#DFG: Canceling the Noise

Is there any level of suspension that you would advise Tom to accept?


  • Total voters
    208

In Vino Vinatieri

New Member
Nov 20, 2009
145
LuckyBen said:
 
I think you're confusing Jastremski with McNally. And obviously there was something going on if he was accused of deflating footballs, no way that is a 30 minute call, nevermind 10.
I just wanted to clear some of this stuff up because it's something that was used in the media, relying on people not having the facts, to implicate Brady's guilt. Brady knew and talked to Jastrzemski often in the locker room. Jastrzemski also had Brady's phone number, but they had not spoken on the phone since the previous summer sometime.
 
Brady knew McNally as "Burt" (instead of his real nickname "bird"), and must have seen him around the locker room, but their actual personal interactions are unclear. Brady not knowing his actual name, or correctly knowing his nickname, make it seem like it was limited at best.
 
The phone calls have served as the basis for a lot of people believing something shady was going on, and it's often reported that Brady was the one doing the calling or that Brady spoke to McNally the next day after never having talked to him on the phone. These are both untrue or misleading -- Brady only talked to Jastrzemski on the phone, and while Brady did call him, it was only after he missed (or ignored) 2 or 3 phone calls from Jastrzemski and then called him back. Brady never spoke to McNally on the phone, but it has been implied that Brady called McNally and spoke for 30 minutes and therefore they're guilty. Never happened!
 
The media being lazy and playing tricks like this has really gotten to me with this whole investigation. Because nobody knows who McNally and Jastrzemski are, they are often reported nameless or their identities conflated, such as by making it sound like Brady called McNally or that Brady had never talked to Jastrzemski before. It's just patently false, but nobody cares enough to correct it.
 
As for the duration of the phone calls, who cares? 30 minutes is not that long. There's been something like 6,000 Moby Dicks worth of posts written about this whole thing here, I can easily imagine Jastrzemski relating a Kensil interrogation (including all of the incredulous repetitions of "what? really? so he thinks you...") taking 10 or 20 minutes.
 

drbretto

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 10, 2009
12,219
Concord, NH
MuppetAsteriskTalk said:
 
The problem is, I think Goodell knew a long time ago that no wrongdoing actually took place. Yet, here we are.
 
I don't think he did. I really don't. Everything that has happened so far is consistent with what I would expect would happen if Goodell genuinely, truly believed in his guilt. I figure he didn't bother looking too critically at the Wells report mainly because to him, it didn't matter. He was guilty, he just needed something on paper to hang him with. 
 
IF they really did convince him that nothing happened today, anything can happen at this point. I don't see any reason he couldn't eliminate all of the associated penalties, make a quick press conference only covering what he needs to cover to explain it, finish up by saying that this thing has gone on long enough, no more questions and this whole thing goes away in a couple days.
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
7,603
Maine
Average Reds said:
 
Public opinion is not being turned around.
 
I was at a dinner last night and this subject came up.  To a man, the four others I was with said that any reduction in Brady's punishment was due to Goodell showing favoritism to the Pats.  When I brought up the fact that the AEI story effectively debunks the idea that any deflation occurred, I was hit with a round of comments/questions like "so why wasn't there any deflation in the balls used by the Colts?"  The conversation was unproductive from there.
 
The point is that the vast majority of casual fans aren't paying attention and in their minds Brady has already been branded a proven cheater.  The only opinions that are beginning to turn is the handful of reporters who are paying attention.
Sheeple will come around when the almighty media begins to question it and provide a balanced accounting.
 

MuppetAsteriskTalk

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2015
5,460
drbretto said:
 
I don't think he did. I really don't. Everything that has happened so far is consistent with what I would expect would happen if Goodell genuinely, truly believed in his guilt. I figure he didn't bother looking too critically at the Wells report mainly because to him, it didn't matter. He was guilty, he just needed something on paper to hang him with. 
 
IF they really did convince him that nothing happened today, anything can happen at this point. I don't see any reason he couldn't eliminate all of the associated penalties, make a quick press conference only covering what he needs to cover to explain it, finish up by saying that this thing has gone on long enough, no more questions and this whole thing goes away in a couple days.
 
 
Impossible.
 
If he vacates everything and says he's convinced nothing happened, he needs to fire half the front office.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,646
MarcSullivaFan said:
I mean, I'll take it if it helps the Pats or Brady, but it's a really dumb concept. We don't need an NFL science project to establish that footballs are not exempt from the ideal gas law. Jesus Christ.
 
 
No, but it could still be worthwhile if the NFL wanted data from actual games to inform altering the rule (e.g., allowable range is now 11.5-15.0 PSI), or changing football handling procedures (e.g., all footballs kept on sideline ready rack throughout game with inserted gauges reading 13.5 PSI), or leaving everything as is.
 
 
 
 
MuppetAsteriskTalk said:
 
 
Impossible.
 
If he vacates everything and says he's convinced nothing happened, he needs to fire half the front office.
 
Well, the Commish is on record that many of them are overpaid.
 

drbretto

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 10, 2009
12,219
Concord, NH
MuppetAsteriskTalk said:
 
 
Impossible.
 
If he vacates everything and says he's convinced nothing happened, he needs to fire half the front office.
 
No he doesn't. 98% of the freakin planet got confused by it, too. All he has to say is they were fooled like everyone else and they really thought they were guilty, but after all this, he sees now where that problem was. Whoopsy-daisy, no more questions. And it'll just fade away. Pats fans wont care anymore, we'll have everything we wanted. A few reporters will question some details here and there for a bit but no one will care enough to keep it going. 
 

MuppetAsteriskTalk

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2015
5,460
Something I've been meaning to ask, and not sure if it's been covered in the locked thread.
 
The Pats balls were re-inflated to 13.0 PSI at halftime, and ended up over-inflated after the game. The Colts balls were still under-inflated after the game.
 
Isn't that further proof of 2 things:
 
1) The Pats balls were measured 1st and had not yet fully adjusted to temps in the locker room
2) The Colts balls had more completely adjusted by the time they were measured at the half and after the game
 
 
I'm assuming that when they pumped the balls up to 13.0 PSI almost all of the air in the ball was still colder than the locker room temps. Hence once they fully adjusted to the locker room after the game they all measured above 13. (Could also be somewhat related to wetness of the Pats balls.)
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,912
where I was last at
I think the only thing remotely close to a win/win for Goodell is for him to vacate the suspension on the grounds Brady didn't do anything illegal regarding deflating the footballs.
 
It would mean a RG mea culpa about his initial acceptance of the science in the Wells Report, and admitting Exponent produced some poor science, and now that he has a more complete understanding of the science of footballs, a more reasoned conclusion can be reached.
 
Further he says Brady came off to him as cooperative and forth-coming in his appeal testimony.
 
However as Wells thought initially Brady could have been more cooperative and a modest fine for that initial non-cooperation is warranted.
 
Brady gets his exoneration, nbut writes a small check.
 
Goodell also says there are questions and concerns about a lack of institutional control that the Pats had over the ball guys so those penalties remain in place.
 
Ball-guys=fall guys.
 
TB12 then has a full blown sit-down orchestrated interview on ESPN right before the season, and he is charming and forthcoming and fiery. ESPN then washes Tom's balls.
 
The season goes on without the stain that the SB champs cheated, TB gets his reputation back, Goodell keeps his power and looks Solomonic, everyone avoids court, even the lawyers.
 
Pats take a hit
Wells'Exponent takes a hit.
 
wet dream
 
How do we really know that Brady actually made a strong case yesterday? Because Schefter talked to one person in the room who confirmed that? Half the people there were on Brady's team...what if it was Yee who spoke to Schafter. What would you expect him to say?

Not trying to sound neagtive, just realistic. I'm hoping for the best but expecting the worst.
 

GregHarris

beware my sexy helmet/overall ensemble
SoSH Member
Jun 5, 2008
3,460
http://thebiglead.com/2015/05/21/chris-russo-peter-king-tom-brady/
 
Not sure if this was posted yet but the Coffeenerd comes off well here.  Russo comes off as a d-bag.
 
 
Edit:  As for me, I am hopeful but realistic.  The Wells Report is crap but that was enough to levy a huge penalty against Brady and the Team (which even the Wells report didn't go as far as blaming the club).  Brady could have brought in videos of McNally dropping a deuce in that bathroom and I don't think it matters.  I have no confidence in Goodell or the NFL as an entity to do the right thing.
 

MuppetAsteriskTalk

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2015
5,460
drbretto said:
 
No he doesn't. 98% of the freakin planet got confused by it, too. All he has to say is they were fooled like everyone else and they really thought they were guilty, but after all this, he sees now where that problem was. Whoopsy-daisy, no more questions. And it'll just fade away. Pats fans wont care anymore, we'll have everything we wanted. A few reporters will question some details here and there for a bit but no one will care enough to keep it going. 
 
