Brady to be SUSPENDED next week according to report

[Kelly the Dog]

Not that I care that much about this, but the stories you just linked are stories written NOW about something that happened in 2006 with a biased to link Brady to it as a Villian who got a rule changed so he could cheat.

 

The actual facts of what happened, and its been stated publicly by many players, including Peyton Manning, are that Peyton is the one who lobbied for the rule change, he got Bradys support and help and got written statements from 20 other NFL QB's supporting it to.

 

Yes, Brady was involved, but it was a campaign started by Peyton Manning, and that was the point. And it was about ball texture, not air pressure. This is just one point that is getting skewed and over exaggerated to paint a more villainous approach to what that rule change really was.

 

The first link is Brady talking himself about it when he was investigated. The second link shows that Brady actually addressed the committee himself with Manning. I think they may have been the only two although Brees might have gone.

And here is an article from when it happened in 2006. They mention Brady first and he talks about how fun it was to contact all the other quarterbacks.

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2006-11-28/sports/0611270475_1_new-football-new-england-quarterback-competition-committee

Edited May 12, 2015 by Kelly the Dog

[Alphadawg7]

The first link is Brady talking himself about it when he was investigated. The second link shows that Brady actually addressed the committee himself with Manning. I think they may have been the only two although Brees might have gone.

And here is an article from when it happened in 2006. They mention Brady first and he talks about how fun it was to contact all the other quarterbacks.

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2006-11-28/sports/0611270475_1_new-football-new-england-quarterback-competition-committee

 

Here is our disconnect...I am not saying Brady wasnt involved, I said he was. And yes, i do believe you are correct about Brees. What I said was, that the rule change keeps getting now assessed more to Brady than Manning when it was the opposite at the time it happened. Brady was very much a big part of it, no doubt, and its well documented.

 

The point is, people are incorrectly portraying this story as if Brady was the one who led the charge and wanted the rule change as if to imply some evil plan to cheat. I am simply stating that people are using that to imply more here than what happened.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Alphadawg7

[DC Greg]

I posted this in another thread, but just a general thought on the "it's not a big deal" argument for deflating footballs:

 

I don't think deflating the football is meaningless. It clearly gives Brady more control over the ball, since he was so adamant about having the balls deflated. How many passes (potentially game changing ones) would have sailed off target had he followed the rules? We'll never know.

The second part is that an underinflated football is much easier to CATCH than a full inflated ball, because you can squeeze it easier. Makes one handed catches a lot easier.

Third, an underinflated football is much easier to HOLD ON TO than a fully inflated ball. Again, better grip and squeeze to hold tighter.

So folks, it's not just Tom Brady's comfort that was affected by this scandal. You have every person who touched the ball on offense whenever they were using one of those balls receiving benefits. It's impossible to say how many fumbles may have happened or balls may have been dropped with a properly inflated ball. I think that impact would be very little... but I'm certain, in my mind, that there must have been at least a handful of plays where it helped. What if one of those plays was on a winning TD run in a playoff game? We won't know, but it's possible. And that possibility taints the legitimacy of their superbowls. Not completely, of course. You can't say (definitively or even confidently) that the Patriots would not have won a super bowl using the right PSI, but you can't not say it made no difference at the same time.

[Kelly the Dog]

 

Here is our disconnect...I am not saying Brady wasnt involved, I said he was. And yes, i do believe you are correct about Brees. What I said was, that the entire thing was started by Manning, not Brady. Brady was very much a big part of it, no doubt, and its well documented. But it was spear headed by Manning, and it also involved 20 other NFL QBs.

 

The point is, people are incorrectly portraying this story as if Brady was the one who led the charge and wanted the rule change as if to imply some evil plan to cheat. The truth is, Manning spear headed it with Bradys help and got the support of 20 other NFL QBs. I am simply stating that people are using that to imply more here than what happened.

Actually, I provided three links. You have provided nothing. The links I provided, from good sources, from Brady himself, from the Wells report, and from a big paper right as it happened in 2006, show that:

 

1] BEFORE THE PETITION was even discussed, the germ of it started when Brady and Manning spoke a few different times, pre-2006 about the issue in general conversation. Brady said this is how it started.

