I'm not sure how I feel about Peter King being the voice of reason.
This might be the most disturbing moment of this whole saga.
This might be the most disturbing moment of this whole saga.
Absent the text messages suggesting some sort of concerted effort to make footballs deemed perfect by Tom Brady even more perfect, there’s no way this investigation could have resulted in a finding of wrongdoing. Even with those text messages, the scientific evidence supports a possibility, not a probability, that tampering occurred on that specific day.
Tampering may have occurred on other days. And Tom Brady may be hiding evidence of tampering occurring on multiple occasions by refusing to turn over his text messages and emails. But it’s hard to conclude that tampering happened on January 18, 2015, in large part because the subject matter that became such a big deal the next day had never been one before the moment the needles on those two conflicting gauges were crammed into the 10 footballs.
soxhop411 said:@DougKyedNESN: Noticing some national voices changing their tune on deflated footballs today. I find this interesting.
Hopefully this isn't what Sharks of Vegas are predicting via their "sources." If so, then it's a Brady 6 game suspensioncrystalline said:Wow. Worm may be turning.
The refs are another collective the NFL is somewhat adversarial with. Get your popcorn if the NFL decides to turn the refs into the sacrificial lamb and keep Brady and the Patriots clean.
Peter King is the NFL's mouthpiece. Either he's finally gone rogue or he's hearing whispers.jimbobim said:Wow it's almost like some of these national reporters actually sat down and read the report and talked to some QB's in the game off the record. I'm wary of getting hopeful because this is still the illogical Roger Goodell we are dealing with.
soxhop411 said:@jeffphowe: The NFL is NOT working with the Pats or Brady in terms of any disciplinary action. Any belief otherwise is false, per a series of sources.
Please be the latterDrewDawg said:Peter King is the NFL's mouthpiece. Either he's finally gone rogue or he's hearing whispers.
I think one of the thoughts "out there" is that the league, in an effort to avoid ultimately looking like fools, might be negotiating punishment with Brady.Harry Hooper said:
I guess I'm out of the loop as I don't understand this "working with" stuff at all.
I had a long drive on Friday and listened to a bunch of Sports Hub and 'EEI on the radio – I believe it was Felger who asked this question, not based on any knowledge but just wondering if that might be happening. Someone (Gasper maybe?) shut down the idea within a few minutes.DrewDawg said:Re: negotiations with Brady/Pats on punishment: Had we heard differently?
For me, this was the key passage in Florio's latest piece:Hoya81 said:
Essentially, Florio is saying that it's precisely because this issue is not generally understood—the science of football inflation and deflation but also the competitive advantage (or lack thereof) gained—that it became a powder keg when combined with the Patriots reputation in the wake of Spygate (which itself involved a lot of misinformation and confusion).“[T]he balls shall remain under the supervision of the Referee until they are delivered to the ball attendant just prior to the start of the game,” Rule 2 also states. That didn’t happen prior to the AFC title game, and that wasn’t a big deal. None of it was a big deal until Colts linebacker D’Qwell Jackson’s interception of a Tom Brady pass set in motion a chain of events that resulted in the footballs being checked and re-inflated at halftime — and that sparked an all-out investigation even though the numbers generated by one of the two pressure gauges ultimately didn’t suggest that anything was amiss.
The league officials presumably believed measurements reflecting numbers less than 12.5 PSI indicated a problem because, possibly, no one at the league office realized before this specific investigation began to unfold that air pressure drops significantly during the course of a game.
Early on, it should have become apparent that the numbers measured by the two grossly out-of-sync pressure gauges didn’t clearly demonstrate that something was amiss. (Instead, someone leaked to ESPN that something was amiss, with 10 of the 12 footballs reportedly a full 2.0 pounds under the minimum.) At that point, someone in the league office should have said that it’s impossible to suddenly make this a big deal when the existing culture of the league — for decades — entailed a high degree of nonchalance regarding the procedures and a low degree of understanding regarding the science. Maybe the Patriots were cheating, but the circumstantial evidence of it becomes far less persuasive when the overall circumstances can’t be clearly discerned.
Tito's Pullover said:Remember a week ago when everybody was giddy about the prospect of a Wells report that damns the Colts and NFL officials for running a sting operation?
I guarantee you that any complaint by the Patriots about non-compliant balls will result in a penalty for the Patriots for tattling, like we had hoped the Colts would get when the dust settled on this one.
It's funny to hear the buzz phrases "integrity of the game" and "level playing field", when it's clear to any rational observer that the Patriots have been placed under a much higher level of scrutiny, and will be until such time as they are no longer perennial contenders. Hardly a level playing field for New England, but in the exact opposite way from what most mediots would have you believe.
If Ted Wells was investigating sources of leaks in the NFL front office, would King/Florio have given up their phone to assist him?nattysez said:It cannot be coincidence that Florio and King, both of whom have happily served as NFL mouthpieces, today started raising serious red flags with the report. However, it's also not a good sign that they both continue to hit Brady for not "fully cooperating" with the investigation. At this point, there is literally no penalty or lack thereof that would surprise me.
Van Everyman said:For me, this was the key passage in Florio's latest piece:
The league officials presumably believed measurements reflecting numbers less than 12.5 PSI indicated a problem because, possibly, no one at the league office realized before this specific investigation began to unfold that air pressure drops significantly during the course of a game.
Hoya81 said:If Ted Wells was investigating sources of leaks in the NFL front office, would King/Florio have given up their phone to assist him?
"Second, with the text messages, the scope that they asked for is actually very, very wide. I probably should have made the letter public that we received from the NFL's lawyers. But in any event, if we would have provided the phone or the text messages -- you have to understand Tom is also a member of the union, the Commissioner's office actually does not have any subpoena power. If a prominent player were to provide all of their private communications absent a subpoena, that sets a dangerous precedent for all players facing disciplinary measures.
"Finally, any information we would have provided, and the Wells investigative team did ask us to go through Tom's phone on our own and provide them with information if we chose to go that route. But as you might surmise if we would have chosen to go that route, any information we would have given them, they probably would have had skepticism about anyway."
Of course but I think the point is that the report has actually helped make that case.Harry Hooper said:
Glad to see Florio finally get there, but this thread and points elsewhere months ago pointed out the NFL's ignorance that multitudes of cold weather (and hot weather) NFL games have been played with balls outside the rulebook's specified range.
See the other thread. Wells realized the same thing and gave T B realistic alternatives. TB refused, and provided a weak rationale. There's a reasonable inference that there's something germane on the phone that he doesn't want to disclose.ivanvamp said:Do you think that a suspension of Brady would hold up if it's based on him not handing over his phone?
Because if it does, Goodell basically could order any player to hand over his personal cell phone over any investigation.
We want to find out if Harrison is taking steroids. So Bruschi, hand us your cell phone or you'll get suspended.
(Obviously these guys are retired but you get the idea)
So if THAT is how it will work, then the common sense thing to do IS to hand your phone over, unless you have stuff on there that will
Get you suspended for even longer.
So I can't imagine a suspension based on that will hold up on appeal. Please tell me I'm right.....
i agree with this. I also think this whole saga is dumber than a sack of hammers.Otis Foster said:There's a reasonable inference that there's something germane on the phone that he doesn't want to disclose.
It's been covered many times in the post release pages of this thread WHY releasing the context of the phone was a no win for Brady. You (and others) can scream this over and over, but there are valid reasons to decline to do so - without the goal of being obstructive. Being labeled obstructive however is the price paid for any of those myriad of valid reasons.nattysez said:
Wells claims, and Yee has seemed to confirm, that Wells was willing to get discovery of Brady's texts through a variety of measures that did not require "giving up the phone." Brady supposedly could've just printed texts between himself and certain people and provided them. This makes his total lack of cooperation on that score less defensible. I don't find Yee's excuses on this point at all believable:
Saying "We were provided with a reasonable way to cooperate, but we didn't do so because we don't think Wells would've believed that what we did was actually cooperative" is more or less the definition of obstructive behavior. Even if you concede that they had a good reason to be obstructive here because they thought Wells's team had no idea what they were doing and had it in for Brady, it's hard to argue that this wasn't obstructive behavior.
Come on. I love TB too, but this is just unrealistic.RetractableRoof said:It's been covered many times in the post release pages of this thread WHY releasing the context of the phone was a no win for Brady. You (and others) can scream this over and over, but there are valid reasons to decline to do so - without the goal of being obstructive. Being labeled obstructive however is the price paid for any of those myriad of valid reasons.
How's this one:
The league office (and all those in the periphery of it) can't keep anything in house. Nothing. Not the punishment possibilities, not the supposed inflation levels of the balls, nothing. The Patriots are in the air on the way to the superbowl and still more leaks are out.
Brady has 20 texts w/ BB assuring him that he didn't touch the ball or ask to have them lowered below 12.5. He makes a joke: "there hasn't been this much interest in my balls since the time Giselle started in with the manscaping requests." Is it relevant and need to be turned over? Yep. A week later some reporter somewhere throws a line in a piece about Brady manscaping, or Giselle having Tom's grooming habits under her control. Mrs. Brady gets pissed at Tom for a week for talking about their personal life with the anyone.
I personally wouldn't give up my phone either - because I've never had a significant other misread something that was on my phone...
That's not the only reasonable inference though. It's also reasonable to infer that Brady retained his right to not give up his personal property due to his lawyer / agent advising him that he is both not required to and that once the door is opened a crack the NFL / public will demand to see whatever he chooses to censor / not share.Otis Foster said:See the other thread. Wells realized the same thing and gave T B realistic alternatives. TB refused, and provided a weak rationale. There's a reasonable inference that there's something germane on the phone that he doesn't want to disclose.
Sorry.
Hoya81 said:
The rigorous (and flawed) scientific analysis of the measurements taken of the AFC title game footballs at halftime presumes a degree of care and certainty that didn’t previously exist. Sure, Rule 2 requires the football to contain a urethane bladder inflated to 12.5 to 13.5 pounds per square inch. But the rule never has been interpreted as imposing a duty on the referee to periodically ensure that the football remains within that range. However, as the Ideal Gas Law demonstrates (based on the Wells report), a wet, 48-degree day in January results in the footballs being anywhere from 0.98 to 1.18 PSI below the minimum at halftime.
How low would the pressure have been in the fourth quarter? In overtime? In double overtime?
How much air pressure remained in the football when Bart Starr scored from the one in the final minute of the Ice Bowl?
The NFL, via Ted Wells, has nevertheless attempted to apply laboratory-level analysis to a kitchen-sink sausage-making process. It’s impossible to do that, as evidenced by the obvious flaws regarding the two gauges that were used to ensure that the footballs were at 12.5 PSI before kickoff.
Absent the text messages suggesting some sort of concerted effort to make footballs deemed perfect by Tom Brady even more perfect, there’s no way this investigation could have resulted in a finding of wrongdoing. Even with those text messages, the scientific evidence supports a possibility, not a probability, that tampering occurred on that specific day.
this, exactlykartvelo said:What would have been Wells' response if Brady had turned over all "pertinent" texts, and they turned out to be the exact same ones Wells already had from Jastremski?
A) "Thanks, Tom, just double-checking."
B) "Mr. Brady, I don't believe these are the only pertinent texts; please stop obstructing my investigation and give me more access to your private conversations."
C) Other (please specify)
It's too much if a slippery slope. If Brady took that advice and redacted personal bits and Wells finds nothing nefarious then why wouldn't he write in the report that anything juicy was likely redacted by Brady. Tom would end up in the exact same spot he is now, being accused of not cooperating.Otis Foster said:Come on. I love TB too, but this is just unrealistic.
Case 1: Won't fly. The same applies to all evidence gathered or submitted to Wells. Why is this different? Only if he's submitting non-germane data. See Case 2 below.
Case 2: TB to his counsel - I've screened the emails, there are a couple where personal comments are interwoven with something substantive.
Counsel to TB - Redact the personal comments and simply indicate where you've done so, give me the redacted emails.
Counsel to Wells - This is what TB did. There are intensely personal comments he's redacted. The emails will indicate where he's done so.
If Wells wants to make an issue out of that, let him. He loses that one, big time. Refusing entirely to permit access to what may be pertinent emails or texts is an invitation to trouble and a defiant stand.
I think Brady most likely had something on his phone that he was uncomfortable with Wells finding. How often does Brady get a new phone though? I highly doubt he's still on his iPhone 4. Who's to say he didn't get a new phone recently and felt that Wells would incriminate him on this fact. I just think Wells made it seem like this narrow scope, when in reality they would've had free range under these bogus terms. Anyways, my new prediction is one game that will probably be reversed, plus a hefty fine.Devizier said:i agree with this. I also think this whole saga is dumber than a sack of hammers.
It is unrealistic to think that TMZ or Reddit or Deadspin or whomever would have insane interest in the contents of a major star's (whose married to an elite supermodel) text and phone breadcrumbs? It's insane that there might be a leak somewhere... from the law offices, to the league, to where ever? I've never been a star (nor played one on TV, nor slept in a Motel 6), but I bet 90 percent of what is on Brady's phone would be stuff he wouldn't want out there. Again as has been stated above - he is in a no win situation to open the cell at all - for any number of reasons - but they don't all occur because of guilt.Otis Foster said:Come on. I love TB too, but this is just unrealistic.
Case 1: Won't fly. The same applies to all evidence gathered or submitted to Wells. Why is this different? Only if he's submitting non-germane data. See Case 2 below.
Case 2: TB to his counsel - I've screened the emails, there are a couple where personal comments are interwoven with something substantive.
Counsel to TB - Redact the personal comments and simply indicate where you've done so, give me the redacted emails.
Counsel to Wells - This is what TB did. There are intensely personal comments he's redacted. The emails will indicate where he's done so.
If Wells wants to make an issue out of that, let him. He loses that one, big time. Refusing entirely to permit access to what may be pertinent emails or texts is an invitation to trouble and a defiant stand.