Ok, so why did they let the incorrect Mort numbers hang out there for months and essentially force the Patriots to try and prove the impossible?
 
Why did they leak that McNally introduced an unapproved ball into the game, when it was handed to him by an official?
 
What about the blatant lying by both Goodell and Wells that the front office was cleared of wrongdoing when Wells never looked into that aspect?
 
The entire thing stinks, and there is no way Goodell didn't know that before yesterday: If he tries to wash it away now he is going to have a million questions to answer. 
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
We don't know the source, but Schefter is the League's #1 mouthpiece, esp after the NFL left in tatters any credibility that Mort once had.
 
It is not in the League's interest to allow this "strong case" characterization to linger if it's going to rubber stamp 4 games.  I predicted no reduction, but if that is the way it comes out, it will now be surprising  and RG will look like an a-hole.
 
More simply put, if Schefter came out with this and the NFL viewed the situation differently, somebody would probably be out with a "not-so-fast" statement.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
38,295
Hingham, MA
MuppetAsteriskTalk said:
 
Ok, so why did they let the incorrect Mort numbers hang out there for months and essentially force the Patriots to try and prove the impossible?
 
Why did they leak that McNally introduced an unapproved ball into the game, when it was handed to him by an official?
 
What about the blatant lying by both Goodell and Wells that the front office was cleared of wrongdoing when Wells never looked into that aspect?
 
The entire thing stinks, and there is no way Goodell didn't know that before yesterday: If he tries to wash it away now he is going to have a million questions to answer. 
Eh, he will just go into hiding like he always does. He doesn't have to answer to anyone but the owners. Every NFL fan already hates him regardless of what he decides with Brady
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,485
Southwestern CT
drbretto said:
 
No he doesn't. 98% of the freakin planet got confused by it, too. All he has to say is they were fooled like everyone else and they really thought they were guilty, but after all this, he sees now where that problem was. Whoopsy-daisy, no more questions. And it'll just fade away. Pats fans wont care anymore, we'll have everything we wanted. A few reporters will question some details here and there for a bit but no one will care enough to keep it going. 
 
The vast majority of the other owners believe that the Pats are guilty.  Do you think they will "fade away?"  Hell, they'll call for Goodell's head.
 
It's simply not happening.
 

Section15Box113

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2005
8,925
Inside Lou Gorman's Head
( . ) ( . ) and (_!_) said:
I feel cautiously optimistic from all the noise out there from Sal Pal, other ESPNers, Florio, etc...  Things seem to have gone Brady's way.  However, every single time I have felt the tiniest bit of optimism about anything in this entire saga the exact opposite has happened.  Every time I feel good about this, something so stupid and illogical happens that I want to build myself a rocket ship and blast off of this rock full of idiots and try to find a new sane place to live.  So basically my positive feelings are now making me terrified.  The NFL is a fucked up place.
Completely agree. Before it was released, I was 100% certain that the Wells Report would read like the AEI Report.

There are several shoes yet to drop here and I'm convinced we are headed to court.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
44,936
Here
BannedbyNYYFans.com said:
How do we really know that Brady actually made a strong case yesterday? Because Schefter talked to one person in the room who confirmed that? Half the people there were on Brady's team...what if it was Yee who spoke to Schafter. What would you expect him to say?

Not trying to sound neagtive, just realistic. I'm hoping for the best but expecting the worst.
Schefter is quoting sources, plural. Sal Pal also hinted that both sides acknowledged issues with the Wells Report by saying "now everyone sees there are serious issues with the report."

Also, there are no leaks from the NFL's side, which is pretty strong evidence in and of itself. They've never been shy to leak pro-league, regardless of improprieties.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
64,295
Rotten Apple
RedOctober3829 said:
Surprisingly to me, there are not many leaks yet on what actually went on in the proceedings yesterday.  Does anyone think that the confidentiality agreement will actually be enforced going forward?
Well, as we've seen with this story, only Cheatriots-type info has leaked so maybe it went well for Tom yesterday.  ;)
 

drbretto

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 10, 2009
12,219
Concord, NH
MuppetAsteriskTalk said:
 
Ok, so why did they let the incorrect Mort numbers hang out there for months and essentially force the Patriots to try and prove the impossible?
 
Why did they leak that McNally introduced an unapproved ball into the game, when it was handed to him by an official?
 
What about the blatant lying by both Goodell and Wells that the front office was cleared of wrongdoing when Wells never looked into that aspect?
 
