Peter Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 Brady is certainly a HOF QB. He is a great QB. This whole thing is Nixonian. He did not need to break any rules. He also did not need to try to cover this up. He should have come clean as best he could and he probably would have received a slap on the wrist. The whole thing would have blown over and no one would be talking about this. Instead, he took a different path . . . . He has no one but himself (and his advisors) to blame.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 "Gamesmanship" derives from "gaming" - i.e., minor corner cuts that amount to minor cheating, more or less. So yes, I regard it as gamesmanship, not dissimilar to Jerry Rice's illegal use of stickum, Clay Bucholz using a foreign substance on his arm, etc. The number of the balls is irrelevant: if the tool you're using to "game" is on your body, then you can do it to every ball. If it's the ball itself you're using to "game," than you have to logically apply it to more than one. It's impossible to do that in MLB because they go through so many balls, so the "gaming" device is always in the possession of the player (foreign substance on body or bat that one owns). Fair enough. We just disagree. I think that's blatant cheating and conspiracy. I don't think it's a huge advantage. In the Jerry Rice example, even though sticky gloves are allowed, he is also affecting the game on 10-15% of the plays. Brady is on every one of his team's plays. Depends on who one believes - Schefter or Goodell. I trust the former more, but it would be relevant if he responded. Did he respond? I thought that Schefter claimed this, and that he got it from a "league source." https://www.facebook.com/AdamSchefter/posts/957919684260673 I didn't see Schefter ever respond. I didn't see the Pats press that issue after the league denied it. It would be a big deal if that were true. That shows another example of the Pats throw crap at the wall attitude towards everything. You don't think it would be a big story if the league ordered those guys to be fired?
GG Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 As I said in response to The Big Cat above, it comes down to execution and Brady has made too many clutch plays over the years for me to believe they were all a result of cheating. It's not like Jeff Tuel would suddenly be Bradyesque if he had the same advantage. At least in my book. GO BILLS!!! It all depends on the level of cheating. If you believe the Flutie story that he heard extraneous conversation when he mistakenly picked up Brady's helmet, than that would shed a lot more doubt on Tommy's true abilities. To me, Brady has accomplished something no other QB in league history has - win championships 15 years apart, and all without a drop off in performance and without any all-stars in the supporting cast. Granted QBs don't get shellacked anymore, but can you attribute all of it to the symbiotic Brady Belichick hook up?
stevewin Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 (edited) I think Big Ben is a first ballot HOFer as it is. But based on my observation of how all these other QBs play the position, I would say NO, they too, wouldn't be Bradyesque at all. Are you guys suggesting that all the success Brady has had is owed to cheating? Really? I just can't agree with that. GO BILLS!!! Absolutely - if you entertain the possibility that everything has not come out. Coming up to the LOS (potentially for years) being told in your helmet what the defense is going to do? And possibly/likely other things? There's a reason why Disgraced QB Tom Brady was a mediocre QB who was picked in the 6th round before he suddenly 'flourished' in the Pats** 'system' Edited July 29, 2015 by stevewin
K-9 Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 In bringing up other talented quarterbacks, I thought I was doing the opposite of what you're asking here. In bringing up the other talented QBs, I thought you were suggesting that they would have enjoyed the same success Brady has if they had the same advantage of cheating. If I misunderstood, my apologies. GO BILLS!!!
LeGOATski Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 Depends on who one believes - Schefter or Goodell. I trust the former more, but it would be relevant if he responded. Did he respond? I thought that Schefter claimed this, and that he got it from a "league source." https://www.facebook.com/AdamSchefter/posts/957919684260673 Either way, it seems nothing else was said, so we don't know. I can't find anything that shows the Pats denied Goodell's response. It doesn't make sense that the league would want them fired if they had potentially more information to give. It makes sense that the Pats would want them fired in order to preserve Brady's chances of exoneration, which Kraft clearly wanted.
dave mcbride Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 Fair enough. We just disagree. I think that's blatant cheating and conspiracy. I don't think it's a huge advantage. In the Jerry Rice example, even though sticky gloves are allowed, he is also affecting the game on 10-15% of the plays. Brady is on every one of his team's plays. I didn't see Schefter ever respond. I didn't see the Pats press that issue after the league denied it. It would be a big deal if that were true. That shows another example of the Pats throw crap at the wall attitude towards everything. You don't think it would be a big story if the league ordered those guys to be fired? Except the 53 percent of the plays involving the Pats' defense and special teams. If the league ordered them to be fired, it would be a big story, but I don't know what happened. One might expect the Pats/Brady to publicly make hay out of it, but for all we know they're saving it for the Brady trial if they get subpoenaed. If the league was responsible, they'd presumably be bitter toward the league and not Brady, and the latter may be banking on that. One would presume that Jastremski is bitter toward the league anyway for publicly dragging his name through the mud. But who really knows? For what it's worth, I never thought it made any sense for the Pats to fire them given the stakes. Either way, it seems nothing else was said, so we don't know. I can't find anything that shows the Pats denied Goodell's response. It doesn't make sense that the league would want them fired if they had potentially more information to give. It makes sense that the Pats would want them fired in order to preserve Brady's chances of exoneration, which Kraft clearly wanted. I think it's the opposite - why would the team fire them given the chance that they'd be embittered and take it out on the team?
K-9 Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 It all depends on the level of cheating. If you believe the Flutie story that he heard extraneous conversation when he mistakenly picked up Brady's helmet, than that would shed a lot more doubt on Tommy's true abilities. To me, Brady has accomplished something no other QB in league history has - win championships 15 years apart, and all without a drop off in performance and without any all-stars in the supporting cast. Granted QBs don't get shellacked anymore, but can you attribute all of it to the symbiotic Brady Belichick hook up? I guess this is why his legacy will be tarnished, regardless. How much of his success can we attribute to cheating? It's hard to say, exactly. But cheating or not, the way he executes his position tells me cheating has less to do with it than many want to believe. He's a great QB, regardless. And I think he deserves to be a first ballot HOFer. But as I said, the election process is nothing if not political, so it wouldn't surprise me if he isn't, either. GO BILLS!!!
Matt in KC Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 Except the 53 percent of the plays involving the Pats' defense and special teams. If the league ordered them to be fired, it would be a big story, but I don't know what happened. One might expect the Pats/Brady to publicly make hay out of it, but for all we know they're saving it for the Brady trial if they get subpoenaed. If the league was responsible, they'd presumably be bitter toward the league and not Brady, and the latter may be banking on that. One would presume that Jastremski is bitter toward the league anyway for publicly dragging his name through the mud. But who really knows? For what it's worth, I never thought it made any sense for the Pats to fire them given the stakes. I think it's the opposite - why would the team fire them given the chance that they'd be embittered and take it out on the team? And yet they have been suspiciously 100% silent. . . . It's pretty clear they signed some type of NDA.
bladiebla Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 so then why not make it available for forensic analysis? There are companies specialized in data destruction, using devices such as harddisk shredders after they've wiped the devices by zero-ing out the data multiple times. Even the NSA won't be able to recover that. My assumption is that Brady his assistant submitted the phone in question to such a company as they are saying the phone is destroyed. They are not saying it is simply broken.
dave mcbride Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 And yet they have been suspiciously 100% silent. . . . It's pretty clear they signed some type of NDA. It's an interesting part of the story. Someone should follow up on it.
MattM Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 Except the 53 percent of the plays involving the Pats' defense and special teams. If the league ordered them to be fired, it would be a big story, but I don't know what happened. One might expect the Pats/Brady to publicly make hay out of it, but for all we know they're saving it for the Brady trial if they get subpoenaed. If the league was responsible, they'd presumably be bitter toward the league and not Brady, and the latter may be banking on that. One would presume that Jastremski is bitter toward the league anyway for publicly dragging his name through the mud. But who really knows? For what it's worth, I never thought it made any sense for the Pats to fire them given the stakes. I think it's the opposite - why would the team fire them given the chance that they'd be embittered and take it out on the team? Funny, then, that Goodell wanted to meet them both at the appeal, but it was Brady who said no (you really need to read the decision), but maintained they were his friends who would back him up if they were there. You really can't make this stuff up..,,,
Kelly the Dog Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 Except the 53 percent of the plays involving the Pats' defense and special teams. If the league ordered them to be fired, it would be a big story, but I don't know what happened. One might expect the Pats/Brady to publicly make hay out of it, but for all we know they're saving it for the Brady trial if they get subpoenaed. If the league was responsible, they'd presumably be bitter toward the league and not Brady, and the latter may be banking on that. One would presume that Jastremski is bitter toward the league anyway for publicly dragging his name through the mud. But who really knows? For what it's worth, I never thought it made any sense for the Pats to fire them given the stakes In one of the more hilarious elements of the appeal hearing, Goodell asked the Patriots to have Jastremski and McNally come in because he wanted to ask them a couple questions. Brady's side said there is no reason to ask them questions, like why was McNally named the Deflator, because they already denied any scheme, and Brady wants to face his accusers, not people on his side. That made me laugh.
GG Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 It's an interesting part of the story. Someone should follow up on it. It would be interesting if the court case goes down the road where these guys would be compelled to testify under oath. Don't see it happening with the pending legal actions, but if one of the sides decide to drag it out, it could take a tangent and the basic merits of the case may be subject to a court review. That's why this is a stupid gambit by Pats* & Brady* They have a lot more to lose by dragging this out.
K-9 Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 Absolutely - if you entertain the possibility that everything has not come out. Coming up to the LOS (potentially for years) being told in your helmet what the defense is going to do? And possibly/likely other things? There's a reason why Disgraced QB Tom Brady was a mediocre QB who was picked in the 6th round before he suddenly 'flourished' in the Pats** 'system' There's a reason why Johnny Unitas was a ninth round pick who got cut and JaMarcus Russell was a first overall pick, too. I don't think Brady's draft position has anything to do with it. If one can't see his progression as a pro QB, what can I say? It can't all be attributed to cheating. A QB has to perform and execute his position, regardless. IMO, Brady is one of the best at doing this. GO BILLS!!!
YoloinOhio Posted July 29, 2015 Author Posted July 29, 2015 @Rachel__Nichols: Local police chief in Maine says NFL asked them to keep an eye on Roger Goodell's house there in wake of Brady ruling http://t.co/j8jx5cVCO9
LeGOATski Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 Except the 53 percent of the plays involving the Pats' defense and special teams. If the league ordered them to be fired, it would be a big story, but I don't know what happened. One might expect the Pats/Brady to publicly make hay out of it, but for all we know they're saving it for the Brady trial if they get subpoenaed. If the league was responsible, they'd presumably be bitter toward the league and not Brady, and the latter may be banking on that. One would presume that Jastremski is bitter toward the league anyway for publicly dragging his name through the mud. But who really knows? For what it's worth, I never thought it made any sense for the Pats to fire them given the stakes. I think it's the opposite - why would the team fire them given the chance that they'd be embittered and take it out on the team? The team was hoping their acceptance of the penalty would lessen Brady's penalty and essentially keep him out of spotlight. Kraft admitted to that. Firing the ball boys fits in with the narrative that Brady didn't do much wrong. Kraft accepted guilt, fired the underlings directly involved, and hoped it would all go away. Maybe the ball boys do come out now...we'll see. Kraft might be regretting that choice, since the league didn't play along.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 There are companies specialized in data destruction, using devices such as harddisk shredders after they've wiped the devices by zero-ing out the data multiple times. Even the NSA won't be able to recover that. My assumption is that Brady his assistant submitted the phone in question to such a company as they are saying the phone is destroyed. They are not saying it is simply broken. Brady's earlier phone, and perhaps the earlier one than that, were handed over to a security person to get information off it. Phone numbers and stuff. The important phone in question, that he used during the latter part of the season and playoffs and after the story broke, he never turn over. That is the one he said he destroyed like he destroys them all (except the last one, and maybe the last two).
K-9 Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 In one of the more hilarious elements of the appeal hearing, Goodell asked the Patriots to have Jastremski and McNally come in because he wanted to ask them a couple questions. Brady's side said there is no reason to ask them questions, like why was McNally named the Deflator, because they already denied any scheme, and Brady wants to face his accusers, not people on his side. That made me laugh. Again, this is a damning aspect and worth the consideration Goodell place upon it. GO BILLS!!!
Kelly the Dog Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 The team was hoping their acceptance of the penalty would lessen Brady's penalty and essentially keep him out of spotlight. Kraft admitted to that. Firing the ball boys fits in with the narrative that Brady didn't do much wrong. Kraft accepted guilt, fired the underlings directly involved, and hoped it would all go away. Maybe the ball boys do come out now...we'll see. Kraft might be regretting that choice, since the league didn't play along. After that happened legal analysts all seemed to agree that there was no question these guys signed some non disclosure agreement and that they wouldn't be able to talk to anyone about it or they would be sued by the Patriots and neither could afford that.
Recommended Posts