Pats accused of under inflating game balls against the Colts (MOD WARNING #457)

Knex*

Yeah, Belichick is known to have one of the toughest stances on fumbling in the league. One fumble, and your ass is on the bench.

If he takes it that seriously, you just know he coaches the crap out of ball security. I imagine that would have something to do with it!

AbusesToilets

No response there Knex? Are you still standing by your assertion that the report backs up its claims?

AbusesToilets

NFL execs living up to the values of integrity they hold so dear...

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/05/11/dean-blandino-nfls-officiating-vp-lied-about-deflategate-knowledge/

Beefy78

AbusesToilets wrote: »

No response there Knex? Are you still standing by your assertion that the report backs up its claims?

Are you still standing by your assertion that despite the balls being stolen from the referee and taken to a toilet for almost two minutes by someone who calls himself "The Deflator" that they probably weren't deflated?

Hazys

@AdamSchefter: Not many guarantees in life but here's one: Patriots will not go quietly in night. League had its say; Patriots will have theirs.

“I really don’t see how Robert is going to get past this with Roger,” says a source close to Kraft. “Robert was furious with the leaks and the investigation in the first place, but he figured they’d be exonerated. Now he’s out of his mind with anger.”

Its on

AbusesToilets

Beefy78 wrote: »

Are you still standing by your assertion that despite the balls being stolen from the referee and taken to a toilet for almost two minutes by someone who calls himself "The Deflator" that they probably weren't deflated?

Yes. The data shows that they were within the range allowed for by atmospheric conditions.

That is assuming that they were inflated to 12.5 psi before the game, something nobody be sure of because the Refs didn't record which gauges they used or what the readings were.

Knex*

AbusesToilets wrote: »

No response there Knex? Are you still standing by your assertion that the report backs up its claims?

Jesus, you're a pain in the arse as posters go :pac: Other things to do than just respond to you and read your stuff.

Haven't had time to read the article properly, but that is just as inconclusive as anything, which made me laugh considering your conviction. There's all sorts of variables, which we know.

Also, one assumption, that the footballs were 12.5 at the start of the game is flawed, no? Didn't the refs compensate for this cold, something from the texts Brady knew about, and hence the deflating.

Whether or not Brady wanted the balls under 12.5 is certainly up for debate, but I really don't see how tampering with the footballs is.

Why are you taking this so personally? "Tom working your balls hard this week?"

Like I said when the report first came out, the whole deflating this I never gave a damn about, really, its the reactions of some fans, such as yourself, head in the sand and blindly banging on about the innocence of your QB and staff, despite it pointing heavily towards the opposite, is a little much.

Don't get me wrong, they're is an almost lolworthy amount of negligence from the NFL here. They knew, or had strong reason to suspect, that the Pats were deflating footballs, arranged a sting, and yet still couldn't get it right. This should be bang, bang, you did this, here's the proof, there's your punishment, off we go, but they botched it.

Still, they seem to have just enough to get them regardless. Draft picks seem insane to me, so we'll see what happens. Ultimately, just accept it.

Knex*

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Yes. The data shows that they were within the range allowed for by atmospheric conditions.

That is assuming that they were inflated to 12.5 psi before the game, something nobody be sure of because the Refs didn't record which gauges they used or what the readings were.

No, it doesn't. The link you sent me states that "they might have been, if x and y were the case".

Considering your complaint about the initial findings, its a bit ironic to be using that one as fact.

There is too much probably cause when you take into account the text messages, and then add in Brady and Patriots responses to the allegations and manner of brushing it aside arrogantly, for the NFL to let this go.

But perhaps write them a strongly worded tweet and see how it goes.

bruschi

I'm only getting through the report bit by bit, as it is long and boring and I dont have the time or energy to read it all at one go, but I've just read about the cock up over the kicking balls. It really puts into doubt the credibility of the refs that they couldnt get the right ball on the field and that they made such a mess of getting the correctly marked ball out there. for all the reports glowing references of how precise Anderson is, they conveniently gloss over how much of a mess he made with regards to the implementation of the Patriots legal preferred kicking ball to the game.

Alfred Borden

Will the ban hurt his legacy? Joke of a punishment.

AbusesToilets

Knex. wrote: »

No, it doesn't. The link you sent me states that "they might have been, if x and y were the case".

Considering your complaint about the initial findings, its a bit ironic to be using that one as fact.

There is too much probably cause when you take into account the text messages, and then add in Brady and Patriots responses to the allegations and manner of brushing it aside arrogantly, for the NFL to let this go.

But perhaps write them a strongly worded tweet and see how it goes.

I'll continue to be a pain in the ass while you ans others continue to spew misinformed nonsense to bash the Pats.

I used their own assumptions to illustrate that the data present in the report, as flawed and unusable as it is, still supports the conclusion that no cheating took place and the Pats balls were the level they were due to the atmospheric conditions.

You insistence that the report is correct and the Pats deserved to be punished flies in the face of the facts at hand.

The link clearly states in its conclusion :

Belichick said that moving the footballs from indoors to outdoors could explain the loss of about 1.5 pounds per square inch of pressure. Experimental and mathematical results are in that ballpark. Lab tests said air temperature alone could bring down the pressure by 1.1 pounds. The ideal gas law predicted a 1 pound loss. The rain that day would explain at least another 0.2 pound shift and possibly as much as 0.7.

We lack firm numbers on the actual pressure drop in the Patriots footballs, as well as precise information on the starting and ending temperatures. Within the limits of what the physics alone can tell us at this point, the math gets us pretty close to what Belichick said.

With allowances for the uncertain data, we rate the claim Mostly True.

It has to make due with assuming certain facts because the critical information was never recorded. Complaining about that is fairly laughable given the report is built on nothing more than assumptions and conjecture.

bruschi

reading the report, and I have to admit, only glancing at Exponents "statistical" reporting, they automatically assume they used to correct gauge at the start of the game, they make no allowances at all that they may have used an incorrectly reading gauge that was .35 lower than the second gauge they have. Also, going through their graphs and statistical analysis, it seems to me, that even at the 12.5 starting point that it is plausible that the balls could have dropped as much as they did. I think I need to read it more though, as it seems to me like they cannot definitively say that air was removed, as some of their tests showed the air pressure drop was achievable, and certainly so if the starting point was actually put at 12.15, which could have been the initial actual starting.

Or I think I am reading too much of this and something so fcuking pointless is causing so much debate!

Pyjamarama

Punishment is ridiculous tbh.

But given the reaction of some Pats fans I can't help but smile. The punishment does not fit the crime but there was a crime. I don't doubt that many other teams are doing the same thing but to attempt to deny any wrong doing is laughable.

Hazys

bruschi wrote: »

reading the report, and I have to admit, only glancing at Exponents "statistical" reporting, they automatically assume they used to correct gauge at the start of the game, they make no allowances at all that they may have used an incorrectly reading gauge that was .35 lower than the second gauge they have. Also, going through their graphs and statistical analysis, it seems to me, that even at the 12.5 starting point that it is plausible that the balls could have dropped as much as they did. I think I need to read it more though, as it seems to me like they cannot definitively say that air was removed, as some of their tests showed the air pressure drop was achievable, and certainly so if the starting point was actually put at 12.15, which could have been the initial actual starting.

Or I think I am reading too much of this and something so fcuking pointless is causing so much debate!

This is exactly what I said a page back, the report was predetermined, the "science" for Exponent would have been thrown out in a non-biased investigation.

Hazys wrote: »

The science is hinges entirely on which gauge was used, which we know is a shady assumption by Wells.

Not to mention when the 4 Colts balls were tested it was 10 minutes after the Patriots balls were tested which in a warm room would have increased the PSI by 0.7. There is no mention of this in the report.

Exponent have a shady past of just proving whatever the people they were paid by wants them to prove.

There are a lot of holes and assumptions in the Science, which kinda makes it not science but opinion.

DecStone

Just saw Tom Shaughnessey [Boston Globe] interviewed on MSNBC - he seemed to think that Brady admitting the transgression and moving on would be the best response. That fighting the issue is wrong for the Patriots and will dog them for years on this account. That the Patriots have "armed their enemies".


His column in today's Boston Globe:

This will stick with Tom Brady and the Super Bowl champions forever.

The NFL dropped the hammer on Brady and the Patriots late Monday afternoon. In the wake of NFL investigator Ted Wells’s 243-page “Deflategate” report, the league suspended Brady for four games, fined the Patriots $1 million (largest in NFL history), and took away two draft picks, including the club’s No. 1 selection in 2016.
The penalties were stiffer than the Patriots and their fans expected. As recently as January, owner Robert Kraft was asking for an apology from the league for raising the issue and embarrassing the team during Super Bowl week.
Now the league has determined that the Patriots are serial cheaters. In the eyes of the NFL, and much of Football America, the Patriots are Alex Rodriguez. For the second time in eight years, New England is being punished in the name of “the integrity of the game.’’ Blindly loyal fans can continue to bay at the moon, but unless the Patriots secede from the NFL, this doesn’t go away for Brady and the team.

The Patriots are a tremendously successful franchise. They win the AFC East every year and they have won four Super Bowls since 2001. Under the direction of Bill Belichick, they do things their own way and pay no heed to their critics. They regularly push the envelope and stretch the rules, and they win. This doesn’t make a lot of friends. And now it’s a field day for the army of Patriots enemies.


Right up until the sanctions were levied Monday, there was still a belief around New England that the Patriots might escape harsh punishment. Kraft’s formidable media cartel and a legion of fanboys attacked and mocked the report and insisted that the league had nothing on the Patriots. For New England boosters, the eternal fallback was the alliance of Kraft and commissioner Roger Goodell. There was considerable belief that Goodell would go easy on his friend’s franchise.

It went the other way. After a year of scandals, Goodell elected to pacify 31 other franchises by spanking the Patriots. He punished the Patriots for breaking the rules of competition and made it clear the league frowned on New England’s failure to fully comply with the investigation.
In the end, New England was not well-served by its time-tested strategy of denying everything and flipping off the authorities.
This is bad, folks. Your football dynasty is no longer credible. The Patriots are a punch line across America. Try wearing your Tedy Bruschi jersey next time you fly out of town.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/05/11/this-will-stick-with-tom-brady-and-patriots-forever/aB5111261JRSONSz17nLUI/story.html

eagle eye

Shaughnessy, Borges and Felger make their living by taking the unpopular side in arguments. They are the Boston versions of Skip Bayless.

DecStone

One of the missing considerations in all this IMO is that Brady is getting to the end of his career anyway and by now is getting close to being disposable to the Patriots.

The fact that Belichick was not mentioned as guilty in the report is an escape for him and may have been a compromise for the NFL to make - unlike the spygate where they essentially said that nothing went on in the franchise without Belichick knowing and that was why he was 'guilty' that time. None of the same logic i.e that he too must have known, applied this time.

JCTO

DecStone wrote: »

Just saw Tom Shaughnessey [Boston Globe] interviewed on MSNBC - he seemed to think that Brady admitting the transgression and moving on would be the best response. That fighting the issue is wrong for the Patriots and will dog them for years on this account. That the Patriots have "armed their enemies".

Shaughnessey is hated among the New England earlier. He always goes against the grain whether he believes in his own garbage or not.

But what if Tom Brady truly believes he did nothing wrong? Why would he admit to something he may believe to be false. Makes no sense to admit you are wrong or did something wrong if you can't stand by it.

DecStone

DecStone wrote: »

One of the missing considerations in all this IMO is that Brady is getting to the end of his career anyway and by now is getting close to being disposable to the Patriots.
.

:eek: he just lead a team to a super bowl

JaMarcusHustle

DecStone wrote: »

One of the missing considerations in all this IMO is that Brady is getting to the end of his career anyway and by now is getting close to being disposable to the Patriots.

Quotes like this serve as a great way to filter out posters you should just scroll past.

DecStone

Ariana Plain Magenta wrote: »

:eek: he just lead a team to a super bowl

Winning a Superbowl is not a marker for longevity by any means. Quite a number of older quarterbacks lead their team to a Superbowl before retiring shortly thereafter. Older players are far more prone to injury and just being spent.

After Superbowl XIV Terry Bradshaw began to do broadcasting in preparation of his own retirement, which came about two years later. Theismann was gone within two years. Doug Williams was gone the following year after his Superbowl win. John Elway, one of the greatest QBs to ever play the game IMO - retired the year following his win in Superbowl XXXIII.

And as for Namath - well maybe the comparison is not right there. He was a great player, but after Superbowl III he just fell - but he was rash and threw his career away.

DDC1990

As someone who is not a Patriots supporter, but does have a liking for them, I'm kind of dismayed with the verdict.

There is little or no evidence that Tom Brady ordered, or even had knowledge of balls being deflated TO AN ILLEGAL LEVEL.

Do I think he asked the guys to soften up the balls after the Jets game,where one of the locker room attendants judged the balls to be at 16psi? Of course. But it seems to be clear in one part of the report that Brady wants the balls right on the minimum 12.5psi which is perfectly legal. There are texts but they could relate to practice balls or balls for use pre-game, nothing to say that Game balls that were checked by referees were tampered with.

How they can ignore the all the potential pitfalls (no recorded pre game pressure, no record of the Colts balls until afterwards, 2 different readings off the pressure guages), and then ban Brady on the presumetion that he must have had some idea that something fishy may have been going on is kind of a joke for me.

It all kind of looks like a set up to me, and a tarnish job on the Patriots but maybe that's me being cynical.

DecStone

JaMarcusHustle wrote: »

Quotes like this serve as a great way to filter out posters you should just scroll past.

Keep scrolling then - I'll do the same with you.

poldebruin

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You insistence that the report is correct and the Pats deserved to be punished flies in the face of the facts at hand.

It has to make due with assuming certain facts because the critical information was never recorded. Complaining about that is fairly laughable given the report is built on nothing more than assumptions and conjecture.

The investigation was only tasked with finding out if some within the Patriots organisation was tampering with the officially approved game balls. The PSI measured in the balls is certainly part of that, but it also includes interviews with witnesses, and examination of communications. With everything taken in it's entirety the report determined that it was probable.

The fact that the Patriots did not lend full cooperation, and that Brady did not turn over his phone and is noted as being less than candid in the interview he gave (read: lying), are compounding factors, and they have only themselves to blame for that aspect.

You can't criticise the NFL for not 100% proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt, while excusing Brady and the Patriots for not cooperating with the investigation. I think any appeal will look unfavourably on the non cooperation of the Patriots and Brady.

poldebruin

JaMarcusHustle wrote: »

Quotes like this serve as a great way to filter out posters you should just scroll past.

This is a bit harsh. He is 38 and if there is one thing we learn from BB is that no player is indispensable. I think it is fair comment.

I know the relationship between Brady and BB was a bit strained in the last few years - it certainly doesn't seem to have affected things on the field, but I wonder if BB will be annoyed that Brady may have lied to him when asked about whether he had any involvement. Publically he will defend his QB of course.

DecStone

Wells defends his report.

Investigator Ted Wells, in breaking with his past protocol in speaking about high-profile cases, vehemently defended his report on the Patriots "Deflategate" case Tuesday afternoon via a conference call with select media conducted by the NFL's public relations department and railed against the idea he was influenced by the league or that the Patriots were targeted by a "sting operation."


Wells began the call by attacking his detractors, which have included Patriots owner Robert Kraft and Don Yee, the agent for quarterback Tom Brady, and then took questions, many of them directed at concerns Yee has raised in the conclusions reached by the investigation. Wells made it clear that snippets of the text messages between Patriots employees James McNally ("The Deflator" who worked on the sidelines) and locker room attendant John Jastremski -- both suspended indefinitely by the franchise as part of the NFL's stern discipline in the matter -- were a driving force in his determination that it was more probable than not that Brady at least knew of a plot to illegally deflate balls.
More than anything else, Wells felt compelled to speak out publically, a rarity for him in the aftermath of his investigations, based on the allegations made by Yee and others about the credibility of his findings and his long ties to the NFL.


"This the first time that after I've issued my report that I find somebody is questioning my independence and in some way suggesting I was influenced by the league office," Wells said, "and I think that is wrong ... But for those personal attacks, I'll be candid with you, I would not have responded."

Wells said that his past work in NFL investigations and his law firm's role in the league's concussion litigation was well known before he began this job, and neither the Patriots nor Yee raised objections to those relationships or dealings prior to him beginning this task. "No one at the Patriots or in Mr. Brady's camp raised any issues about my independence or integrity to judge the evidence impartially and fairly," at that time, Wells said.
When asked about his compensation, Wells said that the NFL was billed by the hour and that "no question it's in the millions of dollars."
The NFL issued historically significant penalties to the Patriots roughly a week after Wells delivered his 243-page report concluding that there was, in his estimation, most definitely cheating going on with how the team was handling the footballs. Brady was suspended four games from the upcoming 2015 season, while the team was fined a league-record $1M and stripped of two draft picks (a 2016 first-round selection and a 2017 fourth-round pick). Yee was quick to announce his intent to appeal the suspension on Monday, and it remains unclear if Kraft will take measures to appeal at this time. The matter could end up in a courtroom as well pending Commissioner Roger Goodell's appointment of a hearing officer and/or the outcome of the appeal process.


Wells defended his use of the "more probable than not" standard to reach his conclusions in noting that is the civil standard and one applied most often in these types of investigations. "We reached conclusions based on the preponderance of the evidence standard," he said.
Wells returned several times, in defending his report, to exchanges between McNally and Jastremski about potentially doctoring footballs, including one portion where McNally texted about possibly taking information to ESPN. While to some it might be unclear as to whether that was in jest or hyperbolic in nature, Wells viewed it as damning evidence of a conspiracy and, in the final remarks to the press on the conference call, returned to that text exchange about taking the story to ESPN again.
"No one can see it as a joke," Wells stated. "It is direct evidence, and it is culpatory."



Yee has objected to the way Brady's participation in the investigation was portrayed in Wells' report, both the extent to which Brady cooperated with investigators and the lengths that the future Hall of Fame quarterback was willing to go to hand over potential evidence Wells was seeking. Wells says he never asked for Brady's phone in any capacity but rather was fine with Yee keeping possession of the phone and only turning over "documentation" of certain correspondences and would "trust" that whatever Yee turned over would be an accurate depiction of those messages. Wells was asked if it was "rare" not to have subjects turn over such documentation in his investigations and he responded in the affirmative, coming up with only one example in a past NBAPA investigation where someone would not, noting that person was later charged with fraud.


"I don't think it undermines in any way the conclusions of the report," Wells said of the lack of access to Brady's phone details. "I do believe that if I 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 it's disappointing they would say on one hand they were cooperative, yet refuse to give me access to the electronic data."

JCTO

DecStone wrote: »

"I don't think it undermines in any way the conclusions of the report," Wells said of the lack of access to Brady's phone details. "I do believe that if I 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 it's disappointing they would say on one hand they were cooperative, yet refuse to give me access to the electronic data."

.

So basically this is all about Brady not handing over his phone which being a personal phone he was right no to especially if he believes he did nothing wrong. Why risk other personal data with the leak machine that is the NFL.

AbusesToilets

poldebruin wrote: »

The investigation was only tasked with finding out if some within the Patriots organisation was tampering with the officially approved game balls. The PSI measured in the balls is certainly part of that, but it also includes interviews with witnesses, and examination of communications. With everything taken in it's entirety the report determined that it was probable.

The fact that the Patriots did not lend full cooperation, and that Brady did not turn over his phone and is noted as being less than candid in the interview he gave (read: lying), are compounding factors, and they have only themselves to blame for that aspect.

You can't criticise the NFL for not 100% proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt, while excusing Brady and the Patriots for not cooperating with the investigation. I think any appeal will look unfavourably on the non cooperation of the Patriots and Brady.

There is no tampering if the balls are not under inflated. That is the charge and there is no evidence to support.

Claims that Brady and the Pats were uncooperative are fiercely denied by those parties. I find it significant that the transcripts of the those interviews remain unreleased by the NFL/ investigators. Surely if their claim that the Pats were not participating faithfully with them, releasing the record of those interviews would demonstrate that clearly. What are they trying to hide?

poldebruin

AbusesToilets wrote: »

There is no tampering if the balls are not under inflated. That is the charge and there is no evidence to support.

Claims that Brady and the Pats were uncooperative are fiercely denied by those parties. I find it significant that the transcripts of the those interviews remain unreleased by the NFL/ investigators. Surely if their claim that the Pats were not participating faithfully with them, releasing the record of those interviews would demonstrate that clearly. What are they trying to hide?

I think the lack of full cooperation is the most clear cut aspect of the report.
I don't think the Patriots of Brady can fiercely deny this. They made a decision at the time, that they thought was in their best interests and now live with the consequences. They knew how it would be perceived by the NFL.

What I take from all of this, is, if that was the best option for the Patriots and Brady, that they actually chose this option rather than the give full cooperation, what were they afraid might be uncovered? The definitive proof?

Regarding transcripts, I'm not sure what the president is for investigations like this. Maybe there is a confidentiality clause and they can't release them? I also wonder if they don't want to release the transcripts because they are (and this is obviously wild speculation on my behalf!) protecting Brady a little bit. They mention that his accounts fly in the face of available evidence, and he was caught out in a couple of mistruths already....

AbusesToilets

The report claims that the Pats were uncooperative. The Pats point to Brady making himself available for an entire day of questioning, that he allowed investigators to examine his electronic media. He did not allow them to take his phone, and would have run afoul of the NFLPA had he done so. McNally was interviewed 4 times, all while working a full time job. His home address was apparently leaked to a reporter who appeared at his house, after which he consented to a phone interview if needed.

That sound pretty cooperative to me. I would not be surprised if the Pats release the transcripts themselves, if that is an option legally. Just like all the other claims in the report, I expect these ones to be unfounded and hyperbolic.

poldebruin

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The report claims that the Pats were uncooperative. The Pats point to Brady making himself available for an entire day of questioning, that he allowed investigators to examine his electronic media. He did not allow them to take his phone, and would have run afoul of the NFLPA had he done so. McNally was interviewed 4 times, all while working a full time job. His home address was apparently leaked to a reporter who appeared at his house, after which he consented to a phone interview if needed..

They mentioned that Brady made himself available for an entire day of interviews, and that he answered all questions asked of him. They also mentioned that he was less than candid at times, and that his answers did not match the available evidence. My reading, is that the interview did not go well for Brady and it was used as evidence of a cover up.

The phone and other electronic records were not handed over, again Brady is well within his rights to do so, but in a workplace investigation, they are within their rights to take a dim view of it.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

That sound pretty cooperative to me. I would not be surprised if the Pats release the transcripts themselves, if that is an option legally. Just like all the other claims in the report, I expect these ones to be unfounded and hyperbolic.

I completely agree, it does sound pretty cooperative, but not fully cooperative.

I expect an appeal, and I expect the suspension to be halved, and maybe the lower draft pick reinstated as a sop to the Patriots. My feeling is that the penalty was initially harsh to account for this eventuality.

AbusesToilets

Well if that is their claim, back it up with the transcripts. I don't believe a word out of their mouths, given the unsubstantiated claims made in the report.

Wells press conference just threw some gas on the flames, came across as very defensive and reiterated the veracity of the claims the report made, despite the numerous scientific failings well documented at this point.

I don't think that the Pats will accept a sop reduction at this point. I feel that lines have been drawn and it's going to all go down in flames.

NotYourYear20

poldebruin wrote: »

I think the lack of full cooperation is the most clear cut aspect of the report.I don't think the Patriots of Brady can fiercely deny this.

Brady fully cooperated and as another poster pointed out earlier, like Gostkowski, he also didn't hand over his personal phone. Of course most people don't know that Gostkowski didn't hand over his phone. The NFLPA would also advise any player not to hand over his personal phone. Especially to a leak happy league office. Of course the Wells report was so comprehensive and unbiased :rolleyes:, that the source of the inaccurate leaks pre-superbowl weren't even investigated. McNally was interviewed 3 times by the NFL and 1 time by Wells. It's emerging today that McNally offered the 5th interview via phone. Wells had the transcripts of the NFL interviews, why did he need 5 interviews? Think about that, a 5th interview ffs, were they investigating the Kennedy assassination?

I am a Steelers fan and I think it's a complete embarrassing joke over a minor issue. Afaic, Brady could beat most teams throwing a bowling ball. Goodell is a clown and needs to go. A pity he wasn't so proactive with the all the wife beaters in the league. And he was only shamed into action because of that shocking video of Rice in Las Vegas. Then a federal judge called Goodell out as a liar over the whole affair. Yet I remember Robert Kraft statement of support, that more or less saved his job when Godell was really on the ropes. I bet he regrets that now and I really hope he destroys Goodell now becasue the gob****e deserves it.

DecStone

DecStone wrote: »

Winning a Superbowl is not a marker for longevity by any means. Quite a number of older quarterbacks lead their team to a Superbowl before retiring shortly thereafter. Older players are far more prone to injury and just being spent.

After Superbowl XIV Terry Bradshaw began to do broadcasting in preparation of his own retirement, which came about two years later. Theismann was gone within two years. Doug Williams was gone the following year after his Superbowl win. John Elway, one of the greatest QBs to ever play the game IMO - retired the year following his win in Superbowl XXXIII.

And as for Namath - well maybe the comparison is not right there. He was a great player, but after Superbowl III he just fell - but he was rash and threw his career away.

wait your serious bradys still one of the best qbs in the league.

with regards the others namath, bradshaw and williams are not close to the players brady is and elway could have easily played on and possibly won another Super Bowl he just wanted to go out at the absolute top.

poldebruin

NotYourYear20 wrote: »

Brady fully cooperated and as another poster pointed out earlier, like Gostkowski, he also didn't hand over his personal phone. Of course most people don't know that Gostkowski didn't hand over his phone. The NFLPA would also advise any player not to hand over his personal phone.

But we all know that he didn't fully cooperate, so I don't think you can accept he did just by saying he did. In the eyes of the investigators he did not cooperate to their satisfaction. As has been mentioned over and over, we all know he does not have to hand over his phone, but now he has to live with the implication that action carries.

NotYourYear20 wrote: »

McNally was interviewed 3 times by the NFL and 1 time by Wells. It's emerging today that McNally offered the 5th interview via phone. Wells had the transcripts of the NFL interviews, why did he need 5 interviews? Think about that, a 5th interview ffs, were they investigating the Kennedy assassination?

...so Wells interviewed him once, asked for a second, follow up interview and was turned down. The Patriots told him they would not even pass on his request to McNally. Again, they knew the implications of this action and how it would be viewed, and they took the decision to block the interview.

The original 3 interviews were with NFL security, and Wells had prior discussed with the Patriots that he would wipe the slate clean and disregard the initial interviews. This had the Patriots blessing.

NotYourYear20 wrote: »

I am a Steelers fan and I think it's a complete embarrassing joke over a minor issue. Afaic, Brady could beat most teams throwing a bowling ball.

The issue itself may appear minor (I don't agree and think it is a big issue), but it looks as though it meant enough to Brady to risk having the balls tampered with. We won't ever know what, if any, advantage it gave Brady or the Patriots. I do agree he could beat most teams throwing Rugby balls though! It's worth remembering that the punishment is not for the deflating of balls alone, it includes previous (spygate) , subsequent cover up and partial cooperation.

NotYourYear20 wrote: »

Goodell is a clown and needs to go. A pity he wasn't so proactive with the all the wife beaters in the league. And he was only shamed into action because of that shocking video of Rice in Las Vegas. Then a federal judge called Goodell out as a liar over the whole affair. Yet I remember Robert Kraft statement of support, that more or less saved his job when Godell was really on the ropes. I bet he regrets that now and I really hope he destroys Goodell now becasue the gob****e deserves it.

I feel a bit sorry for Goodell. He is in an impossible situation for a case like this. Let it slide and you are accused of favouritism, come down hard and you are accused of a witch hunt. Again, I think the punishment was overly harsh to appease the rest of the league, knowing it will be reduced on appeal.

eagle eye

poldebruin wrote: »

it includes previous (spygate) , subsequent cover up and partial cooperation.

Well if that's the case then every single bit of punishment will be thrown out because the Patriots were already severely punished for spygate and it's double jeopardy.

Remember Ray Rice could not be banned indefinitely over knocking out his wife because he had already received a two game ban for the incident.

AbusesToilets

**** Goodell, he is an ass and has bungled this and every other issue that has come across his desk. An absolute disgrace.

But we all know that he didn't fully cooperate, so I don't think you can accept he did just by saying he did. In the eyes of the investigators he did not cooperate to their satisfaction. As has been mentioned over and over, we all know he does not have to hand over his phone, but now he has to live with the implication that action carries.

He followed the guidance of NFLPA, and given the level of leaks emanating from NFL HQ, entirely justified in not trusting them to maintain the security of his personal communications.

poldebruin

eagle eye wrote: »

Well if that's the case then every single bit of punishment will be thrown out because the Patriots were already severely punished for spygate and it's double jeopardy.

Remember Ray Rice could not be banned indefinitely over knocking out his wife because he had already received a two game ban for the incident.

I don't think I have read it anywhere that a team can't be punished more severely if they have had a prior instance of discipline.

A similarity would be the 1st, 2nd and 3rd violations of the leagues substance abuse policy, each carrying a stiffer penalty predicated on the previous failures.

Personally, I was very surprised to see Spygate being invoked by the report - to my mind that happened so long ago. What's the statute of limitations on these things?

poldebruin

AbusesToilets wrote: »

**** Goodell, he is an ass and has bungled this and every other issue that has come across his desk. An absolute disgrace.

I agree they have made a complete mess of every issue that has come their way recently, AP, Hardy, Rice... but do you not feel that at least they are trying to do something about it? Certainly they seem to be learning on the fly, and making a mess in doing so, but these things were always going on in the NFL and commissioner* after commissioner has largely ignored it.

Greg Hardy situation is a case in point....is it right to suspend him or not? He settled out of court this year after being found guilty in a trial last year. Do you respect the law of the land, or do you take action based on the reports of what occurred? It's a no win situation imo.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

He followed the guidance of NFLPA, and given the level of leaks emanating from NFL HQ, entirely justified in not trusting them to maintain the security of his personal communications.

You might be right about everything you said here, but at the end of the day it was going to be viewed the way it was, as obstruction.

*you should have seen my first attempt at spelling commissioner!

eagle eye

poldebruin wrote: »

I don't think I have read it anywhere that a team can't be punished more severely if they have had a prior instance of discipline.
Read about Ray Rice's reinstatement.
A similarity would be the 1st, 2nd and 3rd violations of the leagues substance abuse policy, each carrying a stiffer penalty predicated on the previous failures.
No this is not the same, it's a penalty for a different offense but it's clear that no lesson has been learned so the punishment is greater than the first time. Totally different thing altogether.
Personally, I was very surprised to see Spygate being invoked by the report - to my mind that happened so long ago. What's the statute of limitations on these things?

