#DFG: Canceling the Noise

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


  • Total voters
    208

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,778
Rotten Apple
djbayko said:
Mortensen is part of the new wave of Twitter "journalism"
No he's not! He's a 63-year old man who has been covering the NFL for DECADES. He's not some outsider in a basement re-tweeting other people's property, he's one of the most plugged-in NFL reporters in the league's history. That he's not taking any responsibility for information that he gathered has nothing to do with a new wave of faux journalism.
 

Buster Olney the Lonely

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2006
4,520
Atlanta, GA

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,667
Mid-surburbia
ifmanis5 said:
No he's not! He's a 63-year old man who has been covering the NFL for DECADES. He's not some outsider in a basement re-tweeting other people's property, he's one of the most plugged-in NFL reporters in the league's history. That he's not taking any responsibility for information that he gathered has nothing to do with a new wave of faux journalism.
 
It's both.  Mort's age and pedigree are both meaningless if he's acquiesced to the publish-first and never-retract mentality, which is entirely Twitter-driven.
 
There is an unbelievable opportunity for a new site to pick up the FJM torch of holding sportswriters accountable, in a much more comprehensive and data-driven way.
 

judyb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
4,444
Wilmington MA
Maybe the only thing about this entire mess we do know for certain is that Chris Mortensen sold his soul as a reporter, if he ever had one to sell.
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,272
Buster Olney the Lonely said:
The "11 of 12 at 2psi below the limit" in my mind is like Tomase reporting the Pats taped the Rams walk through. Total fabrication, but it might as well be true since it will be quoted anytime someone mentions this.

BTW, Mortensen didn't just tweet it he wrote a story on it too:

http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/12202450/nfl-says-new-england-patriots-had-inflated-footballs-afc-championship-game
Isn't he also wrong they used backup balls? I thought they just re inflated them then handed them right back to McNally.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,213

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,778
Rotten Apple
JimBoSox9 said:
 
It's both.  Mort's age and pedigree are both meaningless if he's acquiesced to the publish-first and never-retract mentality, which is entirely Twitter-driven.
 
I disagree. If he had said the same info that he tweeted on air or printed it in a newspaper he would not have printed or said a retraction/apology since he's made the same mistakes in the past and not owned up them. Just because it's Twitter in this case doesn't change the fact that he's still the same guy who refuses to admit that he's been played or is wrong. The medium isn't the message in this case, it's just Mort being Mort. Start Googling Chris Mortensen + Wrong  and you'll see a long list of mistakes that predate Twitter that he's never copped to. This particular tweet is more damaging in terms of public opinion than his past screw ups, he's just ignoring the fail in a whole new way.
 

crystalline

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 12, 2009
5,771
JP
judyb said:
Maybe the only thing about this entire mess we do know for certain is that Chris Mortensen sold his soul as a reporter, if he ever had one to sell.
Sports media are not reporters, they are entertainers. They don't care about facts.
 

GBrushTWood

New Member
Jul 12, 2005
372
Brookline
KenTremendous said:
Did my best to summarize the nonsense. For something I've been thinking about almost continuously since February, it's surprisingly hard to talk about without sounding like an insane person.
 
http://joeposnanski.com/the-poscast-episode-13-emotions/
 
Really, really good discussion on the subject. The idea that it's difficult to discuss this without sounding like a lunatic is one that stands out for me. I've been in discussions with good friends on this, and can't help but feel I'm arguing I just saw Big Foot. That's possibly the most frustrating part of this.
 
"None of the balls measured were significantly lower than the Colts!"
 
"Sure, buddy. Whatever you say. Keep believing that."
 

JeffLedbetter

New Member
Jan 29, 2015
38
Imagine if Mortensen's article had been factually correct...
 
NOT THIS: "The NFL has found that 11 of the New England Patriots' 12 game balls were inflated significantly below the NFL's requirements, league sources involved and familiar with the investigation of Sunday's AFC Championship Game told ESPN."
 
BUT THIS: "The NFL has found that the air pressure of all of the New England Patriots' 11 (there were only 11 because of Blount TD gift) measured at halftime of the AFC championship game can be explained by the cold weather and the so-called 'Ideal Gas Law.'"
 
NOT THIS: "All of the balls the Colts used met standards, according to the report."
 
BUT THIS  "Two different gauges were used during the halftime ball measurements and one of the gauges found that four out of four of the Colts' balls that were measured were below the permissible 12.5 PSI. It also should be noted that eight of the 12 Colts' balls were not measured because the referees did not have enough time, which one can surmise means that the Colts' balls were measured last and thus had sat in the warm environs of the referees' locker room where they would have warmed up and therefore gained air pressure."
 
IN ADDITION TO THIS: "Sources earlier this season told ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter that the Colts had concerns about underinflated balls after their regular-season game against the visiting Patriots on Nov. 16." THIS: "One must wonder how the Patriots might have deflated footballs at an away game when it is the home team's responsibility to transfer footballs to the field after the referees' inspection."
 
IN ADDITION TO THIS: "Part of the investigation that needs further vetting is how the 11 footballs became under inflated." THIS: "One theory is that game-day atmospheric conditions could have been responsible."
 

Bleedred

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 21, 2001
9,967
Boston, MA
Volin's article today claims that a Physicist replicated the Exponent methodology and confirmed its accuracy, and found a significant flaw in the AEI report (although didn't say what it was).   Not linking to him b/c I don't think he deserves it
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,213
Bleedred said:
Volin's article today claims that a Physicist replicated the Exponent methodology and confirmed its accuracy, and found a significant flaw in the AEI report (although didn't say what it was).   Not linking to him b/c I don't think he deserves it
 
Did he identify a specific person, or is it an anonymous citation?
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
Not a physicist, a statistician that claimed he could replicate Exponent's numbers. Volin is desperately trying to get a job with the world wide leader, it will be hilarious if they continue to ignore him.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,994
Newton
JeffLedbetter said:
Imagine if Mortensen's article had been factually correct...
 
NOT THIS: "The NFL has found that 11 of the New England Patriots' 12 game balls were inflated significantly below the NFL's requirements, league sources involved and familiar with the investigation of Sunday's AFC Championship Game told ESPN."
 
BUT THIS: "The NFL has found that the air pressure of all of the New England Patriots' 11 (there were only 11 because of Blount TD gift) measured at halftime of the AFC championship game can be explained by the cold weather and the so-called 'Ideal Gas Law.'"
 


The idea that Mort had ever even heard of the Ideal Gas Law this early into the controversy is ridiculous. As is most of this wishcasting post.

I would have settled for "The NFL found that the Patriots balls were under the limits according to measurements taken at halftime but it's not clear if there was any foul play."

Bleedred said:
Volin's article today claims that a Physicist replicated the Exponent methodology and confirmed its accuracy, and found a significant flaw in the AEI report (although didn't say what it was).   Not linking to him b/c I don't think he deserves it
All this butthurt around Volin is tiresome. Here's the link:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/06/27/tom-brady-appeal-about-more-than-quarterback/ihhIAb6oJJdUrFS8V8w7uJ/story.html

Also, he didn't hide the flaw. He just said the statistician (who has a name even!) was able to replicate Exponent's method immediately and AEI said they couldn't.

Further, Volin quotes the guy saying he thinks the Wells report is crap regardless:

Now, just because DeSarno replicated Exponent’s results does not mean that the conclusions of the Wells Report are accurate.

DeSarno pointed out that the data set is incomplete and flawed — what we’ve been saying for four months about referee Walt Anderson not recording the pregame data and all of the different gauge-switching scenarios — and that Wells cherry-picked results to fit the “Patriots are guilty” conclusion.

“I still don’t place any faith in [Wells’s] conclusions,” DeSarno said. “All I can tell you that the analysis method Wells used is absolutely correct, and the analysis method AEI used is incorrect.”
I agree that Volin could stand to be more critical in some instances. But the idea that he's some lazy troll is misplaced.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,778
Rotten Apple
GBrushTWood said:
 
Really, really good discussion on the subject. The idea that it's difficult to discuss this without sounding like a lunatic is one that stands out for me. I've been in discussions with good friends on this, and can't help but feel I'm arguing I just saw Big Foot. That's possibly the most frustrating part of this.
 
