I was referring to a penalty arising from the latest rebuttal. While Goodell likely won't issue one, if he did, it would have to be extremely harsh.PedroKsBambino said:
#DFG: Canceling the Noise
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
I've read the average life of a 1st round draft choice is a little over 9 years.Pandemonium67 said:
So its probably safe to say the loss of a 1st rounder dwarves a multi-game suspension for Brady.
If they can negotiate this down it would be pretty big.
Of course, the league has quite literally, offically changed the rules to work against the success of the Pats (with the pass interference rules and now the substitution rule change).
As to the whole "deflator" issue, as usual the media have not read and/or not understood the rebuttal. The rebuttal makes a number of points regarding the label "deflator." The first is that the terms "deflation" and "deflator" comes from a context in which part of Jastremski's duties in preparing footballs was deflation, at the beginning with new balls and at the end when striving to get them at the desired psi (legally just above 12.5). Thus the use of the terms "deflation" and "deflator" does not necessarily imply anything sinister or against the rules as repeatedly suggested by Wells' report.
The second point, which supports the first, is that the term "deflator" appears in May 9, 2014 text thread in which the subject is definitely not about the preparation of footballs but is about Jastremski's apparent affair and McNally's request for some "kicks" wants from Jastremski (who was getting them against the rules from the Patriots team supply). This is the so-called "dorito dink" thread with the reference to "going to espn." The explanation that the "going to espn" was about the "kicks" seems absolutely clear from the context. Thus, McNally's reference to himself as the "deflator" here has no link whatsoever to inflating/deflating footballs and can be explained in others ways.
This then goes to the third point about "deflate" and "deflator" as references to losing weight. That this was the meaning of the term used by Jastremski and McNally here was testified to by them and is confirmed by the Nov. 30, 2014 text which read "deflate and give somebody that jacket." This explanation makes sense of what otherwise is an inexplicable text. Sure, it is a weird way to refer to losing weight, but it makes a certain sense in their context in which the terms "inflation" and "deflation" loomed larger than it would for most of us.
I think the Patriot's rebuttal on this issue makes perfect sense and shreds Wells' report in this regard. That the media cannot see this is not surprising.
The second point, which supports the first, is that the term "deflator" appears in May 9, 2014 text thread in which the subject is definitely not about the preparation of footballs but is about Jastremski's apparent affair and McNally's request for some "kicks" wants from Jastremski (who was getting them against the rules from the Patriots team supply). This is the so-called "dorito dink" thread with the reference to "going to espn." The explanation that the "going to espn" was about the "kicks" seems absolutely clear from the context. Thus, McNally's reference to himself as the "deflator" here has no link whatsoever to inflating/deflating footballs and can be explained in others ways.
This then goes to the third point about "deflate" and "deflator" as references to losing weight. That this was the meaning of the term used by Jastremski and McNally here was testified to by them and is confirmed by the Nov. 30, 2014 text which read "deflate and give somebody that jacket." This explanation makes sense of what otherwise is an inexplicable text. Sure, it is a weird way to refer to losing weight, but it makes a certain sense in their context in which the terms "inflation" and "deflation" loomed larger than it would for most of us.
I think the Patriot's rebuttal on this issue makes perfect sense and shreds Wells' report in this regard. That the media cannot see this is not surprising.
So if they both make it clear that they're going to continue taking shots at each other and the other owners decide that one of them has to go, who is easier to kick out, Kraft or Goodell? I saw elsewhere that it takes a super-majority of owners to vote out the commish. What does it take to force an owner to sell?PedroKsBambino said:
Puts into context those "owners are rallying behind the NFL" articles. Three owners or team officials go on the record saying "I would also not like to be hilariously overpenalized by the NFL"? Thanks for the great reporting, guys.dcmissle said:
Speaking of context: how can people seriously be willing to claim that Brady should have released his cell phone communications in the context of knowing the hygiene and/or circumcision status from the text messaging of Dorito Dum and Dorito Dee? Too much info is never enough info for the twitterazzi I guess.
re: the website rebuttal, a few people have posted in here saying exactly how I see it. There was a great post, which I can't find now, from what seems like days ago talking about how people are stuck on the science and findings of the Wells report when the Wells report isn't about any of that rather than glossing over the lackadaisical officiating that went into this whole mess. It should be obvious to everybody that nobody has ever cared about the pressure in footballs except for kickers, whenever the K-ball mess happened that nobody talks about, and quarterbacks. Tom Brady and his New England Patriots, being the habitual line-steppers that they are, apparently cared about it just enough to get everyone into some trouble.
I don't follow the ebbs and flows of twitter outrage as much as some so that may have something to do with why I don't have any problems with the website. If anything, it may even help let sink in the fact that everyone is focusing so much on something trivial while missing out on the full story. The Pats don't have much to lose, PR-wise, and I think it's directed more towards other teams and officials around the league rather than your every-day fans who are both uninterested in all the facts to begin with and, if that ESPN/ABC poll is to be believed, `25% of whom think that the Patriots are deserving of these penalties while simultaneously believing that nobody involved with the Patriots cheated at all. It keeps it in the news and highlights the general absurdity of it all while getting the "real" facts out there with enough time for it to sink in.
I think pressuring the league about the strange activities of people like Kensil and possibly forcing Goodell to appoint a truly independent arbiter is the ultimate motivation here. I really don't see how the NFL can sweep the Kensil stuff under the rug and then hope everybody just continues on playing under the same or similar rules, when just about every suggested rulechange to deal with ball pressure would be an acknowledgement of how little it matters to anybody. Especially not with Kraft and co. having shown they're willing to publish emails publicly.
I am not the media. I'm just a football fan. I'm a fan who thinks the punishment for this whole thing went way too far.yazamataz said:
But that explanation about the texts smells like 100% pure bullshit to me.
I would love to believe... But it's the kind of excuse a ten year might try when caught misbehaving.
Look, the NFL fucked the Patriots a thousand different ways on this from start to finish, but it was all, almost certainly, set up by the Patriots doing something with the balls. Brady should just come out and give the generic "went a bit over the line getting the balls as I like them" apology himself. Just admit it. Serve the suspension.
Many, many people in the middle would then be able to focus on the incredibly small-time nature of the offense and the travesty of the Wells Report and Goodell's decision. In every interview for the rest of his life, Brady could then say "I've apologized for that mistake" and move on to discussing the glory days. Otherwise, he's going to be lying about this bullshit forever.
Do the Andy Pettite and get the Andy Pettite treatment. I'm a huge fan and this shit should stop.
Many, many people in the middle would then be able to focus on the incredibly small-time nature of the offense and the travesty of the Wells Report and Goodell's decision. In every interview for the rest of his life, Brady could then say "I've apologized for that mistake" and move on to discussing the glory days. Otherwise, he's going to be lying about this bullshit forever.
Do the Andy Pettite and get the Andy Pettite treatment. I'm a huge fan and this shit should stop.
Am I the only one who has googled: weight deflate -patriots ?
Look, I think he did it. But the idea that nobody has ever figured out that "deflate" and "weight" rhyme and "deflate" generally connotes getting smaller and less round is actually kind of insipid, when you think about it.
Look, I think he did it. But the idea that nobody has ever figured out that "deflate" and "weight" rhyme and "deflate" generally connotes getting smaller and less round is actually kind of insipid, when you think about it.
86spike said:
I've seen this opinion expressed a number of times, but what exactly is the alternate explanation? "I'm going to illegally tamper with footballs, so give the jacket to someone else"? That just doesn't track, and maybe it's just lack of imagination, but I can't think of an alternative that does.
Either an exorbitant selling price, or having an older owner tell his younger girl friend she shouldn't bring certain friends to the game.garzooma said:
FredCDobbs said:
Even though there is exactly zero evidence the Patriots "did something with the balls" after they were tested by Anderson? This is really beginning to drive me fucking nuts. Not only is there no smoking gun, there's no fucking shooting victim (Insert AH81 joke here).
Look, I wasn't in the bathroom watching the guy piss, so maybe he deflated the balls. But based on Anderson's testimony and the Ideal Gas Law, if he did, they would have measured lower than they did at halftime. I just don't understand why everyone wants to play the "fair and balanced" game with this when the information in the Wells report itself - when rearranged to reflect the rule of logic - points to "no evidence balls were ever anything other than 12.5 when they went outside". What am i missing here? This isn't blind faith or anything, I answered the original poll back in January with the "probably guilty, who cares" option. But the data in the Wells report and subsequent work done by Kraft's team as well as random dudes named Drew on the internet has led me to believe it's "more likely than not" than NOTHING FUCKING HAPPENED!!!!
Back to one thing that's been bothering me.
It's apparent that McNally really disliked Brady, probably for being an asshole to his friend Jastremski, combined with being ignored and never getting the schwag that his buddy JJ was getting.
The "deflator as weight loss" meme came out weeks ago and it's apparently what their testimony was to Wells (need to check the history on this). Either McNally lied about the reference or it was true.
But consider this: What was McNally's interest in lying to the investigators? He committed no crime. He has no obvious relationship with Brady (other than disparagement).
All he was worried about was losing his part-time Sunday job? And for that he lied through his teeth? Makes little sense.
This argument gets weaker if it's Jastremski who linked deflator with weight loss...because he had much more to lose (a real job) than McNally.
It's apparent that McNally really disliked Brady, probably for being an asshole to his friend Jastremski, combined with being ignored and never getting the schwag that his buddy JJ was getting.
The "deflator as weight loss" meme came out weeks ago and it's apparently what their testimony was to Wells (need to check the history on this). Either McNally lied about the reference or it was true.
But consider this: What was McNally's interest in lying to the investigators? He committed no crime. He has no obvious relationship with Brady (other than disparagement).
All he was worried about was losing his part-time Sunday job? And for that he lied through his teeth? Makes little sense.
This argument gets weaker if it's Jastremski who linked deflator with weight loss...because he had much more to lose (a real job) than McNally.
I do not believe that the Patriots or Brady did anything against the rules. I myself would never admit to doing something that I did not do.FredCDobbs said:
Brady will only have to keep lying about this bullshit forever if he is not telling the truth regardless of what you or I believe.
86spike said:
They had the chance to put the NFL on its heels, and this one mistake blew it.
Even if it is true -- even if he called himself The Deflator because he is always trying to lose weight -- you don't print that in your official, shit-stirring rebuttal unless he has been calling himself that for ten years and there are 300 people who will testify to that fact. You don't print that unless you have a picture of a giant plaque his family made for him after he lost 100 pounds in 1998 that says "CONGRATS ON LOSING 100 POUNDS to JAMES "THE DEFLATOR" MCNALLY!" And even then you maybe don't do it. Because it sounds so insane, the only thing that will come of it is exactly what did: everyone writes off the entire document as gibberish. When everyone believes you are guilty, you simply can't give them any reason, no matter how dumb, to confirm it.
I suppose that once they decided to publicize their rebuttal they had to account for that nickname, which is probably 80% of the reason the ruling went the way it did. Which means they either should not have publicized the rebuttal at all, or they should have simply said that deflating footballs is part of every ballboy's job, at which point they could've cited others who have said the same thing. But even then it's going to sound like a desperation attempt at spin.
This whole thing continues to get dumber every second, still, and now frankly the Pats are being just as dumb as Wells and the league. I think their best move was to say publicly only that the report is riddled with holes and that the conclusions are bunk. Maybe add what I think was their most compelling point, outside of the science discussion, which is that Brady repeatedly told everyone who would listen that he wanted 12.5, and that never once ever did anyone refer to anything other than 12.5 as being what he wanted, even though the language and goofiness of the texts suggests they were written and sent without any feeling that they would ever become public, which then suggests that if Brady had ever asked for illegally-inflated balls, it would surely have shown up somewhere. But my gut is that all of those arguments were best left for the appeal, and that no good was ever going to come from a cheap website rebuttal, especially when parts of your rebuttal seem far-fetched at best and absurd at worst.
As posted by someone else previously it is entirely possible that McNallys texts about Brady are either jokes or parodies of what he thinks the referees are saying.... "fuck brady. I'm going to make this ball a watermelon."geoduck no quahog said:
"Jacket" is a slang/crime term for one's criminal record or reputation.garzooma said:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=jacket
Maybe I've just watched too many cop shows over the years, but I thought the use of "jacket" may be a reference to a criminal record or bad reputation, in this case, the record of tampering. McNally is saying to Jastremski "you do it and pass the rap to somebody else".
