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 (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter HobbesAB
- Start date
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Did the years of people stating the Pats were avoiding penalties because of his close personal friendship with Kraft hold any weight?Casting Couch said:
Yep. A million reasons not to turn over your private phone. Would anyone on these boards want their private messages made public?
Old Smiley
Footballguy
"Yes, I have a large..." Wait, is this Tinder?
Actually, there's no reliable evidence the Patriots balls were deflated at all. Exponent has a nice chart that shows how football PSI increases every minute after being brought into room temperature, but then Exponent does not actually include time as a factor when calculating Colts' PSI. Kinda important because the Colts balls were measured after the Patriots balls were measured (2x) and refilled.IvanKaramazov said:
http://regressing.deadspin.com/the-nfls-#######-science-report-is-a-feature-not-a-bug-1722289874
"What we’re looking at, in the absence of red-handed guilt, is the NFL, its investigatory arm, and that arm’s hired experts railroading an investigation with shoddy, biased works of bad science, and then holding up their homework to Roger Goodell, who sticks a gold star on it and calls it “highly credible.”
Brady isn't challenging the Wells report in court, so why are we even arguing it anymore? If the science was so flawed, why didn't Brady have someone else run their own experiment to disprove the Exponent results? They hired an economist to say the Exponent study was wrong, but they didn't hire real scientists to prove the study is wrong? Come on.I'm still hoping someone can explain why BBs explanation of NEs ball prep is so different from what Brady says happened.Actually, there's no reliable evidence the Patriots balls were deflated at all. Exponent has a nice chart that shows how football PSI increases every minute after being brought into room temperature, but then Exponent does not actually include time as a factor when calculating Colts' PSI. Kinda important because the Colts balls were measured after the Patriots balls were measured (2x) and refilled.IvanKaramazov said:
http://regressing.deadspin.com/the-nfls-#######-science-report-is-a-feature-not-a-bug-1722289874
"What were looking at, in the absence of red-handed guilt, is the NFL, its investigatory arm, and that arms hired experts railroading an investigation with shoddy, biased works of bad science, and then holding up their homework to Roger Goodell, who sticks a gold star on it and calls it highly credible.
There is no definite proof that NE deflated those balls, but there at so many inconsistencies & he's in their explanations & stories, you have to question them.
NE_REVIVAL
Footballguy
Good nuf, tx for the exchange.treat88 said:We are mostly on the same page.Just a couple of points. I dont think NE earns brownie points for releasing AH. The guy was in handcuffs on his way to prison with no shot at parole when they did that. They didnt have a lot of options. Pretty sure if either Ben or Ray were ever in those same circumstances their teams would have done the same thing. Even in Rays case, I think there was a much more clear expectation he would be released at some point in the process.NE_REVIVAL said:Thanks for responding, that's all pretty reasonable imo. As BF pointed out, NE cut AH at great cost while BAL built a statue. To be clear, I feel 100% certain that Brady had no knowledge of any post inspection wrong doing period; that is nonsense afaic. I do concede it is possible an equipment guy(s) might have taken matters into his own hands, just like its possible other teams did similar but I don't think Qbs necessarily know about it. QBs like the ball a certain way and the equipment guys do everything they can to make them happy. I make the br comparison to highlight what I see as an attempt by many to vilify a good man (brady) with very little evidence (never mind proof, there Is none) while simultaneously letting a not so good man get off scott free (when there is a lot more evidence that there was actual wrong doing). It may be apples and watermelons, but it just seems so, so wrong.You mentioned repeated org attempts to circumvent the rules and your far from the first to make the claim. I believe this more myth than fact and don't think NE has a broken the rules anymore often than the average nfl team. There is spygate which was and is a load of crap that the tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists make out to be so much more than it was (ask Bill Cowher).I don't know man. It's so tough to compare eras. In many ways they are as much an apples and oranges comparison as on and off field behavior comparisons are. JFK was a great president, but he got away with things the media would crucify our current president for.Yeah, I think that is a pretty fair response and appreciate you providing it. I don't think I have seen you post in this thread and wasn't directing my earlier post(s) toward you and most steeler fans (or the vast majority who aren't throwing stones). You might be the 1st in this thread to acknowledge what BR did and the conflict it presents when rooting for him and your team; again I appreciate it. As for the consequences and vitriol BR received it almost seems as if it never happened.I concede the distinction you make regarding on field and off field is very pertinent and certainly valid. Sticking to the glass houses theme and shifting to the on field "effect the game" stuff I would like to follow up and sincerely ask your honest answer to the following 2 questions. 1. Does the Steelers alleged rampant use of steroids in any way diminish the 70s titles or accomplishments? 2. Bradshaw bragged about cheating and the steelers doing far worse to footballs in his book, does that in any way diminish their titles and or accomplishments? Personally I don't think much of it, except when I am in a rock fightbut I am curious to hear what you might think about it. TIA
I will try to answer your questions.
1) Do I wish that there were no allegations of Steelers steroid use in the 70's? Obviously given today's environment and thought on the topic, yes, I would. But, as so many have pointed out in this thread it wasn't illegal at the time. They didn't have all the access to the information we have today in regards to negative health consequences. I can't fault the guys for trying the latest and greatest if there are no negatives out there to make them question it. If we found out multi vitamins were ruining our livers and causing enlarged hearts 40 years from now would I knock today's multivitamin users? Probably not. Additionally, I tend to think the use of steroids wasn't limited to the Steelers alone in that era. In context, no, I don't think it impacts the way Steelers teams of that era should be viewed is the bottom line. In rock throwing contests, I understand why it comes up.
2) I will freely admit, I'm not specifically sure of what Bradshaw claimed and I don't know how the football psi rules have evolved. If they were doctoring footballs post inspection and there were rules in place governing that at the time, I think it is about as big a deal then as it is now. That is to say, not really a big deal other than it would have opened them to all the same questions that the Pats are now open to. What has changed is the magnitude of interest and money related to the transgressions. I have zero doubt that back "in the day" there was all kinds of envelope pushing if not outright breaking of the rules. As the level of interest and scrutiny have increased it takes progressively smaller and smaller transgressions to be a big deal because they hopefully become much more isolated instances. For the record, I don't think there is any competitive advantage conferred by a slightly under football then or now, but for the record also I think it is a far more substantial transgression in today's environment than it was in the 70's.
Really I think part of being a fan of a team is being able to embrace, enjoy, and laugh about the history and colorful characters both good and bad that make up that team's legacy. The Steelers have had and still have some scummy players on their rosters, just like every other team in the league. I don't think BR tarnishes the Steelers any more than AH does the Pats in that respect. The Steelers have had some truly great players both on and off the field, as has every other team in the league. They are all just part of the individual stories that make up the team's history. I like being a fan of the Steelers because of the entire breadth of that history, good and bad. I'm sure you feel similarly about the Pats.
I do think repeated organizational attempts to circumvent the rules, no matter how small, in today's environment begs the questions of what else has happened and what don't we know. It opens the Pats up to questions they shouldn't have to answer because they have had a dominant run with some truly great players and football minds involved. Personally, I respect the hell out of what Kraft and BB have orchestrated. They are a great adversary and have had my team's number for a pretty good stretch. But, they have also opened themselves up to these questions that are unique to them and the era they play in. I think the questions are fair and should be addressed without deflection.
Imho, the problem for most of the rest of the league isn't that NE has repeatedly attempted to break the rules so much more than anyone else. The problem is they have repeatedly been so dominant over the last 15 years they have made a lot of enemies. What are some of the many other violations that distinguish NE from other NFL teams? Is it primarily spyhate which Brady had nothing to do with?
Maybe I do wear a tinfoil hat to a degree. I look at the punishments doled out for Spygate and Deflategate and tend to think there is more to both stories than we are publicly aware of. I think even if minimized both accusations potentially provide a unique every play impact on the final score of games and that makes them unique transgressions amongst the myriad of other transgressions.
I think when we ask the question "why" about anything Goodell does the answer comes down to $. Something about the Pats behaviors threatened the bottom line of the league in ways other transgressions havent.
When it comes to the fans, sure, everyone hates the guy on top. Especially when theyve been there for a long time. I guess I just dont get what it is that Pats fans think motivates the league to react the way they have. I dont see the incentive for them to unfairly target the leagues flagship team and player.
I see potential impact the integrity of game outcome behaviors punished harshly, rather than the backdoor interpersonals I hear many try to attribute it to. I do think those other explanations tend to join in the tinfoil hat crowd as much as my unknown info take does.
Basically, due to $ issues the league cant have the validity of game outcomes questioned so they punish those behaviors more stringently than others is really all I see.
I dont know. Thats about where Im at. Either way, I respect the hell out of what the Pats have accomplished and dont think this truly adds an * to their run.
I believe that Brady cannot challenge the Wells Report in court, because the CBA doesn't allow challenging the underlying evidence that Goodell uses -- it only allows them to challenge the process he used.Brady isn't challenging the Wells report in court, so why are we even arguing it anymore? If the science was so flawed, why didn't Brady have someone else run their own experiment to disprove the Exponent results? They hired an economist to say the Exponent study was wrong, but they didn't hire real scientists to prove the study is wrong? Come on.I'm still hoping someone can explain why BBs explanation of NEs ball prep is so different from what Brady says happened.Actually, there's no reliable evidence the Patriots balls were deflated at all. Exponent has a nice chart that shows how football PSI increases every minute after being brought into room temperature, but then Exponent does not actually include time as a factor when calculating Colts' PSI. Kinda important because the Colts balls were measured after the Patriots balls were measured (2x) and refilled.IvanKaramazov said:
http://regressing.deadspin.com/the-nfls-#######-science-report-is-a-feature-not-a-bug-1722289874
"What were looking at, in the absence of red-handed guilt, is the NFL, its investigatory arm, and that arms hired experts railroading an investigation with shoddy, biased works of bad science, and then holding up their homework to Roger Goodell, who sticks a gold star on it and calls it highly credible.
There is no definite proof that NE deflated those balls, but there at so many inconsistencies & he's in their explanations & stories, you have to question them.
Why does it matter who is debunking the Wells Report? The calculations won't change because a statistician does them them vs. a scientist.
ratbast
Footballguy
I would think that with the absence of proof then one would have to question those involved with the investigation and those in the front office tarnishing the NFL's current dynasty and a soon to be HOF QB and possibly the best ever!Brady isn't challenging the Wells report in court, so why are we even arguing it anymore? If the science was so flawed, why didn't Brady have someone else run their own experiment to disprove the Exponent results? They hired an economist to say the Exponent study was wrong, but they didn't hire real scientists to prove the study is wrong? Come on.I'm still hoping someone can explain why BBs explanation of NEs ball prep is so different from what Brady says happened.Actually, there's no reliable evidence the Patriots balls were deflated at all. Exponent has a nice chart that shows how football PSI increases every minute after being brought into room temperature, but then Exponent does not actually include time as a factor when calculating Colts' PSI. Kinda important because the Colts balls were measured after the Patriots balls were measured (2x) and refilled.IvanKaramazov said:
http://regressing.deadspin.com/the-nfls-#######-science-report-is-a-feature-not-a-bug-1722289874
"What were looking at, in the absence of red-handed guilt, is the NFL, its investigatory arm, and that arms hired experts railroading an investigation with shoddy, biased works of bad science, and then holding up their homework to Roger Goodell, who sticks a gold star on it and calls it highly credible.
There is no definite proof that NE deflated those balls, but there at so many inconsistencies & he's in their explanations & stories, you have to question them.
