NFL gives Brady/Pats an asterisk*

[Mr. WEO]

You seem to be denying that if Brady had cooperated he would have received a lesser punishment, which is the only argument I have proffered. Deflated footballs are a misdemeaner; refusing to cooperate is the felony and carries the harsher sentence.

 

You seem to want to obfuscate that simple argument with reasons why Brady decided not cooperate in the first place. You also seem to equate cooperation with admitting wrong doing. The reasons he chose not to cooperate are a separate issue. All that matters is that he didn't and the league punished him accordingly.

 

Patriot* nation and their media defenders seek to make it all about the picayune issue of deflated footballs because the more they can minimize the offense, the easier it is to accept.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

 

Wrong again. At least twice I have stated that he is being punished for both deflating the balls and for not fully cooperating.

 

You have proffered several arguments--first was that his punishment had nothing to do with delating balls ("cheating"). Then you changed that argument to maybe it did have to do with cheating somewhat.

 

Anyway, there is no way Brady could fully cooperate without incriminating himself and thus proving his own guilt. This is tantamount to admitting guilt. It's really not difficult to follow this.

 

In the end, his lack of cooperation had no impact on the investigation, "obviously", because Wells said he believes Brady was aware of the deflation and likely was involved based on the same exact texts he already had that Brady refused to hand over. Brady's texts of him and his ball boys were already seen by Wells. Wells knows this. The "refusal to cooperate" is the extra slap on the wrist by the league addded to the cheating which he is also being punished for. The league knew there was little more to be gained from Brady's hand picked texts in order to assign guilt.

 

So, you have it exactly backwards.

Edited June 11, 2015 by Mr. WEO

[K-9]

Wrong again. At least twice I have stated that he is being punished for both deflating the balls and for not fully cooperating.

 

You have proffered several arguments--first was that his punishment had nothing to do with delating balls ("cheating"). Then you changed that argument to maybe it did have to do with cheating somewhat.

 

Anyway, there is no way Brady could fully cooperate without incriminating himself and thus proving his own guilt. This is tantamount to admitting guilt. It's really not difficult to follow this.

 

In the end, his lack of cooperation had no impact on the investigation, "obviously", because Wells said he believes Brady was aware of the deflation and likely was involved based on the same exact texts he already had that Brady refused to hand over. Brady's texts of him and his ball boys were already seen by Wells. Wells knows this. The "refusal to cooperate" is the extra slap on the wrist by the league addded to the cheating which he is also being punished for. The league knew there was little more to be gained from Brady's hand picked texts in order to assign guilt.

 

So, you have it exactly backwards.

I've only proffered one argument. Your continued misunderstanding or inability to see that argument has forced you to gum up your own works by offering up all sorts of nonrelevant sidebar arguments along the way. I have simply stayed on point all along. Changing "nothing" to do with his punishment to "little to nothing" to do with his punishment did nothing to alter the crux of my argument, either.

 

But I can see how the intellectually dishonest might need to glom onto that small modification in a futile effort to strengthen their weak position. Again, focusing on the picayune in a deliberate attempt to sway attention from the much larger and more important issue.

 

In this entire exchange, it is you that has it "exactly backwards".

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Mr. WEO]

I've only proffered one argument. Your continued misunderstanding or inability to see that argument has forced you to gum up your own works by offering up all sorts of nonrelevant sidebar arguments along the way.

 

I can only say "you're wrong" in so many ways.

 

"Sidebar arguments?"

 

Let the NFL help you:

 

 

"With respect to your particular involvement, the report established that there is substantial and credible evidence to conclude you were at least generally aware of the actions of the Patriots' employees involved in the deflation of the footballs and that it was unlikely that their actions were done without your knowledge. Moreover, the report documents your failure to cooperate fully and candidly with the investigation, including by refusing to produce any relevant electronic evidence (emails, texts, etc.), despite being offered extraordinary safeguards by the investigators to protect unrelated personal information, and by providing testimony that the report concludes was not plausible and contradicted by other evidence.

The key consideration in any case like this is that the playing rules exist for a reason, and all clubs are entitled to expect that the playing rules will be followed by participating teams. Violations that diminish the league's reputation for integrity and fair play cannot be excused simply because the precise impact on the final score cannot be determined."

 

The deflation was the "violation of fair play" that you can't seem to figure out. There is no wording there that suggests that it has "little to nothing to do with this punishment"--you simply made that up, or, to be kind--you are arguing oipinion as fact.

