#DFG: Canceling the Noise

Is there any level of suspension that you would advise Tom to accept?


  • Total voters
    208

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
40,125
Rotten Apple
Marciano490 said:
I forget the timeline, but didn't Rice look Goodell in the eye and lie and Roger bought it?
Roger testified in the appeal that Rice told him it was a only slap. When Rice took the stand Rice said that's a lie and insisted that Rice told Roger that was no slap, Rice hit her and she fell and hit her head on the floor which knocked her out. Kessler ripped Roger on this in the appeal and won.
 

naclone

lurker
Jul 15, 2005
130
NYC
The key is that Roger hasnt been involved directly. He gets to say, "Look, Wells/Pash/Vincent got things MOSTLY right. And I can see why Ted would err on the side of not believing Brady. But now I'm here. And Im a MUCH better judge of character. So now that I've looked Brady in the eye and gotten to the bottom of this whole thing - blown it wide open - solved the case - landed the plane - our long national nightmare is over and the healing can begin.

Roger is the hero, saves face for his team, and stays out of court where he surely will get smoked.

Seems like his MO to me.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
40,125
Rotten Apple
Let's be clear on the Brady case. Roger is not going to give one inch. Not one. All the PR stars are aligned in his favor here. The league office, the owners, the media, and all the non-Pats fans want love this punishment and want it to stick. Roger may lose in court but don't expect any favors at all until then.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,591
ifmanis5 said:
Let's be clear on the Brady case. Roger is not going to give one inch. Not one. All the PR stars are aligned in his favor here. The league office, the owners, the media, and all the non-Pats fans want love this punishment and want it to stick. Roger may lose in court but don't expect any favors at all until then.
This. The Artless Roger is choosing to rebuild his moral authority over this nothing of a case. Kensil and Vincent riled up all the idiots and gave him the platform to do it. Unfortunately for him it's the perfect platform for the NFLPA to launch a war over.
 

naclone

lurker
Jul 15, 2005
130
NYC
nighthob said:
This. The Artless Roger is choosing to rebuild his moral authority over this nothing of a case. Kensil and Vincent riled up all the idiots and gave him the platform to do it. Unfortunately for him it's the perfect platform for the NFLPA to launch a war over.
Won't this war end with his power - at least as the chief disciplinarian - dismantled? Wouldn't he want to avoid that?
 

koufax32

He'll cry if he wants to...
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2006
7,243
Duval
naclone said:
Won't this war end with his power - at least as the chief disciplinarian - dismantled? Wouldn't he want to avoid that?
That is a long term result. It also doesn't threaten his employment. Another show of weakness and incompetence does threaten his job though. Think of a coach who is on the hot seat. Does he continue to develop the young guys and take the growing pains that go with it? Or does he play the veterans in an attempt to show some kind of competence record wise to save his job? Ideally both goals would mesh together but if forced to choose he will always sacrifice what's best for the team on the altar of the immediate.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,591
naclone said:
Won't this war end with his power - at least as the chief disciplinarian - dismantled? Wouldn't he want to avoid that?
 
It may not have dawned on him yet that his contract isn't going to be renewed. He has obviously turned the league office into an echo chamber where everyone is telling him what he wants to hear. When the NFLPA wins this one in a rout the minority of owners that want rid of him are going to find a lot of new allies.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Gorton Fisherman said:
Not for nothing, but Goodell wouldn't be the first dumbass, in-over-his-head doofus put in charge of a major enterprise who put a ton of stock into his ability to look into someone's eyes and divine some sort of inner truth.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/07/close-encounters-with-vladimir-putin-what-joe-biden-and-george-w-bush-saw/
I think it's funny and am Sympatico enough. But you know this thread probably is on the ropes, right? Add a dash of politics, and the thread probably winds up on a funeral pyre.
 

Gorton Fisherman

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 26, 2002
2,106
Port Orange, FL
You may be right. Dopes: if I have transgressed, I throw myself on the mercy of the court; please delete my post and spare the thread. I just thought the resemblance was uncanny.
 

mwonow

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 4, 2005
5,476
ifmanis5 said:
Looking forward to Goodell's autobiography also entitled THE DECIDER.
 
I believe it's more probable than not that the cost of said autobiography will be automatically added to your cable/phone/Internet subscriptions, in accordance with terms implied in some of the text you glazed over while looking for the "I Agree" button.
 

nattysez

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
4,456
jsinger121 said:
 
I'd sue if I am the NFLPA to get this thing going as quickly as possible so the league doesn't continue to drag its feat which they are.
 
Well, Brady likely wants this scheduled at a time that's convenient for him.  He needs to travel to NY, meet with his attorneys for at least a day, then go meet Goodell.  So it may be fine with him to wait a few extra days.  He probably did not want to work over the long weekend to prepare for a hearing (nor did his attorneys, I expect).
 
Also, you can't go running to court every time the NFL misses a deadline.  The judge will consider that a waste of everyone's time and it makes you look bad.  If the appeal isn't scheduled by the end of next week, then you start threatening to sue.  Until then, the NFL will just sell this as a short delay to give everyone time to get ready.
 
The wheels of justice turn slowly.
 

mwonow

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 4, 2005
5,476
jsinger121 said:
 
I'd sue if I am the NFLPA to get this thing going as quickly as possible so the league doesn't continue to drag its feat which they are.
 
I read some of the earlier stuff as saying that extensions beyond the window require both the union and the league to agree. What if the league doesn't assent? What happens if Goodell just refuses to hear the appeal in the designated period? Does it just die? Does Brady win in a walkover?
 

nattysez

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
4,456
Ian Rapoport claims that the Weds. deadline is for setting a date for the hearing, not for the hearing itself (so the NFL could just set the hearing date on Weds. and there'd be no issue).  The reporting on all of this stuff is so slipshod, it's incredible.  Why even bother to report anything if you don't know what the CBA requires?  
 

SuperManny

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
596
Washington, DC
nattysez said:
Ian Rapoport claims that the Weds. deadline is for setting a date for the hearing, not for the hearing itself (so the NFL could just set the hearing date on Weds. and there'd be no issue).  The reporting on all of this stuff is so slipshod, it's incredible.  Why even bother to report anything if you don't know what the CBA requires?  
 
Since there seems to be some confusion, I found the section in the CBA (document p.205, PDF p.220). The wording isn't clear but I read it as it "should occur within 10 days". I don't think "commence" would be there if it only needed to be scheduled. There is also text further down that says it should be heard 8 to 13 days after the suspension but I'm not sure if that references suspensions issued during the playing season.
 
2011 NFL CBA
 
 
[SIZE=12pt]Scheduling.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Appeal hearings under Section 1(a) will be scheduled to commence within ten (10) days following receipt of the notice of appeal, except that hearings on suspensions issued during the playing season (defined for this Section as the first preseason game through the Super Bowl) will be scheduled for the second Tuesday following the receipt of the notice of appeal, with the intent that the appeal shall be heard no fewer than eight (8) days and no more than thirteen (13) days following the suspension, absent mutual agreement of the parties or a finding by the hearing officer of extenuating circumstances. If unavailability of counsel is the basis for a continuance, a new hearing shall be scheduled on or before the Tuesday following the orignal hearing date, without exception.[/SIZE]
 

mwonow

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 4, 2005
5,476
SuperManny said:
 
Since there seems to be some confusion, I found the section in the CBA (document p.205, PDF p.220). The wording isn't clear but I read it as it "should occur within 10 days". I don't think "commence" would be there if it only needed to be scheduled. There is also text further down that says it should be heard 8 to 13 days after the suspension but I'm not sure if that references suspensions issued during the playing season.
 
2011 NFL CBA
 
 
Thanks! But the phrase you quote says "will be scheduled to commence within 10 days" not "should occur within ten days." That's a pretty significant difference...
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
18,664
Portsmouth, NH
mwonow said:
 
Thanks! But the phrase you quote says "will be scheduled to commence within 10 days" not "should occur within ten days." That's a pretty significant difference...
Huh? The phrase is saying it should commence on ten days. Not that the scheduling should happen in ten days.
 

wiffleballhero

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 28, 2009
2,214
In the simulacrum
commence=begin.
 
If the 10 day window only was in reference to the actual schedule, it would be either redundant or (at best) syntactically strained to suggest that 'commence' is in reference to the act of scheduling. 
 
Grammatically, 'the appeal hearing' itself is that which will 'commence.'It is not the scheduling of the hearing.
 
But whatever, the NFL just makes things up as they go and it is also not clear what the function of 'be scheduled to' is in this sentence. It is as if the rule is that they must be scheduled for a certain day, but it does not matter if the schedule is kept. Why not just write that 'appeal hearings will begin within ten days ...'
 
Also, as the passage goes on, it is clearly about the actual hearing, not the schedule, since they include the language about 'scheduled for the second Tuesday ...'
 

Hoya81

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 3, 2010
4,665
http://mmqb.si.com/2015/05/24/memorial-day-nfl-veterans-tom-brady-deflategate/4/

Greg Bedard in today's MMQB.

"Patriots supporters will continue poke holes in the Wells Report for their side. Someone can easily do it for the other side. If the Patriots did do something to the footballs for the AFC Championship Game, it wasn’t their first rodeo. Why didn’t Wells interview each referee and equipment manager from every Patriots game from last season? There’s a rumor in NFL circles that something went on with the Patriots’ game at Green Bay, and the league office knows that. Yet Wells did not interview referee Ed Hochuli, nor Packers equipment manager Red Batty. Why not? The investigation was incomplete. If there was a pattern, it could have enhanced the NFL’s case. If there was not a pattern, it also would have put the one-game allegations against the Patriots into a different context as well. Wells probably didn’t go there because he didn’t whether it would help or hurt his case, and he didn’t want to take that chance."

Apologies if this has been mentioned before, but I had not seen this rumor about the Green Bay game. It seems strange that Bedard is throwing this out there since its been established that McNally doesn't travel with the team and the temperature in GB during the game (starting at 25 degrees and dropping thereafter) would account for PSI.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,156
Waltham, MA
mwonow said:
 
Thanks! But the phrase you quote says "will be scheduled to commence within 10 days" not "should occur within ten days." That's a pretty significant difference...
I don't think it's different at all. The "within 10 day" refers to "to commence". If it referred to "will be scheduled", then "to commence" is unnecessary and confusing.

With that being said, I agree with nattysez' assessment. They're not very liekly to play hardball around Memorial Day weekend.
 

amarshal2

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2005
4,765
Hoya81 said:
http://mmqb.si.com/2015/05/24/memorial-day-nfl-veterans-tom-brady-deflategate/4/

Greg Bedard in today's MMQB.

"Patriots supporters will continue poke holes in the Wells Report for their side. Someone can easily do it for the other side. If the Patriots did do something to the footballs for the AFC Championship Game, it wasn’t their first rodeo. Why didn’t Wells interview each referee and equipment manager from every Patriots game from last season? There’s a rumor in NFL circles that something went on with the Patriots’ game at Green Bay, and the league office knows that. Yet Wells did not interview referee Ed Hochuli, nor Packers equipment manager Red Batty. Why not? The investigation was incomplete. If there was a pattern, it could have enhanced the NFL’s case. If there was not a pattern, it also would have put the one-game allegations against the Patriots into a different context as well. Wells probably didn’t go there because he didn’t whether it would help or hurt his case, and he didn’t want to take that chance."

Apologies if this has been mentioned before, but I had not seen this rumor about the Green Bay game. It seems strange that Bedard is throwing this out there since its been established that McNally doesn't travel with the team and the temperature in GB during the game (starting at 25 degrees and dropping thereafter) would account for PSI.
One can easily make this case that this sort of brainless, lazy reporting of unsubstantiated rumors is the entire reason this controversy exists to begin with.
 

Silverdude2167

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 9, 2006
2,426
NYC
Hoya81 said:
http://mmqb.si.com/2015/05/24/memorial-day-nfl-veterans-tom-brady-deflategate/4/

Greg Bedard in today's MMQB.

"Patriots supporters will continue poke holes in the Wells Report for their side. Someone can easily do it for the other side. If the Patriots did do something to the footballs for the AFC Championship Game, it wasn’t their first rodeo. Why didn’t Wells interview each referee and equipment manager from every Patriots game from last season? There’s a rumor in NFL circles that something went on with the Patriots’ game at Green Bay, and the league office knows that. Yet Wells did not interview referee Ed Hochuli, nor Packers equipment manager Red Batty. Why not? The investigation was incomplete. If there was a pattern, it could have enhanced the NFL’s case. If there was not a pattern, it also would have put the one-game allegations against the Patriots into a different context as well. Wells probably didn’t go there because he didn’t whether it would help or hurt his case, and he didn’t want to take that chance."

Apologies if this has been mentioned before, but I had not seen this rumor about the Green Bay game. It seems strange that Bedard is throwing this out there since its been established that McNally doesn't travel with the team and the temperature in GB during the game (starting at 25 degrees and dropping thereafter) would account for PSI.
What the hell is Bedard talking about here? He seems to be attacking people who are finding issues with the report and then the last sentence basically places all the blame on Wells. If it is Wells fault for not investigating this then is it not the NFL's fault for not asking Wells to investigate it? People must be getting really bothered that there are so many holes in the report if they have to go this far into crazy town to come up with a defense.
 

Bleedred

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 21, 2001
7,565
Boston, MA
Silverdude2167 said:
What the hell is Bedard talking about here? He seems to be attacking people who are finding issues with the report and then the last sentence basically places all the blame on Wells. If it is Wells fault for not investigating this then is it not the NFL's fault for not asking Wells to investigate it? People must be getting really bothered that there are so many holes in the report if they have to go this far into crazy town to come up with a defense.
If this whole travesty of a non-issue has illuminated anything, it is that the vast vast swath of NFL reporters are either (i) dumb; (ii) lazy or (iii) dumb and lazy.  
 

Rheal With Cheese

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2004
66
BigSoxFan said:
There's a rumor in NFL circles that something went on in the Patriots/Packers game? What does that even mean? And how would the Patriots have messed with the balls on the road unless it was some obvious air deflation on the sidelines, which would theoretically be easy to verify. That's the kind of speculative, source-less reporting that has been killing the Patriots in the PR battle.
Upon rereading it a second time, the reference to the Packers equipment guy suggests it involved the other side. Would love to see that rumor fleshed out a bit more tho....
 
Sep 28, 2011
125
Rheal With Cheese said:
Upon rereading it a second time, the reference to the Packers equipment guy suggests it involved the other side. Would love to see that rumor fleshed out a bit more tho....
 
This doesn't: "If the Patriots did do something to the footballs for the AFC Championship Game, it wasn’t their first rodeo."
 
It is a really confusing paragraph.  He's basically saying Wells Report supporters can poke holes in the Patriots' argument because the report is incomplete.  Huh?
 

BlackJack

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 11, 2007
1,703
Peak Oil Can Boyd said:
 
This doesn't: "If the Patriots did do something to the footballs for the AFC Championship Game, it wasn’t their first rodeo."
 
It is a really confusing paragraph.  He's basically saying Wells Report supporters can poke holes in the Patriots' argument because the report is incomplete.  Huh?
I think what he's saying is that the 'other side' are people who think the report was a coverup in favor of the Patriots. That there was much more cheating and that it was essentially swept under the rug. It's nonsense, but I buy that there are people who think that. Stupid people mostly.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
26,920
Yeah, as was referenced here a few days back, you can certainly find folks who think Danny Ainge bit Tree Rollins. Still doesn't make that what really happened , though.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
18,664
Portsmouth, NH
BigSoxFan said:
There's a rumor in NFL circles that something went on in the Patriots/Packers game? What does that even mean? And how would the Patriots have messed with the balls on the road unless it was some obvious air deflation on the sidelines, which would theoretically be easy to verify. That's the kind of speculative, source-less reporting that has been killing the Patriots in the PR battle.
How would it be easy to verify?
 
Feb 19, 2015
3,173
What probably happened in the Packers game is the Pats submitted their balls at 12.5 PSI and the Packers submitted theirs at 15 PSI. Bring them into that kind of cold and voila, Pats balls deflate to 10 PSI and it looks like they're cheating, when the reality was the Pack was cheating.
 

mwonow

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 4, 2005
5,476
mwonow said:
 
Thanks! But the phrase you quote says "will be scheduled to commence within 10 days" not "should occur within ten days." That's a pretty significant difference...
 
Sorry, I should have been clearer - the text in the post says "should occur" while the quote from the CBA says "will" - stronger wording imo.
 
mwonow said:
 
I read some of the earlier stuff as saying that extensions beyond the window require both the union and the league to agree. What if the league doesn't assent? What happens if Goodell just refuses to hear the appeal in the designated period? Does it just die? Does Brady win in a walkover?
 
I'm still curious on this point. Is there any real downside to the NFL saying "we'll deal with this if/when we're good and ready"?
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
12,726
Mansfield MA
Hoya81 said:
http://mmqb.si.com/2015/05/24/memorial-day-nfl-veterans-tom-brady-deflategate/4/

Greg Bedard in today's MMQB.

"Patriots supporters will continue poke holes in the Wells Report for their side. Someone can easily do it for the other side. If the Patriots did do something to the footballs for the AFC Championship Game, it wasn’t their first rodeo. Why didn’t Wells interview each referee and equipment manager from every Patriots game from last season? There’s a rumor in NFL circles that something went on with the Patriots’ game at Green Bay, and the league office knows that. Yet Wells did not interview referee Ed Hochuli, nor Packers equipment manager Red Batty. Why not? The investigation was incomplete. If there was a pattern, it could have enhanced the NFL’s case. If there was not a pattern, it also would have put the one-game allegations against the Patriots into a different context as well. Wells probably didn’t go there because he didn’t whether it would help or hurt his case, and he didn’t want to take that chance."
Bedard's right that it's an enormous hole in the Wells Report that they didn't establish a pattern. The report mentions the note from Sean Sullivan (Colts equipment manager), forward by Grigson, that "it is well known throughout the league" that the ball boys deflate footballs after inspection. How far did they chase this lead? They interviewed Sullivan. Did he point them anywhere specific? They interviewed two Ravens coaches, but no one else from any other teams but New England and Baltimore.
 
That's important, because the timing of the "Deflator" text, the October texts, and the "jacket" text is irrelevant to the 1/18 game unless the Patriots were in a long pattern of tampering with footballs. I wonder if Wells et al set the scope of the investigation, or if the league did.
 

Joshv02

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,633
Brookline
Super Nomario said:
Bedard's right that it's an enormous hole in the Wells Report that they didn't establish a pattern. The report mentions the note from Sean Sullivan (Colts equipment manager), forward by Grigson, that "it is well known throughout the league" that the ball boys deflate footballs after inspection. How far did they chase this lead? They interviewed Sullivan. Did he point them anywhere specific? They interviewed two Ravens coaches, but no one else from any other teams but New England and Baltimore.
 
That's important, because the timing of the "Deflator" text, the October texts, and the "jacket" text is irrelevant to the 1/18 game unless the Patriots were in a long pattern of tampering with footballs. I wonder if Wells et al set the scope of the investigation, or if the league did.
Right.  But, note that we'd need a lot of blanks to be filled in if there was a strong allegation of a pattern as what is in the report now is, at best, contradictory on that front:
 
1. The timing of the "deflator" text makes little sense as proof of ill-intent absent a concerted plan prior to the 2014 season.
2. The (so far as I can tell, unrefuted idea) idea that Brady was upset that the balls were at 16 after the October jets game only works as part of a pattern if he was actually upset that his staff didn't deflate well enough. However,
3. The (so far as I can tell, unrefuted idea)  idea that Brady asked people to convey to the officials after the Jets game that balls should be inflated to 12.5 is hard to square with any idea of a concerted effort that included Brady prior to the Jets game. People who have a plan to break rules typically don't draw attention to the rule being broken.
 
I think they looked and came up short.  That is why they imply a longer term plan -- evidence prior to the 2014 season; lack of video evidence prior to 10 days before the AFCCG; the Colt's concerns that it is "well known..."; the implication that McNally is normally alone with the balls, but wasn't for the AFCCG -- but they can't actually come out and say it.  Its typical framing: you create the starting point by framing the narrative, which allows you to then tell the story using the background that you selected.  It is how you write a brief.  Many of those implications make little sense when looked at as actual allegations of wrong doing (McNally brazenly normally deflates footballs in the open of the officials locker room but has never been caught and there is no actual evidence of it!?) but rather than say that, it is implied, which leads to the future conclusion (McNally had to find a private place to deflate the footballs quickly) being a touch more reasonably.
 

BroodsSexton

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2006
9,469
guam
jsinger121 said:
 
I'd sue if I am the NFLPA to get this thing going as quickly as possible so the league doesn't continue to drag its feat which they are.
 
This is a nice typo that went unrecognized. 
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
23,668
Here
The idea that the NFL would cover up anything to help out the Patriots seems ludicrous, given how this entire fiasco has played out. I would be surprised if they didn't look to the past for a pattern, but we may never know, unless we find out during Brady's day in court.
 

Joshv02

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,633
Brookline
wiffleballhero said:
commence=begin.
 
If the 10 day window only was in reference to the actual schedule, it would be either redundant or (at best) syntactically strained to suggest that 'commence' is in reference to the act of scheduling. 
 
Grammatically, 'the appeal hearing' itself is that which will 'commence.'It is not the scheduling of the hearing.
 
But whatever, the NFL just makes things up as they go and it is also not clear what the function of 'be scheduled to' is in this sentence. It is as if the rule is that they must be scheduled for a certain day, but it does not matter if the schedule is kept. Why not just write that 'appeal hearings will begin within ten days ...'
 
Also, as the passage goes on, it is clearly about the actual hearing, not the schedule, since they include the language about 'scheduled for the second Tuesday ...'
Right. The CBA expressly says "the appeal shall be heard" between 8-13 days during the season, so it would make no sense to read the first half of the sentence as dealing with the timing of setting a future date, but the second half of the same sentence saying that an appeal will be heard between specific dates.
 
Its a bad way to read things.
 

Section15Box113

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2005
6,611
Inside Lou Gorman's Head
Joshv02 said:
Right.  But, note that we'd need a lot of blanks to be filled in if there was a strong allegation of a pattern as what is in the report now is, at best, contradictory on that front:
 
1. The timing of the "deflator" text makes little sense as proof of ill-intent absent a concerted plan prior to the 2014 season.
2. The (so far as I can tell, unrefuted idea) idea that Brady was upset that the balls were at 16 after the October jets game only works as part of a pattern if he was actually upset that his staff didn't deflate well enough. However,
3. The (so far as I can tell, unrefuted idea)  idea that Brady asked people to convey to the officials after the Jets game that balls should be inflated to 12.5 is hard to square with any idea of a concerted effort that included Brady prior to the Jets game. People who have a plan to break rules typically don't draw attention to the rule being broken.
 
I think they looked and came up short.  That is why they imply a longer term plan -- evidence prior to the 2014 season; lack of video evidence prior to 10 days before the AFCCG; the Colt's concerns that it is "well known..."; the implication that McNally is normally alone with the balls, but wasn't for the AFCCG -- but they can't actually come out and say it.  Its typical framing: you create the starting point by framing the narrative, which allows you to then tell the story using the background that you selected.  It is how you write a brief.  Many of those implications make little sense when looked at as actual allegations of wrong doing (McNally brazenly normally deflates footballs in the open of the officials locker room but has never been caught and there is no actual evidence of it!?) but rather than say that, it is implied, which leads to the future conclusion (McNally had to find a private place to deflate the footballs quickly) being a touch more reasonably.
4. Proof that the balls were intentionally deflated post-inspection.

Hate to harp on it, but we still don't have that.

Carry on.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
40,125
Rotten Apple
If the NFL was aware of wacky balls then all the more reasons that a) The NFL should have reached out to the Pats and officially warned them to stop it and b) The rumors led to the sting operation to catch the Pats in the act which seems to have happened despite all the denials.
 

amarshal2

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2005
4,765
Joshv02 said:
Right.  But, note that we'd need a lot of blanks to be filled in if there was a strong allegation of a pattern as what is in the report now is, at best, contradictory on that front:
 
1. The timing of the "deflator" text makes little sense as proof of ill-intent absent a concerted plan prior to the 2014 season.
2. The (so far as I can tell, unrefuted idea) idea that Brady was upset that the balls were at 16 after the October jets game only works as part of a pattern if he was actually upset that his staff didn't deflate well enough. However,
3. The (so far as I can tell, unrefuted idea)  idea that Brady asked people to convey to the officials after the Jets game that balls should be inflated to 12.5 is hard to square with any idea of a concerted effort that included Brady prior to the Jets game. People who have a plan to break rules typically don't draw attention to the rule being broken.
 
I think they looked and came up short.  That is why they imply a longer term plan -- evidence prior to the 2014 season; lack of video evidence prior to 10 days before the AFCCG; the Colt's concerns that it is "well known..."; the implication that McNally is normally alone with the balls, but wasn't for the AFCCG -- but they can't actually come out and say it.  Its typical framing: you create the starting point by framing the narrative, which allows you to then tell the story using the background that you selected.  It is how you write a brief.  Many of those implications make little sense when looked at as actual allegations of wrong doing (McNally brazenly normally deflates footballs in the open of the officials locker room but has never been caught and there is no actual evidence of it!?) but rather than say that, it is implied, which leads to the future conclusion (McNally had to find a private place to deflate the footballs quickly) being a touch more reasonably.
According to Goddell's public comments that was one of the reasons for the delay. He was on some show ~week before the report came out talking about how Wells had to figure out if the AFCCG was the first time or if there were others. I remember this as it was noteworthy his choice of words assumed guilt but was told I was reading into it too much. I can't find the link.

Edit: got it via PM

I think it's hard because you want to make sure you have all the information," he said. "One of the things that he would be asked to look for: Was it just one game?"
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nfl-commissioner-roger-goodell-player-misconduct-policy-concussion-settlement-deflategate/
 

BlackJack

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 11, 2007
1,703
Ed Hillel said:
The idea that the NFL would cover up anything to help out the Patriots seems ludicrous, given how this entire fiasco has played out. I would be surprised if they didn't look to the past for a pattern, but we may never know, unless we find out during Brady's day in court.
I agree completely. And yet there are people who say that Goodell covered up spygate (he destroyed the tapes!!1!) and went easy on the Pats in that instance. This is one of the problems of having such an over the top punishment for minor transgressions. It makes people think that there must have been something really bad going on. And if the known facts of what was done doesn't line up with the punishment, then the 'real' story must have been swept under the rug. It's a stupid circle.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
18,790
Newton
ifmanis5 said:
If the NFL was aware of wacky balls then all the more reasons that a) The NFL should have reached out to the Pats and officially warned them to stop it and b) The rumors led to the sting operation to catch the Pats in the act which seems to have happened despite all the denials.
To play devils advocate, other than it not being in the Wells Report, who's to say they haven't told the Patriots to knock it off before? Or knock something off?

I continue to be interested by the number of reputational complaints about the Patriots – from Bedard's GB claim and owners saying the league "had enough on them," to the stories about stolen playbook and even that crazy-ass paranoid article on Yahoo Sports back in February about the positioning of the Jumbotron at Gillette. The sheer volume of these complaints is literally the only thing that gives me pause about any of this as a Pats fan, including the texts which I don't think suggest much less prove a thing: the fact that there seems to be such certainty around the league that the Patriots are institutional cheaters and where there is smoke there must be fire.

At the risk of being a broken record, I think the league has a deeply embedded culture of gamesmanship that Goodell has worked hard to suppress – from Spygate to Bountygate. And to my eyes, it would appear that Deflategate is simply the latest example of Goodell making an example of an organization that gets caught doing one of the myriad unsavory things that every team in his league does because A) he wants to maintain a wholesome aura of "fair play" and integrity and B) he does not want to suggest these infractions are anything more than outliers. Thus, every one of these issues is settled in some form on a case-by-case basis and appears to occur in a vacuum, not as part of any larger pattern of misbehavior.

To me, this is the forest through the trees on Deflategate – and it is only a matter of time before someone doesn't roll over for him. Which is precisely why I still think it's possible, if not likely, that Goodell overturns Brady's suspension.
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
5,210
http://mmqb.si.com/2015/05/24/memorial-day-nfl-veterans-tom-brady-deflategate/4/

Greg Bedard in today's MMQB.

"Patriots supporters will continue poke holes in the Wells Report for their side. Someone can easily do it for the other side. If the Patriots did do something to the footballs for the AFC Championship Game, it wasn’t their first rodeo. Why didn’t Wells interview each referee and equipment manager from every Patriots game from last season? There’s a rumor in NFL circles that something went on with the Patriots’ game at Green Bay, and the league office knows that. Yet Wells did not interview referee Ed Hochuli, nor Packers equipment manager Red Batty. Why not? The investigation was incomplete. If there was a pattern, it could have enhanced the NFL’s case. If there was not a pattern, it also would have put the one-game allegations against the Patriots into a different context as well. Wells probably didn’t go there because he didn’t whether it would help or hurt his case, and he didn’t want to take that chance."

Apologies if this has been mentioned before, but I had not seen this rumor about the Green Bay game. It seems strange that Bedard is throwing this out there since its been established that McNally doesn't travel with the team and the temperature in GB during the game (starting at 25 degrees and dropping thereafter) would account for PSI.
If it is so easy to do, why doesn't he actually do it instead of simply spreading rumors? The national sports reporters are so lazy.