Kelly the Dog Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 Your literally pulling out of thin air that it's hardly exorbitant though. It's simply your opinion and you keep presenting it as fact. Because it's not a lot by any standard. The only other suspension is one game. . Besides, the court case wouldn't be to decide what is MORE fair. They wouldn't decide what, arbitrarily the court or one judge or one jury may decide is a better result. They would only decide if this was soooooooo out of whack it was almost criminal. I don't think two games could be considered soooooooo out of whack for pretty much anything that is a serious offense (and not something like wearing the wrong color socks). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 Because it's not a lot by any standard. The only other suspension is one game. . Besides, the court case wouldn't be to decide what is MORE fair. They wouldn't decide what, arbitrarily the court or one judge or one jury may decide is a better result. They would only decide if this was soooooooo out of whack it was almost criminal. I don't think two games could be considered soooooooo out of whack for pretty much anything that is a serious offense (and not something like wearing the wrong color socks). I don't think any of us are saying a judge is the likely final decision here. So it's easy to hide behind that I guess. Additionally on your next speeding ticket I'll be sure to remind you the only thing less than two days in jail is one. Hopefully you can ignore that everyone else got fines or let off the hook totally! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 Well now, watching the ESPY's and there was commercial with Gronk on the Family Feud. Question: What can you inflate or deflate? :Gronk wins the challenge: Gronk: "I don't even want this one" Harvey: "smart man" So does anyone know or can dig up whether Kraft has any ties to Family Feud or the channel it's on? Trying to make a mockery of the NFL IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) Well now, watching the ESPY's and there was commercial with Gronk on the Family Feud. Question: What can you inflate or deflate? :Gronk wins the challenge: Gronk: "I don't even want this one" Harvey: "smart man" So does anyone know or can dig up whether Kraft has any ties to Family Feud or the channel it's on? Trying to make a mockery of the NFL IMO. And if the nfl isn't above jokes, what is?!? Is nothing sacred now?!? Edited July 16, 2015 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) And if the nfl isn't above jokes, what is?!? Is nothing sacred now?!? Above jokes, from media, sure (they poke, not stab). How many times to you recall something being spotlighted like this on a prime time show as a joke (while it's still unresolved)? And I don't think family feud is a prime time show but it is describe as one on a national network. Edited July 16, 2015 by The Wiz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 I don't think any of us are saying a judge is the likely final decision here. So it's easy to hide behind that I guess. Additionally on your next speeding ticket I'll be sure to remind you the only thing less than two days in jail is one. Hopefully you can ignore that everyone else got fines or let off the hook totally! I totally respect your opinion. On virtually everything. Including this. Myself, as well as inarguably the NFL, considers the offense of stealing the balls and altering them a suspendable offense. And not an offense that would just be a fine. If it were just a fine there is simply no way they would spend five million dollars and give an investigator a blank check for hours billed. Think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) I totally respect your opinion. On virtually everything. Including this. Myself, as well as inarguably the NFL, considers the offense of stealing the balls and altering them a suspendable offense. And not an offense that would just be a fine. If it were just a fine there is simply no way they would spend five million dollars and give an investigator a blank check for hours billed. Think about it. Right back at you - I wouldn't take the time to go back and forth if I didn't. So cheers to that. I guess I'll take the time here for a lengthier parallel as your paragraph at the end hit home with me a bit and not in the way I think you intended. Looping around to the bounty gate incident but not in the judicial process sense here.... I don't think it was a big national story prior but the saints and goodell were at odds quite a few ways prior and it always struck me that he was eager to put them in their place. The saints were coming off the super bowl recently, top rated team on any prime time games - you'd think an nfl golden ticket. Heck, at one point there were fans alleging the league had fixed their success as a way to prop up the city post-Katrina and a marketable story line (kind of like the pats 9/11 comments you occasionally hear). So how in the world did things turn so fast and the investigation get so totally unreasonable? I think goodell was pissed that SP was blowing off media stuff, he hired a guy the league had blackballed for defrauding the nfl offices, the pain killer incident.... Then a gift shows up in the form of a whistle blower (ignoring that he was fired for disappearing multiple times for days on end and getting caught lying, not coming to the league until he accused the saints of black balling him, etc...). He had enough to really run with it and put a hurt on the team to keep them in line, instead of simply having a come to Jesus talk behind closed doors. Tagliabue calls him out for as much in his aggressive behavior, and the league similarly spent heavily, brought in experts that were flatly making up stuff etc.... Heck, similarly they tried suspending guys for telling stories that didn't match what they thought the story was- awfully aggressive ways to tell an organization that you walk the line always or else. Essentially easy to construe as "say yes sir to whatever we want and follow the stories we portray or face penalty." Tags didn't agree it was fair, and overturned it. The coaches didn't have recourse really and both faced the league reviewing their reinstatement before they could return (continued do what we say or get it worse). So part of me has a little gut feeling roger could've very easily told Kraft in advance at the party, or issued a memo or simply fined them and changed the process.... And that leads me to believe the league and the pats aren't quite as chummy as 99% here think. Between the spygate, and allegations of headset stuff, and Hernandez, and all the things we hear about here.... Part of me thinks that goodell felt he had his opportunity, like bounty gate, to try and hit them hard. The leagues proven they will spend outrageously on made up vendettas (dug heels in hiring an independent expert to back their conclusionon the "gimme my money" quote with Hargrove as an example despite It making no sense). So when tags comes out with similar public statements, and the punishments seem high for what's normal, and the league tries not to let anyone else into the process.... If you don't assume that the pats are beloved by the nfl, it's easy to start drawing some basic parallels. And if he's come down extra hard on a player for organizational sins (or hurting his ego in the stupid press conferences Brady did), I don't know if it'll hold up once outside judgement gets involved. Hargrove ended up getting zero games for his noncompliance in the investigation. Does Brady end up the same? That'd be 2 of the 4 wiped off. Then you have other teams getting fined for equipment issues... Does 2 become 1 or 0? It wouldn't shock me. In fact, if Brady is willing to go forward, I'd guess 2 is the max result. On the flip side It likewise wouldn't shock me if Brady is less eager than vilma to open the can of worms that is the next step though. If it came out solidly he was doing this for years it could hurt him a lot more than a LB getting nailed for paying out for big hits (particularly legal hits)... and vilma didn't have as much to lose in legacy and more to gain having been hit with such a big suspension. I think it's a much bigger wild card than you give credit for at this point, despite agreeing with most of your basic foundations to the arguments. Edited July 16, 2015 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 It seems your catch all isn't actually past rulings but instead "because he can" All the two of us are pointing out is that it hasn't always worked for him. Both of us have said Brady did but that the punishment may far exceed comparables I don't disagree that past rulings haven't worked out for him. I only maintain they are completely irrelevant. I think you two have the catchall in that regard. And the entire argument is "because he can". As for comparables, again, it is irrelevant. Are there comparables to other teams that have been found guilty of past cheating infractions and players from those teams refusing to cooperate? With players and other personnel facing the same large amount of circumstantial evidence in the face of that non-cooperation? I can think of a comparable for Goodell in terms of the last time he faced a ton of public criticism for destroying evidence directly linking the Patriots* to a previous cheating scandal. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 Hargrove ended up getting zero games for his noncompliance in the investigation. Does Brady end up the same? That'd be 2 of the 4 wiped off. Then you have other teams getting fined for equipment issues... Does 2 become 1 or 0? It wouldn't shock me. In fact, if Brady is willing to go forward, I'd guess 2 is the max result. On the flip side It likewise wouldn't shock me if Brady is less eager than vilma to open the can of worms that is the next step though. If it came out solidly he was doing this for years it could hurt him a lot more than a LB getting nailed for paying out for big hits (particularly legal hits)... and vilma didn't have as much to lose in legacy and more to gain having been hit with such a big suspension. I think it's a much bigger wild card than you give credit for at this point, despite agreeing with most of your basic foundations to the arguments. I honestly don't know enough about Bountygate to even talk much about it. I always thought however that Tags just took his shot against Goodell because he just doesn't like him and doesn't think the commish' job is to be the supercop that Goodell tries to be. I would bet anything that Brady doesn't go to court in any way that the actual story comes out. I surely think they're bluffing although they may try the Goodell screwed up his authority angle. All Goodell did here is hire Wells. That's it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 For those putting any stock in the AEI report, I thought you'd find this of interest: https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/06/27/tom-brady-appeal-about-more-than-quarterback/ihhIAb6oJJdUrFS8V8w7uJ/story.html# Apparently a Pats* fan who happens to be a professional statistician looked at the AEI report and redid the experiments that AEI claimed to have used to debunk Exponent and the Welks report and instead found them to be exactly what Exponent and Wells claimed. He asked AEI what's up with that and got crickets chirping (probably because they didn't want to debunk their own bought and paid for report). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) For those putting any stock in the AEI report, I thought you'd find this of interest: https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/06/27/tom-brady-appeal-about-more-than-quarterback/ihhIAb6oJJdUrFS8V8w7uJ/story.html# Apparently a Pats* fan who happens to be a professional statistician looked at the AEI report and redid the experiments that AEI claimed to have used to debunk Exponent and the Welks report and instead found them to be exactly what Exponent and Wells claimed. He asked AEI what's up with that and got crickets chirping (probably because they didn't want to debunk their own bought and paid for report). That's awesome. Love that it came from a former (and future) Giants fan too. Edited July 16, 2015 by eball Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 AEI disagreed with the statistical method used by Exponent. This guy used a similar mathod (ANOVA) and got the same results as Exponent. This shouldn't surprise you. Statisticians may disagrre which method of analysis is appropriate for a data set depending on what question is being asked/answered by the data. The irony of your claim is that Exponent is the only analysis that was "bought and payed for"--from a company that specializes in corporate defense analysis production. And you left otu this for some reason..."DeSarno pointed out that the data set is incomplete and flawed — what we’ve been saying for four months about referee Walt Anderson not recording the pregame data and all of the different gauge-switching scenarios — and that Wells cherry-picked results to fit the “Patriots are guilty” conclusion." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 "Tom Brady intends to challenge his four-game suspension in federal court if NFL commissioner Roger Goodell doesn’t completely wipe out the punishment, according to an ABC News report and several other people familiar with the case who spoke with the Globe." https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/07/15/tom-brady-ready-take-case-federal-court/90YBPxQKl6lXvlsSsqDQKJ/story.html# Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Bills Fan Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 "Tom Brady intends to challenge his four-game suspension in federal court if NFL commissioner Roger Goodell doesn’t completely wipe out the punishment, according to an ABC News report and several other people familiar with the case who spoke with the Globe." https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/07/15/tom-brady-ready-take-case-federal-court/90YBPxQKl6lXvlsSsqDQKJ/story.html# Oh off Brady CBF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 AEI disagreed with the statistical method used by Exponent. This guy used a similar mathod (ANOVA) and got the same results as Exponent. This shouldn't surprise you. Statisticians may disagrre which method of analysis is appropriate for a data set depending on what question is being asked/answered by the data. The irony of your claim is that Exponent is the only analysis that was "bought and payed for"--from a company that specializes in corporate defense analysis production. And you left otu this for some reason..."DeSarno pointed out that the data set is incomplete and flawed what weve been saying for four months about referee Walt Anderson not recording the pregame data and all of the different gauge-switching scenarios and that Wells cherry-picked results to fit the Patriots are guilty conclusion." I summarized the main point of the article--funny how you left out the columnists' call to reason for Pats* fans to understand that what they're relying on has not been subject to anywhere near the same scrutiny as the Wells report and what scrutiny it has come under has shown the AEI report to be wanting and flawed. On the bought and "paid" for point, you're smart enough to understand that the LAST thing the NFL wanted was for Ted Wells and Exponent to have found evidence of cheating, unless you're a bigger condpiracy theorist than you claim me to be. The fact that the Wells report reached the conclusions it did and saw the light of day (unlike the last "destroy the evidence" foray) speaks volumes for the underlying facts here pointing to cheating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 I summarized the main point of the article--funny how you left out the columnists' call to reason for Pats* fans to understand that what they're relying on has not been subject to anywhere near the same scrutiny as the Wells report and what scrutiny it has come under has shown the AEI report to be wanting and flawed. On the bought and "paid" for point, you're smart enough to understand that the LAST thing the NFL wanted was for Ted Wells and Exponent to have found evidence of cheating, unless you're a bigger condpiracy theorist than you claim me to be. The fact that the Wells report reached the conclusions it did and saw the light of day (unlike the last "destroy the evidence" foray) speaks volumes for the underlying facts here pointing to cheating. He sees things through the prism of a Pats* fan so cut him a little slack. He has sort of lost his ability to be objective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) I summarized the main point of the article--funny how you left out the columnists' call to reason for Pats* fans to understand that what they're relying on has not been subject to anywhere near the same scrutiny as the Wells report and what scrutiny it has come under has shown the AEI report to be wanting and flawed. On the bought and "paid" for point, you're smart enough to understand that the LAST thing the NFL wanted was for Ted Wells and Exponent to have found evidence of cheating, unless you're a bigger condpiracy theorist than you claim me to be. The fact that the Wells report reached the conclusions it did and saw the light of day (unlike the last "destroy the evidence" foray) speaks volumes for the underlying facts here pointing to cheating. Both methods may be flawed, given the noncontrolled nature of the data. You don't kow what "bought and paid for" means. Wells paid Exponent to produce that report. No one paid AEI to produce its counterpoint. The NFL wanted to have cover when they punished Brady?NE for obvious cheating, so they went to one of their own lawyers (that's Ted Wells) and paid him 5 million dollars to conclude what was already known by the league (they knew about ball deflation before that game). Wells in turn paid Exponent to produce the study he knew they would produce (just as many corporations have done with Exponent many times before--they always deliver the data/study/conclusion you want...look them up). And your columnist also wrote this: This doesn’t change the overarching premise, that Wells likely had a predetermined conclusion of guilt, that a good case can be made that the footballs weren’t underinflated, and that the penalties levied on Tom Brady (and to an extent the Patriots) were far too harsh. There is no conspiracy here, except for you bogus link from Kraft to the guys from AEI who wrote their piece. Edited July 16, 2015 by Mr. WEO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 Why does Brady get this treatment but no one else? Suit up Dareus against the Colts. If the NFL says anything just respond "Brady." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 Why does Brady get this treatment but no one else? Suit up Dareus against the Colts. If the NFL says anything just respond "Brady." Because Dareus's (being dumb outside of games) behavior is embarrassing to the league, and Brady's behavior (maliciously cheating) is a-ok. Duh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 That's awesome. Love that it came from a former (and future) Giants fan too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts