dave mcbride Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) And Raiders downfall started exactly at the point when Davis decided his franchise was bigger than the league. Not true! They won a SB after that and were 43-14 in their first four years in LA. They made the playoffs 7 times in 13 years during their LA hiatus. They had 3 losing seasons in those 13 years. From 1981 (their first year in LA) to 2002, they were 176-142. They had 5 losing seasons in those 22 years. They made the SB twice, but thanks to some memorable refereeing in NE in January 2002, they were prevented from going a 3rd time. Edited July 30, 2015 by dave mcbride Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 several today have said its not even about the cheating in response to dave or myself addressing the actual act of cheating. The Adelphia, WorldCom and Enron guys would love to have used that excuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted July 30, 2015 Author Share Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) That was never in question. The analysis of the Pats' fumble rate pre- and post-2007 shows it and they wouldn't be doing it if it wasn't an advantage. some people - and former QBs and media - have said it isn't much of an advantage. I agree it was never a question in my mind. Edited July 30, 2015 by YoloinOhio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeGOATski Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 ultimately, my underlying point is there have been plenty of cases like this (perhaps not the media coverage), and its never caused the issues you are worried about. It is, though. The negative component of my ambivalence toward the league grows every year. I love the Bills, but I think this league is corrupt. Watching cheaters get away with their crimes with relatively small fees and no adjustments to their record is annoying. The NFL should bring harsher penalties down. They negotiated a CBA that allowed them to do it, but the NFLPA is fighting tooth and nail to handcuff the NFL with irrelevant past cases under the old rules. I'm siding with the league because I want to see change. Not the same old, same old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted July 30, 2015 Author Share Posted July 30, 2015 Couldn't help to jump back in again. What does this mean? The cheating, lying about it, and not cooperating with the investigation into is is what it's all about. Who is arguing that cheating isn't why he was suspended. Is it because "cheating" has been replaced by "conduct detrimental?" GO BILLS!!! i think it's that it is no longer "just about the cheating." If it was, and he admitted it, the punishment would have been significantly less. Could have as little as a 25k fine. So yes it's about the cheating, but that was just the tip of the iceberg. It's about the cover up, lying, and conduct detrimental "at this point." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 i think it's that it is no longer "just about the cheating." If it was, and he admitted it, the punishment would have been significantly less. Could have as little as a 25k fine. So yes it's about the cheating, but that was just the tip of the iceberg. It's about the cover up, lying, and conduct detrimental "at this point." The tricky thing is that if this had been a midseason game, the odds of him fessing up would have been a lot higher. However, it occurred right before the SB, and there was no way in hell he was going to risk a suspension before that game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeGOATski Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Our future QB, Connor Cook: @schadjoe: Michigan State QB Connor Cook says it is definitely an advantage to have an under-inflated football, especially in cold That's my boy. Anyone who's ever played a backyard football game on a November New England day [this guy (points to self)] knows an under-inflated ball makes things a whole lot easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 i think it's that it is no longer "just about the cheating." If it was, and he admitted it, the punishment would have been significantly less. Could have as little as a 25k fine. So yes it's about the cheating, but that was just the tip of the iceberg. It's about the cover up, lying, and conduct detrimental "at this point." And I will insist that there is way, way more than deflated balls he's covering up in those destroyed texts. You don't do what Brady did to dodge a $25K fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeGOATski Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 The tricky thing is that if this had been a midseason game, the odds of him fessing up would have been a lot higher. However, it occurred right before the SB, and there was no way in hell he was going to risk a suspension before that game. ugh..... It's not tricky at all. This is where that whole "integrity" idea comes in.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 ugh..... It's not tricky at all. This is where that whole "integrity" idea comes in.... It is tricky, but not in the moral sense. I'm speaking in a game theoretic sense/ rat choice sense, mostly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 The tricky thing is that if this had been a midseason game, the odds of him fessing up would have been a lot higher. However, it occurred right before the SB, and there was no way in hell he was going to risk a suspension before that game. Nor was the NFL. If Brady had admitted he likes the balls soft and "my guys got a little carried away" nothing would have happened until after that game. I think the elephant in the room is the widespread belief that Brady's cheating wasn't limited to the AFC Championship game, and likely goes back years. As for the NFLPA's assertion that no player has ever been suspended for an equipment violation or obstruction charge -- well, somebody has to set the precedent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeGOATski Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 It is tricky, but not in the moral sense. I'm speaking in a game theoretic sense/ rat choice sense, mostly. That's really interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Nor was the NFL. If Brady had admitted he likes the balls soft and "my guys got a little carried away" nothing would have happened until after that game. I think the elephant in the room is the widespread belief that Brady's cheating wasn't limited to the AFC Championship game, and likely goes back years. As for the NFLPA's assertion that no player has ever been suspended for an equipment violation or obstruction charge -- well, somebody has to set the precedent. No team had the 'nads to cheat like the Pats** before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Nor was the NFL. If Brady had admitted he likes the balls soft and "my guys got a little carried away" nothing would have happened until after that game. I think the elephant in the room is the widespread belief that Brady's cheating wasn't limited to the AFC Championship game, and likely goes back years. As for the NFLPA's assertion that no player has ever been suspended for an equipment violation or obstruction charge -- well, somebody has to set the precedent. I see your point, but at the time he didn't know that. One has to craft a probability-of-suspension-in-the-SB scenario in that sort of situation, and one way to get it to zero is to flat out deny everything and figure it out later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 some people - and former QBs and media - have said it isn't much of an advantage. I agree it was never a question in my mind. People say a lot of stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starrymessenger Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Nixon lost the White House because he lied. Martha Stewart went to jail (and lost lots of money) because she refused to admit fault when she could have gotten off with a slap on the wrist. Federal prosecutors will clean your clock if you refuse to cooperate. Judges can find you in contempt. Obstruction of justice is a serious offence in both civil and criminal matters and is accompanied by potentially onerous penalties. Nothing new here. The League is right in taking exception to Brady's disengenuous behavior, and being played for fools. The shield and the integrity of the game requires more and better, especially from its highest profile marquee player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted July 30, 2015 Author Share Posted July 30, 2015 This is gold @cbsboston: A fan with a Tom Brady tattoo continues to postpone his honeymoon to support the suspended QB http://t.co/FgMSm0GQH2http://t.co/uvVXn20yHe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 I see your point, but at the time he didn't know that. One has to craft a probability-of-suspension-in-the-SB scenario in that sort of situation, and one way to get it to zero is to flat out deny everything and figure it out later. I see your point, but there's no way the NFL was going to suspend Tom freaking Brady for the Super Bowl based upon the known circumstances. Maybe if the AFC Championship had been close, or ended on a fluke play, but it was a blowout that clearly didn't result from deflated balls. Brady's arrogance led to where we are now; he could literally have "deflated" the situation in February. Again -- I think there's a bigger issue at play. Brady knows he's been doing this for a long, long time. I'll tell you why he didn't agree to the NFL's settlement offer to reduce the suspension for an admission -- an admission means the questions begin rolling in about when he started doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 I see your point, but there's no way the NFL was going to suspend Tom freaking Brady for the Super Bowl based upon the known circumstances. Maybe if the AFC Championship had been close, or ended on a fluke play, but it was a blowout that clearly didn't result from deflated balls. Brady's arrogance led to where we are now; he could literally have "deflated" the situation in February. Again -- I think there's a bigger issue at play. Brady knows he's been doing this for a long, long time. I'll tell you why he didn't agree to the NFL's settlement offer to reduce the suspension for an admission -- an admission means the questions begin rolling in about when he started doing it. as opposed to now when everyone still thinks he did it and wants to know how long? http://deadspin.com/tom-brady-lied-and-killed-babies-with-his-lies-1720888841 deadspins "Tom Brady lied and killed babies with his lies" headline joking about the reactions is atleast a little funny, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 as opposed to now when everyone still thinks he did it and wants to know how long? You know there's a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts