrFM&feature=youtu.be
TP for this. Very interestsing.
This should be forced viewing before, during and after every NFL game this year. Then make all viewers sign a letter of comprehension before they are allowed to watch their regularly scheduled programming.
There's an article in the Herald about this today. It's funny this is in the news now, because Blecker wrote about this a month ago. He makes a great point about the Wells report's deception over the gauges. They are significantly different. It's absurd that the NFL so easily dismissed the referee's statement about which gauge he used to measure 56 balls. The report is full of things like this. Good for Blecker for speaking out about it.
-
The boys are back. The Spygate episode is a classic. I wonder if the Deflategate one will reach that status some day as well.
http://southpark.cc.com/full-episodes/s19e01-stunning-and-brave#source=2b6c5ab4-d717-4e84-9143-918793a3b636:63a32034-1ea6-492d-b95b-9433e3f62f8d&position=1&sort=airdate (http://southpark.cc.com/full-episodes/s19e01-stunning-and-brave#source=2b6c5ab4-d717-4e84-9143-918793a3b636:63a32034-1ea6-492d-b95b-9433e3f62f8d&position=1&sort=airdate)
-
If I am the Patriots, I stick McNally in charge of running the game clock, and make Jastremski in charge of NFL rules enforcement and NFL media liason. It is time for the NFL to just admit they blew this and nothing probably happened. Let these two guys get back to doing their jobs. You have new protocols in place anyway so this can't happen again, just let it go.
-
How do you "reinstate" two guys that you also publicly claim you weren't the ones responsible for suspending?
Still don't get that one
-
How do you "reinstate" two guys that you also publicly claim you weren't the ones responsible for suspending?
Still don't get that one
The same way you make a big show about confronting the league before folding like a popular euphemism for a female dog.
Or, rather:
(http://thenoob.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/dumbdumbermoney.gif)
-
If I am the Patriots, I stick McNally in charge of running the game clock, and make Jastremski in charge of NFL rules enforcement and NFL media liason. It is time for the NFL to just admit they blew this and nothing probably happened. Let these two guys get back to doing their jobs. You have new protocols in place anyway so this can't happen again, just let it go.
TP!!
-
Wetzel has a column out on the anniversary of Deflategate. I think it is quite good. He includes some nuggets that I had missed.
However, once Ted Wells' report was published last spring, including an appendix showing Exponent's work, actual scientists started doing what actual scientists do: review the conclusions of a new study.
As time has allowed more serious analysis to come in, the results have been an overwhelming destruction of the conclusions of Wells, Exponent and the consulting work of Princeton professor Daniel Marlow.
It's been from all directions: the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (multiple studies), Carnegie Mellon University, the University of Chicago, Boston College, the University of Nebraska, the University of Illinois, the University of New Hampshire, Bowdoin College, Rockefeller University, where a Noble Prize winner couldn't have lampooned it more viciously, and so on and so on.
Then there were unaffiliated retired scientists, climate experts, professional labs, even the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute, which crushed the science of Wells' report. A fourth-grader in Sacramento discredited it for her school science fair.
And these are just some of the ones that received media attention.
One of his main points is that the scientific community is basically UNANIMOUS in its discrediting of the "science" done for the Wells report.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/1-year-after-deflate-gate-ballooned--science-shows-shame-of-it-all-073316233.html
-
Destoyed cellphone? The only person that has destroyed evidence is Roger.
Wetzel again:
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl-s-missing-data-on-air-pressure-is-another-black-eye-in-deflate-gate-saga-025852568.html
"Now the New England Patriots are no longer able to point to specific, NFL-generated data that proves Ideal Gas Law, not human tampering, caused its footballs to lose air pressure in the 2014 AFC championship game.
That study was supposed to be the franchise's best chance to introduce new information that might allow the return of the 2016 first- and fourth-round draft picks, plus $1 million, the league docked it for deflate-gate."
Goodell is an absolutely brilliant liar, deceiver, DB.
Give the Patriots their darn pick back! Enough is enough!
-
No idea how accurate this article is, although news coming from the first round turned out to be pretty accurate. They're saying that this one isn't going as well for Brady:
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/deflate-gate--a-tom-brady-suspension-is-back-on-the-table-222215947.html
Two things that stuck out in the article, which was decidedly pro-Brady (other than the conclusion that the judges were frowning on his case):
Until Thursday the basic rule of deflate-gate is that the more someone independent – lawyers, scientists, professors, obsessed fans, journalists, etc. – studied the case the less they believed in Brady or the Patriots guilt, or at the very least saw the NFL's case as a house of cards.
The less someone knew, the more they were convinced of guilt.
and
While a slew of scientists have weighed in with their opinion in support of Brady, using scientific experiments to show that time and weather, not a locker room attendant with a needle inside a bathroom, most likely led to varied air pressure measurements, two of the Court of Appeals judges, Denny Chin and Barrington Parker Jr., seemed less sympathetic and repeated many of the NFL's facts and arguments of the case, including ones that have been scientifically debunked.
bolding mine.
Mike
-
The thing is, the evidence in the case isn't at issue before the appeals court. What is at issue is was Berman wrong on the law in citing notice and other failures on the NFL's part. I can't see where they can say all of Berman's findings were not in accordance with the law, especially the one about a witness not being allowed to testify who edited the Well's report. There is precedent for overturning arbitration awards during such instances so saying Berman was wrong on that is pretty hard to fathom.
-
Agreed. I'm just frustrated that the difference between "the truth" of the issue and "the legal answer" aren't necessarily the same thing, and that so few people seem to care.
Mike
-
Agreed. I'm just frustrated that the difference between "the truth" of the issue and "the legal answer" aren't necessarily the same thing, and that so few people seem to care.
Mike
Welcome to the world of jurisprudence!
-
No idea how accurate this article is, although news coming from the first round turned out to be pretty accurate. They're saying that this one isn't going as well for Brady:
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/deflate-gate--a-tom-brady-suspension-is-back-on-the-table-222215947.html
Two things that stuck out in the article, which was decidedly pro-Brady (other than the conclusion that the judges were frowning on his case):
Until Thursday the basic rule of deflate-gate is that the more someone independent – lawyers, scientists, professors, obsessed fans, journalists, etc. – studied the case the less they believed in Brady or the Patriots guilt, or at the very least saw the NFL's case as a house of cards.
The less someone knew, the more they were convinced of guilt.
and
While a slew of scientists have weighed in with their opinion in support of Brady, using scientific experiments to show that time and weather, not a locker room attendant with a needle inside a bathroom, most likely led to varied air pressure measurements, two of the Court of Appeals judges, Denny Chin and Barrington Parker Jr., seemed less sympathetic and repeated many of the NFL's facts and arguments of the case, including ones that have been scientifically debunked.
bolding mine.
Mike
So according to the NFL (and these two judges, apparently), facts that are not facts are still facts. Got it.
Regardless of what the applicable laws are in this case, the case should be thrown out, lock, stock, and barrel, simply because of how asinine the whole thing is.
-
Man am I sick of Deflategate.
-
IT LIVES!!!! :o
-
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/15353950/tom-brady-new-england-patriots-four-game-suspension-deflategate-reinstated-appeals-court
-
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/15353950/tom-brady-new-england-patriots-four-game-suspension-deflategate-reinstated-appeals-court
I'd be curious to read the entire ruling.
-
Curious what the next step is for Brady. Can he appeal?
-
That should have been the ruling from the beginning.
-
Curious what the next step is for Brady. Can he appeal?
He can, either to the full Circuit (very doubtful he wins) or the Supreme Court (almost zero chance they even take the case).
-
Full ruling, for the interested:
http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/nfl_ca2_20160425.pdf
-
Conspiracy theory: did the court issue this ruling three days before the NFL Draft so that it would get buried after a few days?
-
Well, it's too bad to see this silly story continue. Wish it would just end.
Will Pats make the playoffs without Brady for the first four? Probably, right? But it's hard to see them getting the #1 overall seed which we know is absolutely required for them to have a chance to make the SB.
-
Well, it's too bad to see this silly story continue. Wish it would just end.
Will Pats make the playoffs without Brady for the first four? Probably, right? But it's hard to see them getting the #1 overall seed which we know is absolutely required for them to have a chance to make the SB.
They play 3 of their first 4 games at home against horrible teams.
-
Well, it's too bad to see this silly story continue. Wish it would just end.
Will Pats make the playoffs without Brady for the first four? Probably, right? But it's hard to see them getting the #1 overall seed which we know is absolutely required for them to have a chance to make the SB.
They play 3 of their first 4 games at home against horrible teams.
One of those 'horrible' teams has beaten that Patsies 3 straight years.
-
Conspiracy theory: did the court issue this ruling three days before the NFL Draft so that it would get buried after a few days?
They were made C's beat the Hawks lol jk
-
Well, it's too bad to see this silly story continue. Wish it would just end.
Will Pats make the playoffs without Brady for the first four? Probably, right? But it's hard to see them getting the #1 overall seed which we know is absolutely required for them to have a chance to make the SB.
They play 3 of their first 4 games at home against horrible teams.
One of those 'horrible' teams has beaten that Patsies 3 straight years.
Sure. And?
-
Well, it's too bad to see this silly story continue. Wish it would just end.
Will Pats make the playoffs without Brady for the first four? Probably, right? But it's hard to see them getting the #1 overall seed which we know is absolutely required for them to have a chance to make the SB.
They play 3 of their first 4 games at home against horrible teams.
Sure, but are they any good with Jimmy G?
You gotta figure on the road at Arizona is a L.
Miami, Houston, and Buffalo could all have tough defenses, if nothing else.
My guess is they end up 2-2 after the first four, which is no sweat. They've had that after 4 games with Brady.
Could also go 1-3 if Jimmy struggles.
-
Well, it's too bad to see this silly story continue. Wish it would just end.
Will Pats make the playoffs without Brady for the first four? Probably, right? But it's hard to see them getting the #1 overall seed which we know is absolutely required for them to have a chance to make the SB.
They play 3 of their first 4 games at home against horrible teams.
One of those 'horrible' teams has beaten that Patsies 3 straight years.
Sure. And?
You were implying that they'd take care of business anyway. I beg to differ.
-
Well, it's too bad to see this silly story continue. Wish it would just end.
Will Pats make the playoffs without Brady for the first four? Probably, right? But it's hard to see them getting the #1 overall seed which we know is absolutely required for them to have a chance to make the SB.
They play 3 of their first 4 games at home against horrible teams.
One of those 'horrible' teams has beaten that Patsies 3 straight years.
Sure. And?
You were implying that they'd take care of business anyway. I beg to differ.
I was implying the schedule isn't as difficult as it could have been. The top seed is very much in play, Brady or no Brady.
-
At this point I'm just done with this. While I think Brady should appeal and will win, I'm going to try to go out of my way to avoid news on this if it does happen.
With how old Brady is, it might not hurt the Pats a ton to have him start the season on the 5th game. It isn't the worst thing long term to get Jimmy G. some field reps.
The root of this dispute is whether Goodell can suspend people if there isn't precedent in the CBA. A win for the NFL here means that the NFL can now do whatever it wants.
It still baffles me that a guy like Greg Hardy is playing but the NFL is still trying to stick it to Brady for not handing over his cell phone.
-
It still baffles me that a guy like Greg Hardy is playing but the NFL is still trying to stick it to Brady for not handing over his cell phone.
I don't think I'll ever really understand it.
I can't help thinking that all along it's just been a way for the league to grab headlines during the off-season and deflect attention from the darker stories like Greg Hardy.
-
Well, it's too bad to see this silly story continue. Wish it would just end.
Will Pats make the playoffs without Brady for the first four? Probably, right? But it's hard to see them getting the #1 overall seed which we know is absolutely required for them to have a chance to make the SB.
They play 3 of their first 4 games at home against horrible teams.
One of those 'horrible' teams has beaten that Patsies 3 straight years.
Sure. And?
You were implying that they'd take care of business anyway. I beg to differ.
I was implying the schedule isn't as difficult as it could have been. The top seed is very much in play, Brady or no Brady.
Those 'horrible' teams were 9-7, 8-8 and 6-10 last year. And, as I previously pointed out that 6-10 team a) has beaten NE 3 straight years and b) has a new coach that will make them harder to be prepared for. Those are EXACTLY the kinds of games you would not want scheduled during that time ... teams that normally the Pats would beat at home, but without Brady stand a very good chance of losing.
-
I really can't believe this and am extremely disappointed. After the decision to remove Goodell from disciplining players, this just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
How is this still something? How can anybody possibly think that Brady should be suspended four games, never mind the loss of the 1st round pick and $1M?
-
Conspiracy theory: did the court issue this ruling three days before the NFL Draft so that it would get buried after a few days?
I assume you are joking, right? Hard to tell sarcasm from a post. (Why would the US court of appeals care about the NFL's perception)?
-
That should have been the ruling from the beginning.
This ruling coming now is freaking hilarious. I hate....hate...hate the fact our tax dollars are being spent tying up our courts with a sports dispute.
Hire a [dang] arbiter. Or re-imburse the public for court costs.
But I agree, this is absolutely the correct ruling here. It never should have cone to this, bit yet I doubt this is over.
-
I'd much rather have the suspension this year than last year at the end of the day. Keep Brady fresh, keep him away from 4 tough defenses to start the season, increase Garrapolo's trade value, give Brady a warm-up game vs the Browns to start the season, he's a year older so he needs the rest and this will give him a TON of motivation.
-
Almost a full year ago I said in this very thread - to many sneers, denials and unpleasant comments - that the suspension would stick.
Now, back to the points at hand. I said that Kraft would accept his penalty. He did. I said Brady would get suspended. He did. Now I am saying I think Brady will lose in court.
It has and Brady has dropped all legal challenges. I'm not entirely convinced that the suspension was justified - there's evidence both for and against - but it doesn't much matter under the collective bargaining rules.
-
The whole thing was a farce, a shameful smear campaign directed toward the greatest player in the history of the game. I'm glad it's over.
-
The whole thing was a farce, a shameful smear campaign directed toward the greatest player in the history of the game. I'm glad it's over.
Exactly.
DeflateGate might be the biggest joke (of the unfunny variety) in the history of professional North American sports.
But there's still a pretty good chance that Goodell has to hand Brady the Super Bowl trophy next February, and that would make everything just fine in the end.
-
The whole thing was a farce, a shameful smear campaign directed toward the greatest player in the history of the game. I'm glad it's over.
Exactly.
DeflateGate might be the biggest joke (of the unfunny variety) in the history of professional North American sports.
But there's still a pretty good chance that Goodell has to hand Brady the Super Bowl trophy next February, and that would make everything just fine in the end.
god, I hope they win and Brady rides off into the sunset with a big ole middle finger (with rings) in the air
-
This is the part where he sues
-
This is the part where he sues
Maybe. Or maybe enough is enough.
-
204 pages and almost 300,000 views later, this thread is now a place for rejoicing! I love bumping old threads!
-
Thanks, Roger. Brady played 15 games in a SB winning season. Should be well rested for next year.
-
Beautiful
-
I "accidentally" took a wrong turn on the way back from a meeting and somehow ended up at the parade. The Globe estimated a million people, or about one-third of those who attended Trump's Inauguration, would be there, and I'm pretty sure that they were all packed into Government Center. It was cold, sleeting and packed about 30-deep (People were already 2-deep at 8am for a parade that came by at noon.), but people were generally friendly.
Funny story: Nobody's cell phone was working because there were too many people were jammed together, so we had no idea where the parade was or when it would reach us. The people in the seven-story office building across the street must have figured that out, because they began putting signs in the windows that kept us updated on where the Duck Boats were.
Mike
-
I "accidentally" took a wrong turn on the way back from a meeting and somehow ended up at the parade. The Globe estimated a million people, or about one-third of those who attended Trump's Inauguration, would be there, and I'm pretty sure that they were all packed into Government Center. It was cold, sleeting and packed about 30-deep (People were already 2-deep at 8am for a parade that came by at noon.), but people were generally friendly.
Funny story: Nobody's cell phone was working because there were too many people were jammed together, so we had no idea where the parade was or when it would reach us. The people in the seven-story office building across the street must have figured that out, because they began putting signs in the windows that kept us updated on where the Duck Boats were.
Mike
my boss gave me an hour break to go watch the Pats, my phone was also jammed, also kind of terrible considering there were two group of kids smoking weed next to me
i went back into work smelling like pizza and weed
-
I "accidentally" took a wrong turn on the way back from a meeting and somehow ended up at the parade. The Globe estimated a million people, or about one-third of those who attended Trump's Inauguration, would be there, and I'm pretty sure that they were all packed into Government Center. It was cold, sleeting and packed about 30-deep (People were already 2-deep at 8am for a parade that came by at noon.), but people were generally friendly.
Funny story: Nobody's cell phone was working because there were too many people were jammed together, so we had no idea where the parade was or when it would reach us. The people in the seven-story office building across the street must have figured that out, because they began putting signs in the windows that kept us updated on where the Duck Boats were.
Mike
my boss gave me an hour break to go watch the Pats, my phone was also jammed, also kind of terrible considering there were two group of kids smoking weed next to me
i went back into work smelling like pizza and weed
I only had one group next to me smoking weed. Someone in the crowd started to insist that they share.
Mike
-
Thanks, Roger. Brady played 15 games in a SB winning season. Should be well rested for next year.
;D
Really roger was doing us a favor by forcing the 4 game rest
...
Now if he can just suspend gronk for 12 games then he'll be healthy for the playoffs next time
-
I "accidentally" took a wrong turn on the way back from a meeting and somehow ended up at the parade. The Globe estimated a million people, or about one-third of those who attended Trump's Inauguration, would be there, and I'm pretty sure that they were all packed into Government Center. It was cold, sleeting and packed about 30-deep (People were already 2-deep at 8am for a parade that came by at noon.), but people were generally friendly.
Funny story: Nobody's cell phone was working because there were too many people were jammed together, so we had no idea where the parade was or when it would reach us. The people in the seven-story office building across the street must have figured that out, because they began putting signs in the windows that kept us updated on where the Duck Boats were.
Mike
my boss gave me an hour break to go watch the Pats, my phone was also jammed, also kind of terrible considering there were two group of kids smoking weed next to me
i went back into work smelling like pizza and weed
I only had one group next to me smoking weed. Someone in the crowd started to insist that they share.
Mike
welcome to my world ;D