Edited June 11, 2015 by Mr. WEO

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

deflation

ineligible recievers

game clock mismanagement

faulty communications to opponents radios

on the field muggings (had to)

improper reporting of injury reports

spygate

 

how many have I missed

[K-9]

I can only say "you're wrong" in so many ways.

 

"Sidebar arguments?"

 

Let the NFL help you:

 

 

 

The deflation was the "violation of fair play" that you can't seem to figure out. There is no wording there that suggests that it has "little to nothing to do with this punishment"--you simply made that up, or, to be kind--you are arguing oipinion as fact.

 

None of what you include here speaks to the punishment levied.

 

Is one who follows the league mandate to cooperate in an investigation more or less likely to receive a lesser punishment than one who doesn't?

 

When you are done wallowing in the minutia of the matter, it's an easy concept to grasp.

 

I understand it is difficult to accept that Tommy broke such a minor rule to come under such scrutiny in the first place so I'm not surprised it is literally impossible for his fans to understand that he made it so much worse than it had to be.

 

So once again and in closing:

 

Deflating footballs = slap on wrist.

 

Not cooperating = multiple game suspension.

 

And now that I've come full circle, I don't know if I can edify you any longer on this matter. You can either choose to grasp the patently obvious or not.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[dave mcbride]

http://nesn.com/2015/06/giseles-new-lingerie-ad-reminds-us-all-how-lucky-tom-brady-is-video/

[Mr. WEO]

None of what you include here speaks to the punishment levied.

 

Is one who follows the league mandate to cooperate in an investigation more or less likely to receive a lesser punishment than one who doesn't?

 

When you are done wallowing in the minutia of the matter, it's an easy concept to grasp.

 

I understand it is difficult to accept that Tommy broke such a minor rule to come under such scrutiny in the first place so I'm not surprised it is literally impossible for his fans to understand that he made it so much worse than it had to be.

 

So once again and in closing:

 

Deflating footballs = slap on wrist.

 

Not cooperating = multiple game suspension.

 

And now that I've come full circle, I don't know if I can edify you any longer on this matter. You can either choose to grasp the patently obvious or not.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

I've answered the punishment part at least 4 times now--obviously, yes. I've even provided the NFL text stating as much--teeling the world exactly why he is being punished. You are making an inference that isn't correct regarding your "slap on the wrist" stuff.

 

I said Brady made things much worse for himself a long time ago, so you are again making up arguments to argue against.

 

"in closing"...pure gold.

Edited June 12, 2015 by Mr. WEO

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

it seems that there is another "report" this one from American Enterprise Institute AEI pointing to flaws in the Wells report.

 

Will Roger buckle and reduce / remove the 4 game suspension? Will he stand tall and not allow cheating to go unfettered?

 

If he does how much more respect will he lose if he frees the narcissist cheater?

[MattM]

it seems that there is another "report" this one from American Enterprise Institute AEI pointing to flaws in the Wells report.

 

Will Roger buckle and reduce / remove the 4 game suspension? Will he stand tall and not allow cheating to go unfettered?

 

If he does how much more respect will he lose if he frees the narcissist cheater?

I read that yesterday--Florio had a post on it in which he called it an "independent" report, but I have yet to see who paid for it. AEI is not doing a study like that for free or for the publicity, particularly something so far outside their usual (evil) wheelhouse. My guess is either the NFLPA, Brady or Kraft. Kind of need to know that, don't you think?

 

I also loved how it focused on one small aspect of the case and tried its best to obfuscate that point, while totally ignoring things like the texts between Tweedledum and Tweedledumber, Brady's calls and texts to them in the immediate aftermath and Brady's refusal to turn over relevant messages. All of that points to one of the above being the "report's" patron.

[Mr. WEO]

I read that yesterday--Florio had a post on it in which he called it an "independent" report, but I have yet to see who paid for it. AEI is not doing a study like that for free or for the publicity, particularly something so far outside their usual (evil) wheelhouse. My guess is either the NFLPA, Brady or Kraft. Kind of need to know that, don't you think?

 

I also loved how it focused on one small aspect of the case and tried its best to obfuscate that point, while totally ignoring things like the texts between Tweedledum and Tweedledumber, Brady's calls and texts to them in the immediate aftermath and Brady's refusal to turn over relevant messages. All of that points to one of the above being the "report's" patron.

