Not if but when and for how long, remains to be determined according to this article.
Brady vs. Goodell
Brady vs. Goodell
Per NY Dailey News: Tom Brady to be suspended!!
- Thread starter MAG
- Start date
Bovada cares...they have removed all of their spreads on the Patriots for the upcoming season till the discipline decision is made.
I've heard plenty seem to really care about this issue. Lots of players are pissed and fans. If they are nobody's then you're right.
Take a look at the fumble stats in this article: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/fivethirtyeight-dissects-the-deflategate-report/
As a Husker fan surely you can see the effect that fumbles have on a game.
By definition, they definitely cheated, but I don't think the cheating was to the degree that anyone could say it led to a specific win or number of wins. "Cheating" occurs in many formats, including the type of shoes one wears, etc.
I certainly believe that Brady prefers a lower inflated ball for one reason or another and I believe they did alter the balls to meet his desired preference. That said, I don't believe that had an impact on the game(s) as the time they were identified, they had just dismantled the Colts and with properly inflated balls, still went on to beat Seattle. In other sports, players have violated PEDs and one could say that PED usage has a much more direct impact to performance than a deflated ball. In those cases, the player took a penalty - but no team has ever forfeited previous wins due to the outcome of that form of cheating.
I don't believe games or championships should be evacuated, but there should be a penalty to make sure they know that there are repercussions to those actions.
It would be kind of short sided to punish someone for something that has clearly been going on for decades unchecked. Eli wants his balls scuffed dirtied ect, Rodgers always wants his balls over inflated, people admitting to paying to have it done for them. This seems like the NFL is going to levy punishment and did this entire investigation to divert attention from the domestic violence problem and all the other things the NFL has miss handled lately.
I would still be shocked if Brady gets suspended and if he does if it sticks on appeal.
I would still be shocked if Brady gets suspended and if he does if it sticks on appeal.
I believe he should get 8 games. The fact of the matter is that he cheated in order to influence the outcome of games. Pete Rose was never found to have influenced games and he got life. Eight games is appropriate. People must be deterred from cheating and 8 games is probably enough to do that.
I'll be shocked if he gets more than two games. I do think he deserves it...maybe more like four games. Enough to be damaging to another super bowl run.
I've stayed out of this thread because I've been busy. Some comments:
1) I take the data provided in Tulsa Tom's link regarding fumbles to be the only hard data that deflated footballs do have a positive outcome on games. This is the data that troubles me the most. Of course Tom Brady prefers a softer ball, but any conjecture to the effect that he'd be a lesser quarterback with a harder ball is pure speculation. Every suggestion that he is somehow anything less than one of greatest quarterbacks in history based on it being "more probable than not" that he knew balls were sometimes under the legal limit is asinine (see point 4).
2) This is a "thing" for at least four reasons:
i) People despise Brady and it's not hard to see why. On the field he is a hothead and a bit of a baby. Off the field he has lived a privileged life, millionaire, married to a supermodel, is a bit of a metrosexual, and so on. The common man does not identify with Tom Brady (at least not since 2006).
ii) He plays for an organization that has a history of bending the rules. It's myopic to think Spygate is not having an effect on people's judgments of Deflategate.
iii) He plays for a team that has had an unprecedented amount of success. People love to find fault in those who are successful, so we can elevate ourselves, or as may be more appropriate in this case, our teams. Back in the 90s I hated the Cowboys, and I celebrated the fact that Michael Irvin got caught with cocaine because that somehow validated my hate. Of course, I was 14 years old then, but a lot of people don't make it beyond that mentality.
iv) This was a witch hunt from the media right from the beginning, which Goodell did nothing to appease and only exacerbated.
3) While I do not think Tom should be completely absolved, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the NFL completely bungled and mishandled the investigation. The standards in place prior to the scandal were so lax that they did not foster a culture compliance, and only slapped others on the wrist for similar violations. Consider Mike Reiss' take on the Vikings-Saints game earlier in the year: http://espn.go.com/blog/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4781318/quick-hit-thoughts-around-the-patriots. The NFL then hired a law firm to carry out an investigation to find fault, not merely discover the truth. I refer the interested reader to this article from a non-Patriots source: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/10/wells-report-disregards-andersons-best-recollection-on-a-key-piece-of-evidence/
4) In conclusion, and I'm saying this as a Patriots fan who is trying to look at this scenario objectively. Tom Brady is culpable, was complicit, for what exactly no one knows. It could be that he instructed team employees to make damn sure the balls were inflated no more than the bear minimum, and of course he would not care if they just happened to go beneath it (either through natural deflation during the course of the game or the employee doing it deliberately). It could be that he told them to deflate them below the minimum (that he would have something inexact in mind seems implausible to me, however). We just don't know.
What is clear to me, in this situation and countless others, is that we simply love to vilify those who are successful, handsome, privileged, rich, and so on. We love to think they're lazy, that they don't deserve their accolades and success, that they are prideful and arrogant, exploitative, cheaters, and so on. And we'll hitch our wagon to the slightest and most suspect piece of evidence to ensure that we can do so legitimately. We do so because it makes us feel superior to them (of course, we'd never behave that way in their situation). Blame, blame, blame, punish, punish, punish. It makes us feel good to tell others they're bad. (Is that why the OP puts two exclamation points behind the thread's title?) Such a human thing for us to do and yet positively one of the worst human qualities.
1) I take the data provided in Tulsa Tom's link regarding fumbles to be the only hard data that deflated footballs do have a positive outcome on games. This is the data that troubles me the most. Of course Tom Brady prefers a softer ball, but any conjecture to the effect that he'd be a lesser quarterback with a harder ball is pure speculation. Every suggestion that he is somehow anything less than one of greatest quarterbacks in history based on it being "more probable than not" that he knew balls were sometimes under the legal limit is asinine (see point 4).
2) This is a "thing" for at least four reasons:
i) People despise Brady and it's not hard to see why. On the field he is a hothead and a bit of a baby. Off the field he has lived a privileged life, millionaire, married to a supermodel, is a bit of a metrosexual, and so on. The common man does not identify with Tom Brady (at least not since 2006).
ii) He plays for an organization that has a history of bending the rules. It's myopic to think Spygate is not having an effect on people's judgments of Deflategate.
iii) He plays for a team that has had an unprecedented amount of success. People love to find fault in those who are successful, so we can elevate ourselves, or as may be more appropriate in this case, our teams. Back in the 90s I hated the Cowboys, and I celebrated the fact that Michael Irvin got caught with cocaine because that somehow validated my hate. Of course, I was 14 years old then, but a lot of people don't make it beyond that mentality.
iv) This was a witch hunt from the media right from the beginning, which Goodell did nothing to appease and only exacerbated.
3) While I do not think Tom should be completely absolved, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the NFL completely bungled and mishandled the investigation. The standards in place prior to the scandal were so lax that they did not foster a culture compliance, and only slapped others on the wrist for similar violations. Consider Mike Reiss' take on the Vikings-Saints game earlier in the year: http://espn.go.com/blog/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4781318/quick-hit-thoughts-around-the-patriots. The NFL then hired a law firm to carry out an investigation to find fault, not merely discover the truth. I refer the interested reader to this article from a non-Patriots source: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/10/wells-report-disregards-andersons-best-recollection-on-a-key-piece-of-evidence/
4) In conclusion, and I'm saying this as a Patriots fan who is trying to look at this scenario objectively. Tom Brady is culpable, was complicit, for what exactly no one knows. It could be that he instructed team employees to make damn sure the balls were inflated no more than the bear minimum, and of course he would not care if they just happened to go beneath it (either through natural deflation during the course of the game or the employee doing it deliberately). It could be that he told them to deflate them below the minimum (that he would have something inexact in mind seems implausible to me, however). We just don't know.
What is clear to me, in this situation and countless others, is that we simply love to vilify those who are successful, handsome, privileged, rich, and so on. We love to think they're lazy, that they don't deserve their accolades and success, that they are prideful and arrogant, exploitative, cheaters, and so on. And we'll hitch our wagon to the slightest and most suspect piece of evidence to ensure that we can do so legitimately. We do so because it makes us feel superior to them (of course, we'd never behave that way in their situation). Blame, blame, blame, punish, punish, punish. It makes us feel good to tell others they're bad. (Is that why the OP puts two exclamation points behind the thread's title?) Such a human thing for us to do and yet positively one of the worst human qualities.
Last edited:
Well, he was suspended for four games and the team may forfeit draft picks.
I think that's the right conclusion. He will appeal and it will be reduced to two games, in my opinion.
Sorry...if you played football (and especially if you played it in the cold) you would know that a softer ball is a benefit. That's not just Tom Brady. It's probably 95% of the people who played quarterback OR receiver.
No where did I disagree it wasn't a benefit. Are you saying Tom Brady is not a hall of fame quarterback or one of the best to ever play the game? If yes, then we disagree.
It's only been going on for 7 years. Prior to 2007, the home team supplied all the footballs used in a game. After the 2006 season Brady and Manning convinced the NFL to allow teams to provide their own footballs (to be used while that team was on offense). This is when the the Patriots turnover stats dropped significantly and have been under the NFL average ever since. Just look at the numbers...
http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.co...iots-mysteriously-became-fumble-proof-in-2007
He would be a lesser quarterback with a harder ball. There is no question about it. I'm sure he would be pretty stinking good still...but lesser than he has been. And its not just him. His receivers probably come up with a few more catches because the ball is softer.
You put a lot of time into your response. It's admirable. However, I think most of it is too much thinking. You must have a persecution complex or such. Nobody is out to get your Patriots due to their success or at least the relevance to this controversy is minimal. Basically, the Patriots cheated. There are certain rules pertaining to the playing conditions and ball inflation is one of them. Obviously, they already won the contests. The NFL is not going to vacate their victories. However, claiming it to be insignificant is not being honest. If it wasn't then Brady would not have had half the balls deflated in the first place. I think that four games is adequate. If it happens again in the future then, yeah, bump it up to 8 games. Outside of what I just said I'm not going to spend a lot of time in this discussion. It was cheating, plain and simple.
I still don't get what we're disagreeing about because you still haven't made a claim worth disagreeing with.
Here is a link to a game played between the Titans and the Patriots in 2009 (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=291018017), played in crappy conditions (snow, cold, and slush). The Patriots killed the Titans 59-0 and Brady through 5 touchdown passes in one quarter, setting an NFL record.
Is your position that:
i) the ball Brady used was deflated?
ii) that it had an outcome on this game?
If i), how do you know that?
Assuming i), what tangible effect or outcome can you point to? Is your position that Tom only throws four touchdowns in that quarter? Or that he throws none at all?
Assuming this, I'll ask again, how do you know that?
So your position is Tom Brady is a "lesser" quarterback, but I'm asking you tell me what that means in such a way that we can actually have a frutiful disagreement about it.
If your position is either i) or ii) above, you're arguing in hypotheticals and drawing conclusions based on evidence you don't have. If that's the case, I don't care what your position or anyone else's is. It's one thing to be skeptical, e.g., "I do suspect Brady's legacy is tarnished, but I have no evidence to show that it is," and another to argue out of one's ass or let one's reasons be directed by bias. I have no interest in discussing the matter if it's the latter.
That was an impressive failure of reading comprehension. If you can find any evidence in my post to suggest I think what you attributed to me in the bolded, I will ban myself until the start of summer camp. Actually, if you reread my post carefully, you will see that I explicitly disagree with both. You completely misunderstood the importance of the blame angle in construing it as an attempt to defend "my" Patriots, and then ignored the evidence I presented to suggest the Patriots did get preferential treatment.
Last edited:
I'm arguing hypotheticals? You are asking for evidence that shows Brady would have been a worse quarterback if he didn't cheat. How, pray tell, would anyone have that information? You are the one with the hypotheticals. "If Brady doesn't cheat he is still Hall of Fame material."
None of us know how Brady would have responded with fully-inflated balls. Why? Because he cheated and didn't give us that opportunity.
I simply requested you identify some tangible effect, assuming you could know that the ball was underinflated in 2009, which you can't. The difference between my position on this topic and yours is that mine is secure - it already has the benefit of evidence. Brady has been a great quarterback since he entered the NFL - prior to the different ball regulations. He was a great quarterback in the Superbowl, where it was guaranteed no balls were tampered with. We don't need evidence of him being a great quarterback. We need evidence of him cheating and that contributing to his success.
What you're doing instead is just assuming that he has cheated (how far back, how frequently, who knows?) and that it has been contributing to his success. That's what I'm calling BS on. Why? Because you have no evidence.
Last edited:
1) You nowhere said that. Now you're changing your position. If you thought my initial post was inane drivel then I am done after this. Your initial post made it sound like I said something thoughtful. I have no interest in debating someone who thinks I speak in riddles and nonsense.
2) I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you talking about a propensity to scapegoat those who are successful and privileged? I absolute think that, but I nowhere said it absolved Tom of anything. I said the exact opposite. Your continued inability to see this is beyond baffling.
3) Make believe. I never made any claim about some cover-up. I pointed to two pieces of evidence that suggests the NFL's handling of the situation was far from ideal and not objective. Did you read it? Have you given it a second thought?
4) If you're talking about i)-iv), those weren't a list of excuses. You interpreted them to be a list of excuses. They were explanations to a previous poster who didn't understand why it all was a "big deal." Those are my explanations for it being a big deal. They were not offered to say: "nothing to see here!" "Tom did nothing wrong!"
5) They weren't offered as a defense. See 4).
6) I'm not nearly as enamored with Tom Brady as you think I am. The tuck rule was a bad call. He benefited from better coaching and better defenses than Manning. Brady's performance in the playoffs over the past 8+ years has not been stellar. I don't like the way he carries himself on the field. I hate it when he gets in a refs face and tries to get some call. I don't have a Tom Brady jersey, I have a Danny Woodhead jersey. What else do you want me to say?
7) There you go letting your bias cloud your judgment. It was concluded that it was "more probable than not" that he knew about balls being deflated. Nowhere did the report, nor has any other source, established that Tom Brady is a cheater. The report did not establish that he told McNally to deflate footballs. It concluded that it was "more probable than not" that he knew something about balls being manipulated. The court of public opinion has concluded that he is guilty. The NFL concluded, and they are consistent in this so I don't have a problem with it, that "more probable than not" is sufficient to establish guilt in their court of law. From that you feel entitled to call him a cheater and impugn his character. I would encourage you to re-read my initial post, since that is what it was about.
8) You still don't understand the point about blame in the initial post. If you were to re-watch the initial Brady deflate gate press conference and saw it through anything other than a lens to judge and find fault, you would see that the guy was presumed guilty from the start. Again, that is what the post was about, and it's much bigger than him or the Patriots.
2) I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you talking about a propensity to scapegoat those who are successful and privileged? I absolute think that, but I nowhere said it absolved Tom of anything. I said the exact opposite. Your continued inability to see this is beyond baffling.
3) Make believe. I never made any claim about some cover-up. I pointed to two pieces of evidence that suggests the NFL's handling of the situation was far from ideal and not objective. Did you read it? Have you given it a second thought?
4) If you're talking about i)-iv), those weren't a list of excuses. You interpreted them to be a list of excuses. They were explanations to a previous poster who didn't understand why it all was a "big deal." Those are my explanations for it being a big deal. They were not offered to say: "nothing to see here!" "Tom did nothing wrong!"
5) They weren't offered as a defense. See 4).
6) I'm not nearly as enamored with Tom Brady as you think I am. The tuck rule was a bad call. He benefited from better coaching and better defenses than Manning. Brady's performance in the playoffs over the past 8+ years has not been stellar. I don't like the way he carries himself on the field. I hate it when he gets in a refs face and tries to get some call. I don't have a Tom Brady jersey, I have a Danny Woodhead jersey. What else do you want me to say?
7) There you go letting your bias cloud your judgment. It was concluded that it was "more probable than not" that he knew about balls being deflated. Nowhere did the report, nor has any other source, established that Tom Brady is a cheater. The report did not establish that he told McNally to deflate footballs. It concluded that it was "more probable than not" that he knew something about balls being manipulated. The court of public opinion has concluded that he is guilty. The NFL concluded, and they are consistent in this so I don't have a problem with it, that "more probable than not" is sufficient to establish guilt in their court of law. From that you feel entitled to call him a cheater and impugn his character. I would encourage you to re-read my initial post, since that is what it was about.
8) You still don't understand the point about blame in the initial post. If you were to re-watch the initial Brady deflate gate press conference and saw it through anything other than a lens to judge and find fault, you would see that the guy was presumed guilty from the start. Again, that is what the post was about, and it's much bigger than him or the Patriots.
Last edited:
The NFL handed down a four game suspension because he is guilty of cheating. Not much more needs to be said.
.
No worries. I apologize too. Not my best form.
And for the record. I have a pretty dysfunctional relationship to my NFL team. Sometimes I feel like the abused spouse who is far too invested in the relationship to let go. But if I could go back in time, I probably wouldn't have gotten married in the first place (or, in this case, ask my Dad to buy me a Drew Bledsoe jersey when I was 11 years old).
Last edited:
And now all the talk out of NFL insiders is Brady's appeal is a lock and he will play week one.
The report is flimsy and basing punishments off of it was nothing more than a PR stunt to distract people from last years domestic assault and drug outbreak. It worked, and now the dominating story will be Tom Brady and the Patriots appealing and getting their punishments over turned.
Similar threads