"None of the balls measured were significantly lower than the Colts!"
 
"Sure, buddy. Whatever you say. Keep believing that."
Yep. It's a total trainwreck of a discussion. It ends up into a he-said/she-said dynamic when the facts don't indicate that at all.
 
Then again, you could say the same for much of the Spygate discussions. People have hung their own asterisks on the Pats championships and mentally they've moved on. And I don't expect even a total Brady court win to change much of that.
 

kolbitr

New Member
Jul 20, 2005
682
Providence, RI
Van Everyman said:
The idea that Mort had ever even heard of the Ideal Gas Law this early into the controversy is ridiculous. As is most of this wishcasting post.

I would have settled for "The NFL found that the Patriots balls were under the limits according to measurements taken at halftime but it's not clear if there was any foul play."


All this butthurt around Volin is tiresome. Here's the link:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/06/27/tom-brady-appeal-about-more-than-quarterback/ihhIAb6oJJdUrFS8V8w7uJ/story.html

Also, he didn't hide the flaw. He just said the statistician (who has a name even!) was able to replicate Exponent's method immediately and AEI said they couldn't.

Further, Volin quotes the guy saying he thinks the Wells report is crap regardless:



I agree that Volin could stand to be more critical in some instances. But the idea that he's some lazy troll is misplaced.
It's more complicated than that, though. Volin first cited DeSarno's email on twitter, within the same hour that he lamented receiving dozens and dozens of lengthy emails from "Harvard PhDs" attacking the Wells Report and supporting AEI. He presents those emails as basically tedious and worthless, yet prints, and follows up on, the one, from a biostatistician with an MS from UVM, which supports the Wells/Exponent methods. Why would he take this course? Because it makes for the better story...from the Globe's perspective anyway. Volin even chided Patriots fans for ignoring DeSarno's results...which is an odd thing to say, since it's not as if this was the result of some public "report".

It *is* unfair to blame Volin...he's just an employee, doing his job. The email was not sent to him directly, but forwarded to him by Joe Sullivan. Volin is following up this angle because he was encouraged/directed to do so, and I imagine any reporter in his shoes would do the same. That doesn't mean that one can't point out the slanting of his coverage for what it is, though.
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,272
Witters said:
Yeah but look at the terms he couched it in: "Patriot Nation ignores it."
 
That's brilliant work by Volin. Guy at UVT debunks AEI report with no actual information in his story at all and backs Wells report. If Pats fans don't agree or dismiss it, it's because they're homers and don't want to listen to the truth. 
 
When did Ben Volin stop beating his wife?
 

crystalline

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 12, 2009
5,771
JP
Bleedred said:
Volin's article today claims that a Physicist replicated the Exponent methodology and confirmed its accuracy, and found a significant flaw in the AEI report (although didn't say what it was).   Not linking to him b/c I don't think he deserves it.
This is a little humorous. In summary, Volin and the biostatistician (DeSarno) are most likely wrong - and AEI is right.

This is a very nerdy story. The dispute is over a very obscure corner of statistics, and it's at the intersection of two fields- economics (where people at AEI usually come from) and biology/psychology. The problem is those fields don't care to educate each other about statistics, so their approaches are different and their words confuse each other.

Volin's article says: (emphasis mine)
The AEI scientists wrote that Ted Wells and Exponent used an unorthodox statistical procedure at odds with the methodology the report describes. On a whim, DeSarno decided to check AEIs work. He plugged the football PSI data into a standard statistical analysis method a mixed model, repeated measures analysis of variance, or ANOVA.

On his first try, DeSarno replicated Exponents results exactly.

I totally expected to see that I couldnt replicate the Wells Report, either, DeSarno said. But I was kind of surprised that once I ran my standard analysis method, it matched Wells exactly.

The first model I tried, based on the usual model I use for this data, worked immediately. So I dont know why [AEI] didnt use that model.
To a biostatistician, the ANOVA approach is standard. But to an economist, it's "unorthodox".
As this article points out
http://andrewgelman.com/2005/01/25/why_i_dont_use/
that standard ANOVA model is ambiguous.
An economist would never use a mixed-effects ANOVA, they would use a particular specification of a linear regression. As the AEI report did.

Now, I haven't dug fully into the exact details of AEI's argument, but their point is mostly boring. It's basically snark from economists saying that other fields don't understand statistics as well as they do. From AEI:
"Although the text that prefaces table A-2 indicates that the values are 'adjusted for other effects,' implying the authors performed a multiple regression, they seem to be the result of simply including no other explanatory variables"
[Etc, etc.]

In general, ANOVA estimation is difficult, because it can require very complicated specification of error terms, and that requires an expert whenever you go outside a small set of cookie cutter examples. You can't just run "your standard analysis" and expect to get the same results as others. See my first link above, and look at the manuscript linked on that page for examples as to how ANOVA specification can go wrong (his Figure 1 shows how commonly errors can be made in SPSS). Not only that, terms like "mixed model" are often ambiguous.

The concrete, nonambiguous way to specify an analysis like this, regardless of which field you come from, is to give the equation you are fitting, and say how you fit it. That is what AEI does. DeSarno, on the other hand, uses the ambiguous terms.

Therefore, because they reason from the model equations, it is likely AEI is right and DeSarno is wrong. (I'm not inclined to make that statement ironclad by spending an hour or two to find DeSarno's email, figure out what he did, and vet the AEI regressions fully.)

But ultimately for Brady and the NFLPA, conflicts between two different fields over statistical conventions are irrelevant. Here's the only thing that matters about the Wells report, and DeSarno and AEI agree:


Now, just because DeSarno replicated Exponents results does not mean that the conclusions of the Wells Report are accurate.

DeSarno pointed out that the data set is incomplete and flawed what weve been saying for four months about referee Walt Anderson not recording the pregame data and all of the different gauge-switching scenarios and that Wells cherry-picked results to fit the Patriots are guilty conclusion.

I still dont place any faith in [Wellss] conclusions, DeSarno said.
Exactly. Garbage in, garbage out.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,213
I can't believe there is anyone sophisticated about any one of these specialty areas (by which I mean physics, statistics, investigation, law, or the facts of that day) who really has confidence in the Wells report at this point.   
 
I also do not have any reason to think that Roger Goodell is among that group of people.  I bet Ted Wells is, but I also think his report is written with knowledge of what the answer is supposed to be and he'll never acknowledge otherwise.  His PC is odd if he actually does understand the problems, but that PC was odd no matter what he might have thought.
Sigh.
 

troparra

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 3, 2007
1,921
Michigan
Are Pats fans arguing about the statistical methods?   People are arguing about bias, flawed and incomplete data, etc.
 
Drawing conclusions on the Wells report because they may have used the proper statistical test is like verifying that a photo of Bigfoot is real because you determined the camera worked properly.  
 

Peak Oil Can Boyd

New Member
Sep 28, 2011
127
Remember this? http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/20/deflated-ball-investigation-to-be-concluded-in-next-2-3-days/
 
 
Appearing on Tuesday’s PFT Live on NBC Sports Radio, NFL executive V.P. of football operations Troy Vincent confirmed that the league is investigating the situation.  He disclosed that it won’t take much longer.
“We’re hoping to wrap that up in the next two or three days,” Vincent said.  “The team is in place in New England now interviewing staff members.”
 
Ah, the good ol' pre-Mort days.  That was on the Tuesday after the game.
 
What's really interesting about this statement is that Vincent was in the officials locker room during halftime when the balls were measured.  He knew the real deflation numbers.  He knew about the content of the interviews with McNally by NFL Security.
 
In other words, even at this point the NFL was probably suspicious but still didn't think this was a big deal, and would be put to bed in a couple days.  Of course, the Mortensen tweet hit later that day and all hell broke loose.  
 
Could it be that most of the NFL front office didn't really care about this, except for one extremely bitter executive who decided to amp up the scandal with the inflammatory (false) leak to Mort?
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,592
Here
I'm going to be that guy who brings it up again, but the Cardinals hacking scandal lasted about 48 hours. I'm sure it will flare up again at some point, but contrasting that to Deflategate is remarkable. Or, for the "it's a big deal because repeat offenders/it happened during the Superbowl week" crowd, compare it to Spygate.