Look, I don't want to belabor this, But the idea is to let TB make the initial screening, in which case (a) none of what you quote bears on DFG, and (2) If it is filtered out by TB and redacted before he turns anything over to anyone, including his counsel, where's the leak? Furthermore, anything leaking from his law firm would create enormous liability and professional damage. I can assure you that the firm would set up a double screen to limit access to anything to a handful of people on a n eed to know basis.RetractableRoof said:It is unrealistic to think that TMZ or Reddit or Deadspin or whomever would have insane interest in the contents of a major star's (whose married to an elite supermodel) text and phone breadcrumbs? It's insane that there might be a leak somewhere... from the law offices, to the league, to where ever? I've never been a star (nor played one on TV, nor slept in a Motel 6), but I bet 90 percent of what is on Brady's phone would be stuff he wouldn't want out there. Again as has been stated above - he is in a no win situation to open the cell at all - for any number of reasons - but they don't all occur because of guilt.
You can say that he should do X or Y or Z to accomplish A without causing B to happen. And there is likely a lawyer on this board who can show an example of it blowing up in his face. I don't have an issue with Brady declining - because he is willing to wear the 'didn't fully comply label' - or because he believes any punishment will get removed by the appeal process.
Thought of others: a series of texts between the players that goes like this: "I can't believe those assholes just let our number one CB walk out the door". "Can you believe the bullshit Kraft is swinging about the ..." "I'm not going to the F'g white house, those aholes were the ones that...".
As long as he's willing to wear the label, I can see a hundred reasons not to open that phone, including the one that's been labeled lame by the critics of 'not setting a precedent of making a personal phone of a star player available to league investigators".
Ed Hillel said:Regarding the texts/emails, the best solution would be to have a large firm with a good reputation vet for relevant information. Any personal leaks would result in the destruction of the company, you could even write out damages in a contract beforehand. If Brady is objectively innocent and cares deeply about his public image (he may or may not), he should probably do that on his own terms.
Ed Hillel said:Regarding the texts/emails, the best solution would be to have a large firm with a good reputation vet for relevant information. Any personal leaks would result in the destruction of the company, you could even write out damages in a contract beforehand. If Brady is objectively innocent and cares deeply about his public image (he may or may not), he should probably do that on his own terms.
Thanks my friend; yes it is.JimBoSox9 said:
This is Florio's best hack at Wells and the NFL yet. DCM may need to excuse himself to the bathroom with a printout. Couple of real good money quotes:
We can blather about Ideal Gas Laws all we want; that kicker is a line the Common NFL Fan understands.
Oh what a lovely day.
OK, then let's not belabor this... my point is that you apparently trust this a) process and b) the people involved a lot more than most people. The quality of the report, the leaks in the league, the direction of the report all indicate that there was no part of this process that could be trusted from Brady's perspective - and yet you want him to do something that most lawyers would say is blatantly a less than desirable choice.Otis Foster said:Look, I don't want to belabor this, But the idea is to let TB make the initial screening, in which case (a) none of what you quote bears on DFG, and (2) If it is filtered out by TB and redacted before he turns anything over to anyone, including his counsel, where's the leak? Furthermore, anything leaking from his law firm would create enormous liability and professional damage. I can assure you that the firm would set up a double screen to limit access to anything to a handful of people on a n eed to know basis.
The point of all of this is that he's put himself in a bad poistion by rejecting all reasonable alternatives. I hope his personal counsel has been involved, and if TB is stonewalling, that counsel is onr ecord as advising against it.
I'm a lawyer of many years standing and can assure you I'm not a rookie at this. The point is simply to craft an apparently reasonable response to the NFL that puts Wells back on his heels.RetractableRoof said:OK, then let's not belabor this... my point is that you apparently trust this a) process and b) the people involved a lot more than most people. The quality of the report, the leaks in the league, the direction of the report all indicate that there was no part of this process that could be trusted from Brady's perspective - and yet you want him to do something that most lawyers would say is blatantly a less than desirable choice.
At this point it really wouldn't surprise me to find out that this actually did happen, and Wells responded by simply omitting any mention of it in the report. For the most part, we have yet to hear anything but one side of the story, and that side has been transparently tailored to fit a narrative and an agenda.Otis Foster said:I'm a lawyer of many years standing and can assure you I'm not a rookie at this. The point is simply to craft an apparently reasonable response to the NFL that puts Wells back on his heels.
As I've said (too) many times, if in fact he tampered with or deleted the texts, that's another matter entirely. Then, you just have to gut it out. See RW's response.
I still think TB wld benefit from a smart PR person as part of his team.
Otis Foster said:I'm a lawyer of many years standing and can assure you I'm not a rookie at this. The point is simply to craft an apparently reasonable response to the NFL that puts Wells back on his heels.
As I've said (too) many times, if in fact he tampered with or deleted the texts, that's another matter entirely. Then, you just have to gut it out. See RW's response.
I still think TB wld benefit from a smart PR person as part of his team.