BRADY/PATS PUNISHMENT OVER TURNED BY JUDGE. (Updated 9/3/15)

[Sports Hernia]

Holy &$%# that is funny Chris! :lol:

No wonder Billy cheats. He is trying to over compensate for his tiny manhood.

 

[50yrpatsfan]

50 Years....

So just so I can understand. You are saying this is a very unfortunate series of coincidences

1. Brady himself lobbies for a rule change
2. When the rule goes into affect the fumble rates drop
3. The text messages back from May with the "Low life" as you put it ball boys calling himself the deflator.
4. That the Deflator messages and PSI really had to do with weight loss
5. That the Colts noticed earlier in the season the balls were too low
6. That the Colts notified the league before hand.
7. That the balls were actually tested and in another strike of luck they were well below
8. That the Patriots Balls deflated more than the Colts balls
9. That the ball boy went into the bathroom with the balls and changed his story several times
10. That Brady refused to turn over his text messages
11. That the league is out to ruin the face of the NFL because he is good looking and successful
13. That their had been several discussions about deflating/inflating balls and the only thing deflating would be brady rating
14. That Brady said he had never seen said Ball boy in his life (Yes there are pictures of them together, and he had been with the team since Before Brady)


At what point are those no longer coincidences and just might have some weight to them?

Is Aaron Hernandez guilty?

Did you know that in North Korea there are people that believe their Dear Leader is actually a divine God? If you tried to tell them differently or show them evidence there would be no way to convince them otherwise because its all they have none, and its what they want to believe. Despite the evidence that suggests otherwise - The more you Know

Hernandez is guilty, I don't know any more than you about Kim Jong-un, and Pats fans didn't follow Jim Jones.

The only "coincidences" are in your manufactured story. Manning had more to do with the rule change than Brady, and the fumble rate theory is a total crock, where 2 fumbles a year either way moves you 10 spots on the list.

Nothing about the Colts claims hold water. Their earlier game was in Indy, where their ball boys control the footballs after the ref check. In the AFCC, they were the ones that broke a rule by measuring a ball during the game. You should count your blessings that you're not in the same conference as Indy and the Jets, a couple of paranoid franchises that hate all things NE, all the way to the GM's and owners. Take the Hawks relationship with SF, multiply the negativity by 100 megatons, stew it over 14 seasons of jealousy, and maybe you'll get the idea.

It was not at all proven that the Patriots balls deflated more than Indy's. In fact, they stopped measuring the Colts balls after 4, when 3 of the 4 measured below 12.5. That fact alone was absolutely cause to throw this whole foolish crusade into the toilet.

None of the bathroom breaks or texts mean anything when there was no crime to begin with, there are many possible interpretations. Maybe the guy actually had to go take a whiz, is that remotely possible? Did you know that nobody knew McNally by his actual name, he only worked on game day and was always referred to as Bird, and that's why Brady said he didn't know who Jim McNally was? Did you know there were other texts purposely excluded by Wells where McNally used the word Deflate where it couldn't possibly refer to deflating balls - it was a word he used all the time to mean many things like relax?

Nothing better than a crime story and cover-up, so keep up the false narrative regardless of the facts and circumstances.

 

[Popeyejones]

For the record I think NE got off extremely light due to only reviewing the one game.

Do you know why they only reviewed one game?

Is it because the NFL only has a record of the halftime PSI check for that one game because that was the only game for which a complaint was made in advance of the game?

I'm pretty confident the NFL wants this to go away. They don't want the history dredged up and for this to become bigger than it already is. I doubt it is because of lack of evidence for that Your assuming the only evidence that could be used is the air pressure. That game simply established the Patriots manipulated the football for an unfair advantage. There was also information in the report predating that game as well as a warning from 2004 for a similar event and complaints about slipping practice balls into games. If this were an actual investigation you can bet they would go through all the information and not isolate it to one game.

These are sincere questions, and we'd need to know the answers to them to know if the Patriots got off lightly or not.

And if it's true that they've been doing it for forever and that it's the competitive advantage you make it out to be, why have 31 other NFL teams spent forever not complaining about it?

There has been other complaints, it is why they took it seriously.

Yes, I'm admittedly stirring the pot a bit with these questions, but I'm also serious about them.

Here's the thing. So far the NFL has completely ignored what competitive advantage it may have given and there is some pretty damning evidence to support this has gone on for a long time. Looking at fumble rate, completion percentage as well as comp percentage in cold weather and QB rating to name a few. These all point to a significant change starting in 2007, the first year of the rule change that Brady and Manning lobbied for.

I seriously don't think anyone believes they only did this one time, including the NFL.

Keep in mind this is on the level of employment. Not criminal or court level at all. They need less proof than in a civil lawsuit to take action.

I'm still at work so I cannot go into as much detail as I would like. Please excuse typing.

I didn't suggest they only did it one time, I suggested that unless we know that the NFL has EVIDENCE (meaning halftime PSIs) they can't really punish them for it.

As for the other circumstantial evidence you're citing, if completion % means that a team is deflating its balls that means Manning and Rodgers and Brees are deflating their balls.

The fumbling thing is also kind of a joke for two reasons:

1) There has been plenty of evidence that the math on those fumble stats was nonsense.

2) Because of deflategate people have suddenly insisted on forgetting that Bill Belicheck has been RB fantasy footbnall kryptonite for years now, for one simple reason: the bastard will bench ANY RB for fumbling, and if he does it more than once he'll get benched for the season (hello Stevan Ridley).

This is why the Pats WR fumbles don't stand out, and their RB fumbles do (even though both positions are touching the same balls).

I mean heck, two years ago after having established himself as the Pats bellcow in 2012, because of a couple fumbles Stevan Ridley went from 18 carries a game over a four game stretch to 8 carries a game over the next four games, and he's been an infrequently used role player ever since then. The only difference between guys like Ridley and guys like Blount and Jonas Grey who took his job is that the later two don't fumble. EVERYBODY knows this, and has known this for forever.

 

[vonstout]

For the record I think NE got off extremely light due to only reviewing the one game.

Do you know why they only reviewed one game?

Is it because the NFL only has a record of the halftime PSI check for that one game because that was the only game for which a complaint was made in advance of the game?

I'm pretty confident the NFL wants this to go away. They don't want the history dredged up and for this to become bigger than it already is. I doubt it is because of lack of evidence for that Your assuming the only evidence that could be used is the air pressure. That game simply established the Patriots manipulated the football for an unfair advantage. There was also information in the report predating that game as well as a warning from 2004 for a similar event and complaints about slipping practice balls into games. If this were an actual investigation you can bet they would go through all the information and not isolate it to one game.

These are sincere questions, and we'd need to know the answers to them to know if the Patriots got off lightly or not.

And if it's true that they've been doing it for forever and that it's the competitive advantage you make it out to be, why have 31 other NFL teams spent forever not complaining about it?

There has been other complaints, it is why they took it seriously.

Yes, I'm admittedly stirring the pot a bit with these questions, but I'm also serious about them.

Here's the thing. So far the NFL has completely ignored what competitive advantage it may have given and there is some pretty damning evidence to support this has gone on for a long time. Looking at fumble rate, completion percentage as well as comp percentage in cold weather and QB rating to name a few. These all point to a significant change starting in 2007, the first year of the rule change that Brady and Manning lobbied for.

I seriously don't think anyone believes they only did this one time, including the NFL.

Keep in mind this is on the level of employment. Not criminal or court level at all. They need less proof than in a civil lawsuit to take action.

I'm still at work so I cannot go into as much detail as I would like. Please excuse typing.

I didn't suggest they only did it one time, I suggested that unless we know that the NFL has EVIDENCE (meaning halftime PSIs) they can't really punish them for it.

As for the other circumstantial evidence you're citing, if completion % means that a team is deflating its balls that means Manning and Rodgers and Brees are deflating their balls.

The fumbling thing is also kind of a joke for two reasons:

1) There has been plenty of evidence that the math on those fumble stats was nonsense.

2) Because of deflategate people have suddenly insisted on forgetting that Bill Belicheck has been RB fantasy footbnall kryptonite for years now, for one simple reason: the bastard will bench ANY RB for fumbling, and if he does it more than once he'll get benched for the season (hello Stevan Ridley).

This is why the Pats WR fumbles don't stand out, and their RB fumbles do (even though both positions are touching the same balls).

I mean heck, two years ago after having established himself as the Pats bellcow in 2012, because of a couple fumbles Stevan Ridley went from 18 carries a game over a four game stretch to 8 carries a game over the next four games, and he's been an infrequently used role player ever since then. The only difference between guys like Ridley and guys like Blount and Jonas Grey who took his job is that the later two don't fumble. EVERYBODY knows this, and has known this for forever.

Year Total Fumbles Fumbles Lost NFL rank (32 = best)
2014 13 4 31
2013 24 9 9
2012 14 7 27
2011 13 5 29
2010 9 5 32
2009 17 9 29
2008 17 10 28
2007 14 6 31

Totals 121 55
Ave/Yr 15.1 6.9

Rule change implemented:
2006 27 15 10
2005 19 9 27
2004 24 13 15
2003 25 11 16
2002 24 10 19
2001 29 13 8
2000 23 10 21

Totals 171 81
Ave/Yr 24.4 11.6

NE under Belicheat didn't hold on to the ball so well. Amazing how the drastic improvement correlates to the rule change. To make a statement like "only a couple of fumbles will move you up drastically is exactly the point. They improved by over 9 fumbles/year. What is always listed as one of the "keys to victory". TURNOVERS. NE magically figured out how to eliminate 9 fumbles and almost 5 lost fumbles/year. How many games did that influence?

 

[50yrpatsfan]

No, what's exactly the point is that statistical analysis of a low frequency number such as fumbles is going to give you misleading results & conclusions. Many teams are bunched up within 1 fumble of each other, and teams only fumble about 15-18x per year, so just a diff of 1 fumble can really change your ranking.

It's a very weak argument to claim that NE has some glaringly low fumble rate, let alone that doctored footballs have anything to do with it. They've only been ranked first ONE TIME in all the years you cite. It's just that they are the most consistent team in the NFL, when all the other teams are up & down. Many fumbles are by the QB when sacked, and NE is among the best at avoiding sacks. They're just very well coached in all phases, and no matter what metric you look at they're among the best year after year after year.

 

[MagHawk]

Excellent logic that the rest of the NFL world sees.

Typical Pats fan response.

I love the head-in-the-sand approach that 50yrpatsfanatic uses!

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

No, what's exactly the point is that statistical analysis of a low frequency number such as fumbles is going to give you misleading results & conclusions. Many teams are bunched up within 1 fumble of each other, and teams only fumble about 15-18x per year, so just a diff of 1 fumble can really change your ranking.

It's a very weak argument to claim that NE has some glaringly low fumble rate, let alone that doctored footballs have anything to do with it. They've only been ranked first ONE TIME in all the years you cite. It's just that they are the most consistent team in the NFL, when all the other teams are up & down. Many fumbles are by the QB when sacked, and NE is among the best at avoiding sacks. They're just very well coached in all phases, and no matter what metric you look at they're among the best year after year after year.

It also helps that they don't really run the ball that much. Usually it's Brady passing 30-40+ times a game if it's against some weak sauce team, (just about 10-12 of 16 that the Patriots have played for the last 10-15 years for the most part). How convenient is that?

Against the strong teams it's up to 40-50 times a game and the run game is non-existent. Statistics are awesome they can be twisted and turned more than a 14 year old Romanian gymnast to fit any argument. :th2thumbs:

 

[RichNhansom]

At least since the rule change. Haha.

 

[Sports Hernia]

Excellent logic that the rest of the NFL world sees.

Typical Pats fan response.

I love the head-in-the-sand approach that 50yrpatsfanatic uses!

It seems to be an epidemic among that fanbase.

 

[vonstout]

No, what's exactly the point is that statistical analysis of a low frequency number such as fumbles is going to give you misleading results & conclusions. Many teams are bunched up within 1 fumble of each other, and teams only fumble about 15-18x per year, so just a diff of 1 fumble can really change your ranking.

It's a very weak argument to claim that NE has some glaringly low fumble rate, let alone that doctored footballs have anything to do with it. They've only been ranked first ONE TIME in all the years you cite. It's just that they are the most consistent team in the NFL, when all the other teams are up & down. Many fumbles are by the QB when sacked, and NE is among the best at avoiding sacks. They're just very well coached in all phases, and no matter what metric you look at they're among the best year after year after year.

Go back and look at the NFL ranks pre and post 2007 for NE. It's in my post above.

 

[Jville]

It's clearly excruciating for idol worshipers to watch it all come crumbling down.

We've seen these protests from other posting pundits as well. In fact, some have gone so far as to take up residence.

 

[chris98251]

 

[Sgt. Largent]

No, what's exactly the point is that statistical analysis of a low frequency number such as fumbles is going to give you misleading results & conclusions. Many teams are bunched up within 1 fumble of each other, and teams only fumble about 15-18x per year, so just a diff of 1 fumble can really change your ranking.

It's a very weak argument to claim that NE has some glaringly low fumble rate, let alone that doctored footballs have anything to do with it. They've only been ranked first ONE TIME in all the years you cite. It's just that they are the most consistent team in the NFL, when all the other teams are up & down. Many fumbles are by the QB when sacked, and NE is among the best at avoiding sacks. They're just very well coached in all phases, and no matter what metric you look at they're among the best year after year after year.

You guys are debating things that don't need to be debated.

Brady asked for his balls to be deflated, the equipment idiots deflated said balls..........probably for years and years. Then he got caught, thus getting spanked by the league. The End.

That's the problem isn't it, you WANT to get caught up in the minutia so you can muddy the waters, like you're a defense attorney in court trying to confuse the jury or plant seeds of doubt.

Sorry homey, your QB got caught, it's that simple. Loss of games, loss of picks, loss of $1,000,000. Do not pass go, Do not collect $200. Have a nice day.

 

[50yrpatsfan]

I wouldn't call the question of whether the balls were even low "minutia". That's the crux of the case. And it wasn't proven, not by a long shot. Goodell's punishments aren't proof of anything either, getting overturned all the time.

The league's science experiment at halftime of that game was comically flawed, and the Wells report will get ripped in court for the garbage it is. Brady won't serve a game, take that to Vegas.

 

[Sports Hernia]

I wouldn't call the question of whether the balls were even low "minutia". That's the crux of the case. And it wasn't proven, not by a long shot. Goodell's punishments aren't proof of anything either, getting overturned all the time.

The league's science experiment at halftime of that game was comically flawed, and the Wells report will get ripped in court for the garbage it is. Brady won't serve a game, take that to Vegas.

As much as I'd like it to happen Shady Brady ain't taking this to court. Once the appeal hearing is over he'll pull a "Bob Kraft" and bail. A lot of bluster then roll over.

 

[Laloosh]

I wouldn't call the question of whether the balls were even low "minutia". That's the crux of the case. And it wasn't proven, not by a long shot. Goodell's punishments aren't proof of anything either, getting overturned all the time.

The league's science experiment at halftime of that game was comically flawed, and the Wells report will get ripped in court for the garbage it is. Brady won't serve a game, take that to Vegas.

I don't mean to sound like every woman that you've ever met but, do people really fall for this bullshit?

Last time I checked, it was Billy B. conducting the science experiments in an effort to save Tawmy's reputation.

You can post until your fingers give out but you're not getting anywhere with us and you've already convinced yourself so what's the point? Is that you, Tawmy?

 

[Popeyejones]

TURNOVERS. NE magically figured out how to eliminate 9 fumbles and almost 5 lost fumbles/year.

There's nothing even remotely magical. Your cut point is ALSO the year that Corey Dillon left and B.B. went from using a bell-cow to to what he has been doing ever since; benching anybody, no matter how well they're playing, if they fumble.

Unlike your ball pressure hypothesis, this ALSO explains why the Pats stand out for RBs not fumbling on run plays, without standing out for WRs not fumbling on pass plays.

The thing that bothers me about this is it's not like everyone somehow magically forgot that B.B. benches RBs for fumbling -- it's been the running talk about why you shouldn't take Patriots RB in fantasy football circles since Dillon left in 2006 -- people have now just chosen to ignore what everyone already knew because it gets in the way of the story they want to tell.

Again, I have no doubt that Brady was involved in a long-term scheme to throw balls at a pressure he preferred that was outside of the NFL mandated levels. I have no argument there. I simply object to all of the junk and willfully miscontextualized statistics that have been habitually thrown around about the matter to try to turn that molehill into a smoking mountain.

Of all the Pats' cheating over the years, the purported competitive advantage of this is one sincerely just does not move me.

 

[vonstout]

TURNOVERS. NE magically figured out how to eliminate 9 fumbles and almost 5 lost fumbles/year.

There's nothing even remotely magical. Your cut point is ALSO the year that Corey Dillon left and B.B. went from using a bell-cow to to what he has been doing ever since; benching anybody, no matter how well they're playing, if they fumble.

Unlike your ball pressure hypothesis, this ALSO explains why the Pats stand out for RBs not fumbling on run plays, without standing out for WRs not fumbling on pass plays.

.

So your WRs don't stand out for lack of fumbles. How is it that Amendola had 10 fumbles in 4 years with the Rams in an indoor stadium at least half of his games and doesn't fumble once in two years in NE?

Welker had more fumbles as a WR in NE than he did in Mia/Den, but he had a LOT more catches in NE than he did in Miami. However, as a returner, Welker had 12 fumbles in 3 years in Mia and only had 5 in six years in NE.

I'd say that is a significant improvement.

 

[Vetamur]

I wouldn't call the question of whether the balls were even low "minutia". That's the crux of the case. And it wasn't proven, not by a long shot. Goodell's punishments aren't proof of anything either, getting overturned all the time.

The league's science experiment at halftime of that game was comically flawed, and the Wells report will get ripped in court for the garbage it is. Brady won't serve a game, take that to Vegas.

I will take that action.

edit..suggested a bet...but will let you set it.

Let me know!

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I wouldn't call the question of whether the balls were even low "minutia". That's the crux of the case. And it wasn't proven, not by a long shot. Goodell's punishments aren't proof of anything either, getting overturned all the time.

The league's science experiment at halftime of that game was comically flawed, and the Wells report will get ripped in court for the garbage it is. Brady won't serve a game, take that to Vegas.

The texts are incriminating enough, even if the halftime weighing of balls was not done properly, or not recorded properly.

The league didn't spank the Pats for no reason, there was enough to take action. So enough already with the excuses.