Tom Brady Suspension Reinstated

Kevin T

Hall of Fame
He must feel so deflated
Not as 'deflated' as the ball guy. He's the model of weight loss success per Mr. Brady. Deflation is the new PC term for weight loss, ie., "I've deflated 3 pounds already on this juice cleanse, bro". :)
 

Jibaholic

New User
I grew up a Redskins fan but live in New England now so my loyalties have been gradually changing

How can Brady be suspended when the footballs' behavior was consistent with the ideal gas law?
 

T1000

Legend
I grew up a Redskins fan but live in New England now so my loyalties have been gradually changing

How can Brady be suspended when the footballs' behavior was consistent with the ideal gas law?
The only thing the appeals court ruled on was whether or not Goodell had the right to suspend Brady however he saw fit. They decided that based on the CBA that Goodell has the right to suspend anyone, anytime for any reason because it was "collectively bargained". This ruling has ZERO to do with guilt/innocence.

This is basically a witch hunt against Brady and the patriots because theyre successful
 
This is basically a witch hunt against Brady and the patriots because theyre successful
Who specifically has it out for Brady and what are his motives? (If you say Goodell, why would the commissioner of a sport go after one of his stars?)
 

Feña14

Legend
Is he allowed to be part of pre season and practice, or is he banned from taking part in anything till 4 games in?
 

Jibaholic

New User
Who specifically has it out for Brady and what are his motives? (If you say Goodell, why would the commissioner of a sport go after one of his stars?)
Deflategate was considered to be a makeup call for spygate (in the words of one owner). Also, Goodell's pride was hurt because he didn't think Belichick gave a sufficient apology for spygate (which he agreed to do), so Goodell had a personal score to settle.
 
Deflategate was considered to be a makeup call for spygate (in the words of one owner). Also, Goodell's pride was hurt because he didn't think Belichick gave a sufficient apology for spygate (which he agreed to do), so Goodell had a personal score to settle.
So you're saying that Goodell dragged the league through the ringer, wasted millions of dollars in legal fees, and made himself look bad all because he thought the Pats got off easy before and his pride was hurt?
 

Jibaholic

New User
So you're saying that Goodell dragged the league through the ringer, wasted millions of dollars in legal fees, and made himself look bad all because he thought the Pats got off easy before and his pride was hurt?
Pretty much. Remember the original Mortensen report which got the whole thing started (11 or 12 balls being 2+ PSI too low) has since been proven wrong, even by NFL sources like the Wells report. So there was an insider trying to make the Patriots look bad. The behavior of the footballs was consistent with the ideal gas law. We've got everything from a plethora of PhD physicists to 8th grade science projects supporting the Patriots.

In fairness to Goodell (sort of), I don't think anyone in the NFL knew much about the ideal gas law until after Deflategate was well underway.
 
Pretty much. Remember the original Mortensen report which got the whole thing started (11 or 12 balls being 2+ PSI too low) has since been proven wrong, even by NFL sources like the Wells report. So there was an insider trying to make the Patriots look bad. The behavior of the footballs was consistent with the ideal gas law. We've got everything from a plethora of PhD physicists to 8th grade science projects supporting the Patriots.

In fairness to Goodell (sort of), I don't think anyone in the NFL knew much about the ideal gas law until after Deflategate was well underway.
Maybe you can say Goodell made a mistake but the idea that someone's out to get the Pats is really pushing it. Also, the science projects don't prove the Pats didn't cheat. They just prove there's a chance the Pats didn't cheat. So if this were crimminal court, Brady should get off. But the standard here is preponderance of evidence, and there's still a lot of damning circumstantial evidence.
 

Feña14

Legend
Maybe you can say Goodell made a mistake but the idea that someone's out to get the Pats is really pushing it. Also, the science projects don't prove the Pats didn't cheat. They just prove there's a chance the Pats didn't cheat. So if this were crimminal court, Brady should get off. But the standard here is preponderance of evidence, and there's still a lot of damning circumstantial evidence.
How do you explain Gostkowski missing his first PAT since 1854 in the AFC Championship game? Goodell was seen leaving Mile High with an industrial size leaf blower, according to sources.
 

MathGeek

Hall of Fame
There was some evidence of Brady's guilt, but not overwhelming.

The bargaining agreement grants the commish broad powers in evaluating evidence and determining consequences.

It's not like a criminal court where the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt." The commish gets to use his own judgment to decide whether the case is supported by the preponderance of the evidence.

Think of it like grabbing a co-worker's butt. It's your word against theirs. It cannot be put beyond a reasonable doubt, but if the powers that be believe your co-worker, you are going to get fired.
 

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
The bargaining agreement grants the commish broad powers in evaluating evidence and determining consequences.
Exactly. Which the Players' Union signed off on. Just like the Franchise Tag and salary caps. If you don't like it, when the next collective bargaining agreement comes up, don't sign; go on strike; good luck making the same money elsewhere.

I can buy the 'makeup' theory. Another theory is that Roger never thought the Pats would go nuclear on this; he threw 4 out there thinking they'd give in and go with 1 game and a fine (or a lost draft choice). When they refused to negotiate, he had no choice but to play it all the way out.
 
Exactly. Which the Players' Union signed off on. Just like the Franchise Tag and salary caps. If you don't like it, when the next collective bargaining agreement comes up, don't sign; go on strike; good luck making the same money elsewhere.

I can buy the 'makeup' theory.

Another theory is that Roger never thought the Pats would go nuclear on this; he threw 4 out there thinking they'd give in and go with 1 game and a fine (or a lost draft choice). When they refused to negotiate, he had no choice but to play it all the way out.
Make up theory?

What about the fact that Goodell let 'em off the hook in the first place by burning the Spygate tapes?

The media for the last 10+ years has incubated and ran with (on the Patriots' behalf) the Patriots' own conjured up "The Patriot Way" P.R. b.s.

Aaron Hernandez: "The Patriot way: it changes you."

Like they were the shining city-on-a-hill: the 'classy' Patriots. Well, the chickens have now come home to roost and those same fawning media trolls who were once ball-washing Brady and Belichick non-stop are now shoving 'bleep sandwiches' down heir throats? Well, cry me a river but they had it coming to them.

Stop cheating.

Oh.....and don't compound matters by (just like Aaron Hernandez did) going out of your way to smash evidence be it security cameras.......or cell phones. Just my retawded 2 cents.


As for Tom? :) : ) :)

 

Disgruntled Worker

Professional
It's funny that they couldn't actually punish the Pats the year that the "crime" actually took place. This leads me to believe that no one in the NFL - from commissioner to the players' union - knows what the hell they're doing. Teams deflate balls all the time. The Pats happened to be the only team to get caught. And it doesn't really change anything. New England is and always be the dynasty of the 2000s-2010s. Deflated balls or not, Spygate or not, they punish and humiliate teams.
 

fundrazer

Legend
It's funny that they couldn't actually punish the Pats the year that the "crime" actually took place. This leads me to believe that no one in the NFL - from commissioner to the players' union - knows what the hell they're doing. Teams deflate balls all the time. The Pats happened to be the only team to get caught. And it doesn't really change anything. New England is and always be the dynasty of the 2000s-2010s. Deflated balls or not, Spygate or not, they punish and humiliate teams.
Easier to "punish" teams when you know what plays they're calling.
 

Disgruntled Worker

Professional
Easier to "punish" teams when you know what plays they're calling.
Yes. Because that's how you win 4 Superbowls and make it to the playoffs every other year and become the greatest franchise in sports. By knowing what plays teams are gonna call. I'm sure if Auburn or LSU knew what plays the Oakland Raiders were gonna call they'd be winning NFL games. It has nothing to do with New England being superior athletes with higher football IQs with strong ownership.
 

392Hemi

Professional
It's funny that they couldn't actually punish the Pats the year that the "crime" actually took place. This leads me to believe that no one in the NFL - from commissioner to the players' union - knows what the hell they're doing. Teams deflate balls all the time. The Pats happened to be the only team to get caught. And it doesn't really change anything. New England is and always be the dynasty of the 2000s-2010s. Deflated balls or not, Spygate or not, they punish and humiliate teams.
Just curious but how do you know that, "Teams deflate balls all the time". Do you have some sort of contact or "in" with multiple NFL teams ? If you do have an in, then I apologize in advance. Otherwise on what do you base such a presumptuous statement?
 

Disgruntled Worker

Professional
Just curious but how do you know that, "Teams deflate balls all the time". Do you have some sort of contact or "in" with multiple NFL teams ? If you do have an in, then I apologize in advance. Otherwise on what do you base such a presumptuous statement?
Maybe they don't. I apologize because I don't have any concrete evidence that they do. But I don't like the fact that the Pats get singled out for being superior to the competition. If this was the Jacksonville Jaguars no one would care. But this is the most successful team in all of sports. A team that is the subject of tremendous envy. And I think they are the victim of a fine-tooth comb more-so than other franchises, whether it's deflation or player bounties or Spygate. If you're gonna bring down the hammer, do it to the Redskins or the Chiefs too.
 

392Hemi

Professional
Maybe they don't. I apologize because I don't have any concrete evidence that they do. But I don't like the fact that the Pats get singled out for being superior to the competition. If this was the Jacksonville Jaguars no one would care. But this is the most successful team in all of sports. A team that is the subject of tremendous envy. And I think they are the victim of a fine-tooth comb more-so than other franchises, whether it's deflation or player bounties or Spygate. If you're gonna bring down the hammer, do it to the Redskins or the Chiefs too.
The Patriots were the Jaguars for many years. And when the Saints were caught in the whole bounty scandal, they were harshly punished so the Pats are not singled out. The Pats have been caught cheating multiple times. They are not singled out for being superior, they are singled out as a a team with a track record of cheating. So why shouldnt the league (ie NFL offices and other owners) keep closer tabs and not give benefit of a doubt to a repeat offender?

What are the Redskins and Chiefs accused of doing or is this the political correctness team nickname thing?
 

Disgruntled Worker

Professional
The Patriots were the Jaguars for many years. And when the Saints were caught in the whole bounty scandal, they were harshly punished so the Pats are not singled out. The Pats have been caught cheating multiple times. They are not singled out for being superior, they are singled out as a a team with a track record of cheating. So why shouldnt the league (ie NFL offices and other owners) keep closer tabs and not give benefit of a doubt to a repeat offender?

What are the Redskins and Chiefs accused of doing or is this the political correctness team nickname thing?
They're "repeat offenders" because they get examined through a microscope. Nobody cares if Jacksonville or Tampa Bay, for example, are cheating. They suck. But if you've got a monster of a franchise like New England who's been clobbering every and any team that ever got in its way for the better part of 15 years, people are more likely to go out of their way to slander them and knock them off their perch.

And I don't understand your point about them being repeat offenders, anyway. Since winning Superbowl XXXVI 15 years ago what other crime has New England been guilty of other than Spygate and Deflate-Gate? They're one of cleanest organizations out there. Little to no drug use or suspensions. Very professional demeanor during press conferences. And even the Aaron Hernandez thing was handled promptly and professionally.
 

392Hemi

Professional
The Pats are not the first dynasty the NFL has seen. Before the Pats and In the Superbowl era we had the 60s Packers, 70s Steelers, 80s 49ers, 90s Cowboys and Bills. The Redskins, Raiders, Broncos, Dolphins all made strong runs, not to a "dynastic" level. None of these teams were ever accused of cheating. At worst the Raiders had a reputation in the 70s as being dirty and the former 49ers owner was ousted for non-football improprieties. Both true stories.

What else... The Snowplow game, mysterious outages of opponents headsets, tuck rule, most recently the "creative" formation that was subsequently ruled illegal, Rodney Harrison was one of the dirtiest players in his day.

And Really... you're going to give the Pats "credit" for promptly firing an accused murderer? Enron would have fired Hernandez.


Its not slander if its true. If it looks like a duck...

More:
http://elitedaily.com/sports/history-new-england-patriots-allegedly-cheating/910436/
 
Last edited:

Disgruntled Worker

Professional
The Pats are not the first dynasty the NFL has seen. Before the Pats and In the Superbowl era we had the 60s Packers, 70s Steelers, 80s 49ers, 90s Cowboys and Bills. The Redskins, Raiders, Broncos, Dolphins all made strong runs, not to a "dynastic" level. None of these teams were ever accused of cheating. At worst the Raiders had a reputation in the 70s as being dirty and the former 49ers owner was ousted for non-football improprieties. Both true stories.

What else... The Snowplow game, mysterious outages of opponents headsets, tuck rule, most recently the "creative" formation that was subsequently ruled illegal, Rodney Harrison was one of the dirtiest players in his day.

And Really... you're going to give the Pats "credit" for promptly firing an accused murderer? Enron would have fired Hernandez.


Its not slander if its true. If it looks like a duck...

More:
http://elitedaily.com/sports/history-new-england-patriots-allegedly-cheating/910436/
Ok. Here's the deal. We live in an age of instant-gratification. An age where a man can take a crap and let the entire world know about it in all of 10 seconds by photographing it with his phone and sending it to Twtter. An age where more controversy is captured than ever before. In the old days when word broke that a team was caught in a scandal, it was killed before it ever reached the press. And even when it reached the press the wildfire would be contained because you didn't have millions of idiots tweeting about it.

Nowadays, you Google "New England Patriots" and/or "Deflate-gate" and you've got a 1001 morons and their moms giving their "insight". The problem with this is most of these "experts" don't know jack-s h i t. It's like when people try arguing about steroids in MLB without actually referencing the 400-page Mitchell Report; you're gonna get the gist of what's happening but you're also missing the important details.

My only point is New England is a polarizing entity. Anything that has the level of recognition that they do is inevitably going to come under fire. The President, Wall Street, whatever. I'd rather spend my time doing productive things. Unless my life is directly affected by Tom Brady and New England's success, I tend to ignore the headlines and dirt sheets, which in this day and age aren't too reputable to begin with.

And of course I credit them with firing Hernandez. He was their second-leading receiver to Gronkowski and they invested a lot of money in him. It couldn't have been easy to part ways with a guy you invested so much time and effort into. Hernandez made a decision and the Pats made a decision. End of story. They handled it better than any other team in the league would have.
 

392Hemi

Professional
Ok. Here's the deal. We live in an age of instant-gratification. An age where a man can take a crap and let the entire world know about it in all of 10 seconds by photographing it with his phone and sending it to Twtter. An age where more controversy is captured than ever before. In the old days when word broke that a team was caught in a scandal, it was killed before it ever reached the press. And even when it reached the press the wildfire would be contained because you didn't have millions of idiots tweeting about it. Nowadays, you Google anything related to the Pats and Delfate-gate and you've got a 1001 morons and their moms giving their "insight". The problem with this is most of these "experts" don't know jack-s h i t. It's like when people try arguing about steroids in MLB without actually referencing the 400-page Mitchell Report; you're gonna get the gist of what's happening but you're also missing the important details.

My only point is New England is a polarizing entity. Anything that has the level of recognition that they do is inevitably going to come under fire. The President, Wall Street, whatever. I'd rather spend my time doing productive things. Unless my life is directly affected by Tom Brady and New England's success, I tend to ignore the headlines and dirt sheets, which in this day and age aren't too reputable to begin with.

And of course I credit them with firing Hernandez. He was their second-leading receiver to Gronkowski and they invested a lot of money in him. It couldn't have been easy to part ways with a guy you invested so much time and effort into. They handled it better than any other team in the league would have.
Yes social media is everywhere, and many players Brady among them have become very astute at avoiding that trap. So have guys like, Romo, Rodgers, Wilson, both Mannings, Brees, Rivers and a few others. They lay low and keep their press relationships low key, respectful, and about the game.

So youre suggesting all the other dynasties before NE were also perennial cheaters but were never caught because the media explosion in general and social media specifically hadnt become part of the landscape yet? Do you have any evidence or do we file this with your other straw man, "All teams deflate balls"?

Yes It was probably very disappointing to have no viable option but to part ways with a top producing receiver in Hernandez. But again, how do you know they handled it better than any other team would? Granted the Pats handled it swiftly, professionally , low key, and in such a way that there was appropriately no guilt by association or embarrasment for the team. But to name a few other teams with excellent PR reputations, led by the personalities and professionalism of their owners, the Giants, Steelers, bears and Colts in particular would have handled it similarly. In fact i think most teams would have handled such a difficult matter reasonably well. Im not taking anything away from Mr Kraft, since he managed it well.
 

T1000

Legend
What else... The Snowplow game, mysterious outages of opponents headsets, tuck rule, most recently the "creative" formation that was subsequently ruled illegal, Rodney Harrison was one of the dirtiest players in his day.

And Really... you're going to give the Pats "credit" for promptly firing an accused murderer? Enron would have fired Hernandez.


Its not slander if its true. If it looks like a duck...

More:
http://elitedaily.com/sports/history-new-england-patriots-allegedly-cheating/910436/

One of the examples is don Shula giving bellicheck a nickname. That's somehow the patriots allegedly cheating. not even gonna bother addressing the rest of the garbage you posted literally all of it is wrong and none of them are proof the pats have cheated once
 

392Hemi

Professional
One of the examples is don Shula giving bellicheck a nickname. That's somehow the patriots allegedly cheating. not even gonna bother addressing the rest of the garbage you posted literally all of it is wrong and none of them are proof the pats have cheated once
Ok, so I will take "not gonna bother" as no contest.
 

Jibaholic

New User
Just curious but how do you know that, "Teams deflate balls all the time". Do you have some sort of contact or "in" with multiple NFL teams ? If you do have an in, then I apologize in advance. Otherwise on what do you base such a presumptuous statement?
The Panthers and Vikings were both caught warming footballs during a game and all that happens is that they got a warning not to do.

  • No 4 game suspension
  • No million dollar fine
  • No loss of a first and a fourth round draft pick.

That is with video evidence of their cheating.

By contrast, the inflation of the Patriots' footballs were 100% consistent with the predictions of the ideal gas law.
 

Jibaholic

New User
The Pats are not the first dynasty the NFL has seen. Before the Pats and In the Superbowl era we had the 60s Packers, 70s Steelers, 80s 49ers, 90s Cowboys and Bills. The Redskins, Raiders, Broncos, Dolphins all made strong runs, not to a "dynastic" level. None of these teams were ever accused of cheating.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.

  • The 70's Steelers are well-known as the first NFL team to make widespread use of steroids.
  • Jerry Rice admitted to using stickum, which is exactly comparable to deflating balls. They both give a better grip. In fact, stickum is probably a much bigger help for your grip than deflating balls. Many people couldn't even tell the difference between an 11 pound ball and a 13 pound ball, but everyone can feel the tackiness of stickum.
  • The Broncos had salary cap violations, and offensive linemen who put vaseline on their jerseys. They got a $5000 fine.
  • The Dallas Cowboys of the 90's were practically mainlining cocaine, which is a stimulant.
Now personally, I think the 70's Steelers deserve a very large taint to their legacy for using steroids. Stickum and vaseline (and deflated balls), might give you a small edge, but in the grand scheme of things, they aren't that big a deal. Using steroids is huge. Steroids turn average baseball players into monsters who jack 40+ home runs per year, and strength is much more important in football than in baseball.

And remember, the Patriots' footballs were all consistent with the ideal gas law. So it's unlikely that they did cheat.
 

392Hemi

Professional
The Panthers and Vikings were both caught warming footballs during a game and all that happens is that they got a warning not to do.

  • No 4 game suspension
  • No million dollar fine
  • No loss of a first and a fourth round draft pick.

That is with video evidence of their cheating.

By contrast, the inflation of the Patriots' footballs were 100% consistent with the predictions of the ideal gas law.
There are rules that a football must be inflated between x and y psi, presumably at some temperature and barometric standard.

Temp -7, both teams doing the same thing against each other on the fly and in full view. No premeditated hidden equipment room shennagins. So what should they have done, fined both teams who are playing against each other and doing the same thing? Both were warned and both complied.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000437309/article/nfl-to-remind-teams-not-to-warm-footballs
 

Jibaholic

New User
There are rules that a football must be inflated between x and y psi, presumably at some temperature and barometric standard.

Temp -7, both teams doing the same thing against each other on the fly and in full view. No premeditated hidden equipment room shennagins. So what should they have done, fined both teams who are playing against each other and doing the same thing? Both were warned and both complied.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000437309/article/nfl-to-remind-teams-not-to-warm-footballs
Warming the balls is against the rules. It's an integrity of the game issue. You don't pick and choose which rules to enforce. If both teams had players using steroids, you don't dismiss that.

Now, I think what your post really says is "ball tampering really isn't a big deal". That is true. Even if the Pats cheated, then the parameters of the discussion should be treated the same way. Warn them and expect them to comply.

And remember, the Patriots balls were 100% consistent with the predictions of the ideal gas law.
 

392Hemi

Professional
Wrong, wrong, wrong.

  • The 70's Steelers are well-known as the first NFL team to make widespread use of steroids.
  • Jerry Rice admitted to using stickum, which is exactly comparable to deflating balls. They both give a better grip. In fact, stickum is probably a much bigger help for your grip than deflating balls. Many people couldn't even tell the difference between an 11 pound ball and a 13 pound ball, but everyone can feel the tackiness of stickum.
  • The Broncos had salary cap violations, and offensive linemen who put vaseline on their jerseys. They got a $5000 fine.
  • The Dallas Cowboys of the 90's were practically mainlining cocaine, which is a stimulant.
Now personally, I think the 70's Steelers deserve a very large taint to their legacy for using steroids. Stickum and vaseline (and deflated balls), might give you a small edge, but in the grand scheme of things, they aren't that big a deal. Using steroids is huge. Steroids turn average baseball players into monsters who jack 40+ home runs per year, and strength is much more important in football than in baseball.

And remember, the Patriots' footballs were all consistent with the ideal gas law. So it's unlikely that they did cheat.
steriods and drug use in general were widespread in the 70s. It was the 70s. Period. end of story.

Many players admitted to using stickum, putting foreign substances (vaseline etc) on jerseys, etc. cheating? Yes of course. But not by the player who handles the ball on EVERY PLAY

Many teams have screwed with the salary cap and been caught. Yes that is cheating, by the front office not on the field. I think cheating on the field is more of a rules of engagement / player code of ethics thing, more visibile and therefore more of threat to the integrity of the game

Cocaine in the early 90s, used by millionairres? Imagine that. Limited to the Cowboys? I wasnt in the locker room but Not likely. I doubt anyone used coke as a game stimulant, rather than recreationally. Not sayiing its right, but if you want a performance enhancing stimulant, coke is not the "go to" drug.

And please dont tell me that a professional QB or WR who handles thousands and thousands of balls in their career cant feel the difference in the under inflation of a ball

So yes, over the years Many teams bend and even break the rules. But who besides the Pats has a recent track record as repeat offenders?
 