 

 

AEI is what used to be called a "think tank" in the day--they have researche scholars or Fellows who study things that interst them or the organization in general. This was not a commissioned study--although it shouldn't matter to you who is "paying for it", you should be able to judge it by what it says and not who sponsored it. They clearly state no financial gain from the outcome of Deflategate.

 

Anyway, if you read the report (sounds like you actually didn't), the authors themselves say that, after they presented their injury analysis data to the NFL in 2012, the league vacated all Bountygate players' suspensions. Now they feel that Brady's suspension shoul d be reduced based on their analysis of the data collected by the Wells report regarding the ball pressure only. They obviously aren't interested in texts sent between individuals, just the data Wells used in his report and which was used to help decide punishment.

 

You can disagree with their analysis (after you read the report) or agree with it--that's up to you.

 

Your wacky conspiracy theories on this report--and the fact that you clearly didn't read the report are amusing as always.

Edited June 14, 2015 by Mr. WEO

[MattM]

 

 

AEI is what used to be called a "think tank" in the day--they have researche scholars or Fellows who study things that interst them or the organization in general. This was not a commissioned study--although it shouldn't matter to you who is "paying for it", you should be able to judge it by what it says and not who sponsored it. They clearly state no financial gain from the outcome of Deflategate.

 

Anyway, if you read the report (sounds like you actually didn't), the authors themselves say that, after they presented their injury analysis data to the NFL in 2012, the league vacated all Bountygate players' suspensions. Now they feel that Brady's suspension shoul d be reduced based on their analysis of the data collected by the Wells report regarding the ball pressure only. They obviously aren't interested in texts sent between individuals, just the data Wells used in his report and which was used to help decide punishment.

 

You can disagree with their analysis (after you read the report) or agree with it--that's up to you.

 

Your wacky conspiracy theories on this report--and the fact that you clearly didn't read the report are amusing as always.

I know full well what AEI is. I also find it hard to believe that they got involved with this (or anything) except if it's paid for directly or indirectly (ie, at the request of a friend or donor). As noted previously, this is well outside their wheelhouse, as was the Saints' piece.

 

Guilty as charged--I read both Florio's piece and the Times' article, but not the 16 page full piece on their website. Too little time. That said, what I read did not convince me. I'll take the scientific take of the actual scientists in this discipline Wells hired over these rent an economists/right wing policy wonks.

 

Personally, all I needed to know was that an employee with no responsibility for game day footballs was known as "the Deflator" and was given a needle. All in their texts. What use did that guy have for a needle?

 

I follow the evidence where it goes--the evidence shows one team over and over again skirting or breaking the rules. "Just one team, really, over and over again" to paraphrase an unnamed NFL Competition Committee member in the NYT a few years back.

[Mr. WEO]

I know full well what AEI is. I also find it hard to believe that they got involved with this (or anything) except if it's paid for directly or indirectly (ie, at the request of a friend or donor). As noted previously, this is well outside their wheelhouse, as was the Saints' piece.

 

Guilty as charged--I read both Florio's piece and the Times' article, but not the 16 page full piece on their website. Too little time. That said, what I read did not convince me. I'll take the scientific take of the actual scientists in this discipline Wells hired over these rent an economists/right wing policy wonks.

 

Personally, all I needed to know was that an employee with no responsibility for game day footballs was known as "the Deflator" and was given a needle. All in their texts. What use did that guy have for a needle?

 

I follow the evidence where it goes--the evidence shows one team over and over again skirting or breaking the rules. "Just one team, really, over and over again" to paraphrase an unnamed NFL Competition Committee member in the NYT a few years back.

 

Think tanks have wide wheel houses. Anyway, they aren't necessarily challenging the "scientist" that Wells "hired" (you miss the irony there, no doubt), they are saying that, based on how the NFL/refs gathered their data on that game at that time, the Wells report cannot conclude what it concluded with near certainty.

 

If you even read the NYT article you would have known that. And Wells himself damaged his own report when he chided the pats for not making "the Deflator" available for a second interview after Wells "found out" the existence of this nickname for a pats ball handler. In fact, Wells had in his before his first interview with McNally, texts identifying him as "the Deflator" back in May 2014. So Wells was either lying or he is incompetent. Also, you don't seem to challenge the independence of the Wells report itself--a document "paid for" by the NFL. Why not? Remember his last bit of NFL-paid for nonsense: the Wells Miami Bullying Report"? You must have that one too.

 

But yes, it is all a right wing conspiracy to reduce Tom Brady's suspension. Good pickup.

[machine gun kelly]

 

Of course this isn't updated to reflect Br*dy's tainted title -- his fourth -- or the scandal. But you're kidding yourself if you don't think this will impact Tommy Terrific's legacy.

 

I like the pic Greggy. Pretty compelling argument for Montana. I respect Brady's success, although I can't stand him. I really hope Goodell stands his ground and force Brady to take it to court, or he'll have to take his medicine. Man do I hope they go 1-3 in his absence. Pittsburgh, Buffalo, and Dallas are all tough teams to beat. I'm sure they will beat the Jags as they are developing their talent. It's too bad their GM is a Saint Francis graduate (my alma mater).

[MattM]

 

Think tanks have wide wheel houses. Anyway, they aren't necessarily challenging the "scientist" that Wells "hired" (you miss the irony there, no doubt), they are saying that, based on how the NFL/refs gathered their data on that game at that time, the Wells report cannot conclude what it concluded with near certainty.

 

If you even read the NYT article you would have known that. And Wells himself damaged his own report when he chided the pats for not making "the Deflator" available for a second interview after Wells "found out" the existence of this nickname for a pats ball handler. In fact, Wells had in his before his first interview with McNally, texts identifying him as "the Deflator" back in May 2014. So Wells was either lying or he is incompetent. Also, you don't seem to challenge the independence of the Wells report itself--a document "paid for" by the NFL. Why not? Remember his last bit of NFL-paid for nonsense: the Wells Miami Bullying Report"? You must have that one too.

 

But yes, it is all a right wing conspiracy to reduce Tom Brady's suspension. Good pickup.

I re-read the NYT article and it is indeed ridiculous--they are basically saying that the Colts' balls were measured later indoors and therefore warmed up more than the Pats*' balls (measured probably only a few minutes before the Colts' balls, considering all of this was done in less than a 15 minute halftime time span) and that that explains the whole thing. I'd call it yet another attempt to obfuscate the issue by the Pats* and their fans by isolating one little thing out of the whole tableau trying to create reasonable doubt. On the physics involved, I'll stick with the results of the actual physicists hired by Wells, thank you very much. The two authors of the Times piece are economists and policy specialists, whose last physical science class, for all we know, was in high school. How and why anyone would care what they think about this issues is totally beyond me.

 

Also explains why they make no mention of the sch*t-ton of evidence that there's something rotten in Denmark (the damning texts, the needle, the gifts, the repeated calls from Brady after the incident broke, Brady's refusal to cooperate, the Pats* refusal to fully cooperate ,etc.) On that point that you raised about asking to speak to the Deflator twice--first, that happens all the time in investigations (I'm not a litigator, but am an attorney) and is not unusual. The part where you're calling Ted Wells (and Brad Karp and others at Paul Weiss) incompetent is a real hoot--those guys are all business and among the very best in the business. As a buyer of outside counsel/Big Firm services, trust me, I know. What is unusual (and dishonest, if you ask me) was the Pats* initial explanation of why they didn't make McNally available--remember how they put out a press release saying we weren't going to make him available to Wells for a 5th interview since he'd been interviewed 4 times already, making it look like it was more reasonable to turn down the request? Turns out that Wells himself only talked to McNally once (the other two discussions had been informal discussions with NFL officials, pre-Wells hiring). Go back and read the PR and it's pretty clear that it's the Pats* who were trying to spin that in a way that wasn't really true.

 

In terms of why the AEI is doing this, a little digging comes up with what I suspect is the answer--I'd wager that Kevin Hassett, who looks based on seniority to be the main author of the report, is a Pats* fan, considering where he was born and raised (Greenfield, Mass.) Wow--how convincing, a total fluff piece written by a Pats* fan lending his public policy think tank's name to a report on a matter that they really are in no way expert in. Bravo, sirs, bravo--nice try.

 

Even better is the fact that Hassett was a co-author of "Dow 36,000"--how that guy ever got another job or is listened to by anyone about ANYTHING after that is beyond me, but then again, he does work at a conservative think-tank where public policy ideas that have proven to be totally worthless (the Sam Brownback/Art Laffer Kansas supply side tax cut experiment gone horribly awry when it met the real world comes to mind) are still seen despite all evidence to the contrary as being absolutely true and trust worthy. Kind of like a Bizarro World, where the rules of the real world don't apply. Here's his Wikipedia entry and some great quotes from it:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Hassett

 

"Hassett is coauthor with James K. Glassman of Dow 36,000: The New Strategy for Profiting from the Coming Rise in the Stock Market. It was published in 1999 before the dot-com bubble burst. The book's title was based on a calculation that, in the absence of the equity premium, stock prices would be approximately four times as high as they actually were. In its introduction, Glassman and Hassett wrote that the book "will convince you of the single most important fact about stocks at the dawn of the twenty-first century: They are cheap....If you are worried about missing the market's big move upward, you will discover that it is not too late. Stocks are now in the midst of a one-time-only rise to much higher ground–to the neighborhood of 36,000 on the Dow Jones industrial average."^[8] The Dow industrials index closed at 10,681.06 on the day of the book's publication^[9] but by the end of 2004 it remained at essentially the same level – 10,783.01, having dropped over 25% in the meantime but recovered. As of March 9, 2009, the trough of the 2008–9 bear market, the Dow Jones was at 6,547.05, 81% below his 36,000 prediction. As of January 17, 2014, the Dow Jones was at 16,476.73, 54% below his 36,000 prediction."

 

Good times, man, good times....

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

how often to players run around showing off multiple SB rings at a party?

 

who do they hire to clean off the tarnish?

 

Kraft holds a party and Cinderella is showing off.

[Pneumonic]

I like the pic Greggy. Pretty compelling argument for Montana.

But is it really?

 

Brady - 4 SB wins with 2 SB losses incl 2 one and dones.

Montana - 4 SB wins with no SB loses but with 4 one and dones.

 

Is it really better getting eliminated in the 1st round than it is to win your way to the SB only to come up 2 miraculous catches show from not losing any? Why should Brady be dis-credited for getting to the finish line more times than Montana?

 

Not to mention Montana played with 12 offensive pro bowlers in his 4 SB title years; Brady played with just 2.

[Deranged Rhino]

But is it really?

 

Brady - 4 SB wins with 2 SB losses incl 2 one and dones.

Montana - 4 SB wins with no SB loses but with 4 one and dones.

 

Is it really better getting eliminated in the 1st round than it is to win your way to the SB only to come up 2 miraculous catches show from not losing any? Why should Brady be dis-credited for getting to the finish line more times than Montana?

 

Not to mention Montana played with 12 offensive pro bowlers in his 4 SB title years; Brady played with just 2.

 

It is. Brady plays in an era where you can't breathe on a QB. Montana played in an era when QBs were raw meat being dropped into the shark tank.

[Mr. WEO]

I re-read the NYT article and it is indeed ridiculous--they are basically saying that the Colts' balls were measured later indoors and therefore warmed up more than the Pats*' balls (measured probably only a few minutes before the Colts' balls, considering all of this was done in less than a 15 minute halftime time span) and that that explains the whole thing. I'd call it yet another attempt to obfuscate the issue by the Pats* and their fans by isolating one little thing out of the whole tableau trying to create reasonable doubt. On the physics involved, I'll stick with the results of the actual physicists hired by Wells, thank you very much. The two authors of the Times piece are economists and policy specialists, whose last physical science class, for all we know, was in high school. How and why anyone would care what they think about this issues is totally beyond me.

 

Also explains why they make no mention of the sch*t-ton of evidence that there's something rotten in Denmark (the damning texts, the needle, the gifts, the repeated calls from Brady after the incident broke, Brady's refusal to cooperate, the Pats* refusal to fully cooperate ,etc.) On that point that you raised about asking to speak to the Deflator twice--first, that happens all the time in investigations (I'm not a litigator, but am an attorney) and is not unusual. The part where you're calling Ted Wells (and Brad Karp and others at Paul Weiss) incompetent is a real hoot--those guys are all business and among the very best in the business. As a buyer of outside counsel/Big Firm services, trust me, I know. What is unusual (and dishonest, if you ask me) was the Pats* initial explanation of why they didn't make McNally available--remember how they put out a press release saying we weren't going to make him available to Wells for a 5th interview since he'd been interviewed 4 times already, making it look like it was more reasonable to turn down the request? Turns out that Wells himself only talked to McNally once (the other two discussions had been informal discussions with NFL officials, pre-Wells hiring). Go back and read the PR and it's pretty clear that it's the Pats* who were trying to spin that in a way that wasn't really true.

 

In terms of why the AEI is doing this, a little digging comes up with what I suspect is the answer--I'd wager that Kevin Hassett, who looks based on seniority to be the main author of the report, is a Pats* fan, considering where he was born and raised (Greenfield, Mass.) Wow--how convincing, a total fluff piece written by a Pats* fan lending his public policy think tank's name to a report on a matter that they really are in no way expert in. Bravo, sirs, bravo--nice try.

 

Even better is the fact that Hassett was a co-author of "Dow 36,000"--how that guy ever got another job or is listened to by anyone about ANYTHING after that is beyond me, but then again, he does work at a conservative think-tank where public policy ideas that have proven to be totally worthless (the Sam Brownback/Art Laffer Kansas supply side tax cut experiment gone horribly awry when it met the real world comes to mind) are still seen despite all evidence to the contrary as being absolutely true and trust worthy. Kind of like a Bizarro World, where the rules of the real world don't apply. Here's his Wikipedia entry and some great quotes from it:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Hassett

 

"Hassett is coauthor with James K. Glassman of Dow 36,000: The New Strategy for Profiting from the Coming Rise in the Stock Market. It was published in 1999 before the dot-com bubble burst. The book's title was based on a calculation that, in the absence of the equity premium, stock prices would be approximately four times as high as they actually were. In its introduction, Glassman and Hassett wrote that the book "will convince you of the single most important fact about stocks at the dawn of the twenty-first century: They are cheap....If you are worried about missing the market's big move upward, you will discover that it is not too late. Stocks are now in the midst of a one-time-only rise to much higher ground–to the neighborhood of 36,000 on the Dow Jones industrial average."^[8] The Dow industrials index closed at 10,681.06 on the day of the book's publication^[9] but by the end of 2004 it remained at essentially the same level – 10,783.01, having dropped over 25% in the meantime but recovered. As of March 9, 2009, the trough of the 2008–9 bear market, the Dow Jones was at 6,547.05, 81% below his 36,000 prediction. As of January 17, 2014, the Dow Jones was at 16,476.73, 54% below his 36,000 prediction."

 

Good times, man, good times....

 

 

My, my---where to start?

 

First, these authors are mainly challenfging the way in which the measurements were made/data collected, not the "science" of gas laws. They are saying that the evidence can be challenged on this basis. I would assume any type of lawyer would have been able to recognize their point.

 

As for the hometown of one of the authors--why does it matter if he is a patriots fan--is he lying in the study? Is he fabricating? If not, why does it matter where he is from or what his motivation is? You either agree with his argument on how well he made it or not. Would you have believed his conclusion if he was from Buffalo, NY? I'm betting you would not, so why even mention where he is from?

 

Are the authors also Saints fans? DId they spend time in NO--or maybe he had a nice weekend there once? Were you able to search their credit card receipts to determine why they wrote a study of Saints related injuries inflicted on opposing teams that they present to thte NFL before the player suspensions were vacated? That sounds MIGHTY fishy too!! Better get on that.

 

And a guy wrote something that turned out toe be far-fetched after the fact, so now he can never have a valid opinion on other topics ever again? Solid argument there, counselor...

 

As for Wells, he stated the reason why he wanted to interview that guy was because the term "the Deflator" was new evidence. It clearly wasn't.

 

Also, you haven't answered why we should put such weight in a report purchased in full by the NFL (the second one for Wells) when you have already concluded any funded study cannot be independent.

how often to players run around showing off multiple SB rings at a party?

 

 

 

 

Probably only after each SB ring ceremony....

[Pneumonic]

 

It is. Brady plays in an era where you can't breathe on a QB. Montana played in an era when QBs were raw meat being dropped into the shark tank.

 

No doubt that would explain Montana's 4 TD/9 INT performance stats in those 4 one and done games.

[Best Player Available]

deflation

ineligible recievers

game clock mismanagement

faulty communications to opponents radios

on the field muggings (had to)

improper reporting of injury reports

spygate

 

how many have I missed

Possibly they had bugged the visitors locker room. IIRC one year Bills coaches were huddled outside the locker room pre game. I believe it was the pats**.