I don't know if there is a statute of limitations in the NFL but bringing it up here is ludicrous. They are not laying blame on the shoulders of Belichick and Kraft who were part of spygate.

DecStone

Ariana Plain Magenta wrote: »

wait your serious bradys still one of the best qbs in the league.

with regards the others namath, bradshaw and williams are not close to the players brady is and elway could have easily played on and possibly won another Super Bowl he just wanted to go out at the absolute top.

He has most of his good years behind him. That is a chronological fact. Just saying.

If Peyton Manning had won the Superbowl he would likely have announced his retirement and they are of comparable age. Archie [Manning] as much as hinted at this and he should know about injures in older athletes. Not many want to end up like Favre - a broken athlete on the field. It became painful to watch Favre.

NotYourYear20

poldebruin wrote: »

But we all know that he didn't fully cooperate,

We? You see its generalisation and assumptions like that which create the hype/storm in a tea cup.

poldebruin wrote: »

so I don't think you can accept he did just by saying he did. In the eyes of the investigators he did not cooperate to their satisfaction.

To come to the nonsense conclusions they did, I’ll hazard a guess he was guilty in their eyes before they even started their one sided investigation.

poldebruin wrote: »

so Wells interviewed him once, asked for a second, follow up interview and was turned down. The Patriots told him they would not even pass on his request to McNally. Again, they knew the implications of this action and how it would be viewed, and they took the decision to block the interview. The original 3 interviews were with NFL security, and Wells had prior discussed with the Patriots that he would wipe the slate clean and disregard the initial interviews. This had the Patriots blessing.

Block the interview or maybe just stop the bloody harassment of the guy. The Pats probably never thought he would want to interview McNally again. Wells could disregarded previous interviews all he wanted. But as far as McNally was concern, he had been grilled 3 times already by the NFL. And Wells still interviewed him, so what more did he want? He wasn’t investigating him for murder or sexual assault, we talking about the petty nonsense of ball inflation levels. After the 4th interview with Wells, I think McNally was entitled to feel a little bit harassed.

poldebruin wrote: »

The issue itself may appear minor (I don't agree and think it is a big issue), but it looks as though it meant enough to Brady to risk having the balls tampered with. We won't ever know what, if any, advantage it gave Brady or the Patriots. I do agree he could beat most teams throwing Rugby balls though!

No it’s a complete non-issue to me. Some boxers like their gloves tightly laced, some don’t. Some guys wear groin guards, some can’t function with them. And as Rodgers himself said, some QBs like a harder ball and some like a softer ball. It’s nothing more than an athlete’s preference. Science can’t show any advantage to underinflated balls and Wells didn’t show any, because there is none.

poldebruin wrote: »

It's worth remembering that the punishment is not for the deflating of balls alone, it includes previous (spygate) , subsequent cover up and partial cooperation.

Ah the oul spygate, people conveniently forget that a memo was sent to every team in the league. Yes every team, it re-designated certain area where teams could record their opponents from. The memo was issued to every team because every team was filming and it was getting out of hand. Of course most don’t even know that. A Pats official kept up the old practice filming in front of thousands of fans, from the side-line in meadowlands. Nothing concealed nothing hidden, just stupid. We weren’t talking about the Pats bugging dressing rooms, like other teams have done long before 2007.

poldebruin wrote: »

I feel a bit sorry for Goodell. He is in an impossible situation for a case like this.

I have no sympathy for him, his incompetent handling created a storm over nothing. I hope he falls on his own sword.

poldebruin

EE.

I know about the Ray Rice situation, but that is different. He was being punished, served it and was punished again for the same offense.

A more comparable situation would be if RR assaulted his GF, received a 2 game ban, the assaulted her again 3 years later and received a 10 game ban. The first instance is taken into account in calculating the punishment for the second. He is not being punished again for the first instance. This situation is totally analogous to the Spygate/Deflategate issue.

JCTO

DecStone wrote: »

He has most of his good years behind him. That is a chronological fact. Just saying.

If Peyton Manning had won the Superbowl he would likely have announced his retirement and they are of comparable age. Archie [Manning] as much as hinted at this and he should know about injures in older athletes. Not many want to end up like Favre - a broken athlete on the field. It became painful to watch Favre.

There is nearly 2 years between them. Manning is 39 and has a bad shoulder on his throwing arm and Tom Brady is 37 and has had an ACL injury which doesn't affect him as much and never really has. I wouldn't say they are comparable.

Tom Brady was fantastic last season and still in great shape. He could easily last until 40.

Brett Favre took harder hits in his day and had this nack of taking late hits by hanging on to the ball too long, He never got the same protection Manning and Brady and most Modern QBs got. I would never compare Brady, Manning and Favre in the same sentence when mentioning their bodies and age.

Such an odd debate to start given Brady hasn't shown any sort of dramatic slow down regardless of age.

DecStone

DecStone wrote: »

He has most of his good years behind him. That is a chronological fact. Just saying.

If Peyton Manning had won the Superbowl he would likely have announced his retirement and they are of comparable age. Archie [Manning] as much as hinted at this and he should know about injures in older athletes. Not many want to end up like Favre - a broken athlete on the field. It became painful to watch Favre.

favre nearly won a Super Bowl in his second last season. yes he has most of his good years behind him but so do half the abs in the nfl

DecStone

eagle eye wrote: »

Well if that's the case then every single bit of punishment will be thrown out because the Patriots were already severely punished for spygate and it's double jeopardy.

Remember Ray Rice could not be banned indefinitely over knocking out his wife because he had already received a two game ban for the incident.

US labour law states that the first decision i.e punishment by an employer, is the final one - that is why Ray Rice went to labour court and won. The first two game suspension was ruled the final action that the NFL could take.

Double jeopardy is not concerned with previous infractions otherwise anyone could continue to commit crimes, commit rule infractions etc and get away with them. Double jeopardy applies to the instance at hand - not anything previous.

Taking previous infractions into account is not double jeopardy.

Vandango

DecStone wrote: »

He has most of his good years behind him. That is a chronological fact. Just saying.

Speaking of facts, the 49th Superbowl was recently vote the greatest Superbowl of all time. We witnessed Brady lead the greatest superbowl comeback of all time, agaisnt one of the greatest defenses of all time. A defense that befuddled Manning during the previous Superbowl and Rodgers could do much against twice in 2014. But there was Brady ripping them apart in the 4th quarter. It was mesmeric stuff and if the guy keeps healthy, don't be surprised if he's playing beyond 40.

poldebruin

NotYourYear20 wrote: »

We? You see its generalisation and assumptions like that which create the hype/storm in a tea cup.

No, I said "we" because we all know that Brady did not hand over his phone to investigators. Indeed, he refused to even parse his own phone and only hand over what he thought was relevant. That is indisputable.

NotYourYear20 wrote: »

To come to the nonsense conclusions they did, I’ll hazard a guess he was guilty in their eyes before they even started their one sided investigation.

The Patriots welcomed Wells' appointment.

NotYourYear20 wrote: »

Block the interview or maybe just stop the bloody harassment of the guy. The Pats probably never thought he would want to interview McNally again. Wells could disregarded previous interviews all he wanted. But as far as McNally was concern, he had been grilled 3 times already by the NFL. And Wells still interviewed him, so what more did he want? He wasn’t investigating him for murder or sexual assault, we talking about the petty nonsense of ball inflation levels. After the 4th interview with Wells, I think McNally was entitled to feel a little bit harassed.

When you block or refuse to be interviewed it is going to look a certain way, the Patriots knew this and still took the decision. I don't think it was asking a lot to carry out a follow up interview with one of the main witnesses to this investigation.

NotYourYear20 wrote: »

No it’s a complete non-issue to me. Some boxers like their gloves tightly laced, some don’t. Some guys wear groin guards, some can’t function with them. And as Rodgers himself said, some QBs like a harder ball and some like a softer ball. It’s nothing more than an athlete’s preference. Science can’t show any advantage to underinflated balls and Wells didn’t show any, because there is none.

You're entitled to feel that way, but apparently Brady felt it was worth the risk to have the balls deflated, so he must have felt it was worth something.

To use your boxing analogy a more accurate one would be; boxers have their hands taped, inspected and signed before a fight. They would be subject to sanction if they subsequently unwrapped and retaped their hands and did not have them inspected again.

NotYourYear20 wrote: »

Ah the oul spygate, people conveniently forget that a memo was sent to every team in the league. Yes every team, it re-designated certain area where teams could record their opponents from. The memo was issued to every team because every team was filming and it was getting out of hand. Of course most don’t even know that. A Pats official kept up the old practice filming in front of thousands of fans, from the side-line in meadowlands. Nothing concealed nothing hidden, just stupid. We weren’t talking about the Pats bugging dressing rooms, like other teams have done long before 2007.

I know what happened in Spygate, and I was only raised it as it was mentioned in the report as a mitigating circumstance when the penalties were being decided. I don't want to rehash old Spygate ground, as it has already been discussed to death.

NotYourYear20 wrote: »

I have no sympathy for him, his incompetent handling created a storm over nothing. I hope he falls on his own sword.

He may be on rocky ground, but perhaps the other owners around the league privately applaud this action. They won't say so publically though.

poldebruin

Vandango wrote: »

... But there was Brady ripping them apart in the 4th quarter. It was mesmeric stuff and if the guy keeps healthy, don't be surprised if he's playing beyond 40.

We have been so lucky to have Manning, Brady, Brees to watch over the last 15 years, Farve and Warner before that. It's sad to think they will all soon be gone from the game, so I hope Brady (and Manning although I can't see it myself) play for as long as they can.

poldebruin

JCTO wrote: »

There is nearly 2 years between them. Manning is 39 and has a bad shoulder on his throwing arm and Tom Brady is 37 and has had an ACL injury which doesn't affect him as much and never really has. I wouldn't say they are comparable.

Manning claims to be in the "young 39" camp, but the tail end of last season is fresh in my mind, and injuries like he had have such a big impact at his age.

Brady looks like he could play for 3 or 4 more good years.

JCTO wrote: »

Such an odd debate to start given Brady hasn't shown any sort of dramatic slow down regardless of age.

It is weird, but it if it were any other coach I wouldn't entertain it. You'd know better than I would, but BB always seems to know when to move on, when to get maximum value from an asset for the Patriots, and no player seems immune.