2015 NFL Football Thread

[turtleback]

I can see that, but if you go back to the Ravens game when the Pats were first accused by the Raven for using under inflated balls it makes more sense.  The Pats were behind the entire game, Brady was rattled and they were losing at half time 28-14.  I haven't seen any content that states when the deflated balls were noticed by the Ravens defense but if the Pats don't beat the Ravens in that game (35-31), then they don't make it to the Championship game or win the Super Bowl.

McNally referred to himself as the deflator in may 2014. That seems to suggest this went on all year, and possibly longer.

Would they have made the playoffs and then won the super bowl without deflated balls? Maybe. Would Barry Bonds be the all time home run hitter if he didn't juice? maybe. We will never know because they cheated.

Exactly.

People complain that the punishment is too harsh because there was no smoking gun.  Well there are at least 2 smoking guns clearly described in the report:

1) The failure of the Patriots to produce McNally, the key figure at the center of the controversy, for the followup interview after the investigators had identified areas where he lied or where his information was needed to provide context (as in, for example: what did XXX mean in this text, Why is Brady giving a guy special stuff for just doing his job, how did you use a urinal in a bathroom that you claiimed to have used many times in the past that doesn't have a urinal?

IAC, it was clearly a reasonable request and the Pats refused.  THAT is what the sainted Mr. Kraft needs to be asked about.  Does he run the team or does his counsel?  Did his counsel's refusal to make McNally available happen with Kraft's approval?  How could the counsel refuse when Kraft  said the team would cooperate fully with the investigation?  In what universe is refusing to allow a witness be interviewed a

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2) The failure of Brady, offered protections that very people get, refused to provide material germane to the investigation that he had in his possession.  And before anyone goes all 1st amendment on me, they were offering for all of the submitted texts and emails got through Brady's attorney.  So unless Brady was concerned that his own attorney was going to either steal his identity or rat him out to TMZ it really is very hard to justify his refusal and IAC he is obligated to fully cooperate and he didn't.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I said earlier in the locked thread and was contradicted by @Golfingdad the coverup is worse than the crime.  If the thread had not been locked I would have responded that I should have phrased this as the consequences of the cover-up are frequently worse than seriousness of the crime.  IMO most of the punishment is due to the over-up and failure to cooperate.

Sure someone can argue that major league punishment is being handed out for a pony league infraction.  Tell Martha Stewart, who was investigated for insider trading, never charged, but went to prison for making false statements to investigators.  Or Scooter Libby who was investigated for the Valerie Plame leak, was never charged for that, someone else was found to be responsible for the leak, but who was nevertheless indicted tried and convicted for making false statements and obstruction of justice.

Brady is suspended for 4 games - Stewart went to prison and while Libby's prison term was commuted, he still lost his livelihood because his felony conviction remained and cost him his attorney license.  Pretty serious punishments when, in both cases, the investigators could not make the case on the underlying charge (and in Libby's case he was vindicated of the original charge when the leaker turned out to be Richard Armitage) yet they both had their lives turned upside down because of making false statements and withholding evidence.

Gee, maybe lying and withholding evidence from an investigator that you have an obligation to cooperate with is a bigger deal that some folks think.

The question that I have not heard any kind of convincing explanation of is: what possible motivation does the NFL have for trashing one of its biggest stars, slamming a team whose owner has a close relationship with the commissioner?

IMO, Brady's agent's statement and Kraft's new defiance are not doing them any good.

[iacas]

Some interesting recent donations on the Patriots GoFundMe site…

P.S. This image is NOT Photoshopped.

[mmoan2]

McNally referred to himself as the deflator in may 2014. That seems to suggest this went on all year, and possibly longer.

Would they have made the playoffs and then won the super bowl without deflated balls? Maybe. Would Barry Bonds be the all time home run hitter if he didn't juice? maybe. We will never know because they cheated.

The answer to the Barry Bonds question is NO. I hear your point, though. He doesn't hit 73 home runs without the juice.

