#DFG: Canceling the Noise

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


  • Total voters
    208

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
ifmanis5 said:
The phrase 'Integrity of the Game' was used quite often.
True, but it's an interesting potential counterbalance for the vast majority of Americans who care more about basic decency than the "integrity" of some bs game - how can they suspend Brady for longer than Rice?
 

LuckyBen

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 5, 2012
3,396
EvilEmpire said:
Because Wells would rather interview McNally than a Pats lawyer.
Because they obviously got nothing from the first interview which is why Wells believes that maybe it could if it should. The report reads like a Dr. Seuss novel.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
86spike said:
Wells states that the request for another meeting came after they found the McNally-Jastremski messages. Seems like a perfectly reasonable reason to ask for a follow up.

Also note that he says the Patriots lawyers did not refuse them outright. NE attorneys asked to get the questions ahead of time or do the interview in writing.

That's shady.
No, those are interrogatories. They're pretty damn common, unfortunately, in litigation. It's potentially a lot cheaper and can be more convenient.
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 9, 2007
17,184
Washington
Because they obviously got nothing from the first interview which is why Wells believes that maybe it could if it should. The report reads like a Dr. Seuss novel.
You're clogging up the thread with clownishness.
 

caesarbear

New Member
Jan 28, 2007
271
EvilEmpire said:
Because Wells would rather interview McNally than a Pats lawyer.
Sure, and notice how he didn't bother to submit any further questions and instead cried "he lawyered up!" in the report.
 

86spike

Currently enjoying "Arli$$"
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2002
25,082
Procrasti Nation
Marciano490 said:
No, those are interrogatories. They're pretty damn common, unfortunately, in litigation. It's potentially a lot cheaper and can be more convenient.
This wasn't litigation, though. It was an investigation under the terms of the NFL rules/Bylaws. Those Rules/Bylaws obligate NE to fully cooperate with an official investigation. Lawyers trying to maneuver during litigation to protect their client are in a completely different situation than the Patriots were in. NE is obligated to cooperate fully. Full stop.

When people try to compare this to criminal or civil law, they are making a mistake.

Wells is clearly serious about NE not fully cooperating. That's no joke.

I also saw this on another site and thought it worth pointing out to anyone who thinks the use of the phrase "more probable than not" Is wishy washy or hedging in some way:

"More probable than not" is specific terminology called out in the Policy on Integrity of the Game & Enforcement of Competitive Rules (Section 4), meaning that there is a preponderance of proof:

The investigation was conducted pursuant to the Policy on Integrity of the Game & Enforcement of Competitive Rules. In particular, Section 2 of the Policy provides that:

Actual or suspected competitive violations will be thoroughly and promptly investigated. Any club identifying a violation is required promptly to report the violation, and give its full support and cooperation in any investigation. Failure to cooperate in an investigation shall be considered conduct detrimental to the League and will subject the offending club and responsible individual(s) to appropriate discipline. Section 4 of the Policy provides that the standard of proof required to find that a violation of the competitive rules has occurred shall be a Preponderance of the Evidence. As the Policy makes clear, that means that, as a whole, the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.

Anybody getting hung up on "more probable than not", needs to reread the passage above from the NFL rulebook. That's exactly why they used that specific terminology.
The term is used specifically and means Wells feels he has met the required burden of proof that there was rules violations under the governing Policy.

The more I learn, the more I think punishment may be more than fines.
 

86spike

Currently enjoying "Arli$$"
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2002
25,082
Procrasti Nation
caesarbear said:
Sure, and notice how he didn't bother to submit any further questions and instead cried "he lawyered up!" in the report.
Submitting questions would have been worthless. They stated as much.
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 9, 2007
17,184
Washington
Sure, and notice how he didn't bother to submit any further questions and instead cried "he lawyered up!" in the report.
Yeah. When they didn't get the additional access they wanted (and probably expected), they decided it was better to just go with what they had. Maybe they were looking for context on the text messages and figured they wouldn't get it if filtered through lawyers. I don't know. Depending on the questions they had, maybe it was a reasonable call. Impossible to tell right now.
 

ALiveH

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,104
after reading how biased the wells report was, i'm thinking wells was given wink-wink instructions by goodell & i'm thinking he's going to go full spygate level crazy on kraft / belichick / brady for daring to challenge his authority.  If I could re-do my vote, i'd upgrade to:
 
brady suspended 4 games
pats lose a 4th round pick
belichick fined $500k
patriots organization fined $1M
 
jaguars, colts, kiesel, aaron rogers all go unpunished.
nobody punished for the leaks.
 

LuckyBen

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 5, 2012
3,396
86spike said:
This wasn't litigation, though. It was an investigation under the terms of the NFL rules/Bylaws. Those Rules/Bylaws obligate NE to fully cooperate with an official investigation. Lawyers trying to maneuver during litigation to protect their client are in a completely different situation than the Patriots were in. NE is obligated to cooperate fully. Full stop.
When people try to compare this to criminal or civil law, they are making a mistake.
Wells is clearly serious about NE not fully cooperating. That's no joke.
I also saw this on another site and thought it worth pointing out to anyone who thinks the use of the phrase "more probable than not" Is wishy washy or hedging in some way:
The term is used specifically and means Wells feels he has met the required burden of proof that there was rules violations under the governing Policy.
The more I learn, the more I think punishment may be more than fines.
So Wells finds a preponderance of proof, yet offers no proof? There are so many contradictions in this report, yet very few facts. As I have said, this is focused solely on the Patriots, yet covers none of the true integral issues that came up with this whole drama.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
ALiveH said:
after reading how biased the wells report was, i'm thinking wells was given wink-wink instructions by goodell & i'm thinking he's going to go full spygate level crazy on kraft / belichick / brady for daring to challenge his authority.  If I could re-do my vote, i'd upgrade to:
 
brady suspended 4 games
pats lose a 4th round pick
belichick fined $500k
patriots organization fined $1M
 
jaguars, colts, kiesel, aaron rogers all go unpunished.
nobody punished for the leaks.
Except the Wells report does essentially exonerate Kraft and Belichick of any wrongdoing.  The team could still get docked a pick and/or fined, as the 2 assclowns are Patriots employees (I would hope soon to be former employees).  
 
The report itself does not have enough to support a 4 game suspension of Brady.  While Goodell could impose it anyway, the NFLPA will fight it tooth and nail.  
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
If all Wells had was the Exponent report, then yes all Wells could say would be that the evidence is inconclusive.  However, the text messages from the assclowns are more damning to the Pats than some here are acknowledging.  While not conclusive proof, they're enough to provide Goodell cover for imposing a punishment, which is all he needs.  
 

86spike

Currently enjoying "Arli$$"
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2002
25,082
Procrasti Nation
lexrageorge said:
If all Wells had was the Exponent report, then yes all Wells could say would be that the evidence is inconclusive.  However, the text messages from the assclowns are more damning to the Pats than some here are acknowledging.  While not conclusive proof, they're enough to provide Goodell cover for imposing a punishment, which is all he needs.
Definitely agree.
 

86spike

Currently enjoying "Arli$$"
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2002
25,082
Procrasti Nation
LuckyBen said:
So Wells finds a preponderance of proof, yet offers no proof? There are so many contradictions in this report, yet very few facts. As I have said, this is focused solely on the Patriots, yet covers none of the true integral issues that came up with this whole drama.
"More Probable Than Not" for all intents and purposes here means "Guilty".

Lawyers, is this not so?
 

Carmen Fanzone

Monbo's BFF
Dec 20, 2002
6,027
NFL announces fine for Brady, who issues a statement that it's "more probable than not" that he'll actually pay it, then never does.
 

Three10toLeft

New Member
Oct 2, 2008
1,560
Asheville, NC
I'm a Patriots apologist, and think this mess is overblown.
 
But if you think the fact that the Patriots blocked a 5th interview from taking place is "Nothing to see here" then you're blinded by loyalty to a fault. WTF is the difference between a 4th interview and a 5th interview at this point? If you really wanted to put your foot down, I would think it would have been stomped down earlier. The lawyers for the team must have caught wind of where this investigation was heading, and thought it was worth the PR hit of denying the 5th interview instead of allowing McNally to answer whatever new questions Wells had. A guy moonlighting as a Patriots ball boy for half the year, can't have such a tight schedule that he couldn't possibly find the time to squeeze in another interview. 
 
If you are not afraid of the truth, you let the guy talk. The Patriots clearly didn't think that was in their best interest.
 
It's pretty obvious as this point what probably happened...
 
Brady likes the balls on the low end. He probably implied to Jastremski that if their were any way for them to be on the low side before games, that it would be appreciated. Jastremski said he could take care of that. Jastremski got this McNally putz to do their dirty work while Jastremski kvetches to McNally about what a pain in the ass Brady is.
 
I don't think Brady ever explicitly told anyone what PSI these balls need to be at. All that was probably said is to put them at 12.5 and if they were to shrink before the game even more, than great. That's pretty much how I imagine this has gone down. And probably for quite a while. 
 
This whole thing is fucking ridiculous.
 

ALiveH

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,104
Up until now, I've been laughing at what a big nothingburger this is.  Having read the report, not laughing anymore. 
 
This is the worst possible outcome.  The report is an abomination of intellectual dishonesty, but it gives Goodell all the cover he needs legally and in the media to go full SpyGate-level crazy disproportionate punishment.
 
I think it's a bit delusional to think too many people will come to the Pats' defense given the other 97% "hate us cause they ain't us."
 
