Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

If you look at the report, the only person who could have/should have been suspended was suspended.

4 games is too much though, but that will end reduced to 2 most likely.

Brady was suspended more games than Ray Rice was initially. Really?

 gorgon wrote:

The way I see it, suspending Brady is the best way to punish the organization. The machine would run without Belichick just fine for a few games (and BB would probably find a way to circumvent the suspension anyway).

You're probably right. I was thinking of a no-contact suspension, which the NFL may not be able to order.

So Brady and co. Have hired Jeff Kessler, pretty much the most prominent sports law/anti trust litigator out there. Brady and the patriots are gearing up for war on the NFL. With the absurdity of the "wells report" and Ted Wells abysmal conference call fail today coupled with the complete ineptitude of the NFL front office expect a lot of this suspension/punishment to get overturned and thrown out completely.

Chancetragedy wrote:
So Brady and co. Have hired Jeff Kessler, pretty much the most prominent sports law/anti trust litigator out there. Brady and the patriots are gearing up for war on the NFL. With the absurdity of the "wells report" and Ted Wells abysmal conference call fail today coupled with the complete ineptitude of the NFL front office expect a lot of this suspension/punishment to get overturned and thrown out completely.

That isn't the argument I'm making, the only people making that argument are the ones who want to characterize it as a witch hunt.

I actually don't understand your argument as I have you on ban list for some reason(assuming something related to original story).

Literally none of my posts in this thread have been directed at or in response to anything you've wrote until now gorgon sorry if there was any misunderstanding. We'll have to agree to disagree about this being a witch hunt because the wells report has proved unequivocally that the patriots aren't cheaters and yet in the very same breathe procla Ms they are. And since you've been fairly moderate in this thread i don't think I'll keep you blocked.

The thing about the report with all its "more probable than nots" is that, if you already believed Tom Brady was innocent, the report won't change your mind, and if you already believed he was guilty, the report simply confirms your belief.

Anyway, if I heard right on the radio this morning, Game 4 of his suspension would be against the Cowboys. I'm cool with that. The 'Boys needs every chance they can get.

 Ahtman wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
The lost earnings by Brady is closer to 2 million.

How will he eat the poor bastard?

He'll have to bang super models for money...

4 game suspension, 1 million dollar fine, loss of 2 draft picks. because the pats may or may not have done something.....Thank god actual Law isn't based on this because we would all be screwed.

Side note: SPYGATE: under NFL rules you are prohibited from recording any other team from the sidelines for purposes of gaining an advantage IN THAT GAME.

Bill studied the footage afterwards for the next time those two teams met. It actually wasn't a big deal, and the Jets coach who started the whole shenanigans said so himself.

"I didn't think it was any kind of significant advantage, but I wasn't going to give them the convenience of doing it in our stadium, and I wanted to shut it down. But there was no intent to get the league involved. There was no intent to have the landslide that it has become."

- Jets Head Coach Eric Mangini

So what you have here is Bill breaking a rule on a technicality and getting thrown under a bus.

Now onto the Deflate gate. remember the punishment posted above.

Vikings vs Panthers - Both teams found to be cheating by heating up the game balls during incredibly cold temperatures, not only were the teams warned before hand but the punishment was?.....Nothing, just a warning.

2012 the Chargers used towels with an adhesive applied to them to "dry" the balls. I would venture to say that is significantly more beneficial then under inflating a ball. What were the Chargers fined for this CLEAR violation>? 20,000 and no suspensions.

So please, everyone out their who thought this was a fair punishment, please explain.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

2012 the Chargers used towels with an adhesive applied to them to "dry" the balls. I would venture to say that is significantly more beneficial then under inflating a ball.

If there is ANY moisture in the air whatsoever, that adhesive/tackiness makes the ball even more slick than if you had kept it "dry" with a towel. I played 4 years of HS football in Oregon, during which I think I had 6 games that DIDN'T have rain, fog, sleet, mud, or some other form of precipitation/leftover from precipitation on the field.... A wet ball actually became easier to grip and handle when it was water logged than it was if it had been dried and got water basically splashed or dripped onto it.


Now, it being San Diego, and there very rarely being any sort of water in the air, yeah, that could be an issue. But one that should be easily visible to the referees and rectified on the scene.

The point being, there are two cases of almost the exact same thing happening and the fines/penalties are SIGNIFICANTLY less then what was handed to the Patriots. So as I said earlier, someone explain to me why the 4 game suspension, 1million dollar fine (Biggest ever) and loss of 2 draft picks is warranted when similar plays went with nothing but a slight tap on the wrist.

As some of the sources have pointed out, Brady "didn't cooperate" with investigators.

If that is remotely true, I would suspect that the suspension is more for that than the actual cheating.

if you read the report the only thing Brady failed to do was give them access to his private phone. The patriots were also thrown under the bus with "not cooperating" because they refused to make one of their employees sit for a 4th or 5th interview.

This sort of goes to back to my question of who has actually read the report? I have twice now.

Wells actually comments in it that Brady was extremely cooperative until wells asked for his phone. And upon legal advice Brady didn't turn it over. Here is Brady's only "possible" mistake Imo as they were given options that did not include handing over anything Brady's own camp hasnt vetted.

If we use the "science" reported in the wells report and use the same standard for judgement used on the colts balls for the patriots balls as well. 3 of the patriots balls were .2psi under the projected range of pressure drop, 5 were inside the range of projected psi loss, and 3 were over the range of projected psi loss provided by exponent(just as an FYI this is the company that has previously proven 2nd hand smoke DOESNT cause lung cancer)

Also buried in the report are statements that McNally repeatedly told the refs that Brady likes his footballs at 12.5. If he was planning on deflating them why even care what they are set at?

And if you actually put the texts provided in the report in order with their actual time stamps you realize there are clearly parts of the conversation missing. And the texts are provided in an intentionally misleading way.

Basically the NFL/Ted Wells thinks were all stupid and has tried to bury what a sham this whole thing is in footnotes and deep within the report hoping that people don't notice. And a lot of people are proving them right. Because we're a footnotes society who latch onto every rediculous media headline as if it's actual fact.

Chancetragedy wrote:

Wells actually comments in it that Brady was extremely cooperative until wells asked for his phone. And upon legal advice Brady didn't turn it over. Here is Brady's only "possible" mistake Imo as they were given options that did not include handing over anything Brady's own camp hasnt vetted.

While I agree that Brady shouldn't have been "forced" to hand over his phone, or at least not been dinged for following his own legal advice (what, are they going to find "adult" pictures of people other than Giselle on there?).... however, When have we ever really accepted the "word" of people who are clearly on the side of one party? By this I mean, why should anyone accept "Brady's own camp" saying, "ohh yeah, we checked his phone and it's wicked clean, yeah, nothin really to see except the text from his wife remindin' him not to lose his khaki's again, she dont want to pick him up from work again because it's wicked cold right now"



All this recent negative press has started to make me wonder how much longer Goodell is going to last??

That's probably exactly why Brady didn't go that route. Don't quote me on this but I believe Don Yee made a radio statement to that exact effect. Basically saying even if we went that route they wouldn't have believed us and we probably would have been dinged as uncooperative regardless. So they chose to just not hand over.

Which funnily enough none of the NFL front office including Goodell handed over their personal phones in the Mueller Ray Rice tape investigation. But yet they slammed Brady with a 4 game suspensions over following the lead of the NFL. Double standard much?

Basically it all comes down to Brady is not missing even a single game. This will all get thrown out of a court of law and I wouldn't be surprised if the patriots don't lose any draft picks either after Kraft fight the organizations punishment as well. Although the patriots organization have a lot less options in fighting their punishment.

Kraft is a scary man. Seriously, Goodell picked the wrong team to go after to try and stabilize his reign as biggest nincompoop in the NFL.

Ok, I'm not a sports gjy, but how does underflating the ball help?

Slightly better grip when throwing the ball. The biggest thing is that every QB has a certain type of PSI they feel comfortable with. But in this situation it was designed to help in the conditions on the field.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Slightly better grip when throwing the ball. The biggest thing is that every QB has a certain type of PSI they feel comfortable with. But in this situation it was designed to help in the conditions on the field.

That, and the Patriots favor short passing routes, where an underinflated ball is no hindrance.

If the condition of the ball can be altered to give one team an unfair advantage, why in the hell would a professional sports organisation leave the teams to look after the ball themselves?

Any other sport I can think of the officials provide the ball, and take control of it during breaks in play. It’s just completely bizarre to me that a sport that is so heavily regulated like NFL would just trust the teams to bring their own gear.

 sebster wrote:
If the condition of the ball can be altered to give one team an unfair advantage, why in the hell would a professional sports organisation leave the teams to look after the ball themselves?

Any other sport I can think of the officials provide the ball, and take control of it during breaks in play. It’s just completely bizarre to me that a sport that is so heavily regulated like NFL would just trust the teams to bring their own gear.

And truth be told, I'm not even convinced it provides that big an advantage. We have multiple QBs going on record saying they prefer 'over-inflated' footballs (Aaron Rodgers, Philip Rivers). Anecdotally, I asked my uncle, who played QB at UK, and he said he wasn't even sure he'd be able to notice.

@Sebster -- They didn't used to let the teams do anything with the balls, but the problem ended up being that they'd use fresh footballs on Sundays, and they 'play' differently than ones that have been used. So in 2007 (I think) at the strong urging of a one Peyton Manning (former Colt QB, btw), the NFL now allows teams to 'break in' their footballs for the game (think a baseball mitt). I don't think the "breaking in" is a real question, but as you said, its more the controls weren't in place for the officials to adequate track the footballs and their pressure.

