Patriots being investigated after Colts game (3 Viewers)

[VarsityBlues123]

While Brady may have called twiddle dee and twiddle dumb after the incident, we have no idea what they discussed.

No idea? None at all?

Be honest. You and I both know that there's about a 95% chance that those phone calls were about getting their story straight. Do we know that with 100% certainty? No. Maybe they were just talking about snow or Game of Thrones or something. But let's not be stupid and pretend that we really just have absolutely no idea of what those calls could possibly have been about.

I love when people assume and then believe that assumption is fact.

Did you miss the part where I said that we don't know any of that with 100% certainty and where I assigned probability weights to my beliefs? It really wasn't a very long post.

followed up by "lets not act stupid and pretend we have no idea what those calls are about."

 

[Bayhawks]

That was before the current rule was in place, literally has no bearing on the Pats cheating.

And you think teams stopped doing what had been the practice for 85 years beforehand?

The rule may be frivolous,

A few pages back, when discussing the debunking of the fumble argument, someone criticized one of the articles/reports because it focused on stats & info they wanted to see, while ignoring the information they don't. Your post is a perfect example of that. I (have consistently) said the rule is dumb, and the advantage gained (IMO) is minimal. The bigger issue is the lies, cover-up attempt, and the interference with the NFL investigation. Yet you ignore the point of my post (in fact, you edited it before quoting), and focus on 1 line, which isn't the main reason Brady even looks as bad as he currently does. Classic tactics of those on the losing side of a debate: try to deflect attention away from the main argument, since you can't win.

FYI this is not the debate club

If you're having some kind of debate in your imagination you're doing it alone.

Be sure to hide the sticky towels

Case in point; ignoring the debate that you are losing horribly, and trying to deflect attention by a juvenile attempt at humor. What's next, are you going to revert to the "salty hater" name calling?

 

[12punch]

My point was, if the initial reports were accurate that a ball under inflated by 1 PSI from the 12.5 Low end of the thresh hold, the ball would still have 99.9 the same weight.

If people want to say Brady deserves punishment for not cooperating with the investigation, fine. But I still would like to see some sort of 100% conclusive study that that minimal change to the ball produced some huge reward in performance. To me, it just seems like his personal preference was below the low end of the accepted range. Based on other similar equines or uniform imfractions over the years, that has always been a fine.

Unlike baseball where guys used corked bats (more distance) or hockey where their sticks were too long or too curved (more reach or more speed and control on shots), what has been shown to show the Pats benefited from what Brady more than likely knew about?

People will bring up the fumbling issue, but in NE if a player fumbles he doesn't play. They value ball security to the point of job security. Sounds like a good incentive to wrap up the football. BB Also has the team practice all week with footballs in terrible condition and also in horrendous weather and fied conditions. They practice to avoid fumbles.

I still think Brady should be suspended, but along the lines of one game for trying to circvent the rules and another game for impeding the investigation. Some of the huge penalties seem a bit excessive to me.

Your red herring is rotting. This was never about the weight of the ball, and you know that. That you bring it up and offer it means you have contempt for the intelligence of your audience, not a good way to start any presentation when this is apparent. To pretend that the rule is silly, or as others have, perhaps even you, I forget among the clutter here, that the rule is some incidental, inconsequential vestige of a manufacturer's recommendation is to ignore that Brady himself was instrumental in lobbying to get the ball handling and preparation rules set as they are.

Nice that you want a study, 100% conclusive of matters. Outside of math we never have such proof, we have very high confidences, but rarely proof. So, having been thwarted in the role of apologist you now set the bar , for others to prove, at an impossible height. How about Brady, and his supporters prove that there is no advantage to underinflated balls? Brady sought to create that situation, he obviously believes it was an advantage. Nope, it is on the cheater, and his apologists to establish this. Oh, btw, even if they could, which they cannot, it would still be breaking the rule, i.e. cheating.

People brought up the fumbling issue because there was some statistical analysis on that issue, not because they thought that was the best argument. Apologists tried to insist that Brady never went to great lengths for any reason like better grip, or more catchable ball as its rebound tension off of a receiver's hands would be less. but merely because he was quirky. This was an entirely collateral matter, desperately clung to by apologists once they learned, may, they can get some traction on this false premise trail. This was a sidelight, never the issue. BTW, Belichick did not invent ball security nor is he the only one to teach it and practice it. Far from it. N.E.'s emphasis is part of a fan and media myth, like certain fans believing they are more passionate than others simply because their stadiums are better sounding boards than are others.

Brady participated in cheating, in an ongoing fashion. He rewarded his co-conspirators. He did it intending to gain advantage. He then lied about it, and in doing so began the process of impugning the character of others to try to save his own, even though he clearly has none, or perhaps I should limit this to the standard in the report, he more probably than not has no character and we are all likely aware of that fact, even you apologists That makes you also men of no character. Any who try to excuse the behavior of a cheater by impugning others, or trying to sow doubt with false arguments are persons of low character indeed.

Is this Stephen king?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

While Brady may have called twiddle dee and twiddle dumb after the incident, we have no idea what they discussed.

No idea? None at all?

Be honest. You and I both know that there's about a 95% chance that those phone calls were about getting their story straight. Do we know that with 100% certainty? No. Maybe they were just talking about snow or Game of Thrones or something. But let's not be stupid and pretend that we really just have absolutely no idea of what those calls could possibly have been about.

I love when people assume and then believe that assumption is fact.

Did you miss the part where I said that we don't know any of that with 100% certainty and where I assigned probability weights to my beliefs? It really wasn't a very long post.

followed up by "lets not act stupid and pretend we have no idea what those calls are about."

If you had to assign a probability to the statement "Brady called the equipment guys at least in part to get their story straight," what probability would you assign?

 

[VarsityBlues123]

While Brady may have called twiddle dee and twiddle dumb after the incident, we have no idea what they discussed.

No idea? None at all?

Be honest. You and I both know that there's about a 95% chance that those phone calls were about getting their story straight. Do we know that with 100% certainty? No. Maybe they were just talking about snow or Game of Thrones or something. But let's not be stupid and pretend that we really just have absolutely no idea of what those calls could possibly have been about.

I love when people assume and then believe that assumption is fact.

Did you miss the part where I said that we don't know any of that with 100% certainty and where I assigned probability weights to my beliefs? It really wasn't a very long post.

followed up by "lets not act stupid and pretend we have no idea what those calls are about."

If you had to assign a probability to the statement "Brady called the equipment guys at least in part to get their story straight," what probability would you assign?

its not about what you can assume, its about what you can prove. arguing probability of what people discuss on the phone is not any proof of anything.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

its not about what you can assume, its about what you can prove. arguing probability of what people discuss on the phone is not any proof of anything.

You couldn't be more wrong about that. Do you understand why Wells keeps using the term "more probable than not" throughout the report? Do you think he just stumbled on that verbiage by accident, or just because it sounds nice?

 

[IHEARTFF]

This isn't a trial. They don't have to prove anything. Probability is high that TB called 2 guys 'he had never heard of' multiple times days after the story broke about them all cheating together to get their story straight.

 

[Bayhawks]

While Brady may have called twiddle dee and twiddle dumb after the incident, we have no idea what they discussed.

No idea? None at all?

Be honest. You and I both know that there's about a 95% chance that those phone calls were about getting their story straight. Do we know that with 100% certainty? No. Maybe they were just talking about snow or Game of Thrones or something. But let's not be stupid and pretend that we really just have absolutely no idea of what those calls could possibly have been about.

I love when people assume and then believe that assumption is fact.

Did you miss the part where I said that we don't know any of that with 100% certainty and where I assigned probability weights to my beliefs? It really wasn't a very long post.

followed up by "lets not act stupid and pretend we have no idea what those calls are about."

If you had to assign a probability to the statement "Brady called the equipment guys at least in part to get their story straight," what probability would you assign?

its not about what you can assume, its about what you can prove. arguing probability of what people discuss on the phone is not any proof of anything.

This isn't a criminal case; the investigation met the burden of proof required bt the NFL; their assumption of what those calls were about likely leaned towards the "getting their story straight" version.

 

[12punch]

Here's my pitch for an innocent Tom. He didn't know anything about the post inspection deflation. He just constantly griped, and whined, and moaned about how hard the footballs were.

The equipment guys found a way to shut him up. Hence all the F___ Tom texts.

That's a very real possibility. If only there was some way for us to observe whether Brady communicated directly with the equipment guys and, if so, exactly what the nature of that communication was. How unfortunate for Brady that he was never given the chance to present exculpatory evidence along these lines.

Wouldn't those texts have appeared on the equipment guys phones?

No, we're looking for texts to the cleaner.

The guy who pops out of the air vent in the bathroom with a bag of balls and will most likely make abbot and Costello disappear

They'll be swimmin' with the lobstahs.

 

[12punch]

FYI this is not the debate clubIf you're having some kind of debate in your imagination you're doing it alone.

Be sure to hide the sticky towels

Who posted in: Patriots being investigated after Col...

Member name Posts 12punch 380

You've established I probably and most likely posted in this thread.

Therefore, I must be debating

Because reasons

 

[Bucky86]

It's cute how Brady's agent is complaining that Wells didn't include his interview in his report when Tom Brady also refused to cooperate with the investigation by turning over his phone records. Seems be very similar to a grand jury situation. Let me sit here and give you MY side of the story, but not actually give you any evidence to let you verify my story.

 

[12punch]

While Brady may have called twiddle dee and twiddle dumb after the incident, we have no idea what they discussed.

No idea? None at all?

Be honest. You and I both know that there's about a 95% chance that those phone calls were about getting their story straight. Do we know that with 100% certainty? No. Maybe they were just talking about snow or Game of Thrones or something. But let's not be stupid and pretend that we really just have absolutely no idea of what those calls could possibly have been about.

How do we know they're guilty?

Incriminating calls.

How do we know the calls are incriminating?

What other kind of calls would guilty ppl make?

Shark pool be sharkin'

 

[espnespn]

While Brady may have called twiddle dee and twiddle dumb after the incident, we have no idea what they discussed.

No idea? None at all?

Be honest. You and I both know that there's about a 95% chance that those phone calls were about getting their story straight. Do we know that with 100% certainty? No. Maybe they were just talking about snow or Game of Thrones or something. But let's not be stupid and pretend that we really just have absolutely no idea of what those calls could possibly have been about.

Salty Haters will assume that anything ambiguous is proof of guilt by the Patriots.

a) The scientific data in the Wells report cannot confirm tampering.

"But it’s also important to remember that the league has no indisputable evidence that those footballs started their night’s work at 12.5 PSI, because inexplicably no record of pre-game measurements were made even though the Colts clearly had made the NFL aware of their ball deflation concerns about New England the day before the game. The scientific consultants to the Wells report found “no set of credible environmental or physical factors that completely accounts for the Patriots halftime (football inflation) measurements,’’ but it was also reported by those same consultants “that the data alone did not provide a basis for them to determine with absolute certainty whether there was or was not tampering.’’"

http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/05/06/deflategate-new-england-patriots-tom-brady-wells-report

Salty Hater response: "Look at the texts instead, they prove everything!"

b) Even the texts do not say whether deflation was pre- or post-ref inspection. But the texts complain about the refs overinflating to 16 PSI, which could never have happened if deflation was post-inspection. Somehow the Patriots guys deflated post-ref inspection, yet the balls ended up at 16 PSI by the refs? Does not compute.

Salty Hater response: "The Patriots have a pattern of cheating! Of course it was post-inspection deflation."

c) Yes, the old "pattern of cheating" argument. Belichick was punished for Spygate, but Brady was not involved there. So that's 1 prior instance of breaking the rules by Belichick, and 0 by Brady. Now the phone calls where there is no proof of what was discussed, are more proof of Brady's guilt? Brady's pattern of cheating, where he had 0 prior instances of breaking the rules?

 

[Old Smiley]

Again, assuming an innocent Tom, couldn't those calls have been: W the actual F guys? I know we've had our ups and downs but you didn't do anything that's actually going to screw me, did you?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Again, assuming an innocent Tom, couldn't those calls have been: W the actual F guys? I know we've had our ups and downs but you didn't do anything that's actually going to screw me, did you?

Of course. There's nothing mathematically impossible about Brady calling them four times over two days for the purpose of berating them for cheating and jeopardizing his good name. I judge that to be pretty unlikely though.

 

[ChuckLiddell]

Brady's agent's argent is that Tom gave his side of what happened and none of his interview was referenced in the report. Everything he said and his explanation was conviently ignored, and the only reference to him was his refusal to cooperate and hand over his phone.

That's kind of huge. And it goes back to my original question: Was this an investigation? Or a prosecution. Different intents, different methods, different critters.

Like hiring that "Results Are Us" lab

Brady's agent's argent is that Tom gave his side of what happened and none of his interview was referenced in the report. Everything he said and his explanation was conviently ignored, and the only reference to him was his refusal to cooperate and hand over his phone.

That's kind of huge. And it goes back to my original question: Was this an investigation? Or a prosecution. Different intents, different methods, different critters.

Like hiring that "Results Are Us" lab.

Interesting take. Not because I find it even slightly plausible, but because it is just so interesting to see how Pats fans are responding to this.

My question for you with regard to this theory is simply "why?". Why on earth would the NFL want to intentionally place doubt on not only one of the best franchises in the history of their product, but their current champion, and arguably the GOAT that their brand has produced? What purpose does that serve to improve their brand? Why would they want to see a guy who should have been the face of the NFL on the sidelines in a nationally televised kickoff of the 2015 season? Why would they want people talking about cheating, deceiving, and sullying a legacy instead of celebrating one of the best teams in players in the history of their game?

If anything, a logical person would suspect the exact opposite. That they would sweep it as far under the proverbial rug as they possibly can. If the NFL had it's way, I suspect that Wells woudl have come back with a report stating that without a doubt, Tom Brady had nothing to do with this. Put away your asterisk's and go back to worshipping the god of the NFL.

Why would they want this, as you seem to be insinuating? Enlighten me.

 

[espnespn]

Brady's agent's argent is that Tom gave his side of what happened and none of his interview was referenced in the report. Everything he said and his explanation was conviently ignored, and the only reference to him was his refusal to cooperate and hand over his phone.

That's kind of huge. And it goes back to my original question: Was this an investigation? Or a prosecution. Different intents, different methods, different critters.

Like hiring that "Results Are Us" lab

Brady's agent's argent is that Tom gave his side of what happened and none of his interview was referenced in the report. Everything he said and his explanation was conviently ignored, and the only reference to him was his refusal to cooperate and hand over his phone.

That's kind of huge. And it goes back to my original question: Was this an investigation? Or a prosecution. Different intents, different methods, different critters.

Like hiring that "Results Are Us" lab.

Interesting take. Not because I find it even slightly plausible, but because it is just so interesting to see how Pats fans are responding to this.

My question for you with regard to this theory is simply "why?". Why on earth would the NFL want to intentionally place doubt on not only one of the best franchises in the history of their product, but their current champion, and arguably the GOAT that their brand has produced? What purpose does that serve to improve their brand? Why would they want to see a guy who should have been the face of the NFL on the sidelines in a nationally televised kickoff of the 2015 season? Why would they want people talking about cheating, deceiving, and sullying a legacy instead of celebrating one of the best teams in players in the history of their game?

If anything, a logical person would suspect the exact opposite. That they would sweep it as far under the proverbial rug as they possibly can. If the NFL had it's way, I suspect that Wells woudl have come back with a report stating that without a doubt, Tom Brady had nothing to do with this. Put away your asterisk's and go back to worshipping the god of the NFL.

Why would they want this, as you seem to be insinuating? Enlighten me.

The NFL is not a monolithic entity, there are lots of high level people inside the NFL (like Mike Kensil) who are biased against the Patriots, and lots of other NFL franchises (Ravens, Colts, etc.) that hate the Patriots. Those people put pressure on the league to investigate. Plus, once the media starts running with some stories, that puts additional momentum into an investigation.

No idea why they hired that "Results Are Us" lab. They could have chosen another lab that seemed more neutral.

 

[Donnybrook]

c) Yes, the old "pattern of cheating" argument. Belichick was punished for Spygate, but Brady was not involved there. So that's 1 prior instance of breaking the rules by Belichick, and 0 by Brady. Now the phone calls where there is no proof of what was discussed, are more proof of Brady's guilt? Brady's pattern of cheating, where he had 0 prior instances of breaking the rules?

So you think that Tom Brady was just naive and simply believed that his offensive coordinator had some sort of ESP. He was just an ignorant pawn in Belichick's game.

 

[ChuckLiddell]

Brady's agent's argent is that Tom gave his side of what happened and none of his interview was referenced in the report. Everything he said and his explanation was conviently ignored, and the only reference to him was his refusal to cooperate and hand over his phone.

That's kind of huge. And it goes back to my original question: Was this an investigation? Or a prosecution. Different intents, different methods, different critters.

Like hiring that "Results Are Us" lab

Brady's agent's argent is that Tom gave his side of what happened and none of his interview was referenced in the report. Everything he said and his explanation was conviently ignored, and the only reference to him was his refusal to cooperate and hand over his phone.

That's kind of huge. And it goes back to my original question: Was this an investigation? Or a prosecution. Different intents, different methods, different critters.

Like hiring that "Results Are Us" lab.

Interesting take. Not because I find it even slightly plausible, but because it is just so interesting to see how Pats fans are responding to this.

My question for you with regard to this theory is simply "why?". Why on earth would the NFL want to intentionally place doubt on not only one of the best franchises in the history of their product, but their current champion, and arguably the GOAT that their brand has produced? What purpose does that serve to improve their brand? Why would they want to see a guy who should have been the face of the NFL on the sidelines in a nationally televised kickoff of the 2015 season? Why would they want people talking about cheating, deceiving, and sullying a legacy instead of celebrating one of the best teams in players in the history of their game?

If anything, a logical person would suspect the exact opposite. That they would sweep it as far under the proverbial rug as they possibly can. If the NFL had it's way, I suspect that Wells woudl have come back with a report stating that without a doubt, Tom Brady had nothing to do with this. Put away your asterisk's and go back to worshipping the god of the NFL.

Why would they want this, as you seem to be insinuating? Enlighten me.

The NFL is not a monolithic entity, there are lots of high level people inside the NFL (like Mike Kensil) who are biased against the Patriots, and lots of other NFL franchises (Ravens, Colts, etc.) that hate the Patriots. Those people put pressure on the league to investigate. Plus, once the media starts running with some stories, that puts additional momentum into an investigation.

No idea why they hired that "Results Are Us" lab. They could have chosen another lab that seemed more neutral.

Yes, to investigate. Agreed. The statement alluded a a "prosecution" as opposed to an investigation. As noted by the poster, 2 very different things.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Old Smiley's "Innocent Brady" hypothesis is a good example of why evidentiary standards matter. As I understand it, "innocent Brady" involves (roughly) the following explanation:

Innocent Brady

Brady had no idea that the Patriots' equipment guys were deflating footballs post-inspection. He told them he wanted them low, but he just assumed they would act within the rules. Unbeknownst to Brady, the equipment guys decided to cheat completely on their own, without saying anything to Brady about it. Brady never noticed that the footballs had a pattern of disappearing for a while after the refs inspected them, or if he did, he didn't think it was unusual or noteworthy in any way, even though he cares deeply about them in every other regard. When Brady told the media that he didn't even know the names of the equipment guys, he just innocently mispoke under pressure. He gave them autographed memorabilia just because he wanted to reward them for doing a good job. He called them four times after the story broke primarily to do his own investigation into this matter. Brady refused to turn his phone over to investigators out of principle even though he knows it makes him look kind of bad and opens him up to league discipline for non-cooperation.