If it can happen to us though, Goodell can literally railroad any franchise he wants...First they came for the Patriots, and I didn't speak up because the Pats had been embarrassing me for the past 15 years...
 

86spike

Currently enjoying "Arli$$"
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2002
25,082
Procrasti Nation
lexrageorge said:
Except the Wells report does essentially exonerate Kraft and Belichick of any wrongdoing.  The team could still get docked a pick and/or fined, as the 2 assclowns are Patriots employees (I would hope soon to be former employees).  
As I've been discussing in the other thread, There is the serious accusation that NE did not fully cooperate with the investigation by holding back more access to McNally.

Goodell is coming for them on that. Fine and a late pick maybe. He cannot let that slide and the other owners will demand punishment.
 

tedseye

New Member
Apr 15, 2006
73
I do not think Goodell would dare suspend T -- that would bring in the NFLPA and open up the Exponent "experts" to cross examination at arbitration. The fallacies involved in their acceptance of the timing assumptions insisted upon by the Wells team would be exposed, and the house of cards that is the Wells report would crumble.
 

amarshal2

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2005
4,913
Help me see all this railroading and intellectual dishonesty. I skimmed the expert witness section and it seemed like the assumptions were reasonable and fairly incriminating though not iron clad. It's not the outcome I want to believe but it's what I'm stuck with absent anyone pointing out specific assumptions in the science section that are intellectually dishonest.
 

jimbobim

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2012
1,558
86spike said:
"More Probable Than Not" for all intents and purposes here means "Guilty".

Lawyers, is this not so?
Well see that's the crux of it. The report did what it was commissioned to do. Goddell has his cover, the question really is does he want another Deflate Gate? He can throw the book of fines and draft picks, but he's in a bit of a bind with the finger of the Wells report pointing at Brady and essentially saying" He cheated and implicitly saying he was able to do it because the ball process is a wide open joke ".
 
3 points
 
1) Goodell one would think doesn't want Brady taking this to arb or a fight with the union. TB's rep will/is already damaged badly in all non NE eyes . Why risk getting overturned in court again with a suspension ? Also a suspension would further incentivize other teams to bring any suspicions about ball deflation if they can see the QB might get suspended. It's incredibly naive to think Rodgers and Manning aren't particular about ball PSI. They just didn't taunt a team about the rule book after a playoff win. 
 
2) Threading the needle of slamming the Pats and reforming the ball prep process could be difficult.
 
3) End result I think will be fines and a loss of a 2nd and 3rd which is more then the Browns and Falcons whose transgressions were more egregious for any objective person. Won't be enough but it should be enough for the mob.  
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
41,582
South Boston
86spike said:
This wasn't litigation, though. It was an investigation under the terms of the NFL rules/Bylaws. Those Rules/Bylaws obligate NE to fully cooperate with an official investigation. Lawyers trying to maneuver during litigation to protect their client are in a completely different situation than the Patriots were in. NE is obligated to cooperate fully. Full stop.
Well, no.

If the Patriots were ordered to answer questions with no lawyer present because doing so would have been more cooperative, do you think they would have been obligated to do so?

Given the scope of what you believe the obligation to be, why make the offer to Brady about his counsel being able to screen and produce responsive text messages and other phone data instead of simply making the request that the phone be images by a forensic expert and then, after refusal, falling back on the "failure to cooperate" language?

When people try to compare this to criminal or civil law, they are making a mistake.
We're really not. Contract grievance and other investigatory procedures really aren't that foreign to us. They don't perfectly track rules of civil procedure, but there are comparable issues, including, of course, the standard of proof at issue.

Also, if Pats' counsel also represented the guy, they'd have a different obligation to him.
 

Icculus

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
265
Gamehenge
"More probable than not" .... "Brady was at least generally aware of the inappropriate activities".
Apparently the first part has a legal meaning according to the NFL. But the second? What's the definition there? Because from what I've seen it seems most likely that after the Jets game Brady complained that the balls felt (and were) overinflated and didn't want it to happen again. He looked up the rule and found the lowest possible pressure he could get and wanted it there. Maybe he should have run a sting on the refs for approving balls that had too much pressure in them?
 

86spike

Currently enjoying "Arli$$"
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2002
25,082
Procrasti Nation
Icculus said:
"More probable than not" .... "Brady was at least generally aware of the inappropriate activities".
Apparently the first part has a legal meaning according to the NFL. But the second? What's the definition there? Because from what I've seen it seems most likely that after the Jets game Brady complained that the balls felt (and were) overinflated and didn't want it to happen again. He looked up the rule and found the lowest possible pressure he could get and wanted it there. Maybe he should have run a sting on the refs for approving balls that had too much pressure in them?
Didn't the text where McNally calls himself The Deflator come in early 2014 during the offseason?
EDIT: it did (5/9/14)

That implies his activities predate that game you reference.
 

Nick Kaufman

protector of human kind from spoilers
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2003
13,410
A Lost Time
Why would McNally joke about taking this activity to ESPN 4 months before this became an out of proportion scandal?
 

86spike

Currently enjoying "Arli$$"
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2002
25,082
Procrasti Nation
Nick Kaufman said:
Why would McNally joke about taking this activity to ESPN 4 months before this became an out of proportion scandal?
Because they were deflating balls prior to that date (5/9/14) and he knew that gave him leverage over Jasremski to get free shit.

Something tells me Jim McNally is something of a prick to be around.
 

Nick Kaufman

protector of human kind from spoilers
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2003
13,410
A Lost Time
Yeah, but moreover, the threat- even as a joking reference- implies that he was deflating the balls bellow 12.5 and all parties viewed that there were going to be serious repercussions if it was revealed to the public. This to me is the strongest circumstantial evidence.
 

veritas

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2009
3,151
Somerville, MA
It's pretty clear from the report that Belichick and Kraft had no knowledge of this nor gave any fucks about it. I can't imagine the organization being in trouble for this because of Brady's role, penalizing a franchise in terms of money and draft picks because of the actions of one player is unprecedented*
 
The equipment guys are a little bit of a grey area. Those guys are so low in the org that it would be surprising to see the NFL fine the Patriots for their actions. What the NFL knew about the Falcon's crowd noise situation and whether that went higher up in their organization is probably going to be a good barometer of the Patriots' penalty. If the Falcons had a rogue sound guy responsible for this on his own and that's why the Falcon's were penalized, that doesn't bode well for the Patriots. I'm not sure of the details in that case though. I always assumed that it was more systemic than that.
 
Brady's penalty on a personal level is going to be fascinating. Goodell wants to make his point, but too harsh a penalty to their marquee player over the past 15 years is going to be a blow the NFL brand. Too soft a penalty shows favoritism towards superstar players and owners with influence. The CBA doesn't seem to have much to say about a situation like this. My guess is Goodell imposes as harsh a penalty as he can without Brady missing the first game of the season, and not harsh enough for an appeal. My guess:  Suspension from all team activities through the Patriots first 2 preseason games and a ridiculous fine on the magnitude of $1m (~1 games salary)
 
edit: * - not just unprecedented, but a move that would piss off the NFLPA and every single owner
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,897
Los Angeles, CA
BigSoxFan said:
I'm sure Wells would have worked around his schedule but if they really did have 4 previous interviews, then tough shit.
Yeah, especially because I imagine the transition from NFL Security to Wells' team was likely piss poor. Regardless of how stellar the information hand off was, I'm sure Wells' team preferred to conduct an interview where they started from the beginning. Tough shit. You don't get to hound me endlessly because your initial investigative team sucks.
 

nothumb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 27, 2006
7,065
yammer's favorite poster
tedseye said:
I do not think Goodell would dare suspend T -- that would bring in the NFLPA and open up the Exponent "experts" to cross examination at arbitration. The fallacies involved in their acceptance of the timing assumptions insisted upon by the Wells team would be exposed, and the house of cards that is the Wells report would crumble.
 
I'm not sure that a Brady appeal would focus so much on that stuff. I think it would hammer on the lack of evidence that TB instructed the employees to do anything and the fact that the report doesn't conclusively prove that he lied about knowing McNally. The allegedly incriminating text on that front has Jas telling McNally that Brady "mentioned him." It doesn't say "TB said 'tell McNally'..." yadda yadda. TB just has to say, "yeah, I said 'the locker room guy,' and Jas knew who I meant. It doesn't prove I knew his fucking name."
 
Which is all asinine hairsplitting and probably not true, but it's also enough that no arbitrator will uphold a suspension.
 
Remember too, when thinking of Bountygate, that Payton is a coach and didn't have the arbitration process to fall back on. Several of the actual players in Bountygate appealed the initial ruling and had some success IIRC.
 
My guess is still that this lines up perfectly with a Friday news dump announcing a Brady fine and a lifetime ban for the two employees. But I also thought the report would exonerate the Pats, so what the fuck do I know. I think the second most likely outcome is a 1-2 game suspension for Brady that gets converted to a fine on appeal.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,897
Los Angeles, CA
caesarbear said:
No it's not, it's just a lawyer doing their job. Why another face to face if it can be cleared up with a letter?
Also, why not accept the compromise of a written statement or perhaps counter with the offer of a phone interview? Isn't some information better than none? Or do you just want to preserve the ability to complain about it?
 

Gorton Fisherman

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 26, 2002
2,485
Port Orange, FL
So I have two major takeaways from this whole thing.  (Disclaimer: I have not read the entire Wells report, mainly just the key excerpts that have been posted here and reported in the media).
 
1) It seems a reasonable conclusion that McNally and/or Jastremski may have illegally tampered with balls after the officials' pre-game inspection prior to the start of the AFC championship game.  While I have not seen or heard any hard facts presented that unequivocally prove this contention, there are enough smoking guns surrounding McNally's conduct (the bathroom visit, his failure to initially report the bathroom visit, his refusal to grant a fifth interview) to at least make this not a completely insane conclusion.  Overall I think the case here it still somewhat weak, but I'm inclined to give Wells this one.
 
If you accept that McNally and/or Jastremski illegally tampered with balls (setting aside Brady’s possible involvement for the moment), what should the punishment be?  These two guys should be fired, clearly.  And even though Wells concludes that Bill Belichick, the coaching staff, team ownership, and the Patriots organization as a whole were unaware of and played no part in the tampering, I can see Goodell sanctioning the team since these guys were, after all, team employees.  My opinion is that the maximum reasonable sanction here would be a middling fine (e.g. $250K), and/or loss of a late round draft pick (i.e. 5th round or later).  In other words, more or less in line with the punishments recently handed out to the Atlanta Falcons and Cleveland Browns for their respective rules violations. 
 
2) Wells concludes that it is "more probable than not" that Tom Brady was "generally aware" that there was illegal ball tampering being perpetrated by McNally and Jastremski.  Here's where Wells loses me.  For those who have read the the entire thing: are there any facts or evidence of any kind presented anywhere in the report that would support the conclusion that Brady was "aware" of illegal tampering (e.g. deflating balls after pre-game inspection)?
 
Furthermore, even assuming Brady was hypothetically "aware" that such tampering was occurring, but played no part in directing or participating in said tampering, is that actually a rule violation?  Do NFL rules mandate that players are compelled to report to management or to the league any rule infractions perpetrated by other players or team personnel that they observe or have knowledge of, however minor?  I would be surprised if this was the case.  If anyone honestly knows the answer to this one way or the other, I'd love to hear it.
 
If being "aware" of ball tampering is the maximum extent of Brady's "crime", then I think it kinda makes him look a little bad, but nothing major.  Maximum penalty for this sort of thing should be a small fine at worst (I would actually argue that no fine is warranted if "failure to report infractions" is not actually a rule violation).
 
The other "conclusion" that various simple-minded media blowhards and Patriots bashers seem to be asserting is that Brady was somehow complicit in the illegal ball tampering allegedly performed by McNally and Jastremski.  In other words, that Brady actively directed these employees to illegally doctor the balls.  This is a far more serious charge.  However, this conclusion seems utterly ridiculous in my opinion.  I have not seen or heard any facts or even unsupported allegations that would support such a conclusion.  In other words, not only is there not a "preponderance of evidence" to back up such a claim, there is really no evidence whatsoever. In fact, Wells apparently draws no such conclusion himself (correct me if I missed something).  "Illegally" in this context would mean that Brady specifically directed the employees to tamper with the balls after the officials' pre-game inspection, or somehow otherwise mandated that the balls be deflated to a level under the legal limit of 12.5 PSI  "by whatever means necessary".   Note that Brady expressing a preference for balls to be inflated towards the lower end or right at the legal PSI limit is not a rule violation, or even the least bit improper for that matter.  Nor is Brady bitching about some balls in prior games having possibly been over-inflated a rule violation.  Nor is possibly under-inflating balls prior to the officials' pre-game inspection a rules violation or "illegal tampering", as far as I understand things.
 
Bottom line: the most damning indictment being leveled at Tom Brady in the media and elsewhere (that he actively participating in cheating with respect to ball inflation) is something that is wholly unsupported by the facts, and is not even claimed by the guy responsible for gathering the relevant evidence and generating the report, at considerable time and expense.  If Brady had been found to have actively participated in the ball tampering, that would perhaps warrant a more serious fine and/or possible suspension, and maybe justify some of the insane media hoo-hah about his "legacy being tainted" and all that silly kind of crap that's currently being thrown around.  But this simply isn't the case.  People asserting that this is the case are basically, well... dumb, I guess. 
 
Lastly, regardless of Brady's involvement and the possible misconduct by the two team employees, claims that alleged ball under-inflation provided a significant competitive advantage for the Patriots, and that their Super Bowl title should be vacated, etc., are also super-duper dumb.  (And unfortunately, you can't fix stupid.)
 
(Also, apologies for the TL;DR nature of this post, it ended up a lot longer than I expected... :))
 

sodenj5

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
6,619
CT
I think the correlation between the ball PSI and on field performance is negligible. To me, Brady's stats, wins, etc. are no less authentic than they were.

It's Brady's image and reputation that take the biggest hit to me, letting Belichick and Kraft go to bat for him and then completely denying any involvement or knowledge of the practice. If he did know what was going on, allowing these guys to defend him instead of stepping up and taking responsibility is far worse than what little competitive advantage may or may not have been gained by deflating the balls.
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
46,775
Hartford, CT
So the follow up questions for McNally were so important that Wells didn't at least send an interrogatory to the team once rebuffed for another in-person interview?

Better to focus on the 'less than full cooperation' of the team and draw some questionable inferences.
 

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,667
Mid-surburbia
Nick Kaufman said:
Yeah, but moreover, the threat- even as a joking reference- implies that he was deflating the balls bellow 12.5 and all parties viewed that there were going to be serious repercussions if it was revealed to the public. This to me is the strongest circumstantial evidence.
 
Or, it could be a bad joke by a guy who is incentivized to perhaps make himself sound more important than he is. These text are incredibly tricky to think you understand context from.
 
 
86spike said:
Something tells me Jim McNally is something of a prick to be around.
 
I think this fact may end up really being the alpha and omega of the whole thing.  The one thing I laugh at is the 'contradictions' around whether Bray 'knew' McNally.  Ya know how many folks get trotted in front of this dude by handlers like Jastremski for a quick pic and autograph?  Hell, my $5 says that Brady didn't know McNally's name because he only knows him as 'the deflator guy' via convos with JJ.  
 
I almost want to say, if this is the guy they put in charge of making sure Brady got his balls back from the officials properly inflated by hook or by crook, they deserve half the shit that's happening.  
 
 
 
Here's what I don't see much chatter on:  It seems like a strong hypothesis can be drawn that this whole thing started, from the Patriots perspective, because in an early October game the Patriots received Brady's balls back from the officials inflated to almost 16 psi, a number more outside the legal limit than what the Pats were accused of.  That couldn't be a clearer signal that there was zero rigor or fucks given around ball inflation prior to the AFCCG, and I'd like to know what discipline is being inflicted upon the official who blatantly provided a competitive advantage to the Pats' opposition.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Brady being (allegedly) "aware of these activities" does raise an interesting point. That would certainly be enough to hang BB or Kraft -- they are captain and owner of the ship.

But I don't care how important the QB position is -- where does the player's responsibility kick in to stop something like this?

I have not read the report, is there anything more harmful said about Brady? Is Gooddell likely to make a factual inference that the report does not draw? Or will he impose sanctions for mere knowledge, something to my knowledge he has not done before?
 

speedracer

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,832
sodenj5 said:
I think the correlation between the ball PSI and on field performance is negligible. To me, Brady's stats, wins, etc. are no less authentic than they were.
 
 
Demonstrating the effect on ball PSI on on-field performance would be difficult, but at minimum they could (and perhaps should) have done a controlled double-blind experiment with a few college QBs and receivers throwing balls of various inflation levels and asking them to identify them.
 

86spike

Currently enjoying "Arli$$"
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2002
25,082
Procrasti Nation
If Brady appeals whatever punishment, does that not open up Bringing McNally and Jastremski back into another hearing for further questioning? Would he want to risk that?
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
dcmissle said:
Brady being (allegedly) "aware of these activities" does raise an interesting point. That would certainly be enough to hang BB or Kraft -- they are captain and owner of the ship.

But I don't care how important the QB position is -- where does the player's responsibility kick in to stop something like this?

I have not read the report, is there anything more harmful said about Brady? Is Gooddell likely to make a factual inference that the report does not draw? Or will he impose sanctions for mere knowledge, something to my knowledge he has not done before?
To me, the most damning evidence surrounding Brady in all of this is the texts/communication with Dweedle Dee and Dweedle Dum.  Wells made a significant point about Brady and the gang of two not communicating via phone for over 6 months.  Then all of a sudden as soon as Brady hears the league is looking into the balls, texts/calls are fast and furious for the next few days - including an in person meeting in the QB room at the stadium that the 2 had never before been in. [Edit: to be clear, I don't see any record that Brady contacted McNally at all - the contact with him seems like a ripple effect.  I buy that Brady didn't know him by name - he probably had seen him around, but it would seem he wasn't in Brady's periphery unless he got access by someone else.  That doesn't mean that Brady didn't recall his face on some level.]
 
That can be framed to be a cover up by co-conspirators and Wells clearly must see it that way.  On the other hand, to me it is reasonable that Brady may have been making some "wtf is going on here?" calls knowing that Kraft and BB are going to be asking him what is going on.  I'm pretty sure that in his place I would have been trying to figure it out - especially knowing how the media always looks for a reason to take a second look at the Pats
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
I think you are exactly right. As noted in companion thread, Wells never comes out and says Brady instructed anyone to do anything.

