billsfan1959

I think most of us understand you were being sarcastic in response to another poster who actually was advocating Whaley being fired...

By not having a determination of being "legally sane" as a prerequisite for joining this site?

Also, Whaley and Ryan met with Fred together...pretty rogue

This thought is probably a bit too rational for this thread. Tone it down...

For some reason, the term, "word salad" comes to mind...

You left off one of the best power run games in football to go with that defense. Orton didn't have that last year....

If he is simply coming from the perspective of a fan with no affiliation with the Bills, then his posts regarding EJ have the flavor of the unreasonable crusade that is carried on by a handful of posters on this board. If he does in fact have any affiliation of significance with the Bills, then his posts regarding EJ are a bit troubling and out of line from an organizational perspective. imo

Your post history regarding Manuel is precisely the reason you get questions such as the one by John from Hemet. They appear to be relentlessly aggressive and often crossing the line from a belief that he lacks professional QB abilities to something more personal. If you had your way, not only would he not be given any shot at earning the starting position, or even a backup position, but he should be cut right now from this team and probably the league - and the tone of your posts make some wonder if you would actually derive some sort of pleasure from that.

My belief all along has been that Brady believed that refusing to turn over relevant information from his phone and accepting any subsequent punishment for lack of candor/cooperation would be far less damaging than what was on the phone. I base that on the NFL's willingness to have the information completely sanitized by Brady's own attorneys before turning it over. IMO, it negates any argument against turning the information over, other than Brady believed the relevant information was very damaging to him.

Actually, deleted messages are maintained on the phone and can be recovered until they are over-written. It is done all the time in criminal investigations. However, consent or a warrant is needed to do so. Also, most carriers maintain records of text messages and attachments to texts that can be obtained with a subpoena. Again, they are standard investigative steps in criminal investigations - which is completely different than what the NFL does, which is essentially an internal investigation within a private company.

No he did not. Try Marshawn Lynch, Seattle's defense, Green Bay's conservative play, and two ridiculously bad plays on the part of the Packers and you get overtime. Wilson made two good throws in overtime; however, it should have never gotten to overtime and his play during regulation was abysmal. Wilson has trailed in the fourth quarter in only four playoff games. He lost three of them and should have lost the fourth. Wilson is a good QB; however, he is nowhere near the level of Brady, Rogers, Manning, etc.

So, the league allowed them to cheat and caught them red handed in what amounted to a "sting" operation? Even if that were the case, how exactly does that diminish the fact that Brady, Jastremski, and McNally were involved in violating league rules to gain an unfair competitive edge? Maybe what the league "wanted" was to check the balls during the game and find that they were well within what the league rules allow and, therefore, could say, "Look, we acted on information provided and found no evidence the Patriots were violating league rules."

The standard of beyond a reasonable doubt is based exactly on what a "reasonable person" would conclude based on the evidence. This investigation is not nearly as in-depth as a criminal investigation would be, and commenting on how solid the evidence is from a criminal prosecution perspective is pointless.

I think this is a pretty fair proposal. 100% agree.

Exactly. Reasonable doubt doesn't mean the absence of any doubt - or to a scientific certainty. It simply means that, based on the evidence presented, it is more reasonable to believe it is true than not. The report clearly presented evidence that reached that standard. There is also another aspect to reasonable doubt, and that is the existence of a contradicting theory that is equally reasonable. In this case, that means an equally reasonable theory that McNally and Jastremski did this entirely without the direction, approval, or knowledge of Brady. I just don't see any compelling argument or evidence to support that.

I believe the term is "willful blindness"

Jastremski and McNally are trading texts specifically about McNally getting the footballs exactly how Brady wants them. During those texts, Jastremski says Brady specifically mentioned McNally and that he must be stressed trying to get them done. Split hairs all you want....although, I do agree with you that Brady did know him as "the guy who deflates the footballs"...to a PSI outside the limits of the rules...and the only reason he would do that is because that is what Brady wanted. Exactly

Except for the texts from Jastremski to McNally specifically saying Brady mentioned McNally... Jastremski to McNally: "Talked to him last night. He actually brought you up and said you must have a lot of stress trying to get them done..."

I wasn't defending EJ's performance in the game. You made an assertion regarding Watkins and said you would wager $50 that you were correct. I accurately pointed out that you were not correct would would lose that wager. EJ's overall performance in that game is a different story - and not a good one. I agree, I don't know if either player is better than the other at this point, and that is really a debate for down the road in their respective careers. Here is the way I look at it: It is clear to me that Watkins is everything people thought he would be, even given the injuries and subpar quarterback/offensive play. Beckham turned out to be more than people thought he would be. However, just because Beckham turned out to be much better than anticipated, it doesn't diminish how good Watkins is.

Yolo posted stats showing Watkins had the 2nd highest percentage of uncatchable targets and that Beckham had the 2nd lowest percentage of uncatchable targets. That is what this thread is actually about. Beckham: 129 Targets, 91 receptions (70.5%), 14.3 YPC, 5.3 YAC per reception, 12 TDs (13% of receptions), 2 dropped passes Watkins: 124 Targets, 65 receptions (52.4%), 15.1 YPC, 5.2 YAC per reception, 6 TDs (10% of receptions), 5 dropped passes They both made a number of great catches on poorly thrown balls, so, they both have the ability to go after and catch bad passes. Given that and looking at comparable stats, IMO, I think the stats re uncatchable targets are legitimate and the primary difference between the two.

You would lose the $50. Manuel targeted Watkins 9 times in the Houston game. Watson caught 4. Interestingly enough, 3 of his 5 dropped passes for the season came in the Houston game. So, if you are keeping track, that is 7 catchable balls out of 9 passes. The worst performance goes to Orton in the Green Bay game. And, if Watson makes those three catches in the Houston game, then Manuel would have had over a 70% completion rate to Watkns in 3 of his 4 games.

Haha Just to add a little more: Watkins was targeted a total of 124 times with 65 completions (52.4%) with 5 dropped passes. Beckham was targeted a total of 129 times with 91 completions (70.1%) with 2 dropped passes. Since Watkins only had 3 more drops than Beckham, I would think it would be safe to assume there were more off target passes to Watkins than to Beckham

Manuel targeted Watkins 32 times with 17 completions (53%) Orton targeted Watkins 92 times with 48 completions (52%)

Then you didn't read it very closely...

I think the report was pretty clear that McNally was the tamperer...and painted an overwhelming picture that Brady was behind it...