Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Patriots being investigated after Colts game (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter HobbesAB
- Start date
LOL, 12-14 years? Luck will turn 27 in September. He's already been beaten around and missed a lot of games in 2015, no chance he is playing at a high level that long, no chance.
Also, feel free to say it will start with this draft and then feel free to take a look at the 2007-2015 drafts. Littered with terrible picks, especially at the top. I wouldn't feel real good about my future if I were the Colts, because Luck looked very human last year and they haven't been very good at all in the draft. Maybe it turns around, but I think the other teams are getting much better talent infusions and will likely be passing them by shortly.
I shouldn't have to explain to two smart guys like you that the burden of proof is obviously on the accusers here.
moleculo
Footballguy
no doubt. That's where the all of the "deflator" needle references, "take it to ESPN", quid-pro-quo, sneaking balls into the bathroom, and destroying the phone come into play.
I post what I did to point out that just as the science does not incriminate that Patriots, it does not exonerate them either. It's not really a fair statement to run around saying, "the science shows it might be caused by natural deflation, therefore it's proof that nothing happened."
EDIT: I know that's not what you were arguing. I'm on several football-related forums and have seen this argument many times; it all starts to run together. i apologize if I took your statement in a direction you weren't intending.
Last edited by a moderator:
And I shouldn't have to explain to a smart guy like you that the NFL isn't a court of law. The burden of proof is not "guilty beyond all reasonable doubt;" it is essentially "more likely than not." I also shouldn't have to explain to you that once Brady appealed, the burden WAS most definitely on him (just as once the NFL appealed, the burden was on them). If Brady decides to appeal again, the burden is, once again, on him.Jercules said:
Since there is no conclusive proof that NE/Brady are blameless, and there is no conclusive proof that NE/Brady are guilty, NE homers/fans/supporters believe that it is not more likely than not Brady is not guilty, while NE "haters"/opponents/critics believe that it is more likely than not that Brady is guilty.
You can keep arguing that there is no proof that Brady did anything, but you are arguing a fact that is irrelevant. Wells/the NFL didn't have to prove that Brady was guilty, they had to believe that it was more likely than not that he was involved. That's what they decided.
Good god; the NFL isn't a court of law; the burden of proof is that it be deemed more likely than not that Brady was involved/knew what was going on. Wells and the NFL decided based on the texts, refusal to cooperate, etc that it was more likely than not that Brady was involved/knew what was going on. So, in this particular case/context, there was enough evidence to punish someone for something. Good god.Tool said:
What is with you repeating peoples' phrases? It's just weird, please stop (and don't say "it's just weird, please stop" in your next post!)
The recent decision reaffirmed Goodell's authority to do absolutely whatever he wants (the fact that is was even cast into doubt at one point speaks to how egregious this whole thing is).
Your charming outline of the burdens of proof ("they just had to believe it was more likely than not!") makes you sound like a polly-anna. You want to pretend there was something above-board about all this, as though it was a serious investigation, but turn around and say "it's not a court of law" when people ask why basic tenets of logic were disregarded.
If you post a ridiculous phrase because it sounds funny, why isn't it funny when it's repeated? If it sounds stupid when it's repeated, that should say something about how unfunny/unintelligent it was the first time.
That being said, I'm not pretending there's anything "above-board" about all this; I'm on record as believing that NE & Brady were deflating footballs below the limit b/c they (and others) were able to get away with it, that there was no definitive proof that they did it during the AFCC, but that the circumstantial evidence was damning.
In a court of law where guilty beyond the reasonable doubt is the standard of proof, convicting them should have been impossible, but that's not the standard in this situation. In this situation, many people would accept, based on the texts, Brady's failure to cooperate, and the destruction of his phone, etc that it was more likely than not that he was involved/aware of ball deflation.
You can pretend that because there isn't a signed document from Brady saying "I deflated footballs," that he must be completely innocent, but you're deluding yourself.
Settle down Beavis. I was responding to your earlier post that didn't make any sense.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
He was a good owner for Polian and Dungy. The biggest issue was Grigson. He advocated for players to start after making dumb draft picks and fought with Pagano constantly.. I believe Irsay should have fired Grigson for sure.
Run It Up
Footballguy
I would gladly take anything that isn't a cherry picked text message from months prior. Or Brady refusing to turn over his phone that he is not obligated to do so as a NFLPA rep.
They knew they were going to punish the Pats regardless of the outcome of the investigation, they just expected there to be something to punish them for.
They spent millions on the investigation and millions on the science. They edited the report themselves then refused to allow the editor to be called upon. The science was junk so they made it about everything but the science. After everything, it came down to the league taking the position that they can do what they want no matter what because they can apply article 46 however they deem necessary.
If the NFLPA successfully petitions a rehearing in front of the second circuit, the league is looking at a coin flip.
They knew they were going to punish the Pats regardless of the outcome of the investigation, they just expected there to be something to punish them for.
They spent millions on the investigation and millions on the science. They edited the report themselves then refused to allow the editor to be called upon. The science was junk so they made it about everything but the science. After everything, it came down to the league taking the position that they can do what they want no matter what because they can apply article 46 however they deem necessary.
If the NFLPA successfully petitions a rehearing in front of the second circuit, the league is looking at a coin flip.
Peyton Manning was a good QB for Polian and Dungy (and Irsay, clearly).
What genuinely blows my mind about the Colts is they didn't bother axing either Pagano or Grigson, even though Grigson is seemingly an idiot (if you hold him 100% responsible for that ridiculous spending spree approximately one year ago--I think Irsay had something to do with that), and Pagano was publicly criticizing some of the personnel moves last year. There's talk Luck won't even sign the mega-deal he's due, just because doing so would marry him to the franchise for his prime years.
If you make a claim against someone and fail to prove it, the claim falls, simple as that. You can bloviate about courts of law all you want, that's just basic, fundamental logic. The fact that the courts follow such logic is not a matter of technicality, it's a matter of basic principle, that any thinking person ought to follow (and do, clearly, as this thread proves, numerous times over, much to your Brady-hating dismay).
As far as "this situation" goes, Goodell wanted to crucify the Patriots and did just that (inserting himself as arbitrator, for chissakes! The accuser was the judge! He paid a league lawyer to do an investigation, then credited that investigation long after it was invalidated by numerous sources!) The "standard of proof" is whatever Goodell figured he could get away with, and he almost didn't, even though the courts are loath to interfere with arbitration rulings.
SMH
You really have no clue, do you?
The CBA specified what the burden of proof was, and the CBA specified that Goodell gets to determine the discipline AND hear the appeal.
Its a stupid system, and its illogical, and its inherently unfair; but it is the system in place; not some made-up, inappropriate sham system thrown together to try to nail your favorite team.
Last edited by a moderator:
It's stupid and illogical BUT it's not inappropriate!
So you're trying to pretend that Pats fans are not saying Goodell had it out for the Patriots with deflategate (a breathtakingly obvious assertion), but rather that Pats fans claim the entire "system", since its inception, was designed purely to screw the New England Patriots? You need to start reading your posts before you click submit bud (if they're too long for that just shorten them, I won't mind).
Ruffrodys05
IBL Representative
Roethlisberger was accused, proof never materialized, yet, gee wiz, he served a suspension at the hands of Goodell. Huh.
I doubt this would have been taken to such extremes by Goodell had Brady just cooperated and provided text message documentation (without handing his phone over, ya know) and had he not destroyed his phone (which gave an appearance of guilt.) That, and his pompous arrogance shown towards another teams head coach when he stated Harbaugh should "know the rule book." He was asking for it and basically challenged the league to find something.
Get over your pompous, arrogant, self and serve the damn suspension. Your image is forever tarnished and nothing you do to try to wipe it clean will suffice. Maybe have some freakin humility, accept your punishment, and move on. That alone would go a long way in the eyes of the public, and quite possibly the rest of the players in the league.
You might want to take your own advice, and read the posts before you reply & submit.
I'm not talking to (or about) all Pats fans. I'm talking to you; you seem to think that they didn't prove that Brady was guilty (as evidenced by your first post in this tangent). I pointed out that didn't need to prove Brady was guilty, they had to show it was more likely than not he was involved/aware, because that's what the CBA dictates.
It IS appropriate, since that means "suitable or proper in the circumstances." Since the circumstances are that this was an NFL issue, governed by the CBA, and the CBA specified what the burden of proof is and who determines discipline and handles appeals, it was appropriate.
The issue of "appropriateness" was with regards to the system (see your last post); now you reply as if "appropriateness" was mentioned with regards to the punishment. Once again, read your posts dude, before the rest of us have to.
And why anyone would continue to harp on official standards or burdens of proof in a "stupid and illogical" system that gives Goodell complete authority anyhow is beyond me (in fact, even calling it a "system" is nonsense).
Yeah, I guess that's part of the problem, you're not going to get a lot of unity against Goodell among fans because we're all divided. I freely admit I didn't care about Roethlisberger, or the Saints for that matter... now it's my team, now I care.
Brady is a total dork; he's a keener who does all his studying and eats right and goes to bed on time. This whole "pompous and arrogant" take people have of him is just odd. The rule book comment to Harbaugh was no big deal even if you keep it out of context (put it in context, and he was responding to Harbaugh's claims of being "deceived" with a perfectly legal eligibility trick that McDaniels stole from the NCAA... really no big deal, even a little mild considering Harbaugh was whining and clearly realized he was playing on the whole "Patriots cheating" trope).
JohnnyU
Footballguy
Are you serious? Here's my post:
The system IS the discipline and appeals process. Since I'm talking about how the CBA specified what the burden of proof is, and who determines discipline and handles appeals, it is referring to the system (or process, if you will). I never mentioned the punishment being 4 games, which would be the case if my post was in regards to the actual punishment.
Just because you have a persecution complex since this is your team doesn't mean everyone else is ganging up on your team.
For the record, 4 games was an inappropriate punishment; I've been on record as stating that since it was handed down.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ruffrodys05
IBL Representative
Correct. 4 games would have been appropriate punishment if it all went down as smoothly as Roethlisberger's supposed indiscretions. Right now, after all this crap, Brady is getting off light.
I actually believe that the 4 games was too harsh. I expected a 1 game suspension originally. After the 4-games was announced, I figured it would be cut to 2 or 1 upon appeal (as a way to get Brady to accept the "reduced" discipline). Even if Brady had admitted, under oath, that he personally deflated footballs after the officials inspected them, I believe 4 games was too severe.
I don't believe it would be fair (although this system isn't set up fairly, in the 1st place) to increase discipline because the player utilized his CBA rights to appeal, and/or his legal rights to appeal.
Because it is the system/rules in place? Those are the rules, regulations, and proceedings that are relevant. Insisting that the NFL didn't PROVE Brady did anything isn't relevant; that's not what they were required to do.
Ruffrodys05
IBL Representative
I knew what you were implying, I just feel exactly the opposite.
No problems here with exorcising one's rights. My views for harsher punishment are directly related to non-cooperation and actions which directly led to perceptions of guilt.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
I think people are missing the picture. Brady could have handed over his phone and the Wells report could have found essentially nothing and nothing would have changed.
This was a lifetime achievement award ferreted out by the other owners for all the stuff they felt NE had been getting away with for years.
The league had an outcome in mind and made it happen. This is not to say I think that the Pat's have been choir boys and didn't deserve to be smacked around for their indescretions.
It's possible to believe that the league's case against Brady was mostly propaganda and smoke and mirrors and still think the team is dirty.
This was a lifetime achievement award ferreted out by the other owners for all the stuff they felt NE had been getting away with for years.
The league had an outcome in mind and made it happen. This is not to say I think that the Pat's have been choir boys and didn't deserve to be smacked around for their indescretions.
It's possible to believe that the league's case against Brady was mostly propaganda and smoke and mirrors and still think the team is dirty.
Okay; just wanted to clarify. The non-cooperation & perception of guilt were (IMO) tied into the original penalty. I thought you meant something else. My bad.
You very well could be correct with the 1st statement. That being said, the texts about the deflator, the texts that specifically mention changing the inflation of the balls outside the legal range (albeit on the high end), Brady's sudden increase in communication with the 2 guys (at least 1 of them) after the AFCC, and his destruction of the phone all gave the appearance of wrong-doing. Maybe Wells & the NFL would have trumped something up anyway, but those things (and others) made it easier to do so.
With regards to your 2nd statement, I pretty much agree there, as well. I don't know if I'd describe NE as dirty, though. I think they push the rules, sometimes they might go past them (deflategate being one of those times); but I don't know if I'd describe them as dirty. Maybe sneaky, I don't know.
The case against Brady wasn't propaganda or smoke and mirrors. It was largely based on his refusal to hand over his cell phone. As the NFLPA admitted, his refusal to hand over his cell phone allowed the Commissioner to appropriately infer that there was damning stuff on it. If there was damning stuff on it, that's a justifiable reason to punish him.
If Brady had handed over his phone and nothing inculpatory was on it, it's not the case that nothing would have changed. We can speculate about whether the ultimate punishment would have changed; but we know for sure that at least the grounds for punishment would have necessarily changed.
I don't think they deserved the smacking that they've received; then again, success breeds contempt, and when you're "legal system" is essentially one person doing whatever he wants, contempt will find its way into the process.
Otherwise, a great post, from a consistently great poster on this board.
So the "system" is "appropriate" because it's an NFL system and the NFL decided on it and so, essentially by virtue of existing, the system, which gives Goodell dictatorial authority, is appropriate. Thanks bud, a fine contribution, as always.
GregR
Footballguy
Sometimes I worry about what will happen when some people in this thread go out in the world and get jobs of their own and find out that in most businesses the owner/president/CEO/etc has the power to determine discipline. And there is no independent arbitrator that you can appeal to either.
Ok, that's not quite true. I don't actually worry about it.
Ok, that's not quite true. I don't actually worry about it.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
I love the "jealously" angle that Pats fans try to use as a reasoning for the commisioner not allowing them to do whatever they want. Typical.
Once again, this was no huge deal and a minor form of "cheating" - but anyone that doesn't think it happened is a blind homer.
As to those clamoring about there only being circumstantial evidence and no real proof, please see the Aaron Hernadez case where he was convicted purely on circumstantial evidence. Obviously the magnitude of both the crime and the evidence are far greater in the Hernandez murders, but the point is circumstantial evidence is more than enough for even the "beyond a reasonable doubt" criminal standard, so it's more than enough here as well.
Once again, this was no huge deal and a minor form of "cheating" - but anyone that doesn't think it happened is a blind homer.
As to those clamoring about there only being circumstantial evidence and no real proof, please see the Aaron Hernadez case where he was convicted purely on circumstantial evidence. Obviously the magnitude of both the crime and the evidence are far greater in the Hernandez murders, but the point is circumstantial evidence is more than enough for even the "beyond a reasonable doubt" criminal standard, so it's more than enough here as well.
apalmer
Footballguy
Yeah, well you're forgetting who Hernandez played for. He's just another example of the world's jealousy. If he had played for the Bills, he probably wouldn't have been charged or would have been offered probation. It's only because he was a Patriot that they insisted on pushing those silly charges with such flimsy evidence.
BassNBrew
Footballguy
Stealthycat
Footballguy
balls under inflated = cheating = QB of the team is guilty
that's what the NFL concluded with Brady
why didn't they do the same with Indy and the Colts? Balls were deflated, they obviously cheated, Luck obviously was guilty.It really is that simple
that's what the NFL concluded with Brady
why didn't they do the same with Indy and the Colts? Balls were deflated, they obviously cheated, Luck obviously was guilty.It really is that simple
Ruffrodys05
IBL Representative
No, the system is appropriate because it's an NFL system, that the NFL AND THE NFLPA decided this system would handle this type of situation. If the NFL decided to use an NBA or MLB policy, that would not be appropriate.
Appropriate doesn't mean fair, righteous, just, etc. You seem to be arguing that it wasn't fair; that's a different point & one many might agree with; but it was the appropriate process to use, as it is what the CBA, which (NE players voted for) dictates.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
I thought it was:
Balls predicted to be under inflated
Balls found to be under inflated
Some degree of under inflation predictable due to weather
Under inflation investigated
Patriots had an employee, job title Deflator and Brady Lackey
Patriots take approved balls from referees room sans permission or supervision and do so surreptitiously
Balls taken, by the Deflator, to a urinal that has no urinal, but does have the advantage of being off camera
Balls turn out to be of questionable inflation.
Investigation starts and Brady instantly gets with the Deflator over texts creating an appearance he might be ironing out their alibi/story.
Deflator is less than fully cooperative with investigators.
Brady destroys phone and offers up a clear lie as to reason rather than remaining mum. He does so knowing the records are relevant to an investigation. The affirmative lying in the face of an investigation looks like deliberate misleading of the investigation.
NFL concludes balls deliberately tampered with and that Brady was more likely than not complicit in some way.
Run It Up
Footballguy
Brady never talked to McNally before or after. He talked to Jastremski, McNally's boss more or less.
It amazes me what people still don't know about this but talk at great lengths about.
I'm also curious what handing over the phone does here. TThey have McNally and Jastremski's phone records. Brady is not obligated to hand over his phone as a NFLPA rep. Had he not destroyed his phone and simply didn't hand it over the end result is the same. Later when the league back stepped and said they only wanted specific things and that Brady could just give them those he did just that at the appeal and the league literally wouldn't accept them.
It amazes me what people still don't know about this but talk at great lengths about.
I'm also curious what handing over the phone does here. TThey have McNally and Jastremski's phone records. Brady is not obligated to hand over his phone as a NFLPA rep. Had he not destroyed his phone and simply didn't hand it over the end result is the same. Later when the league back stepped and said they only wanted specific things and that Brady could just give them those he did just that at the appeal and the league literally wouldn't accept them.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Brady communicated with him, through the pipeline he had always used.
As for the phone I agree, he did not have to do anything. The thing is, he chose to do something that looked exactly like obstruction, and then he put forward a story so poorly constructed I would expect a five year old to be able to tell a better lie. I believe reasonable minds, unbiased by fandom, can only conclude he did so to prevent the truth from coming out.
I do appreciate that you will never be swayed.
Run It Up
Footballguy
How does destroying his phone prevent the truth from coming out lol. Are you saying there were additional unspeculated parties involved here that only Brady communicated with?
At the end of the day the NFL created the scenario that Brady was giving enducements thru Jastremski to McNally to deflate balls - based off one cherry picked text. At what point in this scenario are Brady's communications necessary if you have both McNally and Jastremski's?
At the end of the day the NFL created the scenario that Brady was giving enducements thru Jastremski to McNally to deflate balls - based off one cherry picked text. At what point in this scenario are Brady's communications necessary if you have both McNally and Jastremski's?
Last edited by a moderator:
