Brady had a deal with Audi for a long time (his car accident came in a S8) and he's endorsed Tag Heuer as well, so he's not new to the world of extremely high-end promotion.
The Nation's Tears: Volume II
- Thread starter jmcc5400
- Start date
- Status
(I mean, I guess he dumped Bridget when she was pregnant, but my understanding is that it wasn't "because" she was pregnant, and that he's been a pretty good guy about it since?"
Last edited:
This post sucks. NFL players have a lower arrest rate than the general male population of comparable age, and actually have a lower rate of DV than the employees of your average local police department.
Well you sort of expect the latter given the way that police departments recruit sociopaths thee days.
for the record: I was quoting the article, and adding my edits to it. Sorry I didn't add the quote thing.
This was from the article:
I added the "misogyny" angle as a qualifier to how "great" Bond is as the face of a product, and to include P. Mannings's shenanigans from back in the day.
(not saying it's an awesome post in any case...it was more the opportunity to call TB an impeccably dressed killing machine who plays by his own rules.)
You can't just control on favorable variables and ignore others. NFL players are rich, you'd expect dramatically lower arrest rates than an economic cross-section of the same age.
It's tough to figure out exactly, but NFL players have a DV arrest rate about 3-5 times that of comparably wealthy males of comparable age. Maybe higher.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-rate-of-domestic-violence-arrests-among-nfl-players/ discusses in some detail:
Seems like there would be a lot of other differences between NFL players and similarly affluent Americans. I wish this had controlled for education instead. NFL players are probably unusual there too, but it would at least give you a fairer comparison given that so many of them do not end up getting a degree.
That would probably make NFL players look even worse, as more-educated people tend to commit less crime. Because of the nature of the draft, about 50% of NFL players have a college degree compared to 44% in their age cohort nationally; virtually all have at least some college, compared to 65% nationally.
But I'm not sure how enlightening it'd be; I'm guessing that a lot of NFL players' college degrees don't really reflect the same educational experience as the general population's.
Right but I'm guessing that affluent people are pretty likely to have a college degree or higher. Much higher than than the national average.
Yep, it's very hard to separate education and income in population data
Bunch of emojis to this tweet inside of it...
Bill Polian on NFL Live saying Goodell was treated wrongly during the deflategate saga y: never change, Bill @jerrythornton1
Beyond whiny tears lies real pain. The Patriots have inflicted it on opponents now two Super Bowls in a row. Delicious delight for the discerning sweet tooth.
Seems Pats finally killed off the wellsreportcontext.com website.
Should have just left a page there with a picture of 5 lombardi's or the picture of Tom yelling while holding up the trophy after the Super Bowl.
Should have just left a page there with a picture of 5 lombardi's or the picture of Tom yelling while holding up the trophy after the Super Bowl.
Well, the good news is, it still works exactly as well on Brady haters as it did when it was live.
Indeed, that's my understanding too. But I'm not entirely certain so I hedged.
Point is, that's the worst treatment of women people have come up with for TB, and if so, well that's not so bad (as compared to, say, Peyton Manning, not to mention a lot of others...)
I would be willing to chip in to reignite that website -- and just have Goodell's clown picture on it or something?
Who is Amy Trask and why should we care what she thinks about that game?
Does she ever bring up the fact that the Raiders blew several chances to, you know, win the game?
According to Wikipedia, she is the former CEO of the Raiders(1997 to 2013) and she's referred by Raiders fans as "The Princess of Darkness". Tuck Rule game and Super Bowl loss notwithstanding, her reign with the Raiders was a tremendous failure.
I vaguely remember that SI did a feature on her around that time. (Back when SI was still important.) The article mentioned that while the refs were trying to get the Tuck Rule mess sorted out, she stood behind an NFL exec in the league box and shouted "You better not fuck us here. Don't let those assholes fuck us." (Obviously the profanity was excised in a way that made it clear what she was saying.)
Good to know that she's still haunted by that game.
Honestly, from what I've read about Amy Trask she's a very talented exec and she's very cool. It couldn't have been easy working for Vampire Al Davis. She can have the expected Raider bitterness about the Tuck Rule game without being the subject of personal schadenfreude.
And I can't believe you guys don't know who she is. If you've followed football at all over the last decade her name was bound to come up.
That whole Raiders team bitches about the game every chance they get, except for Jon Gruden who's never once blamed the ruling for the loss as he's said they had multiple chances to win the game and didn't get it done.
And I can't believe you guys don't know who she is. If you've followed football at all over the last decade her name was bound to come up.
That whole Raiders team bitches about the game every chance they get, except for Jon Gruden who's never once blamed the ruling for the loss as he's said they had multiple chances to win the game and didn't get it done.
I completely understand why Tuck Rule still bothers Raiders fans.
But there is absolutely zero rational argument that the rule was not correctly applied---everyone in the NFL, for years, has said as much and essentially every independent analyst has as well.
If the point is 'this rule is dumb' that's fine, but so what? The NFL kept it in place for a number of years after anyway.
Judgment calls---Sugar Bear Hamilton, Jeffrey Maier etc.--make sense to debate long after the fact. But a correctly applied rule where you complain the rule is bad is just the most sour of grapes.
But there is absolutely zero rational argument that the rule was not correctly applied---everyone in the NFL, for years, has said as much and essentially every independent analyst has as well.
If the point is 'this rule is dumb' that's fine, but so what? The NFL kept it in place for a number of years after anyway.
Judgment calls---Sugar Bear Hamilton, Jeffrey Maier etc.--make sense to debate long after the fact. But a correctly applied rule where you complain the rule is bad is just the most sour of grapes.
A huge part of the problem is that Walt Coleman didn't give a good explanation when he came back from replay. He said "the QB's arm was moving forward" when in fact it was not. Had he given a more in-depth explanation, the way refs do today, there would be far less of a controversy.
The rules being taken off the books years later only fuels the hate fire. Telling people that the Patriots were on the wrong end of a Tuck ruling earlier that season against the Jets makes no impact into their obtuseness on this issue. And telling people that the Raiders had a chance to win the SB the next year but blew it because they didn't bother changing signals has a similar impact.
The rules being taken off the books years later only fuels the hate fire. Telling people that the Patriots were on the wrong end of a Tuck ruling earlier that season against the Jets makes no impact into their obtuseness on this issue. And telling people that the Raiders had a chance to win the SB the next year but blew it because they didn't bother changing signals has a similar impact.
At the time, this hit to the head was NEVER called. Today, yes, it almost certainly would be called. But that's a no-call every time in '01.
I don't think you were directing this at me, but I definitely know who she is. My comment was based on the memory that came up when I heard she was touching on the subject again.
And let me be clear: if I were a Raiders fan, I would carry anger about that call to my grave. (I'm a Flyers fan and I still remind a friend who roots for the Islanders that Nystrom's cup-winning goal in 1980 was scored on an offsides play.). So no, that's not a derogatory judgment about her. Just a funny observation about the nature of fandom.
Last edited:
Maybe one day, ESPN or NFL Network will do a feature on the lack of hold calls on the Play that will not be mentioned from the Scotland game. Get all the refs to give their reasoning why they didn't call holding (or possibly even that the QB was in the grasp). Get all the Patriots players talking about how the game was taken away from them by a missed call(s).
Then they could do a sequel about how the refs let the Giants get away with the too many men on the field in 46, with only a 5 yard penalty to show for the loss of precious time. (of course, this one actually parallels the Tuck rule more, because, you know, it was actually called correctly at the time, and the rule was later changed).
Then they could do a sequel about how the refs let the Giants get away with the too many men on the field in 46, with only a 5 yard penalty to show for the loss of precious time. (of course, this one actually parallels the Tuck rule more, because, you know, it was actually called correctly at the time, and the rule was later changed).
If Jonathan Kraft wasn't yelling this (or worse) while they reviewed the spot after 4th-and-2, or after the Play That Shall Not Be Named, I'll eat my hat. It's obnoxious, of course, but she certainly isn't an exception in that regard.
There's an interview on some ESPN or NFLN program about that game with Walt Coleman. He's so matter of fact about it. He basically recounts that he got under the hood and knew instantly it was a forward pass. His attitude seems to one of bemusement that anyone thinks it's a thing.
It's part of the reason that I hate the idea of New York getting more involved in these reviews. You listen to guys like Coleman, Corrente, or Vinovich or talk to people who are in that community, and it's clear these guys are where they are because for 20 years they have it drilled into them not to give a shit who wins or to worry about the implications of their calls.
They get it wrong sometimes. Consistency is crazy in the NFL. They are human and can unconsciously be swayed by coaches or players or home crowds. But guys like Coleman really do seem to have the attitude like, "ok, that happened, what's next"?
I agree with all of this. Amy Trask is awesome and her book is great and she's still bitter about the Tuck Rule.
The Raiders Super Bowl loss was the year after, so it's not like the snow game ended their run. It's just easier for Oakland fans to pretend they would have easily won the games in the next two rounds than that they should have won the Super Bowl they lost by 27.
As a Patriots fan, I'm kind of annoyed that the game is remembered as the Tuck Rule game and not the Game-Where-Adam-Vinatieri-Hit-the-Most-Insane-Kick ever. My reaction after they reversed the fumble was, "Nice break for the Pats, but it doesn't matter because they're never going to hit this field goal anyway."
Like it wasn't called two weeks later when Vrabel's hand hit Warner's grill on Ty Law's pick 6.
Half the defensive plays in that SB would be penalties today. The Pats beat the living hell out of the Rams' receivers.
And they beat the Hell out of the Colts receivers in the 2004 AFCCG, which is why the Colts bitched to the league after that game, got the rules changed, then got their asses handed to them again in the 2005 AFC Divisional Round playoffs.
Thankfully for my sanity, I've come full circle on the Scottish game, mainly due to the last two Super Bowl wins, the last one specifically.
Much like Raiders fans bitching about the Tuck Rule, I used to bitch about the holding/in the grasp non call on the Tyree catch, but truth be told, that game NEVER should have come down to the defense making a play on that game winning drive, that's on the team in general for putting the defense in that position in the first place.
I thought the call on that play was for Willie McGinest mugging Marshall Faulk, who was coming out of the backfield to act as a receiver. Or am I mixing that up with some other play?
The play you're thinking of is Tebucky Jones 95 yd scoop & score that was called back
Instead of 21-3 and game over, the Rams scored on the next play and it was 14-10 and "Here we go again" time, but thankfully, things ended on a high note.
As great as the Brown catch was on the last drive, the Wiggins catch got them closer for the game winning field goal and it was not as easy of a catch as it first appeared to be.
Exactly.
So the Patriots don't have any karmic debt to the Raiders. None. Hell, our idiot management traded Mike Haynes to them.
Al Davis was a paranoid miserable old fuck by 2001, so he and his entire organization actually believed that the NFL was out to get them as a carryover from his wars against the league decades earlier. Davis bitched the following year after the Pats won SB 36 that the Raiders had to open the season at Foxborough and he knew it was because the league hated him.
No wonder those guys continue complaining to this day.
No wonder those guys continue complaining to this day.
Brady's broken ankle had more to do with the loss than anything else. He's not the most mobile guy on the best of days, but his ability to move around in the pocket has mitigated that. His high ankle sprain made him a statue.
- Status