392Hemi

Professional
Warming the balls is against the rules. It's an integrity of the game issue. You don't pick and choose which rules to enforce. If both teams had players using steroids, you don't dismiss that.

Now, I think what your post really says is "ball tampering really isn't a big deal". That is true. Even if the Pats cheated, then the parameters of the discussion should be treated the same way. Warn them and expect them to comply.

And remember, the Patriots balls were 100% consistent with the predictions of the ideal gas law.
I agree. Both teams were breaking the rules by warming the balls. But it was done at the moment to try to neutralize subzero temps, not premeditated. And yes regardless, against the rules. Rules were enforced and adhered to after the warning. First degree murder vs crime of passion. NO saints premeditated headhunting vs ad hoc dirty play . Sean Payton got suspended for it. Coaches dont get suspended for heat of the moment, even escalated dirty play (see Tom Coughlin / Odell Beckham)

Pats have been in hot water before and had been served notice. They made their choice to cheat again and got caught. Dont do the crime if you cant do the time
 

Jibaholic

New User
steriods and drug use in general were widespread in the 70s. It was the 70s. Period. end of story.

Many players admitted to using stickum, putting foreign substances (vaseline etc) on jerseys, etc. cheating? Yes of course. But not by the player who handles the ball on EVERY PLAY

Many teams have screwed with the salary cap and been caught. Yes that is cheating, by the front office not on the field. I think cheating on the field is more of a rules of engagement / player code of ethics thing, more visibile and therefore more of threat to the integrity of the game

Cocaine in the early 90s, used by millionairres? Imagine that. Limited to the Cowboys? I wasnt in the locker room but Not likely. I doubt anyone used coke as a game stimulant, rather than recreationally. Not sayiing its right, but if you want a performance enhancing stimulant, coke is not the "go to" drug.

And please dont tell me that a professional QB or WR who handles thousands and thousands of balls in their career cant feel the difference in the under inflation of a ball

So yes, over the years Many teams bend and even break the rules. But who besides the Pats has a recent track record as repeat offenders?
Wow that post is very incoherent. You just write off steroids with "hey, it was the 70's". You need to understand this: steroids are by orders of magnitude the biggest threat to the integrity of the game. And it is many orders of magnitude worse than relatively trivial offenses like stickum, vaseline, and deflated balls. If you really care a bit about the integrity of the game and a shred of objectivity, you would appreciate this.

And if you know your football history, you know that the Cowboys of the 90's had a basically superhuman drug culture. But even if their drug use were comparable to other teams, that doesn't excuse cheating.

The Patriots have been accused of two things: spygate and deflategate. In Spygate they videotaped opposing coaches from an unauthorized location. That's it. You can legally videotape opposing coaches, but you have to do so from a designated location and they were in the wrong spot. It was against the rules and they deserved to be punished, but that's a pretty trivial front office offense. And you yourself made light of front office offenses in your post.

And in deflategate, the pressure of the footballs was 100% consistent with the ideal gas law.
 

Jibaholic

New User
I agree. Both teams were breaking the rules by warming the balls. But it was done at the moment to try to neutralize subzero temps, not premeditated. And yes regardless, against the rules. Rules were enforced and adhered to after the warning. First degree murder vs crime of passion. NO saints premeditated headhunting vs ad hoc dirty play . Sean Payton got suspended for it. Coaches dont get suspended for heat of the moment, even escalated dirty play (see Tom Coughlin / Odell Beckham)

Pats have been in hot water before and had been served notice. They made their choice to cheat again and got caught. Dont do the crime if you cant do the time
Fair enough point about premeditated vs. crime of passion. But Jerry Rice used stickum throughout his career. The Denver Broncos put vaseline on their jerseys every game. Jerry Rice got no punishment and the Broncos were punished $5000.
 

T1000

Legend
It's ok to cheat unless you're the patriots.

The patriots are cheaters because don Shula gave bellicheck a nickname.

The tuck rule (which was enforced correctly) and the play against the ravens (which was 100% legal and Baltimore fell asleep on defense) are proof that the patriots are cheaters.

Warming the footballs (tampering with equipment) is fine if you're the Vikings and Falcons. Allegedly deflating footballs even tho the ideal gas law shows it wasn't possible during the game in question is cheating.

Videotaping is cheating if it's the patriots doing it but when the jets did it to be patriots it was fine

These are the arguments against the patriots

Wow
 

392Hemi

Professional
Wow that post is very incoherent. You just write off steroids with "hey, it was the 70's". You need to understand this: steroids are by orders of magnitude the biggest threat to the integrity of the game. And it is many orders of magnitude worse than relatively trivial offenses like stickum, vaseline, and deflated balls. If you really care a bit about the integrity of the game and a shred of objectivity, you would appreciate this.

And if you know your football history, you know that the Cowboys of the 90's had a basically superhuman drug culture. But even if their drug use were comparable to other teams, that doesn't excuse cheating.

The Patriots have been accused of two things: spygate and deflategate. In Spygate they videotaped opposing coaches from an unauthorized location. That's it. You can legally videotape opposing coaches, but you have to do so from a designated location and they were in the wrong spot. It was against the rules and they deserved to be punished, but that's a pretty trivial front office offense. And you yourself made light of front office offenses in your post.

And in deflategate, the pressure of the footballs was 100% consistent with the ideal gas law.
I couldnt agree with you more regarding steroids, but unfortunately steroids were not banned in the NFL until the late 80s.

Yes the Cowboys partied hard in the 90s. But did they win because of it, or in spite of it? Dont get me wrong, Im not condoning their behavior and Irvin's abuses are particularly well known, but enforcements of drug related suspensions, especially for recreational drugs are in practice a relatively new policy.

How is spying on an opponent's formations a front office violation? It is used for an upperhand in game planning not hiding cap money.

100% consistent with the ideal gas law? Im pretty sure before deflategate, no one in the NFL except perhaps players who graduated college with a degree in physics even knew what the ideal gas law was.
 

Jibaholic

New User
I couldnt agree with you more regarding steroids, but unfortunately steroids were not banned in the NFL until the late 80s.

Yes the Cowboys partied hard in the 90s. But did they win because of it, or in spite of it? Dont get me wrong, Im not condoning their behavior and Irvin's abuses are particularly well known, but enforcements of drug related suspensions, especially for recreational drugs are in practice a relatively new policy.

How is spying on an opponent's formations a front office violation? It is used for an upperhand in game planning not hiding cap money.

100% consistent with the ideal gas law? Im pretty sure before deflategate, no one in the NFL except perhaps players who graduated college with a degree in physics even knew what the ideal gas law was.
1. Steroids were against the law. Using illegal substances for performance enhancement is cheating regardless of whether or not the sport's governing body has addressed it. Using illegal substances is way worse than deflating footballs (which the Pats didn't even do anyways).

2. Cowboys. Irvin taking coke on the weekend is not a big deal. Taking coke during the game itself is a huge deal. Stimulants are PEDs.

3. Spying. Yes, having a better angle that your opponents wrt filming signals is a game-day advantage. But it's a much smaller advantage than manipulating the cap so you can sign more free agents. I see your point about front office vs other offenses. I was drawing the line at what happens on the field vs off the field, but your line is better, but that was incorrect. But the fact remains that manipulating the cap is a much bigger competitive advantage.

4. Sure, no one knew the ideal gas law before deflategate. I suspect that if the NFL and Goodell knew then what they knew now, they'd have handled it very differently. But the laws of physics don't change because Goodell was ignorant of physics. So the fact that the pressure in the footballs was 100% consistent with the ideal gas law is extremely relevant.
 
Ok. Here's the deal. We live in an age of instant-gratification. An age where a man can take a crap and let the entire world know about it in all of 10 seconds by photographing it with his phone and sending it to Twtter. An age where more controversy is captured than ever before. In the old days when word broke that a team was caught in a scandal, it was killed before it ever reached the press. And even when it reached the press the wildfire would be contained because you didn't have millions of idiots tweeting about it.

Nowadays, you Google "New England Patriots" and/or "Deflate-gate" and you've got a 1001 morons and their moms giving their "insight". The problem with this is most of these "experts" don't know jack-s h i t. It's like when people try arguing about steroids in MLB without actually referencing the 400-page Mitchell Report; you're gonna get the gist of what's happening but you're also missing the important details.

My only point is New England is a polarizing entity. Anything that has the level of recognition that they do is inevitably going to come under fire. The President, Wall Street, whatever. I'd rather spend my time doing productive things. Unless my life is directly affected by Tom Brady and New England's success, I tend to ignore the headlines and dirt sheets, which in this day and age aren't too reputable to begin with.

And of course I credit them with firing Hernandez. He was their second-leading receiver to Gronkowski and they invested a lot of money in him. It couldn't have been easy to part ways with a guy you invested so much time and effort into. Hernandez made a decision and the Pats made a decision. End of story. They handled it better than any other team in the league would have.
Preach, preacher!
 

392Hemi

Professional
1. Steroids were against the law. Using illegal substances for performance enhancement is cheating regardless of whether or not the sport's governing body has addressed it. Using illegal substances is way worse than deflating footballs (which the Pats didn't even do anyways).

