DC Tom Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 @hsimon62: Sothis would be okay, right? Report: Tom Brady could be suspended for up to one year http://t.co/9K4YzUShBKvia @cbssports Everyone's reporting that...and the only source is a single Miami Herald story that doesn't say that.
ko12010 Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 The most interesting thing will be Bradys actual statement. Will he toe the party line of Kraft and his lawyer and attack the accuser? Or the opposite and issue a full apology? My bet he'll try to find somewhere in the middle. Say he told the guys to let some air out, but only because he thought they felt a little over inflated. That he never intended to circumvent the rule. Only trying to get them to where they felt right. And the little perks he gave the guys weren't for helping him break any rules, but only to reward them when they got them to the levels he felt most comfortable with. "I know now i should have been a lot more careful. And mostly I want to say how sorry I am that my actions have in any way reflected poorly on Mr. Kraft, Coach Bellicheck, and the Patriots organization as a whole. They deserve a lot better from me. As do the our fans, the greatest in the world. From this point I can only try my utmost best to learn from this, and become a better person as a result". Haha this literally could be word for word what he says
Go Kiko go Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 This report made a lot of judgments (mostly reasonable) that would not have been made in a criminal or civil case (to such an extent) unless there was more harder evidence. I agree with most everything you've written, with the exception of this assertion. While the investigation differed in numerous ways from a judicial proceeding (such as the scope of the evidence reviewed, the lack of a true adversarial process, inapplicability of the rules of evidence), the report's conclusions were reached in the same manner they would have been reached in a trial: based on a review of the evidence collected, was it more likely than not that the rules were violated and Brady was aware of them? That's precisely how the question would be posed to a jury. Put differently, if the evidence discussed in the report (and that evidence only) was put to a jury, the report concludes that the jury's finding would have been that these rule violations did transpire. The difference, by contrast, is that the evidence presented to a jury would have likely differed from the evidence considered by the report (e.g., some may have been inadmissible, or as you pointed out, other evidence not available here, like Brady's communications, may have been presented). And, after all this time, energy and $ spent, what was the report summary given: “In sum, the data did not provide a basis for us to determine with absolute certainty whether there was or was not tampering as the analysis of such data ultimately is dependent upon assumptions and information that is not certain.” Lawyers and billable hours! Did you expect absolute certainty? The state is permitted to execute individuals convicted of crimes without "absolute certainty"--merely a lack of reasonable doubt. And as has been discussed ad nauseam in this thread, the NFL (as in a civil judicial proceeding) considers a fact proven when it is more likely than not that the fact is true. That is what the report concluded. It was unnecessary for the report to reach any more certain conclusion.
Go Kiko go Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 (edited) Ooops, sorry only that 1 sentence got posted. This is what I wrote wrt ref incompetancy That they were only capable of measuring 4 of the Colts balls means the results aren’t statistically relevant since the sample size is not large enough. Let’s consider that if you compare the Pats four highest PSI footballs to the four of the Colts, the drop in pressure as a percentage of original PSI is statistically insignificant. Further, the entire premise of using the Colts balls as the control group is folly unless the process is ….. “controlled”. There is no proof that this happened. I would question at least 2 things here relative to the competency of those involved: A) Did the Colts balls reach equilibrium temperature at the beginning of the game? B) Were the Colts balls measured at the same time as the Pats balls during 1/2time? Further incompetency is suggested as a result of the refs failing to use the same gauges on the same balls before/at half. Or, how about Anderson not being competent enough to recall if he initialized kicking balls (yet he’s fully competent enough to remember the PSI’s of 24 balls pre game) Maybe this memory block also helps explain why the balls disappeared for the first time in said ref's 19 year tenure …… Or, how about the refs not knowing that they, not the Colts, are the only ones allowed to test footballs during a game? There are only two points of data relevant to whether atmospheric conditions could account for the decrease in pressure: the pressure of the footballs before the game, and the pressure of the footballs when measured at halftime. With those two data points, physics can supply an answer for whether that change in pressure could have been caused by atmospheric conditions. How do any of your contentions--assuming that any of these contentions are actually meritorious--call into question either of those two data points? The only assertion you made that appears to bear on either of these two data points appears to be your statement that "further incompetency is suggested as a result of the refs failing to use the same gauges on the same balls before/at half." With respect to the initial inspection of the footballs, the report states: "Anderson travels with two pressure gauges. He acquired both from the League within the past few seasons, and both are battery-powered digital gauges. The gauges appear similar, but one has the word “ON” on its face to indicate the on/off button and has a red Wilson logo on the back, while the other gauge has a red on/off button with no lettering and does not have the Wilson logo on the back. These gauges will be referred to herein as the “Logo Gauge” and the “Non-Logo Gauge,” respectively. Anderson is certain that he checked the footballs prior to the AFC Championship Game with one of the two gauges that he brought with him to Gillette Stadium. Although Anderson’s best recollection is that he used the Logo Gauge, he said that it is certainly possible that he used the Non-Logo Gauge." Then, with respect to the halftime inspection, the report states: "Blakeman and Prioleau [two of the referees] were each given one of Anderson's two pressure gauges, one of which had also been used to test the footballs before the game. Riveron stood next to the officials with Vincent, Grossi, and Farley observing nearby. Each ball was checked first by Blakeman and then by Prioleau, with each official calling out the pressure measurement for each ball tested and Farley writing down the measurement announced by each official before moving to the next ball." When the expert consultants conducted an analysis of the drop in pressure of the Patriots footballs, they considered the halftime pressure readings from both pressure gauges, and concluded: "Once Exponent converted the game day measurements recorded for each gauge into a corresponding “Master Gauge” pressure (in order to provide for a direct comparison with the results predicted by the calculations), the measurements for all but three of the Patriots game balls, as measured by both gauges, were lower than the range predicted by the Ideal Gas Law." Could you please explain the flaw you perceive in the report's conclusion? Edited May 8, 2015 by Go Kiko go
YoloinOhio Posted May 8, 2015 Author Posted May 8, 2015 @Rachel__Nichols: Here's the video link of the conversation Anderson Cooper & I had tonight with Don Yee, Tom Brady's agent: http://t.co/IsmBM39QCr
NobesBLO13 Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 Q: A few years ago you said you liked the ball deflated. You were quoted saying you like throwing a deflated ball. Explain that comment in the context of what youre dealing with this week. TB: I obviously read that I said that. I like them at the way that I like them, which is at 12.5. To me, thats a perfect grip for the football. I think that particular term, deflated or inflated, whatever norm youre using, you could probably use. I would never do anything outside of the rules of play. I would never have someone do something that I thought was outside the rules. What a shocking coincidence he likes the balls at exactly the legal limit and not lower.
Kelly the Dog Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 What a shocking coincidence he likes the balls at exactly the legal limit and not lower. Yep. And then asks for them lower.
NobesBLO13 Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 Yep. And then asks for them lower.I believe he made the same statement during his press conference and came off like such BS. 'I like the balls at exactly 12.5" I would have almost respected or believed him more if he said something like 'to be honest I would prefer the balls a little below the limit but I wouldn't cheat so I keep them and the lowest legal limit'
Pneumonic Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 There are only two points of data relevant to whether atmospheric conditions could account for the decrease in pressure: the pressure of the footballs before the game, and the pressure of the footballs when measured at halftime. With those two data points, physics can supply an answer for whether that change in pressure could have been caused by atmospheric conditions. How do any of your contentions--assuming that any of these contentions are actually meritorious--call into question either of those two data points? The only assertion you made that appears to bear on either of these two data points appears to be your statement that "further incompetency is suggested as a result of the refs failing to use the same gauges on the same balls before/at half." With respect to the initial inspection of the footballs, the report states: "Anderson travels with two pressure gauges. He acquired both from the League within the past few seasons, and both are battery-powered digital gauges. The gauges appear similar, but one has the word “ON” on its face to indicate the on/off button and has a red Wilson logo on the back, while the other gauge has a red on/off button with no lettering and does not have the Wilson logo on the back. These gauges will be referred to herein as the “Logo Gauge” and the “Non-Logo Gauge,” respectively. Anderson is certain that he checked the footballs prior to the AFC Championship Game with one of the two gauges that he brought with him to Gillette Stadium. Although Anderson’s best recollection is that he used the Logo Gauge, he said that it is certainly possible that he used the Non-Logo Gauge." Then, with respect to the halftime inspection, the report states: "Blakeman and Prioleau [two of the referees] were each given one of Anderson's two pressure gauges, one of which had also been used to test the footballs before the game. Riveron stood next to the officials with Vincent, Grossi, and Farley observing nearby. Each ball was checked first by Blakeman and then by Prioleau, with each official calling out the pressure measurement for each ball tested and Farley writing down the measurement announced by each official before moving to the next ball." When the expert consultants conducted an analysis of the drop in pressure of the Patriots footballs, they considered the halftime pressure readings from both pressure gauges, and concluded: "Once Exponent converted the game day measurements recorded for each gauge into a corresponding “Master Gauge” pressure (in order to provide for a direct comparison with the results predicted by the calculations), the measurements for all but three of the Patriots game balls, as measured by both gauges, were lower than the range predicted by the Ideal Gas Law." Could you please explain the flaw you perceive in the report's conclusion? The flaws are seemingly many but the (fatal) flaw is we have no clear evidence of the starting PSI points of the footballs. All we have is the recollection of a ref who, as I have pointed out, functioned with highly questionable competency in this matter. Since we have no clear evidence of the starting PSI's the final PSI's matter little without an established comparable reference. I would also be interested in knowing if proper measurement testing protocol was followed by the refs in question. In particular, if they performed a R&R and employed a capable measurement system that ensured the tolerance isn't consumed by the variability of the measurement itself. This information doesn't appear in the Well's report that I can see.
PromoTheRobot Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=12843250 Whatever you think of Keith Olbermann, he NAILS this issue with a sledgehammer.
NoSaint Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 This case was not conducted or written up as if it was a civil case. If this was a civil case (formal legal proceeding) phone and text records would have been subpoenaed. My understanding is that Brady did not give up his records. Texts were reviewed but not a full accounting of the pertinent records. As I said in a prior post this report was written similar to an Inspector General report. This report made a lot of judgments (mostly reasonable) that would not have been made in a criminal or civil case (to such an extent) unless there was more harder evidence. The report was made for the Commissioner's office so that he would know what happened so he can make a disciplinary decision. If you believe that this matter is going to turn into a formal legal battle then that is your opinion. I don't believe that it will. I think we will see, based on punishment. If Brady's fined and sits a game- probably not. If he's hit with a year off- hello judge berrigan
Deranged Rhino Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=12843250 Whatever you think of Keith Olbermann, he NAILS this issue with a sledgehammer.
Pneumonic Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=12843250 Whatever you think of Keith Olbermann, he NAILS this issue with a sledgehammer. That was funny as hell. On Keith's pt that Brady ruined his rep .... that may be so but at least Brady has a rep to ruin. Unlike Keith.
mikemac2001 Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 That was funny as hell. On Keith's pt that Brady ruined his rep .... that may be so but at least Brady has a rep to ruin. Unlike Keith. He's 50/50 can be funny can be annoying Thought he had some decent points but overall just loud but he is right none of this needed to happen and didn't need to blow up like this
Wazzu Bill Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 Has the Salem interview been posted yet? http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-total-access/0ap3000000491750/Brady-avoids-questions-about-Wells-Report This is gold. Props to the interviewer for asking the hard questions. Icing on the cake: "Do you even care what people think of you?"
Prickly Pete Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 The most interesting part to me is in the Colts letter, where they say that it's common knowledge that the Pats deflate the balls. Basically that means that NOBODY CARED (or they were also doing it). The only reason the Colts complained is because they were sore losers. So, once the league gets the letter, it's "measure the goalie pads"..."measure the pine tar"...."check the gloves for stickum".
ALF Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 Brady by not turning over his cell phone looks bad for him http://mmqb.si.com/2015/05/07/wells-report-deflategate-patriots-andrew-brandt/
What a Tuel Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 (edited) The most interesting part to me is in the Colts letter, where they say that it's common knowledge that the Pats deflate the balls. Basically that means that NOBODY CARED (or they were also doing it). The only reason the Colts complained is because they were sore losers. So, once the league gets the letter, it's "measure the goalie pads"..."measure the pine tar"...."check the gloves for stickum". What are you talking about? The Colts informed the NFL prior to the Colts-Patriots game. Are you implying they were preemptively sore losing? On January 17, 2015, the day before the AFC Championship Game, Colts General Manager Ryan Grigson sent an email to the NFL raising concerns about the air pressure of game balls used by the Patriots. Edited May 8, 2015 by What a Tuel
MattM Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 I believe he made the same statement during his press conference and came off like such BS. 'I like the balls at exactly 12.5" I would have almost respected or believed him more if he said something like 'to be honest I would prefer the balls a little below the limit but I wouldn't cheat so I keep them and the lowest legal limit' As you can see from the report, they asked for the balls to be at the legal limit. If so, why the need for a needle at all? The mere fact that they gave the locker room equipment guy (who is NOT the guy there responsible for prepping the balls, but is instead the guy in the room with the refs at ball measurement time) a needle says all you need to know here. There is only one conclusion from that--they planned to use the needle to lower the pressure in the balls below the allowable lower limit. Full stop. Case closed.
ko12010 Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=12843250 Whatever you think of Keith Olbermann, he NAILS this issue with a sledgehammer. I think he was right on most things, but saying deflating balls isn't much more than a 'placebo' advantage is just wrong imo. I think underinflated balls are a pretty significant advantage, especially over a long period.
Recommended Posts