Is it because Belichick is a surly meany to the media? Is it the difference between the NFL/MLB front offices? It just seems nuts.
 

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,667
Mid-surburbia
Ed Hillel said:
I'm going to be that guy who brings it up again, but the Cardinals hacking scandal lasted about 48 hours. I'm sure it will flare up again at some point, but contrasting that to Deflategate is remarkable. Or, for the "it's a big deal because repeat offenders/it happened during the Superbowl week" crowd, compare it to Spygate.

Is it because Belichick is a surly meany to the media? Is it the difference between the NFL/MLB front offices? It just seems nuts.
 
Your bolded, plus a big heaping of too good for too long from the other AFC front offices and locker rooms.  That's about all it takes.  Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a thing.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,592
Here
JimBoSox9 said:
 
Your bolded, plus a big heaping of too good for too long from the other AFC front offices and locker rooms.  That's about all it takes.  Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a thing.
Is it unique to football, then? The Cardinals haven't exactly been wanting for success the past 10-15 years themselves. The FBI investigation was 9 months old before it leaked. There are no Mike Kensils in the MLB FO, apparently.
 

simplyeric

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
14,037
Richmond, VA
Ed Hillel said:
Is it unique to football, then? The Cardinals haven't exactly been wanting for success the past 10-15 years themselves. The FBI investigation was 9 months old before it leaked. There are no Mike Kensils in the MLB FO, apparently.
But the Cardinals thing is an actual legal infraction, according to the state, and is a very very serious situation.
Thus: it needs to be swept under the rug and forgotten.

The Deflategate thing has no real world or in-game repercussions, and thus it can be blown into the hugest of proportions with no real risk (except for possible CBA negotiations in the future)
 

pedro1918

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
5,139
Map Ref. 41°N 93°W
On Saturday I went to Home Depot (I live in the DC suburbs of Maryland) to buy hardware for an exterior door to my house that I just moved.  I decided that I needed and extra key made, so I went to the key cutter.  I noticed they had keys with a Pats logo on them so I decided, WTF.  I gave the guy the key and he put it in the machine.   As my key was being made, the guy running the machine said "Should I take a little air out of that key for you?"  I looked at and him and responded "Nah, just carve a Super Bowl trophy in it for me."
 
He laughed.  I laughed.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,778
Rotten Apple
Ed Hillel said:
I'm going to be that guy who brings it up again, but the Cardinals hacking scandal lasted about 48 hours. I'm sure it will flare up again at some point, but contrasting that to Deflategate is remarkable. Or, for the "it's a big deal because repeat offenders/it happened during the Superbowl week" crowd, compare it to Spygate.

Is it because Belichick is a surly meany to the media? Is it the difference between the NFL/MLB front offices? It just seems nuts.
Most people like the Cards. Good, salt of the earth people. They can't be wrong, right? Most people hate the Pats because the Pats are cheaters. The logic behind that? They're cheaters because they're cheaters and I don't like how Belichick scowls and looks grumpy all the time. He must be evil. The public opinion is set on these perceptions and aren't changing anytime soon. Facts be damned, it's how people feel.
 

Norm loves Vera

Joe wants Trump to burn
SoSH Member
Dec 25, 2003
5,370
Peace Dale, RI
Exponent non complaint with a court order re a case in Illinois and are facing a fine of $1,000 each day they do not give up the documents the Court asked for:
  • “On May 11, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of Documents contained on Exponent, Inc.’s Privilege Log … within seven (7) days of the Court’s Order. Exponent has failed to comply with this Order and had indicated that it will continue to disregard this Court’s May 11 order.”
  • “[T]he Court cannot allow Exponent to stand in violation of a valid Court Order compelling the production of documents.”
  • “Methodologically sound science has nothing to fear from full and open disclosure.”
  • “[T]he Court finds that Exponent’s refusal to comply with its May 11, 2015 Order is unreasonable and evidence of deliberate disregard for the court’s authority.”
http://thornography.weei.com/sports/boston/2015/06/29/wells-report-science-firm-exponent-gets-whacked-by-court-order/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
 

Omar's Wacky Neighbor

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
16,629
Leaving in a bit to the studio :)
GBrushTWood said:
 
Really, really good discussion on the subject. The idea that it's difficult to discuss this without sounding like a lunatic is one that stands out for me. I've been in discussions with good friends on this, and can't help but feel I'm arguing I just saw Big Foot. That's possibly the most frustrating part of this.
 
"None of the balls measured were significantly lower than the Colts!"
 
"Sure, buddy. Whatever you say. Keep believing that."
"I'm just telling you what I heard......."
 

Omar's Wacky Neighbor

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
16,629
Leaving in a bit to the studio :)
Dahabenzapple2 said:
 I then ask "Did you read the Wells report?"
 
"I know they did it"
 
UGH
There's one teacher/aide at my son's school who told me on thge day that the Wells report was released that "Brady admitted to it!" or some such,and when I asked him where he saw that and what exactly Brady admitted to, he got very argumentative and almost shouted "It's in the report!".  When I asked where in the report, he got even more bothered and stopped just short of telling me that I was in denial, because "C'mon!  It's in the report!"
 
The custodians, who I'm very friendly with and who've good-naturedly bantered with me about Boston sports for years, were standing near by and they could barely contain themselves from cracking up, when they saw how seriously this aide was taking the issue.
 

Dr. Gonzo

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2010
5,213
Jenkins with another thoughtful piece
 
 
 
 
Roger Goodell can restore a sense of loftiness to the NFL commissioner’s office with a simple expedited decision. He should lift the suspension on Tom Brady this week, and turn his disciplinary eye on the vague, sloppily enforced league rules that caused Deflategate in the first place. This is his best way out of this infernal case, which is as damaging to Goodell and the league office as it is to Brady and the New England Patriots.
 
 

eom

New Member
Jun 28, 2015
7
Hey, I just joined this forum -- is there a thread starting restriction for noobs or does the button just not show up on my phone?
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,213
troparra said:
Are Pats fans arguing about the statistical methods?   People are arguing about bias, flawed and incomplete data, etc.
 
Drawing conclusions on the Wells report because they may have used the proper statistical test is like verifying that a photo of Bigfoot is real because you determined the camera worked properly.  
 
I think it's more the reverse:  if we demonstrate that the camera was not working and could not have taken the picture, we know that the Bigfoot photo allegedly taken by it is not real.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,778
Rotten Apple
MarcSullivaFan said:
Agreed. And I disagree that's it's remotely as damaging for the league as it is for Brady and the Pats.
Yep. Joe average sports fan sees nothing wrong with RG on this issue. To the contrary, it's the only thing they like about him by now.
 

ALiveH

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,104
The Brady 4 games suspension is a nothingburger compared to the much more material penalty of a 1st & 4th pick.
 
Also, we probably would've won at least one more Super Bowl if we we hadn't had to cough up a 1st for SpyGate.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,247
ALiveH said:
The Brady 4 games suspension is a nothingburger compared to the much more material penalty of a 1st & 4th pick.
 
Also, we probably would've won at least one more Super Bowl if we we hadn't had to cough up a 1st for SpyGate.
 
Considering that *all* of the BB/Brady SB's have been nail-biters, I think the bolded is wishcasting.
 

pedro1918

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
5,139
Map Ref. 41°N 93°W
I don't remember the Eagles Super Bowl as a "nail-biter".  I realize it was a three point game, but they were never in any danger.  It was more like a 10 point game with a garbage time TD.
 
Of course, it was only garbage time because the Eagles mismanaged the clock, so maybe you are right.
 

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
9,827
Needham, MA
Losing first round picks hurt and I agree it is a bigger deal long-term for the franchise than losing Brady for four games.  But Super Bowls are just so hard to win, and depend on a combination of so many factors (talent, coaching, execution, depth, injuries, luck) that saying the Pats "probably" would have won another one is just silly.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
joe dokes said:
 
Considering that *all* of the BB/Brady SB's have been nail-biters,
 
Which is why they aren't really that good.
 
/Fat Francesa.