 

2] BEFORE THE HEARING, both Brady and Manning called on 20 QBs and recruited them. There are several quotes of Brady doing that. There is nothing I have seen, and I have looked, that suggests Manning called a majority of them. It seems pretty clear they split that duty up.

 

3] AT THE COMPETITION COMMITTEE HEARING it was Brady and Manning both appearing in person and speaking to them directly, pleading the case. Brees may or may not have accompanied them.

 

If you want to call that Manning spearheading the rule change, be my guest.

I agree that it very likely had nothing to do with intentionally cheating because of the rule change.

[NoSaint]

Actually, I provided three links. You have provided nothing. The links I provided, from good sources, from Brady himself, from the Wells report, and from a big paper right as it happened in 2006, show that:

 

1] BEFORE THE PETITION was even discussed, the germ of it started when Brady and Manning spoke a few different times, pre-2006 about the issue in general conversation. Brady said this is how it started.

 

2] BEFORE THE HEARING, both Brady and Manning called on 20 QBs and recruited them. There are several quotes of Brady doing that. There is nothing I have seen, and I have looked, that suggests Manning called a majority of them. It seems pretty clear they split that duty up.

 

3] AT THE COMPETITION COMMITTEE HEARING it was Brady and Manning both appearing in person and speaking to them directly, pleading the case. Brees may or may not have accompanied them.

 

If you want to call that Manning spearheading the rule change, be my guest.

 

I agree that it very likely had nothing to do with intentionally cheating because of the rule change.

KTD, my man, youve been real edgy with all this.

 

i dont think the two of you are far off. all hes saying is hes noticed a shift to it being "brady pushed for the rule change" the last week. probably half to sensationalize that it was all part of a secret evil plan, and half simply because manning isnt involved in the discussion so people leave his name out.

 

if im reading correct, alpha might be pushing slightly too far in his take on 2006 but i dont think quibbling over whether it was 60-40 manning, or 50-50 is worth the stress when his point is primarily that it was not 80-20 brady

[Kelly the Dog]

KTD, my man, youve been real edgy with all this.

 

i dont think the two of you are far off. all hes saying is hes noticed a shift to it being "brady pushed for the rule change" the last week. probably half to sensationalize that it was all part of a secret evil plan, and half simply because manning isnt involved in the discussion so people leave his name out.

 

if im reading correct, alpha might be pushing slightly too far in his take on 2006 but i dont think quibbling over whether it was 60-40 manning, or 50-50 is worth the stress when his point is primarily that it was not 80-20 brady

Agreed. I get a little uppity, however, when someone, anyone, comes on and bitches loudly about other posters doing something, but are actually hypocritically doing the exact same thing themselves. And that is what I perceived to have happened here. So I provided a series of links that showed it.

He started out by saying ...

 

If people are going to state things like this, then at least get the story correct. It was lobbied for by Peyton Manning, yes Brady was one of the QB's also involved, but it was spear headed by Peyton Manning and Peyton is who they always credit the rule change to...until people started incorrectly saying Brady because of "DeflateGate"

[26CornerBlitz]

@sportingnews

#DeflateGate actually inflated Tom Brady merchandise sales — a lot. http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2015-05-12/tom-brady-merchandise-sales-double-deflategate-suspension-jerseys?eadid=SOC/Twi/SNMain

 

[Mr. WEO]

What would be on Brady's phone that wasn't already viewed on the 2 "deflator's" phones?

[DC Tom]

What would be on Brady's phone that wasn't already viewed on the 2 "deflator's" phones?

We don't know, since he didn't provide his phone.

[Mr. WEO]

We don't know, since he didn't provide his phone.

 

I was asking for speculation. All his texts to these guys have been read by Wells.

 

Maybe confessional texts to his priest? Or advice from P Manning as to how he is able to deflate balls before games undetected?

[NoSaint]

Agreed. I get a little uppity, however, when someone, anyone, comes on and bitches loudly about other posters doing something, but are actually hypocritically doing the exact same thing themselves. And that is what I perceived to have happened here. So I provided a series of links that showed it.

 

He started out by saying ...