Now, to me, the lack of controls tells me that it's that little a concern for the officials and has very little impact on the game itself. Especially since after the 'tainted' footballs were repressured to the correct standards, then Patriots beat the crap out of the crybaby Colts.

I can't stand the Patriots, but this whole thing is a sham.

 cincydooley wrote:
@Sebster -- They didn't used to let the teams do anything with the balls, but the problem ended up being that they'd use fresh footballs on Sundays, and they 'play' differently than ones that have been used. So in 2007 (I think) at the strong urging of a one Peyton Manning (former Colt QB, btw), the NFL now allows teams to 'break in' their footballs for the game (think a baseball mitt).

Actually, Tom Brady co-led that charge with Manning in 2006, which I think is something the NFL took into consideration here. He'd previously gone on record about having a preference for certain PSI levels. I'm no lawyer, but that goes to motive, methinks.

Rick Gosselin (sp?) of the Dallas Morning News pointed out in a column how Brady's passer rating skyrocketed from 2006 on compared to the 2001-2005 period. Although I think there are a ton of other factors that played into that more than underinflated footballs. Even beyond maturity and experience, getting Randy Moss on the team in 2007 was more than a minor factor, right?

But Kraft, Brady and the Pats would do well to keep their traps shut and accept the punishment. Underinflated footballs aren't the kind of thing that should get asterisks placed next to the Pats' SB wins. It would have been a tempest in a teacup if they had just played ball (pun intended) when the whole thing broke. And it still won't be a big deal if they just let the storm pass. Keep the thing in the public consciousness by starting litigation, etc...different story.

Spygate, in comparison, was a big deal that could have had a more significant effect on game results. But that's over and done with and the evidence was destroyed.

Anyone consider that this punishment was more than the football?

Remember Spygate? Goodell took a feth - ton flack for destroying the tapes. He did that to partially cover the Pats and to get the issue off the media docket.

And now, this?

This is Goodell saying "I covered for you... and you still do this? Fine, it's hammer time!"

It's the only thing that makes sense to me.

 gorgon wrote:


But Kraft, Brady and the Pats would do well to keep their traps shut and accept the punishment. Underinflated footballs aren't the kind of thing that should get asterisks placed next to the Pats' SB wins. It would have been a tempest in a teacup if they had just played ball (pun intended) when the whole thing broke. And it still won't be a big deal if they just let the storm pass. Keep the thing in the public consciousness by starting litigation, etc...different story.

Why should they?

The punishment here, especially considering the specious 'evidence,' is absurd.

 sebster wrote:
If the condition of the ball can be altered to give one team an unfair advantage, why in the hell would a professional sports organisation leave the teams to look after the ball themselves?

Any other sport I can think of the officials provide the ball, and take control of it during breaks in play. It’s just completely bizarre to me that a sport that is so heavily regulated like NFL would just trust the teams to bring their own gear.

I'm fine with the NFL providing game balls directly to officials and them having an official ball handler on each side of the field that provides new balls to the equipment manager as needed or directly to the players. Or put a locker on each end and near the middle on both sidelines that they can get to. Whatever it takes.

 Easy E wrote:
Brady was suspended more games than Ray Rice was initially. Really?

I guess according to the NFL, violence against women is just a case of "boys will be boys."

The NFL has pretty much no real credibility.
Even NHL officiating has more credibility, despite this year set a new record for most offside goals allowed! (and there's still better odds of the Loafs winning a Cup than video review being allowed by the league!)

Experiment 626 wrote:

I guess according to the NFL, violence against women is just a case of "boys will be boys."

Welcome to every men's professional sport.

Experiment 626 wrote:

Even NHL officiating has more credibility...

Yeah, that isn't even remotely true. The NHL is on par with the early 90's NBA, and is edging dangerously close to FIFA.

Experiment 626 wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Brady was suspended more games than Ray Rice was initially. Really?

I guess according to the NFL, violence against women is just a case of "boys will be boys."

To be fair, what Rice did had nothing to do with the actual game itself. I almost made the same point, because I think it's equally as absurd as you, but I think it's worth pointing out that hitting women, while deplorable, has no direct impact on fumble rates in an NFL game.

What the NFL needs to do is just let teams do whatever the hell they want with the ball. Why does it even matter what PSI or preparation process a team uses if they are the only ones using that ball?

And @Gorgon there is a 0.0% chance the patriots shut up and take the punishment because there is 0.0% evidence that they actually cheated. Everybody just keeps ignoring the fact the wells report PROVES THEY DIDNT CHEAT! But it's convenient for their hot sport takes so I don't blame them.