PatsFanNH Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 The issue here is that we've got a guy that calls himself "the deflator", who takes the balls to the field by himself (against league rules), disappears into a bathroom with the game balls for enough time to tamper with them, lies about going into the bathroom at all, then lies about what he did when he was in the bathroom (claiming on multiple occasions that he dropped the balls to his left and used a urinal on his right, when in fact no urinal exists in that bathroom), and then changes his story when asked about it on multiple occasions. Add to that mix that Brady claimed he didn't know McNally when in fact he did, and lump in the fact that Brady and Jastremski hadn't spoken for 6 months prior to the accusation, after which they talked over the phone for several long conversations, and then Brady destroys his phone--supposedly because that's standard procedure for him...except that he still had 2 old phones that he never destroyed. Clearly something went on, and to deny that would be to toss by the wayside some seriously incriminating behavior by all 3 parties. Where Goodell erred was in his phrasing of the suspension--all he had to do was say that Brady was being suspended for not fully cooperating with the investigation by destroying his phone after it was requested. Done. No multiple appeal process necessary, because the reason for the suspension can be proven, and the CBA gives him the power to suspend for that infraction. As for McNally, I bunch of former players said "who?" Then when they saw him they went oh "nick here" he goes by a nickname. Also if you read the transcripts Brady says he was calling about the SB AND deflategate, which is where Goodell goes and lies saying he stated deflategate wasn't talked about, Brady also said he had no need to ever talk to him before but with the SB coming up he wanted make sure he was focused on his job and he also talked to him about deflategate. (He said probably did) Its plausible he called for those reasons, it's also plausible he called cover it up. Also those "old" phones were really old they were pre Giselle. (I'm sure that didn't break outside of Boston lol) that said they Got all the data from it. This isn't the old days where destroying the phone destroys data. (My proof they received the texts from the phone is 1. Transcripts of appeal 2. Leaked Peyton M text) now could he have deleted said data then destroyed the phone, sure. But why destroy it if you deleted it??? I also don't think Goodell could do that? He either confirms/reduces/vacate the suspension but he can't change what it is for. I could be wrong about that though.. See the above is what I mean we BOTH have logical arguments, and I'm not saying your wrong, I don't know. I lean the other way because well the evidence I weight more is different than yours. Hell I am of the feeling that if it happened Yaz an Mac did it to keep Brady happy and Brady didn't give a rats butt how they did it as long as the balls were the way he wanted them.
Kirby Jackson Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 (edited) I understand and I don't suggest that Brady is not great or that Alex Smith is as good. I'm just suggesting that he is fortunate where he landed and that his accomplishments are helped by having a great team around him with excellent coach and I'm sure the cheating helped too.The point is that if you go to Alex Smith who is maybe a top 150 all-time QB (have no idea where to rank him historically) you are saying that 150 guys are capable of what Brady has done in that situation. That's beyond insane. The biggest reason that the Patriots machine has rolled IS HIM. They are well coached but would have won nothing without Brady. If the argument were that if you put Peyton Manning, Drew Brees or even Phillip Rivers in that situation the results would be similar it is more believable. Other HOF QBs MAY have been able to replicate Brady's career if given the same opportunity. To think that other random, serviceable QBs could do the same is just crazy. We all hate Tom Brady but to deny his accomplishments makes us just look jealous and desperate. He's great, probably the greatest of all-time. Hopefully his run is coming to an end soon and they can go back to being irrelevant. Edited October 20, 2016 by Kirby Jackson
Bills Fan in Beantown Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 I think it says enough that not one of us can't wait until he retires. Plain and simple.
PatsFanNH Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 Please. Saying the patriots cheated is not irrational. I've never said that Brady isn't great, or that Goodell is competent. But Brady and his organization have cheated. It's that simple. Deflecting the blame to the commissioner is pathetic. They were caught cheating with spygate. That's fact no reasonable person can argue against it. My point is simple that BOTH sides have logical arguments and like politics ya just are not going to sway someone one way or the other with your "proof". Thus a very BOTCHED investigation.
Augie Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 They were caught cheating with spygate. That's fact no reasonable person can argue against it. My point is simple that BOTH sides have logical arguments and like politics ya just are not going to sway someone one way or the other with your "proof". Thus a very BOTCHED investigation. Botching the investigation does not make them innocent.
thebandit27 Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 As for McNally, I bunch of former players said "who?" Then when they saw him they went oh "nick here" he goes by a nickname. Also if you read the transcripts Brady says he was calling about the SB AND deflategate, which is where Goodell goes and lies saying he stated deflategate wasn't talked about, Brady also said he had no need to ever talk to him before but with the SB coming up he wanted make sure he was focused on his job and he also talked to him about deflategate. (He said probably did) Its plausible he called for those reasons, it's also plausible he called cover it up. Also those "old" phones were really old they were pre Giselle. (I'm sure that didn't break outside of Boston lol) that said they Got all the data from it. This isn't the old days where destroying the phone destroys data. (My proof they received the texts from the phone is 1. Transcripts of appeal 2. Leaked Peyton M text) now could he have deleted said data then destroyed the phone, sure. But why destroy it if you deleted it??? I also don't think Goodell could do that? He either confirms/reduces/vacate the suspension but he can't change what it is for. I could be wrong about that though.. See the above is what I mean we BOTH have logical arguments, and I'm not saying your wrong, I don't know. I lean the other way because well the evidence I weight more is different than yours. Hell I am of the feeling that if it happened Yaz an Mac did it to keep Brady happy and Brady didn't give a rats butt how they did it as long as the balls were the way he wanted them. I don't mean that Goodell should've changed his reason for the suspension--he shouldn't have included in the terms of the original suspension that Brady had full knowledge of an apparent attempt to skirt the rules. He worded that too strongly. And yes, the whole investigation was conducted poorly. I don't deny that for a second. And I say all of this within the context of the issue only--I don't believe for one second that NE needed to do this in order to win; Brady is that good. Same thing with Spygate all those years ago: no need to do it, but they did.
PatsFanNH Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 (edited) Botching the investigation does not make them innocent.Absolutely! It also doesn't make them Guilty. I swear it was a pure WWE thing! The heel was getting less heat so BAM deflategate... which worked better than spygate because it made pats fan more snarky (and some douche) while refocusing the anger of the rest of the leagues fan base back on them. ( league went a few years without a really good heal ever since the Raiders failed ..) Oh and my son loves WWE right now so watching it a lot lol... Edited October 20, 2016 by PatsFanNH
TANK2 Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 unnecessary poll.. there is no doubt he is, and arguably the best ever to play the position Montana is better. 4 time Superbowl winner when the NFC was brutal. 3 time Superbowl MVP. No ints in his 4 appearances. Plus he didnt cheat. The cheatriots dubious bending of the rules matters when your average margin of victory in your 4 wins in the SB is 3.333 pts.
Maddog69 Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 The point is that if you go to Alex Smith who is maybe a top 150 all-time QB (have no idea where to rank him historically) you are saying that 150 guys are capable of what Brady has done in that situation. That's beyond insane. The biggest reason that the Patriots machine has rolled IS HIM. They are well coached but would have won nothing without Brady. If the argument were that if you put Peyton Manning, Drew Brees or even Phillip Rivers in that situation the results would be similar it is more believable. Other HOF QBs MAY have been able to replicate Brady's career if given the same opportunity. To think that other random, serviceable QBs could do the same is just crazy. We all hate Tom Brady but to deny his accomplishments makes us just look jealous and desperate. He's great, probably the greatest of all-time. Hopefully his run is coming to an end soon and they can go back to being irrelevant. That all makes perfect sense but how would you explain that there is no drop off in their win percentage when he is out? Take the Cowboys. Up until Dak showed up, Dallas had something like 1 win in games that Romo did not play over the last several years. The Pats still win just as consistently without Brady and the QBs who have played in his absence are certainly not great. Cassel moved on and was horrendous everywhere else. Maybe Brady is simply the best "system QB" pf all time.
PatsFanNH Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 That all makes perfect sense but how would you explain that there is no drop off in their win percentage when he is out? Take the Cowboys. Up until Dak showed up, Dallas had something like 1 win in games that Romo did not play over the last several years. The Pats still win just as consistently without Brady and the QBs who have played in his absence are certainly not great. Cassel moved on and was horrendous everywhere else. Maybe Brady is simply the best "system QB" pf all time. There is most def a drop off in win percentage when he is out.. going from 16-0 to 11-5 with exactly the same team is a drop off (not saying Brady have gone undefeated but he wins a few more of those games at least 2-3) this year I say he smokes the first 3 teams, and I dare say he score at least a couple times against Buffalo. (Not saying winning just playing better is all)
Gugny Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 And I say all of this within the context of the issue only--I don't believe for one second that NE needed to do this in order to win; Brady is that good. Same thing with Spygate all those years ago: no need to do it, but they did. it's the same sickness that afflicts people like Alex Rodriguez and Barry Bonds ... being the best simply isn't good enough. They feel the need to be the best by THIS MUCH. Mind-boggling.
Kirby Jackson Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 That all makes perfect sense but how would you explain that there is no drop off in their win percentage when he is out? Take the Cowboys. Up until Dak showed up, Dallas had something like 1 win in games that Romo did not play over the last several years. The Pats still win just as consistently without Brady and the QBs who have played in his absence are certainly not great. Cassel moved on and was horrendous everywhere else. Maybe Brady is simply the best "system QB" pf all time.There has been a drop off in win percentage. What years are you using? What have they won without Brady? They missed the playoffs the season that he missed. He's made the playoffs every other season besides his 1st as a full-time starter. He's played in 6 Super Bowls and won 4!!
PatsFanNH Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 There has been a drop off in win percentage. What years are you using? What have they won without Brady? They missed the playoffs the season that he missed. He's made the playoffs every other season besides his 1st as a full-time starter. He's played in 6 Super Bowls and won 4!! Slight correction they made the playoffs every year but his second year as a starter. (2002)
section122 Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 Clearly something went on, and to deny that would be to toss by the wayside some seriously incriminating behavior by all 3 parties. I hate to be conspiracy theory guy but this is what I have thought for a long time now. I think the Pats* got caught cheating again and that is why the team took the punishment. No way Kraft lays down a first round pick and money for no reason or to be a good soldier. It has always sat wrong with me that the spygate tapes were immediately destroyed. What was the point of that unless there was more to it than we know. A second go round of cheating and I could see the league office and other owners not being happy about it. If you recall the week before Brady was incredibly smug about "maybe they need to learn the rule book" with their substitutions and eligible receivers in the Ravens game. Ultimately I can't see the league digging in on this issue for no reason. It makes more sense to me that they are digging in but not disclosing the true reason as it would be bad for the league than just to get Brady and the Pats*. The point is that if you go to Alex Smith who is maybe a top 150 all-time QB (have no idea where to rank him historically) you are saying that 150 guys are capable of what Brady has done in that situation. That's beyond insane. The biggest reason that the Patriots machine has rolled IS HIM. They are well coached but would have won nothing without Brady. If the argument were that if you put Peyton Manning, Drew Brees or even Phillip Rivers in that situation the results would be similar it is more believable. Other HOF QBs MAY have been able to replicate Brady's career if given the same opportunity. To think that other random, serviceable QBs could do the same is just crazy. We all hate Tom Brady but to deny his accomplishments makes us just look jealous and desperate. He's great, probably the greatest of all-time. Hopefully his run is coming to an end soon and they can go back to being irrelevant. I want to start with I agree that Brady is great and a first ballot lock. Now to say they would have done nothing without Brady is a bit of revisionist history. In the first SB win he went 16-27 for 145 yards. In the next 2 he played very well but all 3 games were 3 point or less wins. In the 4th the Seahawks blew it. So 2 Super Bowls were won on Vinatieri's leg and 2 sealed by the defense. I agree that Alex Smith isn't Tom Brady but I do think that he has been aided throughout his career by playing for (imo) the best coach of all time. They make each other so I won't say that his success is all BB or vice versa just that he landed in a perfect spot for a QB and he took that opportunity and ran with it. I think if you switch Manning and Brady the conversation switches about which is clutch and which is a playoff choker. Brady always had the better coach and most years had the better team.
PatsFanNH Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 (edited) That all makes perfect sense but how would you explain that there is no drop off in their win percentage when he is out? Take the Cowboys. Up until Dak showed up, Dallas had something like 1 win in games that Romo did not play over the last several years. The Pats still win just as consistently without Brady and the QBs who have played in his absence are certainly not great. Cassel moved on and was horrendous everywhere else. Maybe Brady is simply the best "system QB" pf all time. Every Great QB has a Great coach...they seem to go hand and hand. Mind you before Brady the Pats were 5-11 and off to a 0-2 start with Bledsoe and I am pretty sure if. Bledsoe had not gotten hurt they finish probably 5-11 again. Edited October 20, 2016 by PatsFanNH
Gugny Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 Every Great QB has a Great coach... I disagree. Kelly had Marv Levy.
PatsFanNH Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 I disagree. Kelly had Marv Levy. You don't think Marc was a great Coach?
Kirby Jackson Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 (edited) Slight correction they made the playoffs every year but his second year as a starter. (2002)That was his first FULL year (as I said). He relieved Bledsoe in 2001. Typical Pats fan, forgot everything pre-Brady . Edited October 20, 2016 by Kirby Jackson
Gugny Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 You don't think Marc was a great Coach? A great coach wins a !@#$ing Super Bowl.
KD in CA Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 There has been a drop off in win percentage. What years are you using? What have they won without Brady? They missed the playoffs the season that he missed. He's made the playoffs every other season besides his 1st as a full-time starter. He's played in 6 Super Bowls and won 4!! That's a disingenuous argument and you know it; teams can't always control the circumstance of what record will get you in the playoffs. 2008 was an unusual year. That said, 11-5 plus 3-1 this year is a 70% win pct (vs Brady's 77%) so you are correct that there is a difference. Plus Brady usually plays his best in big moments and that's hard to quantify with stats but it's part of what sets him apart. That was his first FULL year (as I said). He relieved Bledsoe in 2001. Typical Pats fan, forgot everything pre-Brady . Well there were no Pats* fans pre-Brady so you can understand his mistake.
Recommended Posts