OT: The deflategate report - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: OT: The deflategate report (/thread-9186.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: OT: The deflategate report (/thread-9186.html)
Re: OT: The deflategate report - BostonCard - 05-08-2015
I think he was going for something like "deflated johnson"
BC
Re: OT: The deflategate report - Nan3cy - 05-08-2015
Keith Olbermann says Brady should be suspended for the year. He's probably just saying that to get a reaction... unless he isn't.
Re: OT: The deflategate report - ThePassionOfTheChryst - 05-08-2015
(05-07-2015, 08:43 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:Finally, every time someone says "____ fans are the worst" or similar they show their colors as an ignorant buffoon. If this sort of charge were being leveled against Stanford half the people in here would be going insane, so don't act self-righteous.I'm willing to be you either are a Patriots fan or perhaps haven't had much experience with them. While I believe there are worse fan bases on the whole (looking at you, Seattle), Patriot fans have become tremendously obnoxious throughout this whole thing. Not all Patriot fans, just the ones who have invaded social media, sports forums, and articles about it, as well as the ones I know irl.
Re: OT: The deflategate report - Mick - 05-09-2015
(05-08-2015, 06:18 PM)ThePassionOfTheChryst link Wrote:[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=12103.msg117850#msg117850 date=1431013388]Finally, every time someone says "____ fans are the worst" or similar they show their colors as an ignorant buffoon. If this sort of charge were being leveled against Stanford half the people in here would be going insane, so don't act self-righteous.I'm willing to be you either are a Patriots fan or perhaps haven't had much experience with them. While I believe there are worse fan bases on the whole (looking at you, Seattle), Patriot fans have become tremendously obnoxious throughout this whole thing. Not all Patriot fans, just the ones who have invaded social media, sports forums, and articles about it, as well as the ones I know irl.
[/quote]
Dallas fans are the worst in my experience. No real close second. Although Green Bay fans try pretty hard...
Re: OT: The deflategate report - Mick - 05-09-2015
(05-08-2015, 05:26 PM)Nan3cy link Wrote:Keith Olbermann says Brady should be suspended for the year. He's probably just saying that to get a reaction... unless he isn't.
Keith Olbermann is a twit...as Jon Stewart will occasionally points out:
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/wegwzd/special-comment---keith-olbermann-s-name-calling
And predictably, Keith took the high road:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVLPqAZnhsw
I wonder why he lost his job?
Re: OT: The deflategate report - BostonCard - 05-11-2015
(05-11-2015, 02:57 PM)garvin link Wrote:Brady got a four-game suspension; the Pats lost two draft picks and got fined a million bucks.
That sounds about right. You could argue that they deserved to have the AFC Championship vacated, but I'd never expect it to happen.
BC
Re: OT: The deflategate report - Farm93 - 05-11-2015
(05-11-2015, 02:57 PM)garvin link Wrote:Brady got a four-game suspension; the Pats lost two draft picks and got fined a million bucks.That's more than I imagined for the suspension. About what I imagined for the draft impact. And less than I imagined for the fine. The Patriots should get a fine equivalent to the 10 year costs of the future independent game ball managers the NFL is certain to hire in addition to the $1 million.
Re: OT: The deflategate report - Mick - 05-11-2015
I was listening to Mike Lupica this weekend, for no real good reason. He quite strongly felt that nothing should happen to Brady, that there wasn't enough proof, and that Brady was unsoiled, as it were, by the actions of others. He claimed "because I think so" isn't enough to discipline a player.
Re: OT: The deflategate report - BostonCard - 05-11-2015
Whether Lupica agrees or not, "more probable than not" is the established evidentiary standard used for disciplining NFL players, regardless of the offense. That's a bit different than "because I think so", and it was also the report's finding.
Having found that Brady met the evidentiary standard, the punishment seems to me to be appropriate. Brady may have wanted to have "plausible deniability" in the affair, but the message the NFL is sending is that merely distancing yourself from the matter is not enough; having had general knowledge of what was likely going on, Brady's responsibility was to tell the equipment guys that while he likes his balls on the low pressure side of things, that they are not to tamper with the balls or go outside of the NFL rules to get there. Let's face it, the buck has to stop at Brady.
BC
Re: OT: The deflategate report - teejers1 - 05-11-2015
For Mike Lupica and anyone else who thinks Brady was innocent in this affair, I have only one comment: c'mon, now!! That is a ridiculous position, totally at odds with common sense.
But I do have one other question: Brady didn't share his cell phone records (his right, but I think pretty strong circumstancial evidence favoring guilt), but evidently the worker bees did. How/why is that? Were the phones issued to the worker bees "company owned" (i.e., by the Pats, who may have some obligation to the Commissioner's office?). If not, the NFL has no subpoena power, so did the worker bees voluntarily give up their records? If so, is there any way the Pats allowed this/consented to this/knew about it?
That to me is most intriguing part of this. The guilt/innocence of deflategate was never much in question. At least from this vantage point.
Re: OT: The deflategate report - 82lsju - 05-11-2015
wouldn't they have access to all the worker bee texts so if the worker bees had been texting Brady they would have them?
Re: OT: The deflategate report - fullmetal - 05-11-2015
They might have just asked the NSA all nice like.
Re: OT: The deflategate report - BostonCard - 05-11-2015
Ironically, Brady's first game back is against... the Colts.
http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/12867594/punishments-handed-tom-brady-new-england-patriots-deflategate
BC
Re: OT: The deflategate report - terry - 05-12-2015
(05-11-2015, 05:22 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Ironically, Brady's first game back is against... the Colts.
Ha. When the NFL decided on a 4-game suspension, do you think it crossed their minds that if Brady were to return against the Colts, the TV ratings probably would get a nice boost?
Re: OT: The deflategate report - HisKneeWasDown - 05-12-2015
I'm surprised the punishment is as severe as it is. I'm surprised the league and the Patriots didn't negotiate some sort of back-room compromise where the Patriots get a slap on the wrist just to show the league is doing it's job, all the while doing a spectacular job keeping the NFL in the news during the deadest time of their offseason.
Re: OT: The deflategate report - winflop - 05-13-2015
(05-12-2015, 08:05 PM)HisKneeWasDown link Wrote:I'm surprised the punishment is as severe as it is. I'm surprised the league and the Patriots didn't negotiate some sort of back-room compromise where the Patriots get a slap on the wrist just to show the league is doing it's job, all the while doing a spectacular job keeping the NFL in the news during the deadest time of their offseason.
Brady refused to cooperate with the investigation. That certainly is his right, but I think part of the suspension was due to his decision.
Had he just come out after the Super Bowl and said, "yeah I like the ball a little flatter and I told the equipment guys that, but I never told anyone to break the rules" or something that a slick PR guy could wordsmith better than that, he'd have probably gotten 1-2 games. And remember that the collectively-bargained standard here is preponderance of evidence not reasonable doubt.
Re: OT: The deflategate report - Hurlburt88 - 05-13-2015
I suspect if he had spun it like that it might even have been zero games. LIke Jerry Rice admitting to spraying stick-um on his gloves.Â
Re: OT: The Patriots' rebuttal - BostonCard - 05-14-2015
http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/12885305/new-england-patriots-offer-rebuttal-wells-report
The Patriots' lawyer put up a site that offers a point by point rebuttal of the accusations:
http://wellsreportcontext.com/
In my opinion, while the rebuttal/placing the Wells report in context creates reasonable doubt as to whether the balls were intentionally deflated and whether Tom Brady was generally aware of what was going on, I still believe that "it is more probably than not" that the Patriots intentionally deflated the balls. Both the constructed scenarios are plausible, but only one of them is the simplest explanation for the evidence available. The other requires that the balls were underinflated due to weather changes AND that the text messages were jokes AND that the minute 40 seconds he was in the bathroom were to take a leak (ok, that one is very plausible)... Yeah, as a defense attorney he creates reasonable doubt, but, again, that's not the standard of proof in this matter.
BC
Re: OT: The deflategate report - socalstanfan1 - 05-14-2015
I agree, "reasonable doubt" is not the standard in this matter...but it clearly is what the Patriots are trying to do, if only from a PR standpoint.
I do think that, while the punishment was more harsh than I expected, something like this needed to be done from an NFL marketing perspective. Far better from the league's perspective to be seen as unduly harsh on its stars, rather than unduly lenient and perhaps intentionally turning a blind eye on an issue that goes to the integrity of the game. Do that, and every borderline call by an official that goes the Patriot's way for the next season becomes, "well, what do you expect? the league let them tamper with the footballs..."
Re: OT: The deflategate report - SeattleTree - 05-15-2015
(05-13-2015, 04:27 AM)winflop link Wrote:[quote author=HisKneeWasDown link=topic=12103.msg118189#msg118189 date=1431486333]
I'm surprised the punishment is as severe as it is. I'm surprised the league and the Patriots didn't negotiate some sort of back-room compromise where the Patriots get a slap on the wrist just to show the league is doing it's job, all the while doing a spectacular job keeping the NFL in the news during the deadest time of their offseason.
Brady refused to cooperate with the investigation. That certainly is his right, but I think part of the suspension was due to his decision.
Had he just come out after the Super Bowl and said, "yeah I like the ball a little flatter and I told the equipment guys that, but I never told anyone to break the rules" or something that a slick PR guy could wordsmith better than that, he'd have probably gotten 1-2 games. And remember that the collectively-bargained standard here is preponderance of evidence not reasonable doubt.
[/quote]
This. I also think if he came out now and said the same thing and admitted he should have cooperated with the investigation, it might all blow over much more quickly than steadfastly protesting his innocence and appealing. Of course, Brady chose the latter.