Makes more sense than texting the assistant equipment manager during halftime of a game (which is when that text happened) about losing weight and donating clothing afterwards completely out of thin air (IMO, of course).
Re: the last paragraph, entirely possible JM saw JJ on the tv broadcast on the sideline and sent the text, right?86spike said:
I think the broader point is that this proves yet again that so many pieces of evidence in this case can be interpreted multiple ways depending on what story you are trying to tell, and given that the Wells report uses everything to implicate the Pats as guilty, that is clearly what he was trying to prove.
This is an example of the "depth" that the national media looks at things:
Ed Werder
@Edwerderespnhttp://twitter.com/Edwerderespn
Tom Brady, 2011 WEEI interview: “When Gronk scores, he spikes the ball and deflates the ball. I love that, b/c I like the deflated ball.''
Ed Werder
@Edwerderespnhttp://twitter.com/Edwerderespn
Tom Brady, 2011 WEEI interview: “When Gronk scores, he spikes the ball and deflates the ball. I love that, b/c I like the deflated ball.''
Which brings up the question of why the Colts balls were held up as some kind of gold standard of what NFL footballs should be like, inflation-wise, at halftime.Bergs said:
You know that if the Colts 4 balls had a standard deviation of 0.40 and the Pats 11 balls had an SD of 0.15, this would also be seen as evidence of Patriot tampering because how could the balls be so uniformly inflated without tampering?
Was that recent by Werder? I remember that coming out around the super bowl, but if it is recent, it would show the blindness of ESPN.E5 Yaz said:This is an example of the "depth" that the national media looks at things:
Ed Werder @Edwerderespn
Tom Brady, 2011 WEEI interview: “When Gronk scores, he spikes the ball and deflates the ball. I love that, b/c I like the deflated ball.''
Which doesn't mean shit as this is natural deflation.E5 Yaz said:This is an example of the "depth" that the national media looks at things:
Ed Werder @Edwerderespn
Tom Brady, 2011 WEEI interview: When Gronk scores, he spikes the ball and deflates the ball. I love that, b/c I like the deflated ball.''
I see the "Fuck Tom" stuff as the totally typical banter two employees carping about their boss. It's not real anger or hatred, it's just "fuck the Boss, he doesn't know what we do, right pal?" Hell, I think my boss is great but I have moments of "fuck him" when I get feedback or an assignment I don't like or something seems unfair.pappymojo said:
Wanting the football deflated to its lowest legal point is not the same as wanting it below the legal point.
Aren't there a couple of other things at work here?dcmissle said:
Courts generally are reluctant to fully enforce a seemingly-absolute grant of power to one party that if exercised, would permit him to deprive the other party of the substantial benefit of his bargain. Also, this muddle arises in the context of a partnership, which is how the NFL has been viewed by other courts, Partners in a business relationship owe one another not the duty of honesty alone, but a higher degree of propriety in their dealings with one another. (Meinhard vs. Salmon)
Put these together, and don't you have at least a colorable claim that arbitrary exercise of authority to cover up one's own culpability (the NFL's negligence in handling the initial complaint) is actionable?
The NFL has a growing problem in lacking a commissioner with moral authority. Prof Feldman at Tulane suggest Goodell will be loathe to farm out the appeal, because of the longstanding NFL desire to keep things in house and make the commissioner the final authority on all issues. But reading the recent Doty ruling on the AP case, as DCM suggests, reveals that Kessler made mincemeat of Henderson, and Goodell is unlikely to fare better. So I think the NFL either loses before a neutral arbiter, or loses later in federal court. It seems a
small point, but Doty references the league's inability to discipline without a hearing of the player's case before the commissioner--not offered TB, that I know of, and a clear process violation seemingly vacating the penalty right off the bat. Seems strange.
small point, but Doty references the league's inability to discipline without a hearing of the player's case before the commissioner--not offered TB, that I know of, and a clear process violation seemingly vacating the penalty right off the bat. Seems strange.