The entire thing stinks, and there is no way Goodell didn't know that before yesterday: If he tries to wash it away now he is going to have a million questions to answer. 
 
The entire thing does stink, but people only ask questions when they care enough to ask. Make no mistake, this thing doesn't get blown up if it's not  Brady. But none of the truth comes to light without him either. Take Brady (and the Pats) out of the equation and not enough people give a shit. It just goes away, with all of those questions unanswered. 
 

drbretto

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 10, 2009
12,219
Concord, NH
Average Reds said:
 
The vast majority of the other owners believe that the Pats are guilty.  Do you think they will "fade away?"  Hell, they'll call for Goodell's head.
 
It's simply not happening.
 
You think they would all turn on him because he realized that no crime was committed? If Goodell publicly states that he now believes no crime was committed, the narrative shifts. I don't think the other owners care enough at this point to question that. Even if a few of them did, they will be free to read the AEI report themselves. 
 
Edit: Clarifying here that I'm in no way saying that this WILL happen, just taking exception to those who feel like it's not possible or not wise of him do it. He absolutely could do it, and the only reason I doubt that he actually WILL is because to this point, he's had a million opportunities to make this all go away and hasn't. The only glimmer of hope is that I do feel there is a chance that prior to yesterday, he believed in genuine guilt and maybe, possibly, now could have been convinced otherwise, which is a huge variable.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,646
LuckyBen said:
The man is alive!!
 
Mort could have made that statement the day after the punishment was handed down. Was the statement informed by anything that happened yesterday?
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
drbretto said:
 
That's not win-win. Why does everyone think it's OK to let McNally and JJ be the fall guys if nothing happened? Why is it OK to penalize a team for a crime that didn't occur just because Brady gets to play football? Those are still two huge draft picks.
It wouldn't be a win-win for the Patriots. But this appeal isn't a Patriots appeal, it's a Tom Brady appeal, and Kessler represents Brady, not the Patriots.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,799
MuppetAsteriskTalk said:
 
Ok, so why did they let the incorrect Mort numbers hang out there for months and essentially force the Patriots to try and prove the impossible?
 
Why did they leak that McNally introduced an unapproved ball into the game, when it was handed to him by an official?
 
What about the blatant lying by both Goodell and Wells that the front office was cleared of wrongdoing when Wells never looked into that aspect?
 
The entire thing stinks, and there is no way Goodell didn't know that before yesterday: If he tries to wash it away now he is going to have a million questions to answer. 
 
He got no questions when he did what he's already done despite its many shortcomings.  Why do you think he'll get any more questions if he does something else?   The only thing that will happen is that Skip Ballless and not-Skip Balless will switch sides of the table and argue with Mark Schlereth. And ESPN wil be happy.  And then a picture of Johnny Manziell's dick will appear on a piece of toast outside Lubbock, and then *that's* what they'll talk about.
 
Goodell can't possibly have a million questions to answer if he doesn't answer any of them. He answers to the owners. In private.
 

drbretto

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 10, 2009
12,219
Concord, NH
ivanvamp said:
It wouldn't be a win-win for the Patriots. But this appeal isn't a Patriots appeal, it's a Tom Brady appeal, and Kessler represents Brady, not the Patriots.
 
That's still not a win. I don't know Brady personally or nothin, but there has been no part of anything that I have ever witnessed, heard or read about that suggests Brady would be cool with letting some random ballboys take the fall for him. And that still maintains the narrative that Brady cheated, just unknowingly. 
 
That's not a win-win. That's both sides just giving up. 
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
38,295
Hingham, MA
Yeah I don't get why Goodell would have to answer "a million questions". As joe dokes just said, he answers to the owners, in private. And why would the owners give a flying fuck if he reverse the suspension and/or the penalties?
 
Edit: the only thing the owners care about is the health of the league and the $$$ in their pockets. Losing in court to the NFLPA could have real ramifications from a CBA perspective. Overturning the suspension and penalties has no bearing on the owners. I think they would much prefer that outcome, at least in a rational world. But clearly this isn't a rational world.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,738
Average Reds said:
The vast majority of the other owners believe that the Pats are guilty.  Do you think they will "fade away?"  Hell, they'll call for Goodell's head.
The vast majority of the owners only want the embarrassment to end. The NFLPA pretty clearly wants to use this case as a way of rewriting the disciplinary rules, if they succeed, the owners will have lost something they could sell to the players for an even bigger piece of the rapidly growing pie. Put another way, I think he runs a greater risk of getting fired by letting the NFLPA have their way than of walking back the suspension.

However I fully grant that he's not smart enough to use his escape clause.
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
4,482
The reports by espn guy do have me a little optimistic but then I think back to the beginning if this nonsense and it goes away.
Particularly this point

Ok, so why did they let the incorrect Mort numbers hang out there for months and essentially force the Patriots to try and prove the impossible?
Not only did they not correct it publicly but held the information from the Patriots. Brady and Belichick held their press conferences based on inaccurate information.

This is where I wish Kraft actually had some influence in the league office.

Unfortunately he couldn't even get the information for himself nevermind get it out to the public. Nor could he work any magic behind the scenes with other owners or league office personnel before the a report was finished and punishment came down.

That's not to say he's not a great owner. Just I wished he had the influence over Roger and company that is often portrayed.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
Just to clarify something; My take on the science is that it does not prove (by preponderance of evidence, more likely than not, or any other rational scale) that the footballs were deflated after being checked by the officials, BUT...
 
The data also doesn't disprove that they were deflated. Take into account a combination of readings, standard deviations, assumptions and gauge accuracy and it's certainly possible they were deflated.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,799
drbretto said:
 
That's still not a win. I don't know Brady personally or nothin, but there has been no part of anything that I have ever witnessed, heard or read about that suggests Brady would be cool with letting some random ballboys take the fall for him. And that still maintains the narrative that Brady cheated, just unknowingly. 
 
That's not a win-win. That's both sides just giving up. 
 
 
Except that Brady can only control *his* case, insofar as he can tell his story, which is likely to bhe along the lines of, "yes, they knew damn well that I wanted those balls at 12.5 and no more; I assumed they were doing it legally, they gave me no reason to think they weren't; I certainly never told them to do whatever it takes, damn the rules."  That's not "letting them take the fall."
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,485
Southwestern CT
drbretto said:
 
You think they would all turn on him because he realized that no crime was committed? If Goodell publicly states that he now believes no crime was committed, the narrative shifts. I don't think the other owners care enough at this point to question that. Even if a few of them did, they will be free to read the AEI report themselves. 
 
Edit: Clarifying here that I'm in no way saying that this WILL happen, just taking exception to those who feel like it's not possible or not wise of him do it. He absolutely could do it, and the only reason I doubt that he actually WILL is because to this point, he's had a million opportunities to make this all go away and hasn't. The only glimmer of hope is that I do feel there is a chance that prior to yesterday, he believed in genuine guilt and maybe, possibly, now could have been convinced otherwise, which is a huge variable.
 
I'm saying they'll turn on him because they believe a crime was committed and they won't believe Goodell's "conversion."
 
It's worth remembering that this all started because the Ravens and Colts were convinced that the Pats were doing something to the footballs.  Do you think they'll simply accept Goodell doing an about face?
 
I also think that it's naive to believe that Goodell's views on what actually happened are even in play here.  This is about protecting the league as a whole, which is why Goodell finds himself in such a predicament.  Because if he ever says that nothing happened it opens the can of worms about why the NFL was staging a sting during the AFC Championship. 
 
He has to stick to the idea that something happened.  Just has to.
 

drbretto

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 10, 2009
12,219
Concord, NH
geoduck no quahog said:
Just to clarify something; My take on the science is that it does not prove (by preponderance of evidence, more likely than not, or any other rational scale) that the footballs were deflated after being checked by the officials, BUT...
 
The data also doesn't disprove that they were deflated. Take into account a combination of readings, standard deviations, assumptions and gauge accuracy and it's certainly possible they were deflated.
 
I think it strongly suggests that either no deflation took place or that if a deflation took place, it was in the vicinity of 0.2-0.3 PSI, which would be completely ridiculous. So, basically, about as close to proves that nothing happened as you can get.
 

drbretto

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 10, 2009
12,219
Concord, NH
Average Reds said:
 
I'm saying they'll turn on him because they believe a crime was committed and they won't believe Goodell's "conversion."
 
It's worth remembering that this all started because the Ravens and Colts were convinced that the Pats were doing something to the footballs.  Do you think they'll simply accept Goodell doing an about face?
 
Yes. Because it's not just Goodell changing his mind. There has been more and more evidence showing up over time. More and more people are switching to the Pats side, with absolutely no one switching their votes to guilty. All he has to do is pick up the phone and call each of the owners that he feels might have a problem with his decision and explain to them what he's discovered.
 
That and, as Nighthob just mentioned, most of these owners are probably more concerned with this thing being over than anything else. The best move for everyone, Goodell, Brady, the owners, casual fans, etc, and the only win/win is this scenario. Goodell calls it all off, says this matter is over, never addresses the leaks or anything else, he and Brady smile and shake hands in front of the camera, both have press conferences, Brady chuckles, smiles and says he forgives everyone and the issue just drops dead like that after a day or two. Bam, over, and genuinely win/win.
 
I know there are a lot of lawyers out there that will find this hard to believe, but every once in a while, the truth really does set you free. 
 

staz

Intangible
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2004
20,943
The cradle of the game.
Since the AEI report came out, I've been thinking its not out of the realm of possibility RG does a 100% about face and reverses all punishment and sanctions.

1. Dude has proven to be off the charts unpredictable, so all scenarios have to remain on the table.

2. Taking a 2nd (3rd?) crack at understanding the science at play, the logical conclusion has to become more clear, not less clear. Even to him.

3. Further litigation offers very little upside, but almost unlimited downside for both the league and his career. He or his people have to understand this.

4. Kraft relationship. I believe that personal relationships are almost always underestimated in business and legal contexts like this.

5. Even a blind squirrel finds an occasional nut?

Wishful thinking for sure, but full exoneration would not shock me.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,485
Southwestern CT
geoduck no quahog said:
Just to clarify something; My take on the science is that it does not prove (by preponderance of evidence, more likely than not, or any other rational scale) that the footballs were deflated after being checked by the officials, BUT...
 
The data also doesn't disprove that they were deflated. Take into account a combination of readings, standard deviations, assumptions and gauge accuracy and it's certainly possible they were deflated.
 
You realize that's just a convoluted way of saying that you can't prove a negative, right?  It's not logically possible.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,738
geoduck no quahog said:
Just to clarify something; My take on the science is that it does not prove (by preponderance of evidence, more likely than not, or any other rational scale) that the footballs were deflated after being checked by the officials, BUT...
 
The data also doesn't disprove that they were deflated. Take into account a combination of readings, standard deviations, assumptions and gauge accuracy and it's certainly possible they were deflated.
I mean if you want to argue that there's a minuscule chance that the footballs were deflated to the difference in pressure readings between the two gages, which the Patriots didn't have access to (as they were the referees gages), I guess fine. I will grant that there's chance nearly as good as your chance of hitting the Powerball six times in a row that the Patriots nefarious scheming allowed them to do just this.

Also, there's a logical problem with your second paragraph.
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
42,234
South Boston
jtn46 said:
It absolutely can get worse. Every team in the league now knows every time they get the league sniffing around the Patriots these kinds of penalties are on the table. Next time Brady is questionable with a shoulder the league can make an example of the Patriots again. As much as there has been back and forth talk the only action taken by the Patriots at all has been Brady's appeal which is par for the course, every player appeals his suspension. Taking that to court is another step entirely.
What the fuck are you talking about?
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
38,295
Hingham, MA
Average Reds said:
 
I'm saying they'll turn on him because they believe a crime was committed and they won't believe Goodell's "conversion."
 
It's worth remembering that this all started because the Ravens and Colts were convinced that the Pats were doing something to the footballs.  Do you think they'll simply accept Goodell doing an about face?
 
I also think that it's naive to believe that Goodell's views on what actually happened are even in play here.  This is about protecting the league as a whole, which is why Goodell finds himself in such a predicament.  Because if he ever says that nothing happened it opens the can of worms about why the NFL was staging a sting during the AFC Championship. 
 
He has to stick to the idea that something happened.  Just has to.
 
None of the owners even read the Wells report. They only believe a crime was committed because the Wells report said one was committed in the exec summary. If Goodell says that upon further review it doesn't look like a crime was committed, the owners will shrug their collective shoulders and say ok Rog, whatever you say, keep padding our wallets. I highly doubt they care, outside of Woody and Irsay.
 
Edit: and he wouldn't have to defend a "sting" here. He could just say "the Colts raised issue before the game, we tested it (without understanding the ideal gas law), we got it wrong, we learned, we're all moving on." Seems pretty clean IMO.
 

Granite Sox

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2003
5,089
The Granite State
GregHarris said:
http://thebiglead.com/2015/05/21/chris-russo-peter-king-tom-brady/
 
Not sure if this was posted yet but the Coffeenerd comes off well here.  Russo comes off as a d-bag.
 
I enjoy listening to Russo because he can be entertaining, but as mentioned several times in his (separate) thread, he becomes irrationally unhinged rather easily now that he is a solo host.
 
(Momentary thread de-rail): Yesterday Russo had John Dowd (of Dowd Report fame) on as a guest to talk about the recent Pete Rose revelations.  Russo started screaming at Dowd with a hotsportztake that was different from the essential "crime" (did Rose bet on baseball?) that Dowd as asked to originally investigate.
 
Dowd hung up on Russo.  Russo asked his producer to get him back on the phone, believing that the issue was a bad phone line.  The producer came back a couple of minutes later and said Dowd wasn't returning and had, in fact, hung up on Russo for his hysterical screaming.
 
Russo asked the producer if Dowd thought he (Russo) was too hard on him.  "No... he refused to come back on because he said you are an asshole" was the verbatim response that the producer gave him.
 
(Back to our regularly-scheduled programming)
 
Even with an 'A+' performance from Brady, I don't see any way he is exonerated.  (Apparently) Sal Pal was offering his opinion, which means absolutely nothing.  Schefter is the only one I've seen that has provided a morsel of inside information, but there was no inference of outcome related to the information about Brady's performance.
 
Goodell may in fact not want this to go to court, but he's nuts to vacate the suspension and exonerate Brady.  From the various perspectives offered by SoSH's legal beagles, it is still a steep upward climb for Brady/Kessler/NFLPA/NHLPA to succeed in court, even with the addition of 3-on-3 overtime lowering the odds of things going to a shootout.
 

cornwalls@6

Less observant than others
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
6,340
from the wilds of western ma
MarcSullivaFan said:
Brady will not be "exonerated" if the case goes to court. Brady's guilt or innocence will not be at issue. The issue will be the propriety of Goodell's decision in light of the CBA, past practice between the parties, industrial "common law," etc. Its not an exercise in fact finding. Best case scenario is that Goodell's decision is vacated and Brady gets a new hearing in front of a neutral. That second hearing could conceivably result in something close to exoneration, but that's a long way down the road.
 
Got it. I miss-used "exonerated" in an earlier post, and you rightly point out the distinction. And per your post above, I didn't realize(or was too obtuse to follow it correctly), that if Brady takes this court, he's really fighting for another hearing in front  of a neutral arbitrator. I was under the mistaken impression that the court itself could/would vacate his suspension. Apologies for any redundant questions. Not in the legal game,  and want to understand the process thoroughly and correctly. 
 
 

MuppetAsteriskTalk

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2015
5,460
tims4wins said:
Yeah I don't get why Goodell would have to answer "a million questions". As joe dokes just said, he answers to the owners, in private. And why would the owners give a flying fuck if he reverse the suspension and/or the penalties?
 
Edit: the only thing the owners care about is the health of the league and the $$$ in their pockets. Losing in court to the NFLPA could have real ramifications from a CBA perspective. Overturning the suspension and penalties has no bearing on the owners. I think they would much prefer that outcome, at least in a rational world. But clearly this isn't a rational world.
 
tims4wins said:
Yeah I don't get why Goodell would have to answer "a million questions". As joe dokes just said, he answers to the owners, in private. And why would the owners give a flying fuck if he reverse the suspension and/or the penalties?
 
Edit: the only thing the owners care about is the health of the league and the $$$ in their pockets. Losing in court to the NFLPA could have real ramifications from a CBA perspective. Overturning the suspension and penalties has no bearing on the owners. I think they would much prefer that outcome, at least in a rational world. But clearly this isn't a rational world.
 
Sorry, he won't literally have to answer a million questions.
 
But I think it will cause a lot of the media to focus on all the other things that have been largely ignored. And aside from that, there will be a large contingent of angry people who just had their red meat taken away who will also have a lot of questions.
 
I suppose he can ignore all of that, but it likely won't leave him in a good place.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
64,295
Rotten Apple
staz said:
Wishful thinking for sure, but full exoneration would not shock me.
That would be shocking and not happening until after a court battle. And even after that the team penalties will stay. RG isn't backing down.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
38,295
Hingham, MA
MuppetAsteriskTalk said:
 
 
Sorry, he won't literally have to answer a million questions.
 
But I think it will cause a lot of the media to focus on all the other things that have been largely ignored. And aside from that, there will be a large contingent of angry people who just had their red meat taken away who will also have a lot of questions.
 
I suppose he can ignore all of that, but it likely won't leave him in a good place.
 
This is where we disagree - I think the media will just let it go. They don't care enough to push it.
 

PBDWake

Member
SoSH Member
May 1, 2008
3,686
Peabody, MA
BigJimEd said:
The reports by espn guy do have me a little optimistic but then I think back to the beginning if this nonsense and it goes away.
Particularly this point

Not only did they not correct it publicly but held the information from the Patriots. Brady and Belichick held their press conferences based on inaccurate information.

This is where I wish Kraft actually had some influence in the league office.

Unfortunately he couldn't even get the information for himself nevermind get it out to the public. Nor could he work any magic behind the scenes with other owners or league office personnel before the a report was finished and punishment came down.

That's not to say he's not a great owner. Just I wished he had the influence over Roger and company that is often portrayed.
 
Not just that, but iirc, once the Patriots knew the correct numbers, the NFL told them they'd be punished if they corrected the record before the Wells Report was released.
 
 
tims4wins said:
 
None of the owners even read the Wells report. They only believe a crime was committed because the Wells report said one was committed in the exec summary. If Goodell says that upon further review it doesn't look like a crime was committed, the owners will shrug their collective shoulders and say ok Rog, whatever you say, keep padding our wallets. I highly doubt they care, outside of Woody and Irsay.
 
Edit: and he wouldn't have to defend a "sting" here. He could just say "the Colts raised issue before the game, we tested it (without understanding the ideal gas law), we got it wrong, we learned, we're all moving on." Seems pretty clean IMO.
 
There are a lot of reports out there that there's a contingency of owners who don't like how closely Goodell is perceived as being with the Jones, Kraft, Mara, and Rooney families, and would view leniency as being in their pockets. I don't think the owners would uniformly shrug their shoulders at that. Goodell shouldn't be catering to it, but it has a very FIFA feel to it, where there's a few big powers, and a bunch of smaller voting blocks that make noise in lock step to try and match that.
 

Corsi

isn't shy about blowing his wad early
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 3, 2010
12,955
Boston, MA
Florio:
 

Those paid to exonerate Patriots quarterback Tom Brady were wowed by his performance at Tuesday’s appeal hearing, #asexpected. Those who suspended him in the first place weren’t. #Asexpected.
 
Per a league source, Brady simply reiterated his denial regarding any involvement in or knowledge of whatever it was that John Jastremski and Jim McNally may have been doing with the team’s footballs. When pressed on certain facts relating to Brady’s potential knowledge or involvement, the answers were regarded by some in the room (i.e., some who aren’t paid to exonerate Brady) as not entirely credible.
 
Apparently, Brady’s case hinged heavily on attacking the science, under the broader umbrella of taking the position that: (1) he didn’t do anything wrong; and (2) Ted Wells can’t prove that Brady did. The question then becomes whether the NFL is willing to throw out the entire Wells report based on the flaws in the science (and the science is definitely flawed), or whether the NFL continues to be troubled by the Jastremski-McNally exchanges and Brady’s answers to questions about his interactions with either or both of them.
 
Most importantly, it’s unlikely that the Commissioner will fully exonerate Brady because the Commissioner nearly lost his job last year by not going far enough in disciplining a player. When the Commissioner goes too far, eventually having his decisions overturned by some independent party, he suffers little or no P.R. fallout.
 
That dynamic alone should tell us all which way the wind is howling on this one. And it provides further proof for the notion that last year’s Ray Rice debacle has left the Commissioner hopelessly conflicted in every single one of these cases.
 
With one path jeopardizing his job and the other path not triggering even a peep of substantial criticism, the smart play for Goodell will always be to uphold a suspension and let the player and his union fight for further reduction or outright elimination of it in court. And that’s the kind of inherent conflict that arguably makes Goodell unfit to be the final decision-maker in any of these cases.
 
 
 

simplyeric

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
14,037
Richmond, VA
Average Reds said:
 
You realize that's just a convoluted way of saying that you can't prove a negative, right?  It's not logically possible.
If they had video evidence of the entire chain of possession of the balls, from inspection through play, wouldn't that prove the negative?

It is logically possible to prove a negative in certain circumstances.

(Edit: to be more clear, you can prove a negative by proving a countervailing positive. It's not that difficult)

But on a bigger issue:

If Roger called the owners and said 'looki have even more evidence now that Brady is guilty, BUT I've become convinced that further pursuit of this will damage our negotiations and possibly cause a federal issue regarding our monopoly protections, so I'm vacating the whole thing.' Would the other owners say 'fuck it I want my revenge' or would they say 'bury it and keep the $$$ coming'. ?
 
(edit: the above is a hypothetical, not something that I think is actually happening.)