The alternative hypothesis, "Guilty Brady," runs more like this:

Guilty Brady

Brady was fully aware that his equipment guys were doctoring footballs post-inspection. That's at least partly why he was rewarding them with memorabilia. He called them after the story broke to get their story straight, to encourage them not to flip, or for some similar reason. He refused to turn over his phone because he knows the data on there would do even more damage than his refusal to cooperate does.

"Innocent Brady" is not impossible. But any reasonable person is going to conclude that "Guilty Brady" is far, far more likely. If you think that "Guilty Brady" is more than 50% likely, then that basically settles it.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

c) Yes, the old "pattern of cheating" argument. Belichick was punished for Spygate, but Brady was not involved there. So that's 1 prior instance of breaking the rules by Belichick, and 0 by Brady. Now the phone calls where there is no proof of what was discussed, are more proof of Brady's guilt? Brady's pattern of cheating, where he had 0 prior instances of breaking the rules?

So you think that Tom Brady was just naive and simply believed that his offensive coordinator had some sort of ESP. He was just an ignorant pawn in Belichick's game.

Why would anyone steal defensive signals and not have their starting quarterback informed of all the signals and calls? A: They wouldn't.

 

[Pots]

FYI this is not the debate club

If you're having some kind of debate in your imagination you're doing it alone.Be sure to hide the sticky towels

Who posted in: Patriots being investigated after Col...Member name Posts 12punch 380

15% of all of his posts over his 4.5 years of being on this board is from this singular thread? The irony of that little snippet is hilarious.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

c) Yes, the old "pattern of cheating" argument. Belichick was punished for Spygate, but Brady was not involved there. So that's 1 prior instance of breaking the rules by Belichick, and 0 by Brady. Now the phone calls where there is no proof of what was discussed, are more proof of Brady's guilt? Brady's pattern of cheating, where he had 0 prior instances of breaking the rules?

So you think that Tom Brady was just naive and simply believed that his offensive coordinator had some sort of ESP. He was just an ignorant pawn in Belichick's game.

Why would anyone steal defensive signals and not have their starting quarterback informed of all the signals and calls? A: They wouldn't.

According to New England fans, the Patriots sometimes cheat just because they can. They steal signals, but they don't pass that information on to their QB. They deflate footballs, but that doesn't give them any sort of advantage.

The Patriots do this sort of thing not because it helps them win, but because by doing so they highlight weaknesses in league protocols that the NFL can then fix. Really, they're doing the league a favor. If anything, we should thank them.

 

[12punch]

c) Yes, the old "pattern of cheating" argument. Belichick was punished for Spygate, but Brady was not involved there. So that's 1 prior instance of breaking the rules by Belichick, and 0 by Brady. Now the phone calls where there is no proof of what was discussed, are more proof of Brady's guilt? Brady's pattern of cheating, where he had 0 prior instances of breaking the rules?

So you think that Tom Brady was just naive and simply believed that his offensive coordinator had some sort of ESP. He was just an ignorant pawn in Belichick's game.

If I could borrow from one of the salty trolls around here:

Everything's OK, and there's no harm done as long as the following criteria are met.

Do it in plain view

Everybody's doing it.

Ignorance of the rules.

Apply these 3 guidelines and you'll do no wrong.

 

[espnespn]

c) Yes, the old "pattern of cheating" argument. Belichick was punished for Spygate, but Brady was not involved there. So that's 1 prior instance of breaking the rules by Belichick, and 0 by Brady. Now the phone calls where there is no proof of what was discussed, are more proof of Brady's guilt? Brady's pattern of cheating, where he had 0 prior instances of breaking the rules?

So you think that Tom Brady was just naive and simply believed that his offensive coordinator had some sort of ESP. He was just an ignorant pawn in Belichick's game.

How did Malcolm Butler make that game-clinching SB interception? Are you saying that because he knew the exact play coming, that the Patriots must have cheated there too?

 

[massraider]

c) Yes, the old "pattern of cheating" argument. Belichick was punished for Spygate, but Brady was not involved there. So that's 1 prior instance of breaking the rules by Belichick, and 0 by Brady. Now the phone calls where there is no proof of what was discussed, are more proof of Brady's guilt? Brady's pattern of cheating, where he had 0 prior instances of breaking the rules?

So you think that Tom Brady was just naive and simply believed that his offensive coordinator had some sort of ESP. He was just an ignorant pawn in Belichick's game.

How did Malcolm Butler make that game-clinching SB interception? Are you saying that because he knew the exact play coming, that the Patriots must have cheated there too?

Why is anyone engaging this guy at all?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

c) Yes, the old "pattern of cheating" argument. Belichick was punished for Spygate, but Brady was not involved there. So that's 1 prior instance of breaking the rules by Belichick, and 0 by Brady. Now the phone calls where there is no proof of what was discussed, are more proof of Brady's guilt? Brady's pattern of cheating, where he had 0 prior instances of breaking the rules?

So you think that Tom Brady was just naive and simply believed that his offensive coordinator had some sort of ESP. He was just an ignorant pawn in Belichick's game.

How did Malcolm Butler make that game-clinching SB interception? Are you saying that because he knew the exact play coming, that the Patriots must have cheated there too?

Why is anyone engaging this guy at all?

 

[espnespn]

c) Yes, the old "pattern of cheating" argument. Belichick was punished for Spygate, but Brady was not involved there. So that's 1 prior instance of breaking the rules by Belichick, and 0 by Brady. Now the phone calls where there is no proof of what was discussed, are more proof of Brady's guilt? Brady's pattern of cheating, where he had 0 prior instances of breaking the rules?

So you think that Tom Brady was just naive and simply believed that his offensive coordinator had some sort of ESP. He was just an ignorant pawn in Belichick's game.

How did Malcolm Butler make that game-clinching SB interception? Are you saying that because he knew the exact play coming, that the Patriots must have cheated there too?

Why is anyone engaging this guy at all?

Why is anyone engaging this guy at all?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Beyond stupid.

 

[massraider]

Oy. OK:

1. Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
2. → My control panel
3. → Settings
4. → 'Ignore' Preferences

Good read from Lupica here:

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/lupica-start-tom-brady-sounded-totally-innocent-article-1.2216915?utm_content=buffer716b8&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=mmehta+twitter

 

[massraider]

From Lupica's article:

Whatever you think of the language and conclusions of the Wells Report — and if you really think a lawyer of this stature would go into the tank for Goodell and the league, you must also believe Brady’s agent also saying it was a “sting” operation — Goodell simply can’t let this go. You can’t commission the investigation and read it and still believe that Brady had “no knowledge of anything.”

On top of that, Brady wouldn’t fully cooperate with Wells’ people, whether he sat for an interview or not. They narrowed the scope of what they wanted to see of his text messages and emails and still Brady wouldn’t turn them over, even knowing how clear the league is on cooperating in matters like this.

Mark Leibovich wrote a long piece about Brady in the New York Times Magazine back in January, and wrote a column about that in the Times this week. In it he writes about talking to Brady on the phone after the news of DeflateGate broke:

“ ‘I’ve got so many things to focus on in the next 10 days (before the Super Bowl),’ (Brady) told me. ‘And this is not one of them.’

“As we now know, Brady was able to abandon that focus long enough in those days to spend nearly an hour over the course of six phone conversations talking to a Patriots employee who has since been closely tied to the then-spiraling scandal.”

 

[espnespn]

Beyond stupid.

Haha, what is beyond stupid is the irrational Salty Hatred. Yes, the Spygate investigation that cleared Brady was wrong.

 

[Run It Up]

This isn't a trial. They don't have to prove anything. Probability is high that TB called 2 guys 'he had never heard of' multiple times days after the story broke about them all cheating together to get their story straight.

Jesus Christ I wish one of you parrots would actually pick up the report and read the damn thing.

He said he didn't know Mcnally... not Jestrimski. After deflate gate blew up he texted Jestrimski... but only after Jestrimski texted him. Then they had a 20 min conversation over the phone, then talked at work the next day. The Wells report goes into no detail whatsoever what they said to have discussed in that call or later at work.

Either way, there's no proof Brady knew Mcnally on a personal level. This is clear to anyone who actually read the report. Anything Brady said to Mcnally was through Jestrimski.

 

[massraider]

This isn't a trial. They don't have to prove anything. Probability is high that TB called 2 guys 'he had never heard of' multiple times days after the story broke about them all cheating together to get their story straight.

Either way, there's no proof Brady knew Mcnally on a personal level. This is clear to anyone who actually read the report. Anything Brady said to Mcnally was through Jestrimski.

I find this easy to believe. Vito Corleone never spoke to the button man. I believe that responsibility would fall to Tessio or Clemenza.

 

[espnespn]

This isn't a trial. They don't have to prove anything. Probability is high that TB called 2 guys 'he had never heard of' multiple times days after the story broke about them all cheating together to get their story straight.

Either way, there's no proof Brady knew Mcnally on a personal level. This is clear to anyone who actually read the report. Anything Brady said to Mcnally was through Jestrimski.

I find this easy to believe. Vito Corleone never spoke to the button man. I believe that responsibility would fall to Tessio or Clemenza.

Don't confuse him with the facts from the report. Everything is a conspiracy theory, like in the movies!

 

[rjv]

I feel for the pats fans Brady broke the rules and they can't live with the fact their golden boy isn't so squeaky clean

 

[Donnybrook]

c) Yes, the old "pattern of cheating" argument. Belichick was punished for Spygate, but Brady was not involved there. So that's 1 prior instance of breaking the rules by Belichick, and 0 by Brady. Now the phone calls where there is no proof of what was discussed, are more proof of Brady's guilt? Brady's pattern of cheating, where he had 0 prior instances of breaking the rules?

So you think that Tom Brady was just naive and simply believed that his offensive coordinator had some sort of ESP. He was just an ignorant pawn in Belichick's game.

How did Malcolm Butler make that game-clinching SB interception? Are you saying that because he knew the exact play coming, that the Patriots must have cheated there too?

Film study. The same way Tracy Porter basically ran the route for Reggie Wayne and picked off Manning in the Super bowl.

It one thing to argue against Deflategate but it is quite another to deny Spygate (when your coach already admitted it). It makes you sound a little crazy.

 

[espnespn]

c) Yes, the old "pattern of cheating" argument. Belichick was punished for Spygate, but Brady was not involved there. So that's 1 prior instance of breaking the rules by Belichick, and 0 by Brady. Now the phone calls where there is no proof of what was discussed, are more proof of Brady's guilt? Brady's pattern of cheating, where he had 0 prior instances of breaking the rules?

So you think that Tom Brady was just naive and simply believed that his offensive coordinator had some sort of ESP. He was just an ignorant pawn in Belichick's game.

How did Malcolm Butler make that game-clinching SB interception? Are you saying that because he knew the exact play coming, that the Patriots must have cheated there too?

Film study. The same way Tracy Porter basically ran the route for Reggie Wayne and picked off Manning in the Super bowl.

It one thing to argue against Deflategate but it is quite another to deny Spygate (when your coach already admitted it). It makes you sound a little crazy.

I'm not denying Spygate, I'm saying that Belichick was punished for it, but there was no evidence of Brady being involved. There was no fine/suspension for Brady in Spygate.

But the crazy folks here are saying that Brady was also cheating in Spygate.

 

[Donnybrook]

c) Yes, the old "pattern of cheating" argument. Belichick was punished for Spygate, but Brady was not involved there. So that's 1 prior instance of breaking the rules by Belichick, and 0 by Brady. Now the phone calls where there is no proof of what was discussed, are more proof of Brady's guilt? Brady's pattern of cheating, where he had 0 prior instances of breaking the rules?

So you think that Tom Brady was just naive and simply believed that his offensive coordinator had some sort of ESP. He was just an ignorant pawn in Belichick's game.

How did Malcolm Butler make that game-clinching SB interception? Are you saying that because he knew the exact play coming, that the Patriots must have cheated there too?

Film study. The same way Tracy Porter basically ran the route for Reggie Wayne and picked off Manning in the Super bowl.

It one thing to argue against Deflategate but it is quite another to deny Spygate (when your coach already admitted it). It makes you sound a little crazy.

I'm not denying Spygate, I'm saying that Belichick was punished for it, but there was no evidence of Brady being involved. There was no fine/suspension for Brady in Spygate.

But the crazy folks here are saying that Brady was also cheating in Spygate.

So Belichick was stealing signals but not passing them on to Brady. Is that what you want me to believe?

 

[rjv]

c) Yes, the old "pattern of cheating" argument. Belichick was punished for Spygate, but Brady was not involved there. So that's 1 prior instance of breaking the rules by Belichick, and 0 by Brady. Now the phone calls where there is no proof of what was discussed, are more proof of Brady's guilt? Brady's pattern of cheating, where he had 0 prior instances of breaking the rules?

So you think that Tom Brady was just naive and simply believed that his offensive coordinator had some sort of ESP. He was just an ignorant pawn in Belichick's game.

How did Malcolm Butler make that game-clinching SB interception? Are you saying that because he knew the exact play coming, that the Patriots must have cheated there too?

Film study. The same way Tracy Porter basically ran the route for Reggie Wayne and picked off Manning in the Super bowl. It one thing to argue against Deflategate but it is quite another to deny Spygate (when your coach already admitted it). It makes you sound a little crazy.

I'm not denying Spygate, I'm saying that Belichick was punished for it, but there was no evidence of Brady being involved. There was no fine/suspension for Brady in Spygate.

But the crazy folks here are saying that Brady was also cheating in Spygate.

ever hear of GUILTY BY ASSOCIATION?

 

[Mario Kart]

Brady needs at least 8-games and a $500,000 fine.

 

[rjv]

If nothing but a slap on the wrist happens the 31 other teams need to impeach Goodell

 

[espnespn]

c) Yes, the old "pattern of cheating" argument. Belichick was punished for Spygate, but Brady was not involved there. So that's 1 prior instance of breaking the rules by Belichick, and 0 by Brady. Now the phone calls where there is no proof of what was discussed, are more proof of Brady's guilt? Brady's pattern of cheating, where he had 0 prior instances of breaking the rules?

So you think that Tom Brady was just naive and simply believed that his offensive coordinator had some sort of ESP. He was just an ignorant pawn in Belichick's game.

How did Malcolm Butler make that game-clinching SB interception? Are you saying that because he knew the exact play coming, that the Patriots must have cheated there too?

Film study. The same way Tracy Porter basically ran the route for Reggie Wayne and picked off Manning in the Super bowl.

It one thing to argue against Deflategate but it is quite another to deny Spygate (when your coach already admitted it). It makes you sound a little crazy.

I'm not denying Spygate, I'm saying that Belichick was punished for it, but there was no evidence of Brady being involved. There was no fine/suspension for Brady in Spygate.

But the crazy folks here are saying that Brady was also cheating in Spygate.

So Belichick was stealing signals but not passing them on to Brady. Is that what you want me to believe?

No, I'm saying that there's no way a player knows whether coaching instructions come from legal or illegal taping.

Malcolm Butler said he knew exactly what play was coming, and it appears to be coaching instructions from legal taping. How would he ever know whether coaching instructions came from illegal taping? Same thing with Brady.

 

[Run It Up]

Pressure gauge discrepancies undermine Well's report

 

[espnespn]

c) Yes, the old "pattern of cheating" argument. Belichick was punished for Spygate, but Brady was not involved there. So that's 1 prior instance of breaking the rules by Belichick, and 0 by Brady. Now the phone calls where there is no proof of what was discussed, are more proof of Brady's guilt? Brady's pattern of cheating, where he had 0 prior instances of breaking the rules?

So you think that Tom Brady was just naive and simply believed that his offensive coordinator had some sort of ESP. He was just an ignorant pawn in Belichick's game.

How did Malcolm Butler make that game-clinching SB interception? Are you saying that because he knew the exact play coming, that the Patriots must have cheated there too?

Film study. The same way Tracy Porter basically ran the route for Reggie Wayne and picked off Manning in the Super bowl. It one thing to argue against Deflategate but it is quite another to deny Spygate (when your coach already admitted it). It makes you sound a little crazy.

I'm not denying Spygate, I'm saying that Belichick was punished for it, but there was no evidence of Brady being involved. There was no fine/suspension for Brady in Spygate.

But the crazy folks here are saying that Brady was also cheating in Spygate.

ever hear of GUILTY BY ASSOCIATION?

Brady received no fine/suspension from the Spygate investigation. And there was no evidence of him cheating.

So you are just assuming things which have no evidence behind it.

 

[Donnybrook]

No, I'm saying that there's no way a player knows whether coaching instructions come from legal or illegal taping.

Malcolm Butler said he knew exactly what play was coming, and it appears to be coaching instructions from legal taping. How would he ever know whether coaching instructions came from illegal taping? Same thing with Brady.

Tom is not stupid. When the OC talks to him on his headset and says the defense is going to run a fire zone blitz we need to run this protection and play, I am pretty sure he knows where this information came from.

 

[moleculo]

Pressure gauge discrepancies undermine Well's report

Florio doesn't know what he's talking about. I went over this briefly a few hours ago, and in more detail a few days ago.

 

[Run It Up]

Pressure gauge discrepancies undermine Well's report

Florio doesn't know what he's talking about. I went over this briefly a few hours ago, and in more detail a few days ago.

The gauges are just one of many discrepancies, but if you don't mind reiterating here as I apparently missed your previous posts.

 

[espnespn]

No, I'm saying that there's no way a player knows whether coaching instructions come from legal or illegal taping.

Malcolm Butler said he knew exactly what play was coming, and it appears to be coaching instructions from legal taping. How would he ever know whether coaching instructions came from illegal taping? Same thing with Brady.

Tom is not stupid. When the OC talks to him on his headset and says the defense is going to run a fire zone blitz we need to run this protection and play, I am pretty sure he knows where this information came from.

How would Tom know whether his OC knew this from legal tape study or studying illegal tapes? Unless Tom personally saw a tape that was obviously illegal.

I guess my point is, the NFL investigated this and punished Belichick. No fines/suspension for Tom: the NFL clearly concluded there was no evidence of Tom cheating.

Maybe he did and the NFL didn't catch him. But that is all speculation, and claiming that Spygate is proof of Tom's prior cheating is making a big assumption.

 

[12punch]

No, I'm saying that there's no way a player knows whether coaching instructions come from legal or illegal taping.

Malcolm Butler said he knew exactly what play was coming, and it appears to be coaching instructions from legal taping. How would he ever know whether coaching instructions came from illegal taping? Same thing with Brady.

Tom is not stupid. When the OC talks to him on his headset and says the defense is going to run a fire zone blitz we need to run this protection and play, I am pretty sure he knows where this information came from.

and he knows exactly where that camera was taping from

you can't get one over on us