#DFG: Canceling the Noise

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


  • Total voters
    208

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
42,796
South Boston
WayBackVazquez said:
 
Because it's not even close to being an objective report, it's more like a summary judgment motion. The exponent report reads like a plaintiff's expert report. I can almost guarantee you some scientist(s)/statistician(s) will prepare a "rebuttal" report, criticizing the findings and assumptions.
Yeah, repeating over and over again that Patiots counsel wasn't inclined to make McNally available for a follow up interview while failing to note how many times he was actually produced for interviews is troubling. And the report continues like that throughout.

I think you and I would agree that it's not the sort of thing that would have been drafted internally to provide objective advice to a client. It's advocacy.

The report doesn't look good for the Pats, but it's more Kraft's lack of reaction that makes me think the Patriots are now scared enough to let sleeping dogs lie. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some sort of rough agreement in place on punishment, and there's enough here.

Decent sized fine to Brady. No suspension. No draft picks. Which is probably reasonable but will make the tone of the report (but not the strength of the actual conclusions) seem incongruous.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,494
Otis Foster said:
Ok, it's an investigation of a team that's a constituent member of the NFL (literally), as distinct from an investigation of staff conduct, although it presumably looks at that too. Please tell me how your conduct would be different.

This wasn't a prosecutorial presentation to a grand jury. It was intended to ascertain as closely as possible whether or not there was culpable behavior. The only thing I question is how they justify reaching conclusions in the absence of direct evidence, and that really goes to the charge they received from Goodell -did he tell them he wanted their conclusions, hedged as they deemed necessary?

I know Ted Wells and PW and can tell you that anyone who claims they slanted the report to a desired outcome literally doesn't know jack shit. You can hate the outcome, as I do, but there's no basis for slandering PW.
 
My guess is that when/if cooler heads prevail, the consensus is that while the factual narrative is likely accurate -- that is, "this is what we found" -- the conclusion based on that evidence that Brady was "generallly aware" -- whatever that means -- is where the disagreement is.
 
I think those slamming PW are overlooking that "generally aware" isn't much. PW isn't responsible for how that gets misinterpreted.
 

WayBackVazquez

white knight against high school nookie
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
8,294
Los Angeles
Otis Foster said:
Ok, it's an investigation of a team that's a constituent member of the NFL (literally), as distinct from an investigation of staff conduct, although it presumably looks at that too. Please tell me how your conduct would be different.

This wasn't a prosecutorial presentation to a grand jury. It was intended to ascertain as closely as possible whether or not there was culpable behavior. The only thing I question is how they justify reaching conclusions in the absence of direct evidence, and that really goes to the charge they received from Goodell -did he tell them he wanted their conclusions, hedged as they deemed necessary?

I know Ted Wells and PW and can tell you that anyone who claims they slanted the report to a desired outcome literally doesn't know jack shit. You can hate the outcome, as I do, but there's no basis for slandering PW.
 
You're off the deep end here. An attorney's duty is to his client; Ted Wells is a litigator; it's his job to present evidence in the light most favorable to his client and zealously advocate to to achieve the best result for his client. He's not a judge, and there's nothing like slander in saying he presented the evidence in the way he believed was most favorable to his client.
 

LuckyBen

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 5, 2012
3,396
TheoShmeo said:
I think it's both overly cynical and naïve to think that PW issued a "made to order" report in any respect.
 
PW is an excellent firm with a terrific reputation.  It is also not a Johnny Come Lately.  The notion that they would risk their reputation for having the highest degree of integrity over the level of fees in this matter and from the NFL is a joke.
 
PW plays for the long haul.
His firm was paid (millions?) by the NFL. He didn't investigate the leaks to the press, Kensil. They focused on one thing and that is the pats. This was a witch hunt plain and simple.
 

NatetheGreat

New Member
Aug 27, 2007
619
BusRaker said:
McNally auctioning his cell phone records and true story to the highest bidder as we speak. Prepare to see it in the grocery store check-out line.

Ass hat.
Well, he's never going to work in the NFL again, I can see why he'd want to get paid while he still can
 

theapportioner

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 9, 2006
5,079
I do think the insinuation in the report about Brady not turning over cell phone records as "not helpful" is inappropriate. It's one thing to present the facts, and Brady not agreeing to turn over those records is a fact. But coloring that fact by suggesting that he may have something to hide when there is no basis for concluding that, is "not helpful".
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
If you were doing a report on any topic, that one of the key actors did not turn over relevant evidence, or possibly relevant evidence, would not be helpful to you.  There is nothing wrong with saying that.
 
To be clear, I am not killing Tom for not turning over that evidence.  But it wasn't helpful to the investigator that he did not.
 

wiffleballhero

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 28, 2009
4,770
In the simulacrum
One reason to be very suspicious about those unrecorded pre-game PSI numbers is that the Wells report clearly says that the league was on the lookout for a PSI violation beforehand. Knowing where they were headed it is really odd that they did not document those numbers.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,494
WayBackVazquez said:
 
And as I said initially, it all depends on what PW believed the client wanted the result to be. As to PW's communications with Exponent, I would love to see them made public. Though I have no doubt we would learn that there's very little in the way of written instructions.
 
Definitely on the instructions to the expert.   And, running with your assumption about what the client wanted, Brady was "generally aware"  which really isn't much -- is probably as far as PW was willing to go toward that desire.  Again, PW isn't responsible for the fact that lots of people equte "generally aware" with "brady was sucking the air out of the balls."
 

theapportioner

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 9, 2006
5,079
TheoShmeo said:
If you were doing a report on any topic, that one of the key actors did not turn over relevant evidence, or possibly relevant evidence, would not be helpful to you.  There is nothing wrong with saying that.
 
To be clear, I am not killing Tom for not turning over that evidence.  But it wasn't helpful to the investigator that he did not.
 
I disagree. I think the appropriate thing to do would be to say. Brady did not turn over the cell phone records when requested. This fact should not in any way be construed as implying guilt, or some other wording to that effect.
 

Jettisoned

Member
SoSH Member
May 6, 2008
1,062
theapportioner said:
I do think the insinuation in the report about Brady not turning over cell phone records as "not helpful" is inappropriate. It's one thing to present the facts, and Brady not agreeing to turn over those records is a fact. But coloring that fact by suggesting that he may have something to hide when there is no basis for concluding that, is "not helpful".
 
Can't really blame him either, since they took the cell phone records they did get and went over them with a fine-toothed comb, interpreting everything they found in the worst light possible.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,494
LuckyBen said:
His firm was paid (millions?) by the NFL. He didn't investigate the leaks to the press, Kensil. They focused on one thing and that is the pats. This was a witch hunt plain and simple.
 
Putting aside whether/how much they tailor their conclusions to the client's wishes, PW *definitely* investigates *only* what they are asked to.  It is not Ted Wells's job to clean up the NFL.  It's to serve his client.
 

wiffleballhero

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 28, 2009
4,770
In the simulacrum
theapportioner said:
 
I disagree. I think the appropriate thing to do would be to say. Brady did not turn over the cell phone records when requested. This fact should not in any way be construed as implying guilt, or some other wording to that effect.
Especially since (correct me if I am wrong) but in my quick reading of many passages in the report, I don't recall a ton of phrases like 'it was helpful when X did ...'
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
theapportioner said:
I do think the insinuation in the report about Brady not turning over cell phone records as "not helpful" is inappropriate. It's one thing to present the facts, and Brady not agreeing to turn over those records is a fact. But coloring that fact by suggesting that he may have something to hide when there is no basis for concluding that, is "not helpful".
Especially, if* the complete statement was something to the effect of "the NFLPA and my counsel indicate that I should not turn over those items".
 
*I don't know if this is the case, but I sure as hell would have expected his counsel to tell him that in this setting.
 

mandro ramtinez

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 24, 2006
1,612
Boston, MA
theapportioner said:
 
I disagree. I think the appropriate thing to do would be to say. Brady did not turn over the cell phone records when requested. This fact should not in any way be construed as implying guilt, or some other wording to that effect.
And state that Brady was well within his rights to refuse to turn over those records.
 

SeoulSoxFan

I Want to Hit the World with Rocket Punch
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
22,229
A Scud Away from Hell
Stitch01 said:
Yeah don't really understand how Brady brought this on himself by helping to support a widely approved rule change 9 years ago.
 
...on some arbitrarily decided ball pressure that was decided on decades ago.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
45,935
Here
I think the strangest part of this report to me, so far, is that the officials seem adamant that this is the only time they ever recall something like this happening at Gillette Stadium. Yet the email from the Colts' ballboy is that it was widely known the Pats do this on a weekly basis. Maybe it's just not something the refs cared enough to notice before? Just seems strange that it would be a one-off on the one week where the Colts happened to email them about it.
 

Joshv02

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,633
Brookline
nighthob said:
 
Yeah, I'm giving the Exponent section a second read now and they're very clearly leaving themselves enough wiggle room to crowd surf through Calcutta. I said about 300 pages ago that my best guess is that the balls weren't really gage tested pre-game and the refs gave them the old "test one and then feel the rest" test, and this really confirms for me that this is the most likely circumstance.
Or the room temperature (which was a basic assumption in the calculations) was off by 3 degrees, or the measurement time was off by 30 seconds to a minute, or the people using the gauge at halftime (not Walt Anderson, who says he used it before the game) let some air out, etc.  Its just such a small number to be off such that I'd think it  being within the realm of possibility shouldn't be so offhandedly dismissed, esp with so little contrary evidence.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,494
theapportioner said:
 
I disagree. I think the appropriate thing to do would be to say. Brady did not turn over the cell phone records when requested. This fact should not in any way be construed as implying guilt, or some other wording to that effect.
 
It does to me.  Even if his right to do so was enshrined in the Bill of Rights (which it isn't, of course)..
 

WayBackVazquez

white knight against high school nookie
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
8,294
Los Angeles
theapportioner said:
 
I disagree. I think the appropriate thing to do would be to say. Brady did not turn over the cell phone records when requested. This fact should not in any way be construed as implying guilt, or some other wording to that effect.
 
 
I don't even think the second sentence would be necessary. But they went the exact opposite way, and suggested that they bent over backwards, and you can probably read something (guilt) into Tom's obstinate refusal.
 
"[W]e offered to allow Brady‟s counsel to screen and control the production so that it would be limited strictly to responsive materials and would not involve our taking possession of Brady's telephone or other electronic devices."
 

NatetheGreat

New Member
Aug 27, 2007
619
YTF said:
Texts between McNally, Jastremski and Brady being read on Felger and Mazz. Pretty damning stuff IMO
 
At the very least, kinda disproves Brady's claim that he didn't know who McNally was prior to the game. As ever, I wonder if it will be the coverup that ends up screwing him over more than whatever happened in the first place
 

Otis Foster

rex ryan's podiatrist
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
1,719
WayBackVazquez said:
You're off the deep end here. An attorney's duty is to his client; Ted Wells is a litigator; it's his job to present evidence in the light most favorable to his client and zealously advocate to to achieve the best result for his client. He's not a judge, and there's nothing like slander in saying he presented the evidence in the way he believed was most favorable to his client.
Repeating the same line doesn't make it any more convincing. You can't seem to understand why this isn't traditional advocacy.

If Goodell told them to lynch TB, sure, they'd do it. That is not what Goodell told everyone he'd instructed PW. If he was lying about that, he's a bigger fool than even I think he is. PW isn't into standing by while their client instructions are misrepresented publicly. They'd likely reisign the account.

Again, he said PW was told to ascertain the facts. When your client does that, you'd be a fool to slant the conclusions.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
43,965
AZ
dcmissle said:
It does. The problem is that time works against us here, unless they take a long time and let passions cool a bit.

The lesson they learned from Ray Rice is not to discipline too quickly, lest you are called on it later.
 
I think another thing that will make this take at least a few days is that Goodell talks about the possibility of putting new procedures in place.  I would think they will want to do that all at once.  Or at least outline the new procedures.
 
Best guess is that the NFL, whether it admits it not, never understood that every game played in cold weather is played with balls under 12.5 psi, and probably hasn't even given a moment's thought to the difference between 12.5 and 11.4 or whatever.  So, they probably are going to do something, and figuring out what that something is may take a little time.
 

theapportioner

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 9, 2006
5,079
wiffleballhero said:
Especially since (correct me if I am wrong) but in my quick reading of many passages in the report, I don't recall a ton of phrases like 'it was helpful when X did ...'
 
RetractableRoof said:
Especially, if* the complete statement was something to the effect of "the NFLPA and my counsel indicate that I should not turn over those items".
 
*I don't know if this is the case, but I sure as hell would have expected his counsel to tell him that in this setting.
 
mandro ramtinez said:
And state that Brady was well within his rights to refuse to turn over those records.
 
Yeah, to me the appropriate thing would be to make a statement like Judge Garsh did to the Hernandez jury so many times, that so and so's comment just now should not be construed as implying this, etc.
 

Jettisoned

Member
SoSH Member
May 6, 2008
1,062
Ed Hillel said:
I think the strangest part of this report to me, so far, is that the officials seem adamant that this is the only time they ever recall something like this happening at Gillette Stadium. Yet the email from the Colts' ballboy is that it was widely known the Pats do this on a weekly basis. Maybe it's just not something the refs cared enough to notice before? Just seems strange that it would be a one-off on the one week where the Colts happened to email them about it.
 
Also if McNally broke protocol in bringing the balls to the field alone, and Walt Anderson was super pissed about it, AND they had heard this complaint about ball tampering, did they not suspect that McNally had messed with them at that moment and check the balls?
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
Whether Tom's refusal implied guilt or not, it made Wells' task more difficult.
 
Expecting him to qualify that bit of commentary -- which is in line with Wells' view that Tom was likely complicit -- is a bit much. 
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
45,935
Here
I also don't understand why the refs didn't bring the footballs back in and measure them again before kickoff after they expressed such concern about the footballs being taken out of the room. I understand there's a kickoff time, but they can blow it off for 4-5 minutes, especially since it was delayed anyway. Also, sounds like this never would have happened if the NFCCG never want to Overtime. Fucking Mike McCarthy.
 
And just saw this from above:
 
Also if McNally broke protocol in bringing the balls to the field alone, and Walt Anderson was super pissed about it, AND they had heard this complaint about ball tampering, did they not suspect that McNally had messed with them at that moment and check the balls?
 
Exactly. I'm not saying Brady is innocent in all of this, but it sure looks to me like there is some BS in terms of the pregame stuff here. Probably just the NFL covering itself up.
 

DaughtersofDougMirabelli

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 17, 2006
3,016
So the Wells Report paints this as a 3 man operation between McNally, Jastremski and Brady.
 
Why wouldn't the two ball boys just come out with the 'truth' yet? To Kraft, Belichick, the NFL, anyone?
 
We're really to believe that these two are going to hold this to the grave to protect Tom? What part of the report makes that even remotely believably?
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,611
soxhop411 said:
watch them suspend Brady a few games...
 
 
Not going to happen. You think the NFL, which pimps the hell out of the opening game of the season for the defending champs will suspend Brady for it?
 
I hate to speak with certainty about what an idiot like Goodell might do, but I don't see that.
 
 

cornwalls@6

Less observant than others
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
6,379
from the wilds of western ma
Have not had the time to read the entire report, but from summaries and snippets I've seen here and elsewhere, there seems to be way more heat than light in this report. No real evidence of any intentional deflating. No real evidence of Brady having any knowledge of such. BB and coaching staff completely exonerated. Honestly, in a sane world no penalties should be forthcoming over this. Given the league the Ginger hammer presides over, however, I expect a fine for Brady, a fine for the organization, 6 or 7 round pick at most. The ball-boys get fired. League reverts to super bowl approach to game day ball handling procedures. Anything beyond that scenario would prove a witch-hunt, and I hope would be appealed with vigor by all parties. Despite Kraft's statement of acceptance of any league discipline today.   
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,611
Kenny F'ing Powers said:
Now, the free gear McNally received prior to the game? Not awesome.
 

Last home game of the year, perhaps a few different staff people get shit like that.
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
I personally liked how the NFL knew they were looking at potential irregularities with the balls, and at half time only measured 4 of the Colts balls.  Then when they took all the balls in post game (and were all checking where the balls went) - they only sampled 4 balls each and even then managed to screw up the process by not making sure that each tester used a consistent guage through out the process/or managed to transpose the numbers.  So they can't manage to get that part right, knowing the whole world might be watching.  These are talented people in the NFL offices.
 
But lets hang the Patriots out to dry on the face of evidence that could even 1 or 2 minute of incorrect testing time estimates would skew and show the Pats balls within expected norms.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
47,078
@MikeGarafolo: Colts warn NFL about deflated balls. Walt Anderson reminded to follow procedure. Balls disappear. No one checks them until halftime? Shady.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,494
mandro ramtinez said:
And state that Brady was well within his rights to refuse to turn over those records.
 
But that he's well within his right to do so does not exclude a conclusion that he's hiding something.
 
 
There are a number of ways to look at a lot of things that were texted and that Brady said. That I might draw a different conclusion from those things doesn't mean I think Wells's conclusions are meritless.
 
Maybe if this was an indictment, I'd feel confident that I'd get an acquittal. But that's not this.
 
Either "generally aware isn't much" will take hold as a narrative or it won't (probably not).  I am "generally aware" of some stuff that I have nothing to do with (child prostitution on the streets of  Minsk).
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,611
wiffleballhero said:
It is not a court of law. "More probable than not" is more than enough to skewer Brady until the end of time. 
 
Except that they still won the Super Bowl with all the hyper-vigilance and if they go out and do what they usually do next season, what are people going to say?
 
 

NatetheGreat

New Member
Aug 27, 2007
619
DrewDawg said:
 
 
Not going to happen. You think the NFL, which pimps the hell out of the opening game of the season for the defending champs will suspend Brady for it?
 
I hate to speak with certainty about what an idiot like Goodell might do, but I don't see that.
 
 
I agree. I also don't think he wants to deal with the NFLPA on this one, which he might be forced to if he handed down a suspension. Some fines, ball-boys getting fired, and maaybe loss of a pick are as far as I can see this going
 

Dr. Gonzo

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2010
5,618
NatetheGreat said:
 
At the very least, kinda disproves Brady's claim that he didn't know who McNally was prior to the game. As ever, I wonder if it will be the coverup that ends up screwing him over more than whatever happened in the first place
Brady never texted McNally directly. Brady always texted or spoke with Jastremski. Brady may have known of McNally but he certainly could have been truthful in saying he didn't know what he does or who he is by name. When Brady complained about the balls after the Jets game those compkaints were registered with Jastremski.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
47,078
@AndrewSiciliano: "It was the first time in Anderson‟s nineteen years as an NFL official that he could not locate the game balls at the start of a game."
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
66,327
Otis Foster said:
Repeating the same line doesn't make it any more convincing. You can't seem to understand why this isn't traditional advocacy.

If Goodell told them to lynch TB, sure, they'd do it. That is not what Goodell told everyone he'd instructed PW. If he was lying about that, he's a bigger fool than even I think he is. PW isn't into standing by while their client instructions are misrepresented publicly. They'd likely reisign the account.

Again, he said PW was told to ascertain the facts. When your client does that, you'd be a fool to slant the conclusions.
 
IMO, this side discussion is getting too tethered to whether or not PW would have an incentive to do... whatever. But it's just too abstract. It's interesting as an abstraction, but it doesn't speak to the point of this thread--even by distractions in this thread, it's superfluous.
 
Does the argumentation and evidence in the report support the conclusions. Personally, I think that's a tough case to make. As such, it's inherently interesting that such a firm put out such a flimsy report.
 

WayBackVazquez

white knight against high school nookie
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
8,294
Los Angeles
Otis Foster said:
Repeating the same line doesn't make it any more convincing. You can't seem to understand why this isn't traditional advocacy.
 
You can't seem to understand that this isn't a traditional internal investigation.
 

NatetheGreat

New Member
Aug 27, 2007
619
DrewDawg said:
 
Except that they still won the Super Bowl with all the hyper-vigilance and if they go out and do what they usually do next season, what are people going to say?
 
 
People gave them shit about spygate literally right up to this superbowl run, which then immediately received its own "asterisk". People are going to say what they're going to say regardless, and the idea that the Pats can shut them up with sustained excellence seems unfounded and optimistic
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,494
DaughtersofDougMirabelli said:
So the Wells Report paints this as a 3 man operation between McNally, Jastremski and Brady.
 
Why wouldn't the two ball boys just come out with the 'truth' yet? To Kraft, Belichick, the NFL, anyone?
 
We're really to believe that these two are going to hold this to the grave to protect Tom? What part of the report makes that even remotely believably?
 
"Generally aware" is a Rorschach test.
 

LuckyBen

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 5, 2012
3,396
joe dokes said:
 
But that he's well within his right to do so does not exclude a conclusion that he's hiding something.
 
 
There are a number of ways to look at a lot of things that were texted and that Brady said. That I might draw a different conclusion from those things doesn't mean I think Wells's conclusions are meritless.
 
Maybe if this was an indictment, I'd feel confident that I'd get an acquittal. But that's not this.
 
Either "generally aware isn't much" will take hold as a narrative or it won't (probably not).  I am "generally aware" of some stuff that I have nothing to do with (child prostitution on the streets of  Minsk).
What would he be hiding though? Are there hidden messages to the ball boys that wouldn't show up on either of their phones? Would Tom text friends in reference to deflating balls? No, most likely wells had everything they could find from the other phones and chose to paint Tom in bad light.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
66,327
soxhop411 said:
@AndrewSiciliano: "It was the first time in Anderson‟s nineteen years as an NFL official that he could not locate the game balls at the start of a game."
 
Again, this only matters if they are arguing this was a one-off situation, which doesn't scan with the rest of the report.

IMO, for that reason, the emphasis on that point weakens the support for the conclusions.