Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

HobbesAB

Patriots being investigated after Colts game

Merged thread - Poll made after OTL Spygate story (Sept 2015)  

303 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, BoltBacker said:

I agree with you that the only rule that really matters in the NFL is thou shalt not bruise the ego of Saint Goodell, but I disagree that Brady could have saved himself just by not being "stubborn", or kissing the ring or whatever.

There was a guy named Ray Rice who was told to come to NY, tell the truth, throw your career on the mercy of his highness..... you'll be treated fairly and your spotless record before this incident will be taken into consideration. Rice does all that and gets two games. Video leaks that shows exactly what Rice says happened, did in fact happen. Goodell decides to let twitter-verse be final judge and jury of a decision he's already ruled on and tucks his tail between his legs. Ray Rice get's banished even though he was never "stubborn".

In the end all that matters is the daily whims of an ego-maniac making the decisions and he's fought very hard to keep it that way. 

It's odd that you use that example; it's almost like you don't understand the example you chose directly contradicts the point you were trying to make.

If all that mattered was the "daily whims of an ego-maniac making the decisions," Goodell would have stuck to his original 2-game suspension (you know, being an ego-maniac and all, he is right & to hell with public opinion).  But he didn't; he bowed to public pressure and issued a much harsher punishment (which he didn't have the authority to do & hisblegal advisors must have told him would be overturned in the courts).  An egomaniac wouldn't have changed their mind, wouldn't have bowed to public pressure, & wouldn't have made a decision that he knew was likely to be overturned.  Nice attempt though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Bayhawks said:

It's odd that you use that example; it's almost like you don't understand the example you chose directly contradicts the point you were trying to make.

If all that mattered was the "daily whims of an ego-maniac making the decisions," Goodell would have stuck to his original 2-game suspension (you know, being an ego-maniac and all, he is right & to hell with public opinion).  But he didn't; he bowed to public pressure and issued a much harsher punishment (which he didn't have the authority to do & hisblegal advisors must have told him would be overturned in the courts).  An egomaniac wouldn't have changed their mind, wouldn't have bowed to public pressure, & wouldn't have made a decision that he knew was likely to be overturned.  Nice attempt though.

An ego-maniac thinks that he can and should make any ruling based on how he feels that day and no matter how little sense he is making his word should be considered law. There are external forces at work to gow he feels that day(his dog dies, twitter is being mean to him, his favorite cast-away on survivor gets voted off the island, the ice cream man is sold out of his favorite flavor, etc) but ultimately he is owed the powere to make any decision that he wants whether it is consistent with previous punishments or makes any scientific sense. 

Are you arguing that Rice was somehow being "stubborn" with Goodell?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, BoltBacker said:

An ego-maniac thinks that he can and should make any ruling based on how he feels that day and no matter how little sense he is making his word should be considered law. There are external forces at work to gow he feels that day(his dog dies, twitter is being mean to him, his favorite cast-away on survivor gets voted off the island, the ice cream man is sold out of his favorite flavor, etc) but ultimately he is owed the powere to make any decision that he wants whether it is consistent with previous punishments or makes any scientific sense. 

Are you arguing that Rice was somehow being "stubborn" with Goodell?

We'll have to agree to disagree on the definition of egomaniac, since yours seems to be completely made up.

No, I'm not arguing that Rice was stubborn, I'm saying that Rice did what Goodell wanted, but when the video (which the NFL may have already seen, but didn't want to go public) went public, he had to subjugate his ego (I already took  care of this) and bow to public pressure; something an egomaniac wouldn't have done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Rice wasn't stubborn but his punishment was as severe as it could have been? I mean, it was as severe as running someone over with their car and killing them..... I assume you'll grant that as the definition as "severe"? (crossing my fingers and holding my breath)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, BoltBacker said:

So Rice wasn't stubborn but his punishment was as severe as it could have been? I mean, it was as severe as running someone over with their car and killing them..... I assume you'll grant that as the definition as "severe"? (crossing my fingers and holding my breath)

For the 2nd time; Rice did what Goodell asked-Goodell gave him a "slap on the wrist" 2 game suspension.  Then, when the video became public, Goodell was forced by public outcry to impose a more severe punishment.  Not b/c Rice was "stubborn," but b/c the video went public.  If the video hadn't been released, and if he hadn't found himself under incredible public pressure, the punishment wouldn't have been severe.

Understand?  Rice didn't get a severe punishment b/c he didn't do as Goodell wanted, he got a severe punishment b/c the video went public.  If the video had stayed hidden, Rice's willingness to "play ball" would have left him with a very non-severe 2 game suspension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎19‎/‎2016 at 0:39 PM, Bayhawks said:

AGAIN, you're arguing points that are irrelevant to your original premise, are assumptions, or are just wrong.

Provide links to the overwhelming denouncement of the Wells report from the scientific (not economic) community or stop pretending its a fact that data was fudged; stop citing media links as proof that Goodell made up violations, and stop arguing about the NFLs refusal to share PSI dar as being relevant to your original premise, b/c it isn't.  Cite FACTS, not NE fanboy conspiracy theories.

If you want to argue Goodell was looking for a reason to "get" NE, that's a different discussion (the one you seem to be arguing), but he didn't make anything up, he didn't fudge any data, and his based his unfair fines, suspension, & docked draft picks on a real violation and data that may be questionable, but was not "fudged."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/23/sports/football/nfl-ignores-ball-deflation-science-at-new-england-patriots-expense.html?_r=0

relevant exerpt follows....

John Leonard is a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who roots for the Philadelphia Eagles, listens to sports talk radio when he is exercising, and teaches a course called Measurement and Instrumentation. When the Deflategate story broke after last year’s A.F.C. championship game between the New England Patriots and the Indianapolis Colts, he found himself fixated on it, yearning to dig into it from a scientific point of view.

 

On the off chance you have spent the last year on Mars, Deflategate refers to the scandal that ensued after the Colts accused the Patriots of deflating their footballs to give quarterback Tom Brady an unfair edge — an accusation that the N.F.L. and its commissioner, Roger Goodell, ultimately determined was probably true.

 

“Of course, I thought of the Ideal Gas Law right away,” Leonard says, “but there was no data to test it.” Although the N.F.L. had measured the pounds per square inch (p.s.i.) of the Patriots’ footballs at halftime after the Colts complained — under the rules, game balls must be inflated to pressures ranging from 12.5 to 13.5 p.s.i. — it had not released any numbers.

 

The Ideal Gas Law, in case you are wondering, sets out the expected behavior of gases under certain conditions, like changes in temperature or volume. For instance, gases contract when they are in cold air and expand when they are in warmer temperatures. “I’m always looking for real life examples for my students,” Leonard says. If he could get some data, Deflategate had great potential as a case study.

In May, the data arrived. The prominent lawyer Theodore V. Wells Jr., who was hired to investigate Deflategate for the league, delivered a devastating indictment of the Patriots. The Wells report concluded that “it was more probable than not” that two members of the Patriots’ locker room staff had “participated in a deliberate effort to release air from Patriots game balls,” and that “it was more probable than not” that Brady was “at least generally aware” of the impropriety.
 

Although the evidence was circumstantial — based on ambiguous text messages; Brady’s discarding of a cellphone; and a trip to the bathroom by one of the staff members, who took the balls in with him — it was also buttressed by a lengthy scientific report prepared by Exponent, a consulting firm with dubious bona fides, having disputed the dangers of secondhand smoke and asbestos. Exponent was a hired gun, and its conclusions backed Wells’s narrative.

Brady liked his footballs at the lowest p.s.i. in the range — 12.5. The consultants concluded that the drop in the p.s.i. of the Patriots’ footballs — the average was 11.3 p.s.i. — could not be fully explained by the Ideal Gas Law; it was too steep. But the smaller drop in the p.s.i. of the Colts’ footballs could indeed be explained by the laws of physics.

Numbers in hand, Leonard went to work. He bought the same gauges the N.F.L. used to measure p.s.i. levels. He bought N.F.L.-quality footballs. He replicated the temperatures of the locker room, and the colder field. And so on. When he was done, he concluded that Exponent had made a series of basic errors. Leonard’s work showed the exact opposite of Exponent’s conclusions: The drop in the Patriots’ footballs’ p.s.i was consistent with the Ideal Gas Law; the smaller drop in pressure in the Colts’ balls was not. (Leonard surmises that because the Colts’ balls were tested after the Patriots’ balls, they had warmed up again.)
 

