[NFL] vBook: Colts vs Patriots (Deflategate)

yankeehater

Well-known member
Messages
2,199
Reaction score
774
Do I believe Brady asked "the Deflator" to lower pressure in the footballs? Yes

Is there any evidence the request was made to reduce the balls below the league minimum? No

I do not see how the NFL's decision holds up at all with the evidence the NFL is presenting to the Judge.
 

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,600
Reaction score
20,075
Ya, it's very odd they seemed to have disappeared. Part of me thinks they're being paid to stay quiet...but anyone would also pay them like crazy for a tell-all interview. I know one of them was stalked by Outside The Lines, so they might be pretty anti-ESPN and anti-NFL at this point.

You can bet the farm, they are being well paid to go into hibernation.

paid to sign a nondisclosure.

Excellent point.
 

Rhode Irish

Semi-retired
Messages
7,057
Reaction score
900
ESPN issues late-night apology to Patriots | ProFootballTalk

Slightly off-topic, and slightly on topic. But the important point is that ESPN is still confusing the "spygate" thing for its audience by saying it had something to do with filming the Rams walk-thru at SB36. They didn't do that, and that is not what Spygate was about. Spygate was solely about taping the Jets sideline from field level when the NFL had restricted that practice. There was no competitive advantage gained because you are permitted to film from elsewhere and the guy is doing his signals out in the open in front of 80,000 people. The Rams practice thing was a reported later and was proven false and retracted. And ESPN is STILL confusing the story - you'd have to assume intentionally. Then coming with the weasel apology in a way that seems intentionally obscure.

So I do blame fans of other teams for not understanding what the hell they are talking about when they talk about the Patriots and "cheating" scandals or whatever, because the information is out there if they wanted to be informed. But it doesn't help when you have ESPN actively misleading the public over and over again, seemingly to help their business partner forward its twisted agenda.
 

irishfan

Irish Hoops Mod
Messages
7,205
Reaction score
607
You Patriot fans are sure a sensitive bunch! lol

This story about the Pats filming the Rams walk through before the Super Bowl has been repeated by ESPN at times throughout the last few weeks, starting with the Brady appeal being upheld. It's a false story of what would be seemingly blatant and brazen cheating, and something that IMO would be about 100x worse than what Spygate actually was. ESPN shows the cheating graphic and has their desk heads reference it as a response whenever one of their analysts actually tries to stick up for the Patriots. ESPN is the largest sports network and has been reporting it as fact for a while now, which is just embarrassing. The fact they apologized for it once after midnight after showing it on TV all day is even worse. Of course Patriot fans are annoyed by this.

And to quote the article since people probably won't click it....it was a half-assed apology with a factual error.

“On two occasions in recent weeks, SportsCenter incorrectly cited a 2002 report regarding the New England Patriots and Super Bowl XXXVI,” anchor Steve Levy said at 12:20 a.m. ET Thursday, in a one-time-only on-air declaration of regret. “That story was found to be false, and should not have been part of our reporting. We apologize to the Patriots organization.”

The correction, which technically needs to be corrected again because it was a 2008 report not 2002, hasn’t been repeated on the endless Thursday morning SportsCenter loop, which makes it the equivalent of the tiny little correction buried in an obscure location of a newspaper.

Speaking of things buried in obscure locations, the apology appears nowhere that we can find it on the front page of ESPN.com or the ESPN.com NFL home page or the ESPN.com Patriots page. Instead, it shows up on the ESPN.com Corrections page.

ESPN provided PFT a link to the Corrections page, which I otherwise can’t find at ESPN.com. It’s identical to what Levy read on the air — including the erroneous reference to 2002, not 2008.

I then scrolled through the corrections page to see specifically where ESPN.com corrected its report from Chris Mortensen that 11 of 12 Patriots footballs were measured at two pounds under the minimum during halftime of the AFC title game. There’s no correction to be found on that point, and there’s been no on-air apology.

I suppose I’ll have to set my alarm for 12:20 a.m. ET every night to see if Steve Levy has anything to say about it.
 
Last edited:

IrishJayhawk

Rock Chalk
Messages
7,181
Reaction score
464
Joe Thomas of Cleveland Browns backs Tom Brady, rips NFL witch hunts

"I would equate what [Tom Brady] did to driving 66 [mph] in a 65 speed zone, and getting the death penalty."

Joe Thomas

"Who cares if they throw a football that has no air pressure? What does it matter? Why don't we let the quarterbacks do whatever they want to the football? I don't understand why there's any rules."

Thomas called the minimum pressures for footballs "arbitrary."

"We know [quarterbacks] already doctor [footballs] 99 percent, why do we care about the 1 percent in the air pressure?" Thomas said. "Why does that matter? Nobody's even explained why that even matters."
 

irishfan

Irish Hoops Mod
Messages
7,205
Reaction score
607
This is also perhaps the best article I've read on the absurdity of this whole issue:

Curran: 'Significantly' underinflated? Please stopTom E. Curran: Please stop with the 'significantly' underinflated stuff? | Comcast SportsNet - CSNNE.com

The Wells Report declared the Patriots footballs were “at or near” 12.5 PSI before the game (page 111). The Wells Report states that “the Ideal Gas Law” predicts that the Patriots balls should have measured between 11.52 and 11.32 psi at the end of the first half.”

Let’s just go over that again so everyone gets it. The $5 million Wells Report states the balls should have been between 11.52 and 11.32 PSI. So that’s your starting point when deciding whether or not the balls were “significantly” underinflated or not.