[Golfingdad]

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I can see that, but if you go back to the Ravens game when the Pats were first accused by the Raven for using under inflated balls it makes more sense.  The Pats were behind the entire game, Brady was rattled and they were losing at half time 28-14.  I haven't seen any content that states when the deflated balls were noticed by the Ravens defense but if the Pats don't beat the Ravens in that game (35-31), then they don't make it to the Championship game or win the Super Bowl.

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

Exactly. They didn't just start doing that for the Colts game. And then they arrogantly stonewalled and figured that it was not an offense that would be pursued to the degree that it was. The league went a little overboard, IMO, but it is probably a result of the Pats response.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123

McNally referred to himself as the deflator in may 2014. That seems to suggest this went on all year, and possibly longer.

Would they have made the playoffs and then won the super bowl without deflated balls? Maybe. Would Barry Bonds be the all time home run hitter if he didn't juice? maybe. We will never know because they cheated.

I think this was posted back in January as well (perhaps even by me, I don't remember) ... but its not the fact that they may have deflated balls for that game or for several games even prior to that game ... its stuff like this:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12244290/ex-quarterback-jeff-blake-deflating-footballs-common

Quote:

"I'm just going to let the cat of the bag, every team does it, every game, it has been since I played," Blake said. "'Cause when you take the balls out of the bag, they are rock hard. And you can't feel the ball as well. It's too hard. Everybody puts the pin in and lets just enough air out of the ball that you can feel it a little better. But it's not the point to where it's flat.

"So I don't know what the big deal is. It's not something that's not been done for 20 years."

[iacas]

As I said earlier in the locked thread and was contradicted by @Golfingdad the coverup is worse than the crime.  If the thread had not been locked I would have responded that I should have phrased this as the consequences of the cover-up are frequently worse than seriousness of the crime.  IMO most of the punishment is due to the over-up and failure to cooperate.

Just quote and respond here. That was the 2014 thread. That's why it was closed - so the conversation would move here (and yeah, I know the events occurred in the 2014 season's post-season play).

[dsc123]

I think this was posted back in January as well (perhaps even by me, I don't remember) ... but its not the fact that they may have deflated balls for that game or for several games even prior to that game ... its stuff like this:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12244290/ex-quarterback-jeff-blake-deflating-footballs-common

But what's the alternative?  Players messed with the balls in the Vikings game and the NFL sent a memo telling people to stop.  Then the Patriots snuck the balls out of the refs room, took them into the bathroom, and put needles in them.  What was the league supposed to do?  Tell the Colts to deal with it?  Tell the Patriots that they've been caught cheating once again, and give them a wag of the finger?  There had to be a penalty.  There has to be consequences for breaking the rules.

He probably got a 1 game suspension for breaking the rules and a 3 game suspension for the coverup.

[turtleback]

Just quote and respond here. That was the 2014 thread. That's why it was closed - so the conversation would move here (and yeah, I know the events occurred in the 2014 season's post-season play).

I wasn't complaining about the closing of the thread.  And in isolation I didn't think I needed to respond to G-dad at the time, as it wasn't that big a deal.  I mentioned the closed thread for identification of *where* I said it, more than anything.  I understood and agreed with the closing of that thread at the time.

All OT.

[Golfingdad]

But what's the alternative?  Players messed with the balls in the Vikings game and the NFL sent a memo telling people to stop.  Then the Patriots snuck the balls out of the refs room, took them into the bathroom, and put needles in them.  What was the league supposed to do?  Tell the Colts to deal with it?  Tell the Patriots that they've been caught cheating once again, and give them a wag of the finger?  There had to be a penalty.  There has to be consequences for breaking the rules.

He probably got a 1 game suspension for breaking the rules and a 3 game suspension for the coverup.

But I'm not talking about the leagues consequences anymore ... I'm completely fine with that.  I'm talking about the idea that their championship is "tainted" or that it brings into question everything they've done up to that point.  The (portion of the) public perception that its ONLY the Patriots that are trying to bend the rules and gain an advantage.  I think that is silly.

[Golfingdad]

Title of this picture is 'Brady is a disgrace!!!"

[newtogolf]

But I'm not talking about the leagues consequences anymore ... I'm completely fine with that.  I'm talking about the idea that their championship is "tainted" or that it brings into question everything they've done up to that point.  The (portion of the) public perception that its ONLY the Patriots that are trying to bend the rules and gain an advantage.  I think that is silly.

I think this was posted back in January as well (perhaps even by me, I don't remember) ... but its not the fact that they may have deflated balls for that game or for several games even prior to that game ... its stuff like this:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12244290/ex-quarterback-jeff-blake-deflating-footballs-common

Sorry but unless I missed the press release Jeff Blake isn't a spokesman for the NFL.  It's possible there was a time that this rule wasn't enforced to the level it was this season but this season it was enforced and the Patriots refused to comply.

I'm not saying Brady couldn't have beat the Ravens with properly inflated balls, but the belief today is he didn't so that in itself leads me to place an "*" next to their Super Bowl victory.  If Brady had failed a PEDs test right after the Super Bowl would you consider their victory tarnished?  In my mind it's not much different, the reason for cheating in both cases is to gain an edge.

[dsc123]

But I'm not talking about the leagues consequences anymore ... I'm completely fine with that.  I'm talking about the idea that their championship is "tainted" or that it brings into question everything they've done up to that point.  The (portion of the) public perception that its ONLY the Patriots that are trying to bend the rules and gain an advantage.  I think that is silly.

Oh, gotcha.

Quote:

Sorry but unless I missed the press release Jeff Blake isn't a spokesman for the NFL.  It's possible there was a time that this rule wasn't enforced to the level it was this season but this season it was enforced and the Patriots refused to comply.

I'm not saying Brady couldn't have beat the Ravens with properly inflated balls, but the belief today is he didn't so that in itself leads me to place an "*" next to their Super Bowl victory.  If Brady had failed a PEDs test right after the Super Bowl would you consider their victory tarnished?  In my mind it's not much different, the reason for cheating in both cases is to gain an edge.

4 games is also what you get for PEDs.

[newtogolf]

4 games is also what you get for PEDs.

Which is exactly why I used that as the analogy.  Seems the NFL considers what Brady did (or didn't do)  equal to PED's use in terms of the severity of the suspension.

[Golfingdad]

If Brady had failed a PEDs test right after the Super Bowl would you consider their victory tarnished?

I'd answer that question by asking you how "tarnished" you'd feel if the Patriots actually lost to the Ravens and the Ravens (with cheater Haloti Ngata on their team) went on to win the Super Bowl.

Same question for the Seahawks Super Bowl victory in 2014?  Two players during that season were caught and suspended for cheating - Walter Thurmond & Brandon Browner.

Or the Ravens in 2013?  Asa Jackson

Saints in 2010?  (a whole lotta cheaters for bountygate)

You see where I'm going with this.  We don't consider any of those Super Bowl victories tarnished so why the Patriots?  It's a rhetorical, obviously, because the answer is because we have a ridiculous double standard in place specifically for the Patriots.

(No doubt you are right, though, that people would shit a cow if Brady was caught using PEDs, but that would just further prove the stupid double standard)

[dsc123]

I'd answer that question by asking you how "tarnished" you'd feel if the Patriots actually lost to the Ravens and the Ravens (with cheater Haloti Ngata on their team) went on to win the Super Bowl.

Same question for the Seahawks Super Bowl victory in 2014?  Two players during that season were caught and suspended for cheating - Walter Thurmond & Brandon Browner.

Or the Ravens in 2013?  Asa Jackson

Saints in 2010?  (a whole lotta cheaters for bountygate)

You see where I'm going with this.  We don't consider any of those Super Bowl victories tarnished so why the Patriots?  It's a rhetorical, obviously, because the answer is because we have a ridiculous double standard in place specifically for the Patriots.

(No doubt you are right, though, that people would shit a cow if Brady was caught using PEDs, but that would just further prove the stupid double standard)

Let's remember that Browner was not allowed to play in the super bowl because he was caught cheating.  Brady was allowed to play.

Browner did however, play in the super bowl the following year.  For.....the Patriots.  I'm sure he lost the extra muscle mass by then though.

[Golfingdad]

Let's remember that Browner was not allowed to play in the super bowl because he was caught cheating.  Brady was allowed to play.

Fine, but he cheated to get them there, which is exactly what Brady supposedly did, right?  Nobody thinks Brady cheated IN the Super Bowl, do they?

