H78 said:
Meanwhile, in the print version it's buried inside the Sports section while Adam Kilgore's "Brady's a cheater!!!" columns have been plastered on Sports page 1.
#DFG: Canceling the Noise
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
Meanwhile, in the print version it's buried inside the Sports section while Adam Kilgore's "Brady's a cheater!!!" columns have been plastered on Sports page 1.
Super Nomario said:
But what it might suggest is, McNally took balls into bathroom, used needle to let air out of each ball, and wasn't perfectly precise since he didn't have a gauge, he just had a needle. That seems plausible to me. I think, if that happened, it was done with the intention of making sure the balls were around 12.5 to comply with TB's preference, not any scheme to get the balls down to 11 or whatever.
Well you are also assuming that the balls were measured pregame to 12.5 based on Andersons best recollection when there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that the officials were less than consistent about measuring balls pregame.Super Nomario said:
Tyrone Biggums said:
Denver's proven history of cheating….
1981 - Denver is forced to forfeit a 3rd round pick for contract violations involving DB Bill Thompson. That's strike 1.
1996 - Denver is found guilty (in 2001) of violating the salary cap in 1996. Fined $968,000 and forced to forfeit a 3rd round pick in the 2002 draft. That's strike 2.
1998 - Denver is again found guilty (in 2004) of violating the salary cap in 1998. Fined $950,000 and forced to forfeit another 3rd round pick in the 2005 draft. That's strike 3.
1998 - Denver's offensive linemen are caught using a foreign substance on their arms and each is fined $5,000. That's strike 4.
2003 - Denver is found guilty of wearing the wrong uniforms in a game vs. the Chargers. Fined $25,000. That's strike 5.
2010 - Denver is caught (Josh McDaniels and Steve Scarnecchia involved) illegally taping the SF 49ers' practice walkthrough at their game in London. They were fined $50,000 as a team, and McDaniels fined another $50,000 for not reporting it. That's strike 6.
Now, obviously, I don't consider the uniform violation to be a big deal. Who cares? But, as Mike Francesa points out, a rule is a rule. That may have been strategic on Denver's part, given that it was an early September game in San Diego, and white keeps the players cooler. But still…a minor thing. Nonetheless, they broke a league rule.
That's six times the Broncos - not counting PEDs - have been penalized by the league for violating rules. Some of them are very serious - namely, the salary cap violations. How come that team isn't slapped with the label "cheaters"? They have been penalized far more than the Patriots have. And for far more serious things. Circumventing the salary cap is HUGE, and it directly helped them win a couple of Super Bowls.
tims4wins said:
This was discussed some yesterday, but McNally left himself zero margin of error if this was true. If he left the needle in too long and a ball got down to 9/10psi then it would be obvious that something happened. I will grant you that McNally is not likely to be joining Mensa anytime soon, but this seems like an awful lot of risk to take even for an idiot.
lambeau said:
Not only is there no direct evidence implicating Brady, what evidence we DO have clearly exonerates him. The Wells report itself has several mentions of Brady specifically demanding that the Patriots' footballs be at 12.5 psi. Clearly this was a point of emphasis for him. 12.5. Not 12.4 or 12.0 or 11.5. But 12.5.
It's like going to a restaurant every week and demanding that the steak is done medium well. Not medium. Not well. But medium well. And then an investigator uses that to conclude that you were pushing the chefs to burn your steak to a crisp. Not only is there no evidence of that, the evidence that DOES exist clearly points to exactly what you DID want - medium well.
( . ) ( . ) and (_!_) said:
It's only a risk if you ever suspect that anyone in the league ever actually cares about the psi in the footballs. If he had done this many times before, and if he had seen how lax the NFL was about ball pressure, then why would he conclude he was taking really any risk at all?
It's like you and the people in your neighborhood pass a police station every day going 5 mph over the limit, and nobody is ever stopped. And the one time someone IS stopped the cops laugh it off with a warning. You really aren't thinking that some day they're going to show up with a SWAT team, pull you over, and put you in prison for 5 years for doing what you've always done.
loshjott said:
My copy of the paper has Jenkins' piece as the first story on first page of the Sports section.
ivanvamp said:
Well it is a risk in the sense that if you deflate to 10, then maybe it is too deflated for Brady's liking. Certainly possible.
And, yet again, if this is what happened it doesn't fucking matter what the intention was (insofar as the rules are concerned, not the effect on competition).tims4wins said:
Mystery team!!! Where's Scott Boras???
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2460364-mike-freemans-10-point-stance-tom-brady-will-probably-win-a-super-bowl-anyway
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2460364-mike-freemans-10-point-stance-tom-brady-will-probably-win-a-super-bowl-anyway
uncannymanny said:
I agree - this is a violation. There is no doubt about that.
However, if it went down like this, I don't see how TB, or the Pats, are deserving of any punishment. The only "instruction" in this scenario from Brady would be "make sure the balls are at 12.5". And the Pats would have no involvement.
uncannymanny said:
And, yet again, if this is what happened, there's still no proof that Brady told them to do this.
I don't give a rat's ass about what McNally did unless someone provides something conclusive showing it was done because Brady said to do it.
Brady saying he likes balls at the lower limit simply isn't enough.
Going back to Brady's cell phone. The more I think about it the more I wonder what the hell Wells thought he was going to find on it. They have the Jastremski and McNally's cell phone. He never contacted McNally and the only phone communication with Jastremski was on the day after the AFCCG. The apparently had Belichick's phone. Since he was cleared of any wrongdoing, there likely wasn't anything on his phone. Wells says the Pats complied and turned over all electronic devices, so I assume that would mean other key people (Berj, Schoenfeld, equipment staff, etc) handed over their cell phones.
What do they think? He texted his dad or Giselle or someone "gee, I sucked today because that idiot McNally didn't deflate the balls enough!"
This whole thing just gets more mind boggling by the day.
What do they think? He texted his dad or Giselle or someone "gee, I sucked today because that idiot McNally didn't deflate the balls enough!"
This whole thing just gets more mind boggling by the day.
Hugh Millen one-upped all that a few months back during a WEEI interview, claiming that during his time as Elway's backup, Shanahan/Kubiak (presumably) had an elaborate scheme to wire the Broncos o-linemen's helmets with radios. Per Millen, the radios were installed & functional, and he assumes utilized during games.ivanvamp said:
http://www.bostonsportsmedia.com/2015/01/hugh-millen-drops-a-bomb-no-one-reacts
pedro1918 said:
And the "e-replica" of the print edition on line shows the same thing. My home delivery must be the early edition, or I'm going bonkers.
One of the things that keeps coming up is that why would the league look to nail one of it's signature players. Wells himself made that point that it would basically be preposterous for the league to want to hurt itself that way. Anyone that feels that way hasn't been paying attention to the way the NFL operates. Rozelle preached parity was the key to success of the NFL. Goodell takes it further with his emphasis on "the shield". The league is not about the marketability of individual players, it's about the NFL. Players, including the Brady's, Manning's and Montana's,are fungible and will be replaced eventually. No player is bigger than the game. I have no doubt that many on Park Ave are thoroughly enjoying the fact that they can now prove that no player is bigger than the game. Brady was a huge target as his pop culture status transcended the sport.
Assuming the accurate gauge is the non-logo one, and the logo gauge was inaccurately high by .35/.45:Super Nomario said:
But then the calculations have to be redone with (12.5 - .35/,45 = 12.15/12.05) as the starting point. The calculations assume a 12.5 starting point. There will be a smaller difference in the result as well - making the 3/4 balls that are outliers have even smaller differences. (I realize we are splitting hairs of hairs at this point.)
With only 3/4 balls as outliers (regardless of degree) what even makes sense from a tampering perspective? Somehow the message got to Brady, "Ball #10 is the good one. Try to use Ball #10 on throwing downs."? That implies a much larger deal that no evidence suggests. It all just devolves to forcing the data and texts to fit the narrative the NFL wanted. The inaccurate leaks about the PSI numbers to create the feeding frenzy - all of it. And I simply hate the look of those texts, even acknowledging (and defending) the idea that most of them come with plausible reasoning behind them.
cshea said:
I think it was intended to be a trap/fishing expedition. If Brady's team omits any of the texts to Jastremski that they feel are irrelevant (the "How are you doing, JJ") to the PSI issue, but that Wells' team feel are relevant, then Brady is withholding evidence.
Just being devil's advocate, he knew something he was doing was at a minimum 'scandalous' - because he made the reference to "not going to ESPN, yet".ivanvamp said:
Agreed, I think the scenario you're looking at calls for a $25k fine.tims4wins said:
I also agree that it's quite ridiculous for TB to pass on the rules to the refs while trying to circumvent them (people cheating rarely try to call attention to the rules that they're breaking), however McNally deflating balls in the bathroom (if true, big if) would be a very odd thing to do on his own.
I think there's a *big* piece of missing info somewhere (sadly it probably is on Brady's phone) because none of this makes much sense from either the cheated or not cheated angle.
If you read the report, there were several messages that were only partially recovered, presumably after having been deleted. Text message was there, but sender data was not available. Maybe they suspect more cell phone contact between Brady and Jastremski than disclosed.
I didn't say he did, nor am I interested in any rats asses you may want to get rid of.DrewDawg said:
And given the way any information that would have painted the Patriots and Brady in a positive, innocent light was omitted or included but ignored, Wells' assertion yesterday that he'd 'take their word for it" on the texts that they chose to turn over is the ultimate hollow gesture.Hoya81 said:
Is there any doubt if they had picked the texts and submitted a written list of them, that Wells' report would have talked about their lack of full cooperation in only handing over "approved" or "edited" texts?