"More likely than not" the meat-heads and 2 teams conspired to destroy a legacy of dominance out of revenge.
NE_REVIVAL
Footballguy
Hi Ivan,IvanKaramazov said:
Maybe I missed it (possible), can you please list the straightforward and compelling evidence you think u have that indicates Brady directed or knew balls were being manipulated post inspection (hypothetically speaking of course since i do not concede anything illegal was done). Lets pretend something may have been done with the balls post inspection, what is the "straightforward and compelling evidence against Brady" that you speak of?
Old Smiley
Footballguy
Dan Wetzel on yahoo
That's in Goodell's decision, folks. Something he thought about. Something he composed carefully. And they locked up the transcript. Your league in action.
"The sharp contrast between the almost complete absence of communications through the AFC championship game undermines any suggestion during the three days following the AFC championship game that the communications addressed ONLY [emphasis added] preparation of footballs for the Super Bowl rather than the tampering allegations and their anticipated responses to inquiries about the tampering," Goodell wrote.
That's in Goodell's decision, folks. Something he thought about. Something he composed carefully. And they locked up the transcript. Your league in action.
A scientist looking at the Exponent study and saying "they are wrong & here is my experiment that proves it" carries a lot more weight than a non-scientist "I think their results are etong, but since I'm not a scientist, I don't have any data to back that up."I believe that Brady cannot challenge the Wells Report in court, because the CBA doesn't allow challenging the underlying evidence that Goodell uses -- it only allows them to challenge the process he used.Brady isn't challenging the Wells report in court, so why are we even arguing it anymore? If the science was so flawed, why didn't Brady have someone else run their own experiment to disprove the Exponent results? They hired an economist to say the Exponent study was wrong, but they didn't hire real scientists to prove the study is wrong? Come on.I'm still hoping someone can explain why BBs explanation of NEs ball prep is so different from what Brady says happened.Actually, there's no reliable evidence the Patriots balls were deflated at all. Exponent has a nice chart that shows how football PSI increases every minute after being brought into room temperature, but then Exponent does not actually include time as a factor when calculating Colts' PSI. Kinda important because the Colts balls were measured after the Patriots balls were measured (2x) and refilled.IvanKaramazov said:
http://regressing.deadspin.com/the-nfls-#######-science-report-is-a-feature-not-a-bug-1722289874
"What were looking at, in the absence of red-handed guilt, is the NFL, its investigatory arm, and that arms hired experts railroading an investigation with shoddy, biased works of bad science, and then holding up their homework to Roger Goodell, who sticks a gold star on it and calls it highly credible.
There is no definite proof that NE deflated those balls, but there at so many inconsistencies & he's in their explanations & stories, you have to question them.
Why does it matter who is debunking the Wells Report? The calculations won't change because a statistician does them them vs. a scientist.
I did not say there was an absence of proof, I said there was no definite proof. Perhaps definitive evidence would have been the better phrase. There is a great deal of circumstantial evidence. When you look at all of that, combined with the inconsistencies & holes in BB's, Brady's Jastremeski, & McNallys stories; its reasonable to doubt them.Again, can anyone explain why what BB said about NEs ball prep process is so different than what Brady said happens?I would think that with the absence of proof then one would have to question those involved with the investigation and those in the front office tarnishing the NFL's current dynasty and a soon to be HOF QB and possibly the best ever! "More likely than not" the meat-heads and 2 teams conspired to destroy a legacy of dominance out of revenge.Brady isn't challenging the Wells report in court, so why are we even arguing it anymore? If the science was so flawed, why didn't Brady have someone else run their own experiment to disprove the Exponent results? They hired an economist to say the Exponent study was wrong, but they didn't hire real scientists to prove the study is wrong? Come on.I'm still hoping someone can explain why BBs explanation of NEs ball prep is so different from what Brady says happened.Actually, there's no reliable evidence the Patriots balls were deflated at all. Exponent has a nice chart that shows how football PSI increases every minute after being brought into room temperature, but then Exponent does not actually include time as a factor when calculating Colts' PSI. Kinda important because the Colts balls were measured after the Patriots balls were measured (2x) and refilled.IvanKaramazov said:
http://regressing.deadspin.com/the-nfls-#######-science-report-is-a-feature-not-a-bug-1722289874
"What were looking at, in the absence of red-handed guilt, is the NFL, its investigatory arm, and that arms hired experts railroading an investigation with shoddy, biased works of bad science, and then holding up their homework to Roger Goodell, who sticks a gold star on it and calls it highly credible.
There is no definite proof that NE deflated those balls, but there at so many inconsistencies & he's in their explanations & stories, you have to question them.
Old Smiley
Footballguy
He's not questioning the data. He's questioning their interpretation of the data. He's questioning what their own data allow them to conclude. There's an internal mathematical logic to that that's separate from the chemistry.A scientist looking at the Exponent study and saying "they are wrong & here is my experiment that proves it" carries a lot more weight than a non-scientist "I think their results are etong, but since I'm not a scientist, I don't have any data to back that up."I believe that Brady cannot challenge the Wells Report in court, because the CBA doesn't allow challenging the underlying evidence that Goodell uses -- it only allows them to challenge the process he used.Brady isn't challenging the Wells report in court, so why are we even arguing it anymore? If the science was so flawed, why didn't Brady have someone else run their own experiment to disprove the Exponent results? They hired an economist to say the Exponent study was wrong, but they didn't hire real scientists to prove the study is wrong? Come on.I'm still hoping someone can explain why BBs explanation of NEs ball prep is so different from what Brady says happened.Actually, there's no reliable evidence the Patriots balls were deflated at all. Exponent has a nice chart that shows how football PSI increases every minute after being brought into room temperature, but then Exponent does not actually include time as a factor when calculating Colts' PSI. Kinda important because the Colts balls were measured after the Patriots balls were measured (2x) and refilled.IvanKaramazov said:
http://regressing.deadspin.com/the-nfls-#######-science-report-is-a-feature-not-a-bug-1722289874
"What were looking at, in the absence of red-handed guilt, is the NFL, its investigatory arm, and that arms hired experts railroading an investigation with shoddy, biased works of bad science, and then holding up their homework to Roger Goodell, who sticks a gold star on it and calls it highly credible.
There is no definite proof that NE deflated those balls, but there at so many inconsistencies & he's in their explanations & stories, you have to question them.
Why does it matter who is debunking the Wells Report? The calculations won't change because a statistician does them them vs. a scientist.
ratbast
Footballguy
The Wells report was edited by the NFL and is looking not very "independent" at all, so frankly there may not be much logic or validity at all to the whole thing.He's not questioning the data. He's questioning their interpretation of the data. He's questioning what their own data allow them to conclude. There's an internal mathematical logic to that that's separate from the chemistry.A scientist looking at the Exponent study and saying "they are wrong & here is my experiment that proves it" carries a lot more weight than a non-scientist "I think their results are etong, but since I'm not a scientist, I don't have any data to back that up."I believe that Brady cannot challenge the Wells Report in court, because the CBA doesn't allow challenging the underlying evidence that Goodell uses -- it only allows them to challenge the process he used.Brady isn't challenging the Wells report in court, so why are we even arguing it anymore? If the science was so flawed, why didn't Brady have someone else run their own experiment to disprove the Exponent results? They hired an economist to say the Exponent study was wrong, but they didn't hire real scientists to prove the study is wrong? Come on.I'm still hoping someone can explain why BBs explanation of NEs ball prep is so different from what Brady says happened.Actually, there's no reliable evidence the Patriots balls were deflated at all. Exponent has a nice chart that shows how football PSI increases every minute after being brought into room temperature, but then Exponent does not actually include time as a factor when calculating Colts' PSI. Kinda important because the Colts balls were measured after the Patriots balls were measured (2x) and refilled.IvanKaramazov said:
http://regressing.deadspin.com/the-nfls-#######-science-report-is-a-feature-not-a-bug-1722289874
"What were looking at, in the absence of red-handed guilt, is the NFL, its investigatory arm, and that arms hired experts railroading an investigation with shoddy, biased works of bad science, and then holding up their homework to Roger Goodell, who sticks a gold star on it and calls it highly credible.
There is no definite proof that NE deflated those balls, but there at so many inconsistencies & he's in their explanations & stories, you have to question them.
Why does it matter who is debunking the Wells Report? The calculations won't change because a statistician does them them vs. a scientist.
Last edited by a moderator:
ratbast
Footballguy
Its reasonable to doubt those investigating and governing. As far as BB goes, I have no idea what you are talking about nor do I expect it is relevant.I did not say there was an absence of proof, I said there was no definite proof. Perhaps definitive evidence would have been the better phrase. There is a great deal of circumstantial evidence. When you look at all of that, combined with the inconsistencies & holes in BB's, Brady's Jastremeski, & McNallys stories; its reasonable to doubt them.Again, can anyone explain why what BB said about NEs ball prep process is so different than what Brady said happens?I would think that with the absence of proof then one would have to question those involved with the investigation and those in the front office tarnishing the NFL's current dynasty and a soon to be HOF QB and possibly the best ever! "More likely than not" the meat-heads and 2 teams conspired to destroy a legacy of dominance out of revenge.Brady isn't challenging the Wells report in court, so why are we even arguing it anymore? If the science was so flawed, why didn't Brady have someone else run their own experiment to disprove the Exponent results? They hired an economist to say the Exponent study was wrong, but they didn't hire real scientists to prove the study is wrong? Come on.I'm still hoping someone can explain why BBs explanation of NEs ball prep is so different from what Brady says happened.Actually, there's no reliable evidence the Patriots balls were deflated at all. Exponent has a nice chart that shows how football PSI increases every minute after being brought into room temperature, but then Exponent does not actually include time as a factor when calculating Colts' PSI. Kinda important because the Colts balls were measured after the Patriots balls were measured (2x) and refilled.IvanKaramazov said:
http://regressing.deadspin.com/the-nfls-#######-science-report-is-a-feature-not-a-bug-1722289874
"What were looking at, in the absence of red-handed guilt, is the NFL, its investigatory arm, and that arms hired experts railroading an investigation with shoddy, biased works of bad science, and then holding up their homework to Roger Goodell, who sticks a gold star on it and calls it highly credible.
There is no definite proof that NE deflated those balls, but there at so many inconsistencies & he's in their explanations & stories, you have to question them.
I understand that; but he's essentially saying they were wrong. A scientist saying "they are wrong, & here is my data that proves it" is a lot more convincing. If the Exponent interpretation was wrong, it should be simple for a scientist to conduct their own test that refutes Exponent. Yet despite hiring an economist & paying for countless lawyers, neither Brady nor the NFLPA have hired a scientist to do any tests to disprove Exponents conclusions. Why?He's not questioning the data. He's questioning their interpretation of the data. He's questioning what their own data allow them to conclude. There's an internal mathematical logic to that that's separate from the chemistry.A scientist looking at the Exponent study and saying "they are wrong & here is my experiment that proves it" carries a lot more weight than a non-scientist "I think their results are etong, but since I'm not a scientist, I don't have any data to back that up."I believe that Brady cannot challenge the Wells Report in court, because the CBA doesn't allow challenging the underlying evidence that Goodell uses -- it only allows them to challenge the process he used.Brady isn't challenging the Wells report in court, so why are we even arguing it anymore? If the science was so flawed, why didn't Brady have someone else run their own experiment to disprove the Exponent results? They hired an economist to say the Exponent study was wrong, but they didn't hire real scientists to prove the study is wrong? Come on.I'm still hoping someone can explain why BBs explanation of NEs ball prep is so different from what Brady says happened.Actually, there's no reliable evidence the Patriots balls were deflated at all. Exponent has a nice chart that shows how football PSI increases every minute after being brought into room temperature, but then Exponent does not actually include time as a factor when calculating Colts' PSI. Kinda important because the Colts balls were measured after the Patriots balls were measured (2x) and refilled.IvanKaramazov said:
http://regressing.deadspin.com/the-nfls-#######-science-report-is-a-feature-not-a-bug-1722289874
"What were looking at, in the absence of red-handed guilt, is the NFL, its investigatory arm, and that arms hired experts railroading an investigation with shoddy, biased works of bad science, and then holding up their homework to Roger Goodell, who sticks a gold star on it and calls it highly credible.
There is no definite proof that NE deflated those balls, but there at so many inconsistencies & he's in their explanations & stories, you have to question them.
Why does it matter who is debunking the Wells Report? The calculations won't change because a statistician does them them vs. a scientist.
It is reasonable to question the NFL. That doesnt change the fact that it is also reasonable to question Brady, BB, Kraft, et al.With regards to BB, I posted it earlier, & it most definitely is relevant.Its reasonable to doubt those investigating and governing. As far as BB goes, I have no idea what you are talking about nor do I expect it is relevant.I did not say there was an absence of proof, I said there was no definite proof. Perhaps definitive evidence would have been the better phrase. There is a great deal of circumstantial evidence. When you look at all of that, combined with the inconsistencies & holes in BB's, Brady's Jastremeski, & McNallys stories; its reasonable to doubt them.Again, can anyone explain why what BB said about NEs ball prep process is so different than what Brady said happens?I would think that with the absence of proof then one would have to question those involved with the investigation and those in the front office tarnishing the NFL's current dynasty and a soon to be HOF QB and possibly the best ever! "More likely than not" the meat-heads and 2 teams conspired to destroy a legacy of dominance out of revenge.Brady isn't challenging the Wells report in court, so why are we even arguing it anymore? If the science was so flawed, why didn't Brady have someone else run their own experiment to disprove the Exponent results? They hired an economist to say the Exponent study was wrong, but they didn't hire real scientists to prove the study is wrong? Come on.I'm still hoping someone can explain why BBs explanation of NEs ball prep is so different from what Brady says happened.Actually, there's no reliable evidence the Patriots balls were deflated at all. Exponent has a nice chart that shows how football PSI increases every minute after being brought into room temperature, but then Exponent does not actually include time as a factor when calculating Colts' PSI. Kinda important because the Colts balls were measured after the Patriots balls were measured (2x) and refilled.IvanKaramazov said:
http://regressing.deadspin.com/the-nfls-#######-science-report-is-a-feature-not-a-bug-1722289874
"What were looking at, in the absence of red-handed guilt, is the NFL, its investigatory arm, and that arms hired experts railroading an investigation with shoddy, biased works of bad science, and then holding up their homework to Roger Goodell, who sticks a gold star on it and calls it highly credible.
There is no definite proof that NE deflated those balls, but there at so many inconsistencies & he's in their explanations & stories, you have to question them.
After the AFCC, BB said NEs ball prep involved heating the ball through friction (rubbing the ball A LOT), until right before they give it to the officials & inflating the balks to just 12.5 PSI, so after the friction heat dissipates, the PSI would lessen, even though the officials had approved.
However, Brady said he approves the balls a few hours before the game, and no one touches them after that. So, we have 2 different versions of NEs ball prep. One of them is wrong. Did BB lie? If so, why? Or did Brady lie?
Its definitely relevant; someone lied & its not the only inconsistentcy.
Last edited by a moderator:
You dont think its relevant that the HC tried to explain this controversy away, then his QB gives a contradictary explanation? That doesn't give reason to their credibility? One of them lied; who was it & why? Those are very relevant questions.
I already did. Their 2 stories don't fit. If anyone can offer a different conclusion. I'd be happy to hear it, bit I can't think of anything except 1 of them wasn't telling the truth.
DropKick
Footballguy
You may be putting words into people's mouths. Does the phrase "right before" mean 5 minutes or two hours? It could mean either... not sure I would play the "liar" card.It is reasonable to question the NFL. That doesnt change the fact that it is also reasonable to question Brady, BB, Kraft, et al.With regards to BB, I posted it earlier, & it most definitely is relevant.Its reasonable to doubt those investigating and governing. As far as BB goes, I have no idea what you are talking about nor do I expect it is relevant.I did not say there was an absence of proof, I said there was no definite proof. Perhaps definitive evidence would have been the better phrase. There is a great deal of circumstantial evidence. When you look at all of that, combined with the inconsistencies & holes in BB's, Brady's Jastremeski, & McNallys stories; its reasonable to doubt them.Again, can anyone explain why what BB said about NEs ball prep process is so different than what Brady said happens?I would think that with the absence of proof then one would have to question those involved with the investigation and those in the front office tarnishing the NFL's current dynasty and a soon to be HOF QB and possibly the best ever! "More likely than not" the meat-heads and 2 teams conspired to destroy a legacy of dominance out of revenge.Brady isn't challenging the Wells report in court, so why are we even arguing it anymore? If the science was so flawed, why didn't Brady have someone else run their own experiment to disprove the Exponent results? They hired an economist to say the Exponent study was wrong, but they didn't hire real scientists to prove the study is wrong? Come on.I'm still hoping someone can explain why BBs explanation of NEs ball prep is so different from what Brady says happened.Actually, there's no reliable evidence the Patriots balls were deflated at all. Exponent has a nice chart that shows how football PSI increases every minute after being brought into room temperature, but then Exponent does not actually include time as a factor when calculating Colts' PSI. Kinda important because the Colts balls were measured after the Patriots balls were measured (2x) and refilled.IvanKaramazov said:
http://regressing.deadspin.com/the-nfls-#######-science-report-is-a-feature-not-a-bug-1722289874
"What were looking at, in the absence of red-handed guilt, is the NFL, its investigatory arm, and that arms hired experts railroading an investigation with shoddy, biased works of bad science, and then holding up their homework to Roger Goodell, who sticks a gold star on it and calls it highly credible.
There is no definite proof that NE deflated those balls, but there at so many inconsistencies & he's in their explanations & stories, you have to question them.
After the AFCC, BB said NEs ball prep involved heating the ball through friction (rubbing the ball A LOT), until right before they give it to the officials & inflating the balks to just 12.5 PSI, so after the friction heat dissipates, the PSI would lessen, even though the officials had approved.
However, Brady said he approves the balls a few hours before the game, and no one touches them after that. So, we have 2 different versions of NEs ball prep. One of them is wrong. Did BB lie? If so, why? Or did Brady lie?
Its definitely relevant; someone lied & its not the only inconsistentcy.
Could Belichick and Brady both be telling the truth? Is it conceivable that the prep process raises the PSI about 0.5 so that a ball measured right after prep at 12.5-12.6 would then be around 12.1 two hours later? Now, say Walt Anderson uses the logo gauge on the Pats balls and they come in around 12.5?
The Wells Report used that very fact - that the balls were close to what the Patriots said they were - to conclude the non-logo gauge was used.... The combination of the gauge delta and the time the Colt's balls had to warm up pretty much explains all the variation.
It's plausible.
Last edited by a moderator:
ratbast
Footballguy
Stealthycat
Footballguy
Brady's lawyers will have a field day with the NFL
I see; so maybe Anderson remembered correctly about the gauge he used & that would explain the missing drop in PSI that should have been there if BBs explanation was true.You may be putting words into people's mouths. Does the phrase "right before" mean 5 minutes or two hours? It could mean either... not sure I would play the "liar" card.It is reasonable to question the NFL. That doesnt change the fact that it is also reasonable to question Brady, BB, Kraft, et al.With regards to BB, I posted it earlier, & it most definitely is relevant.Its reasonable to doubt those investigating and governing. As far as BB goes, I have no idea what you are talking about nor do I expect it is relevant.I did not say there was an absence of proof, I said there was no definite proof. Perhaps definitive evidence would have been the better phrase. There is a great deal of circumstantial evidence. When you look at all of that, combined with the inconsistencies & holes in BB's, Brady's Jastremeski, & McNallys stories; its reasonable to doubt them.Again, can anyone explain why what BB said about NEs ball prep process is so different than what Brady said happens?I would think that with the absence of proof then one would have to question those involved with the investigation and those in the front office tarnishing the NFL's current dynasty and a soon to be HOF QB and possibly the best ever! "More likely than not" the meat-heads and 2 teams conspired to destroy a legacy of dominance out of revenge.Brady isn't challenging the Wells report in court, so why are we even arguing it anymore? If the science was so flawed, why didn't Brady have someone else run their own experiment to disprove the Exponent results? They hired an economist to say the Exponent study was wrong, but they didn't hire real scientists to prove the study is wrong? Come on.I'm still hoping someone can explain why BBs explanation of NEs ball prep is so different from what Brady says happened.Actually, there's no reliable evidence the Patriots balls were deflated at all. Exponent has a nice chart that shows how football PSI increases every minute after being brought into room temperature, but then Exponent does not actually include time as a factor when calculating Colts' PSI. Kinda important because the Colts balls were measured after the Patriots balls were measured (2x) and refilled.IvanKaramazov said:
http://regressing.deadspin.com/the-nfls-#######-science-report-is-a-feature-not-a-bug-1722289874
"What were looking at, in the absence of red-handed guilt, is the NFL, its investigatory arm, and that arms hired experts railroading an investigation with shoddy, biased works of bad science, and then holding up their homework to Roger Goodell, who sticks a gold star on it and calls it highly credible.
There is no definite proof that NE deflated those balls, but there at so many inconsistencies & he's in their explanations & stories, you have to question them.
After the AFCC, BB said NEs ball prep involved heating the ball through friction (rubbing the ball A LOT), until right before they give it to the officials & inflating the balks to just 12.5 PSI, so after the friction heat dissipates, the PSI would lessen, even though the officials had approved.
However, Brady said he approves the balls a few hours before the game, and no one touches them after that. So, we have 2 different versions of NEs ball prep. One of them is wrong. Did BB lie? If so, why? Or did Brady lie?
Its definitely relevant; someone lied & its not the only inconsistentcy.
Could Belichick and Brady both be telling the truth? Is it conceivable that the prep process raises the PSI about 0.5 so that a ball measured right after prep at 12.5-12.6 would then be around 12.1 two hours later? Now, say Walt Anderson uses the logo gauge on the Pats balls and they come in around 12.5?
The Wells Report used that very fact - that the balls were close to what the Patriots said they were - to conclude the non-logo gauge was used.... The combination of the gauge delta and the time the Colt's balls had to warm up pretty much explains all the variation.
It's plausible.
I'll have to re-check to make sure the logo gauge was measuring .3-.4 high (I know it was consistently off, just don't recall if it was high/low), but that would explain the inconsistency between their 2 stories.
If BB has been absolved & there is no other reason for the inconsistent stories, the logical conclusion should be Brady was lying, not "its not relevant."
Now Dropkick has provided a logical explanation for the question I asked, and assuming he remembers right about the logo gauge measuring high, that explains the inconsistency between BB/Brady's stories. But any contradictory information is relevant, whether it be coming from the NFL or Brady/NE/NFLPA.
The Great Snook
Footballguy
In addition to overturning the suspension, the Judge should restore the draft picks and Kraft's cash.
GregR
Footballguy
According to the Patriots testimony, most of the footballs had their prep work finished by 12:30... 3 hours before they were measured by the refs at 3:45.
A couple of balls Brady asked to have worked further and he checked back to approve the final set at 2:30.
So per the Patriots, most of the footballs had more than 3 hours for the temperature to even out, and the rest still had more than an hour.
On top of that, the lab tested the temperature change from the rubbing process and found it was negligible.
So no, not very plausible.
CoolHandLukeB
Footballguy
Goodell lied in his upholding of suspension, not really surprising.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/roger-goodell-s-manipulation-of-tom-brady-s-testimony-leaves-nfl-on-slippery-slope-214409591-nfl.html
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/roger-goodell-s-manipulation-of-tom-brady-s-testimony-leaves-nfl-on-slippery-slope-214409591-nfl.html
NE_REVIVAL
Footballguy
Well timed for this particular discussion and since Point #4 goes directly to what I am trying to say here about the faux "evidence" against Brady I am going to add it. I love point #1 in the article as well, but I want to get by this specific false allegation first.Hi Ivan,IvanKaramazov said:
Maybe I missed it (possible), can you please list the straightforward and compelling evidence you think u have that indicates Brady directed or knew balls were being manipulated post inspection (hypothetically speaking of course since i do not concede anything illegal was done). Lets pretend something may have been done with the balls post inspection, what is the "straightforward and compelling evidence against Brady" that you speak of?
"4) There is NO proof, no video, no audio, no document, no text, no email, no admission, no data, no communication, no record of any kind that shows that Tom Brady had any role in illegally doctoring footballs so that they were below legal guidelines. None. This proof does not exist. ####, there is barely any evidence of wrongdoing by Brady, let alone a smoking gun."
http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/roger-goodells-fatal-mistake-tom-brady-an-innocent-man/33948/
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
For those that don't want to read the whole thread, here's a quick summary:
Non-Pats fans: Patriots are scummy cheaters. They've always been and always will be. Ban Tom Brady. Take back the Super Bowl Trophy and officially change their team name to the Cheatriots*.
Pat fans: The NFL (for some reason that would make absolutely no sense financially or otherwise) want to bring the Pats down and therefore have started a witch-hunt. Tom Brady is the greatest American Hero of all time and he would never do something like this, in fact he'd probably blow up the balls himself on the sidelines if he knew they were under 12.5 psi.
Rinse and Repeat.
Non-Pats fans: Patriots are scummy cheaters. They've always been and always will be. Ban Tom Brady. Take back the Super Bowl Trophy and officially change their team name to the Cheatriots*.
Pat fans: The NFL (for some reason that would make absolutely no sense financially or otherwise) want to bring the Pats down and therefore have started a witch-hunt. Tom Brady is the greatest American Hero of all time and he would never do something like this, in fact he'd probably blow up the balls himself on the sidelines if he knew they were under 12.5 psi.
Rinse and Repeat.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
There is plenty of reason and sense to this. The majority of other owners feel the Pats bend, skirt, ignore, or break the rules pretty regularly in a lot of areas. They can't prove those allegations, so this was the league's attempt to punish them for other things under the guise of illegal ball deflation. Sort of like Al Capone with income tax evasion. Even now, I think if the other 31 franchises were polled, there would be an overwhelming landslide result to leave the 4 game suspension for Brady intact.
NE_REVIVAL
Footballguy
A Patriots witch-hunt makes no sense? Maybe if u look at the NFL as a single entity it doesn't, but if you consider the NFL is really a family of 32 different siblings and one of those siblings is getting almost all the glory and attention and it goes on year after year, after year then it makes perfect sense. Other than that I pretty much agree with you.
Carry on....
Old Smiley
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Anarchy99
Footballguy
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I don't find it credible that equipment managers are messing with footballs without the QB's knowledge. I'm not an NFL QB of course, but none of the people who are or were seem to find that credible either.Well timed for this particular discussion and since Point #4 goes directly to what I am trying to say here about the faux "evidence" against Brady I am going to add it. I love point #1 in the article as well, but I want to get by this specific false allegation first.Hi Ivan,IvanKaramazov said:
Maybe I missed it (possible), can you please list the straightforward and compelling evidence you think u have that indicates Brady directed or knew balls were being manipulated post inspection (hypothetically speaking of course since i do not concede anything illegal was done). Lets pretend something may have been done with the balls post inspection, what is the "straightforward and compelling evidence against Brady" that you speak of?
"4) There is NO proof, no video, no audio, no document, no text, no email, no admission, no data, no communication, no record of any kind that shows that Tom Brady had any role in illegally doctoring footballs so that they were below legal guidelines. None. This proof does not exist. ####, there is barely any evidence of wrongdoing by Brady, let alone a smoking gun."
http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/roger-goodells-fatal-mistake-tom-brady-an-innocent-man/33948/
Not a smoking gun of course, but combine with non-cooperated and destruction of evidence (his phone), and that's more than enough for me.
Edit: This is also one of the reasons why I have no issue with Belichick's role in this. I find it completely credible that the HC neither knows nor cares about game day football preparations. The QB, not so much.
Last edited by a moderator:
Old Smiley
Footballguy
For me, it's much more like there was the Indy leak to Kravitz, and BOOM! We got a million hack, hot take "think pieces" about the childrinz, and from then on it was all about the empty suits at 345 Park protecting their phony baloney jobs, and covering their phony baloney asses. Pats were collateral damage, just like your team will be.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I'm firmly in the salty hater club, and I can definitely see this being the case (and I have no problem with it either).
It would not surprise me at all if Baltimore, among other teams, knew about the light footballs but just didn't figure it was a big enough deal to make an issue out of it. Then NE pulled their bush-league eligible/ineligible stunt and broke out the "read the rule book" line. Baltimore decides that if we're going to play games with rule book, let's have that go both ways, and here we are. Just speculation, of course, but it makes sense to me.
Last edited by a moderator:
GreekFreak
Footballguy
Why would David Giardi of the NFL send this email to the Patriots with false psi levels (10.1)? Especially since the. Nfl knew they were false?
http://wellsreportcontext.com/nfl-letter-to-patriots/
Anarchy99
Footballguy
There are some potential plausible explanations as to what could have happened. For example, Brady could take a box of footballs and get one or two to where he likes them and then tells the equipment guys make them all just like this. I tend to believe that a lot of people may not have had full knowledge and understanding as to what the exact rules were for football inflation. So if Brady handed the footballs to the equipment guys, they may have been a little under the limit, and he said just make 'em how I like 'em.I don't find it credible that equipment managers are messing with footballs without the QB's knowledge. I'm not an NFL QB of course, but none of the people who are or were seem to find that credible either.Well timed for this particular discussion and since Point #4 goes directly to what I am trying to say here about the faux "evidence" against Brady I am going to add it. I love point #1 in the article as well, but I want to get by this specific false allegation first.Hi Ivan,IvanKaramazov said:
Maybe I missed it (possible), can you please list the straightforward and compelling evidence you think u have that indicates Brady directed or knew balls were being manipulated post inspection (hypothetically speaking of course since i do not concede anything illegal was done). Lets pretend something may have been done with the balls post inspection, what is the "straightforward and compelling evidence against Brady" that you speak of?
"4) There is NO proof, no video, no audio, no document, no text, no email, no admission, no data, no communication, no record of any kind that shows that Tom Brady had any role in illegally doctoring footballs so that they were below legal guidelines. None. This proof does not exist. ####, there is barely any evidence of wrongdoing by Brady, let alone a smoking gun."
http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/roger-goodells-fatal-mistake-tom-brady-an-innocent-man/33948/
Not a smoking gun of course, but combine with non-cooperated and destruction of evidence (his phone), and that's more than enough for me.
Also, it could also be that the equipment guys gave the footballs over to the refs slightly under inflated at the refs took it upon themselves to add air in. Maybe they overshot the mark and the PSI levels were 13+. We already suspect that in one game they set them to 16 PSI. The "Deflator" could have then let some air out after the inspection to get them to 12.5 PSI. Yes, still not allowed within the rules, but IMO not exactly like Murder One on the range of attrocities.
Also, for the 3,000th time, Wells and the league had no legal standing to demand Brady;s phone or anything on it. He since went back and mapped out ways to retrieve the information and the league either declined to do so, ignored the information, or otherwise said they didn't even want it.
I think that is one of the biggest issues in all of this. Since the NFL has been the one driving the narrative and releasing information, when the NFL says Brady destroyed evidence or did not cooperate, the media and the fan base choose to believe it. But plenty has come out now that Brady cooperated (Wells says so himself). So unless you want to side with the NFL (who was breaking the law by demanding access to private information), then sure, Brady did not fully cooperate. And I can all but guarantee that even if Brady turned over what the league wanted, when they didn't find what they were fishing for they would have demanded something else that Brady would be reluctant to hand over and the league would have sais he failed to cooperate.
GregR
Footballguy
If that's an accurate portrayal, I agree with some of the things not ringing true, particularly the part claiming Brady saying the communication was only about the super bowl prep, and that it should be expected they'd have extra communications when the deflate stuff broke so that isn't something suspicious.
That said, when the author claimed that because Brady was coached to be non-specific in his answers he should be given sympathy by the league, it left me seriously wondering if Brady's agent cashed in a favor to get a favorable piece written or something. WTF. He deserves sympathy because he's not willing to be forthcoming? Not being willing to be forthcoming is a major segment of the reason one could believe he's guilty. He deserves no sympathy at all for having to sleep in the bed he made.
Back to the overall piece though. Much like everything NFL discipline, just further makes me see both sides with a black eye. Haven't been following this very close during the appeal, but have yet to see the actual major points against Brady be dissuaded. While at the same team the league looks bad for their handling of it. (Edit to add: since the appeal is about labor law and not about determining if he did it, that probably isn't surprising though.)
Last edited by a moderator:
Run It Up
Footballguy
WIth the unsealing of the records, even if the NFL somehow wins the court case between them and the NFLPA, I find it hard to believe that Goodell keeps his job and/or the league avoids a holdout.
Goodell straight up ignored Brady's testimony and evidence at the appeal. An appeal he arbitrated after producing the original decision.
Its ####### lunacy, a literal kangaroo court.
This is all ignoring that the exponent report was pure junk that didn't even approach proving anything.
Goodell straight up ignored Brady's testimony and evidence at the appeal. An appeal he arbitrated after producing the original decision.
Its ####### lunacy, a literal kangaroo court.
This is all ignoring that the exponent report was pure junk that didn't even approach proving anything.
Last edited by a moderator:
Anarchy99
Footballguy
All that could very well be true, but if 31 other owners wanted the Patriots to fry on literally ANYTHING then I doubt the owners would even consider dumping Goodell. I am even more starting to think the owners put Goodell up to all this, and many wanted Brady out for half the season and BB out for the year. There HAS to be more to this, because very few sane people would see the ferver over slight pressure variations in the inflation of the footballs as a major felony offense.
bostonfred
Footballguy
A literal kangaroo court wouldn't have jumped to the wrong conclusions as fast as Goodell and Vincent did.
Godsbrother
Footballguy
The Patriots have been the most successful franchise since 2001 but they hadn't won a championship for a decade. I hardly think they get almost all of the glory year after year.
This is the attitude that rubs people the wrong way...
Chicago Hooligan
Footballguy
I keep asking whether Mike Florio can get any stupider and I guess it's not rhetorical if the answer is always 'yes.'
Last edited by a moderator:
