View Full Version : DeflateGate and Tom Bradys punishment
I got to say, actually I want to say that Im not a Patriots fan. Never liked them ever since they ran up the score on everyone that one season, and every opportunity they ever get to. I think Tom Brady sucks.
Ok then. :) To the topic. Im not sure about this one. The Patriots completely dismantled the Seahawks in the Super Bowl.* Incorrect statement on my part. I was thinking of Indianapolis game. :blush:
If they suspend Brady they should suspend Belichick too because he was probably the one that came up with the idea. You think Tom Brady did?! Puh-leeze! Belichick is the Uni Mind of that team like Al Davis was to the Raiders, aint a damn thing being done on the field he doesnt know about or have a hand in. Just my 2cents.
welcome to the real world where cheaters win
The Patriots completely dismantled the Seahawks in the Super Bowl. A little air being taken out making that much difference?!
They didn't dismantle them--they won an incredibly close game, and probably should have lost if not for an unusual Seattle play call. They dismantled Indianapolis, however.
Even so, punishment is about the attempt--the offender doesn't get credit if they try to cheat and fail, or cheat when it turns out they didn't need an edge, etc.
Anyway, it sounds like a punishment is coming down this week. I'm gonna guess 2-4 games for Brady, followed by more fervent wishcasting about how this doesn't tarnish their legacy.
They didn't dismantle them--they won an incredibly close game, and probably should have lost if not for an unusual Seattle play call. They dismantled Indianapolis, however.
Yeah I edited the first post accordingly. An incredibly smelly brainfart on my part there.
False Writer
05-11-15, 01:27 PM
My opinion is, if you broke the rules, you broke the rules, and you deserve punishment. None of that "Oh but it looked like they didn't even need to do that. They would've won anyway." It doesn't matter. They still broke the rules, and just like the Saints, they get away with cheating and still get credit for winning their Superbowl.
Brady might be good, but every single Superbowl the Patriots won has cheating and controversy all over them. And with him being the one that handles the football and being such a prominent figure in the organization, I'm fairly certain he knew about it.
It also sickens me when people compare Brady to Montana... eck.
Montana= 4 Superbowls with no cheating and him making clutch plays at the last second.
Brady= 4 Superbowls with cheating in all of them and Brady needing his kicker and/or defense to bail him out at the last second.
rauldc14
05-11-15, 01:34 PM
It's too late for a punishment in my opinion. If they wanted to rid this cheating stuff, he should have been suspended for the Super Bowl. That would have made people think twice about this stuff. What is 4 games going to do? If they play the Jets and Bills the first four weeks they will still be 2-2.
cricket
05-11-15, 08:33 PM
To False Writer talking about Montana: he threw the ball to the greatest receiver who ever played, a guy who has admitted to using stickum. Other 49ers infractions include salary cap violations, tampering, ped suspensions, headset violations, and more. Dream on if you think the Pats are the only team that has got in trouble for violating rules-not even close.
It's too late for a punishment in my opinion. If they wanted to rid this cheating stuff, he should have been suspended for the Super Bowl. That would have made people think twice about this stuff. What is 4 games going to do? If they play the Jets and Bills the first four weeks they will still be 2-2.
Hey, Hey. What did I ever do to you?
It's becoming pretty clear that, while the Patriots aren't the only team to ever cheat (an obvious straw man), they probably do it a lot more often than everyone else.
My opinion is, if you broke the rules, you broke the rules, and you deserve punishment. None of that "Oh but it looked like they didn't even need to do that. They would've won anyway." It doesn't matter. They still broke the rules, and just like the Saints, they get away with cheating and still get credit for winning their Superbowl.
Brady might be good, but every single Superbowl the Patriots won has cheating and controversy all over them. And with him being the one that handles the football and being such a prominent figure in the organization, I'm fairly certain he knew about it.
It also sickens me when people compare Brady to Montana... eck.
Montana= 4 Superbowls with no cheating and him making clutch plays at the last second.
Brady= 4 Superbowls with cheating in all of them and Brady needing his kicker and/or defense to bail him out at the last second.
Also, what the Saints did is despicable but it is not cheating to get any kind of advantage, right?
cricket
05-11-15, 08:42 PM
It's becoming pretty clear that, while the Patriots aren't the only team to ever cheat (an obvious straw man), they probably do it a lot more often than everyone else.
Because an "independent" lawyer hired by the NFL says it's more probable than not-meaning it's at least a 51% chance in his opinion, even though there's no proof, and wild inconsistencies coming from the referees and league office. I don't care who this happens to, I hate this judgemental, assumptive crap.
rauldc14
05-11-15, 08:44 PM
What the Saints did really isn't cheating.
It's becoming pretty clear that, while the Patriots aren't the only team to ever cheat (an obvious straw man), they probably do it a lot more often than everyone else.
I agree that it is obvious that the Patriots will skirt any rule that doesn't seem to being paid attention to. What I don't like is retroactive punishment, and treating it differently because it is a winning team. If this is the Bills is there any doubt they would have gotten the $25,000 fine and everyone would have just moved on. It was the same with the steroid scandal in baseball. No one gives a damn about the small names on the list but we are still talking about Bonds and A-Rod. If you care that much about your rules, find a way to enforce them on the field when it matters. Not later when there is egg on your face.
Not hugely familiar with the controversy - though I'm not gonna just jump on the "ha ha they're cheaters" bandwagon", because it's really just an attempt by the media to cash in on people loving to be outraged over something.
People in real life cheat in small ways often anyway, such as taking a few extra minutes too long on their lunchbreaks - yet it's only when it's a "famous person" doing it that people feel the need to be huge busybodies and point fingers.
The media makes too much money selling manufactured 'outrage' and I'll just do the best I can to deny them of that and be more concerned with myself.
cricket
05-11-15, 08:52 PM
What I don't like is people calling them cheaters. Every team has violated rules. I'm not positive that Tom Brady is innocent, but I'm certainly not convinced he did anything wrong.
Losers point fingers and throw stones. Winners give credit when it's due. That goes for players, coaches, fans, whoever.
Because an "independent" lawyer hired by the NFL says it's more probable than not-meaning it's at least a 51% chance in his opinion, even though there's no proof and wild inconsistencies coming from the referees and league office.
This is all right out of the Damage Control Cook Book: if there's no evidence, demand evidence. If there is evidence, demand incontrovertible proof. If there's proof, start looking for any irregularity or inconsistency from the opposing side to imply that the entire process is suspect, etc.
Add a pinch of scare quotes for flavor and let stand; serves the entire population of New England.
rauldc14
05-11-15, 08:55 PM
What are we giving credit for? Congratulations you made it through a game with deflated balls? And they didn't catch your punishment u til after the Super Bowl?
cricket
05-11-15, 08:57 PM
This is all right out of the Damage Control Cook Book: if there's no evidence, demand evidence. If there is evidence, demand incontrovertible proof. If there's proof, start looking for any irregularity or inconsistency from the opposing side to imply that the entire process is suspect, etc.
Add a pinch of scare quotes for flavor and let stand; serves the entire population of New England.
Are you completely convinced that easily that Tom Brady violated the rules? I'm not, and it has nothing to do with who he is.
Are you completely convinced that easily that Tom Brady violated the rules?
What is "completely convinced"? Because raising the burden of proof is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.
I am convinced Brady knew what was going on and wanted it to happen. I think this is significantly more likely than the series of things I would have to believe for this not to be true. And I think the fact that we're talking about being completely convinced, rather than just convinced, says a lot about where the evidence points.
I'm not, and it has nothing to do with who he is.
How could you possibly know this? You've never lived through a version of this scandal where you weren't a huge Patriots fans with a major emotional stake in defending them.
cricket
05-11-15, 09:09 PM
What are we giving credit for? Congratulations you made it through a game with deflated balls? And they didn't catch your punishment u til after the Super Bowl?
Kind of funny that Brady has said he wants his balls at 12.5 and Andrew Luck has said he wants them at 14.5, yet the Colts balls were bordering at the low end of the legal limit at halftime of that game, with one of the refs recording 3 of their 4 balls under the legal limit, hmmmmm. Funny that the NFL hired "independent" investigator totally ruled out environmental causes even though other scientists and engineers have said that environment can change psi. Either way, lots of inconsistency and plenty of room for doubt no matter what team you root for.
cricket
05-11-15, 09:12 PM
What is "completely convinced"? Because raising the burden of proof is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.
I am convinced Brady knew what was going on and wanted it to happen. I think this is significantly more likely than the series of things I would have to believe for this not to be true. And I think the fact that we're talking about being completely convinced, rather than just convinced, says a lot about where the evidence points.
How could you possibly know this? You've never lived through a version of this scandal where you weren't a huge Patriots fans with a major emotional stake in defending them.
If I let my emotions dictate my feelings, I wouldn't bet against them. There's possibilities on both sides of the equation here, but the unprecedented punishment does not fit the alleged crime. Anyone who wants to call them cheaters, that's fine, as long as you know your team cheats too. I don't personally look at it that way; I don't know how anyone could and still be an NFL fan.
cricket
05-11-15, 09:23 PM
We know this for sure:
2 refs gauged the balls at halftime and got 2 different readings on every single ball. Of 4 Colt's balls tested, one of the refs found 3 of them to be below the legal limit in psi. We know the readings before the game were not logged, and we do not know which gauge was used then. Isn't this enough to throw the whole process into doubt?
Derek Vinyard
05-11-15, 09:29 PM
Pats and Brady are cheater it's nothing new around here...
cricket
05-11-15, 09:34 PM
Pats and Brady are cheater it's nothing new around here...
You stick to hockey!
Derek Vinyard
05-11-15, 09:37 PM
You stick to hockey!
Hell yeah my Canadians play tomorrow :D
GO HABS GO !!!
How could you possibly know this? You've never lived through a version of this scandal where you weren't a huge Patriots fans with a major emotional stake in defending them.
Someone could just as easily speculate that Yoda is an Eagles fan
Frightened Inmate No. 2
05-11-15, 09:58 PM
they absolutely cheated, and in a perfect world they would've been forced to forfeit the super bowl, but the nfl didn't want to hurt it's favorite team or lose billions of dollars in revenue. i don't care that "everybody cheats." when they get caught, they should be punished accordingly.
Derek Vinyard
05-11-15, 10:00 PM
they absolutely cheated, and in a perfect world they would've been forced to forfeit the super bowl, but the nfl didn't want to hurt it's favorite team or lose billions of dollars in revenue. i don't care that "everybody cheats." when they get caught, they should be punished accordingly.
this is the first time ever that I am actually 100% agree with you
cricket
05-11-15, 10:03 PM
they absolutely cheated, and in a perfect world they would've been forced to forfeit the super bowl, but the nfl didn't want to hurt it's favorite team or lose billions of dollars in revenue. i don't care that "everybody cheats." when they get caught, they should be punished accordingly.
What exactly convinces you that Tom Brady knowingly did something wrong?
I think the punishment fits the crime, I don't see how deflating a ball could seriously alter the outcome of a game; don't see this cheating as remotely comparable to something like the 1919 Box Sox Scandal in the MLB.
cricket
05-11-15, 10:10 PM
If Brady is guilty, a huge if, it's an equipment violation. Curbing your stick in hockey gets you a two minute penalty. Use too much pine tar in baseball, maybe you get thrown out of the game. It's not a big deal and never was.
False Writer
05-11-15, 10:54 PM
To False Writer talking about Montana: he threw the ball to the greatest receiver who ever played, a guy who has admitted to using stickum. Other 49ers infractions include salary cap violations, tampering, ped suspensions, headset violations, and more. Dream on if you think the Pats are the only team that has got in trouble for violating rules-not even close.
Before even reading your other posts in this thread I assumed you were a Patriots fan judging by your rather hostile response. I like you a lot Cricket so I don't want something like football damage our views of each other. There are a couple things I want to point out though.
I am fully aware that there are other teams that break the rules, I even said in my post that the Saints cheated.
Also, Montana did win 2 Superbowls before Rice even showed up to San Francisco. That should prove that he's a great QB even without the best wide receiver.
cricket
05-11-15, 11:08 PM
Before even reading your other posts in this thread I assumed you were a Patriots fan judging by your rather hostile response. I like you a lot Cricket so I don't want something like football damage our views of each other. There are a couple things I want to point out though.
I am fully aware that there are other teams that break the rules, I even said in my post that the Saints cheated.
Also, Montana did win 2 Superbowls before Rice even showed up to San Francisco. That should prove that he's a great QB even without the best wide receiver.
There's no doubt in my mind that Montana was a great quarterback, but he violated the league's headset rules, and his team violated the salary cap rules. Does that diminish his or his team's accomplishments? I don't think so, but you should if you think the Pats accomplishments are fraudulent. You can't have it both ways; what bothers me is fans of other teams being completely hypocritical.
Didn't mean to sound hostile btw.*
cricket
05-11-15, 11:23 PM
And a couple other points on Brady vs Montana; they each have 4 Super wins, but Brady has been to 6. Yes, he lost 2, but that's better than losing before getting to the Super Bowl. Also, Montana, had a much more consistent and consistently better supporting cast. I won't just flat out say Brady is better, but there's most definitely an argument to be made.
Captain Spaulding
05-12-15, 12:20 AM
If you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin'.
Funny that the NFL hired "independent" investigator totally ruled out environmental causes even though other scientists and engineers have said that environment can change psi.
Funny how you act like this is a contradiction when it isn't: ruling out environmental causes as an explanation is not the same thing as saying they have no potential effect.
Also funny how the environment decided to make sure the Pats' balls were significantly more deflated. So unless atmospheric pressure has achieved sentience (and lives in Hartford), this doesn't fly.
If Brady is guilty, a huge if, it's an equipment violation. Curbing your stick in hockey gets you a two minute penalty. Use too much pine tar in baseball, maybe you get thrown out of the game.
See, this is the kind of comment that makes it look like the only strategy here is to throw a bunch of arguments at the wall and see what sticks.
There are obvious differences. Just mathematically, every individual football game is far more significant, because there are fewer of them. There are five times as many hockey games per day and ten times as many baseball games. And this was an AFC Championship Game. And the league suggested the punishment was based in part on the belief that this has been ongoing. And there's a big difference between altering your own equipment and actually plotting to sneak into an equipment room outside of your team's purview.
On top of all that, they're completely different sports. There's no valid way to compare the effect of pine tar on a bat (which there's reason to believe adds little to no competitive advantage, by the way) to the inflation of a football.
If I let my emotions dictate my feelings, I wouldn't bet against them.
You mentioned this last year, and here was my response:
That certainly shows that you don't engage in mindless optimism. But that's just one way in which fans often fail to be objective. Another is in defending them from accusations, which is the more relevant one for our purposes. Lots of fans defend their team in kneejerk, unobjective ways that have nothing to do with how well they think they'll play. Like this one.
Unless you've been placing bets on DeflateGate, this really doesn't demonstrate objectivity. If anything, someone thinking they're objective about something like this makes me even more convinced that they're not.
Anyone who wants to call them cheaters, that's fine, as long as you know your team cheats too.
Only if you reduce cheating to a binary state. Which would be ridiculous.
Everyone has lied, but we don't call everyone liars. We call people liars if they lie a lot.
Every team has tried to cheat. We call teams cheaters if they cheat a lot.
cricket
05-12-15, 11:04 AM
Funny how you act like this is a contradiction when it isn't: ruling out environmental causes as an explanation is not the same thing as saying they have no potential effect.
Also funny how the environment decided to make sure the Pats' balls were significantly more deflated. So unless atmospheric pressure has achieved sentience (and lives in Hartford), this doesn't fly.
But the Patriot's balls can have less psi than the Colt's balls legally to begin with.
See, this is the kind of comment that makes it look like the only strategy here is to throw a bunch of arguments at the wall and see what sticks.
There are obvious differences. Just mathematically, every individual football game is far more significant, because there are fewer of them. There are five times as many hockey games per day and ten times as many baseball games. And this was an AFC Championship Game. And the league suggested the punishment was based in part on the belief that this has been ongoing. And there's a big difference between altering your own equipment and actually plotting to sneak into an equipment room outside of your team's purview.
If the league was aware of it, and think it's a big deal, why do they allow it to go on for the first half of a championship game.
On top of all that, they're completely different sports. There's no valid way to compare the effect of pine tar on a bat (which there's reason to believe adds little to no competitive advantage, by the way) to the inflation of a football.
Different sports, yes, but it's an equipment violation. I wouldn't know what else to compare it to.
Sorry for the crude method of quoting
cricket
05-12-15, 11:10 AM
You mentioned this last year, and here was my response:
Unless you've been placing bets on DeflateGate, this really doesn't demonstrate objectivity. If anything, someone thinking they're objective about something like this makes me even more convinced that they're not.
Only if you reduce cheating to a binary state. Which would be ridiculous.
Everyone has lied, but we don't call everyone liars. We call people liars if they lie a lot.
Every team has tried to cheat. We call teams cheaters if they cheat a lot.
I have no idea how you can judge my level of objectivity.
I have no idea how you can judge my level of objectivity.
I can't. But neither can you. This is my point.
You keep saying you'd have the same opinion if it were someone else, or that your opinion isn't influenced by your fandom, but you don't have any way of knowing that.
I am a die-hard Pats fan, but a friend asked me to make a meme this morning, so I had a little fun!
http://i.imgur.com/90WRn2i.jpg
Go Pats, Go!
Go Pack, Go! (My other favorite team)
cricket
05-12-15, 11:34 AM
I can't. But neither can you. This is my point.
You keep saying you'd have the same opinion if it were someone else, or that your opinion isn't influenced by your fandom, but you don't have any way of knowing that.
I know because I wouldn't care if the Patriots never won another game.
Huh? Leaving aside that you're just vouching for your own objectivity here (which is impossible), that has literally nothing to do with this. How you respond to your team's performance is not interchangeable with how you defend them from accusations.
cricket
05-12-15, 11:42 AM
Huh? Leaving aside that you're just vouching for your own objectivity here (which is impossible), that has literally nothing to do with this. How you respond to your team's performance is not interchangeable with how you defend them from accusations.
I'm just going by what I know and don't know.
False Writer
05-12-15, 12:50 PM
Go Pats, Go!
Go Pack, Go! (My other favorite team)
OH NO! :eek::sick::eek::sick::eek::sick:
What shite team do you like, FW? ;)
Here is a serious question: is football, the league, all the teams, and the entire paradigm of how it works just bad now? Not defending anyone here, but i just looked at a list of all the cheats by all the teams, and man, it does not look good for the sport. The Broncos top the All-Time list, with a ridiculous 11 PED scandals alone since 2003. That's just one type of infraction, and they have many more.
Here is a site collating all the (known) cheats by team. Sorry Pats haters, but unlike our dominating record and prowess as a team, The Pats fall squarely in the middle of the pack. The Broncos and Steelers, however...well, I will let the evidence speak for itself. ;)
CHEATERS (http://yourteamcheats.com/cheaters/)
Is this sport corrupt beyond the pale, unable to be saved?
@ Chris - Ray Rice socked his wife in the face, rendering her unconscious. That player was given a two-game suspension for his involvement in a domestic abuse crime, which was later adjusted to a harsher penalty once video emerged. Do you feel the 4-game suspension in regards to air pressure in a ball is a fair when considering these facts?
The Bills never cheat when compared to others, no wonder we suck. Couldn't help but notice who was responsible for the Broncos' spygate.
Belichick should have been suspended too. The fact he breezed thru this is comical of the NFLs intelligence. This report absolved the Patriots, but singled out Brady. Then the NFL gives the Patriots a one million dollar fine based on the results of the report which absolved the Patriots of any wrongdoing! The NFLs pathetic. Belichick and Brady should have been suspended for all of next year, no fines, done. Now thats a respectable decision, harsh, but fair. You trying to tell me Bill Belichick isnt the mastermind of short cuts?! fugedaboudit
cricket
05-12-15, 01:19 PM
Tom Brady has been an exceptional citizen on the field and off. There's many children who look up to him. If you go by the 2 gauges used at halftime, you're talking about slightly less than 1 psi difference between their balls and the Colts. Why not say something to Brady rather than make this a huge deal. Less than 1 psi is enough to suddenly want to tarnish Brady's image? The commissioner is an egotistical fool. There's better ways to handle things. He is hurting, not helping, the NFL's image.
cricket
05-12-15, 01:21 PM
Belichick should have been suspended too. The fact he breezed theu this is comical of the NFLs intelligence. This report absolved the Patriots, but singled out Brady. Then the NFL gives the Patriots a one million dollar fine based on the results of the report which absolved the Patriots of any wrongdoing! The NFLs pathetic. Belichick and Brady should have been suspended for all of next year, no fines, done. Now thats a respectable decision, harsh, but fair. You trying to tell me Bill Belichick isnt the mastermind of short cuts?! fugedaboudit
Oh yea that's fair, if you're a communist.
False Writer
05-12-15, 01:38 PM
What shite team do you like, FW? ;)
The Vikings, which should explain my outburst when you said Pats and Packers. (Aaron Rodgers... ugh)
Vikes got a bright future though, I have confidence that Bridgewater will develop into a good QB and Zimmer can get a monster Defense built.
I'll admit though, Aaron Rodgers is a heck of a QB. It gets frustrating because without him, the Packers would pretty much have nothing but since they have one of the best QBs in the game they get to the playoffs just riding off his back every season.
Anyways, yeah—Packs, Pats, Lions, and Saints are my least-favorite football teams. Packs and Lions for obvious divisional reasons, Pats because that's just the bandwagon team nowadays and Saints because they screwed the Vikings in the NFC Championship game in 2010. (I always knew that something wasn't right when I watched that game, and finding out about Bountygate a couple years later just confirmed my suspicions)
I don't take it too seriously anymore though, I use to be completely obsessed with football for years but now I'm pretty much just a casual fan. I didn't even watch the draft this year which was the first time in a long time.
What shite team do you like, FW? ;)
Saints because they screwed the Vikings in the NFC Championship game in 2010. (I always knew that something wasn't right when I watched that game, and finding out about Bountygate a couple years later just confirmed my suspicions)
I understand being disgusted with the bounties, but you have to explain to me how you think it effected the outcome of the game. Also what did you see during the course of the game that "wasn't right"?
Yeah, I am more into fantasy these days than the sport itself, really.
Ah, so we both hate the Bears, then?
*High Five*
See - people can get along!
False Writer
05-12-15, 02:08 PM
I understand being disgusted with the bounties, but you have to explain to me how you think it effected the outcome of the game. Also what did you see during the course of the game that "wasn't right"?
To me, it was obvious that they were deliberately trying to injure Farve. Every single play he would get knocked down and roughed up after the play was over. The most ridiculous part is that I don't remember one unnecessary roughness penalty being called, which led me to believe that it was possible that the refs were in on it also, though I can't say for certain. Farve was a real fighter that game and came back even after the Saints did injure him.
It was just something I noticed and I always had in the back of my mind after that game. I was even telling people that something wasn't right about that game, but they all said I was just bitter that my team lost. And then when I turned on Sportscenter one day and saw the bounty scandal going on and them particularly mentioning the NFC Championship game I just thought to myself "I knew something was up that game. I always knew!"
False Writer
05-12-15, 02:19 PM
Yeah, I am more into fantasy these days than the sport itself, really.
Ah, so we both hate the Bears, then?
*High Five*
See - people can get along!
Ironically, I hate the Bears just a little less than Packs and Lions for some reason. I guess I just haven't had a reason to really hate them like I do the other 2 in recent times. The Packers of course because they are constantly winning the division and Rodgers and all that.
The Lions though because they just act like a bunch of ignorant thugs. I get that they don't win a lot, but when they do they act so freaking cocky and arrogant about it. It also doesn't help that Suh is the dirtiest player in the league (even though he isn't on the Lions anymore)
Anyways, I wouldn't say I hate any team though. I'll even hand it to the Pats and Pack, they are good, Belichick runs a heck of a system in New England, and Rodgers, Brady, and Calvin Johnson are all obvious Hall of Famers.
Fair enough. It is hard for me to remember that far back. To me Favre was always getting roughed up. He played recklessly and held onto the ball too long. All things that lead to getting hit a bunch, which he did in his career. Obviously you saw something else though. I don't know about the ref involvement, that seems like a stretch.
I'm just going by what I know and don't know.
No idea what this means, but your own level of objectivity is definitely one of the things you don't know.
The only sensible thing to do is judge each argument on its merits--we're only talking about this because you keep claiming that you'd react the exact same way if we weren't talking about your favorite team, which just isn't something you can know (and isn't something that's generally consistent with human nature, either).
@ Chris - Ray Rice socked his wife in the face, rendering her unconscious. That player was given a two-game suspension for his involvement in a domestic abuse crime, which was later adjusted to a harsher penalty once video emerged. Do you feel the 4-game suspension in regards to air pressure in a ball is a fair when considering these facts?
Yes, for the same reason Pete Rose gets a lifetime ban for betting on baseball and notorious racist jerks like Ty Cobb don't: the sport is not the police. Their first priority is the integrity of their competition, not the integrity of their players are individuals. The worst thing you can do as a person is not the worst thing you can do as a player.
cricket
05-12-15, 02:29 PM
You're telling me that you know my objectivity level better than I do, simply ridiculous to the core.
False Writer
05-12-15, 02:34 PM
Fair enough. It is hard for me to remember that far back. To me Favre was always getting roughed up. He played recklessly and held onto the ball too long. All things that lead to getting hit a bunch, which he did in his career. Obviously you saw something else though. I don't know about the ref involvement, that seems like a stretch.
Yeah I'm not saying that they were, I'm just saying it seemed that way. I also find it ironic that it was only that game that seemed like the refs kept the flags in their pockets but every single game after that whenever a defensive player even scrapes a QB the flags fly and "roughing the passer" penalties get dealt out all over.
Tom Brady has been an exceptional citizen on the field and off.
Pretty sure the "on" part is one of the things under dispute, no? And this is the kind of thing guilty people say when pleading for lenience. "Your Honor, in light of the accused's exemplary role in the community..."
There's many children who look up to him.
Exactly.
If you go by the 2 gauges used at halftime, you're talking about slightly less than 1 psi difference between their balls and the Colts. Why not say something to Brady rather than make this a huge deal. Less than 1 psi is enough to suddenly want to tarnish Brady's image?
Well, first off: yes, breaking the rules to gain a competitive advantage is enough to tarnish a legacy. What's that old saying about reputation? A lifetime to build, a moment to ruin? Trust is fragile.
But let's be honest: this isn't just "less than 1 psi." The only way to pretend this all boils down to that one fact is to ignore all notions of context and probability.
Finding a difference in air pressure isn't a lot by itself, but it's a lot more when someone's already accused you of it, when we already know he prefers the balls that way, when we know he's talked to the team's equipment guys about it, and when we already know that this team (and this is the most generous interpretation of the facts) likes fiddling around the margins of the rules.
And let's apply a little common sense about human nature: hyper-competitive people with a known history of skirting the rules don't usually stay on the right side of that line. That's just not how people work. This ruthless ambition is one of the things that allows them to become the best in the world in the first place. Obviously, they can't and shouldn't be formally punished for general observations like this, but if you're talking about legacy and tarnishing an image, it's perfectly reasonable to take what we know about the insatiable nature of ambition and apply it. And when you do that, it's nuts to think that the part of the iceberg poking above the surface is the whole thing.
You're telling me that you know my objectivity level better than I do, simply ridiculous to the core.
Er, first off, you already said something like this, and I already answered in the negative (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1308222#post1308222):
I can't. But neither can you. This is my point.
But even if I were saying this, there's nothing remotely ridiculous about it--people are always the worst judges of their own blind spots. That's what makes them blind spots.
What's ridiculous is vouching for one's own objectivity, which is completely circular. It's like trying to serve as your own alibi.
I ask again: Is football now too corrupt in general? We are in the midst of an old fashioned tar and feather job on a team that isn't even one of the worst offenders. Is it too little, too late?
cricket
05-12-15, 02:46 PM
But there's still zero evidence that Brady directed someone to deflate balls lower than the legal limit. Isn't that very important? My point about being a good citizen is simply that I think the NFL could've confronted him as soon as they heard something. If the NFL thinks it's happening, and it's a big deal, why let it continue? Brady could be guilty but I have no way of knowing that, but what I firmly believe is that the refs and the NFL have screwed this up royally.
cricket
05-12-15, 02:48 PM
Er, first off, you already said something like this, and I already answered in the negative (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1308222#post1308222):
But even if I were saying this, there's nothing remotely ridiculous about it--people are always the worst judges of their own blind spots. That's what makes them blind spots.
What's ridiculous is vouching for one's own objectivity, which is completely circular. It's like trying to serve as your own alibi.
You would have a point about judging my objectivity if you knew me.
I ask again: Is football now too corrupt in general? We are in the midst of an old fashioned tar and feather job on a team that isn't even one of the worst offenders. Is it too little, too late?
I have no way of knowing this, but my guess is football is less corrupt then ever. I think the bigger the stakes get, which to me is judged by money and popularity, the more every little thing gets put under a microscope and ultimately ruled upon. That can be a good thing. I like the fact that we are always trying to level the playing field in sports. What I don't like is retroactive punishments and knee jerk reactions especially when the gaze always seems to be on the most successful.
You know you have a problem with the PSI of balls. Make sure the rule is being enforced in game. Check the balls if they are not right chuck them. If one team accuses the other in game, check them, the team cheats apply a predetermined penalty. No different then corked bats, spit balls, or any of these type of infractions.
To all you Brady and Patriot fans, don't read this post. :nope:
Im so glad Brady got suspended. At first I was dubious of the true harm in this, but now that I know more, hey, he deserves it because he was overrated to begin with. :lol: Oh Im so sick and tired of fans comparing him to Brees or Peyton, or even Rodgers, AND HE AINT! When he went down for the year the Patriots did fine, and even went to the playoffs. The Colts fell to pieces when Peyton went down, and you dayum well know the Packers & Saints would crumble without their QB too. Hes a great quarterback, but not one of the great quarterbacks. He'll be regarded as so though.
Belichick is like todays version of Al Davis. He is a football genius, truly doesnt give a crap about his players as people, and probably has invented ways to cheat. He likes to run up the score on teams :furious:, and goes out of his way even to be an incredible bore on camera (sometimes thats funny though). If they suspended Brady & Belichick for the season it would have been the one thing thatd probably change how they behave in the NFL. Instead we get this crap. Goodells a tool. That is all.
False Writer
05-12-15, 03:01 PM
I ask again: Is football now too corrupt in general? We are in the midst of an old fashioned tar and feather job on a team that isn't even one of the worst offenders. Is it too little, too late?
I'd say all sports probably have corruption, including probably the Olympics and European Football. Too much though, is hard to tell. Who knows what really goes on behind closed doors.
I'd probably say yes. The NFL is a complete cash cow. They probably do try to control the influences of the league to try and get the most money out of it all.
cricket
05-12-15, 03:17 PM
Well Tongo, no, the Patriots did not make the playoffs the year Brady got hurt.
The rest is too silly to respond to.
No such thing as running up the score. No such thing. There is such thing as whining about losing though, and I see it a lot. ;)
Meanwhile, when making claims about who is truly great, I must point to one of Chris' most vehement arguments on this site - Ignoring math/stats that run counter to your claims is a fast way to get mud on your face in an argument. Manning is the only guy listed above that can compete in the only area that counts - the math. Brees is garbage, not one of the greatest ever - not even close. Where is his legacy? His dynasty? Has he ever done anything? You can continue to watch his decline this coming season, when he loses a bunch more games with bad decision making. Don't mix up fantasy relevance with real-world achievement. Unitas, Elway, Manning, Brady, Staubach, Marino, Joe frippin Montana...These are the greats. Brees isn't on any lists, and for good reason.
Rodgers is THE MAN, and may end up one of the best ever. Sorry Tongs, your whole post seems like a smear job, as you infer that the QB position as somehow the be-all, end-all of every football team, with teams folding instantly when their signal caller goes down. I think that speaks to the entire team organization itself, and the inflexibility and poor choices other teams make when compared to one of the best organizations in the game, The New England Patriots!
You hate us, because you ain't us! TRUTH.
Now, put em up, mister!!!
http://cdn.meme.am/images/300x/12199147.jpg
Oh I agree the Patriots are the team to beat, but you better believe there's gonna be a big * on Brady and theirs historical accomplishments. ;)
cricket
05-12-15, 03:48 PM
Oh I agree the Patriots are the team to beat, but you better believe there's gonna be a big * on Brady and theirs historical accomplishments. ;)
Why would there be a *, when the dynasties of the past do not?
cricket
05-12-15, 03:51 PM
Bradshaw admitted to steroid use, Rice admitted to using stickum. Sounds like you're jealous of Tommy boy.
Why would there be a *, when the dynasties of the past do not?
Theres a big old * in peoples minds whenever they hear the name Al Davis. Its not about detractors being sore losers as it is disgust.
But there's still zero evidence that Brady directed someone to deflate balls lower than the legal limit. Isn't that very important?
Of course not; all it demonstrates is that Brady isn't a stone cold idiot. Even in a world where Tom Brady is Snidely Whiplash incarnate, and the Patriots are the cheatiest cheats who ever cheated, we still wouldn't have him directly and explicitly ordering people to do it, because it's completely unnecessary. It's easy to direct people to do things like this without doing something stupid like flat-out saying it. This suggests innocence about as much as a mobster saying "Be a shame if something happened to him" instead of "I'm gonna murder that guy."
My point about being a good citizen is simply that I think the NFL could've confronted him as soon as they heard something. If the NFL thinks it's happening, and it's a big deal, why let it continue?
They interviewed him as part of the investigation and gave him the opportunity to cooperate. What exactly are you suggesting they should have done differently?
Brady could be guilty but I have no way of knowing that, but what I firmly believe is that the refs and the NFL have screwed this up royally.
I think they've screwed it up moderately. But more important is that the NFL being screw-ups isn't automatically an exoneration of the Pats. It's quite possible to think the Pats have been cheating and that the NFL is capricious and inept. In fact, both seem to be majority opinions.
You would have a point about judging my objectivity if you knew me.
