pappymojo said:The comments on the Sally Jenkins article are amazing.
Makes me wonder if eventually Jenkins, Florio, et.al, turn their attention to the draft picks. After all, if there is no scientific evidence of deflation and a judge rules in TB's favor...tims4wins said:
Awesome. She has risen above all other media on this topic.
Hmmm. Maybe the "fact-based fans" are few and far between.Hendu for Kutch said:
I've never seen such rampant and inappropriate use of the word "technicality" as I have the past week. Brady's going to get off on the "technicality" that nothing actually happened.
Section15Box113 said:Hmmm. Maybe the "fact-based fans" are few and far between.
Me neither.JimBoSox9 said:it's a good point, but i dunno why it deserves multiple quotes and applause.
Hendu for Kutch said:
I've never seen such rampant and inappropriate use of the word "technicality" as I have the past week. Brady's going to get off on the "technicality" that nothing actually happened.
Tom E. Curran has done a fairly decent job of attacking this subject and so has Micheal Hurley of CBS Boston.TheoShmeo said:I know this is not the media forum but Sally Jenkins' article totally disgusts me. Not that I don't think it's excellent. I do.
But how could it be that NO ONE in the Boston media is making the points that Ms. Jenkins makes? In fairness, Mike Reiss immediately linked the report and while he means well, I frankly would not expect that level of analysis from him. He's not an opportunistic Ben Volin type, but he just doesn't attack a subject like Jenkins did.
Putting aside Reiss, it remains a horrible indictment that not one mediot in Boston or NE came out with an article like that. Or did I miss it? I doubt in that I would assume anything along those lines would have been linked here.
One could speculate on why the locals so thoroughly failed here. Lack of talent, focus on clicks, the desire not to appear like a Pats Toadie and laziness all likely fit in. Whatever the cause, it sucks.
PS: I don't mean to malign Matt Chatham and Tom Curran either. Both have been very good on this story. That doesn't eliminate my question but I didn't want to paint with a brush that gave a faulty impression on those two.
troparra said:
That's their only recourse. Reporters are supposed to report new information. When that information is already provided (such as the public release of the Wells report), then all they can do is paraphrase the executive summary.
When a subsequent conflicting report is released publicly, then they can still paraphrase the report, but how do they reconcile the difference between the two reports? They can't critically appraise the report because they don't have those skills, so they fall back on the old adage that you can pay experts to say what you want. As a result, they look for bias. End of story.
lambeau said:https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?/topic/231975-head-lawyer-of-nfl/
While Roger would seem to have great latitude, apparently by labor law he really doesn't. Sal Pal really emphasized the NFLPA legal position that discipline has to be consistent--and by that standard, neither cell phone withholding (Favre), chatter not resulting in on-field transgressions (Bountygate), nor
even ball-tampering (fine set at $25K)can justify suspension.
So why isn't Roger's brain (Pash, above) telling him this? I can only think Roger, after the Rice debacle, was desperate to look tough, and overplayed this.
Do you know why it’s even a $25,000 fine? Believe it or not it used to be less than that – they raised it to $25,000 in 1999 but not because of quarterbacks. They raised the fine because KICKERS were doing all sorts of things to the footballs – baking them, overinflating them, putting Harry Potter charms on them etc.
dcmissle said:Yes, to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the AP case is now.
People need to realize that as strong as TB's legal position is, it is weaker than AP's and certainly weaker than Ray Rice's. RG fought nonetheless.
snowmanny said:In the other cases the procedural errors on the part of the NFL/Goodell were clearer. I have no clue why the NFLPA agreed to a process that allows Goodell to set the punishment and the do the appeal.
http://www.patsfans.com/blogs/vampatella/2015/06/13/a-thorough-look-at-deflategate-how-did-we-get-to-this-point/TheoShmeo said:I know this is not the media forum but Sally Jenkins' article totally disgusts me. Not that I don't think it's excellent. I do.
But how could it be that NO ONE in the Boston media is making the points that Ms. Jenkins makes? In fairness, Mike Reiss immediately linked the report and while he means well, I frankly would not expect that level of analysis from him. He's not an opportunistic Ben Volin type, but he just doesn't attack a subject like Jenkins did.
Putting aside Reiss, it remains a horrible indictment that not one mediot in Boston or NE came out with an article like that. Or did I miss it? I doubt it in that I would assume anything along those lines would have been linked here.
One could speculate on why the locals so thoroughly failed here. Lack of talent, focus on clicks, the desire not to appear like a Pats Toadie and laziness all likely fit in. Whatever the cause, it sucks.
PS: I don't mean to malign Matt Chatham and Tom Curran either. Both have been very good on this story. That doesn't eliminate my question but I didn't want to paint with a brush that gave a faulty impression on those two.
danlmac said:If there’s one thing I’ve learned, painfully, throughout this whole stupid, insulting, infuriating ordeal, it’s that whenever I expect common sense to prevail, it won’t. Every single damn time. It’s sort of surreal.
At this point, I wouldn’t be surprised if Goodell increased Brady’s suspension to six games.
He's not regretting dropping it, because he had no avenues to achieve anything, based on the system he is a part of and the agreement he signed when he bought the team.Sportsbstn said:I hope when this is all said and done Kraft turns to Goodell and says: "why the fuck did you fine us again?" and really calls out Goodell one more time. I wonder if Kraft is regretting the decision to drop the appeal the more definitively the Wells report looks Goodell's inept uncle wrote it, because I know many fans are fuming he did.
Wells is smart enough to know what he was doing as he did it. His opinion of the matter will be decided by how his bosses and clients react, specifically how it impacts his bank account.Bleedred said:If this is an annoying sidebar, then disregard, but I'm really interested in what Ted Wells thinks at this point. Does he follow something like the AEI report and realize that his report has been shredded and that it threatens his reputation, at least with objective, fair-minded folks? Or does he simply not care, because he can blame exponent, the NFL paid him $5 million and will likely continue to pay him, and it's not his problem.
Wow. Thorough indeed.ivanvamp said:http://www.patsfans.com/blogs/vampatella/2015/06/13/a-thorough-look-at-deflategate-how-did-we-get-to-this-point/
Ain't gonna lie... It's long, but pretty thorough.
geoduck no quahog said:I'm gonna duck immediately after posting this, but...
What if McNally's gone to the NFL and admitted to deflating footballs at Brady's insistence? Do we know for sure he hasn't?
I think this is too strong a characterization of the physical evidence. Anderson might have used the non-logo gauge before the game, in which case there would still be a discrepancy in the PSI drop that could potentially be explained by tampering. The Wells report is wrong that the evidence necessarily implicates the Patriots, but that doesn't mean it exonerates them - I don't think there's enough data to conclude anything 100%.ivanvamp said:
He may have.
But if so, then he sure didn't deflate them in the Pats-Colts game. Because the science tells us he didn't. Or if he did, he deflated just a few footballs, and those by like 0.1-0.3 psi. Which would be…..utterly ridiculous.
ivanvamp said:http://www.patsfans.com/blogs/vampatella/2015/06/13/a-thorough-look-at-deflategate-how-did-we-get-to-this-point/
Ain't gonna lie... It's long, but pretty thorough.
In the event a home team ball does not conform to specifications, or its supply is exhausted, the Referee shall secure a proper ball from the visitors and, failing that, use the best available ball. Any such circumstances must be reported to the Commissioner.
Good point. I bet that's pretty rare, and we can be sure the NFL doesn't normally (if ever) test balls throughout the game to see if they comply with regulations.DrewDawg said:
Interesting in that article it quotes an NFL rule about the balls:
That says, right in the NFL rulebook, that if (for some strange reason) every single ball there was not conforming to specifications such as, say PSI, they would simply use the "best available ball". Which means that, in certain circumstances, the NFL allows "illegal" balls to be used. Which means, they clearly can't be this huge affront to the sanctity of the sport.
There is no Rev said:Important correction: The ball tampering fine is set with a $25k minimum. That's an important distinction.
<...>
So while technically on paper the fine can be set higher, we know from past practice of actual ball tampering what the expected standard for punishment was considered.