Browner did however, play in the super bowl the following year.  For.....the Patriots.  I'm sure he lost the extra muscle mass by then though.

Most definitely.

[Golfingdad]

And there's this ... https://www.yahoo.com/sports/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/five-reasons-why-the-nfl-got-the-deflate-gate-punishment-dead-wrong-233900364.html

[turtleback]

Which is exactly why I used that as the analogy.  Seems the NFL considers what Brady did (or didn't do)  equal to PED's use in terms of the severity of the suspension.

Let's remember that Browner was not allowed to play in the super bowl because he was caught cheating.  Brady was allowed to play.

Browner did however, play in the super bowl the following year.  For.....the Patriots.  I'm sure he lost the extra muscle mass by then though.

Browner's suspension was not for PEDs it was for violating the substance abuse policy.  As I understand it they are not the same.  Just saying that I do not think Browner's violation involved the competitive aspects that PEDs would indicate/

And there's this ... https://www.yahoo.com/sports/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/five-reasons-why-the-nfl-got-the-deflate-gate-punishment-dead-wrong-233900364.html

OK, let's look at these five reasons, because all of them rely heavily on rewriting history, ignoring items, misleading items,etc

But I will rebut them one by one:

Number 1:

The NFL did not care much about football tampering, until it fit its agenda

For this one they reference the Cincinnatti-Minnesota game in which BOTH TEAMS improperly warmed footballs out in the open on the sidelines.  As if somehow this is the same as secretly letting air out of the ball (after the memo from the league warning teams about proper ball rules.  There is no evidence that either team failed to cooperate fully.

Number 2:

The argument that Spygate mattered doesn't hold up in Brady's suspension

Well, duh, Troy Vincent's letter to Brady says nothing about this being a second offense for him.  That was in the letter to the Patriots and said that it was the club's second offense.  So basically the writer made up this "argument" himself and then swatted it.  from which we can conclude that either he was intellectually dishonest or didn't bother to find out the facts.  Either of which would argue for just dismissing him out of hand, since he doesn't have any shred of credibility after this whopper, but, nonetheless:

Number 3:

The Patriots as an organization were not found to be responsible for wrongdoing

Here he is very clever because he takes a statement that applies to one part of the case and acts as if that is the whole case.  Wells said that Bellichick and the team were not implicated in any way in the deflating.  But that is not all he said.  And the writer ignores some important facts.  One is that the organization is still responsible for the actions of their employees.  And the second more damning fact is that they were fount to have not cooperated fully, which he tries to poo-poo below but he gets that wrong as well, as we will see.

Number 4:

The NFL saying the Patriots and Brady didn't cooperate is not accurate

Here we have wonderful obfuscation.  The issue is NOT whether Brady and/or the team cooperated, it is whether they cooperate FULLY!  And clearly they did not.  He quotes the section of the report where it says the Patriots provided substantial cooperation without realizing that this damns the Pats, because they are not required to provide substantial cooperation they are required to provide full cooperation.  substantial <> full

In what universe does the target of an investigation get to decide for himself what is full cooperation?  Basically the requirement for full cooperation means that if you are asked for something you provide it.  There was no basis at all for refusing to make McNally available and Wells only interviewed him once, the other interviews were not done by him nor his investigative team.  They were done before the investigation ever started.

Number 5:

There's no evidence of Brady's wrongdoing

He doesn't have a clue as to what the word evidence means.  But he conveniently redefines the term evidence to exclude circumstantial evidence.  Which is on an intellectual (dis)honesty level that is consistent with the rest of the article.  And conveniently ignores the fact that part of Brady's wrongdoing was stonewalling the investigation by refusing to have HIS OWN ATTORNEY make print outs of messages between Brady and these 2 individuals, McNally and Jastremski.

So I do not find anything much of value in that article because, like so much of today's media, the writer is lazy in his grasp of the facts and severely biased in his spinning of those facts.

[dsc123]

The reporting on this issue is unbelievably lazy. Every writer who says theres no evidence should lose their job. Certainly they did not say the same thing when the Patriots te was convicted for murder without any dorect evidence.