#DFG: Canceling the Noise

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


  • Total voters
    208

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,592
Here
Thinking again about the texts, McNally's labeling of himself as "the deflator" doesn't do enough for me, since that could easily just refer to the fact that he's constantly deflating footballs during the week to get them down to how Tom wants them, which could be a legal limit (12.5). The stress texts don't get there for me either, since many people have stated it takes hours of pre-game preparation to get footballs right before they are handed to the refs, and Brady probably gets pissed at him if they aren't exactly right. Drawing a quid pro quo conclusion from the shoes comments seems ridiculous to me, so that's a no-go. The one text I'd really want to find out more about is the "I haven't gone to ESPN...yet." To me, that's the single strongest piece of evidence to support Wells' conclusion. The science is completely fudged in the report, particularly since we don't have pregame readings, we don't know which gauge was used pregame, Anderson would have reason to toe the company line with the pregame readings, etc. So the science isn't really persuasive, extra negative points to Exponent being involved there. But I'd like to know more about that ESPN comment. Surely, one of the individuals interviewed had to have given more context than Wells indicated, right? I'm sure it was more than "I was joking," too, which is all the report gives. Joking how? What's the rest of the context provided?
 
Can anyone else come up with a potential reasonable explanation for the going to ESPN comment? I know we're all grasping at straws, since we don't have any context, but I'm trying to find any logical context where it could not be incriminating.
 

ALiveH

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,104
the hypotethetical youtube video makers that would disprove your soundbite don't matter.  just like the temperature explanation barely registered (continues to barely register) in the national media.
 

SeoulSoxFan

I Want to Hit the World with Rocket Punch
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
22,090
A Scud Away from Hell
NickEsasky said:
Disclaimer: I am a diehard Pats fan.
 
That said, if the Patriots stopped doing shit to skirt the rules then they wouldn't have anything to worry about. Say what you want about how big a deal either this or SpyGate were in terms of effect on outcomes, the bottom line is the Pats did something wrong. 
 
Except Nick, they're literally doing things that other teams are "skirting by" with.
 
Hey, did you know that the Vikings and Panthers were caught heating the balls up during the game on live broadcast? As in, specifically violating a league rule and have video evidence to prove it? (Talk about getting caught red-handed, lol). 
 
Wait, the pitch-forked mob does not know? Where's the Wells report on that? That's right. It's the VIKINGS and the PANTHERS.
 
Patriots will always wear a big red bullseye on their backs (or on their balls) as long as they keep winning. 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cryMVK1PwuQ
 

Nick Kaufman

protector of human kind from spoilers
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2003
13,410
A Lost Time
This whole thing is depressing. The correct response to this crisis should have been from the beginning "who cares" and "get a grip". Instead the Patriots staked their ground on the "we didn't do anything" front and it's patently obvious that something funny did happen and they can't backtrack now. The PR hit has been inflicted, we are going to get this grossly overinflated shit for years thrown at our faces. It sucks and it stinks and it sucks.
 
As for the majority of the people here, I am sorry to say, you are bending yourself backwards to find the most convoluted explanation that expulcates Brady from this, even though more probable than not he did have his hand in this.

It's also ironic to accuse the rest of the world as being haters driven by blinders when we, as Pats fans, have a vested interest in engaging in motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning is one of the strongest forces in the world and each and everyone of us should be very concious of it in ourselves, especially when we accuse other people of partaking in it while considering ourselves the objective perveyors of truth.
 
And yes i do realize that this last sentence can be used against the point I am making in my post as well.
 

HowBoutDemSox

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2009
10,104
Ed Hillel said:
Can anyone else come up with a potential reasonable explanation for the going to ESPN comment? I know we're all grasping at straws, since we don't have any context, but I'm trying to find any logical context where it could not be incriminating.
"Brady is such a prima donna about getting these balls to exactly 12.5, if I were to tell people in the media about what an entitle child he is about getting balls to 12.5, it's be all over PTI!"
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,402
Ed Hillel said:
Thinking again about the texts, McNally's labeling of himself as "the deflator" doesn't do enough for me, since that could easily just refer to the fact that he's constantly deflating footballs during the week to get them down to how Tom wants them, which could be a legal limit (12.5). The stress texts don't get there for me either, since many people have stated it takes hours of pre-game preparation to get footballs right before they are handed to the refs, and Brady probably gets pissed at him if they aren't exactly right. Drawing a quid pro quo conclusion from the shoes comments seems ridiculous to me, so that's a no-go. The one text I'd really want to find out more about is the "I haven't gone to ESPN...yet." To me, that's the single strongest piece of evidence to support Wells' conclusion. The science is completely fudged in the report, particularly since we don't have pregame readings, we don't know which gauge was used pregame, Anderson would have reason to toe the company line with the pregame readings, etc. So the science isn't really persuasive, extra negative points to Exponent being involved there. But I'd like to know more about that ESPN comment. Surely, one of the individuals interviewed had to have given more context than Wells indicated, right?
 
Can anyone else come up with a potential reasonable explanation for the going to ESPN comment? I know we're all grasping at straws, since we don't have any context, but I'm trying to find any logical context where it could not be incriminating.
 
 
i don't think McNally would be around during the week doing anything.
 
As for the ESPN comment, many possibilities. It could range from something rather innocuous but bizarre like the Pats rub the footballs with Camel's milk in their prep to something more serious such as the equipment guys were in cahoots with the NFL officials doing the game ball black market ops or doing something similar on their own.
 

PBDWake

Member
SoSH Member
May 1, 2008
3,686
Peabody, MA
Ed Hillel said:
Can anyone else come up with a potential reasonable explanation for the going to ESPN comment? I know we're all grasping at straws, since we don't have any context, but I'm trying to find any logical context where it could not be incriminating.
 
I don't have much, but to be honest, before Deflategate, would "Tom has us deflate the balls to a little below the legal limit before games!" have ranked up on things you thought would have been worth the level of coverage it's gotten? If the fuck Tom stuff is genuine stress, he could be planning on talking about what a douchebag Tom is to the team employees, the shit he talks about other players, any number of things a person inside an organization might have on someone who never noticed them and therefore never filtered themselves around.
 
Of course, he could be talking about Deflategate. We don't know, and we don't have the context of the conversation. I feel like if the context was more incriminating, we would have gotten it though.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
Ed Hillel said:
Can anyone else come up with a potential reasonable explanation for the going to ESPN comment? I know we're all grasping at straws, since we don't have any context, but I'm trying to find any logical context where it could not be incriminating.
Given the number of texts referencing the refs getting the pressure wrong it's safe to say that he probably adjusted them down to the low end of the legal spec at least once to help out his buddy (the equipment manager).
 

Bongorific

Thinks he’s clever
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,434
Balboa Towers
Ed Hillel said:
Thinking again about the texts, McNally's labeling of himself as "the deflator" doesn't do enough for me, since that could easily just refer to the fact that he's constantly deflating footballs during the week to get them down to how Tom wants them, which could be a legal limit (12.5). The stress texts don't get there for me either, since many people have stated it takes hours of pre-game preparation to get footballs right before they are handed to the refs, and Brady probably gets pissed at him if they aren't exactly right. Drawing a quid pro quo conclusion from the shoes comments seems ridiculous to me, so that's a no-go. The one text I'd really want to find out more about is the "I haven't gone to ESPN...yet." To me, that's the single strongest piece of evidence to support Wells' conclusion. The science is completely fudged in the report, particularly since we don't have pregame readings, we don't know which gauge was used pregame, Anderson would have reason to toe the company line with the pregame readings, etc. So the science isn't really persuasive, extra negative points to Exponent being involved there. But I'd like to know more about that ESPN comment. Surely, one of the individuals interviewed had to have given more context than Wells indicated, right?
 
Can anyone else come up with a potential reasonable explanation for the going to ESPN comment? I know we're all grasping at straws, since we don't have any context, but I'm trying to find any logical context where it could not be incriminating.
I can't explain it because there's no context. That text occurred in May 2014. The report suggests that memorabilia given to McNally after the 2014 regular season was a thank you or payment for conducting illegal activity. But the "Jimmy needs some kicks...let's make a deal....come on help the deflator" and "chill buddy im just fucking with you...I'm not going to espn...yet" texts came 8 months before that.

It doesn't seem definitive to me, and in fact seems unlikely, that McNally is asking for payment for being the "deflator" in the middle of the off season. We also have no idea what these jabrones were talking about in that time frame. I'm sure every locker room attendant from every team has some great stories ESPN would love. So and so has a small weenie, so and so is cheating on his wife. McNally might say "I'm going to ESPN" all the time to joke around and feel important.
 

SeoulSoxFan

I Want to Hit the World with Rocket Punch
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
22,090
A Scud Away from Hell
Kenny F'ing Powers said:
 
So, some people think one thing, some think something else, and people don't want the starting QB for their team punished without actual evidence?
 
