The 2016 NFL Playoffs Thread

Anyway, my whole point is that it seems that there's a double standard. We all know what the headlines would read if it were Brady being connected to HGH.

Is this an opinion, or were you going to cite something?

He clearly wasn't in the process of catching the ball any more and had turned upfield. I guess someone could argue about the length of time necessary to establish themselves as a runner (IE: even if they're starting to run down the field, they need more than a second to stop being "defenseless"), but unless the rule specifies that, then it's something left up to the refs' discretion. Which means people are free to think it should have been, but can't claim it's a clear misapplication of it.

You can look that up anywhere, it's a helmet to helmet hit, a personal foul. I mean that game was crazy from both sides, good theater.

Not quite: they admitted there was no "direct evidence," which simply means the evidence was circumstantial. That's a significant admission in the context of a court case, but not in the context of ordinary people weighing probabilities. Nobody could claim, with a straight face, that there is not reasonable doubt that Brady is guilty. But similarly, nobody can seriously claim there is "no evidence."

Correct, people give more or less benefit of the doubt to others depending on how trustworthy they believe they are. After this, if something else comes out about Manning, people will be more likely to believe it than they would have before this, too.

It wouldn't be a double standard, anyway, because the accusations are for entirely different things. A lot of people don't much care if players use steroids to recover from injury. I'm not sure I agree, but that doesn't require them to be similarly dismissive of any other rule or accusation.

Helmet-to-helmet hits are not automatic fouls.

But they don't have any evidence against Brady. Some fat guy calling himself the deflator in May is no evidence against a player that he has no communication with. The only thing they know about Brady is that he had a copy of the rule book brought to the refs before the games to ensure that the psi was at the legal limit.

Not always, but in a play like that, yes. The defender will most likely be fined.

My mom always taught me 150 wrongs finally make a right.

__________________
Letterboxd

Maybe the strangest thing that I see in the Brady/Manning controversy comparison, is that the public and media seem to be on the side that the known lies are coming from. We know the NFL told multiple lies in the Brady case, while the Guyer clinic has been caught in a lie while trying to defend Manning. I would see these as major red flags but people just seem to believe what they want to believe.

I dont think New England is good enough to get too the superbowl reguardless. Unless Gronk and And Edelman play. But KC could choke or roll right over new england.

I personally would have had Osweiller over Manning because Peyton can beat Steelers cause he has done it.

ESPN had a former NFL referee on Sportscenter after the game (can't remember the gentleman's name) who said that the Shazier hit should have been a penalty. It is a penalty (at all levels of football) to lead with the crown of the helmet, which is what Shazier did. It didn't matter if it fell under the "defenseless receiver" rule or not. The rule regarding the crown of the helmet (or "spearing") has been around much longer.

Gronk and Edelman will play. It doesn't mean NE will beat KC, although it's highly likely, but just pretend that the last 6 weeks of the Pat's season didn't happen.

That's correct. The defenseless player rule is fairly new, and was designed to protect players who can't be protected under the helmet to helmet rule, just like the call in the first half against the Bengals.

Like I keep saying, this entire argument seems premised on a misuse of the word "evidence." It doesn't mean proof, or direct evidence, or even evidence you find persuasive. The discussion will go nowhere until that's addressed, but if you want to get into it yet again, kindly go bump the thread from last year instead of crowding out the actual playoff talk with a rehashing of it.

No argument there.

Everyone does it, so nobody's guilty. Just sit back, lower your expectations, and enjoy.

I believe Manning was more than likely getting HGH under his wife's name to tecover from his neck injury. He is probably not the only one.

I believe Brady likes his footballs at a lower PSI and is probably not the only one.

I think questonable hits happen in the NFL all the time but there are a handful of guys that headhunt. When a player is letting his emotions get the best of him it would be wise to remove him from a situation where someone could be seriously injured. That never happens in any sport..

Our professional athletes are always looking for a leg up. When it comes to breaking the rules that is not a good thing. Instead of owning we always point and say he did it first. Nothing will change when we have the current attitude.

Yeah, I think people get confused about what they expect, and what they ought to be okay with. I absolutely expect professional athletes to straddle ethical lines to win. Doesn't mean it's okay, or good, or should be shrugged off.

I agree, and think his wife probably took it too.

But what do you base that on? The only thing we know about Brady is his demanding the referees to make sure the balls are legal.

This is the first time in my life I've rooted for the Vikings. Literally.

I would like to, but it's hard when your big star is AP.