Patriots being investigated after Colts game (3 Viewers)

[BigSteelThrill]

Florio's article yesterday morning regarding the alleged McNally phone interview option for Wells was clarified by Wells later that afternoon: McNally was not made aware of the request for the second interview so McNally never made such an offer to Wells. Florio got it at least partially wrong, if not fully on that point.

So the TEAM refused? Oh snap! That's even worse.



got a link?

 

[Run It Up]

Florio's article yesterday morning regarding the alleged McNally phone interview option for Wells was clarified by Wells later that afternoon: McNally was not made aware of the request for the second interview so McNally never made such an offer to Wells. Florio got it at least partially wrong, if not fully on that point.

I listened to the conference call and didn't hear anything like this. The only time I even heard it mentioned was when Well's exclaimed that NE didn't make him available for a second interview.

No details, that was it.

 

[The General]

Florio's article yesterday morning regarding the alleged McNally phone interview option for Wells was clarified by Wells later that afternoon: McNally was not made aware of the request for the second interview so McNally never made such an offer to Wells. Florio got it at least partially wrong, if not fully on that point.

Shocking.

 

[Tango]

@BenVolin: Wells said he was willing to drive to New Hampshire to interview McNally. Not only did Pats decline they wouldnt tell McNally of the request

 

[The General]

correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Brady deny knowing who McNally was?

could we stop talking nonsense, plz?

a minute ago they had him cloistered away under a fake name in the himalayas until we find out about the phone thing

Are you ever right about anything?

From the report:

"During his interview, Brady denied any knowledge of or involvement in any efforts to deflate game balls after the pre-game inspection by the game officials. He claimed that prior to the events surrounding the AFC Championship Game, he did not know McNally‟s name or anything about McNally‟s game-day responsibilities, including whether McNally had any role relating to game balls or the game officials. We found these claims not plausible and contradicted by other evidence. In fact, during his interview, Jastremski acknowledged that Brady knew McNally and McNally‟s role as Officials Locker Room attendant. Similarly, 20 McNally told NFL Security that he had been personally told by Brady of Brady‟s inflation level preference."

bruschi says he didn't know mcnally's name either --- but that's part of the cover up

try using a little common sense, plz

I don't even know what you are talking about or what you are trying to say.

I have absolutely no doubt

I think it is because everything you say turns out to be incorrect.

 

[The General]

Florio's article yesterday morning regarding the alleged McNally phone interview option for Wells was clarified by Wells later that afternoon: McNally was not made aware of the request for the second interview so McNally never made such an offer to Wells. Florio got it at least partially wrong, if not fully on that point.

I listened to the conference call and didn't hear anything like this. The only time I even heard it mentioned was when Well's exclaimed that NE didn't make him available for a second interview.

No details, that was it.

You are basing all this on one article that quotes "a league source".

 

[Run It Up]

@BenVolin: Wells said he was willing to drive to New Hampshire to interview McNally. Not only did Pats decline they wouldnt tell McNally of the request

Just to be an ###.

Did the Pats decline to tell Mcnally of Wells request to drive to NH to interview him, after he refused to interview him over the phone?

You are basing all this on one article that quotes "a league source".

The first 100 days of deflategate was about leaked information from league sources - all slanted one way or another. I trust Ben Volin, his tweet Tango quoted closes the door on a lot of Florio's article if Wells is telling the truth. But its still possible what I said above in this post could have happened and still everyone could be telling the truth.

 

[netnalp]

correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Brady deny knowing who McNally was?

could we stop talking nonsense, plz?

a minute ago they had him cloistered away under a fake name in the himalayas until we find out about the phone thing

Are you ever right about anything?

From the report:

"During his interview, Brady denied any knowledge of or involvement in any efforts to deflate game balls after the pre-game inspection by the game officials. He claimed that prior to the events surrounding the AFC Championship Game, he did not know McNally‟s name or anything about McNally‟s game-day responsibilities, including whether McNally had any role relating to game balls or the game officials. We found these claims not plausible and contradicted by other evidence. In fact, during his interview, Jastremski acknowledged that Brady knew McNally and McNally‟s role as Officials Locker Room attendant. Similarly, 20 McNally told NFL Security that he had been personally told by Brady of Brady‟s inflation level preference."

bruschi says he didn't know mcnally's name either --- but that's part of the cover up

try using a little common sense, plz

I don't even know what you are talking about or what you are trying to say.

Bruschi said that it wasn't unusual to not know a person's actual name and only know them by their nickname. Did Wells ask Brady if he knew "The Deflator"?

 

[Tango]

@BenVolin: Wells said he was willing to drive to New Hampshire to interview McNally. Not only did Pats decline they wouldnt tell McNally of the request

Just to be an ###.Did the Pats decline to tell Mcnally of Wells request to drive to NH to interview him, after he refused to interview him over the phone?

You are basing all this on one article that quotes "a league source".

The first 100 days of deflategate was about leaked information from league sources - all slanted one way or another. I trust Ben Volin, his tweet Tango quoted closes the door on a lot of Florio's article if Wells is telling the truth. But its still possible what I said above in this post could have happened and still everyone could be telling the truth.

Wells was never given the phone option apparently. Florio appears to have gotten that part wrong-- given the Wells statement.

 

[beef]

wow, never knew brady caused so much butthurt to opposing fans.

 

[12punch]

Sprewell v. NBA: After Golden State’s Latrell Sprewell was suspended for choking coach P.J. Carlesimo, Kessler represented Sprewell and the NBA Players Association in arbitration and overturned the suspension and guaranteed contract termination.

• Bountygate appeal: Four players from the New Orleans Saints were suspended by the NFL for their roles in the Bountygate scandal, where players were rewarded for injuring opponents. Kessler helped get all four suspensions vacated.
• Adrian Peterson appeal: After Peterson’s role in abusing one of his children, the NFL handed the running back for the Minnesota Vikings an indefinite suspension, which Kessler was able to have vacated

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I have absolutely no doubt

I think it is because everything you say turns out to be incorrect.

?

™BigSteelThrill

 

[Bayhawks]

2-NE not allowing Wells a 2nd interview with Mcnulty (sp?). The "we didn't to take him away from work excuse doesn't fly," he's a grown man, let him make that decision. They didn't even tell him Wells asked for another interview. The idea that Mcnulty was "in on it," does not make sense either, because if he was "in on it," the NFL would find another way to get Mcnulty to say "Tom told me to do it!"

This isn't true. Mcnally told the NFL he would make himself available for an interview over the phone and Wells told him no.

According to the Wells report, it is. Do you have other information?

 

[Bayhawks]

2-NE not allowing Wells a 2nd interview with Mcnulty (sp?). The "we didn't to take him away from work excuse doesn't fly," he's a grown man, let him make that decision. They didn't even tell him Wells asked for another interview. The idea that Mcnulty was "in on it," does not make sense either, because if he was "in on it," the NFL would find another way to get Mcnulty to say "Tom told me to do it!"

This isn't true. Mcnally told the NFL he would make himself available for an interview over the phone and Wells told him no.

Hadn't seen this. Where is that from?

From the Wells report, page 24:

Counsel for the Patriots apparently refused even to inform McNally of our request.

 

[Bayhawks]

2-NE not allowing Wells a 2nd interview with Mcnulty (sp?). The "we didn't to take him away from work excuse doesn't fly," he's a grown man, let him make that decision. They didn't even tell him Wells asked for another interview. The idea that Mcnulty was "in on it," does not make sense either, because if he was "in on it," the NFL would find another way to get Mcnulty to say "Tom told me to do it!"

This isn't true. Mcnally told the NFL he would make himself available for an interview over the phone and Wells told him no.

Hadn't seen this. Where is that from?

Florio article:

Per a league source, McNally was willing to be questioned again by phone, but the NFL declined the offer. For a variety of reasons — including the fact that he’d been ambushed at his home by ESPN’s Kelly Naqi based on a perceived leak from her husband, a former league-office employee who now works for the Jaguars — McNally didn’t want to submit to yet another face-to-face interview.

I'm not willing to accept an "un-named source" as a more reliable source of information than the Wells report itself. Especially when that article is shaky, at best. It says McNalley was unwilling to do a face-to-face interview because he was "ambushed" at his home. If he was "ambushed" at his home (where he would presumable be doing a phone interview from), why wouldn't he want to be interviewed at Gillette, or some other site?

 

[Bayhawks]

Regarding 1, I don't for a minute believe that printing a bunch of texts out that said "hi dad, no, don't listen to this crap on tv, I'm innocent" would have swayed the investigation. It could only hurt his case if they found something that could be twisted to sound bad. Its a bogus offer that makes wells sounds magnanimous but can you imagine any scenario where brady prints out a text that convinces wells he's innocent?

Regarding 2, I agree that that's the million dollar question. we don't have any clear answer why that happened that way, but I can give several answers. it could be a bogus point on several levels. Maybe the pats were afraid of what he'd day, but they already allowed him to talk to Wells. Was it the revelation of the texts? Did he try to get paid, knowing he'd lose his job either way? Did wells tell them that the texts called him the delayed and they said #### off, this investigation is over? I have a hard time concocting a reason they'd allow weeps to talk to him once but not twice if they were worried about what he'd say and nothing had changed, so what do you think actually changed? I don't think we know the details right now but something obviously changed.

1-This isn't good enough for me. Refusing to provide any cooperation in this area looks worse than printing out what Wells asked for and having Wells doubt that it was 100% legit. Print something out and give it to Wells; at that point, if he doesn't believe you, that's on him. By not even doing that, Brady left no room to suggest he cooperated in this regard

2-While it COULD be a bogus point, I can't find any credible evidence to support that idea. What I know is that Wells asked for a 2nd interview, and NE refused, and didn't even let McNally know he wanted a 2nd interview. That looks like something is being hidden.

 

[Bayhawks]

Florio article:

Per a league source, McNally was willing to be questioned again by phone, but the NFL declined the offer. For a variety of reasons — including the fact that he’d been ambushed at his home by ESPN’s Kelly Naqi based on a perceived leak from her husband, a former league-office employee who now works for the Jaguars — McNally didn’t want to submit to yet another face-to-face interview.

So he refused.

After being denied an alternative that still would have provided them with what they wanted, yes.

For the sake of this post, let's assume that this actually happened (since there is no named source, I'm more inclined to accept the Wells report which says McNally wasn't told about the 2nd interview request).

So, making the temporary assumption that this did happen, in this case, when an individual (McNally) provides an alternative option that is refused, it looks bad for the person who refused the alternative request (Wells), but when Brady was provided an alternative option (with regards to the text records) and he refused the alternative request, that doesn't look bad for him?

That seems a bit hypocritical to me.

 

[Bayhawks]

2-NE not allowing Wells a 2nd interview with Mcnulty (sp?). The "we didn't to take him away from work excuse doesn't fly," he's a grown man, let him make that decision. They didn't even tell him Wells asked for another interview. The idea that Mcnulty was "in on it," does not make sense either, because if he was "in on it," the NFL would find another way to get Mcnulty to say "Tom told me to do it!"

This isn't true. Mcnally told the NFL he would make himself available for an interview over the phone and Wells told him no.

Hadn't seen this. Where is that from?

Florio article:

Per a league source, McNally was willing to be questioned again by phone, but the NFL declined the offer. For a variety of reasons — including the fact that he’d been ambushed at his home by ESPN’s Kelly Naqi based on a perceived leak from her husband, a former league-office employee who now works for the Jaguars — McNally didn’t want to submit to yet another face-to-face interview.

this is an even simpler answer

If only it could be trusted...Florio doesn't name a source. The "league source" could be Kraft himself.

As a Pats fan posted earlier in this thread (in the 170s, I think), a report based on an un-named source "has no legs." Of course that was in regards to a report that didn't look favorably on Brady/NE, so this report may, for some reason, be more reliable.

 

[Tango]

2-NE not allowing Wells a 2nd interview with Mcnulty (sp?). The "we didn't to take him away from work excuse doesn't fly," he's a grown man, let him make that decision. They didn't even tell him Wells asked for another interview. The idea that Mcnulty was "in on it," does not make sense either, because if he was "in on it," the NFL would find another way to get Mcnulty to say "Tom told me to do it!"

This isn't true. Mcnally told the NFL he would make himself available for an interview over the phone and Wells told him no.

Hadn't seen this. Where is that from?

Florio article:

Per a league source, McNally was willing to be questioned again by phone, but the NFL declined the offer. For a variety of reasons including the fact that hed been ambushed at his home by ESPNs Kelly Naqi based on a perceived leak from her husband, a former league-office employee who now works for the Jaguars McNally didnt want to submit to yet another face-to-face interview.

this is an even simpler answer

If only it could be trusted...Florio doesn't name a source. The "league source" could be Kraft himself.

Again...I mean this is posted just above:

Florio poster his article Tuesday morning and Wells spoke to the issue directly that same afternoon and said very plainly that Florio got It wrong on at least pieces of this point (if not all of it).

Until you hear from McNally or Kraft refuting Wells' spoken word on the issue (and I bet you never will), then Florio's assertion on this point is treated as bunk.

 

[Bayhawks]

2-NE not allowing Wells a 2nd interview with Mcnulty (sp?). The "we didn't to take him away from work excuse doesn't fly," he's a grown man, let him make that decision. They didn't even tell him Wells asked for another interview. The idea that Mcnulty was "in on it," does not make sense either, because if he was "in on it," the NFL would find another way to get Mcnulty to say "Tom told me to do it!"

This isn't true. Mcnally told the NFL he would make himself available for an interview over the phone and Wells told him no.

Hadn't seen this. Where is that from?

Florio article:

Per a league source, McNally was willing to be questioned again by phone, but the NFL declined the offer. For a variety of reasons including the fact that hed been ambushed at his home by ESPNs Kelly Naqi based on a perceived leak from her husband, a former league-office employee who now works for the Jaguars McNally didnt want to submit to yet another face-to-face interview.

this is an even simpler answer

If only it could be trusted...Florio doesn't name a source. The "league source" could be Kraft himself.

Again...I mean this is posted just above:

Florio poster his article Tuesday morning and Wells spoke to the issue directly that same afternoon and said very plainly that Florio got It wrong on at least pieces of this point (if not all of it).

Until you hear from McNally or Kraft refuting Wells' spoken word on the issue (and I bet you never will), then Florio's assertion on this point is treated as bunk.

But many (not all) of the Pat posters in this thread will ignore that. They are selectively picking/choosing what information is reliable and what is not and they are selectively picking/choosing what they will believe and what they won't. Conveniently, most of what they choose to believe and what is reliable tends to support their pre-conceived opinions.

There have been several legitimate points raised by some Pats posters (bostonfred, most recently) that have caused me to question some of what I've read (both in the Wells report, and elsewhere), but a few questions that don't seem to have legitimate answers remain causing me to doubt Brady/NE's "innocence." In addition, the overflow of ridiculous posts by other Pats fans buries them. The good legitimate points worth further consideration get lost amongst the "salty hater" and "shark pool be sharkin'" idiocy that they seem to think is intelligent conversation.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

Haven't the majority of Pats fan conceded that it is more probably than not that they manipulated the balls and Brady was aware? That is certainly my conclusion. I think the majority of Pats fan are pointing out problems with he Wells report. Now, does this story spiral out of proportion if Mort came out with a report that was accurate and said the Pats balls were under inflated as were 3 of the 4 balls of the Colts but the Pats were under by more and provide the

accurate figures?

There seems to be some Pats fans in denial on here but I would say they are a vocal minority.

 

[JIslander]

So who's this "renowned" legal team Brady has put together that will exonerate him according to FBG? This is all about his legacy now. Too bad the "Deflator" couldn't afford such counsel ...

 

[Bayhawks]

Haven't the majority of Pats fan conceded that it is more probably than not that they manipulated the balls and Brady was aware? That is certainly my conclusion. I think the majority of Pats fan are pointing out problems with he Wells report. Now, does this story spiral out of proportion if Mort came out with a report that was accurate and said the Pats balls were under inflated as were 3 of the 4 balls of the Colts but the Pats were under by more and provide the

accurate figures?

There seems to be some Pats fans in denial on here but I would say they are a vocal minority.

Perhaps better stated, but this is what I meant by this:

The good legitimate points worth further consideration get lost amongst the "salty hater" and "shark pool be sharkin'" idiocy that they seem to think is intelligent conversation.

in my previous post.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'm not a lawyer of course, but as a layman, I'm not sure what Brady's lawyers are supposed to accomplish here. I understand that the league is always on somewhat shaky ground when punishing players for off-the-field conduct (like Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson). But is there actually a judge anywhere outside the 617 area code that isn't going to defer to a sports league in how it punishes on-the-field cheating?

 

[matuski]

Spot on.

 

[Bayhawks]

Spot on.

If this is "spot on," how come there haven't been more of these types of situations with the Steelers, Cowboys, 49ers, Giants, or Packers? All those franchises have 4 or more SBs, like the Pats, yet we don't have these types of "envy," and "howling winds of jealousy" resulting in "stings" where everyone is out to get them.

Don't get me wrong, I know there are some people who hate NE and are happy to see them fall, but the fact is that NE has screwed up (at least twice) on a fairly significant level-that's not hate, envy, or jealousy, that is a fact.

 

[12punch]

In the spring of 2005, Georgia-Pacific Corp. found itself facing nearly $1 billion in liability from a product it hadn’t made in nearly three decades: a putty-like building material, known as joint compound, containing the cancer-causing mineral asbestos.

Named in more than 60,000 legal claims, Atlanta-based Georgia-Pacific sought salvation in a secret research program it launched in hopes of exonerating its product as a carcinogen, court records obtained by the Center for Public Integrity show. It hired consultants known for their defense work to conduct studies and publish the results, with input from the company’s legal department — and is attempting to keep key information hidden from plaintiffs.

In January 2006, Georgia-Pacific contracted with David Bernstein, an American-born toxicologist based in Switzerland, to oversee animal tests. It also hired the consulting firms Exponent and Environ to gauge the accuracy of decades-old studies, like those done by Mt. Sinai, showing high fiber counts associated with the sanding and sweeping of joint compound.

The consultants were known for their litigation defense work. Exponent and Environ — paid $3.3 million and $1.5 million, respectively, by Georgia-Pacific — specialized in exposure reconstruction in product-liability lawsuits. Exponent scientists, for example, had been retained by automakers in litigation with mesothelioma victims who claimed they’d gotten sick after being exposed to asbestos during brake work. The scientists’ position: grinding or otherwise tinkering with brakes couldn’t produce enough fiber-laden dust to cause disease.

Bernstein, who declined to comment for this article, had directed asbestos inhalation experiments on rats for Union Carbide and a Brazilian mining company. The tests, he reported, had shown that fibers found in chrysotile, the only type of asbestos sold in recent years, were cleared quickly by the rats’ lungs and therefore unlikely to cause cancer.

Bernstein, who had been a tobacco industry consultant before turning to asbestos, discussed his “biopersistence” theory in a 2007 trial

In field and chamber studies, Exponent and Environ researchers tried to determine if intense worker dust exposures reported in the 1970s had been overstated.

The implication: conditions for drywall workers in the 1970s may not have been as dire as the Mt. Sinai team indicated. An Exponent vice president, Angela Meyer, declined to comment on the firm’s work for Georgia-Pacific.

BUT WHAT DOES THE REPORT SAY??

 

[IvanKaramazov]

In 2002, a US Senate committee hired Exponent to conduct research related to the structural failure of the World Trade Center on 9/11. Exponent scientists concluded that the planes' jet fuel caused the structures' steel beams to fail. Unnoticed at the time was a young attorney who worked as a staffer for that Senate committee named Ted Wells.

 

[12punch]

In Merchants of Doubt Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway take us on a fascinating trip down what they call Tobacco Road. Take the journey with them, and you’ll see renowned scientists abandon science, you’ll see environmentalism equated with communism, and you’ll discover the connection between the Cold War and climate denial.

And for the most part, you’ll be entertained along the way.

Oreskes and Conway are historians who focus on science. What they do best is to sort through history’s discarded headlines and peak into the nooks and crannies of scientific literature to weave together their tale and to reveal the hypocrisy and hubris of a few scientists who show up again and again in contrarian positions against established science.

By the 1980s, the Manufactured Doubt industry gradually began to be dominated by more specialized “product defense” firms and free enterprise “think tanks”. Michaels wrote in Doubt is Their Product about the specialized “product defense” firms: “Having cut their teeth manufacturing uncertainty for Big Tobacco, scientists at ChemRisk, the Weinberg Group, Exponent, Inc., and other consulting firms now battle the regulatory agencies on behalf of the manufacturers of benzene, beryllium, chromium, MTBE, perchlorates, phthalates, and virtually every other toxic chemical in the news today….Public health interests are beside the point. This is science for hire, period, and it is extremely lucrative”.

BUT WHAT DOES THE REPORT SAY???

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I'm not a lawyer of course, but as a layman, I'm not sure what Brady's lawyers are supposed to accomplish here. I understand that the league is always on somewhat shaky ground when punishing players for off-the-field conduct (like Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson). But is there actually a judge anywhere outside the 617 area code that isn't going to defer to a sports league in how it punishes on-the-field cheating?

I think it's just posturing right now in order to get the suspension reduced (it will be). If Brady didn't want to turn over his texts and e-mails to the league, the last thing he wants to do is go to court - where he will be absolutely required to.

 

[12punch]

2-NE not allowing Wells a 2nd interview with Mcnulty (sp?). The "we didn't to take him away from work excuse doesn't fly," he's a grown man, let him make that decision. They didn't even tell him Wells asked for another interview. The idea that Mcnulty was "in on it," does not make sense either, because if he was "in on it," the NFL would find another way to get Mcnulty to say "Tom told me to do it!"

This isn't true. Mcnally told the NFL he would make himself available for an interview over the phone and Wells told him no.

Hadn't seen this. Where is that from?

From the Wells report, page 24:

Counsel for the Patriots apparently refused even to inform McNally of our request.

YEAH, IT SAYS IT RIGHT IN THE REPORT!!

We do not know
definitively
whether McNally was, in fact, informed of our request.

 

[12punch]

Haven't the majority of Pats fan conceded that it is more probably than not that they manipulated the balls and Brady was aware? That is certainly my conclusion. I think the majority of Pats fan are pointing out problems with he Wells report. Now, does this story spiral out of proportion if Mort came out with a report that was accurate and said the Pats balls were under inflated as were 3 of the 4 balls of the Colts but the Pats were under by more and provide the

accurate figures?

There seems to be some Pats fans in denial on here but I would say they are a vocal minority.

what study is this based on?

 

[12punch]

I'm not a lawyer of course, but as a layman, I'm not sure what Brady's lawyers are supposed to accomplish here. I understand that the league is always on somewhat shaky ground when punishing players for off-the-field conduct (like Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson). But is there actually a judge anywhere outside the 617 area code that isn't going to defer to a sports league in how it punishes on-the-field cheating?

if only there was a thread somewhere on this board where that info could be found

if you find out start a thread about it

 

[sho nuff]

Spot on.

How so?

WHy would I be envious or jealous of Pats and Pats fans?

 

[12punch]

pretty much sums it up

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Spot on.

How so?

WHy would I be envious or jealous of Pats and Pats fans?

You wouldn't. They have little else to state without their fragility on the subject being all too apparent.

Again, you can go to the Patriot* forums and see it all plain as day. They are really hurting.

 

[JohnnyU]

So who's this "renowned" legal team Brady has put together that will exonerate him according to FBG? This is all about his legacy now. Too bad the "Deflator" couldn't afford such counsel ...

I hear that Robert Kardashian and Johnnie Cochran will make time from their busy day to help out.

 

[Run It Up]

pretty much sums it up

Munn used to do some really degrading stuff on g4. It only made her hotter.

 

[Donnybrook]

Andrew Siciliano ‏@AndrewSiciliano Few things invalidate an argument like the use of the word "hater". It usually means you have no argument.

/thread

 

[12punch]

yeah, things looking grim for the pats

hey, you scavengers remember this?

The Ravens, their recent playoff nemesis, threw everything they had at New England, but the Patriots took it, counter-punched and found a way to win anyway, becoming the first team in NFL playoff history to advance by overcoming two different 14 point deficits -- one in each half.

how about this, trolls?

GLENDALE, ARIZ. — When Tom Brady and the Patriots broke the huddle with 12:10 remaining in the fourth quarter of Super Bowl XLIX, they were in a position that no team wants to be in.

New England trailed the Seahawks by 10 points, 24-14, and was basically without a running game, rushing four times for four yards in the second half to that point. So the Patriots were going to have to throw the ball the length of the field against one of the most vaunted defenses in the annals of the NFL. Seattle finished the regular season with the league’s best defense in points, total yards and passing yards allowed.

“Against any team, that’s a hard order,” said Patriots veteran running backs coach Ivan Fears. “Against that defense? They’re good. There’s no doubt about it.”

And this was a Seahawks defense that, given a lead, always finishes the job. According to Pro Football Reference, Seattle had not lost a game it led in the fourth quarter by 10 points or more since 2004, when the Seahawks led the Rams 27-10 with 8:47 left and lost 33-27 in overtime. Seattle had a double-digit fourth-quarter lead 49 times since then. Sunday night was the 50th.

And of the 29 teams that held a 10-point second-half lead in the Super Bowl, none of them had ever lost.

This time, however, the Seahawks had to stop Brady. He already shared the record for most postseason comebacks (five, with Joe Montana) and owned the record for postseason game-winning drives (eight). On Sunday, the 37-year old, was more than up to the challenge.

In a fourth quarter for the ages, Brady completed 13 of 15 passes for 124 yards and two touchdowns. After his final throw of the night, a three-yard touchdown pass to Julian Edelman with 2:06 remaining, Brady’s passer rating for the quarter was 140.7.

how about this?

live for today, salty haters, for tomorrow is not promised

 

[Bayhawks]

2-NE not allowing Wells a 2nd interview with Mcnulty (sp?). The "we didn't to take him away from work excuse doesn't fly," he's a grown man, let him make that decision. They didn't even tell him Wells asked for another interview. The idea that Mcnulty was "in on it," does not make sense either, because if he was "in on it," the NFL would find another way to get Mcnulty to say "Tom told me to do it!"

This isn't true. Mcnally told the NFL he would make himself available for an interview over the phone and Wells told him no.

Hadn't seen this. Where is that from?

From the Wells report, page 24:

Counsel for the Patriots apparently refused even to inform McNally of our request.

YEAH, IT SAYS IT RIGHT IN THE REPORT!!

We do not know
definitively
whether McNally was, in fact, informed of our request.

So the line right before that one says NE "communicated an unwillingness even to advise McNally of our request for a follow-up interview." And then says "we do not know definitively whether McNally was, in fact, informed of our request," and you take that as some sort of confirmation that he WAS told?

So it goes like this:

NE-"we don't want to call McNally back for another interview."

McNally never does a 2nd interview.

If you put the 1st statement with the 2nd statement, a logical assumption would be that NE didn't tell McNally about the 2nd interview request. Yet you want us to conclude that despite NE saying they didn't want McNally to do another interview, and him not doing another interview, that they DID tell him. While that's possible, it's not as likely as the fact that they didn't tell him.

This is the kind of nonsensical argument that weakens your (Pats fans) position. If you present facts, and rely on facts, rather than trying to make very loose connections, your argument is stronger. When you make these kind of flimsy defenses/explanations, it makes the strong arguments look weaker.

 

[The General]

Spot on.

SPOTTER ON

 

[Bayhawks]

yeah, things looking grim for the pats

hey, you scavengers remember this?

The Ravens, their recent playoff nemesis, threw everything they had at New England, but the Patriots took it, counter-punched and found a way to win anyway, becoming the first team in NFL playoff history to advance by overcoming two different 14 point deficits -- one in each half.

how about this, trolls?

GLENDALE, ARIZ. — When Tom Brady and the Patriots broke the huddle with 12:10 remaining in the fourth quarter of Super Bowl XLIX, they were in a position that no team wants to be in.

New England trailed the Seahawks by 10 points, 24-14, and was basically without a running game, rushing four times for four yards in the second half to that point. So the Patriots were going to have to throw the ball the length of the field against one of the most vaunted defenses in the annals of the NFL. Seattle finished the regular season with the league’s best defense in points, total yards and passing yards allowed.

“Against any team, that’s a hard order,” said Patriots veteran running backs coach Ivan Fears. “Against that defense? They’re good. There’s no doubt about it.”

And this was a Seahawks defense that, given a lead, always finishes the job. According to Pro Football Reference, Seattle had not lost a game it led in the fourth quarter by 10 points or more since 2004, when the Seahawks led the Rams 27-10 with 8:47 left and lost 33-27 in overtime. Seattle had a double-digit fourth-quarter lead 49 times since then. Sunday night was the 50th.

And of the 29 teams that held a 10-point second-half lead in the Super Bowl, none of them had ever lost.

This time, however, the Seahawks had to stop Brady. He already shared the record for most postseason comebacks (five, with Joe Montana) and owned the record for postseason game-winning drives (eight). On Sunday, the 37-year old, was more than up to the challenge.

In a fourth quarter for the ages, Brady completed 13 of 15 passes for 124 yards and two touchdowns. After his final throw of the night, a three-yard touchdown pass to Julian Edelman with 2:06 remaining, Brady’s passer rating for the quarter was 140.7.

how about this?

live for today, salty haters, for tomorrow is not promised

What, exactly, does this have to do with this thread?

Tom Brady is a great QB, perhaps the GOAT. That's (IMO) not up for debate. But that's not really the point of this thread.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

yeah, things looking grim for the pats

how about this?

live for today, salty haters, for tomorrow is not promised

What, exactly, does this have to do with this thread?

Tom Brady is a great QB, perhaps the GOAT. That's (IMO) not up for debate. But that's not really the point of this thread.

You do realize you are speaking with a 15 year-old girl about her heartthrob, yes?

 

[12punch]

This is the kind of nonsensical argument that weakens your (Pats fans) position. If you present facts, and rely on facts, rather than trying to make very loose connections, your argument is stronger. When you make these kind of flimsy defenses/explanations, it makes the strong arguments look weaker.

I'd make this my sig but I already got a good one

 

[Old Smiley]

2-NE not allowing Wells a 2nd interview with Mcnulty (sp?). The "we didn't to take him away from work excuse doesn't fly," he's a grown man, let him make that decision. They didn't even tell him Wells asked for another interview. The idea that Mcnulty was "in on it," does not make sense either, because if he was "in on it," the NFL would find another way to get Mcnulty to say "Tom told me to do it!"

This isn't true. Mcnally told the NFL he would make himself available for an interview over the phone and Wells told him no.

Hadn't seen this. Where is that from?

From the Wells report, page 24:

Counsel for the Patriots apparently refused even to inform McNally of our request.

YEAH, IT SAYS IT RIGHT IN THE REPORT!!

We do not know
definitively
whether McNally was, in fact, informed of our request.

So the line right before that one says NE "communicated an unwillingness even to advise McNally of our request for a follow-up interview." And then says "we do not know definitively whether McNally was, in fact, informed of our request," and you take that as some sort of confirmation that he WAS told?

So it goes like this:

NE-"we don't want to call McNally back for another interview."

McNally never does a 2nd interview.

If you put the 1st statement with the 2nd statement, a logical assumption would be that NE didn't tell McNally about the 2nd interview request. Yet you want us to conclude that despite NE saying they didn't want McNally to do another interview, and him not doing another interview, that they DID tell him. While that's possible, it's not as likely as the fact that they didn't tell him.

This is the kind of nonsensical argument that weakens your (Pats fans) position. If you present facts, and rely on facts, rather than trying to make very loose connections, your argument is stronger. When you make these kind of flimsy defenses/explanations, it makes the strong arguments look weaker.

Wasn't it the fifth interview that was refused?

(checks) Yup

I was offended by the comments made in the Wells Report in reference to not making an individual available for a follow-up interview. What the report fails to mention is that he had already been interviewed four times and we felt the fifth request for access was excessive for a part-time game day employee who has a full-time job with another employer.

 

[The General]

2-NE not allowing Wells a 2nd interview with Mcnulty (sp?). The "we didn't to take him away from work excuse doesn't fly," he's a grown man, let him make that decision. They didn't even tell him Wells asked for another interview. The idea that Mcnulty was "in on it," does not make sense either, because if he was "in on it," the NFL would find another way to get Mcnulty to say "Tom told me to do it!"

This isn't true. Mcnally told the NFL he would make himself available for an interview over the phone and Wells told him no.

Hadn't seen this. Where is that from?

From the Wells report, page 24:

Counsel for the Patriots apparently refused even to inform McNally of our request.

YEAH, IT SAYS IT RIGHT IN THE REPORT!!

We do not know
definitively
whether McNally was, in fact, informed of our request.

So the line right before that one says NE "communicated an unwillingness even to advise McNally of our request for a follow-up interview." And then says "we do not know definitively whether McNally was, in fact, informed of our request," and you take that as some sort of confirmation that he WAS told?

So it goes like this:

NE-"we don't want to call McNally back for another interview."

McNally never does a 2nd interview.

If you put the 1st statement with the 2nd statement, a logical assumption would be that NE didn't tell McNally about the 2nd interview request. Yet you want us to conclude that despite NE saying they didn't want McNally to do another interview, and him not doing another interview, that they DID tell him. While that's possible, it's not as likely as the fact that they didn't tell him.

This is the kind of nonsensical argument that weakens your (Pats fans) position. If you present facts, and rely on facts, rather than trying to make very loose connections, your argument is stronger. When you make these kind of flimsy defenses/explanations, it makes the strong arguments look weaker.

Wasn't it the fifth interview that was refused?

(checks) Yup

I was offended by the comments made in the Wells Report in reference to not making an individual available for a follow-up interview. What the report fails to mention is that he had already been interviewed four times and we felt the fifth request for access was excessive for a part-time game day employee who has a full-time job with another employer.

He was interviewed by NFL security 3 times. Only once by the Wells guy. He had follow up questions after collecting info and Pats said no.

 

[massraider]

Why were the Patriots balls much more deflated than the Colts balls?

Cause they started much lower and then the atmospheric conditions in conjuction with a different gauge recorded an even lower number.

Why would Tom call the ball boys for an hour when the story broke nation-wide?

Tom called Jestremski after Jestremski texted him, after deflategate blew up.

How would the Colts have known to alert the league office of this situation before the game was played?

Because it was coordinated? Why were the Colts the only team to bring this up? Why did the NFL disregard it?

What does the NFL gain by exposing their winningest team of cheating?

An attempt at parity and appeasement.

Solid work here.

 

[sho nuff]

Someone who has posted about 600 times in this thread should really rethink calling others salty or trolls.

 

[Bayhawks]

2-NE not allowing Wells a 2nd interview with Mcnulty (sp?). The "we didn't to take him away from work excuse doesn't fly," he's a grown man, let him make that decision. They didn't even tell him Wells asked for another interview. The idea that Mcnulty was "in on it," does not make sense either, because if he was "in on it," the NFL would find another way to get Mcnulty to say "Tom told me to do it!"

This isn't true. Mcnally told the NFL he would make himself available for an interview over the phone and Wells told him no.

Hadn't seen this. Where is that from?

From the Wells report, page 24:

Counsel for the Patriots apparently refused even to inform McNally of our request.

YEAH, IT SAYS IT RIGHT IN THE REPORT!!

We do not know
definitively
whether McNally was, in fact, informed of our request.

So the line right before that one says NE "communicated an unwillingness even to advise McNally of our request for a follow-up interview." And then says "we do not know definitively whether McNally was, in fact, informed of our request," and you take that as some sort of confirmation that he WAS told?

So it goes like this:

NE-"we don't want to call McNally back for another interview."

McNally never does a 2nd interview.

If you put the 1st statement with the 2nd statement, a logical assumption would be that NE didn't tell McNally about the 2nd interview request. Yet you want us to conclude that despite NE saying they didn't want McNally to do another interview, and him not doing another interview, that they DID tell him. While that's possible, it's not as likely as the fact that they didn't tell him.

This is the kind of nonsensical argument that weakens your (Pats fans) position. If you present facts, and rely on facts, rather than trying to make very loose connections, your argument is stronger. When you make these kind of flimsy defenses/explanations, it makes the strong arguments look weaker.

Wasn't it the fifth interview that was refused?

(checks) Yup

I was offended by the comments made in the Wells Report in reference to not making an individual available for a follow-up interview. What the report fails to mention is that he had already been interviewed four times and we felt the fifth request for access was excessive for a part-time game day employee who has a full-time job with another employer.

This has already been established in this thread, multiple times: McNally had ONE interview with Wells. The earlier interviews were with the NFL, not Wells.

When the Raiders interview an african-american for their HC postition, does that satisfy the Rooney rule for other teams?

An interview with the NFL doesn't count as an interview by Wells, despite people trying to spin it otherwise.