2. Cowboys. Irvin taking coke on the weekend is not a big deal. Taking coke during the game itself is a huge deal. Stimulants are PEDs.

3. Spying. Yes, having a better angle that your opponents wrt filming signals is a game-day advantage. But it's a much smaller advantage than manipulating the cap so you can sign more free agents. I see your point about front office vs other offenses. I was drawing the line at what happens on the field vs off the field, but your line is better, but that was incorrect. But the fact remains that manipulating the cap is a much bigger competitive advantage.

4. Sure, no one knew the ideal gas law before deflategate. I suspect that if the NFL and Goodell knew then what they knew now, they'd have handled it very differently. But the laws of physics don't change because Goodell was ignorant of physics. So the fact that the pressure in the footballs was 100% consistent with the ideal gas law is extremely relevant.
1 and 2 I agree with you to a "T" but the fact remains drug use whether legal or NFL regulation matters, whether illicit recreational drugs or PEDs were simply not enforced by the league until recently.

3 again I cant disagree with your premise, but it is still up to the NFL to audit negotiated contracts, payroll, backroom deals etc. you cant be caught in the act of a cap violation, but you can be caught in the act of spying.

4 before deflategate, Tom Brady was only known as a squeaky clean role model on and off the field who could present himself as well as anyone in a press conference. A textbook professional. The only thing about him in a negative light was the chip on his shoulder for being a low draft pick. Cant say I fault him there either. So where Im going with this is why would the NFL front offices or Goodell want to tarnish a connsumate professional / model citizen / superstar if it didnt have justification? Unless it was guilt by association with belichick or there was just cause, It just doesnt make sense.
 

Jibaholic

New User
1 and 2 I agree with you to a "T" but the fact remains drug use whether legal or NFL regulation matters, whether illicit recreational drugs or PEDs were simply not enforced by the league until recently.

3 again I cant disagree with your premise, but it is still up to the NFL to audit negotiated contracts, payroll, backroom deals etc. you cant be caught in the act of a cap violation, but you can be caught in the act of spying.

4 before deflategate, Tom Brady was only known as a squeaky clean role model on and off the field who could present himself as well as anyone in a press conference. A textbook professional. The only thing about him in a negative light was the chip on his shoulder for being a low draft pick. Cant say I fault him there either. So where Im going with this is why would the NFL front offices or Goodell want to tarnish a connsumate professional / model citizen / superstar if it didnt have justification? Unless it was guilt by association with belichick or there was just cause, It just doesnt make sense.

1 and 2. You can't be serious. There are thousands of professional and olympic athletes right now that are taking illegal PEDs that are so cutting edge that the NFL, MLB and the IOC haven't yet officially prohibited. Are you going to say that those athletes aren't cheating? That there legacy shouldn't be tarnished?

3. A cap violation is a much bigger competitive advantage than filming opposing coaches from a better vantage point.

4. We've already hashed over the motivation. At the end of the day the salient point is that the balls were consistent with the ideal gas law.
 

392Hemi

Professional
1 and 2. You can't be serious. There are thousands of professional and olympic athletes right now that are taking illegal PEDs that are so cutting edge that the NFL, MLB and the IOC haven't yet officially prohibited. Are you going to say that those athletes aren't cheating? That there legacy shouldn't be tarnished?

3. A cap violation is a much bigger competitive advantage than filming opposing coaches from a better vantage point.

4. We've already hashed over the motivation. At the end of the day the salient point is that the balls were consistent with the ideal gas law.
1 and 2 we were talking about drug use in past decades and the NFLs nonenforcement. now you switched to designer PEDs being used Today under the radar by all amateur and pro athletes

3 we already agreed here. Not sure what point you are trying to make by repeating yourself

4 ok forget Brady. If the Pats ihad nothing to hide and nsist the balls werent tampered with then why did the Pats discipline the equipment handlers?
 

Jibaholic

New User
1 and 2 we were talking about drug use in past decades and the NFLs nonenforcement. now you switched to designer PEDs being used by all amateur and pro athletes

3 we already agreed here. Not sure what point you are trying to make by repeating yourself

4 ok forget Brady. If the Pats insist the balls werent tampered with then why did the Pats (not the NFL) discipline the equipment handlers?
1 and 2. I'm talking about whether or not taking illegal substances that are not explicitly banned by a sports governing body is considered cheating. So if you think that athletes taking designer PEDs are cheating, then the Steelers were cheating.

4. The NFL requested that the Patriots suspend them.
Adam Schefter
May 19, 2015 ·


For those asking why Patriots suspended two employees if those two did nothing wrong, as New England claims: NFL asked Pats to suspend them prior to discipline being handed down, per a league source in New York. New England obliged with the NFL's request.
 
Top