I suppose fair enough. I think he tried to temper back from the initial phrasing that made Brady sound like just another guy as posts continued. I think simply he had them 1, 2 with Brady in the backseat and you have them 1a and 1b in no particular order

 

But it irks me when folks are perceived to be doing what you saw too and I can see how it reads that way easily

[BillsInMaine]

Really? We aren't putting them on the table and measuring (sorry for the crude analogy but it's all that I could think of). You don't need to prove your manhood in this league. Guys miss games all of the time. The goal is to win as many games as you can. It doesn't matter against who.

Well to me it matters if we beat Brady not Garoppolo. I want to play and beat the best, not win because we played the backups. I do believe this is the best way to stop cheating though. A mill is small in the long run and draft picks didnt do the trick last time.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Well to me it matters if we beat Brady not Garoppolo. I want to play and beat the best, not win because we played the backups. I do believe this is the best way to stop cheating though. A mill is small in the long run and draft picks didnt do the trick last time.

Meh. You act like Brady and the Pats have always faced the Bills in prime shape.

 

Look, I know that that doesn't count for much, but all the same...

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

What would be on Brady's phone that wasn't already viewed on the 2 "deflator's" phones?

him and Bill in bed?

[RuntheDamnBall]

What would be on Brady's phone that wasn't already viewed on the 2 "deflator's" phones?

Hot waterslide selfies.

[Kirby Jackson]

Well to me it matters if we beat Brady not Garoppolo. I want to play and beat the best, not win because we played the backups. I do believe this is the best way to stop cheating though. A mill is small in the long run and draft picks didnt do the trick last time.

Sorry, that's just weird logic to me. The goal is to win as many games as possible -period. It doesn't count for 2 wins if you beat Brady. Every win counts the same. Teams play without injured and suspended players all of the time. That's sports and you don't need to apologize for that.

 

The reason that the Pats deflated footballs was to gain an advantage to accumulate wins. Ironically, their penalty is to give their opponents an advantage to achieve wins. Wins are the ONLY thing that matters. I'll take 10 wins against backups over 9 wins against starters 7 days a week.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Kirby Jackson

[NoSaint]

Sorry, that's just weird logic to me. The goal is to win as many games as possible -period. It doesn't count for 2 wins if you beat Brady. Every win counts the same. Teams play without injured and suspended players all of the time. That's sports and you don't need to apologize for you.

 

The reason that the Pats deflated footballs was to gain an advantage to accumulate wins. Ironically, their penalty is to give their opponents an advantage to achieve wins. Wins are the ONLY thing that matters. I'll take 10 wins against backups over 9 wins against starters 7 days a week.

It's a product of taking a simple concept- a quality win shows more - but taking it to the extreme that you need 16 of them or you aren't one of the big boys. Truth is though, even the big boys only chalk up a few marquee wins.

 

There are 9 win teams I'd take in wildcard weekend because they are more battle tested than the 10 win team that coasted - but a single player in a single game doesn't produce that result and I'll take the 10 win team that's in over the 9 win team sitting at home come January.

[Matt in KC]

Random thought: this is the first time I've ever hoped the Pats pick 32nd in next year's draft!

[Mr. WEO]

Random thought: this is the first time I've ever hoped the Pats pick 32nd in next year's draft!

 

 

If so, losing that pick will have proved not much of a penalty.

[TheFunPolice]

Did the Patriots* not count the 2 wins per season they started with in the bank when the Bills were rolling out hideous QB after hideous QB with god-awful JV coaching staffs?

 

Nope. They were already 2-0 in August and they never offered to give those wins back to my knowledge. Plus they cheated.

 

At the end of the day, they have 4 rings. Put asterisks next to them all you want, it doesn't change it.

 

So do I feel bad? Nope. When the Roman empire fell did the barbarians say "I wish we could have faced these guys in their prime!"

 

No.

 

The dynasty is crumbling. Last year was their last gasp. It took illegal formations and tactics at home vs Baltimore, Manning getting injured along with every single member of the Seattle secondary AND a totally awful throw on the freaking goal line for them to win.

 

They are done folks. Last year was them pulling out every single stop to prove everyone wrong after KC and get that 4th ring. Notice they didn't even TRY to keep that team together. They hired a few mercenary CBs, got #4, and sent them all packing along with Wilfork and many other regulars.

 

Brady or no Brady New England is not a threat.