He is hardly the only scientist to take that position. As Dan Wetzel pointed out in a recent Yahoo Sports column, scientists at Carnegie Mellon, the University of Chicago, Boston College, Rockefeller University, the University of Illinois and Bowdoin College — and others — have all come to the same conclusion.

And yet, this overwhelming scientific consensus notwithstanding, here we are a year later, with Brady and his Patriots about to play yet again in an A.F.C. championship game — their 11th in the 22 years that Robert K. Kraft has owned the team — and nothing has changed. The other owners still seethe at what they perceive as cheating by the Patriots. The N.F.L., refusing to acknowledge the science, continues to pursue Brady in court, in an effort to enforce a four-game suspension that he sued to overturn. (Brady prevailed in the lower court.)
 
 
So we can say, if you prefer, that Exponent, a known hired gun with a history of defending asbestos defendants and big tobacco, made "errors" rather than "fudged the data", but then it leaves open the question of why the made such errors.  Why do you think they made such errors?
 
I've given you a lazy response, but I think you get my point.  The data was clearly fudged and has been overwhelming refuted.  If you want to argue otherwise, feel free.  You'll continue being wrong.
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, SeniorVBDStudent said:

Numbers in hand, Leonard went to work. He bought the same gauges the N.F.L. used to measure p.s.i. levels. He bought N.F.L.-quality footballs. He replicated the temperatures of the locker room, and the colder field. And so on. When he was done, he concluded that Exponent had made a series of basic errors.

 

I've given you a lazy response, but I think you get my point.  The data was clearly fudged

I want to make sure I understand you....you're citing a report that says the exponent report made ERRORS (see underlined), but using that as "proof" that Goodell fudged data?:unsure:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Dr. Octopus said:

Why are people still arguing the case?

Because football hasn't started yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Toomuchnv said:

Because football hasn't started yet?

I'm pretty sure Brady isn't playing the first four weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/19/2016 at 8:55 AM, Dr. Octopus said:

I did not realize that. Probably because it's a bunch of crap.

The New Orleans Saints might not agree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Bayhawks said:

I want to make sure I understand you....you're citing a report that says the exponent report made ERRORS (see underlined), but using that as "proof" that Goodell fudged data?:unsure:

 

Oh stop.  The "fudging the data" comment is a metaphor related the fundamental truths involved here.  Namely, that Exponent is a morally corrupt entity that made invalid claims (which were subsequently refuted by the scientific community...link provided) at the behest of its contract employer.  A majority of owners told their lackey to reach a certain conclusion and the lackey employed a hired gun to arrive at a pre-determined result.  Deny and deflect as you see fit.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, SeniorVBDStudent said:

Oh stop.  The "fudging the data" comment is a metaphor related the fundamental truths involved here.  Namely, that Exponent is a morally corrupt entity that made invalid claims (which were subsequently refuted by the scientific community...link provided) at the behest of its contract employer.  A majority of owners told their lackey to reach a certain conclusion and the lackey employed a hired gun to arrive at a pre-determined result.  Deny and deflect as you see fit.

 

 Why should I stop?  I've said, many times, that I believe the NFL was out to "catch" the Pats doing something wrong.  I've said, many times, that Goodell's punishment (for Brady and NE) was excessive.  I've said, many times, that I believe the PSI of footballs is of trivial importance.  I've said, at least once in this thread, that I believe the NFL may have been "setting a trap" for the Pats in the AFCC.

That doesn't mean I have to accept baseless claims that Goodell "fudged" data.  It is not a metaphor for Exponent being a "morally corrupt entity," especially in the context of how it was used, which is that GOODELL fudged data.  Exponent wasn't even a part of the initial post that started this offshoot of the thread, so trying to say that the claim that Goodell fudged data is some kind of metaphor for Exponent's "moral corruption" is absurd.

Again, if you want to say Exponent's science contained errors, I won't debate that.  If you want to argue that Goodell latched onto a small violation of rules by Brady/NE and punished them excessively for it, I won't debate that.  If you want to argue that Goodell was trying to catch the Pats, I won't debate that. 

If you want to say that Goodell made up a violation, I won't stop debating that.  If you want to insist Goodell fudged data, I won't stop debating that, either, since neither of those are true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bayhawks said:

 Why should I stop?  I've said, many times, that I believe the NFL was out to "catch" the Pats doing something wrong.  I've said, many times, that Goodell's punishment (for Brady and NE) was excessive.  I've said, many times, that I believe the PSI of footballs is of trivial importance.  I've said, at least once in this thread, that I believe the NFL may have been "setting a trap" for the Pats in the AFCC.

That doesn't mean I have to accept baseless claims that Goodell "fudged" data.  It is not a metaphor for Exponent being a "morally corrupt entity," especially in the context of how it was used, which is that GOODELL fudged data.  Exponent wasn't even a part of the initial post that started this offshoot of the thread, so trying to say that the claim that Goodell fudged data is some kind of metaphor for Exponent's "moral corruption" is absurd.

Again, if you want to say Exponent's science contained errors, I won't debate that.  If you want to argue that Goodell latched onto a small violation of rules by Brady/NE and punished them excessively for it, I won't debate that.  If you want to argue that Goodell was trying to catch the Pats, I won't debate that. 

If you want to say that Goodell made up a violation, I won't stop debating that.  If you want to insist Goodell fudged data, I won't stop debating that, either, since neither of those are true.

Define "made up".  I'm sure Goodell believes a violation occurred.  He probably believed that from day one - which is part of the problem.  But, he never did find direct evidence.  And there is enough controversy here ranging from two gauges that were calibrated differently; lack of precise pre-game measurements; physics (temperature, wet ball/dry ball);  to potential data gathering mistakes from an impromptu audit (there was one suspected transcription error and the people measuring the balls inexplicably switched gauges in between teams) for me to be certain there was a violation.  Too much "reasonable doubt" for me to throw one of the league's stars under the bus. And the legal system saw it the same way when they ruled in Brady's favor.  We are here now essentially because the last ruling was a question of collective bargaining.

This wasn't good for the NFL.  Best thing for Roger to do was give each team a cautionary "knock it off" prior to the game based on the allegations from Harbaugh.  Once you open yourself up with the halftime measurements and spend $5 million on a report.. you can't really say nothing happened, can you?

Comments that Roger "fudged data" are over the top but he did misrepresent testimony.  I find the leaked information about the number of Brady's text messages with his equipment people in the days immediately following disturbing.  It is highly inconsistent with Brady's actual testimony.  It made me question Roger's integrity and bias.  If someone is the judge, jury and execution, don't you want someone more impartial?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DropKick said:

Define "made up".  I'm sure Goodell believes a violation occurred.  He probably believed that from day one - which is part of the problem.  But, he never did find direct evidence.  And there is enough controversy here ranging from two gauges that were calibrated differently; lack of precise pre-game measurements; physics (temperature, wet ball/dry ball);  to potential data gathering mistakes from an impromptu audit (there was one suspected transcription error and the people measuring the balls inexplicably switched gauges in between teams) for me to be certain there was a violation.  Too much "reasonable doubt" for me to throw one of the league's stars under the bus. And the legal system saw it the same way when they ruled in Brady's favor.  We are here now essentially because the last ruling was a question of collective bargaining.

This wasn't good for the NFL.  Best thing for Roger to do was give each team a cautionary "knock it off" prior to the game based on the allegations from Harbaugh.  Once you open yourself up with the halftime measurements and spend $5 million on a report.. you can't really say nothing happened, can you?

Comments that Roger "fudged data" are over the top but he did misrepresent testimony.  I find the leaked information about the number of Brady's text messages with his equipment people in the days immediately following disturbing.  It is highly inconsistent with Brady's actual testimony.  It made me question Roger's integrity and bias.  If someone is the judge, jury and execution, don't you want someone more impartial?

 

I don't need to define anything now.  This post pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/19/2016 at 3:57 PM, Bayhawks said:

For the 2nd time; Rice did what Goodell asked-Goodell gave him a "slap on the wrist" 2 game suspension.  Then, when the video became public, Goodell was forced by public outcry to impose a more severe punishment.  Not b/c Rice was "stubborn," but b/c the video went public.  If the video hadn't been released, and if he hadn't found himself under incredible public pressure, the punishment wouldn't have been severe.

Understand?  Rice didn't get a severe punishment b/c he didn't do as Goodell wanted, he got a severe punishment b/c the video went public.  If the video had stayed hidden, Rice's willingness to "play ball" would have left him with a very non-severe 2 game suspension.

Yes, I understand. Rice kissed the ring and still got the ax. Anyone stating all Brady had to do was kiss the ring is wrong, clearly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BoltBacker said:

Yes, I understand. Rice kissed the ring and still got the ax. Anyone stating all Brady had to do was kiss the ring is wrong, clearly. 

No, that's not what happened.  Rice "kissed the ring," and got off very easy.  2 game suspension, which was laughable. 

Then, the tape went public, and the public outcry was deafening.  Goodell & the NFL were under great scrutiny, so Goodell then "gave him the ax."

You keep ignoring this (the bolded) part, which is a vital part of this situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Went to look at the first week's schedule of games on nfl.com...  Here is "story of week 1"...

The new season kicks off the same way the last one ended. The Panthers will look to exact a measure of revenge for their defeat in Super Bowl 50 over the now Peyton Manning-less Broncos. Speaking of veteran quarterbacks, the first Sunday of the season ends with Tom Brady visiting Carson Palmer for a duel in the desert on Sunday Night Football.

Seems like someone at NFL.com might want to update that.

http://www.nfl.com/schedules/2016/REG1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... so now that Brady has dropped his appeal and agreed to serve his 4 game suspension, ... he's not allowed to practice with the team for the entire pre-season?

And that would mean that he's not able to participate in pre-season games? Seems like an 8 game suspension.

If this is the case, why wouldn't his team of lawyers advise him to wait until after the last pre-season game to drop the appeal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Bossman said:

... so now that Brady has dropped his appeal and agreed to serve his 4 game suspension, ... he's not allowed to practice with the team for the entire pre-season?

And that would mean that he's not able to participate in pre-season games? Seems like an 8 game suspension.

If this is the case, why wouldn't his team of lawyers advise him to wait until after the last pre-season game to drop the appeal?

He can practice with the team in the preseason, but not during the regular season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gets better all the time...

http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/210274/nfl-players-should-fight-al-jazeera-suspensions-like-crazy

Excerpt:

The latest imposition of NFL power over its players goes something like this:

If someone, anyone, makes a public allegation, substantiated or otherwise, recanted or supported, of possible improper conduct, the player must submit to an investigation on the league's terms or face suspension.

That's essentially what the NFL said Monday in a letter to the NFL Players Association as a final warning to four players named in an Al-Jazeera report on the use of performance-enhancing drugs.

The source for the report has since retracted his information, and the league already has cleared the name mentioned most prominently: retired quarterback Peyton Manning. But if the Green Bay Packers' Julius Peppers and Clay Matthews, the Pittsburgh Steelers' James Harrison and free agent Mike Neal don't play ball with the NFL -- if they don't step forward to prove their innocence, as it were -- then they will be suspended as of Aug. 26.

It would be easy to say that a rule-abiding player has nothing to worry about, but I'm going to guess that New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady and retired defensive lineman Anthony Hargrove, among others, might not agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's going to be interesting when the negotiate the next CBA. The NFLPA has as much public support as they could possibly hope for to curtail Goodell's power. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/24/2016 at 7:05 AM, Bayhawks said:

No, that's not what happened.  Rice "kissed the ring," and got off very easy.  2 game suspension, which was laughable. 

Then, the tape went public, and the public outcry was deafening.  Goodell & the NFL were under great scrutiny, so Goodell then "gave him the ax."

You keep ignoring this (the bolded) part, which is a vital part of this situation.

Absolutely zero question of this. Goodell bends to public pressure, and the public zeal to see the Patriots vilified was undeniable. Peyton Manning gets caught having HGH shipped to his house (for his wife ;)) and nary a peep.

It's going to be interesting when they renegotiate the CBA. The NFLPA couldn't ask for a better opportunity to curtail Goodell's power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, DropKick said:

It would be easy to say that a rule-abiding player has nothing to worry about, but I'm going to guess that New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady might not agree.

Perhaps because Brady isn't a rule-abiding player?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hope Luck gets suspended 4 games ..... cheater,  75% of Indy balls tested were deflated .. whole organization are cheats, take their 1st rounded in 2017

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

hope Luck gets suspended 4 games ..... cheater,  75% of Indy balls tested were deflated .. whole organization are cheats, take their 1st rounded in 2017

Howdo those salty hater tears taste?:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not too bad really .... INDY will be at the bottom of the heap, Patriots will win their division, again ... and go to the Super Bowl again ...

 

pesky facts are, Indy cheated too, they had 75% of their tested balls deflated ... had to be Luck doing it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.