HowboutthemCowboys Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 The problem is that this punishment is so far out of line with past precedent, that it is nothing but a joke. The NFL derailed the entire Saints franchise during a Super Bowl window and then they levy this half assed verdict. It is blatant favoritism for the large market team while making an example of the small market team. It's total bullhonda. assuming both teams were guilty, the bounty thing and deflategate..you're opinion is taking a pound of pressure out of a football should be punished the same as pointing out players' injuries and offering money to your players to break the already injured body parts of other players? That's weird 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BA Baracus Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 assuming both teams were guilty, the bounty thing and deflategate..you're opinion is taking a pound of pressure out of a football should be punished the same as pointing out players' injuries and offering money to your players to break the already injured body parts of other players? That's weird They are similar because they are both fundamentally damaging to the game. What's weird is that you seem to think that deliberately violating the rules in order to gain an unfair advantage (ie cheating) is not really a very big deal in competitive professional sports. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stethant Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 They are similar because they are both fundamentally damaging to the game. What's weird is that you seem to think that deliberately violating the rules in order to gain an unfair advantage (ie cheating) is not really a very big deal in competitive professional sports. How upset do people get in baseball when a pitcher is caught scuffing up a ball? How upset do people in baseball get when a pitcher starts throwing high and fast at a batter's head? They're both violations of the rules but they are perceived very differently - one with a laugh and one with a lot of anger. Not all rules violations are the same. How about heating up a football on a cold day? Rules violation but what did the Vikings get for that? Or putting stickem' on a ball? Chargers and probably most others don't care that much. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patriots Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 If your a leader you lead - you don't follow. The everybody else is doing it argument doesn't fly here with me. The biggest thing I try to teach my kids is to lead and not follow. Also, the biggest tarnish to Brady will not be the violation of the rule but the lying about it after. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irish Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Has Brady come out and admitted anything yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Not yet. I liked how Ted Wells defended himself against the stuff Brady's agent was slinging (Thou dost protest too much). He said if Tom was so forth coming that he suggested Yee release the transcript of what the Brady interview had. No doubt one of those infamous Belichick/Brady press conference style interviews. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 They are similar because they are both fundamentally damaging to the game. What's weird is that you seem to think that deliberately violating the rules in order to gain an unfair advantage (ie cheating) is not really a very big deal in competitive professional sports. what stethant said right under u Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BA Baracus Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 How upset do people get in baseball when a pitcher is caught scuffing up a ball? How upset do people in baseball get when a pitcher starts throwing high and fast at a batter's head? They're both violations of the rules but they are perceived very differently - one with a laugh and one with a lot of anger. Not all rules violations are the same. How about heating up a football on a cold day? Rules violation but what did the Vikings get for that? Or putting stickem' on a ball? Chargers and probably most others don't care that much. If this was a one time incident, I would agree. But this is just one more example of what has become institutionalized cheating. By not throwing the book at the organization, the NFL is condoning this behavior. It now becomes an arms race of seeing who can cheat more, because the potential reward totally dwarfs any potential punishment, so really, teams would be stupid to not cheat while they are in a potential Super Bowl window. While the bounty program was worse from a moral standpoint, I would argue that cheating is more detrimental to the game itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Honestly, the part that bothers me (and I haven't read this million page report) is the "its more probable that Tom knew what was going on than its not probable" nonsense. And he's being punished for not turning over his private cell phone . If my boss wants my phone he can kiss my ass. Give me some proof that Brady was absolutely behind the 1 ball outa 12 being down 1 WHOLE LB OF AIR, and I'll be behind this suspension 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningMud Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Honestly, the part that bothers me (and I haven't read this million page report) is the "its more probable that Tom knew what was going on than its not probable" nonsense. And he's being punished for not turning over his private cell phone . If my boss wants my phone he can kiss my ass. Give me some proof that Brady was absolutely behind the 1 ball outa 12 being down 1 WHOLE LB OF AIR, and I'll be behind this suspension Wells addressed the "more probable then not". He said that in his opinion it was proven. He used that language because that is what is in the rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Wells addressed the "more probable then not". He said that in his opinion it was proven. He used that language because that is what is in the rules. I believe he also said if this was done for a court of law his findings would have said guilty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overworkedirish Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 (edited) Honestly, the part that bothers me (and I haven't read this million page report) is the "its more probable that Tom knew what was going on than its not probable" nonsense. And he's being punished for not turning over his private cell phone . If my boss wants my phone he can kiss my ass. Give me some proof that Brady was absolutely behind the 1 ball outa 12 being down 1 WHOLE LB OF AIR, and I'll be behind this suspension Yeah... as MorningMud and Keggerz said - that's just legalese. Your argument is along the lines of calling evolution "just a theory". Also, Wells made it clear that he was comfortable with Brady's camp going through the phone themself and passing on pertinent phone records - no turning over of the phone necessary. They refused. Smart on Yee's part instead of lying, because if he was caught lying he would lose his license. But the lack of cooperation to provide any information, in the context of phone records of others involved, is indicative of obstruction. Also, you have that backwards. 11 of the balls were underinflated. Not 1. Edited May 14, 2015 by overworkedirish 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Deflator comments were in regards to weight loss by ball boys. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Yeah... as MorningMud and Keggerz said - that's just legalese. Your argument is along the lines of calling evolution "just a theory". Also, Wells made it clear that he was comfortable with Brady's camp going through the phone themself and passing on pertinent phone records - no turning over of the phone necessary. They refused. Smart on Yee's part instead of lying, because if he was caught lying he would lose his license. But the lack of cooperation to provide any information, in the context of phone records of others involved, is indicative of obstruction. Also, you have that backwards. 11 of the balls were underinflated. Not 1. Great points. In most places of business anything you do related to the company belongs to them. If you use our personal cell phone (computer, tablet, etc.) to do company business, it still belongs to them. And you can be required to turn over that info (or the device) and face punishment (up to termination) if you refuse. They're probably evidence of the deflated balls or other things so they refuse and take one for the team. Then they'll get the NFLPA to fight it for them and try to reduce or eliminate the suspension. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Deflator comments were in regards to weight loss by ball boys. Judge for yourself: One can specifically see this use of the term in a Nov. 30, 2014 text from Mr. McNally to Mr. Jastremski: “deflate and give somebody that jacket.” (p. 87). This banter, and Mr. McNally’s goal of losing weight, meant Mr. McNally was the “deflator.” There was nothing complicated or sinister about it. If there was any doubt about the jocular nature of the May 9, 2014 texts, a review of all the texts between these two men that day would dispel it:12:21:46: JM “Whats up dorito dink” 12:22:53: JJ “Nada” 12:22:53: JM “Whens the pong party….im on fire” 12:23:10: JJ “Omg” 12:23:34: JM “Bring it” 16:29:48: JM “You still with your women” 16:29:59: JJ “Yup” 16:33:21: JM “You must have her [omitted out of respect to Mrs. Jastremski]” 16:34:39: JM “You must have a picture of her [omitted out of respect to Mrs. Jastremski]” 16:36:31: JJ “Omg” 16:37:16: JM “You working” 16:37:53 JJ “Yup” 16:39:40 JM “Nice dude…jimmy needs some kicks….lets make a deal…come on help the deflator” [After Mr. Jastremski does not respond for several minutes, Mr. McNally sends a follow-up text.] 16:47:15 JM “Chill buddy im just f****n with you….im not going to espn….yet” The “espn” reference in this string of jocular texts was part of their banter and related to the “new kicks.” Mr. Jastremski had made it clear to Mr. McNally over time that his (Jastremski’s) boss would not be happy with him were he to give away sneakers to Mr. McNally. That fact is quite explicit in a number of their texts. (p. 82 — after texting about possibly getting Mr. McNally sneakers and apparel, Mr. Jastremski writes: “unless Dave [his boss, Dave Schoenfeld] leaves the room tomorrow then it’ll wait till next week”). Getting sneakers or apparel for his friend Mr. McNally, in short, meant Mr. Jastremski would have to do so behind his boss’s back. They teased each other about whether Mr. Jastremski would get in trouble for giving him sneakers. The May 2014 McNally text reference to “not going to espn” follows his request for “new kicks,” and was Mr. McNally’s way of saying, in substance: “Hey, don’t worry about whether giving me those sneakers will get you in trouble — I’ll never tell.” The Wells investigators had this text long before their interviews with Mr. McNally and Mr. Jastremski. Had they asked Mr. McNally or Mr. Jastremski about this text when they interviewed each for a full day using four lawyers, they would have learned this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Here is the entire Wells Report Rebuttal. I find it interesting that a lot of what it accuses the NFL of doing, using out of context information to form a narrative, leaking and/or reporting false info and never correcting or even denying that information, omitting and/or ignoring conflicting information with their findings that would either explain or at least draw into question the "guilty" narrative and most of all building their case from the standpoint of a prosecutor where guilt has already been presumed. Whether the Patriots were ultimately guilty or not, I like this more that it's coming from Kraft. I like that fact because it comes from someone who has much more influence over the league than Benson ever had and the fact that he and Goodell were obviously closer than they should have been. And I like the fact that probably his biggest supporter during Bountygate is now getting his own taste of the NFL's brand of investigation & justice. It's too bad that Benson just decided to roll over instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 (edited) Oh come on. Why did the Patriots suspend the two ball boys without pay? Why did Kraft say they would accept the leagues decision on punishment? Why did Brady call and have over an hour of conversation with the trucking ball boys, when he hadn't called them in over a year? You don't get that nickname for losing weight. It's obviously a double entendre. You fight, tooth and nail, from the get go if you are completely innocent and this is all just a big misunderstanding. You don't fire people, hide text messages that would exonerate you, or say you'll accept the punishment unless you are truckING GUILTY. Edited May 14, 2015 by CaptainHook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 They just didn't think Goodell had the stones to crack down this hard, and now they wanna take everything back, start quoting the Ideal Gas Law, and claim innocence. Give me a break. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 (edited) Here's how that phone conversation goes if there were no shenanigans: Brady: Hey those Colts pussies are saying we doctored the footballs for the AFC championship. Deflator (cause he's fat): huh? Brady: yeah, those crybaby Nancy-boys say the balls we used were "under inflated" or some honda, and that's why they lost 45-7. Deflator (cause he's trying to shed a few lbs): I have no idea what you are talking about man. Brady: That's what I thought. No worries. Maybe those clowns should draft some defense instead of making lame excuses! (Uproarious shared laughter) Deflator (cause he wants to be skinny): Don't worry. Nothing shady going on and I'll tell them that. Bye Tom! Kiss Giselle for me. That conversation takes two minutes tops. Edited May 14, 2015 by CaptainHook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Oh come on. Why did the Patriots suspend the two ball boys without pay? Why did Kraft say they would accept the leagues decision on punishment? Why did Brady call and have over an hour of conversation with the trucking ball boys, when he hadn't called them in over a year? You don't get that nickname for losing weight. It's obviously a double entendre. You fight, tooth and nail from the get go if you are completely innocent and this is all just a big misunderstanding. You don't fire people, hide text messages that would exonerate you, or say you'll accept the punishment unless you are truckING GUILTY. Like I said, whether they are guilty or not this whole hondafest shines a huge light on the methods & manner that the NFL has been operating with and it's all coming from the guy who supported Goodell the most. No matter what, this looks horrible for them both. I know one thing though. If Kraft somehow manages to work his way out of this then I want 2011 back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 http://profootballta...ce-of-evidence/ The gauge with the logo and the longer needle generated higher measurements of the Patriots footballs at halftime, ranging from 0.3 PSI to 0.45 PSI higher for each of the 11 footballs. If that gauge — the one with the logo and the longer, crooked needle — were used to set the PSI for the balls before the game began, the measurements from that gauge are the right measurements to rely upon at halftime. And those measurements show that there was no tampering, because most of the footballs fell within the 11.52 to 11.32 PSI range for halftime, as predicted by the Ideal Gas Law.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. So how did Ted Wells get around the “best recollection” of Walt Anderson? Wells persuaded Anderson to admit that it’s “certainly possible” he used the other gauge. And the company hired to provide technical support for the Wells report concluded based on a convoluted explanation appearing at pages 116-17 of the report that it is “more probable than not” that Anderson used the other gauge. In other words, the Wells report concludes on this critical point that it’s “more probable than not” that Anderson’s “best recollection” was wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 I'm sure youre right Rajn. This was all made up. The Patriots just happened to have a ball boy with a nickname "The Deflator". The Patriots fired them for no reason. The Patriots agreed to accept discipline. Them when they found out what the discipline was, they decided they didn't actually do anything wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 I'm sure youre right Rajn. This was all made up. The Patriots just happened to have a ball boy with a nickname "The Deflator". The Patriots fired them for no reason. The Patriots agreed to accept discipline. Them when they found out what the discipline was, they decided they didn't actually do anything wrong. all that hate gonna eat you up son... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 (edited) I'm sure youre right Rajn. This was all made up. The Patriots just happened to have a ball boy with a nickname "The Deflator". The Patriots fired them for no reason. The Patriots agreed to accept discipline. Them when they found out what the discipline was, they decided they didn't actually do anything wrong. Read my previous post. I'm not passing any judgement based on what the Patriots are presenting, only enjoying the fact that the NFL was obviously also not very forthcoming with the evidence they presented and USED to determine the level of punishment. Edited May 14, 2015 by rajncajn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 I'm not mad. Just never ceases to amaze me how people can deny something happened despite heaps of evidence, by pointing out flaws in inconsequential details. There was no Holocaust. Man didn't land on the moon. Elvis is still alive. Patriots aren't cheaters. Amazing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.