Heh. Let's see how the appeal goes. Maybe this penalty is still in Brady's future.MentalDisabldLst said:Right, the penalty includes, but is not limited to, $25k. Accordingly, the NFL has fined Tom Brady $25k and he also will be eaten by a tiger, live and on-screen, for the viewing pleasure of most of the rest of the league. It's in the league's best interests. Hey, if you didn't want that on the table, you shouldn't have collectively bargained for it.
That is clear to anyone who reviews the entire circumstances objectively and who does not have a preconceived bias against the Patriots.ivanvamp said:Heh. Let's see how the appeal goes. Maybe this penalty is still in Brady's future.
But seriously, it HAS to be evident to most sane people that the penalty given Brady and the Patriots is way over the top given the alleged infraction (which we can be pretty confident did not actually happen, but assuming it did...), and what the rule book and precedent call for, doesn't it?
Sadly, I think you're right.TheoShmeo said:That is clear to anyone who reviews the entire circumstances objectively and who does not have a preconceived bias against the Patriots.
Unfortunately, getting anyone who is not a Patriots fan to do that is near impossible. People either don't care enough or simply enjoy the anti-Pats/Brady conclusion too much to spend the time necessary to understand the lunacy of this situation.
You are correct of course, but the reaction of the owners to these events is a bit more complicated than this.ivanvamp said:Sadly, I think you're right.
I can understand thst when it comes to fans. But when the decision-makers at the highest levels of the NFL are ALSO like that, we have a serious, serious problem.
I'd like to think that, at some point, the owners would wake up to this. The Sherriff has now hammered two franchises (New Orleans and New England) with utterly excessive penalties. The Saints' penalty was overturned by Tagliabue in a scathing judgment against Goodell. That didn't seem to faze the commissioner, who went right back out and did it again to the Patriots.
What has to give owners pause is that they have to see that he could just as easily do this to THEM. How will they like it then?
Unfortunately, they don't seem to be thinking any of these things. They'd rather see the Pats take a huge hit than have a more fair and just system.
And that, too, is a very serious problem. It doesn't speak well to the other owners, and it probably gives us a little insight as to how powerless Kraft was to fight this, and why he chose the course of action that he did.
I don't discount the possibility of something like that having come up since the Wells Report. The flip side is that it is equally likely Kessler has been able to get his hands on some leaked docs that implicate members of the commissioner's office in a deliberate scheme to take down the Patriots / or cover up their own ineptitude. If given 100-1 odds on either Goodell sitting on direct evidence against Brady and the Pats or Kessler producing evidence against the league, I put the money on Kessler all day long.geoduck no quahog said:I'm gonna duck immediately after posting this, but...
What if McNally's gone to the NFL and admitted to deflating footballs at Brady's insistence? Do we know for sure he hasn't?
Average Reds said:The NFL is a ruthless business guided by ruthless individuals dispensing "justice" in a self-interested fashion. Integrity has nothing to do with it.
Agreed.. especially armed with the knowledge that the Patriot's/Brady were targeted.ivanvamp said:Can any of us name a single fan that wouldn't trade places with the Patriots, though? That is, if THEIR team was accused of these things, but won four Super Bowls in 15 seasons, and was far and away the best franchise in the NFL over that period of time, that they wouldn't happily take the crap that comes with it?
I can't imagine any Falcons or Jets or Chargers or Broncos or Dolphins or Bears or Lions or Cowboys (or pick a team) fan saying, "I'd rather have OUR last 15 years than yours."
Benigno or Roberts (mid-day guys on WFAN) emphatically made that exact point ~3-4 weeks ago: he'd trade his team's past 15 years for the Pat's past 15 years, baggage and all, without hesitation. "What fan wouldn't?!?"ivanvamp said:Can any of us name a single fan that wouldn't trade places with the Patriots, though? That is, if THEIR team was accused of these things, but won four Super Bowls in 15 seasons, and was far and away the best franchise in the NFL over that period of time, that they wouldn't happily take the crap that comes with it?
I can't imagine any Falcons or Jets or Chargers or Broncos or Dolphins or Bears or Lions or Cowboys (or pick a team) fan saying, "I'd rather have OUR last 15 years than yours."