NoSaint Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 If I am the NFL, I suspend Brady indefinitely, subject to him cooperating and turning over the responsive documents. Once they get the docs and issue a revised report, assuming the ultimate conclusion doesn't change, the NFL will then make a decision on a suspension. As that's happened to no one in the league you'd likely end up in federal court pretty darn quick According to Dan Shaughnessy of the Boston Globe the Pats have PR firms working overtime pushing storylines that try to discredit the entire investigation. Are you qualifying this story as one? Any particular reason? Or just launching your counterattack to muddy their waters too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/10/wells-report-disregards-andersons-best-recollection-on-a-key-piece-of-evidence/ PFT hits the wells report pretty hard here on Anderson and the pressure gauge issue. If accurate, sounds like the pats could have reason to be upset..... Or florio confused himself. I skimmed on my phone but know we have some experts here The report from the independent science lab that Wells hired said in it that the chances of this occurring naturally, according to the Ideal gas law that Florio is quoting was .04% Less than half of one percent. Not to mention that it totally disregards that the Colts balls on average would have lost one third of what the Pats balls lost, which is, of course, impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 According to Dan Shaughnessy of the Boston Globe the Pats have PR firms working overtime pushing storylines that try to discredit the entire investigation. Hello, Mr. Florio? I'm calling from.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 The report from the independent science lab that Wells hired said in it that the chances of this occurring naturally, according to the Ideal gas law that Florio is quoting was .04% Less than half of one percent. Not to mention that it totally disregards that the Colts balls on average would have lost one third of what the Pats balls lost, which is, of course, impossible. Isn't florio stating if you track the number from the gauges as Anderson says he recalls using that you would end up in the expected range? Are you saying he's misrepresenting the gauge aspect, the range of expected drop, or both? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Isn't florio stating if you track the number from the gauges as Anderson says he recalls using that you would end up in the expected range? Are you saying he's misrepresenting the gauge aspect, the range of expected drop, or both? he is using the Ideal Gas Law theory which in theory would allow balls to fall approximately one pound in the atmospheric conditions naturally, and if Anderson used a certain gauge that the haftime measurements could have fallen within that range. But Exponent said that the atmospheric conditions could not have caused that. And if it did, it would have caused the Colts balls to fall that much as well. But if Anderson used the same gauge and way that Florio describes, its balls would have fallen the same amount. But they didn't. They fell one third of the amount on average. Plus one of the balls was so low it could not have been caused by the ideal gas law even if Florio was correct, which the Colts balls and the scientists say he wasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 No, he's saying that Florio's newfound explanation doesn't explain why the Colts' balls didn't suffer anywhere near the same drop no matter how they were measured (using either gauge). Pretty simple if you look at the numbers, so i'm kind of surprised Florio "missed" that. Maybe he received a phone call or two or some other unknown inducement to change his tune, because the flaw in his newfound reasoning is pretty basic and apparent when you look at the data on all 14 balls tested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 he is using the Ideal Gas Law theory which in theory would allow balls to fall approximately one pound in the atmospheric conditions naturally, and if Anderson used a certain gauge that the haftime measurements could have fallen within that range. But Exponent said that the atmospheric conditions could not have caused that. And if it did, it would have caused the Colts balls to fall that much as well. But if Anderson used the same gauge and way that Florio describes, its balls would have fallen the same amount. But they didn't. They fell one third of the amount on average. Plus one of the balls was so low it could not have been caused by the ideal gas law even if Florio was correct, which the Colts balls and the scientists say he wasn't. I guess where I got tripped up was he was using the ranges in the wells report and if following the gauge that Anderson says he thinks he used that only 3 fell lower than the expected numbers given by wells. But that observation hinges on the question of which gauge was used to set the PSI prior to kickoff. If the gauge that generates the higher numbers was used, the measurements of the Patriots footballs taken by that gauge are mostly consistent with the 11.52-11.32 PSI range at halftime: (1) 11.8; (2) 11.2; (3) 11.5; (4) 11.0; (5) 11.45; (6) 11.95; (7) 12.3; (8) 11.55; (9) 11.35; (10) 10.9; and (11) 11.35. Based on those readings, three of the footballs were above the predicted range, five were in the predicted range, and three were below the predicted range. Is wells using junk science too? Or florio cherry picking? I'll admit I'm not reading the entire report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Maybe he would fight it in federal court, but so what? If the NFL has a good basis for it-- and it sounds like from Bandit that the NFL integrity policy would be the basis-- then I think this would be a sensible position. Honestly, I have never heard of a subject of an NFL investigation refusing to cooperate. Brady's gall is just absurd. That's because I don't think it's ever happened. Not surprising as I suspect he sees himself as bigger than the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Honestly, I have never heard of a subject of an NFL investigation refusing to cooperate. Brady's gall is just absurd. He's not even the only one in this investigation.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 I guess where I got tripped up was he was using the ranges in the wells report and if following the gauge that Anderson says he thinks he used that only 3 fell lower than the expected numbers given by wells. Is wells using junk science too? Or florio cherry picking? I'll admit I'm not reading the entire report. The "expected numbers" is what was debunked by the report. Wells hired a bunch of scientists to study the entire issue and do experiments using every possible outcome, using weather conditions and the gauges, etc. And that group, called Exponent, said specifically that the chances of what happened to the Patriots balls due to non human conditions, and only natural conditions (which is what Florio is using a theory of atmospherics) was less than half of one percent. Florio is just ignoring that. And ignoring the Colts balls that didn't do the same thing if Florio's point is to be believed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 The "expected numbers" is what was debunked by the report. Wells hired a bunch of scientists to study the entire issue and do experiments using every possible outcome, using weather conditions and the gauges, etc. And that group, called Exponent, said specifically that the chances of what happened to the Patriots balls due to non human conditions, and only natural conditions (which is what Florio is using a theory of atmospherics) was less than half of one percent. Florio is just ignoring that. And ignoring the Colts balls that didn't do the same thing if Florio's point is to be believed. Yeesh- so florio is pulling numbers that the report specifically calls impossible and selling them as the true and factual range? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Yeesh- so florio is pulling numbers that the report specifically calls impossible and selling them as the true and factual range? Pretty much. He's using numbers that using that Ideal Gas theory, would possibly allow 12.5 PSI balls to fall about 1 to 1,3 PSI in a couple hours if they were taken from room temp and then to 50 degrees or whatever it was. That's what he was using for "expect range." In theory, the balls could possibly lose that much under certain conditions. But the scientists, not Wells, in the report, said specifically that atmospheric conditions, which the Ideal Gas Law would be using, could NOT have caused that drop. The chances of it were .04%. And the Colts balls dropped on average about .5 PSI when the Pats balls were more like 1.5 (and that 1.5 is only if the best possible results for the Pats was what happened. If not they dropped substantially more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Yeesh- so florio is pulling numbers that the report specifically calls impossible and selling them as the true and factual range? With the Pats PR firm whispering in his ear... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 (edited) Yeesh- so florio is pulling numbers that the report specifically calls impossible and selling them as the true and factual range? They hired this firm of scientists that specialize in this stuff, and an expert in atmospheric physics from Columbia. Here is one of the relevant parts of the report... (the scientists spent dozens and dozens of pages explaining in detail why the atmospheric conditions could not have caused it, and then replicated the conditions in models and none of them showed the chance it could have showed the numbers of the Pats balls) According to our scientific consultants, however, the reduction in pressure of the Patriots game balls cannot be explained completely by basic scientific principles, such as the Ideal Gas Law, based on the circumstances and conditions likely to have been present on the day of the AFC Championship Game. Edited May 11, 2015 by Kelly the Dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Barbarian Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Supposedly Brady is being suspended according to the NY Daily News! Looks like they are tying to decide on the length. Personally, I think its a little wishy washy to suspend when the findings were "more than likely" or "probably knew", but love the Pats drama none the less. I still feel like the offense was minor in the first place, and a fine is more appropriate...but I would assume the suspension is not going to be about the actual air pressure in the footballs, but more about Tom not being truthful about what or who he knows. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/myers-roger-goodell-suspend-tom-brady-deflategate-article-1.2215881 He should be suspended for lying and obstruction. To me adjusting the ball should be up to the player. He probably figured it's no big deal as every QB makes the ball the way they want and is why we drive faster than the speed limit because it's not enforced and it's not a big deal. If Brady just said that "I didn't think it mattered because we (QBs) have always done it but from now on I will keep it within the limits". this would be a non issue . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt in KC Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Dan Shaughnessy: A hard rain’s a-gonna fall on Tom Brady and the Patriots - The Boston Globe In the rest of the free-thinking world, the Patriots are liars and cheaters. They were caught red-handed in Spygate in 2007 and now the league has got them again. The Patriots intentionally and systematically deflated footballs, below legal limits, to accommodate Brady. They did it because they believed it gave them a competitive advantage (more completions, less fumbling, better play in bad weather — all Patriot trademarks). Brady knew about it, lied about it, then withheld information from the Wells investigators. Thanks for posting that. I think we've hit consensus across he sports world (as much as ever) when this is in the Boston Globe! For those who would question Wells’s integrity, here’s what Goodell said on Jan. 30: “Ted Wells’s integrity is impeccable.’’ So, where’s the daylight for the Patriots? The commissioner said he will take rules violation seriously. He said his investigator is impeccable. And his investigator has determined that the Patriots are guilty. Is it any wonder that folks in Foxborough are nervous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Now Florio is just being an ass. Here is his last blurb... Then there’s the chain of custody, or lack thereof, that applies to the handling of the footballs. In the AFC title game, referee Walt Anderson lost the footballs for the first time in his 19 years as an official, but he neither took the balls back inside for re-inflation (if needed) nor used the alternate footballs, which hadn’t been lost. Anderson didn't lose them. He went to get them where they were and where they were supposed to be after doing other official duties and McNally had took them, which he had no authority to do. Anderson even started swearing, which apparently is not like him, and when told of McNally taking them, Anderson said, "He's not supposed to do that." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 The Rogers comparisons are a bit overblown (slight pun intended), and not for the obvious reasons that others pointed out, but also because I seem to recall him just joking around about it, so not sure his comments were to be taken seriously. On the Dennard vs Dareus piece, I really don't get your comment--the player's skill level shouldn't factor into punishment at all. Dennard got bupkis from the League for pleading out a DUI and violating probation from an earlier incident, all of which got him a 60 day jail term. So pray tell how it will be fair when Marcell (as expected) gets time off for what amounted to a citation with no jail time? If Dareus gets time off while Dennard skated it will be but one more example of how "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" to quote Orwell's "Animal Farm". You stated the the NFL gave the pats a break on Dennard because if they didn't, NE would have been "bereft" of DB's. It's not true. You're not understanding. I actually read the report and read the rules. There is NOTHING said in any rule about what the teams do as far Psi goes. A team could deliver a completely deflated football to them. Rodgers could submit a ball at 25 Psi that is about to explode and he would not be breaking or bending any rule. The teams have no responsibility CONCERNING PSI before handing them to the refs. There is no violation for giving it to them at 10 or 15. Nor is Brady in violation if they deliver a ball under 12.5 because he likes them that way. That is not cheating in any way Again, the intent is the same. If you hand a bag of balls over to the refs that are at illegal playing PSI (because you made them that way) counting on the refs ineffeicient or lax inspection routine which will allow an illegal ball to get into your hands at gametime...the intent is the same. Brady's method was higher risk, but yielded more low pressure balls. At home anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HalftimeAdjustment Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 (edited) If Anderson used the "Logo" gauge then all the balls would have been starting at a true pressure of 12.2 or so with the gauge reading 12.5-12.6 (ie legal). What are the chances of such a coincidence? Would the Pats staff have prepared the balls at 12.2 and somehow hoped they all slid by because there might be an inaccurate gauge? Seems implausible. So is the part where the equipment guy set the balls down next to a nonexistent urinal. Edited May 11, 2015 by HalftimeAdjustment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 I keep coming back to the fact that many teams do these things. Some interesting info here: http://mmqb.si.com/2015/05/11/dante-fowler-jaguars-tom-brady-deflategate-nfl-peter-king/5/ I'm beginning to think 4 max. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts