NoSaint Posted July 27, 2015 Posted July 27, 2015 I'd be surprised if changes to the procedure don't come from this eventually. Still, it doesn't justify the breaking of the rules. We've confirmed that the refs have their gauges and they're checking the balls. From there, we move on to determining the actions and involvement of the team personnel. The accuracy of the refs/gauges doesn't affect that, other than pushing the personnel to cheat because of their reputation for being inaccurate. well, that, and it could be harder for the nfl to argue in court that this is a realistic punishment, if its not something they ever took seriously before. again, discussing severity, not guilt here.
LeGOATski Posted July 27, 2015 Posted July 27, 2015 i know at the start, bradys lawyers said the leagues public claims didnt match the leagues request letter. i dont recall either side releasing the request, so i am not 100% sure where the argument here falls. Well, it's all or nothing now. That's for sure.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 27, 2015 Posted July 27, 2015 given that the league received complaints, and that he saw issues with the handling.... its really that far of a stretch? the league really shouldnt have said "hey walt, just FYI the colts are accusing this - you might want to keep an eye out"? and i dont care if they were "buffoons," I was just saying it was a non-issue prior to this, that wasnt taken all that seriously - so a suspension is a big jump. especially when going with the argument that it isnt even brady himself that mishandled them. As I stated before, the league gets accusations like that all the time from teams. They rarely do anything about it. It's like NBA players complaining to the refs that this guy is fouling me or holding me. It happens 20 times a game. They say ok, thx and go right back to officiating the game. If they later notice the player being fouled or held they begin to look for it. The reason The Ravens and Colts are pissed is because the Patriots are accused all the time of stuff like this and the NFL ignores it. There was a great exchange between several teams last year about their helmets going out at opportune times in the fourth quarter for one series. Four different teams said the same thing happened to use and laughed about it because the Pats were so notorious for it. One deflation accusation was likely nothing if not laughable to them, which was what Wells report said.
LeGOATski Posted July 27, 2015 Posted July 27, 2015 it doens't matter the reason(s) for not divulging his personal info. He isn't required to do so unless court ordered. I could have said he didn't want to do so because he is hung like a budgie bird and there is proof on his phone to document it as so. That would've been humorous. Your first one was serious or just a bad attempt at humor. Either way, No Saint brought up a better point. We simply don't know for sure. I think we do know that Wells'/NFL's actions are a result of the circumstantial evidence pointing to Brady.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 27, 2015 Posted July 27, 2015 I'd be surprised if changes to the procedure don't come from this eventually. Still, it doesn't justify the breaking of the rules. We've confirmed that the refs have their gauges and they're checking the balls. From there, we move on to determining the actions and involvement of the team personnel. The accuracy of the refs/gauges doesn't affect that, other than pushing the personnel to cheat because of their reputation for being inaccurate. They changed the protocol a couple days ago.
K-9 Posted July 27, 2015 Posted July 27, 2015 It's a classic conflict-of-interest that would be fairly easy to drive home in court. That said, see my link above to the interview. Do you think Kraft did any type of lobbying a few weeks ago in Arizona? There is no conflict of interest here. Not in the least. I would like to see how the NFLPA proves that conversations with owners, part of his duties as commissioner, constitute a conflict of interests. "Mr. Goodell, did some owners demand that you give Mr. Brady the maximum sentence?" "Yes they did. And they were adament about it, too." "Did that influence your decision?" "No." Next. One simply cannot connect dots just because they think they connect. GO BILLS!!!
LeGOATski Posted July 27, 2015 Posted July 27, 2015 They changed the protocol a couple days ago. I'm not surprised.
4merper4mer Posted July 27, 2015 Posted July 27, 2015 One simply cannot connect dots just because they think they connect. GO BILLS!!! Pats* fans can do it.
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted July 27, 2015 Posted July 27, 2015 WRT the gauges. If they are "off" then they would be "off" the same at halftime would they not? The Pats** balls disappeared into a "rest room" with the ball boy/man/ handler for 90 seconds which happened to (via test) be sufficient time to deflate all 12balls.
NoSaint Posted July 27, 2015 Posted July 27, 2015 Do you think Kraft did any type of lobbying a few weeks ago in Arizona? There is no conflict of interest here. Not in the least. I would like to see how the NFLPA proves that conversations with owners, part of his duties as commissioner, constitute a conflict of interests. "Mr. Goodell, did some owners demand that you give Mr. Brady the maximum sentence?" "Yes they did. And they were adament about it, too." "Did that influence your decision?" "No." Next. One simply cannot connect dots just because they think they connect. GO BILLS!!! ignoring brady -- can we agree that it makes sense not to have the "judge" paid by the "prosecution, and defense teams" for future cases? at least for appeals? even if it doesnt effect this outcome, it seems like common sense for the NFL to keep someone around for the sake of appearances, if nothing else.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 27, 2015 Posted July 27, 2015 ignoring brady -- can we agree that it makes sense not to have the "judge" paid by the "prosecution, and defense teams" for future cases? at least for appeals? even if it doesnt effect this outcome, it seems like common sense for the NFL to keep someone around for the sake of appearances, if nothing else. The players union traded that for more money.
dave mcbride Posted July 27, 2015 Posted July 27, 2015 (edited) Do you think Kraft did any type of lobbying a few weeks ago in Arizona? There is no conflict of interest here. Not in the least. I would like to see how the NFLPA proves that conversations with owners, part of his duties as commissioner, constitute a conflict of interests. "Mr. Goodell, did some owners demand that you give Mr. Brady the maximum sentence?" "Yes they did. And they were adament about it, too." "Did that influence your decision?" "No." Next. One simply cannot connect dots just because they think they connect. GO BILLS!!! I think you're utterly wrong about conflicts-of-interest because you have your Pats hater blinders on, but seriously, it may all be moot - check out the link above. Edited July 27, 2015 by dave mcbride
Pneumonic Posted July 27, 2015 Posted July 27, 2015 That would've been humorous. Your first one was serious or just a bad attempt at humor. Either way, No Saint brought up a better point. We simply don't know for sure. I think we do know that Wells'/NFL's actions are a result of the circumstantial evidence pointing to Brady. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what the reason(s) are for not handing over the personal documentation; Brady was not obligated to to do so. If he's penalized for doing so, this likely ends up a labour law issue.
NoSaint Posted July 27, 2015 Posted July 27, 2015 WRT the gauges. If they are "off" then they would be "off" the same at halftime would they not? The Pats** balls disappeared into a "rest room" with the ball boy/man/ handler for 90 seconds which happened to (via test) be sufficient time to deflate all 12balls. the argument some would make is that if they read 2 different numbers on the same balls, and you arent consistent comparing the proper numbers to each other that can create issues. then additionally if they are consistent ref to ref, week to week, is 12.5 vs 12.0 really a meaningful conversation in the first place, if any given week you might see tested balls in a wider range of true pressures (ignoring they might not even test all of them weekly)
Wayne Cubed Posted July 27, 2015 Posted July 27, 2015 Sal Paolantonio says he was wildly misquoted and misinterpreted. Worth a listen: http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2015/07/27/sal-paolantonio-defends-his-recent-comments-on-deflategate/ . So like I said, Florio being ridiculous and trying to generate clicks.
K-9 Posted July 27, 2015 Posted July 27, 2015 I think you're utterly wrong about conflicts-of-interest because you have your Pats hater blinders on, but seriously, it may all be moot - check out the link above. Please don't insult me with Pats hater blinders crap. I appreciate the game for!what it is and the players for who they are. Always have. I have my "practicality in a court of law" blinders on. This conflict of interest will be impossible to substantiate by witnesses under oath. Indeed, it is as readily dismissable as I alluded to above. Perhaps you need to remove your Goodell hate blinders. GO BILLS!!!
Kelly the Dog Posted July 27, 2015 Posted July 27, 2015 Ultimately, it doesn't matter what the reason(s) are for not handing over the personal documentation; Brady was not obligated to to do so. If he's penalized for doing so, this likely ends up a labour law issue. People that aren't following this close are making that issue out to be bigger than it is. Because it's easy for a fan to say if he has nothing to hide he would gladly want to show it. But it's really only one little item of 50 items that point to guilt. And not that important nor nearly enough to get him suspended or his suspension overturned. They could never have asked him for the phone and the exact same conclusion would have been drawn.
K-9 Posted July 27, 2015 Posted July 27, 2015 ignoring brady -- can we agree that it makes sense not to have the "judge" paid by the "prosecution, and defense teams" for future cases? at least for appeals? even if it doesnt effect this outcome, it seems like common sense for the NFL to keep someone around for the sake of appearances, if nothing else. That is a better question for the NFLPA. GO BILLS!!!
NoSaint Posted July 27, 2015 Posted July 27, 2015 That is a better question for the NFLPA. GO BILLS!!! its not a terrible one for the nfl to think long and hard about too, as it could quickly lead to an embarrassing situation. i bring it up as a wider issue here.
Pneumonic Posted July 27, 2015 Posted July 27, 2015 People that aren't following this close are making that issue out to be bigger than it is. Because it's easy for a fan to say if he has nothing to hide he would gladly want to show it. But it's really only one little item of 50 items that point to guilt. And not that important nor nearly enough to get him suspended or his suspension overturned. They could never have asked him for the phone and the exact same conclusion would have been drawn. There are holes galore in the science, the policies and procedures (for taking measurements) and, ultimately, in the administration of applying the penalty, that I can't see any of them holding up if this goes to an independent judge. All that is left is non co-operation and, for the life of me, I can't see anyway the labour guys don't easily knock that out of the park in seconds flat.
Recommended Posts