You fucking nailed it, champ.
 
No one cuts through BS with fewer words than KFP. 
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,897
Los Angeles, CA
nighthob said:
Because the team turned over the full records of all team phones to the investigators.
Okay, you lost me then. The post you replied to was:
Well, what if the Jamokes had deleted some or all of their emails? Examining TB's would be a normal way to cross-check w/not PW had all pertinent emails.
This is supporting the notion that Wells had a valid reason to want to view Brady's phone. You replied:
Texts don't travel from my phone to yours directly. Put another way, much like email there's always a record.
I don't get this comment in the above context. Yes, obviously, both the sender and receiver have copies of the communication. The above comment seems to be implying something else.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,592
Here
Nick Kaufman said:
This whole thing is depressing. The correct response to this crisis should have been from the beginning "who cares" and "get a grip". Instead the Patriots staked their ground on the "we didn't do anything front" and it's patently obvious that something funny did happen and they can't backtrack now. The PR hit has been inflicted, we are going to get this grossly overinflated shit for years thrown at our faces. It sucks and it stinks and it sucks.
As for the majority of the people here, I am sorry to say, you are bending yourself backwards to find the most convoluted explanation that expulcates Brady from this, even though more probable than not he did have his hand in this.

It's also ironic to accuse the rest of the world as being haters driven by blinders when we, as Pats fans, have a vested interest in engaging in motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning is one of the strongest forces in the world and each single one of us should be very concious of it in ourselves, especially when we accuse other people of partaking in it while considering ourselves as objective perveyors of it.
 
It was right before the Superbowl. That wasn't really a viable option, unless you want to risk losing your starting Quarterback for that game. The way it blew up in the media immediately, there's reason to believe a big hit would have come from Goodell, regardless of timing. This, again, is if we assume guilt. If we are acting under the premise Brady was guilty, the best move probably would have been to decline comment until a week or so after the Superbowl. If he's actually not guilty of anything, then obviously he hasn't done anything wrong. While I agree, it's probable that something happened, I also do see some reaslistic possibilities where nothing happened, so it's really tough to sit here and blast anyone for it.  
 

SeoulSoxFan

I Want to Hit the World with Rocket Punch
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
22,090
A Scud Away from Hell
lostjumper said:
Go easy on Seanberry guys. He's a jets fan. Posting in this thread is the closest he'll ever get to a Superbowl champion.
 
1k posts you have, young Jedi. Much learn you must do to know the way of SeanBerry.
 

Silverdude2167

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 9, 2006
4,684
Amstredam
Nick Kaufman said:
This whole thing is depressing. The correct response to this crisis should have been from the beginning "who cares" and "get a grip". Instead the Patriots staked their ground on the "we didn't do anything" front and it's patently obvious that something funny did happen and they can't backtrack now. The PR hit has been inflicted, we are going to get this grossly overinflated shit for years thrown at our faces. It sucks and it stinks and it sucks.
But what if they did nothing wrong? It has not been proven that anythign happened, so maybe they were telling the truth.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
PBDWake said:
I don't have much, but to be honest, before Deflategate, would "Tom has us deflate the balls to a little below the legal limit before games!" have ranked up on things you thought would have been worth the level of coverage it's gotten?
Worse still, think of what is actually going on in the text messages, essentially Wells' claim is that Brady was cheating to get footballs within the legal spec when he should have just been playing with the illegal ones like Aaron Rodgers.
 

MuppetAsteriskTalk

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2015
5,398
Filet-O-Fisk said:
I think the Wells report is incorrect regarding standard deviation, as discussed on p. 115. They say that the Patriots balls exhibited more variability because the SD was 0.41 and 0.40 based on the measurements at halftime, while the Colts balls had SDs of 0.16 and 0.14.   I think these numbers are wrong. I have SDs of 0.41 and 0.40 for the Pats balls (Prioleau and Blakeman, respectively) but I have 0.12 and 0.35 for the two readings of the Colts balls.  
What am I missing?  Where do the 0.16 and 0.14 SD values come from?  
Here are the Colts balls:
Blakeman: 12.7, 12.75, 12.5, 12.55
Prioleau: 12.35, 12.3, 12.95, 12.15
 
I get SDs of 0.12 and 0.35, respectively.   
 
Funny that Blakeman's readings for the Colts balls had a nice tight distribution just above the minimum required.  
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,592
Here
Bongorific said:
I can't explain it because there's no context. That text occurred in May 2014. The report suggests that memorabilia given to McNally after the 2014 regular season was a thank you or payment for conducting illegal activity. But the "Jimmy needs some kicks...let's make a deal....come on help the deflator" and "chill buddy im just fucking with you...I'm not going to espn...yet" texts came 8 months before that.

It doesn't seem definitive to me, and in fact seems unlikely, that McNally is asking for payment for being the "deflator" in the middle of the off season. We also have no idea what these jabrones were talking about in that time frame. I'm sure every locker room attendant from every team has some great stories ESPN would love. So and so has a small weenie, so and so is cheating on his wife. McNally might say "I'm going to ESPN" all the time to joke around and feel important.
 
Yeah, obviously the memorabilia argument is horseshit twice over on its face. Another thing is that Brady informed them specifically to bring the rule to the officials after the text, though I wonder if Brady wanted the footballs deflated after the refs overinflated them pregame because he was sick of the refs putting too much air in, and had absolutely no idea about the PSI issue. I wouldn't be surprised if this is a common issue in QB culture, where they're constantly complaining about the refs either adding too much or taking too much away, and it's always kind of been a game for QBs to get staff members to fix the issue before or during the game.
 
This goes back to the issue of the entire issue being wayyyy overblown, but does tend to lend credence to the argument that Brady probably did break the rules, even if he knew nothing about PSI levels, which is all that matters at this point.  
 
Brady is going to speak in the near future about all of this, and I will be really interested to see what he says when he has time to prepare his remarks.
 

Nick Kaufman

protector of human kind from spoilers
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2003
13,410
A Lost Time
It was right before the Superbowl. That wasn't really a viable option, unless you want to risk losing your starting Quarterback for that game. The way it blew up in the media immediately, there's reason to believe a big hit would have come from Goodell, regardless of timing. This, again, is if we assume guilt. If we are acting under the premise Brady was guilty, the best move probably would have been to decline comment until a week or so after the Superbowl. If he's actually not guilty of anything, then obviously he hasn't done anything wrong. While I agree, it's probable that something happened, I also do see some reaslistic possibilities where nothing happened, so it's really tough to sit here and blast anyone for it.
 
 
If I was Bellichick or Kraft, my answer would have been a mild denial of the form "as far as I know, no one has done anything illegal" and "we always take care to conform with the rules" followed by "with all due respect, can we get a grip here? Have we collectively lost our mind? We are talking about the most minor of minor infractions, the equivalent of a 58 in a 55 which likely doesn't make a lick of difference one way or another. The humanity. One QB had slightly squishier ball to throw with and that's why this team has been so successful these past 15 years.You know what? Regardless of what happens, to show you how much I think this is a bunch of hogwash, I hope that the NFL will consent that all of our opponents play with 1psi lower against us next year. I am willing to gift them this stupendously large competitive advantage. I do not mind one bit".
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,897
Los Angeles, CA
Ed Hillel said:
Thinking again about the texts, McNally's labeling of himself as "the deflator" doesn't do enough for me, since that could easily just refer to the fact that he's constantly deflating footballs during the week to get them down to how Tom wants them, which could be a legal limit (12.5)....
While I agree that "The Deflator" could be innocuous, it is at the very least, a very unfortunate coincidence, as virtually everyone outside of New England looks at it as a gotcha piece of evidence.

I'm curious, does the report mention anywhere what McNally's explanation of that nickname is? Or was he not asked because the nickname was not discovered until the texts were found, which was after the last interview?

I'd love to hear that answer. Sorry, on my phone, so difficult to search now.

Edit: formatting
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
Ed Hillel said:
 
It was right before the Superbowl. That wasn't really a viable option, unless you want to risk losing your starting Quarterback for that game. The way it blew up in the media immediately, there's reason to believe a big hit would have come from Goodell, regardless of timing. This, again, is if we assume guilt. If we are acting under the premise Brady was guilty, the best move probably would have been to decline comment until a week or so after the Superbowl. If he's actually not guilty of anything, then obviously he hasn't done anything wrong. While I agree, it's probable that something happened, I also do see some reaslistic possibilities where nothing happened, so it's really tough to sit here and blast anyone for it.  
This was my initial thought when I read Nick's post but there might have been a middle ground.
 
Brady might have simply said that he made it clear to the equipment guys that he wanted the balls to be closer to 12.5 than 13.5, and that he of course would never ask anyone to go below the NFL minimum.  That would have been much more of a "ho hum, yeah we manage the balls, just like we rub them down," instead of the "I know nothing, I have never heard of McNally" approach that he took.  It would have also been believable and I think it would have taken some of the air out of the growing controversy.
 
And I don't see how that would have risked Tom for the SB.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,278
@MarkDanielsPJ: I just got off the phone with Bradys agent, Don Yee. He said they wont be sending out any rebuttal about the Wells Report.
 

Doctor G

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 24, 2007
2,331
Ed Hillel said:
Thinking again about the texts, McNally's labeling of himself as "the deflator" doesn't do enough for me, since that could easily just refer to the fact that he's constantly deflating footballs during the week to get them down to how Tom wants them, which could be a legal limit (12.5). The stress texts don't get there for me either, since many people have stated it takes hours of pre-game preparation to get footballs right before they are handed to the refs, and Brady probably gets pissed at him if they aren't exactly right. Drawing a quid pro quo conclusion from the shoes comments seems ridiculous to me, so that's a no-go. The one text I'd really want to find out more about is the "I haven't gone to ESPN...yet." To me, that's the single strongest piece of evidence to support Wells' conclusion. The science is completely fudged in the report, particularly since we don't have pregame readings, we don't know which gauge was used pregame, Anderson would have reason to toe the company line with the pregame readings, etc. So the science isn't really persuasive, extra negative points to Exponent being involved there. But I'd like to know more about that ESPN comment. Surely, one of the individuals interviewed had to have given more context than Wells indicated, right? I'm sure it was more than "I was joking," too, which is all the report gives. Joking how? What's the rest of the context provided?
 
Can anyone else come up with a potential reasonable explanation for the going to ESPN comment? I know we're all grasping at straws, since we don't have any context, but I'm trying to find any logical context where it could not be incriminating.
This ESPN quote seems to me standard ball busting by a guy who clearly had  the impression that he wasn't getting his fair share of swag from  the next guy up the ladder in the swag department. This quote also might have influenced the Pats decision not to inform McNally of the investigators request for a fifth interview.
 

bougrj1

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
190
Marbleheader said:
Tom's post-football career plans may be taking a significant hit. He may just want to fade into the sunset, but if he has an ambitious career planned, he's going to have to fight this with vigor.
Pete Rose did just get hired by Fox...
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,592
Here
TheoShmeo said:
This was my initial thought when I read Nick's post but there might have been a middle ground.
 
Brady might have simply said that he made it clear to the equipment guys that he wanted the balls to be closer to 12.5 than 13.5, and that he of course would never ask anyone to go below the NFL minimum.  That would have been much more of a "ho hum, yeah we manage the balls, just like we rub them down," instead of the "I know nothing, I have never heard of McNally" approach that he took.  It would have also been believable and I think it would have taken some of the air out of the growing controversy.
 
And I don't see how that would have risked Tom for the SB.
 
I agree, but I don't think it's in Tom's nature to throw guys under the bus like that. I'd also like to know more about the comment of the "didn't know who McNally was." There's part of me that wonders if it was just tom using hyperbole to make a point and the investigators took it seriously and used it as such. Something like "I almost never talked to the guy, I barely even knew the guy's name." It seems like a strange thing for Tom to lie about, and if he was covering things up, I don't think he'd be that stupid.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
djbayko said:
This is supporting the notion that Wells had a valid reason to want to view Brady's phone. You replied:

I don't get this comment in the above context. Yes, obviously, both the sender and receiver have copies of the communication. The above comment seems to be implying something else.
Can you show me in the report where it says they don't have everything from the team or anywhere that the team hid anything from them? Even the security footage of McNally's pitstop was something that New England turned over pre-Wells without being asked. The investigators know every text to and from those phones. And they can get the records from them. If the Patriots had stonewalled them on that front you can bet that would have been in 18 point bold typed caps on page one. Because getting the Patriots, Belichick, and Brady in one bank shot is the holy trifecta. Verizon, t-Mobile, and Sprint all store the actual content of messages for at least one year, AT&T is forever. So, yes, the actual text messages are in the hands of the Wells' team because New England gave them the records relating to the team issued phones and they can just call them up.

When you go through the wording of the Wells report they are pretty clearly trying to imply what they're explicitly avoiding saying (because if they claimed that Brady was hiding texts from team personnel the NFL can't assert privilege over the phone records and at that point they've let themselves in for a world of pain if/when the whole thing ends up in the lap of an arbitrator).

This is why that part of the damned thing is chock full of weasel words. Again, if there were texts between Jastremski and Brady that they didn't have access to they would have trumpeted that fact right up on page one so that everyone would know what a dirty cheating cheater Brady was. But they explicitly avoid saying anything definitive.
 

Bongorific

Thinks he’s clever
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,434
Balboa Towers
djbayko said:
While I agree that "The Deflator" could be innocuous, it is at the very least, a very unfortunate coincidence, as virtually everyone outside of New England looks at it as a gotcha piece of evidence.

I'm curious, does the report mention anywhere what McNally's explanation of that nickname is? Or was he not asked because the nickname was not discovered until the texts were found, which was after the last interview?

I'd love to hear that answer. Sorry, on my phone, so difficult to search now.

Edit: formatting
According to the report, PW didn't learn of the nickname until after the 4th interview and did not have an opportunity to question him on the nickname.
 

Nick Kaufman

protector of human kind from spoilers
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2003
13,410
A Lost Time
 

If I was Bellichick or Kraft, my answer would have been a mild denial of the form "as far as I know, no one has done anything illegal" and "we always take care to conform with the rules" followed by "with all due respect, can we get a grip here? Have we collectively lost our mind? We are talking about the most minor of minor infractions, the equivalent of a 58 in a 55 which likely doesn't make a lick of difference one way or another. The humanity. One QB had slightly squishier ball to throw with and that's why this team has been so successful these past 15 years.You know what? Regardless of what happens, to show you how much I think this is a bunch of hogwash, I hope that the NFL will consent that all of our opponents play with 1psi lower against us next year. I am willing to gift them this stupendously large competitive advantage. I do not mind one bit".
 
 
I would also accompany this spiel with the universal sign for masterbation in the appropriate passages, but may be that's too over the top. :buddy:
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
11,619
My question is... what's the likelihood that BB has multiple balls of opponents taken out of play every game to make sure that they're within spec?  (is this possible?).  Probably won't happen because the league will now change it's policy about how balls are handled/measured/etc. because they now care about that more than they did before they found out the Patriots may have been possibly taking advantage of their lack of caring about their previous policy.
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
MuppetAsteriskTalk said:
 
Funny that Blakeman's readings for the Colts balls had a nice tight distribution just above the minimum required.  
 
Yeah what are the odds of that?  I mean, knowing that footballs lose pressure in cold weather environments, it's interesting that their footballs were right at or just above the minimum.  They must have gotten pretty lucky that their preferred starting point coincided with the ideal gas law for that temperature and time frame.  
 
Neat.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
Ed Hillel said:
 
I agree, but I don't think it's in Tom's nature to throw guys under the bus like that. I'd also like to know more about the comment of the "didn't know who McNally was." There's part of me that wonders if it was just tom using hyperbole to make a point and the investigators took it seriously and used it as such. Something like "I almost never talked to the guy, I barely even knew the guy's name." It seems like a strange thing for Tom to lie about, and if he was covering things up, I don't think he'd be that stupid.
There would have been a way to say what I wrote AND not thrown those guys under the bus.
 
Just add:
 
"I have no idea what happened but I have no doubt that the ball guys did not intend for the balls to be below 12.5.  I don't even know if the measurements were right -- I know nothing about science! -- but those guys would never do anything against the rules."
 
Easy.
 
The point isn't the exact wording.  It's that Tom could have casually said that the balls were worked on and no one wanted them below what the rules allow.  
 

86spike

Currently enjoying "Arli$$"
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2002
25,082
Procrasti Nation
Harry Hooper said:
 
 
i don't think McNally would be around during the week doing anything.
 
As for the ESPN comment, many possibilities. It could range from something rather innocuous but bizarre like the Pats rub the footballs with Camel's milk in their prep to something more serious such as the equipment guys were in cahoots with the NFL officials doing the game ball black market ops or doing something similar on their own.
McNally wasn't supposed to be doing anything with the balls. Jastremski was the ball prep guy. McNally is just the locker room attendant for the Refs on game day.

Why would Jastremski talk to McNally at all about ball prep unless McNally was doing something other than his job, which is to take care of the refs when they're in the lockerroom?

Anybody who doesn't at least see how McNally is a suspicious character in all of this is wearing blinders.
 

tedseye

New Member
Apr 15, 2006
73
Re the "ESPN" remark, one strong theme of the texts overall is how much McNally felt an unappreciated and pressured underling in the middle. Brady wanted the PSI as low as acceptable, and the refs were sometimes casual about pumping low-lying balls back up (as in the 16.0 Jets game incident). Brady et al. had two alternatives to try to keep the officials from pumping up too high: present balls right at or above 12.5, or present balls a little under that line.
If McNally thought doing the under-12.5 tactic was in some way questionable (and he may have taken a little heat from the officials for doing so), maybe that is what he made the joking threat about.
(I understand most on this board view the under-12.5 approach as within the rules, but like most NFL GMs, McNally may not be a Mensa member.)
 

GreyisGone

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,283
86spike said:
McNally wasn't supposed to be doing anything with the balls. Jastremski was the ball prep guy. McNally is just the locker room attendant for the Refs on game day.

Why would Jastremski talk to McNally at all about ball prep unless McNally was doing something other than his job, which is to take care of the refs when they're in the lockerroom?

Anybody who doesn't at least see how McNally is a suspicious character in all of this is wearing blinders.
And anyone who reads too much into text messages sent by low level stadium employees clearly hasn't interacted with many of them.
 

86spike

Currently enjoying "Arli$$"
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2002
25,082
Procrasti Nation
GreyisGone said:
And anyone who reads too much into text messages sent by low level stadium employees clearly hasn't interacted with many of them.
What does that have to do with my point that Jim McNally's job is not to prepare the balls and yet he is taking after about ball prep with Jastremski?
 

MuppetAsteriskTalk

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2015
5,398
86spike said:
McNally wasn't supposed to be doing anything with the balls. Jastremski was the ball prep guy. McNally is just the locker room attendant for the Refs on game day.

Why would Jastremski talk to McNally at all about ball prep unless McNally was doing something other than his job, which is to take care of the refs when they're in the lockerroom?

Anybody who doesn't at least see how McNally is a suspicious character in all of this is wearing blinders.
 
Is McNally alone with the refs when they test the balls or is JJ also there? I was under the impression they were telling McNally to make sure the refs knew the Pats wanted them at 12.5 PSI because McNally was the only one in the room with them.
 
I agree if JJ is also in the room when they're testing then the McNally stuff looks worse to the Pats case.
 

Prodigal Sox

New Member
Jul 15, 2005
255
between the buttons
GreyisGone said:
And anyone who reads too much into text messages sent by low level stadium employees clearly hasn't interacted with many of them.
This and the inclusion of the passages about the signed memorabilia is what I think Yee is alluding to with his comments about lawyers/investigators that are not familiar with the workings of professional football. When the context is given to their questions, they either (1) don't understand it or (2) don't believe it.
 

Hoya81

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 3, 2010
8,458
86spike said:
What does that have to do with my point that Jim McNally's job is not to prepare the balls and yet he is taking after about ball prep with Jastremski?
 
Does he assist JJ with the final towel rubdown before they are handed over to the refs?
 

J.McG

New Member
Aug 11, 2011
204
TheoShmeo said:
I would love to be a fly on the wall the next time Tom comes across this piece of shit.
 
Woody shouldn't hold his breath waiting for an invitation to Kraft's next Super Bowl reunion party.
 
Woody's mostly enjoyable to follow on Twitter, and while he wears his allegiance to the Rex-era Jets on his sleeve, he's generally complimentary of the Pats, Belichick in particular. He's probably the most notable ex-Pat  I can think of to come out so strongly against Brady thus far. Did his time in NE end that badly? Belichick and Scarnecchia were at least partly responsible for that enormous contract Woody landed with Detroit back in '04 (the largest ever for an interior OL at the time, IIRC).
 

HowBoutDemSox

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2009
10,104
86spike said:
McNally wasn't supposed to be doing anything with the balls. Jastremski was the ball prep guy. McNally is just the locker room attendant for the Refs on game day.

Why would Jastremski talk to McNally at all about ball prep unless McNally was doing something other than his job, which is to take care of the refs when they're in the lockerroom?

Anybody who doesn't at least see how McNally is a suspicious character in all of this is wearing blinders.
McNally is the one who tells the refs to make sure the Patriots balls are at 12.5 psi:

At some point during the process of gauging and marking the footballs, Jim McNally, who came and went from the Officials Locker Room over the course of the afternoon, requested that Anderson make sure that the Patriots footballs were set at 12.5 psi. According to Anderson, McNally said something to the effect of "remember, Walt, Tom likes them at 12.5," though he could not recall McNally‟s precise wording. A number of other game officials heard McNally make this request. Anderson said that he did not think much of the request at the time because he had heard McNally make similar requests in the past. In particular, Anderson believes that McNally may have made the same request when Anderson had most recently officiated at Gillette Stadium for the Patriots game against the Denver Broncos on November 2, 2014.
So while he's not physically prepping the balls, he's involved with the process of making sure the balls are deflated to Tom liking within the legal limit.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,897
Los Angeles, CA
nighthob said:
Can you show me in the report where it says they don't have everything from the team or anywhere that the team hid anything from them?...
Of course they can't say that because they don'tI know. The Patriots could have given them everything in their possession, but that may not cover all relevant texts. At least Tom Brady's phone isn't covered. Presumably, all other player phones aren't covered, and there may be more.

Regardless of whether Brady should have given up the texts (and I still agree that he shouldn't have), it makes sense for Wells to WANT them.

Anyways, I agree in general with your sentiment about the report being biased and full of weasel wording. I really didn't want to argue with you on this point. I completely misunderstood what path you were headed down with that first reply :)
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
Filet-O-Fisk said:
I think the Wells report is incorrect regarding standard deviation, as discussed on p. 115. They say that the Patriots balls exhibited more variability because the SD was 0.41 and 0.40 based on the measurements at halftime, while the Colts balls had SDs of 0.16 and 0.14.   I think these numbers are wrong. I have SDs of 0.41 and 0.40 for the Pats balls (Prioleau and Blakeman, respectively) but I have 0.12 and 0.35 for the two readings of the Colts balls.  
What am I missing?  Where do the 0.16 and 0.14 SD values come from?  
Here are the Colts balls:
Blakeman: 12.7, 12.75, 12.5, 12.55
Prioleau: 12.35, 12.3, 12.95, 12.15
 
I get SDs of 0.12 and 0.35, respectively.   
 
From recollection, given the relative readings of the Logo and Non-Logo gauges...it appears that the Football #3 readings were fucked up. One of the gauges consistently read lower than the other - except in that instance.
 
If I remember right, they did 3 statistical calculations concerning those measurements: 1: as is, 2: reversing the two readings (which has some perverse logic to it) and 3: Eliminating Football #3 from the calcs completely. 
 
I think that's where the SD came from - but I'm clueless about that stuff.
 
I know that in any real scientific setting, the possibility that the readings were screwed up would invalidate the whole study.
 
The most cited piece of "evidence" is that the large range of deviations among the Pat's footballs supports a theory that they entered the game with psi's all over the place (i.e., what would happen if they were needled), versus the Colt's 4 (or 3) footballs which clustered together as expected since they all entered the game within a small range.
 
The more I think about this stuff, the more troubling all of the data manipulation, though explicable, becomes. Another group could have easily come up with the conclusion that there simply wasn't enough reliable data to justify any kind of conclusion. 
 
Seems to me that the Wells team came to a conclusion based on some pretty damning evidence concerning McNally and then took the best view of the science that supports that, which is not exactly kosher.
 

GreyisGone

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,283
86spike said:
What does that have to do with my point that Jim McNally's job is not to prepare the balls and yet he is taking after about ball prep with Jastremski?
Because they spend their days joking around and inflating their importance. It very easily could just be an inside joke between friends.

Which doesn't mean it is, I obviously have no idea, but these aren't Presidential Cabinet level emails that deserve to be dissected as if these two put more than a few seconds of thought into them.
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
soxhop411 said:
@RyanHannable: According to @garymyersNYDN, its now question of how many games will Tom Brady be suspended for, not will he at all http://t.co/CrhHSROs3j

What a fucking joke
Suspended for what, exactly???? The commissioner HAS to be very very clear on this. The problem is, he won't be, because any specific charge is easily debunked or at least called into serious question.
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
soxhop411 said:
https://twitter.com/ProFootballTalk/status/596723625480364032"]5m5

link to tweet minutes ago[/url]
Could the NFL suspend Tom Brady indefinitely until he provides his cell phone
 
ProFootballTalk ‏@ProFootballTalk  [URL="https://twitter.com/ProFootballTalk/status/596725251125436416

https://twitter.com/ProFootballTalk/status/596725251125436416"]22s22

link to tweet seconds ago[/url]
Last year, many said the NFL should have suspended Ray Rice until he provided the video. How is the Tom Brady cell phone any different?

How is this any different? Is this real life right now? A cell phone that contains texts vs a video of a domestic violence case.

I actually agree Brady shouldn't give the phone up. What if he has damaging stuff about current or past teammates on the phone. That would absolutely get leaked to TMZ within an hour.

Comparing it to the Rice investigation is just moronic.

ESPN still doesn't recognize that the greatest WR of all time used stick em his whole career...