If Ted Wells actually stretched Brady mistaking McNally's nickname as "Burt" instead of "Bird" to say "Tom Brady lied about not knowing McNally's name," Ted Wells should be flat out sued for defamation. That's a bald-faced lie.
nighthob said:As far as I understand the NFL's rules the Patriots have no appeal to the NFL's punishment. That's set in stone. What they can do is so damage the league office that Goodell's reign of error comes to a premature end. Right now the owners that have been trying to get rid of Goodell must be masturbating themselves into a frenzy, at this rate I would expect a coup d'etat sometime after a federal judge tosses the Brady suspension into the trash with a strongly worded, and incredibly embarrassing for the league, ruling.
I think it's safe to say that the next commissioner will be cleaning house. So I hope Kensil and Vincent have enjoyed their hour in the sun, because when it's over it's over.
That is the only part Mike Freeman cares about. If that gets picked up they should have left that part out and just focused on the use only once in all his texts.sodenj5 said:Deflating as a term to lose weight? Sounds like something everyone says.
I wonder if releasing this now, before the meeting, is setting that up for next week.pappymojo said:WHen does Kraft ask for a vote of no confidence in Goodell?
nighthob said:As far as I understand the NFL's rules the Patriots have no appeal to the NFL's punishment. That's set in stone.
soxhop411 said:
RedOctober3829 said:There's a lot of good stuff in there, but explaining "Deflator" as McNally losing weight sounds ridiculous.
RedOctober3829 said:There's a lot of good stuff in there, but explaining "Deflator" as McNally losing weight sounds ridiculous.
I think the better analogy is Alfred Dreyfus.Ed Hillel said:Tom Brady is this generation's Richard Jewell.
Can you summarize the answers?Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:
They actually have pretty decent answers regarding the "deflator/espn" texts, which are probably the biggest "gotchas" in the whole investigation.
I don't expect much to change about the outcome but I'm glad to see the team at least offering a comprehensive takedown.
The biggest loser in all this might be Ted Wells. We're going to see months of this report getting picked to pieces.
That is interesting; I had missed that. The Colts' ball pressure is suspect - aside from only four examples, one of the examples makes no sense because the (apparent) Logo reading is lower than the Non-Logo. Exponent treated that in three ways: as-is, excluding it entirely, and swapping the columns (on the idea that someone screwed up writing it). If someone could have screwed up writing it in, it seems plausible to me that someone could have written down the wrong number - and moreover, 12.95 is kind of a ridiculously high figure for balls originally inflated to ~13, even late in halftime, even with the Logo gauge. Set that to 12.15 (consistent with normal differences between the gauges, and a plausible typo vs 9) and you probably get Indy's average pressure in a range where you don't have to assume 67. Per Exponent page 39, every five degrees gets you about 0.25 PSI, so we start creeping into the range where the transition curve does explain the results, probably with the exception of a couple balls.nighthob said:Except that if you read that section you find that they reverse engineered the starting the temperature of the balls based on the pressure of the Colts balls as they were measured. Which as was mentioned several thousand times in the monster thread leads us to the absurdity of someone cranking up the heat in the empty locker room. So, yes, the physicists that have torn the science to shreds retain considerably more credibility than the engineering firm that argued, with a straight face, that oil spills don't harm the environment.
RedOctober3829 said:There's a lot of good stuff in there, but explaining "Deflator" as McNally losing weight sounds ridiculous.
The inspections and putting the footballs back into the bags was so informal that it appears that the officials may have put 13 footballs, not the 12 set forth in Rule 2, in the Patriots football bag.
I thought there was a decent chance that Goodell, or his designate, would reduce the sanctions marginally. Say the first to a second, the fourth to a fifth.DrewDawg said:
Can you expand on this?
You think this release negates the chance to win on appeal?
Ed Hillel said:If Ted Wells actually stretched Brady mistaking McNally's nickname as "Burt" instead of "Bird" to say "Tom Brady lied about not knowing Robert McNally's name," Ted Wells should be flat out sued for defamation. That's a bald-faced lie.
pappymojo said:WHen does Kraft ask for a vote of no confidence in Goodell?
https://twitter.com/MarkDanielsPJ/status/598880449251905536RSFnFL said:Can you summarize the answers?
They are claiming it is a term for losing weight.
"One can specifically see this use of the term in a Nov.30 text from Mr. McNally to Mr. Jastremski: “deflate and give somebody that jacket.”
Assuming absolute revelation of every possible relevant fact in such a way that we know exactly what the Patriots did and when, then I agree that- as far as any culpability on the part of the Patriots- whether it was a sting or not is irrelevant. That's an entirely different issue that deals with the league office possible acting in bad form.I'm not sure why anyone cares if it was a sting. A sting may be bad form by the NFL, but that has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. They either did it or not. If guilty, how they were caught is irrelevant.
It's not like the sting was the NFL having the refs tell McNally they were adding a little "extra" air, handing him a needle and leaving him alone with the balls.
RedOctober3829 said:There's a lot of good stuff in there, but explaining "Deflator" as McNally losing weight sounds ridiculous.
RSFnFL said:Can you summarize the answers?
That's technically incorrect. The Patriots can appeal the punishment....to Roger Goodell. Basically, all they can do is go to Goodell and ask him nicely, pretty please with sugar on top, to reduce or reconsider the punishment. Chances of that strategy succeeding are debatable, but ultimately unknowable to anyone that posts here. But a smart guess is to take the under. Now that this new report is out, even the under would be optimistic.nighthob said:As far as I understand the NFL's rules the Patriots have no appeal to the NFL's punishment. That's set in stone. What they can do is so damage the league office that Goodell's reign of error comes to a premature end. Right now the owners that have been trying to get rid of Goodell must be masturbating themselves into a frenzy, at this rate I would expect a coup d'etat sometime after a federal judge tosses the Brady suspension into the trash with a strongly worded, and incredibly embarrassing for the league, ruling.
I think it's safe to say that the next commissioner will be cleaning house. So I hope Kensil and Vincent have enjoyed their hour in the sun, because when it's over it's over.
But serisouly why did Wells not ask him about this text. If you are going to base most of your findings on this text you should probably ask the guy when interviewing him.sodenj5 said:
Even their wording is ridiculous. Wells didn't ask them, but IF HE HAD, he would know that McNally referred to himself as the deflator because he was trying to lose weight. Hilariously bad.
sodenj5 said:
Even their wording is ridiculous. Wells didn't ask them, but IF HE HAD, he would know that McNally referred to himself as the deflator because he was trying to lose weight. Hilariously bad.
Silverdude2167 said:But serisouly why did Wells not ask him about this text. If you are going to base most of your findings on this text you should probably ask the guy when interviewing him.
sodenj5 said:
Even their wording is ridiculous. Wells didn't ask them, but IF HE HAD, he would know that McNally referred to himself as the deflator because he was trying to lose weight. Hilariously bad.
dcmissle said:I'll give them this -- football people, journos included, are going to eat this up in the same way the rest of America is addicted to reality tv.
As noted above, Mr. Anderson’s “best recollection” is that he used the Logo gauge to check the footballs pre-game (pg. 52). The Logo gauge shows higher psi numbers than the non-Logo gauge. Crediting that Mr. Anderson used the Logo gauge to measure the Patriots footballs pre-game, the halftime psi of the Patriots footballs on that gauge are consistent with the Ideal Gas Law calculations of what would happen naturally. (pg. 113).
ivanvamp said:
If it was a sting, the only way the sting works is if the Patriots are allowed to play a half with deflated footballs. Now, if that happens, and if (which is the entire reason people would be up in arms) it provides a competitive advantage (as Francesa says, if it doesn't, then why would they do it?), then that means that the NFL, in its zeal to catch the Patriots, allowed the first half of the AFC Championship game to be played on a tilted playing field. They allowed the Patriots a material advantage over the Colts when such an advantage could easily have been prevented.
And if THAT is true, then the NFL is running a corrupt operation. Integrity of the game? LOL.
RetractableRoof said:Because a sting operation isn't playing nice in the "better interests of the league" sandbox/contract everyone signed? Because it shows intent to try to embarrass the franchise - potentially damaging it in the effort?
sodenj5 said:
My guess is he didn't envision them coming up with such a ludicrous defense, but he should have at least asked, "so you call yourself the deflator, what does that mean?"
[SIZE=10.5pt]Forget the response for a second which even if true they should have obviously left out as the media are idiots.[/SIZE]sodenj5 said:
My guess is he didn't envision them coming up with such a ludicrous defense, but he should have at least asked, "so you call yourself the deflator, what does that mean?"
The League is, however, “generally aware” of the impact of heat and cold on the psi of footballs, having adopted a protocol which prevents footballs from being placed in front of field-level heaters. There was a violation of this protocol that arose during the Carolina game in Minnesota during the 2014 season, when NFL officials told ball boys for both teams not to continue to put footballs in front of heaters — an evident attempt to tamper with the footballs in violation of the rules.
99% if polled would not believe this; nor should they. It's preposterous. To that extent, the spinning is not helpful.Revkeith said:
Not that I'm defending that portion of this report (I think it's a stretch to say the least), but calling someone the "deflator" as a term to lose weight wouldn't be in the top 100 of bizarre things people from Massachusetts say regularly.
soxhop411 said:
Mark Daniels @MarkDanielsPJ 16s16 seconds ago
Jastremski texted "Talked to him last night." He was talking about a friend, whose name he gave to the lawyers. They didn't look into it.
dcmissle said:99% if polled would not believe this; nor should they. It's preposterous. To that extent, the spinning is not helpful.
RIFan said:
Not disagreeing with those aspects, but the idea of a sting has been used to show an unfairness to the Pats and that they aren't "really" guilty because it was a sting. The point I'm trying to make is that if they were guilty of some nefarious plan to alter the football and caught in a sting they would still be viewed as cheaters no matter what. The fact that the NFL is a garbage organization by letting a sting play out that way is not a mutually exclusive situation.
The sting has no bearing on guilt or innocence (and for the record I think the conclusions of the Wells report are wrong).