I do not believe that the timing or content of his comments, or Eli's, were accidental.Tyrone Biggums said:
The simple fact is that the Pats are going to get very little support from the players, coaches, executives and owners of other teams, for reasons detailed here the last few days and weeks. The NFLPA will strongly support Brady because that's its job, and because it has a strong interest in toppling a tyrannical system of discipline. That pretty much is all I'm counting on, apart from the occasional League supporter who weighs in from left field and whose remarks will have no consequence. A corollary of this is that Bob Kraft faces a huge uphill fight in replacing Goodell unless this matter explodes on appeal in an extraordinarily favorable way for the Pats, and embarrassing way for the League. You think the Maras and Rooneys are our friends? Think again.
ivanvamp said:
I would agree but to me this is the only piece of the puzzle that I question. The gas laws, Brady not turning over his phone, the "more probably than not", etc. all are reasonably explainable in favor of the Patriots.
To me the final piece would be to ask Tom Brady, Jastremski and McNally to explain the context of this text. Hopefully by the end of this we have an answer because it is the only piece that has me questioning if Tom was at fault.
NFLN and ESPN have spent a lot of time discussing how the Pats will play the first four games without Brady - like it is a foregone conclusion he will miss those first four games. I know this isn't exactly news to anyone but it is just further proof that it is all about the hype machine - create a controversy so it can be discussed on your networks.
Did the report provide any reasons why the remaining Colts' balls weren't measured after the game?
Hoya81 said:
Exactly. Especially given the fact that BB and TB12 said multiple times up to and after the Super Bowl that they hadn't been contacted by Wells yet. By the time Brady sat down with Wells (presumably), Jastremski and McNally had already been interviewed. Hence, Wells already had possession of any texts between those two (essentially just Jastremski) and Brady. The spin on this is ridiculous.
The report proves that he wasn't about to take anyone's word. Specifically, he asked for any explanation from Jastemski on the texts referring to Bird being stressed about something. He told them it was about selling off some game tickets. They didn't believe him and wanted to interview his friends to collaborate. Since Brady was interviewed at the end of the process there was probably already ample evidence that they wouldn't "take their word for it".steveluck7 said:
wibi said:
Agreed. The "one team complaining more than others" suggests a frequent foe, ergo Buffalo/Miami/NYJ or Indy/Baltimore/Denver. My guess is the Jets.
Right - and the thinking is that most teams in the league should feel this way. Eventually you would think all owners would realize the implications of the draft pick penalty and million dollar fine and how it might affect them down the line. But it seems like so many of them are caught up in catching the Pats that they don't see the forest for the trees.wibi said:
Seattle has to be docked a first round pick and fined a million bucks next time one of their players fails a PED test, right? Culture of cheating, repeat offender.
Maybe, but being the team that was to play them in the largest game of the season it would make sense not only to care about rules violations, but also to make their time leading up to the game more about this incident than game preparation.wibi said:
Perhaps they were looking for texts to Bird or JJ that were going to other phones (i.e. personal phones of theirs, not the Patriot phones they turned over). Obviously everything "relevant" from the phones turned in was used.cshea said:
Objectively, the best defense for Brady is that the balls were not deflated and the texts are meaningless (but I doubt this gets any suspension reduction without further evidence, e.g. Brady disclosing his cell phone records, unless RG turns this over to an independent arbitrator). The fact that the balls from the second half dropped only around .35 to .40 for both teams and at best dropped an average of 1.0 from the beginning of the game to the first half, does not look good optically, although we all know the explanations. I still believe the most prudent conclusion for Wells would have been that the data was inconclusive and that the balls were possibly deflated. It is understandable how he could come to the 50.1% and state more probable than not, but linking Brady in the language he used (generally aware) was a reach. He seems to have felt forced into the 50.1% conclusion by the actions of Bird / Patriots to avoid the second interview (to perhaps ask about another phone or confront about the nature of the texts, if his version of the events is to be believed). Given the language he used in the report it would have been supportable for him to conclude that it was more probably than not that footballs were intentionally deflated in a scheme that Bird and JJ were involved, and that Brady was possibly aware.
RetractableRoof said:
You can infer that it meant that he had some embarrassing information, sure, but it doesn't imply that they did anything illegal, and it definitely doesn't imply that they deflated footballs after officials checked them.
Maybe, but you would think the amount he let out would be more consistent. He would have had to let like four times the air out of same balls than others to get the results we see.tims4wins said:
Yes, that's an assumption. In Anderson's favor is the fact that he remembers inflating two of the balls that were below. I think it's a reasonable assumption that the Patriots' balls were all in the 12.5-12.6 range - but "reasonable" is not always the same as "correct."pappymojo said:
Oh, I agree with this - especially since we know one ball they did use (the Jackson interception ball) did measure within the range we would expect by the Ideal Gas Law. If the intention was just to deflate and use certain balls, they messed up. Natural laws and use of the logo gauge does not explain all the data, but I'm not sure tampering is the obvious conclusion either.RetractableRoof said:
One interesting note: they measured four Patriots and four Colts balls after the game (see page 72 of the Wells report) but concluded that the data "did not provide a scientifically reasonable basis" for any further analysis.CoffeeNerdness said:
CoffeeNerdness said:
How many days into this are we? I haven't seen anyone ask this question yet. It's a good one.