Interesting post.ManicCompression said:First time poster but loooooong time lurker. I'm a huge fan of this board and rely on you folks for sports news a lot of the time. I hope I don't bring the level of the discussion down with this post. It's just something that I don't feel has been explored.
I'm a Patriots fan and I think this whole thing is absurd. It's an assault against reason in a lot of respects. But those ins and outs have been covered ad nauseum.
I think "deflate" is a pretty common steroid term for what happens to your muscles if you stop taking the juice. If you google "deflate steroids" or "deflating steroids" a good amount of stuff comes up. Now, I don't think McNally is on steroids. But maybe it's a term they joke about because it's something the players around them say (particularly going into the offseason).
I don't mean to throw accusations at certain players in particular. I think it's not very controversial to suggest that a good chunk of NFL players, even some Patriots, are on some sort of PEDs. With that said, it's not necessarily something the Patriots can explain in detail - or even go near - in this rebuttal. It sounds silly at the outset, but then makes logical sense when you connect the dots. It does border on humorous when you think about the challenges of McNally "deflating" vs. a jacked linebacker deflating.
But, then again, these are grown men who text about circle jerks (urban dictionary "pong party") so pretty much any sort of nickname is on the table here.
Fucking brutal. I had to stop reading. Does Munson realize who Brady hired in his case at all? What an embarrasment of a column.tims4wins said:OMG Lester Munson - ESPN's legal analyst - has an abortion of a column up. Fun read.
I doubt he grabs any more picks. Another $1,000,000 fine is notiut of the question.Koufax said:I would not rule out the possibility that there will be further punishment of the Pats for their website fiasco today. It was far outside the bounds set by the NFL by-laws, and most of the other 31 owners are probably upset that Kraft has gone public with his complaints. Roger might well decide that it is time to bring the hammer down once again, just to make the point that you don't challenge his authority, at least not in public. If so, then kiss the 2017 first round pick goodbye.
Koufax said:I would not rule out the possibility that there will be further punishment of the Pats for their website fiasco today. It was far outside the bounds set by the NFL by-laws, and most of the other 31 owners are probably upset that Kraft has gone public with his complaints. Roger might well decide that it is time to bring the hammer down once again, just to make the point that you don't challenge his authority, at least not in public. If so, then kiss the 2017 first round pick goodbye.
Then this situation will make any Al Davis problem seem like a lazy Sunday drive.Koufax said:I would not rule out the possibility that there will be further punishment of the Pats for their website fiasco today. It was far outside the bounds set by the NFL by-laws, and most of the other 31 owners are probably upset that Kraft has gone public with his complaints. Roger might well decide that it is time to bring the hammer down once again, just to make the point that you don't challenge his authority, at least not in public. If so, then kiss the 2017 first round pick goodbye.
Exactly. Bring it on.Dahabenzapple2 said:Goodell should then take all their draft picks.
In fact, he have the Patriots forfeit 4 or 6 or 8 games.
What is stopping him?
That only applies to the government hindering free speech.theapportioner said:
Doesn't like, the first amendment, protect Kraft in this case?
As outrageous as it sounds, at some level, this is something that I want this to happen. At some point, somebody, anybody of consequence would have to realize the absurdity of this whole thing. right? right?Koufax said:I would not rule out the possibility that there will be further punishment of the Pats for their website fiasco today. It was far outside the bounds set by the NFL by-laws, and most of the other 31 owners are probably upset that Kraft has gone public with his complaints. Roger might well decide that it is time to bring the hammer down once again, just to make the point that you don't challenge his authority, at least not in public. If so, then kiss the 2017 first round pick goodbye.
See, this is funny. To me, if I was looking at it negatively, it would be as if they had some special coats with holes for needles or something and he was telling him to destroy the evidence after deflating. But I can also quite reasonably look it as a jab calling him a fatty; he saw him on TV during the game and was, well, needling him. And if it was the former, one would expect a text would have come the other way first, something like "wtf do I do?" Those are the two ways I would look at it. I think that kind of demonstrates the danger of trying to put these into context.86spike said:Like I said, maybe I watch too many crime shows.
Another possible interpretation of that text could be McNally telling Jastremski that he didn't want a jacket that Jastremski offered him as a part of the 'give Jimmy some swag' theme seen elsewhere. We know Jastremski was hooking McNally up with under the table gear, so a reference to a jacket may be another reference to that.
Weight loss seems like a huge stretch to me still.
That, the Declaration of Independence, and the Book of Mormon.theapportioner said:
Doesn't like, the first amendment, protect Kraft in this case?
Goodell's biggest problem here is that he had his counsel tell the organization to bring it yesterday.Koufax said:I would not rule out the possibility that there will be further punishment of the Pats for their website fiasco today. It was far outside the bounds set by the NFL by-laws, and most of the other 31 owners are probably upset that Kraft has gone public with his complaints. Roger might well decide that it is time to bring the hammer down once again, just to make the point that you don't challenge his authority, at least not in public. If so, then kiss the 2017 first round pick goodbye.
snowmanny said:Saying the term "deflator" means that Tom Brady ordered the staff to remove air from balls after the official check seems like a huge stretch to me, but here we are.
This is when you go full asshole. "Listen, I understand being a fan of X team not as successful as the Patriots must be frustrating. I just want you to know that your tears bring me joy and grant me the energy to dance the charlston in my living room."Dahabenzapple2 said:Plus I'm trying to watch the NBA on ESPN and they are running the silly fucking trailer with the results of the idiot fans. I've avoided all sportscasts except for games I like but I can't avoid that crap. I even have friends sending me the BS. All the low hanging fruit drivel.
No one can be reasoned with. Even normally reasonable people who think the punishment is too severe think their should be a fine, lost draft picks and Brady suspension.
I sent Ivan's brilliant summary and all refused to read it.
They all refuse to read anything. They do no want to hear or read anything that might change their mind. They have long ago since Spygate bought into the lie.
I consider myself a pretty reasonable non-Pats (Jets) fan. I pretty much do not care one bit if they deflated on purpose or not, and think that there is not enough evidence to prove that they did (and deserve the punishment). But, I have to say that I had the same reaction, and it really makes me think twice about their innocence. I understand wanting an eye-for-eye, but I think that it was a response made out of emotions rather than reasoned strategy.86spike said:I am not the media. I'm just a football fan. I'm a fan who thinks the punishment for this whole thing went way too far.
But that explanation about the texts smells like 100% pure bullshit to me.
I would love to believe... But it's the kind of excuse a ten year might try when caught misbehaving.
Good way to bring about a forced sale of your football franchise.Devizier said:I would imagine a "burning down the house" moment would be revealing some classified CTE docs, if they exist. Now that would be something to see.
Did you read all of it?Return of the Dewey said:I consider myself a pretty reasonable non-Pats (Jets) fan. I pretty much do not care one bit if they deflated on purpose or not, and think that there is not enough evidence to prove that they did (and deserve the punishment). But, I have to say that I had the same reaction, and it really makes me think twice about their innocence. I understand wanting an eye-for-eye, but I think that it was a response made out of emotions rather than reasoned strategy.
If Obama takes their first round pick I guarantee you Brady doesn't go to this Whitehouse ever again.BrunanskysSlide said:That only applies to the government hindering free speech.
Yes, and the rest of it is convincing. There was no reason to put the nickname explanation in even if true. Frankly, I do not think that they should have done any of this through a publicized website rebuttal, but rather should have gone through available dispute channels. It would be more convincing if McNally testified under oath as to his nickname. By the way, I feel the same way about Wells report...convincing in some respects, but its BS leaps make me question its conclusions.Dahabenzapple2 said:Did you read all of it?
tims4wins said:OMG Lester Munson - ESPN's legal analyst - has an abortion of a column up. Fun read.
Exactly...I am a non- litigating lawyer, but even I know that.drleather2001 said:There's something you learn early on in practicing law that differs somewhat from what you are taught in law school, and that is how to frame your case. In law school, the name of the game is usually issue spotting, and just machine-gunning any and every plausible argument you can make. In legal practice, you weigh what arguments are best, and consider the effect on your credibility a shitty argument will have tacked on to the end of a motion for SJ. Don't gild the lily.
I dunno. The Patriots today went the law school route of just throwing everything at the wall without considering the cumulative impact. They should have made three concise arguments and waited to see what, if any, the counterpunch would have been. They went for a knockout punch and left themselves exposed.
Yeah, that's a good method. I'm out in 49'er country so always debate Brady GOAT vs Montagna. Joe may have been generally aware of Jerry illegally using Stickum, etc.Ed Hillel said:This is when you go full asshole. "Listen, I understand being a fan of X team not as successful as the Patriots must be frustrating. I just want you to know that your tears bring me joy and grant me the energy to dance the charlston in my living room."
Some Dolphins fan at work started needling. I gave him his minute or so, but he didn't stop, so I told him he was cheering on a bunch of "loser racial abusers." I'm not even quite sure what that means, but the dude got PISSED, started yelling, and walked away. It gave me great joy.
Bottom line: I wouldn't trade being a fan of the Patriots in my 31 years on this earth for any of the other 31 teams, and that's the truth as objective as I can give it. If that makes me arrogant, so be it, but when all reason is gone, little choice is left.
No.theapportioner said:
Doesn't like, the first amendment, protect Kraft in this case?
Good Lord I hope not. The rebuttal is just that. A point by point rebuttal of a publicly released, misleading, biased report against Kraft's team. Is the NFL so corrupt and dictatorial that the Patriots can't respond?Koufax said:I would not rule out the possibility that there will be further punishment of the Pats for their website fiasco today. It was far outside the bounds set by the NFL by-laws, and most of the other 31 owners are probably upset that Kraft has gone public with his complaints. Roger might well decide that it is time to bring the hammer down once again, just to make the point that you don't challenge his authority, at least not in public. If so, then kiss the 2017 first round pick goodbye.
Exactly. This is the same group that sued scalpers and rescinded season tickets for holders who were caught reselling. And their favorite person ever just got suspended for 4 games on the basis of something with so many holes that Goodell should have melted it on his hamburger. They have different goals in mind right now.Shelterdog said:
I agree with you both but do think that this fight is not just about hurt feelings or the negative effect the punishment will have on the team. It's also about trying to maintain the value of the franchise's brand which, while hard to quantify is also very real.
The most honest of the 72%.djhb20 said:This whole thing is insane.
An ESPN fan poll earlier had something like - 72% of fans think the punishment is fair (including in that, Brady's suspension) and 63% think Brady cheated. who the fuck are the 9% that think it's fair, even though they don't think Brady cheated?
Obviously they deflated footballs before every game they played in May 2014.troparra said:Are you sure? What if I were to tell you that this single use of the term "deflator" came in May, 2014?
Myt1 said:Exactly. This is the same group that sued scalpers and rescinded season tickets for holders who were caught reselling. And their favorite person ever just got suspended for 4 games on the basis of something with so many holes that Goodell should have melted it on his hamburger. They have different goals in mind right now.
djhb20 said:This whole thing is insane.
An ESPN fan poll earlier had something like - 72% of fans think the punishment is fair (including in that, Brady's suspension) and 63% think Brady cheated. who the fuck are the 9% that think it's fair, even though they don't think Brady cheated?
Anyway, this whole thing is so fucking incredible, nothing would surprise me and in a perverse way, I just want it to keep going. Scorched earth is an exciting strategy, at the very least.
Well, it is against the bylaws, which means that it can be used as further evidence of Pats not playing by rules. I just think it was a mistake going this route.troparra said:Good Lord I hope not. The rebuttal is just that. A point by point rebuttal of a publicly released, misleading, biased report against Kraft's team. Is the NFL so corrupt and dictatorial that the Patriots can't respond?
Munson gets shit wrong frequently. I have no idea how he stuck at SI and ESPN. Mike and Mike had some new legal analyst I've never seen in ESPN before and he was much better.tims4wins said:OMG Lester Munson - ESPN's legal analyst - has an abortion of a column up. Fun read.
Ed Hillel said:Goodell's biggest problem here is that he had his counsel tell the organization to bring it yesterday.
Maybe Goodell will execute Kraft in front of all the other owners with an anti-aircraft gun.
Also consider the fact that the balls were not actually underinflated.Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:Upon reflection, the thing that stands out about the rebuttal is that they asserted 100% innocence, extending to JJ and McNally. I have been assuming all along that these guys were probably screwing around with the balls to some degree but that nobody else, including Brady, was involved. I also assume that the Patriots at some point in the last few months sat down with Dumb and Dumber and extracted the unvarnished truth from them. But if these guys were screwing around with the balls, then what's the point in protecting them? The smart move would be to criticize everything else about the report and make sure that Brady remains siloed.
So that leaves us with three other options:
(1) Everybody is actually innocent and that's why the Patriots are aggressively saying so.
(2) Everybody is actually guilty (or at least the conspiracy truly did extend to Brady and maybe beyond) and the Patriots are hesitant to throw JJ or McNally totally under the bus because these guys might tell tales.
(3) It was just McNally/JJ all along, but they're not only lying to the NFL but also lying to the Patriots and the Patriots have chosen to believe them.
I find 3 kind of implausible for a variety of reasons, which leaves us with 1 or 2. On some level, that obviously doesn't tell us much. But it does suggest that things might be a bit more black and white than I, at least, previously assumed.
On appeal of a strictly legal argument, you're absolutely right.drleather2001 said:There's something you learn early on in practicing law that differs somewhat from what you are taught in law school, and that is how to frame your case. In law school, the name of the game is usually issue spotting, and just machine-gunning any and every plausible argument you can make. In legal practice, you weigh what arguments are best, and consider the effect on your credibility a shitty argument will have tacked on to the end of a motion for SJ. Don't gild the lily.
I dunno. The Patriots today went the law school route of just throwing everything at the wall without considering the cumulative impact. They should have made three concise arguments and waited to see what, if any, the counterpunch would have been. They went for a knockout punch and left themselves exposed on credibility.
Do you still believe this despite the fact that simple science and math indicate that no tampering was likely?FredCDobbs said:Look, the NFL fucked the Patriots a thousand different ways on this from start to finish, but it was all, almost certainly, set up by the Patriots doing something with the balls. Brady should just come out and give the generic "went a bit over the line getting the balls as I like them" apology himself. Just admit it. Serve the suspension.
Somebody should photoshop Roger into that suit and haircut.mauidano said:
Goodell is looking more like a crazed dictator every day.
Suppose it is bullshit. What about those texts provides any evidence at all that any balls were ever deflated after referee approval, or that anyone (including TB) wanted them below 12.5?86spike said:I am not the media. I'm just a football fan. I'm a fan who thinks the punishment for this whole thing went way too far.
But that explanation about the texts smells like 100% pure bullshit to me.
I would love to believe... But it's the kind of excuse a ten year might try when caught misbehaving.
I'm still scratching my head as to its purpose. I postulated that it might be a big vent so that the League doesn't fuck with the Pats again anytime soon ( And likely this is Ted Wells' last investigation gig for the NFL). Shelter thinks it was to convince the other owners that Bob is now batshit crazy so that they will persuade Roger to press the reset button.Return of the Dewey said:Yes, and the rest of it is convincing. There was no reason to put the nickname explanation in even if true. Frankly, I do not think that they should have done any of this through a publicized website rebuttal, but rather should have gone through available dispute channels. It would be more convincing if McNally testified under oath as to his nickname. By the way, I feel the same way about Wells report...convincing in some respects, but its BS leaps make me question its conclusions.