And you would have a point if I'd actually said I could judge your objectivity. Instead, I said (twice!) that I can't. The only person pretending to be able to judge your objectivity is you.
cricket
05-12-15, 04:04 PM
I think we're getting closer. I'm saying the NFL should've talked to Brady as soon as they got wind of any possible wrongdoing. There never should've been a sting in the first place. They appear to have allowed the first half of a championship game to be played with illegal balls. Everybody loses when in fact this never should've been newsworthy.
Well, the hammer has dropped and we in Pats nation have moved on; it only took us until 3PM today to do it!
Let me be the first to welcome our substitute QB, filling in for a suspended Tom Brady for four games.
I present: Dom Grady
https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/11261847_10206511993829205_5961000505907121707_n.jpg?oh=c3a8c1791389f9ead2f12dabc07568fa&oe=55D6F444&__gda__=1439086625_8c67e1e35c6fc24daf3566c92c5ee797
Any resemblance to another Patriots player is purely coincidental, and is most likely a fabrication of you, the reader.
cricket
05-12-15, 05:54 PM
Most NFL fans will know who Peter King is. He is a longtime sportswriter, and one of the most trusted sources for information about the NFL. He had some very interesting things to say about this story, and the Wells report-
“Officials used two gauges at halftime of the AFC Championship Game to measure the air pressure in 11 New England footballs and four Indianapolis footballs. On page 113 of the Wells report, after a description of the scientific Ideal Gas Law (eyes glaze over), Wells says the Patriots footballs should have measured between 11.32 psi and 11.52 psi. The average of one gauge for the 11 balls was 11.49 psi, on the upper range of what the balls should measure. The average of the other gauge was 11.11 psi, clearly lower than what the balls should have measured. Average all 22 readings, and you get 11.30 … two-one-hundredths lower what the Ideal Gas Law would have allowed for balls that started the day at 12.5 psi. You’re going to suspend someone—never mind a franchise quarterback, never mind without a smoking gun—for an air-pressure *measurement of 11.30 when the allowable measurement would have been 11.32?”
“There have been two recent violations regarding fair play with footballs. One happened last November, when TV cameras at the Minnesota-Carolina game in frigid Minneapolis caught footballs being warmed up by sideline heaters. That’s a rules violation, but the teams were simply warned not to do it again. In 2012, the Chargers were found to be using towels with stickum on the sidelines, presumably for players to be able to grip the footballs better. The team was fined $25,000. Is the presumption that Brady was using footballs about 1 pound per square inch under the minimum limit worth a multigame suspension compared to the other two violations? The other two violations were proven. This one is ‘more probable than not,’ according to the Wells report.”
False Writer
05-12-15, 11:05 PM
No such thing as running up the score. No such thing. There is such thing as whining about losing though, and I see it a lot. ;)
Meanwhile, when making claims about who is truly great, I must point to one of Chris' most vehement arguments on this site - Ignoring math/stats that run counter to your claims is a fast way to get mud on your face in an argument. Manning is the only guy listed above that can compete in the only area that counts - the math. Brees is garbage, not one of the greatest ever - not even close. Where is his legacy? His dynasty? Has he ever done anything? You can continue to watch his decline this coming season, when he loses a bunch more games with bad decision making. Don't mix up fantasy relevance with real-world achievement. Unitas, Elway, Manning, Brady, Staubach, Marino, Joe frippin Montana...These are the greats. Brees isn't on any lists, and for good reason.
I really do still consider Manning to be one of the best of all time. 5 MVPs, all-time leader in touchdowns thrown. Need I really say more? Yes yes I know he hasn't had the playoff success that some have, but heck he has won a Superbowl and the Superbowl MVP. 3 Superbowl appearances isn't too shabby either. I do root for him to win another one, because I feel he really deserves it. Even if he doesn't though he still has an incredible legacy.
I admit I'm not really a fan of Drew Brees, and I don't think he is as good as some of the other legendary QB's, but he will be a Hall of Famer I'm sure.
I think we're getting closer. I'm saying the NFL should've talked to Brady as soon as they got wind of any possible wrongdoing.
Why? If someone's accused of cheating you give them a chance to defend themselves, but you don't give them a private heads-up so they can cover their tracks. Ethical claims have to be investigated in the open. What you're proposing is that Brady should have gotten special treatment just because he's Brady.
There never should've been a sting in the first place. They appear to have allowed the first half of a championship game to be played with illegal balls.
Or they were just lax about it, which seems far more likely. There's an old saying that seems to apply here: never blame on maliciousness what can be attributed to incompetence.
I really do still consider Manning to be one of the best of all time. 5 MVPs, all-time leader in touchdowns thrown. Need I really say more? Yes yes I know he hasn't had the playoff success that some have, but heck he has won a Superbowl and the Superbowl MVP. 3 Superbowl appearances isn't too shabby either. I do root for him to win another one, because I feel he really deserves it. Even if he doesn't though he still has an incredible legacy.
Agree on all counts. And Manning's a legend in two ways, too: not just in pure material achievements (where he's unrivaled), but in terms of influence, in that he pretty much revolutionized the position. People made fun of his little pre-snap song and dance when he came into the league, but now it's increasingly expected that, to be a great QB, you need to be capable of being your own offensive coordinator. A decade ago this was weird, but it's becoming increasingly mandatory.
I hope he wins another, too, not because I think he really needs it, but just so people will have one less flimsy reason to criticize him (I don't think a lot of using Super Bowl victories as a measure for individual greatness).
cricket
05-13-15, 11:36 AM
Why? If someone's accused of cheating you give them a chance to defend themselves, but you don't give them a private heads-up so they can cover their tracks. Ethical claims have to be investigated in the open. What you're proposing is that Brady should have gotten special treatment just because he's Brady.
It doesn't really matter who he is. There was no evidence of cheating, just whispers that his ball felt a little low in psi to someone. Tell him to make sure the balls are up to par because you're going to keep an eye on it. No need to create a huge spectacle during Super Bowl week. It's not good for the league or the fans.
Or they were just lax about it, which seems far more likely. There's an old saying that seems to apply here: never blame on maliciousness what can be attributed to incompetence.
I agree with that.
Was anyone arguing that Manning isn't one of the greats? The guy is pretty ridiculous...
False Writer
05-13-15, 12:59 PM
Was anyone arguing that Manning isn't one of the greats? The guy is pretty ridiculous...
Not in this thread no, but I remember after the Superbowl 2 years ago when Seahawks beat Broncos a whole bunch of analysts were tearing him apart even saying that his legacy will suffer due to that game, the same thing happened this season also after the Bronco's got out of the playoffs. There's also many sports fans I've talked to about Manning that bring it up, and they always act like he'd never won a Superbowl before.
It doesn't really matter who he is. There was no evidence of cheating, just whispers that his ball felt a little low in psi to someone. Tell him to make sure the balls are up to par because you're going to keep an eye on it.
In other words, don't investigate, and just give him a private warning because of his track record? That sounds exactly like special treatment.
No need to create a huge spectacle during Super Bowl week. It's not good for the league or the fans.
It's good for anyone who cares about competitive integrity. And thinking in PR terms like this is exactly the kind of thing that's gotten the NFL into trouble.
Allegations of cheating have to be investigated, and they have to be investigated transparently. The idea that it should be brushed off and/or private is totally untenable.
So much for Tom Bradys legacy. Its looking like when they went after Bill Clinton for that hummer he got.
Former Dolphins quarterback says Brady was using doctored footballs in 2004
http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/former-dolphins-quarterback-says-brady-was-using-doctored-footballs-in-2004/ar-BBjJv67
cricket
05-14-15, 12:56 PM
In other words, don't investigate, and just give him a private warning because of his track record? That sounds exactly like special treatment.
It's good for anyone who cares about competitive integrity. And thinking in PR terms like this is exactly the kind of thing that's gotten the NFL into trouble.
Allegations of cheating have to be investigated, and they have to be investigated transparently. The idea that it should be brushed off and/or private is totally untenable.
No special treatment, I said I don't care who he is. In my view, this was never a story to begin with.
cricket
05-14-15, 12:58 PM
So much for Tom Bradys legacy. Its looking like when they went after Bill Clinton for that hummer he got.
Former Dolphins quarterback says Brady was using doctored footballs in 2004
http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/former-dolphins-quarterback-says-brady-was-using-doctored-footballs-in-2004/ar-BBjJv67
I read that and had a good laugh. He says the balls looked worn or whatever term he used. Why didn't he or his coach or the ref say something then?
No special treatment, I said I don't care who he is. In my view, this was never a story to begin with.
This just doesn't jibe. If you don't care who he is, why did you talk about him being such an upstanding and accomplished guy as a reason why he should have been privately warned?
I read that and had a good laugh. He says the balls looked worn or whatever term he used. Why didn't he or his coach or the ref say something then?
Probably because it's low-level evidence that means very little by itself, but has far more relevance when combined with other evidence. The same way you wouldn't report a red stain on someone's shirt to the police, but you'd definitely mention it if you heard later they were suspected of stabbing someone.
Also, has anyone else noticed that when the source has something nice to say about the Pats, we get a little mini-intro about how they know the game and are highly respected, but when they don't, suddenly being a player isn't granting them any special insight? ;)
cricket
05-14-15, 01:28 PM
This just doesn't jibe. If you don't care who he is, why did you talk about him being such an upstanding and accomplished guy as a reason why he should have been privately warned?
Probably because it's low-level evidence that means very little by itself, but has far more relevance when combined with other evidence. The same way you wouldn't report a red stain on someone's shirt to the police, but you'd definitely mention it if you heard later they were suspected of stabbing someone.
Also, has anyone else noticed that when the source has something nice to say about the Pats, we get a little mini-intro about how they know the game and are highly respected, but when they don't, suddenly being a player isn't granting them any special insight? ;)
You're reading into it too much. No matter who he is, yea, but that doesn't mean if he's some constant, proven trouble maker.
As far as Feeley goes, what does him recalling how a ball looked 11 years ago really mean. He didn't even touch it. Let's see proof of something folks, and start with proving the balls were ever below legal psi to begin with. If anybody wants to create something, there's a way to do it. This seems to be what's happening.
You're reading into it too much. No matter who he is, yea, but that doesn't mean if he's some constant, proven trouble maker.
Hate to harp on this, but I'm not sure how I'm reading into anything. You said his personal history is a reason they shouldn't have publicly investigated. If there's some other way to interpret that, I can't think of it.
As far as Feeley goes, what does him recalling how a ball looked 11 years ago really mean. He didn't even touch it. Let's see proof of something folks, and start with proving the balls were ever below legal psi to begin with. If anybody wants to create something, there's a way to do it. This seems to be what's happening.
Hey, I didn't say it was a particularly damning account. But you asked why he didn't mention it before, and the explanation for that part seems pretty simple: lots of things are inconsequential by themselves, but mean more with more information out there.
cricket
05-15-15, 01:22 PM
Regarding 1st paragraph: You're saying him, I'm saying anyone. This was not a big deal, and now the commissioner will probably lose his job over this whole mess, unless he throws Wells under the bus.
Regarding the 2nd paragraph: Put it with what information? They've got nothing.
Regarding 1st paragraph: You're saying him, I'm saying anyone.
Eh? You didn't say anyone. You specifically talked about his personal history as a reason why they should have gone to him privately and not investigated the matter normally/properly.
Regarding the 2nd paragraph: Put it with what information?
With the balls being deflated, with the text messages, with all the other circumstantial evidence. Jay Feely saying the balls seemed flat 10 years ago has a completely different significance if other people have since made the same accusation and we've found some corroborating evidence.
cricket
05-15-15, 02:03 PM
Look further up the page; I said it doesn't matter who it is.
There is no evidence; it's baffling how you could see otherwise unless you're missing facts.
Look further up the page; I said it doesn't matter who it is.
Yes, you said this after I pointed out that you were suggesting Brady get special treatment, which you did here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1308302).
There is no evidence; it's baffling how you could see otherwise unless you're missing facts.
Every time you restate your arguments the rhetoric gets further away from the reality. First there's no proof. Then, without any new facts, you somehow jump to it being likely that they didn't cheat. Now, suddenly there's "no evidence"? None at all?
cricket
05-15-15, 02:19 PM
Arguing about when I said what is high school bs. I'm telling you, it doesn't matter if it's Brady, Manning, or a linebacker from Tennessee. It should've been handled differently.
I don't know what you consider new facts, but that's right, there's no evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever.
Arguing about when I said what is high school bs.
You think if you say something and I disagree with it, and then you say something else, it should be like you never said the first thing? What?
I'm telling you, it doesn't matter if it's Brady, Manning, or a linebacker from Tennessee. It should've been handled differently.
So your position is that when people are accused of cheating in huge playoff games, that the accused should be given advance notice and the investigation should not be public and transparent?
I don't know what you consider new facts, but that's right, there's no evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever.
I'll respond to this part in the other thread, since that's where all the gauge talk is happening and this is already kinda redundant.
cricket
05-15-15, 02:37 PM
There's nothing to disagree with. I never said Brady alone should get special treatment, and this just didn't come up in the playoff game. It should've been addressed sooner and handled much differently.
There's nothing to disagree with. I never said Brady alone should get special treatment
Sure you did:
Tom Brady has been an exceptional citizen on the field and off. There's many children who look up to him. If you go by the 2 gauges used at halftime, you're talking about slightly less than 1 psi difference between their balls and the Colts. Why not say something to Brady rather than make this a huge deal. Less than 1 psi is enough to suddenly want to tarnish Brady's image?
Why would him being an "exceptional citizen" have anything to do with this if you're saying it isn't about who he is? That's the implication here, unless you're going to tell me these sentences are next to each other for absolutely no reason.
and this just didn't come up in the playoff game. It should've been addressed sooner and handled much differently.
Okay, I'll bite: how should it have been handled? The suggestions you've made so far seem to be about telling him privately first, and not letting it get out. So you're advocating that cheating allegations involve notifying the accused first, and that they shouldn't be conducted openly or transparently, yeah?
cricket
05-16-15, 03:42 PM
You keep talking about Brady cheating, but there's no evidence of it. The NFL has hurt themselves. This became a gigantic story because of how they handled it. They leaked it out that 11 of 12 balls were at least 2 pounds of PSI below the legal limit. It was false, but they never did anything to clarify it. The true figures only came out in the Well's report, which most people haven't bothered to read.
I literally said nothing about Brady cheating in that last post, so I have no idea what any of that is supposed to be a response to. But I think it's probably significant that a lot of questions are being answered with non-sequiturs about the NFL looking bad.
cricket
05-16-15, 04:00 PM
You don't think it's important that the NFL screwed everything up? And knowing that they did, you have this huge blind belief in them? Now the commissioner appoints himself as the independent arbitrator. Are you aware of the Missouri Supreme Court ruling about him?
You don't think it's important that the NFL screwed everything up?
Well, they didn't screw everything up, unless you want to suggest that you mistrust the PSI readings or that the texts and pregame accounts from the refs are fabricated, etc.
As for whether or not it's important: important in what context? It matters for lots of reasons, but it has zero relevance in others. For example, it doesn't explain why Brady should get special treatment, and it doesn't explain why it's a good idea to warn accused cheaters ahead of time and keep investigations opaque and private, which were the things I asked about before you decided to just start talking about how messed up the NFL was.
Now the commissioner appoints himself as the independent arbitrator. Are you aware of the Missouri Supreme Court ruling about him?
Yes, and it has precisely squat to do with this; whether or not Goodell has the power to issue a punishment is a totally different question from whether or not they cheated.
Honestly, I feel like you could make a pretty good guess about the guilt or innocence here just by looking at the frequency with which irrelevant arguments are being thrown out in response.
cricket
05-16-15, 04:32 PM
Oh yea, why would we mistrust psi readings when they sent out readings that were far off from the start. Are you kidding? The texts are third party, out of context, and mention nothing at all about deflating footballs below legal psi. That is indisputable. And funny, Well's took Walt Anderson's word for everything except which gauge he used. Just maybe he's a little slanted? After all, it was an investigation, not a prosecution supposedly, yet in over 200 pages it doesn't mention Tom Brady denying any wrongdoing.
The point about the commissioner in Missouri is that he has a history of not being objective.
Oh yea, why would we mistrust psi readings when they sent out readings that were far off from the start. Are you kidding?
The refs wrote down the PSI at half time. Are you claiming they wrote them down wrong?
The texts are third party, out of context
Try turning any of these claims into an actual argument and they sound pretty different:
"Third party" = so you think they were faked? Making things up?
"Out of context" = so you think "Tom says you must be stressed getting them done" isn't about the balls?
and mention nothing at all about deflating footballs below legal psi. That is indisputable.
You mean they don't say so explicitly, not that they "mention nothing at all" about it. Because they clearly imply it, unless you think McNally's supposed to be stressed about doing something totally legal that's not hard to do.
And as I mentioned earlier, it's really not significant that there's nothing explicit in them. As long as the people involved aren't total idiots, you'd expect things to be implied but not stated outright, which is exactly what we find.
And funny, Well's took Walt Anderson's word for everything except which gauge he used. Just maybe he's a little slanted?
Everyone involved could be slanted--unless you want to suggest that an actual reported fact is being misrepresented, it doesn't change the argument. In this case, we know that Anderson thinks he used one gauge but isn't sure. And since which gauge he used only changes how many balls were overly deflated, it doesn't mean much when considering the binary yes/no question of cheating.
After all, it was an investigation, not a prosecution supposedly, yet in over 200 pages it doesn't mention Tom Brady denying any wrongdoing.
I have no idea what your point is here.
The point about the commissioner in Missouri is that he has a history of not being objective.
So what? I'm not arguing that Roger Goodell is objective. This is just the old standard "put the system on trial" playbook.
cricket
05-16-15, 05:01 PM
I'm not saying the refs wrote them down wrong, and that's the point. The NFL had the correct readings, yet they leaked the wrong readings out, making it look very bad and turning people against the Patriots. It wasn't until the Well's report came out that the actual readings were revealed.
Third party out of context means you know nothing about prior conversations, sarcasm, personal relationship, etc. You could piece together texts from my phone and convince somebody I'm guilty of anything.
They do not imply deflating balls below 12.5 psi at all. As I said, preparation of the balls includes deflating and re-inflating them. And it does seem that the two guys are idiots, talking about dorito dust on their peckers.
The point is that all of the supposed evidence in the Well's report is extremely biased. The facts are misrepresented. For example, Well's said the Pat's didn't cooperate because they didn't let him have another interview with McNally. He said he had the texts, and now wanted to question him about them. What he doesn't say is that they had a contract granting him one interview, unless extraordinary circumstances were to come up. Sure, texts could be considered extraordinary circumstances, but he leaves out a little bit. He already had the texts before the first interview, but his team screwed up.
I'm not saying the refs wrote them down wrong, and that's the point. The NFL had the correct readings, yet they leaked the wrong readings out, making it look very bad and turning people against the Patriots.
If I'd made a single argument citing those rumors, this would be a fine, relevant point, but I haven't.
Third party out of context means you know nothing about prior conversations, sarcasm, personal relationship, etc. You could piece together texts from my phone and convince somebody I'm guilty of anything.
We do have context: we know they're talking about how inflated the balls are, because they straight-up say so. What do you think they're talking about, mountain bike tires?
They do not imply deflating balls below 12.5 psi at all. As I said, preparation of the balls includes deflating and re-inflating them.
Yes, they do imply it: they imply the action is stressful (which implies it's either difficult or illegal, and it doesn't appear to have been difficult), and he jokes about "going to espn" with the information, which implies that it's newsworthy and incriminating somehow.
And it does seem that the two guys are idiots, talking about dorito dust on their peckers.
I don't care if they're idiots; there's zero reason to think they're fabricating conversations with Brady in private on the off chance that the NFL embarks on an investigation and asks to see their phones.
The point is that all of the supposed evidence in the Well's report is extremely biased.
"Biased" is not a counterargument. I know a lot of people think it is (just like they think pointing out hypocrisy is an argument), but it's not.
Saying someone is "biased" is cause for reexamining their claims, or for questioning them when those claims are, say, entirely subjective. But it's not an argument in and of itself; it's just a starting point for one. If you say Wells is biased, you haven't made an argument until you follow-through and show that some pertinent fact is being misrepresented.
You make the case that he used some misleading terminology ("refused to cooperate"), for example. But what does this have to do with the PSI readings or the texts? Nothing. I didn't make any arguments based on this, nor do you need to in order to conclude that cheating took place.
cricket
05-17-15, 08:04 PM
If I'd made a single argument citing those rumors, this would be a fine, relevant point, but I haven't.
You mentioned mistrust of the psi readings, and then asked if I was claiming the refs wrote them down wrong. That was what I was referring to.
We do have context: we know they're talking about how inflated the balls are, because they straight-up say so. What do you think they're talking about, mountain bike tires?
Yes, they do imply it: they imply the action is stressful (which implies it's either difficult or illegal, and it doesn't appear to have been difficult), and he jokes about "going to espn" with the information, which implies that it's newsworthy and incriminating somehow.
Stressful most certainly does not imply illegal, and joking about going to espn could most certainly mean something else. These two guys are rumored to be involved with a couple of fishy things that are in no way related to the balls. You need more information.
I don't care if they're idiots; there's zero reason to think they're fabricating conversations with Brady in private on the off chance that the NFL embarks on an investigation and asks to see their phones.
McNally never even had phone contact with Brady
"Biased" is not a counterargument. I know a lot of people think it is (just like they think pointing out hypocrisy is an argument), but it's not.
Saying someone is "biased" is cause for reexamining their claims, or for questioning them when those claims are, say, entirely subjective. But it's not an argument in and of itself; it's just a starting point for one. If you say Wells is biased, you haven't made an argument until you follow-through and show that some pertinent fact is being misrepresented.
You make the case that he used some misleading terminology ("refused to cooperate"), for example. But what does this have to do with the PSI readings or the texts? Nothing. I didn't make any arguments based on this, nor do you need to in order to conclude that cheating took place.
I just gave you 1 example; there are many others. I didn't say it had anything to do with the psi readings or the texts. But of course he glosses over the psi readings and ignores texts that do not make his argument. You see he did this investigation looking to place blame, not to find out what happened.
Stressful most certainly does not imply illegal, and joking about going to espn could most certainly mean something else. These two guys are rumored to be involved with a couple of fishy things that are in no way related to the balls. You need more information.
We need more information to say definitively, but we have plenty to assess probability. And we definitely don't need any more to prove that the idea that there's "no evidence whatsoever" is wrong.
Could their messages be made up, or talking about something that just really really sounds like it's about PSI, or talking about stress and leaking news to ESPN in reference to something else entirely? Sure, it's possible. But that's definitely not the simplest, likeliest explanation.
McNally never even had phone contact with Brady
Why does that matter? They were discussing an actual conversation he had with him. Again, zero reason to think this would be fabricated.
I just gave you 1 example; there are many others. I didn't say it had anything to do with the psi readings or the texts.
Great, then you agree it tells us nothing about how likely the Patriots are to have cheated.
My point is that we're spending a conspicuous amount of time talking about things that aren't about the actual issue. This is playing out exactly like it would if this were a trial and the defense attorney were trying to scrape together reasonable doubt: throw a ton of marginally related arguments at the wall and hope enough of it sticks to make people wonder. But we're not in court, and I gladly concede that I have reasonable doubt. It's just more likely than not.
cricket
05-18-15, 02:30 PM
Collect all the text messages or supposed relevant evidence you want. There's nothing that says anything about deflating footballs below legal psi. They wanted to make people believe there was evidence, and they were successful at that.
There's nothing that explicitly describes deflating balls illegally. There's just a conversation about ball deflation that also mentions going to a news source with the information and how stressful it must be to conduct that deflation. The implication is clear.
Be honest: which is more likely? That they're referring to something completely different than what they were just talking about, and that he's "stressed" about doing something totally legal, or that they're talking about the same topic and he's stressed because he's doing something wrong?
Note what is not being asked: if we have proof, if another explanation is possible, if the NFL is stupid, if the deflation helped them win, if the investigator did a good job, etc. I'm just asking which of those two things is more likely.
cricket
05-19-15, 11:12 AM
The espn remark and the stressful remark are from two separate conversations, so you can't make a connection unless you are reaching for one. Talking about likely or unlikely, do you think that a very meticulous Brady is going to instruct a guy he doesn't know or barely knows, to go into the bathroom after they've been inspected, and have him deflate the balls a very small, inexact amount? And if the ref is correct about the gauge he used, randomly deflate 3 balls a minuscule amount? Does that sound likely to you?
You can make a connection easily: in one they're explicitly talking about ball deflation, in another he's calling himself "the deflator." And yes, of course he'd instruct a guy he doesn't know if that's the guy who actually has access to the balls. Nor is it at all unusual that the balls were delfated a bit, or inexactly--both deflating them a lot or taking a long time to do so would be very conspicuous, and a lot riskier.
Anyway, I don't think the question actually got answered: which explanation is more likely?
I mean, I know which is more likely, and I think most other people do, too. So all I can hope for at this point is to get you on record saying otherwise and then letting that speak for itself. ;)
cricket
05-19-15, 11:47 AM
You're overlooking the fact that deflating the balls is part of their job, and that they do it legally prior to inspection.
If Walt Anderson's memory is correct, you're saying he snuck into the bathroom and deflated 3 balls a total of .86 PSI, which is an amount that can be explained by variance, and that he did this under orders from Tom Brady. That is not likely to me.
Well, the scenario you just described is positively filled with misconceptions, so that might be why you find it unlikely.
But, again, that's not what I asked. And I think the fact that I can't get a straight answer on this point says enough, so you can have the last word. :)
Seeing this thread (and the other one with the same topic ) think I know why we have a new post record. :lol:
:D
The formula is commentary threads + song tournaments + Patriots in trouble. That's the ticket.
cricket
05-19-15, 11:58 AM
I believe the balls were likely of legal psi at halftime, because that's how the referee best remembers it. That pretty much covers everything else.
False Writer
05-19-15, 12:11 PM
:D
The formula is commentary threads + song tournaments + Patriots in trouble. That's the ticket.
Don't forget Mad Max feminist conspiracies. ;)
Powdered Water
09-03-15, 11:51 AM
No suspension for Brady. What a shocker.
rauldc14
09-03-15, 11:58 AM
No suspension for Brady. What a shocker.
Ridiculous, in my opinion. Hope the Steelers roll them.
cricket
09-03-15, 12:00 PM
No suspension for Brady. What a shocker.
It's only a shocker for the uninformed.
All of which coincidentally live outside of New England.
cricket
09-03-15, 12:06 PM
Probably the only ones interested enough to actually learn all the facts.
Probably the only ones interested enough to actually learn all the facts.
There was a long, protracted argument where you threw "all the facts" (and a lot of things that weren't facts, as I recall) out, and somehow plenty of us were unconvinced. So you can continue to believe that only people who are totally-not-coincidentally-Patriots-fans have avoided a mass brainwashing, but pretending that anyone who disagrees has simply never heard the facts is demonstrably false.
cricket
09-03-15, 12:14 PM
It is so difficult for a court to reverse and arbitration case. They only do it if the case is overwhelmingly unfair. Of course, this judge was ruling on the process only. If he were judging guilt, it would have been laughed out of court. This has all been obvious from the beginning. The NFL has flat out lied in recorded documents; that should tell anyone anything they need to know.
Powdered Water
09-03-15, 12:17 PM
If you're so convinced the Patriots and Brady are innocent then why waste time defending them? And if you truly believe you know all the facts, you're lying to yourself.
You said it yourself: the judge was ruling on the process only, not on the likelihood of guilt. That wasn't the question before the court, and isn't the question most fans are concerned with.
cricket
09-03-15, 12:21 PM
I never said The Patriots and Brady were innocent because nobody could know, although the facts make it more probable than not that they are. What I do know is that there is zero evidence showing that Brady directed someone to deflate balls after they were checked. Anybody rooting for the NFL in this whole thing has an agenda.
I don't know anybody "rooting" for the NFL. But if rooting for the league means someone has an agenda, then rooting for the Patriots means the same thing.
Go Pats, Go!
See, at least Mike's upfront about his impartiality. ;D
cricket
09-03-15, 12:35 PM
You said it yourself: the judge was ruling on the process only, not on the likelihood of guilt. That wasn't the question before the court, and isn't the question most fans are concerned with.
That's right, because his duty was to rule on process. He talked about the evidence though, or should I say lack of evidence, and he felt the same way any clear thinking person would. Rest assured that if this case was actually about guilt or innocence, Brady would've won in a landslide. The NFL's only shot was the judge ruling that the commissioner was as powerful as God.
cricket
09-03-15, 12:39 PM
I don't know anybody "rooting" for the NFL. But if rooting for the league means someone has an agenda, then rooting for the Patriots means the same thing.
The commissioner lied in the appeal ruling about Brady's testimony. Doesn't that bother you?
Rest assured that if this case was actually about guilt or innocence, Brady would've won in a landslide.
Not if it was a civil case. If it was a criminal case, sure. But so what? The burden of proof for "this is likely" is totally different than the burden of proof for stripping someone of their rights or property. So saying Brady would not have been found guilty under the standard of reasonable doubt is a total non-sequitur.
The commissioner lied in the appeal ruling about Brady's testimony. Doesn't that bother you?
Glad you asked, because this is a perfect example of what I've been talking about: what has this got to do with Brady's guilt or innocence? I'm bothered by anybody lying, but being bothered by Goodell is not mutually exclusive with thinking Brady cheated. It's standard "put the system on trial" misdirection.
cricket
09-03-15, 12:49 PM
Any case at all; there was zero evidence against Brady.
Powdered Water
09-03-15, 12:52 PM
C'mon cricket. If there was ZERO evidence, we wouldn't of been talking about this all this time.
cricket
09-03-15, 12:56 PM
It's because people buy into the headlines, the juicy stories.
Any case at all; there was zero evidence against Brady.
This simply isn't true, and I pointed out how and why multiple times in the relevant thread. You seem to say "zero evidence" when you mean "zero proof" or "implicative evidence."
It's because people buy into the headlines, the juicy stories.
This is a really pat explanation, no pun intended.
C'mon cricket. If there was ZERO evidence, we wouldn't of been talking about this all this time.
The NFL is brainwashing the entire country. Turns out the only thing that blocks the radio waves is consuming large amounts of chowder.
cricket
09-03-15, 01:06 PM
A guy called himself the deflator, a guy who deflates the balls legally prior to inspection. That is not evidence that Tom Brady broke any rules, not even in fantasyland.
You left out the part where they talked about being stressed about deflating and "going to espn." Since when are people stressed and going to the media about totally legal, ethical practices?
Here's a simple thought experiment to illustrate things further: if they had zero contact and neither Brady nor deflation was mentioned at all, you'd certainly be pointing that out as evidence against the claim. So the fact that there was is obviously evidence the other way.
cricket
09-03-15, 01:32 PM
You're putting those words and phrases together as if it were the same text or conversation, when in fact they were used months apart. You can't do that.
I'm not, actually: I'm listing both because they're both evidence independent of one another. But since you mentioned it, the "going to espn" text was at the same time as calling himself the "deflator," so the context is inarguable.
Also, in what context, exactly, is threatening to go to the media something someone would do about a legal, ethical practice?
doubledenim
09-03-15, 01:45 PM
I thought this was all about the Wells report. :shrug:
An argument over something as silly as football? I'm out of here. :p
cricket
09-03-15, 01:48 PM
Who knows, but it's not evidence of wrongdoing on Brady's behalf. Heck, you could look at my texts and convince people I was a serial killer. The nfl had their conclusion, and they worked backwards.
Not even football: legal cases vaguely related to football! :D
Anyway, if it continues I'll move it into a thread.
Anyone else think of Jerry Maguire when the Brady defenders start talking?"There is no evidence of anything except that this guy is a hell of a football player".
Who knows
Heck, I'm not even asking you to know; I'm asking what it could even be hypothetically. Can you think of any plausible explanation at all why someone would say that if nothing untoward were going on?
Impartiality? I don't mess around with that. :D
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/639480265841225729
doubledenim
09-03-15, 02:59 PM
Where's this tyrant at? I wanna have a word with the guy.
cricket
09-03-15, 03:02 PM
The Patriots do everything they can to keep everything in-house. However, there has been talk that those two guys may have been messing around with merchandising. I don't know if it's selling, receiving, giving, stealing, or whatever.
You know, the judge thinks Brady is innocent. I know people have perjured themselves before, but he swore under oath that no wrongdoing occured, and that's with two other people who know the truth. He also sends the ballboy to the ref with a copy of the rules, and says he wants the balls at 12.5. It just doesn't make sense that he would have some guy take a minute amount of air out afterwards. On top of that, we don't even know that the balls were tampered with, because we do know that the environment affects air pressure. Add in the lies by the NFL, and how they bungled every single aspect, and I don't know how anybody can be against one of the poster boys for the sport. I do not see how people cannot give him the benefit of the doubt in this case.
The Patriots do everything they can to keep everything in-house. However, there has been talk that those two guys may have been messing around with merchandising. I don't know if it's selling, receiving, giving, stealing, or whatever.
He was talking about going to ESPN to tell on himself and his friend, and he decided to say this --allegedly about merchandising--right after referring to himself as "the deflator"? Is this what you believe?
You know, the judge thinks Brady is innocent.
Leaving aside that you wouldn't care what the judge thought if he'd said otherwise, does he actually say this somewhere in the ruling?
I know people have perjured themselves before, but he swore under oath that no wrongdoing occured, and that's with two other people who know the truth. He also sends the ballboy to the ref with a copy of the rules, and says he wants the balls at 12.5. It just doesn't make sense that he would have some guy take a minute amount of air out afterwards.
Far more public figures have been caught doing far stupider things, and athletes (and the Patriots, in particular) are notorious for trying to gain every competitive edge they can. So yeah, it absolutely makes sense.
On top of that, we don't even know that the balls were tampered with, because we do know that the environment affects air pressure. Add in the lies by the NFL, and how they bungled every single aspect, and I don't know how anybody can be against one of the poster boys for the sport. I do not see how people cannot give him the benefit of the doubt in this case.
Why does he deserve the benefit of the doubt for being "one of the poster boys of the sport"? Isn't this the same special treatment argument from earlier in the thread (the one that was made, then denied, then ignored after it was substantiated)?
More importantly, this is a different argument than the one you've been making. If all you had said was "I think the guy's honest and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt," I wouldn't have said much. That's not a position I share, but hey, whatever. It's not really something that can be argued about. But you went well beyond that in saying there was "zero evidence." I'm sorry, but that's just not true. Zero means none, and you've been shown some, plain as day.
Meanwhile, Brady racks up another coveted endorsement from a reputable character witness. ;)
https://twitter.com/BarryBonds/status/639507957206659072
cricket
09-03-15, 05:42 PM
Evidence means evidence of something. That doesn't exist in this case.
rauldc14
09-03-15, 05:43 PM
Cmon guys. He's clearly innocent:rolleyes:
cricket
09-03-15, 05:54 PM
Let's just say the balls were below the legal limit, which hasn't been proven. And let's just say that they were illegally tampered with, which is a stretch. Isn't it conceivable that the two guys did it on their own after Brady was unhappy with a 16psi ball after the Jet's game? Or maybe Belichick had this done? Or the offensive coordinator? People are assuming Brady did wrong simply because he's the QB. Brady is the one fighting charges, and when I say there is zero evidence, I'm telling you there is zero evidence that says Tom Brady ordered these guys to deflate the footballs after the referee inspected them. This cannot be disputed.
Let's just say the balls were below the legal limit, which hasn't been proven. And let's just say that they were illegally tampered with, which is a stretch. Isn't it conceivable that the two guys did it on their own after Brady was unhappy with a 16psi ball after the Jet's game? Or maybe Belichick had this done? Or the offensive coordinator? People are assuming Brady did wrong simply because he's the QB.
No they're not. They're assuming it because he's the one being discussed by the alleged tamperers as wanting them deflated and being angry if they weren't deflated enough. He's also the one most likely to notice if they were, and to have his performance affected by their inflation level. None of this is true of the coaches or coordinators.
Brady is the one fighting charges, and when I say there is zero evidence, I'm telling you there is zero evidence that says Tom Brady ordered these guys to deflate the footballs after the referee inspected them. This cannot be disputed.
It absolutely can be, provided you understand that "evidence" encompasses both direct and circumstantial evidence.
cricket
09-03-15, 06:50 PM
But there's nothing anywhere about him telling anybody to deflate the balls below the legal limit after inspection.
And a gangster who says "nice place, it'd be a shame if something happened to it" isn't providing any explicit evidence they're going to burn it down, either. That's why it's circumstantial and not direct evidence, but it's evidence nonetheless.
When someone in a position of power leans on a subordinate to push against the limits of a rule, and that rule is subsequently broken, AND the subordinate privately expresses concern over the permissibility if their activities...that points to them being either ordered or pressured to do it. And that's what evidence is: facts that point to a conclusion.
cricket
09-03-15, 07:12 PM
I just can't fathom how you see it the way that you do. The NFL lost this on day one when they first screwed it up, and they got a royal ass kicking in court. The NFL has lied multiple times during this ordeal, yet it's Brady who you don't believe. It's mind boggling.
As I've explained approximately twenty times, distrusting Brady and the NFL are not mutually exclusive. And continuing to present this as an either-or proposition indicates deception at worst and confusion at best.
cricket
09-03-15, 07:31 PM
Well the NFL has lied, there's no dispute about that. If they were right, they wouldn't have to do that.
That's some really busted logic. Being right does not magically grant you the proof to demonstrate it.
cricket
09-03-15, 07:51 PM
Besides lying, they don't even know if the balls were ever below the legal limit. Come on, think about it. This is not even something that we ever should have heard about.
cricket
09-03-15, 07:56 PM
They had two gauges with different readings, and don't even know which, if either were accurate. They didn't record the pregame measurements. They have no way to replicate the conditions to see how much the psi is affected; they only know that it was. How can anyone know these things and believe that Brady likely cheated? It's a long stretch.
I'm pretty sure the stretch is this:
He was talking about going to ESPN to tell on himself and his friend, and he decided to say this --allegedly about merchandising--right after referring to himself as "the deflator"? Is this what you believe?
cricket
09-03-15, 08:48 PM
You're jumping to conclusions. I told you I've heard things about merchandise issues, but that I did not know details.
cricket
09-03-15, 09:02 PM
Keep in mind that he referred to himself as the deflator in May of 2014-when there is no football being played. In October 2014 Jastremski says "I checked some of the balls this morn...The refs f***ed us...a few of them were almost at 16. They didn't recheck them after they put air in them."
So he called himself the deflator in the offseason, a few months before a game in which the balls were over the legal limit. You know how I've been saying that deflating the footballs legally is part of how they prepare them?
cricket
09-03-15, 09:10 PM
Also in October, 5 months after the deflator comment, JJ sends this text: "Ugh...Tom was right. I just measured some of the balls. They're supposed to be 13 lbs... They were like 16. Felt like bricks."
Wait a minute, if their was a illegal deflation scheme, why is he saying that the balls are supposed to be 13?
Hmmm
You're jumping to conclusions. I told you I've heard things about merchandise issues, but that I did not know details.
This response doesn't make sense. The "conclusion" is your possible explanation; if you don't jump to it, it's even worse, because then we're back to your previous response of "who knows."
cricket
09-03-15, 09:20 PM
You are making the conclusion that going to ESPN directly relates to illegally deflating footballs. I'm telling you it could be something else. Jastremski was providing McNally with merchandising, which I believe was a violation of team policy. That can easily be the root of McNally's ESPN joke.
NedStark09
09-03-15, 09:34 PM
You cannot tell me the QB does not know how the football feels as far as being full or light. This is Tom Brady here. I cannot believe people have allowed Skip Bayless to wrap peoples minds into believing Brady is Innocent. My feeling is this Craft paid off the Judge so Brady could play.
cricket
09-03-15, 09:39 PM
You cannot tell me the QB does not know how the football feels as far as being full or light. This is Tom Brady here.
It's an indisputable fact that the psi of a football changes with moisture and temperature. It always has and nobody knew. The difference in air pressure this is about is equal to less than the weight of a dollar bill.
The rest is too idiotic to respond to.
You are making the conclusion that going to ESPN directly relates to illegally deflating footballs.
No, I'm concluding that it's a much more likely response than the alternatives. Suggesting he's talking about merchandising when a) he'd be turning himself in, not a higher-up and b) he had just called himself "the deflator" is asking people to accept some pretty weird coincidences.
I'm telling you it could be something else. Jastremski was providing McNally with merchandising, which I believe was a violation of team policy. That can easily be the root of McNally's ESPN joke.
Of course it could be. It's just not as likely as the alternative: that he's saying exactly what he appears to be saying. If you're willing to brush off coincidences like this based on mere possibility, then there's little point in any of this.
cricket
09-03-15, 10:25 PM
As I've explained approximately twenty times, distrusting Brady and the NFL are not mutually exclusive. And continuing to present this as an either-or proposition indicates deception at worst and confusion at best.
I had to address this because I think you're missing the point. Sure, the league's dishonesty in and of itself does not mean Brady is innocent by any means. It does mean something though, doesn't it? This was not supposed to be a battle between the two sides, but rather a completely fair investigation. If the league official's hearts and minds are in the right place, they should want one of their stars to be innocent, and they should not want any controversy. However, they have lied and done everything they could to find him guilty. Why would they lie? You not only have to question their entire agenda, but you also have to look at all of their reports with a skeptical eye.
cricket
09-03-15, 10:28 PM
No, I'm concluding that it's a much more likely response than the alternatives. Suggesting he's talking about merchandising when a) he'd be turning himself in, not a higher-up and b) he had just called himself "the deflator" is asking people to accept some pretty weird coincidences.
Of course it could be. It's just not as likely as the alternative: that he's saying exactly what he appears to be saying. If you're willing to brush off coincidences like this based on mere possibility, then there's little point in any of this.
Wait a minute, you're talking about the ESPN comment like it was serious, but if you look at the entire conversation, it was most obviously a joke. And what about the other point, the one about "deflator" being used in May and then Jastremski saying the balls are supposed to be at 13 in October?
NedStark09
09-03-15, 10:55 PM
It's an indisputable fact that the psi of a football changes with moisture and temperature. It always has and nobody knew. The difference in air pressure this is about is equal to less than the weight of a dollar bill.
The rest is too idiotic to respond to.
Paying off Judges happens all the time. Its a bit odd that he rules right at the deadline so Brady Can Start. Im not Oliver Stone here im just saying Patriots and Cowboys can always seem too win these things. Im also saying a QB of Bradys level knows all things his equipment people do. Only blind ESPN And new England fans will buy anything too be right.
cricket
09-03-15, 11:03 PM
Paying off Judges happens all the time. Its a bit odd that he rules right at the deadline so Brady Can Start. Im not Oliver Stone here im just saying Patriots and Cowboys can always seem too win these things. Im also saying a QB of Bradys level knows all things his equipment people do. Only blind ESPN And new England fans will buy anything too be right.
It's not odd that he ruled at the deadline; it was already predetermined.
You do know that the league doesn't even know if the balls were deflated, right?
I had to address this because I think you're missing the point. Sure, the league's dishonesty in and of itself does not mean Brady is innocent by any means. It does mean something though, doesn't it? This was not supposed to be a battle between the two sides, but rather a completely fair investigation. If the league official's hearts and minds are in the right place, they should want one of their stars to be innocent, and they should not want any controversy. However, they have lied and done everything they could to find him guilty. Why would they lie? You not only have to question their entire agenda, but you also have to look at all of their reports with a skeptical eye.
And where has that not happened? What argument has been made that requires anyone to take the league's claims purely at face value?
And it means "something" if you're deciding what you think of the league, I suppose. But it doesn't mean anything in an argument about Brady's guilt, and that's the context in which you actually posted it. Here's what you posted:
I just can't fathom how you see it the way that you do. The NFL lost this on day one when they first screwed it up, and they got a royal ass kicking in court. The NFL has lied multiple times during this ordeal, yet it's Brady who you don't believe. It's mind boggling.
None of that is a response to anything we were talking about at the time. Given that you acknowledge this doesn't establish Brady's innocence, that means this is either a non-sequitur, or a false dichotomy.
Wait a minute, you're talking about the ESPN comment like it was serious, but if you look at the entire conversation, it was most obviously a joke.
Of course it was a joke. But it has to be a joke about something real to make any sense. If your spouse forgets to get something at the store and you say "that's it, we're getting a divorce!" it's a joke, but it's a joke based on the fact that you could theoretically divorce. Similarly, if McNally is joking about going to ESPN, it's because he has something that ESPN would theoretically be interested in hearing. And I'm sorry, but it stretches credulity to pretend that selling some jerseys qualifies, especially when you toss in the fact that he'd just referred to himself as "the deflator."
And what about the other point, the one about "deflator" being used in May and then Jastremski saying the balls are supposed to be at 13 in October?
It's perfectly plausible that Brady always wanted it low, but didn't take the risk of deflating beyond the legal limit unless the game was particularly important. Like, say, a conference championship game.
Also, I honestly don't mind you pressing for an answer if you don't think you've gotten one, but if that's going to be the standard, I've got maybe half a dozen unanswered questions of my own littering the last few pages.
cricket
09-04-15, 09:36 AM
I don't have a lot of time, but you're just dealing with possibilities rather than evidence that points to wrongdoing. Everybody laughed when the fat guy said deflator referred to weight loss, but then what does this text mean- "Deflate and give me that jacket". Of course, not all these texts were in the Wells report, because they were picking and choosing to make Brady look guilty. He called himself the deflator in May, and then Jastremski said in October that the balls are supposed to be at 13, after the Jets game, which happens to be when Brady started to send a copy of the rules to the refs stating where he wanted the psi. When you start to get context with the texts, they look meaningless.
cricket
09-04-15, 09:39 AM
I'll tell you what I really think was going on with these two guys. I think Jastremski was giving McNally merchandise in exchange for him helping him with his work.
cricket
09-04-15, 09:45 AM
Meanwhile, the Ravens steadfastly denied contacting the Colts in regards to issues with footballs. That was proven to be untrue. Apparently, the Ravens were suspicious of the Patriots because they had a missing kicking ball. Anyone hear the story of the NFL referee who got fired for stealing and selling game balls?
I see we're back to the buckshot approach: throw out as many arguments as possible, most of them completely irrelevant (who cares what the Ravens said?), and see if any of them stick. The ones that don't get dropped without explanation. This just isn't arguing in good faith. It's flooding the zone.
And look at what it's flooded with: false dichotomies, Putting the System on Trial, and a veritable assembly line of non-sequiturs. You asked earlier why the NFL would "lie" if they were right. So let's try that logic the other way: if you were right, why would everything you say come straight out of the Damage Control playbook?
cricket
09-04-15, 11:19 AM
The point is that we know that the referees as a group and the league office are not trustworthy. You can't say that about Brady, yet he's the one you don't believe. It's not logical. And he's not going to miss any games so any damage control will come from your side.
You can't say that about Brady, yet he's the one you don't believe.
Man, we just talked about this; I pointed out (again) that distrusting Brady and the league were not mutually exclusive, and you even replied and agreed. Now you're back pushing the same false dichotomy. What the cripes?
And he's not going to miss any games so any damage control will come from your side.
This doesn't make sense. Damage control is about PR, and that's a factor regardless of how many games he's suspended. And this sidesteps the question, anyway, which is about why someone who allegedly has all the facts on their side (and against whom others apparently have "zero" evidence) would be constantly resorting to all the different types of fallacies and misdirection people employ when they're trying to engage in damage control.
cricket
09-04-15, 11:39 AM
The NFL is the side that needs damage control in this, and much of the country is catching on. They, and by extension you, do not have a single point that isn't flawed. There is zero evidence that Brady wants the balls below the legal limit, but there is evidence he wants them within the legal limit. Do you think this is wrong?
cricket
09-04-15, 12:03 PM
The NFL released headline grabbing statements designed to make Tom Brady look guilty in the public eye. Many people fell for it. I haven't been able to properly argue this matter because I've been working every time.
John Dowd is the man who investigated Pete Rose. He created a website about deflategate.
http://www.deflategatefacts.com/
He's not the only one who sees the truth.
See, it just happened again: you did the whole "so you believe the league over Brady?" false dichotomy thing, I pointed it out again, and...poof. No response. No explanation. It's like throwing down a smoke bomb and then running off to a different subject. It's the go-to distraction if nothing better comes to mind.
The NFL is the side that needs damage control in this, and much of the country is catching on.
This is another false dichotomy: they both have to do damage control. And it still sidesteps the question, which is about why so much of the argument is about the league, and perception, and false choices. Why would someone with all the evidence on their side consistently resort to these things?
There is zero evidence that Brady wants the balls below the legal limit. Do you think this is wrong?
Yes. I explained why in detail here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1380556#post1380556) (you responded only with the aforementioned Brady/league false dichotomy) and here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1380534#post1380534).
The NFL released headline grabbing statements designed to make Tom Brady look guilty in the public eye.
You're talking about the leak, right? Which you've chosen to assume was totally deliberate and orchestrated, and refer to as information they "released" even though that's (uncharitable) conjecture?
I haven't been able to properly argue this matter because I've been working every time.
In all seriousness, nobody should feel obligated to belabor some Internet argument, and I'm not going to do a victory dance or give anyone grief for not having time.
That said, you seem to have plenty of time to throw out tons of arguments, or even repeat the same ones over and over, so it doesn't seem like time is the issue. It seems like you just prefer to fire round after round of argumentative buckshot than to have a real two-way conversation.
cricket
09-04-15, 12:40 PM
I don't have the time to debate this the way I want to because I'm driving a truck. Just get the facts and see if you still feel the same way.
ESPN just released a major investigation on Spygate/Deflategate (http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/13533995/split-nfl-new-england-patriots-apart).
Some of the more notable findings:
1. "During Pats early SB runs, a low-level Patriots employee would sneak into visiting locker rooms and steal play sheets during pregame warm-ups."
2. "From 2000-07, the Patriots recorded opposing coaches’ signals for at least 40 games."
3. One of the team employees shooting unauthorized footage lied about why he was there when confronted by security.
4. The scrambling and jamming of opponents' coach-to-QB radio line, though the sources say other teams do this, as well.
The general thrust of the investigation is interesting, because it suggests Deflategate was (pardon the pun) overinflated in significance, but done as a "make-up call" of sorts for Spygate, which appears to have been much worse than any of us knew. This certainly fits what we know, in that it explains the NFL's general incompetence with the latter investigation, and why they would destroy evidence during Spygate.
This is my not surprised face: :indifferent:
cricket
09-08-15, 12:20 PM
Of course none of these findings have ever been proven. The timing of this is no coincidence and that's what happens when you have two multi-billion dollar corporations who are in bed with each other. A lot of this stems from, oh, our play didn't work, there's no way they could've stopped us unless they were cheating. Of course, I haven't watched ESPN for years. They're great for highlights, but very subpar journalistically. I'm sure ESPN is a little sore over all the heat that Chris Mortensen got for his false report, and also Hannah Storm's false report a couple weeks ago about the Pats filming a practice.
The Patriots have released a statement regarding this story, and I would expect plenty more fallout. Unfortunately, people will continue to look at these reports without a critical eye, and believe what they want to believe.
The report has direct quotes from multiple sources, including former assistant coaches. I don't know if this should count as "proof," but the idea that they're all lying beggars belief.
cricket
09-08-15, 12:40 PM
I would have to learn more about it, but I always get a kick when I hear of these stories that come out years after the fact. I mean it was only a couple weeks ago that espn made the report about the Pats taping the Ram's practice many years ago. Needless to say, it was 12:30am when they apologized, when hardly anyone was watching.
Lots of things come out years later, because that's when former employees can speak freely and there's been ample time for investigative work to occur. It's also what happens when evidence is destroyed, or when a similar issue comes to the fore (as it just has).
The choice seems pretty simple: either all these people or lying, or Spygate was much worse than we thought. The former is technically possible, but it's pretty difficult for any intellectually honest person to believe, too.
cricket
09-08-15, 01:07 PM
Well not all of the evidence was destroyed. I don't know if you saw it, but one of the tapes were shown on an NFL pregame show. It was completely uneventful and everyone had a good laugh.
doubledenim
09-08-15, 01:10 PM
I pray none of this is true, seeing as how I'm a Panther's fan.
:suspicious:
Well not all of the evidence was destroyed. I don't know if you saw it, but one of the tapes were shown on an NFL pregame show. It was completely uneventful and everyone had a good laugh.
Of course: why destroy the uneventful evidence? Only the really incriminating stuff would have to go.
cricket
09-08-15, 01:14 PM
If you go digging for a story like this, you can find one with any team in the league. There's always a motive for things like this, and the NFL and ESPN have both faced a lot of embarrassment recently. People blindly bought into the deflategate story, and it turned out to be far fetched. I would suggest holding off for some time before making a judgement on this latest ESPN story, especially given their reputation.
cricket
09-08-15, 01:17 PM
Of course: why destroy the uneventful evidence? Only the really incriminating stuff would have to go.
They taped signals, which was legal, but from the wrong place. They were penalized, big deal, case closed.
If you go digging for a story like this, you can find one with any team in the league.
Only if you treat all cheating as binary. For example, you can find a stray reference to Jimmy Johnson saying he tried it once decades ago, but it's silly to pretend that's the same as multiple sources that worked with a team saying it happened systematically for seven years. That's obviously false equivalence.
There's always a motive for things like this, and the NFL and ESPN have both faced a lot of embarrassment recently. People blindly bought into the deflategate story, and it turned out to be far fetched. I would suggest holding off for some time before making a judgement on this latest ESPN story, especially given their reputation.
So, you think it's plausible this motive would spur them to completely invent multiple sources? Because if not, then I'm not sure how such general skepticism would rebut a specific report.
They taped signals, which was legal, but from the wrong place. They were penalized, big deal, case closed.
From the report:
During games, Walsh later told investigators, the Patriots' videographers were told to look like media members, to tape over their team logos or turn their sweatshirt inside out, to wear credentials that said Patriots TV or Kraft Productions. The videographers also were provided with excuses for what to tell NFL security if asked what they were doing: Tell them you're filming the quarterbacks. Or the kickers. Or footage for a team show.
Because if anything says "we think we're following the rules," it's "let's lie to the NFL if they ask what we're doing."
cricket
09-08-15, 01:29 PM
Motive creates bias, and suckers blindly believe stories. That's not you, Yoda. Hold off a little, because it's a certainty that there will be more on this. I've already heard something about Mike Martz saying his words were changed.
Motive creates bias
I agree completely. But we're not talking about mere bias; we're talking about completely distorting or fabricating quotes from multiple sources.
and suckers blindly believe stories. That's not you, Yoda.
That's the thing about this report, though: there are direct quotes from people directly involved in this process. Being generally skeptical is a good policy, but there just isn't a lot of wiggle room here. There's no way to go halfway and say "hey, this might be a little slanted." The reporting is unambiguous enough that we pretty much have to believe that either lots of people are lying brazenly, or the accusations are true.
Hold off a little, because it's a certainty that there will be more on this. I've already heard something about Mike Martz saying his words were changed.
That's in the report, and it's about how his Spygate statement was changed at the time, not about him being misquoted by ESPN. Which leads to another point: the "two multi-billion dollar corporations who are in bed with each other" thing doesn't work, because ESPN's report is just as damning for the league as it is for the Patriots.
cricket
09-08-15, 02:29 PM
You have to wait until more comes out. You cited a part of the report that claimed the Pats videotaped opposing coaches, but that was legal. You cited quotes from Matt Walsh; he was fired by the Patriots.
You have to wait until more comes out.
What could come out, even hypothetically, that would change the situation so that the choice is no longer "lots of people lied or the accusations are true"? Every person quoted steps forward and says they were misquoted?
You cited a part of the report that claimed the Pats videotaped opposing coaches, but that was legal.
Some of it was; some of it wasn't (as we established here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1243214#post1243214)). But regardless, I cited several things, like stealing play sheets. Pretty sure that isn't legal.
I also cited the efforts to hide their actions from the league, which doesn't jibe with Belichick's explanation that they thought they were acting within the rules. Is it your experience that people who think they're operating within the rules tell their subordinates to lie if someone asks them what they're doing?
You cited quotes from Matt Walsh; he was fired by the Patriots.
Complete this thought, though. Walsh was fired so...everything he says can be immediately dismissed? Former employees may be disgruntled, but that mere possibility is not a Get Out of Jail Free card, either. And in this case he provided the destroyed tapes to corroborate his story. He also talked to Senate investigators, and the stakes for lying in that situation are way, way more severe.
Moreover, Walsh wasn't the only one I cited: the lying-to-league-officials thing comes from Matt Estrella, who spoke to Senate investigators, though his responses weren't disclosed until recently.
So this isn't just one angry ex-employee. This is several people in several roles, telling a coherent story to both NFL and Senate investigators. That's a big deal.
cricket
09-08-15, 04:27 PM
You linked me to something but I could not find it. Anyway, I'm saying it was legal to videotape coaches signals; are you saying that it not true?
As we discussed before, it depends on how and where they do it. The rules (not the memo) state that "All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead." The sidelines obviously don't have that.
There are more problems, too, like the idea that teams can just ignore NFL memos clarifying rules, but they're beside the point. I only mentioned it to point out that your position on the legality of the taping is not fact, nor universally accepted, but actively under dispute.
Because even if we grant that premise, we're still left with all this:
What could come out, even hypothetically, that would change the situation so that the choice is no longer "lots of people lied or the accusations are true"? Every person quoted steps forward and says they were misquoted?
I cited several things, like stealing play sheets. Pretty sure that isn't legal.
Is it your experience that people who think they're operating within the rules tell their subordinates to lie if someone asks them what they're doing?
cricket
09-08-15, 05:23 PM
So I just read it, not much new really, just the whole deflategate was a makeup for leniency after spygate, which wasn't lenient at all.. That's one of the many conspiracy theories that have floated around the last few months. The article reads as if taping defensive signals was illegal, which it wasn't, and that's really the only thing that makes the Patriots appear in a negative light. The rest was all members of teams who lost to them saying they stopped our play so we suspect them of something. A fairly interesting read from the conspiracy theory standpoint, but other than that, nothing new and pretty lame.
Go Pats, Go!
Let's get to the games already! ;)
Ah, yes, "No New Information" was one of the few unplayed cards in the damage control deck. ;) Unfortunately, it's easily refuted: stealing play sheets is new. Lying to NFL officials about what they were doing if asked is new. And the frequency and scope of the spying is new, too.
And there's more new stuff if we compare it to the kind of things said in their defense earlier. For example:
The Patriots were not sneaky in what they did in any way
We now know this is false.
Saying what they did gave them an advantage over other teams in games is false
We now know this is false, too. If not because of the specific quotes ("A former Patriots employee who was directly involved in the taping system says 'it helped our offense a lot'"), certainly because of how extensive and systematic the process which, which would be a huge waste of time if they didn't believe it was helping them.
cricket
09-08-15, 05:56 PM
You're overlooking that it's ok to steal signals. Sure, they were in the wrong place when they stole them, but no matter where you are when you steal them, you still get them. They were penalized for that, and it's old news. This stuff about the playsheets is just guesses from people who lost to them and couldn't figure out why a couple of their plays didn't work. There's the story of how Peyton Manning would scour the locker room looking for bugs when they played in NE. It's the same thing, let me know when he finds one. As far as what was on those tapes, everything I've ever heard jived with what was in that article and also what was on the surviving tape. I don't put a lot of stock into could'ves.
You're overlooking that it's ok to steal signals. Sure, they were in the wrong place when they stole them, but no matter where you are when you steal them, you still get them.
Trying to pretend there's no difference is like trying to pretend it'd be fair if one team got to use the coach-QB radio headset and the other didn't. Hey, what's the difference? Either way you still get to call the plays, right?
There's obviously a major advantage in videotaping, because video is perfect. Nothing is missed, and you can watch it over and over. That's not even close to possible with one person scribbling things down, and that's without getting into the actual work involved (which also confers an advantage). The report talks about the difference:
"Now, the Patriots realized that they were on to something, a schematic edge that could allow their best minds more control on the field. Taping from the sideline increased efficiency and minimized confusion. And so, as Walsh later told investigators, the system improved, becoming more streamlined -- and more secretive."
They were penalized for that, and it's old news.
I'm pretty sure this is the first time you've acknowledged they were even in the wrong place. Last time we discussed this you started off by saying they did nothing wrong, and then said they just didn't technically break the rules. Are you now agreeing they did?
This stuff about the playsheets is just guesses from people who lost to them and couldn't figure out why a couple of their plays didn't work.
No it wasn't (emphasis added):
"In fact, many former New England coaches and employees insist that the taping of signals wasn't even the most effective cheating method the Patriots deployed in that era. Several of them acknowledge that during pregame warm-ups, a low-level Patriots employee would sneak into the visiting locker room and steal the play sheet, listing the first 20 or so scripted calls for the opposing team's offense."
As far as what was on those tapes, everything I've ever heard jived with what was in that article and also what was on the surviving tape.
Then why destroy them?
cricket
09-08-15, 06:21 PM
Trying to pretend there's no difference is like trying to pretend it'd be fair if one team got to use the coach-QB radio headset and the other didn't. Hey, what's the difference? Either way you still get to call the plays, right?
There's obviously a major advantage in videotaping, because video is perfect. Nothing is missed, and you can watch it over and over. That's not even close to possible with one person scribbling things down, and that's without getting into the actual work involved (which also confers an advantage). The report talks about the difference:
"Now, the Patriots realized that they were on to something, a schematic edge that could allow their best minds more control on the field. Taping from the sideline increased efficiency and minimized confusion. And so, as Walsh later told investigators, the system improved, becoming more streamlined -- and more secretive."
I think it's more convenient, but doesn't help in a game.
I'm pretty sure this is the first time you've acknowledged they were even in the wrong place. Last time we discussed this you started off by saying they did nothing wrong, and then said they just didn't technically break the rules. Are you now agreeing they did?
Well we had the discussion about the difference between the memo and the rulebook. It's not clear cut and it seemed that we both came to that conclusion. I even said that Belichick claimed to misinterpret the rule. Either way you look at it, it wasn't about stealing signals.
No it wasn't (emphasis added):
"In fact, many former New England coaches and employees insist that the taping of signals wasn't even the most effective cheating method the Patriots deployed in that era. Several of them acknowledge that during pregame warm-ups, a low-level Patriots employee would sneak into the visiting locker room and steal the play sheet, listing the first 20 or so scripted calls for the opposing team's offense."
Who said that? Oh, the famous unnamed source.
Then why destroy them?
So they couldn't use them again? To prove a point? The NFL destroyed them, not the Patriots.
Let me guess; we're talking about Spygate because the NFL lost in deflategate. There's one sure fire way to let go of the past for anyone who feels compelled to hold on-move somewhere that has a winning team.
I think it's more convenient, but doesn't help in a game.
Of course it does. Even if we assume that every single team they played was trying to steal signals like they did (which is definitely one of those "could'ves" you say you don't put a lot of stock in), you'd still have one side having to scribble down whatever they could see in an instant from across the field, and the other side with a perfect record of exactly what took place.
Heck, imagine one team got full footage of their game after it happened, and the other could just write down plays as they happened. Would you really try to tell me, with a straight face, that that wouldn't effect their ability to prepare for games?
Well we had the discussion about the difference between the memo and the rulebook. It's not clear cut and it seemed that we both came to that conclusion.
The rules say you can only tape from an enclosure with a roof. The sideline is not an enclosure with a roof. Seems clear to me.
I even said that Belichick claimed to misinterpret the rule.
And somehow, while honestly misinterpreting the rules, he managed to convey to the cameramen that they should lie about who they were if anyone from the league asked?
Who said that? Oh, the famous unnamed source.
It's sources, plural, and they say "many," which suggests more than two. And this just leads back to my original question, anyway: are you saying their sources are made-up, or lying?
So they couldn't use them again?
They'd already confiscated them, so this couldn't be the reason.
To prove a point?
What point?
The NFL destroyed them, not the Patriots.
And the report is suggesting they did it to cover for them. And I'm asking you: why they would do that?
Let me guess; we're talking about Spygate because the NFL lost in deflategate.
We're talking about Spygate because a report just came out with a bunch of new information about Spygate.
There's one sure fire way to let go of the past for anyone who feels compelled to hold on-move somewhere that has a winning team.
Well, I live in Pittsburgh, so I don't have this particular problem. And I think you know that "other fans are jealous" is a non-argument.
cricket
09-08-15, 07:20 PM
Of course it does. Even if we assume that every single team they played was trying to steal signals like they did (which is definitely one of those "could'ves" you say you don't put a lot of stock in), you'd still have one side having to scribble down whatever they could see in an instant from across the field, and the other side with a perfect record of exactly what took place.
The Patriots have never been accused of using the signals during the same game in which they got them. The 40 games figure in 7 years and the videotape that survived would seem to support that. Don't say that doesn't prove they didn't, because anyone could say that about anything.
Heck, imagine one team got full footage of their game after it happened, and the other could just write down plays as they happened. Would you really try to tell me, with a straight face, that that wouldn't effect their ability to prepare for games?
Again, anyone is allowed to steal signals, and all the teams have game film.
The rules say you can only tape from an enclosure with a roof. The sideline is not an enclosure with a roof. Seems clear to me.
Yet the game operations manual says you can't videotape from the field, the coaches booth, or the locker room. It doesn't mention the sidelines and the manual doesn't exactly match the memo.
And somehow, while honestly misinterpreting the rules, he managed to convey to the cameramen that they should lie about who they were if anyone from the league asked?
Who said this again? And they said Belichick told them this? Pretty vague.
It's sources, plural, and they say "many," which suggests more than two. And this just leads back to my original question, anyway: are you saying their sources are made-up, or lying?
They'd already confiscated them, so this couldn't be the reason.
I read that they stomped on them right there. But again, this is the NFL's doing. Don't blame the Patriots. For all we know, the tapes had evidence of wrongdoing from other teams. We don't know, so why speculate?
What point?
When you take action right in front of somebody's face, it drives home a point.
And the report is suggesting they did it to cover for them. And I'm asking you: why they would do that?
I think it's just that, suggesting.
We're talking about Spygate because a report just came out with a bunch of new information about Spygate.
It's not new, only to people who haven't heard these stories. There's plenty more, and they're all over sports.
Well, I live in Pittsburgh, so I don't have this particular problem. And I think you know that "other fans are jealous" is a non-argument.
Other fans are jealous, and so are players, coaches, and owners.
cricket
09-08-15, 07:27 PM
Like the Quotes in the story from Walsh, those are old. He didn't participate in this story. There's nothing new here, just the conspiracy connecting the two cases.
The Patriots have never been accused of using the signals during the same game in which they got them.
Huh? They were taping other teams before games to prepare for them, so yes, of course they weren't from "the same game in which they got them.".
The 40 games figure in 7 years and the videotape that survived would seem to support that.
1. It says "at least" 40 games. That's what they could prove.
2. The videotape that survived in no way suggests that the destroyed tapes were similarly innocuous. In fact, it suggests the opposite, because if they were, there'd be no reason to destroy them, and leave that one.
Again, anyone is allowed to steal signals, and all the teams have game film.
...which is different than what teams do when they think the world isn't watching. And this also isn't what I asked, which was: "imagine one team got full footage of their game after it happened, and the other could just write down plays as they happened. Would you really try to tell me, with a straight face, that that wouldn't effect their ability to prepare for games?"
The answer is obvious: of course the team with video would have an advantage. Yet you suggest the opposite when you pretend no benefit is conferred by videotaping signals.
Yet the game operations manual says you can't videotape from the field, the coaches booth, or the locker room. It doesn't mention the sidelines
So? One rule says you can't do it here or here, and another rule adds more stipulations; every rule book is like this. The two rules don't contradict each other and both are plainly written. The rules are clear; being written inefficiently is not the same thing as being written ambiguously.
and the manual doesn't exactly match the memo.
Clarifying these ambiguities is the whole point of such memos, but it doesn't matter, because as I already said, I'm not quoting the memo.
Who said this again? And they said Belichick told them this? Pretty vague.
Two people said it: both Walsh and Estrella. To Senate investigators. And far from being vague, both went into detail even about the specific types of excuses they were supposed to give.
I read that they stomped on them right there. But again, this is the NFL's doing. Don't blame the Patriots.
Nobody blamed the Patriots for destroying them. The question is whether their being destroyed suggests they had something incrimination on them.
For all we know, the tapes had evidence of wrongdoing from other teams. We don't know, so why speculate?
Because without plausible alternatives, the simplest explanation is that the league was covering for them.
When you take action right in front of somebody's face, it drives home a point.
And their point was "we're going to destroy these totally innocuous tapes, except for one, which we're going to leave behind for some reason"? Also, this sounds very much like one of those "could'ves" you don't put much stock in.
It's not new, only to people who haven't heard these stories. There's plenty more, and they're all over sports.
Wait a second, when you say it's "not new," you don't mean that the evidence isn't new, you just mean that the concept of teams cheating isn't new? How is that a defense?
"Your honor, I stand here accused of murder, but murder is nothing new. It's been going on since Biblical times."
"Excellent point. You can go."
Other fans are jealous, and so are players, coaches, and owners.
...which is a non-argument, as I said. It's like saying "SCOREBOARD." It contains no argumentative content, in no way defends the Patriots against any accusation, and it's the kind of thing people say when they run out of arguments.
Like the Quotes in the story from Walsh, those are old. He didn't participate in this story. There's nothing new here, just the conspiracy connecting the two cases.
This is just straight-up false, as I pointed out here:
...stealing play sheets is new. Lying to NFL officials about what they were doing if asked is new. And the frequency and scope of the spying is new, too.
Oh, and Estrella's testimony to the Senate investigators is new, too (the report says that hadn't been previously disclosed). Which is significant for a few reasons, one being that it's consistent with Walsh's accounts--explicitly, in one case.
It's also not even true of Walsh: they don't quote him much, but I picked one at random and plugged it into Google, and it wasn't anywhere but the ESPN story.
cricket
09-08-15, 08:14 PM
Huh? They were taping other teams before games to prepare for them, so yes, of course they weren't from "the same game in which they got them.".
So with all teams stealing signals, which is legal, they're all operating on a level playing field.
1. It says "at least" 40 games. That's what they could prove.
Isn't what they could prove all that matters? It coincides with everything I've ever heard about the tapes.
2. The videotape that survived in no way suggests that the destroyed tapes were similarly innocuous. In fact, it suggests the opposite, because if they were, there'd be no reason to destroy them, and leave that one.
They didn't leave that one, they just didn't get it much to the NFL's chagrin.
...which is different than what teams do when they think the world isn't watching. And this also isn't what I asked, which was: "imagine one team got full footage of their game after it happened, and the other could just write down plays as they happened. Would you really try to tell me, with a straight face, that that wouldn't effect their ability to prepare for games?"
The answer is obvious: of course the team with video would have an advantage. Yet you suggest the opposite when you pretend no benefit is conferred by videotaping signals.
I think you're underestimating the resources these teams have. Any signals that are seen will be stolen. They can then be arranged in a way that's easy to use in preparation for future games.
So? One rule says you can't do it here or here, and another rule adds more stipulations; every rule book is like this. The two rules don't contradict each other and both are plainly written. The rules are clear; being written inefficiently is not the same thing as being written ambiguously.
But like I said, the GOM doesn't say anything about the sidelines. We went over and over this months ago and neither one of us could get clarification.
Clarifying these ambiguities is the whole point of such memos, but it doesn't matter, because as I already said, I'm not quoting the memo.
And if the memo doesn't exactly match the GOM, the result can be some measure of confusion.
Two people said it: both Walsh and Estrella. To Senate investigators. And far from being vague, both went into detail even about the specific types of excuses they were supposed to give.
And this order came from Belichick? And what rule specifically were they asked to break? Is it completely clear?
Nobody blamed the Patriots for destroying them. The question is whether their being destroyed suggests they had something incrimination on them.
I don't think so, unless it was incriminating to other teams. We've seen nothing to indicate that the commissioner is willing to go light on the Patriots. Just the opposite in fact.
Because without plausible alternatives, the simplest explanation is that the league was covering for them.
I'd say that is far fetched.
And their point was "we're going to destroy these totally innocuous tapes, except for one, which we're going to leave behind for some reason"? Also, this sounds very much like one of those "could'ves" you don't put much stock in.
They didn't knowingly leave a tape behind.
Wait a second, when you say it's "not new," you don't mean that the evidence isn't new, you just mean that the concept of teams cheating isn't new? How is that a defense?
"Your honor, I stand here accused of murder, but murder is nothing new. It's been going on since Biblical times."
"Excellent point. You can go."
No, I mean this is all old news.
...which is a non-argument, as I said. It's like saying "SCOREBOARD." It contains no argumentative content, in no way defends the Patriots against any accusation, and it's the kind of thing people say when they run out of arguments.
Jealousy creates motive.
cricket
09-08-15, 08:17 PM
This is just straight-up false, as I pointed out here:
Oh, and Estrella's testimony to the Senate investigators is new, too (the report says that hadn't been previously disclosed). Which is significant for a few reasons, one being that it's consistent with Walsh's accounts--explicitly, in one case.
It's also not even true of Walsh: they don't quote him much, but I picked one at random and plugged it into Google, and it wasn't anywhere but the ESPN story.
I live here and listen to the radio every day. I've heard this all before. There's constantly current and former players, coaches, owners, reporters, and the like on the radio. Not everything makes the headlines obviously.
cricket
09-08-15, 08:23 PM
And by the way, while I thought it was a somewhat interesting read, the centerpiece of the story is that they may have tried to punish more harshly for deflategate because they went light on spygate. I think that's preposterous.
So with all teams stealing signals, which is legal, they're all operating on a level playing field.
Except we don't have evidence of all teams doing it, and we definitely don't have any of anyone doing it on the same scale, and the way they were doing it wasn't legal. But other than that, yeah, totally level.
Isn't what they could prove all that matters?
Not if you're going to suggest it was limited to 40 games and make an argument based on that. Remember like three posts ago, when you said "Don't say that doesn't prove they didn't, because anyone could say that about anything"? Applies here, too.
I think you're underestimating the resources these teams have. Any signals that are seen will be stolen. They can then be arranged in a way that's easy to use in preparation for future games.
And if you have it on tape, doing this is way better, easier, and more effective.
But like I said, the GOM doesn't say anything about the sidelines.
It doesn't have to: it laid out rules that exclude the sidelines. If someone tells you you're not allowed to do something inside, they don't have to specify every type of building that exists. The rule says you can't do it without a roof and an enclosure, and that excludes the sidelines. Simple.
We went over and over this months ago and neither one of us could get clarification.
Sure we did; I even linked you to the post where you finally admitted it. It took a long time because you kept thinking I was talking about something else, and we certainly failed to get clarification on some points, but on the roof issue it was and is perfectly clear.
And this order came from Belichick? And what rule specifically were they asked to break? Is it completely clear?
You said you read the report, so I don't know what you're asking me for. We don't know who the order came from, so theoretically you could say Belichick might not have known about that one part, though I find that to be, to borrow your phrase, far-fetched.
But whether you buy that or not, it still doesn't exonerate the team, because someone gave the order. Two different people, at least one of them to Senate investigators, are on record saying cameramen were told to lie to league officials, and they gave consistent descriptions of how they were told to do it. It's as clear and substantiated as you could possibly ask for, save for (heh) video of it actually happening.
Notice the amusing contradiction here, too: you were just trying to convince me that there's no meaningful difference between taping signals and jotting them down, but here you are questioning people's testimonies, even though if I had video if it happening, you surely wouldn't. QED.
I don't think so, unless it was incriminating to other teams. We've seen nothing to indicate that the commissioner is willing to go light on the Patriots. Just the opposite in fact.
You mean other than the report we've been discussing this entire time? Brilliantly circular logic: "this new information isn't true because we haven't seen any of this kind of information before." Hm.
No, I mean this is all old news.
You keep saying this, but we know for a fact this is false in at least one regard, because Estrella's testimony wasn't released back when all this was happening.
As for the others: please, show me. Where are the media reports about how former employees and coaches accused the team of stealing play sheets, ordering cameramen to lie, or that detail the systematic nature of the signal stealing?
Jealousy creates motive.
So does being a homer.
cricket
09-08-15, 09:08 PM
Except we don't have evidence of all teams doing it, and we definitely don't have any of anyone doing it on the same scale, and the way they were doing it wasn't legal. But other than that, yeah, totally level.
Well stealing signals is legal so I would really be pissed if I was invested in a team that wasn't doing it. You can bet your ass they're all doing it, every game, every chance they get.
Not if you're going to suggest it was limited to 40 games and make an argument based on that. Remember like three posts ago, when you said "Don't say that doesn't prove they didn't, because anyone could say that about anything"? Applies here, too.
It just coincides with everything I've ever heard and what was on the leaked tape. It coincides with what everyone has claimed was on there.
Of course you could make your own tape after the fact. Remember, unlimited resources.
And if you have it on tape, doing this is way better, easier, and more effective.
It doesn't have to: it laid out rules that exclude the sidelines. If someone tells you you're not allowed to do something inside, they don't have to specify every type of building that exists. The rule says you can't do it without a roof and an enclosure, and that excludes the sidelines. Simple.
It said locker room but it didn't say sidelines. A little odd obviously.
Sure we did; I even linked you to the post where you finally admitted it. It took a long time because you kept thinking I was talking about something else, and we certainly failed to get clarification on some points, but on the roof issue it was and is perfectly clear.
Admitted what? I've never denied that there was a rules violation. I just argued that it wasn't as clear cut as some people thought it was.
You said you read the report, so I don't know what you're asking me for. We don't know who the order came from, so theoretically you could say Belichick might not have known about that one part, though I find that to be, to borrow your phrase, far-fetched.
I don't think it's safe to assume these things.
But whether you buy that or not, it still doesn't exonerate the team, because someone gave the order. Two different people, at least one of them to Senate investigators, are on record saying cameramen were told to lie to league officials, and they gave consistent descriptions of how they were told to do it. It's as clear and substantiated as you could possibly ask for, save for (heh) video of it actually happening.
They don't need to be exonerated because they're not being accused of anything.
Notice the amusing contradiction here, too: you were just trying to convince me that there's no meaningful difference between taping signals and jotting them down, but here you are questioning people's testimonies, even though if I had video if it happening, you surely wouldn't. QED.
You don't know the full extent of any testimony by anyone, or who it directly relates to.
You mean other than the report we've been discussing this entire time? Brilliantly circular logic: "this new information isn't true because we haven't seen any of this kind of information before." Hm.
You seem to make the report to be of some meaning. I think it's a whole lot of nothing.
You keep saying this, but we know for a fact this is false in at least one regard, because Estrella's testimony wasn't released back when all this was happening.
As for the others: please, show me. Where are the media reports about how former employees and coaches accused the team of stealing play sheets, ordering cameramen to lie, or that detail the systematic nature of the signal stealing?
If there's no media reports, how can I show you them. I don't read them, I listen to them. There's been too many stories told over the years to count.
So does being a homer.
Again, I've bet against the Pats many times. Homers don't do that.
cricket
09-08-15, 09:17 PM
You're a Steeler fan; perhaps you should focus on your own team?
http://yourteamcheats.com/PIT
The fascination people have with the Patriots is just weird.
And by the way, I don't think that Steelers page means a whole lot. All teams do things and they always will. Some people just throw stones.
Well stealing signals is legal so I would really be pissed if I was invested in a team that wasn't doing it.
Not the way we're talking about.
You can bet your ass they're all doing it, every game, every chance they get.
It seems you're perfectly fine with assumptions and could'ves and speculation, when those things benefit the Patriots.
It said locker room but it didn't say sidelines. A little odd obviously.
All rule books are written a little odd, because they're modified over time rather than written all at once. The salient point is: the rule is clear, and they broke it.
They don't need to be exonerated because they're not being accused of anything.
They're being accused of telling their cameramen to lie to NFL officials.
You don't know the full extent of any testimony by anyone, or who it directly relates to.
This is so vague it doesn't even really constitute a response. The question was: if I had video of someone saying something, would you treat that the same as hearing it secondhand? The answer is no, right? So taping signs and writing them down aren't the same.
You seem to make the report to be of some meaning. I think it's a whole lot of nothing.
Obviously, but you thinking it's nothing cannot be used as an argument that it's nothing. Just as new information can't be dismissed on the grounds that it's new. Both arguments are circular.
If there's no media reports, how can I show you them. I don't read them, I listen to them. There's been too many stories told over the years to count.
So your claim is that all the things I listed have been discussed on radio, and there are no transcripts of them online, and nobody noticed or cared or repeated them in print, and you can't show me any evidence of this happening?
Again, I've bet against the Pats many times. Homers don't do that.
And my reply is going to be the same reply I gave the last two times you said this: being a homer is not just about thinking your team will win: it's about being invested in them. I know lots of sports fans who are harder on their teams than anyone, but that's got nothing to do with how they respond to accusations of impropriety.
cricket
09-08-15, 09:41 PM
Not the way we're talking about.
Again, once you have them, it's all the same.
It seems you're perfectly fine with assumptions and could'ves and speculation, when those things benefit the Patriots.
There's a huge difference between being the accused and the accuser. One needs proof while the other only needs doubt.
All rule books are written a little odd, because they're modified over time rather than written all at once. The salient point is: the rule is clear, and they broke it.
How can it be clear if the manual doesn't mention the sidelines?
They're being accused of telling their cameramen to lie to NFL officials.
I hardly call an ESPN story an accusation. If the NFL decides to investigate, ok. ESPN doing it is as meaningless as you or me doing it.
This is so vague it doesn't even really constitute a response. The question was: if I had video of someone saying something, would you treat that the same as hearing it secondhand? The answer is no, right? So taping signs and writing them down aren't the same.
The end result is the same in the latter, while I disagree with the comparison.
Obviously, but you thinking it's nothing cannot be used as an argument that it's nothing. Just as new information can't be dismissed on the grounds that it's new. Both arguments are circular.
I didn't see anything in it that I thought was news. It I did, I would've been happy to discuss it. My reaction after reading it was yawn.
So your claim is that all the things I listed have been discussed on radio, and there are no transcripts of them online, and nobody noticed or cared or repeated them in print, and you can't show me any evidence of this happening?
There's way more stories out there that you haven't heard, then you heard today. I don't think that most people think of these things as a big deal. Remember, ESPN has been embarrassed recently in regards to their reporting on the Patriots. This story coming out from them is not a coincidence.
And my reply is going to be the same reply I gave the last two times you said this: being a homer is not just about thinking your team will win: it's about being invested in them. I know lots of sports fans who are harder on their teams than anyone, but that's got nothing to do with how they respond to accusations of impropriety.
It's one thing to be hard on them. It's a completely different thing to hope they lose.
Again, once you have them, it's all the same.
Except you don't "have them" the same way. One is a quick approximation, and the other is a perfect record.
There are about a billion ways to make this point, but hey, here's another: which looks more like the beach? A drawing of the beach you have to do from memory after seeing it for a few seconds, or a photograph of the beach?
There's a huge difference between being the accused and the accuser. One needs proof while the other only needs doubt.
You're (again) arbitrarily adopting the rules of criminal proceedings when it's convenient, even though they have no relevance. This isn't a legal proceeding, and if it was, it would be a civil case, where what you're saying still wouldn't hold, because evidence is considered differently in those cases.
How can it be clear if the manual doesn't mention the sidelines?
Because sidelines don't have the things you need to have in order to tape.
Example: "it is against the rules to open an umbrella in a place with a roof." That rule excludes houses, right? But it doesn't mention houses! How can this be?! It's like a trick. It's probably because I'm jealous of umbrellas. :suspicious:
I hardly call an ESPN story an accusation.
Would you call testimony given to Senate investigators an accusation?
The end result is the same in the latter
Wha? The whole point is that you don't know if it's the same! If someone says "I heard this," that gives you a different level of certainty than if they show you video of it being said. I'm not sure what part of this is supposed to be arguable.
while I disagree with the comparison.
Then it is customary to explain why the comparison is flawed in some way.
At this point it seems like you're just trying to deflect as many of these questions as possible, by making me explain obvious things, repeating already refuted claims, or just saying something is wrong without explaining why. These are "volley" answers, not real answers.
I didn't see anything in it that I thought was news. It I did, I would've been happy to discuss it. My reaction after reading it was yawn.
Okay, but that has nothing to do with the point, which is that you can't dismiss new information prima facie just because it's new. That's a circular argument, and you're responding to that by giving me another circular argument. And you seem plenty intelligent enough to understand why neither is at all valid.
There's way more stories out there that you haven't heard, then you heard today. I don't think that most people think of these things as a big deal.
Okay, but that wasn't the question. Here it is again: "So your claim is that all the things I listed have been discussed on radio, and there are no transcripts of them online, and nobody noticed or cared or repeated them in print, and you can't show me any evidence of this happening?"
Remember, ESPN has been embarrassed recently in regards to their reporting on the Patriots. This story coming out from them is not a coincidence.
You realize these stories take months to report and compose, right?
It's one thing to be hard on them. It's a completely different thing to hope they lose.
And it's a completely different third thing to admit they cheated. The point remains: betting against them in no way establishes anything about your objectivity when it comes to cheating accusations. That's like saying you can be objective about your wife because you argue sometimes.
cricket
09-08-15, 10:20 PM
Except you don't "have them" the same way. One is a quick approximation, and the other is a perfect record.
There are about a billion ways to make this point, but hey, here's another: which looks more like the beach? A drawing of the beach you have to do from memory after seeing it for a few seconds, or a photograph of the beach?
But what if you're just videotaping from an approved location?
You're (again) arbitrarily adopting the rules of criminal proceedings when it's convenient, even though they have no relevance. This isn't a legal proceeding, and if it was, it would be a civil case, where what you're staying still wouldn't hold, because evidence is considered differently in those cases.
I just don't believe everything that's out there as easily as you do. We saw how that worked out in the deflation story. People rush to judgement when they shouldn't.
Because sidelines don't have the things you need to have in order to tape.
Example: "it is against the rules to open an umbrella in a place with a roof." That rule excludes houses, right? But it doesn't mention houses! How can this be?! It's like a trick. It's probably because I'm jealous of umbrellas. :suspicious:
I don't see this as sensible.
Would you call testimony given to Senate investigators an accusation?
No, I wouldn't actually. In this case, who's accusing who of what?
Wha? The whole point is that you don't know if it's the same! If someone says "I heard this," that gives you a different level of certainty than if they show you video of it being said. I'm not sure what part of this is supposed to be arguable.
I'm saying that whether you videotape signals from the sidelines, or acquire them by other means, the result is the same, meaning you have them for future use.
Then it is customary to explain why the comparison is flawed in some what.
At this point it seems like you're just trying to deflect as many of these questions as possible, by making me explain obvious things, repeating already refuted claims, or just saying something is wrong without explaining why. These are "volley" answers, not real answers.
I just think it's a bad comparison.
Okay, but that has nothing to do with the point, which is that you can't dismiss new information prima facie just because it's new. That's a circular argument.
You're calling it new information, I'm not.
Okay, but that wasn't the question. Here it is again: "So your claim is that all the things I listed have been discussed on radio, and there are no transcripts of them online, and nobody noticed or cared or repeated them in print, and you can't show me any evidence of this happening?"
I'm not looking to prove anything to you, I'm just telling you that I heard nothing new. I even told you that there's more stories out there of alleged Patriot misconduct. I'm just being honest with you.
You realize these stories take months to report and compose, right?
It's ESPN we're talking about here. They're not a reliable news source. That being said, I didn't see a whole lot to the story.
And it's a completely different third thing to admit they cheated. The point remains: betting against them in no way establishes anything about your objectivity when it comes to cheating accusations. That's like saying you can be objective about your wife because you argue sometimes.
Then what can measure my objectivity? Certainly not you.
So how about them Steelers? I would think that someone would be more interested in their own team. Are any of their Super Bowls tainted? Are they or were they cheaters? Which are the teams in the league that haven't broken some rules? Do tell.
cricket
09-08-15, 10:30 PM
This is an interesting short article about spygate, with links at the top to other interesting articles.
https://sites.google.com/site/hardboiled33/andersonmemo
At this point you're just not having a serious argument any more. You're pretending not to understand obvious distinctions, saying things are inapplicable or wrong without explaining why, and you're making me chase you around in circles about even the simplest of questions.
Look at this Abbott and Costello routine:
They don't need to be exonerated because they're not being accused of anything.
They're being accused of telling their cameramen to lie to NFL officials.
I hardly call an ESPN story an accussation
Would you call testimony given to Senate investigators an accusation?
In this case, who's accusing who of what?
And then there's this:
I'm not looking to prove anything to you, I'm just telling you that I heard nothing new.
And I'm asking you to substantiate that, because it sounds totally implausible. If you've heard everything in the article before, it must have been broadcast somewhere. But somehow there are no transcripts of it or articles about it anywhere, and somehow nobody noticed or cared until now. This is the direct implication of what you're saying.
So, either you're admitting to having absolutely no evidence to support this claim, or you have to admit there's actually plenty of new stuff in the report. Which is it? Wait, no, let me guess: you're going to pick a mystery third option where the contradiction is magically resolved by telling me the Steelers cheat and everyone's jealous of your team.
cricket
09-08-15, 10:57 PM
If I heard something new today I certainly would've told you. I've even told you that there's been other stories and rumors tossed about over the last few years. I told you I can't prove that I've heard these things, but why would you need me to prove it? It's not like I'm saying there's proof of the Pat's innocence; I'm saying I've heard stories of their alleged misconduct, which fits right into your narrative. I think you're the one who doesn't get it.
So why are you so focused on the Pats? We've talked about them a lot. Do you have any response to the Steeler questions? Did you look at the article I posted a link to? The whole thing is, I have no idea what your point is in any of this. What is your objective?
If I heard something new today I certainly would've told you. I've even told you that there's been other stories and rumors tossed about over the last few years. I told you I can't prove that I've heard these things, but why would you need me to prove it? It's not like I'm saying there's proof of the Pat's innocence; I'm saying I've heard stories of their alleged misconduct, which fits right into your narrative. I think you're the one who doesn't get it.
Well, for starters, I don't accept things that don't make sense just because they fit a narrative. And the idea that this information has already been released, without most people noticing, just isn't plausible. And it kinda sounds like it's being walked back already re: "I've heard stories of their alleged misconduct." The question is whether or not these specific facts, quotes, and allegations are new, not whether talk radio has vaguely entertained non-specific rumors, sans evidence.
I'm not sure it really fits the narrative, anyway, because implying that damaging information is not new information is a common deflection. We see it during political scandals, too.
So why are you so focused on the Pats? We've talked about them a lot.
We're talking about them a lot because a) a huge report with lots of new information just came out and b) you've decided to try to stamp out any whiff of dissent on whether or not they're guilty of any wrongdoing.
Do you have any response to the Steeler questions? Did you look at the article I posted a link to?
I did, and I do, but it has nothing to do with the topic. I'm not precious about my team, and even if I was, and even if I were a big ol' hypocrite about it, it still wouldn't have anything to do with what the Pats did or didn't do.
cricket
09-09-15, 11:02 AM
Well, for starters, I don't accept things that don't make sense just because they fit a narrative. And the idea that this information has already been released, without most people noticing, just isn't plausible. And it kinda sounds like it's being walked back already re: "I've heard stories of their alleged misconduct." The question is whether or not these specific facts, quotes, and allegations are new, not whether talk radio has vaguely entertained non-specific rumors, sans evidence.
What do you mean? That's the whole deflategate scandal in a nutshell.
I'm not sure it really fits the narrative, anyway, because implying that damaging information is not new information is a common deflection. We see it during political scandals, too.
We're talking about them a lot because a) a huge report with lots of new information just came out and b) you've decided to try to stamp out any whiff of dissent on whether or not they're guilty of any wrongdoing.
The things that Matt Estrella was doing were known. Just because the story releases excerpts from the testimony doesn't make it new news. This is going back years. We know they were videotaping signals; what is the bombshell?
I did, and I do, but it has nothing to do with the topic. I'm not precious about my team, and even if I was, and even if I were a big ol' hypocrite about it, it still wouldn't have anything to do with what the Pats did or didn't do.
The only reason I joined this discussion months ago is because people single out the Patriots. Why is that when every team has their indiscretions? If someone wants to call a team cheaters, that's fine, but fair is fair, make sure you say it about every team. And if that's the way you feel, you shouldn't watch the NFL. I like the NFL, so I don't badmouth anybody.
The things that Matt Estrella was doing were known. Just because the story releases excerpts from the testimony doesn't make it new news. This is going back years. We know they were videotaping signals; what is the bombshell?
Multiple sources confirming the Patriots stole play sheets during warmups (your only response has been to point out that the sources are unnamed, at which point I asked again if you thought they were lying. In your reply (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1383059#post1383059), you simply ignored the question). Also, two named, independent sources saying they were ordered to lie to league officials about who they were.
There's more, but there seems to be an inverse correlation to how many arguments I posted and how many get addressed, so I'll stop there.
The only reason I joined this discussion months ago is because people single out the Patriots.
They really don't. They talk about the Patriots because they're constantly getting caught doing stuff they shouldn't. I assume this is rationalized by saying the league is full of jealous haterzzzz, but a much simpler explanation is that it's because they're constantly straddling the rules. And when super competitive people are straddling the rules, surprise surprise, they eventually go too far.
If someone wants to call a team cheaters, that's fine, but fair is fair, make sure you say it about every team.
Everybody has lied at some point, but I'll bet you don't call everyone a liar. Because when we call someone a liar, we're implying they lie more than most, or about more important things than most. Because otherwise, the word is useless, given that it describes everyone.
Similarly, the Pats are not the only team to ever cheat; probably every team has at some point. So using "cheater" as a binary, eternal designation is silly. Instead, we use "cheater" to refer to teams that cheat a lot, just like we use liar to refer to people who lie a lot. Teams that cheat in lots of ways and/or systematically are not the same as teams that have cheated sporadically, or in ad hoc ways. Just like stealing a candy bar and robbing a bank are completely different, even though both technically make you a thief.
By the way, I've answered this exact question before. Here's the last time (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1308216#post1308216) (you completely ignored the answer and just said something about how I can't know your level of objectivity). And more and more of the conversation has followed this same pattern: you ask a question, I give an answer, you ignore the answer and repeat the question a little later.
I think it's really telling, too, that I mentioned the play sheet stealing in the very first post, and a dozen times since then, and it still hasn't really been addressed.
I repeated it over and over, and when you finally said something about it, you misrepresented the accusation completely: "This stuff about the playsheets is just guesses from people who lost to them and couldn't figure out why a couple of their plays didn't work," which is demonstrably false. When I pointed out this was false, you simply said "Oh, the famous unnamed source," which apart from still being wrong (it's multiple sources), isn't really an explanation at all. When I asked you if you were contending that all the sources were lying (which was the very first question I asked in any of this), you replied to everything in the post except for that question.
cricket
09-09-15, 11:51 AM
Multiple sources confirming the Patriots stole play sheets during warmups (your only response has been to point out that the sources are unnamed, at which point I asked again if you thought they were lying. In your reply (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1383059#post1383059), you simply ignored the question). Also, two named, independent sources saying they were ordered to lie to league officials about who they were.
There's more, but there seems to be an inverse correlation to how many arguments I posted and how many get addressed, so I'll stop there.
It's not that I'm ignoring it, I just dismiss it as ridiculous. The story is full of allegations by unnamed sources. Journalistically, that means it's crap.
They really don't. They talk about the Patriots because they're constantly getting caught doing stuff they shouldn't. I assume this is rationalized by saying the league is full of jealous haterzzzz, but a much simpler explanation is that it's because they're constantly straddling the rules. And when super competitive people are straddling the rules, surprise surprise, they eventually go too far.
You can't believe that's true one bit. You've got spygate and not much else. Deflategate was a nothing story that got out of control, because it's the Patriots. Every team has been in trouble for something, we all know that.
Everybody has lied at some point, but I'll bet you don't call everyone a liar. Because when we call someone a liar, we're implying they lie more than most, or about more important things than most. Because otherwise, the word is useless, given that it describes everyone.
Similarly, the Pats are not the only team to ever cheat; probably every team has at some point. So using "cheater" as a binary, eternal designation is silly. Instead, we use "cheater" to refer to teams that cheat a lot, just like we use liar to refer to people who lie a lot. Teams that cheat in lots of ways and/or systematically are not the same as teams that have cheated sporadically, or in ad hoc ways. Just like stealing a candy bar and robbing a bank are completely different, even though both technically make you a thief.
Saying the Pats have been in trouble more than the average team is perception, not fact.
By the way, I've answered this exact question before. Here's the last time (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1308216#post1308216) (you completely ignored the answer and just said something about how I can't know your level of objectivity). And more and more of the conversation has followed this same pattern: you ask a question, I give an answer, you ignore the answer and repeat the question a little later.
I don't even know what the point of this is. Just like many Pats fans are not objective, there are many Pats haters who are not objective. You've seen it, people calling them cheaters and they have no clue about any of this.
cricket
09-09-15, 11:53 AM
I think it's really telling, too, that I mentioned the play sheet stealing in the very first post, and a dozen times since then, and it still hasn't really been addressed.
I repeated it over and over, and when you finally said something about it, you misrepresented the accusation completely: "This stuff about the playsheets is just guesses from people who lost to them and couldn't figure out why a couple of their plays didn't work," which is demonstrably false. When I pointed out this was false, you simply said "Oh, the famous unnamed source," which apart from still being wrong (it's multiple sources), isn't really an explanation at all. When I asked you if you were contending that all the sources were lying (which was the very first question I asked in any of this), you replied to everything in the post except for that question.
I don't look at the playsheet angle in a serious light, just like the breaking into hotel rooms, the warm Gatorade, or the bugs in the locker room. To me, it's comedy.
cricket
09-09-15, 11:56 AM
Writer George Diaz was on the local show today; I thought it was pretty funny-
http://media.weei.com/device/mobile/a/109013148/george-diaz-turtled-9-9-15.htm
The story is full of allegations by unnamed sources. Journalistically, that means it's crap..
It doesn't mean that at all; plenty of stories use unnamed sources. Having one unnamed source is crap, and a big journalistic no-no, but they have multiple sources (more than two, from the sound of it).
And be specific, please: are you saying that all their sources are lying? I've asked this a bunch of times, and you've found a bunch of ways to imply that, but without ever actually saying it.
Saying the Pats have been in trouble more than the average team is perception, not fact.
Then that should be the argument. You asked why one team can be called cheaters if everyone cheats, and you got a simple, sensible answer; the same one you got months ago. Arguing that the Pats don't qualify for the designation is fine, but that doesn't explain why you keep trotting out the "everyone cheats" argument long after it's been addressed. This is the kind of thing that makes me think these arguments are just kneejerk deflections.
Just like many Pats fans are not objective, there are many Pats haters who are not objective. You've seen it, people calling them cheaters and they have no clue about any of this.
Correct, lots of people on both sides of this are not objective. I can't think of anyone who's suggested otherwise, though, and I can't think of any arguments in this thread that would be affected by this fact.
I don't look at the playsheet angle in a serious light, just like the breaking into hotel rooms, the warm Gatorade, or the bugs in the locker room. To me, it's comedy.
You're saying you don't think it's a meaningful violation of the rules to steal play sheets from the other team's locker room during warm ups?
cricket
09-09-15, 12:36 PM
Right or wrong, and maybe I'm old fashioned, but I think players and teams have always done things to gain an edge. I just don't look at most of these things as a big deal. I watch the game, and I see one group of players outplaying another group on the field. That's where I believe the game is won. I'm hesitant to throw the word cheat around. I mean, maybe I'd say it about manipulating the salary cap because that's front office people altering figures to keep or gain players. I think that's fairly serious, but the rest I think of as just filler. I think the Commissioner screwed this up, one of the ways at least, with trying to make deflategate an integrity of the game issue. It's as if he tried to make it much more serious than it was. It's a vague term that he could apply to any rules violation if that's what he wanted to do. As far as being objective goes, I don't care, because objective or not, the other person should be able to take away whether or not good sensible arguments are being made. Example: I don't know what Brady did, but I believe he did something. That's no good. Another example: McNally may have gone into the bathroom to deflate balls because he didn't want to get an ass chewing like after the Jets game. Ok, I doubt it, but there's some logic to that. The problem is that I've heard way too much of the first example.
On a side note, I hope the Steelers play a good game tomorrow night. I've always liked them, and the NFL is a better league when they're a contender.
If you don't think any of this stuff matters to begin with, then I dunno why we'd spend so much time arguing about whether or not it happened. But yeah, if you think stealing play call sheets just before a game is somehow on the level of Gatorade-related pranks and jock itch, then we're just living in two different worlds as far as this stuff is concerned. But the argument, then, is not "they didn't cheat" so much as it is "I have a completely different definition of cheating than most people." Which you're certainly entitled to.
Re: Steelers game. Geez, I completely forgot it was tomorrow! Really snuck up on me this year. Thanks for the well-wishes, but I don't think there'll be particularly good this year. They were good last year because they were (finally) healthy, but they were abnormally healthy, and they've already lost Pouncey for half the season. I think they'll be on the fringes of the playoff race, but naturally, I'd like to be wrong.
cricket
09-09-15, 02:00 PM
The play call sheets thing is something that was supposedly many years ago, which is one of the reasons I'm quick to dismiss it. There's been a lot of player and employee turnover since then. And cheater is a strong word; I think you need strong evidence before you can label someone as such. Besides that, if a team is dumb enough to leave something like that unprotected, they deserve to get it stolen. Anyone would do it. The Pats got in trouble for spygate, but there really hasn't been much else. Shoot, even the lowly Jets have been in trouble 3 times over about the last year. I believe their reputation comes mostly from perception. Here's hoping your wrong about the Steelers; they were my first favorite team when I started watching football in the 70's.
Organizational turnover is immaterial, since we're arguing about the legitimacy of the team at that time. And leaving something unguarded doesn't absolve theft.
cricket
09-09-15, 02:21 PM
You're right, in the real world it doesn't absolve theft, but the NFL is just an entirely different culture of its own. We'll see what happens, the Pats called these allegation baseless and referred to disgruntled former employees. We only saw excerpts, but Walsh and Estrella are free to talk about these things, and there's plenty of people who'd be willing to listen.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.