If I were running a mock trial competition the facts presented by both sides would be perfect for the mock facts. I can't wait for this all to play out if it heads towards litigation.
glennhoffmania said:
Like what? Because I have yet to see an explanation that would pass muster for an undergraduate paper on legal or justice theory--several minimally necessary requirements for a system to be considered legitimate under any commonly accepted theory of justice were violated.
Granted, the NFL doesn't have to abide by such, but they are claiming to do so. That there are explanations of why Goodell would want to level the Patriots? Well, sure--but that doesn't make it right or just.
glennhoffmania said:
Who?
Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:
Right on. I keep finding myself surprised to see how many people, here and other places, seem to expect Kraft and Belichick and Brady to no act as people with, well, pride. Not the bad kind of pride, but the kind that attaches to a sort of nobility of the human spirit, that, when wrongfully accused, seeks to fight.
I fear Americans are becoming more and more deferential to authority. If they really believed they have been wronged, then hell yes, I want to see them fight.
yep said:
Right. But alternately, if your employer tries to fuck you over beyond the rules stipulated in whatever agreement is controlling on your employment, you fight, yeah?
One of the striking things about this situation, to me anyway, is that the Patriots could be guilty but the NFL still out of line. There doesn't seem to be enough consideration of that. I mean, Missouri just found their process to be illegal, for example.
Like I said, maybe I watch too many crime shows.Bergs said:
Another possible interpretation of that text could be McNally telling Jastremski that he didn't want a jacket that Jastremski offered him as a part of the 'give Jimmy some swag' theme seen elsewhere. We know Jastremski was hooking McNally up with under the table gear, so a reference to a jacket may be another reference to that.
Weight loss seems like a huge stretch to me still.
First time poster but loooooong time lurker. I'm a huge fan of this board and rely on you folks for sports news a lot of the time. I hope I don't bring the level of the discussion down with this post. It's just something that I don't feel has been explored.
I'm a Patriots fan and I think this whole thing is absurd. It's an assault against reason in a lot of respects. But those ins and outs have been covered ad nauseum.
I think "deflate" is a pretty common steroid term for what happens to your muscles if you stop taking the juice. If you google "deflate steroids" or "deflating steroids" a good amount of stuff comes up. Now, I don't think McNally is on steroids. But maybe it's a term they joke about because it's something the players around them say (particularly going into the offseason).
I don't mean to throw accusations at certain players in particular. I think it's not very controversial to suggest that a good chunk of NFL players, even some Patriots, are on some sort of PEDs. With that said, it's not necessarily something the Patriots can explain in detail - or even go near - in this rebuttal. It sounds silly at the outset, but then makes logical sense when you connect the dots. It does border on humorous when you think about the challenges of McNally "deflating" vs. a jacked linebacker deflating.
But, then again, these are grown men who text about circle jerks (urban dictionary "pong party") so pretty much any sort of nickname is on the table here.
I'm a Patriots fan and I think this whole thing is absurd. It's an assault against reason in a lot of respects. But those ins and outs have been covered ad nauseum.
I think "deflate" is a pretty common steroid term for what happens to your muscles if you stop taking the juice. If you google "deflate steroids" or "deflating steroids" a good amount of stuff comes up. Now, I don't think McNally is on steroids. But maybe it's a term they joke about because it's something the players around them say (particularly going into the offseason).
I don't mean to throw accusations at certain players in particular. I think it's not very controversial to suggest that a good chunk of NFL players, even some Patriots, are on some sort of PEDs. With that said, it's not necessarily something the Patriots can explain in detail - or even go near - in this rebuttal. It sounds silly at the outset, but then makes logical sense when you connect the dots. It does border on humorous when you think about the challenges of McNally "deflating" vs. a jacked linebacker deflating.
But, then again, these are grown men who text about circle jerks (urban dictionary "pong party") so pretty much any sort of nickname is on the table here.
These relationships certainly are governed by covenants of good faith and fair dealing, implied by law if not express. Absent those constitutional provisions Kraft agreed to, he'd be in court already.Otis Foster said:
But here you have billionaires agreeing to these provisions, eyes wide open, to join what may be the world's most exclusive club. Courts are loathe to interfere with that absent conduct plainly violative of public policy. Is club members fucking each other over violative of public policy ( here RG must be viewed as the agent of the other 31)?
I kinda doubt it.