So to suspend TB Goodell either has to make that factual inference himself, or he has to say knowledge is enough. If he goes the latter route, he is on really shaky ground. I don't care how important the QB is, or even that he benefitted, Brady is just a player. Under door # 2 rationale, every New Orleans Saint who knew about Bountygate, every Falcom who knew about crowd noise, every Brown who knew about texted coverages during the game, was fair game for discipline.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,300
deep inside Guido territory
I think brady told them he wanted them at 12.5 but did not tell them to intentionally deflate then below 12.5. Its plausible that they thought they inflated them and McNally took matters into his own hands to get them back to a softer level for Brady.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
86spike said:
If Brady appeals whatever punishment, does that not open up Bringing McNally and Jastremski back into another hearing for further questioning? Would he want to risk that?
After the lifetime bans that are likely to drop on them, it likely won't matter. Their attendance cannot be compelled. Besides, I would argue as Brady's lawyer that his punishment must be judged only against the record compiled by the NFL as of the time the punishment was imposed. I think that is a good argument, unless Brady were to open the door to evidence like that by seeking to introduce extra record evidence of his own.
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
JimBoSox9 said:
Here's what I don't see much chatter on:  It seems like a strong hypothesis can be drawn that this whole thing started, from the Patriots perspective, because in an early October game the Patriots received Brady's balls back from the officials inflated to almost 16 psi, a number more outside the legal limit than what the Pats were accused of.  That couldn't be a clearer signal that there was zero rigor or fucks given around ball inflation prior to the AFCCG, and I'd like to know what discipline is being inflicted upon the official who blatantly provided a competitive advantage to the Pats' opposition.
 
This part is what should absolutely be getting more play here.  Interesting article here (http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2015/05/06/probably-doesnt-cut-it-wells-report-damns-investigators-more-than-patriots/).  The relevant portion:
 
"Wells relies on evidence suggesting the opposite of what he believes probablyhappened as a way to prove his case. Biased investigators embrace this methodology because it enables them to prove anything. Jim McNally suggesting to “blow up the ball to look like a rugby ball,” a “watermelon,” and a “balloon” might have proved to be a smoking gun if Wells charged the equipment guys of overinflating balls. It’s surely relevant in indicating Brady’s frustration with overinflated balls. But when McNally and Jastremski point to referees pressurizing balls to 16 psi—2.5 psi over the limit—the evidence just as easily points to Brady looking for a ball deflated to regulation than to one deflated below it. It may be the case that Brady sought an edge on the rules. But this evidence presented mostly undermines rather than buttresses that thesis.
 
Buried deep past the executive summary, Wells concedes that “the air pressure of all of the game balls tested at halftime decreased from the levels measured prior to the game.” In other words, Wells affirmed Bill Belichick’s point, ridiculed by Bill Nye “the Science Guy” and others, that the weather naturally deflates balls.
All of the balls—Patriots balls and Colts balls—lost pressure by halftime. Significantly, the 11 Patriot balls showed greater decreases than the four Colt balls tested. More significantly, judging by what the scientists employed by Wells told him, eight of the 11 balls tested at halftime fell within the expected range of pressure drop based on the measurements of at least one of the two NFL officials who gauged the pigskins. This, more than anything else, invalidates the conclusions of the Wells Report. Though Ted Wells theorizes a conspiracy to depressurize balls, measurements by NFL referees on themajority of the Patriots balls read precisely where the scientific firm employed by the investigators said a ball inflated to 12.5 psi–the NFL minimum–would fall to (between 11.52 and 11.32) as a result of game-time conditions.
Since the psi measurements of the two referees varied somewhat, the opposite–that a majority of the balls failed to meet the expected level–is also true. Remarkably, the report chooses to interpret the data exclusively in a manner that suggests malfeasance. “Most of the individual Patriots measurements recorded at halftime, however, were lower than the range predicted by the Ideal Gas Law,” the report reads. But the fact that by at least one or the other referee’s measurement, the air pressure of eight of eleven balls fell to expected levels undermines the verdict of “probable” guilt."
 
All of the talk of deflating the footballs - my goodness, how is that 16 psi piece not HUGELY important?  Brady likes the footballs on the softer end of the scale.  Ok, that's his preference, just like Aaron Rodgers likes them on the upper end of the scale.  And when the refs check the balls at the beginning of a particular game and they come to 16 psi, a few things follow from that:
 
(1) The refs *DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE PSI IN THE FOOTBALLS*.  How could they be doing their job if psi is SOOOO critical to the game, and yet they admit footballs into the game that are 3.5 psi outside the range?  Either they (a) didn't check all the footballs, or (b) they did check but didn't give a rat's ass about what the psi were.  In either case, they didn't care AT ALL what the psi were.  The psi only became a big factor when the Colts decided to make this an issue.  
 
(2) The process itself is hardly something CSI worthy.  The procedures are very loose.  When Walt Anderson says he was distraught at the "missing" footballs taken by McNally, I guarantee that the only reason he was distraught was because in THIS PARTICULAR GAME they were keeping a specific eye on that.  I guarantee you he never thought twice about the chain of custody before in all his years as an NFL referee.  Some mid-season game between two last-place teams, there is zero chance he worried about what happened to the footballs once he approved them.  Moreover, I bet his method of approval was basically this:  test one or two balls in a batch, if they check out, great, if not, pump them up (or deflate them a little) then squeeze-test the rest.  Like NFL quarterbacks, he wouldn't be able to tell the difference between 0.5 psi, so of COURSE it's possible that in the course of a normal NFL game the refs submit themselves game balls outside the allowable psi range.  Why?  BECAUSE NOBODY FRIGGING CARES, that's why.
 
(3) It is *entirely plausible* that the entire premise of deflating footballs for Brady stems from the 16 psi number.  They know Brady likes his footballs softer.  Maybe nobody can tell the difference of 0.5 psi, but Brady sure could tell the difference of 3.5 psi!  And so they took those balls and deflated them after getting them back, noticing, yikes, they're really hard, and deflating them themselves.  So for the AFCCG, here's an ENTIRELY PLAUSIBLE sequence of events.  They submit the footballs at 12.5 psi or a little under.  Anderson pumps them up just to make sure they're ok, and some of them he pumps up higher than 12.5 - maybe up to 13.5.  Who knows.  McNally gets the balls and a quick feel knows that the ones at 13.5 are a little too hard for what Brady likes, so he quickly lets air out of some of them (maybe not all of them, maybe just some of them).  Doing this quickly, he doesn't use a gauge…just a feel test.  Which is why the balls aren't uniformly pressurized when measured at halftime.
 
So yeah, should he have done that?  No, not according to the rules.  But it stems from a previous situation where a referee handed him footballs that were at *16 psi*, well above the limit, and so his procedure from that point on has been to make adjustments himself, knowing what Brady likes.
 
So could Brady have been "generally aware" that McNally did such things?  Sure.  Like if McNally told him after that 16 psi game, you wouldn't believe what they handed me, and here's what I did, and Brady said, yeah great, thanks, I appreciate that…you know how I like 'em.  
 
None of that - NONE OF THAT - implicates Brady or McNally as some sort of shady character.  It is COMPLETELY plausible.  It fits the facts (as far as I know them), and it makes the NFL look stupid for (1) how they handle the footballs, and (2) making a mountain out of a molehill.  Not to mention the stupid "sting operation" nature of this entire situation.  
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,300
deep inside Guido territory
RetractableRoof said:
To me, the most damning evidence surrounding Brady in all of this is the texts/communication with Dweedle Dee and Dweedle Dum.  Wells made a significant point about Brady and the gang of two not communicating via phone for over 6 months.  Then all of a sudden as soon as Brady hears the league is looking into the balls, texts/calls are fast and furious for the next few days - including an in person meeting in the QB room at the stadium that the 2 had never before been in.
 
That can be framed to be a cover up by co-conspirators and Wells clearly must see it that way.  On the other hand, to me it is reasonable that Brady may have been making some "wtf is going on here?" calls knowing that Kraft and BB are going to be asking him what is going on.  I'm pretty sure that in his place I would have been trying to figure it out - especially knowing how the media always looks for a reason to take a second look at the Pats
He's getting grilled by media/coaches/etc. so he goes to the people who do the balls for answers. Wouldnt that be considered normal procedure?
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,472
Somewhere
dcmissle said:
For all the hate Florio gets here, he is calling Wells out on that right now. Sorry I cannot link. Maybe somebody can. Butt latest on PFT says,

NFL had opportunity to avoid Deflategate. Then Florio says that a footnote in the report denies a sting, but the overall report makes it rather clear that this is exactly what this was.
 
It's a smart play for Florio; keeps the story alive.
 

jsinger121

@jsinger121
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
17,677
dcmissle said:
I think you are exactly right. As noted in companion thread, Wells never comes out and says Brady instructed anyone to do anything.

So to suspend TB Goodell either has to make that factual inference himself, or he has to say knowledge is enough. If he goes the latter route, he is on really shaky ground. I don't care how important the QB is, or even that he benefitted, Brady is just a player. Under door # 2 rationale, every New Orleans Saint who knew about Bountygate, every Falcom who knew about crowd noise, every Brown who knew about texted coverages during the game, was fair game for discipline.
The difference is TB12 is backed by the NFLPA while the Falcons, Browns, and Saints front office and coaching staffs are not. The NFLPA would likely win an appeal just like Jonathan Vilma and the NFLPA won an appeal to overturn a season long suspension. People need to realize this is not for off the field conduct like AP, Ray Rice or Greg Hardy. Goodell can hand down a suspension but the likelihood it sticks is likely low.