So keep that in mind. Now, what was the average psi of the footballs? One official, measuring the 11 footballs, found the average at halftime was 11.49. The other official, with a different gauge, had them at an average of 11.11.


I don’t want to get back into logo gauges and non-logo gauges and the Ideal Gas Law.

I just want to rip apart the idea that one can debate whether or not the deflation was “significant” which is the hill that Mort’s planted his flag on and is making his stand as to why he “stands by” his story.

On one of the gauges, the balls were, on average, easily within the range THAT THE WELLS REPORT SAID THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN. Eight of the 11 balls were not underinflated at all, never mind significantly.

On the other gauge, the average was two-tenths less than what the Wells Report expert, Exponent said they should be. Three of the balls weren’t underinflated at all.

I also love this part below as a response to everyone screaming that Brady should have been able to easily feel the difference in pressure.

“Then it occurred to me as I’m preparing this argument, how much of a difference is that,” Kessler asked. “And what it turns out, it’s one of two-tenths of a difference of PSI. What does that mean? It means how much do you think we have to alter the assumption to overcome one or two-tenths of PSI? It means their conclusion is, Mr. McNally – the attendant – went into the bathroom to lower the PSI one or two-tenths of a PSI. I would say, your Honor, even the NFL would not contend that a quarterback could even feel the difference of one or two-tenths of PSI, let along in making a difference in play.”
 

irishfan

Irish Hoops Mod
Messages
7,205
Reaction score
607
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">UPDATE: No settlement between Brady and NFL. Berman expects to make his decision TOMORROW or WEDNESDAY</p>— Ben Volin (@BenVolin) <a href="https://twitter.com/BenVolin/status/638371089001914368">August 31, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

irishfan

Irish Hoops Mod
Messages
7,205
Reaction score
607
Texans owner says Patriots and Brady at fault for not cooperating fully. Seems like the first owner to come out and state his opinion.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-s...ts-for-escalating-deflate-gate-210635135.html

As someone who thinks J.J. Watt is an amazing football player, but a complete tool, his quote made me so angry haha but ya I think this is the first owner to really have a strong opinion.

This quote below kind of makes my head spin. I still don't get how you can say there's no evidence but then say he broke rules....but I don't really blame any owner who is looking to see the Pats get taken down a peg or two.

“Is there anything conclusive there? No, you don’t have any conclusive evidence, but the whole idea is we want to make sure we have a competitive playing field that’s level for everybody," McNair said. "We don’t want people breaking the rules.”
 

irishfan

Irish Hoops Mod
Messages
7,205
Reaction score
607
I also liked this ace up the sleeve that the NFLPA/Brady brought to court on Monday.

Feely’s presence may have been a useful coincidence for Brady, NFLPA | ProFootballTalk

On the surface, free-agent kicker Jay Feely attended Monday’s settlement conference in his capacity as a member of the NFL Players Association’s Executive Committee. At a deeper level, Feely may have served a more important purpose in connection with the interests of Patriots quarterback Tom Brady.

As noted last month, the NFLPA’s initial court filing challenging the Brady suspension pointed out that the NFL suspended a Jets equipment employee in 2009, after an attempt “to use unapproved equipment to prep the K[icking] Balls” in a game against (you guessed it) the Patriots. The NFL did not investigate or discipline the Jets kicker for “general awareness” or specific involvement in the attempted violation of the rules, even though the Jets kicker was the player most likely to benefit from the behavior and, in turn, the player most likely to be aware of the conduct.

Coincidentally, the Jets kicker at the time was Jay Feely.
 

Irish Insanity

Well-known member
Messages
9,885
Reaction score
584
Do you have specifics of that case? Are deflated balls the only thing those cases have in common? Any common occurrences or circumstances within the case? If so, that's a very important development. If not, it's simply smoke and mirrors by the Brady side.
 

Rhode Irish

Semi-retired
Messages
7,057
Reaction score
900
Do you have specifics of that case? Are deflated balls the only thing those cases have in common? Any common occurrences or circumstances within the case? If so, that's a very important development. If not, it's simply smoke and mirrors by the Brady side.

Not sure what you mean. The issue is whether the game balls were manipulated in violation of league rules (which, mind you, the NFL hasn't even proven happened here). I don't see how the surrounding circumstances are really relevant, especially because there is nothing in the surrounding circumstances to implicate Brady anyways - which is the entire point.
 

irishfan

Irish Hoops Mod
Messages
7,205
Reaction score
607
Do you have specifics of that case? Are deflated balls the only thing those cases have in common? Any common occurrences or circumstances within the case? If so, that's a very important development. If not, it's simply smoke and mirrors by the Brady side.

The point is that the league viewed Feely's situation as an equipment violation and that is something that players are not punished for. While Goodell has likened Brady's situation to a PED offense that falls under "integrity of the game." Equipment violations are in a rulebook that is given to teams and not to players, and they are supposed to be team offenses. Integrity of the game can apply to players. It's part of the reason why Goodell took Wells' findings and changed them from "generally aware" for the AFC Championship to a full-blown scheme that involved gifts given to the equipment guys by Brady (something Feely also said happens in every locker room--QBs and kickers give cash/gear to the equipment guys who prep the balls since they're not paid much).

It's just a small part of their argument that Goodell didn't follow past protocol and also showed bias by finding his own conclusions to the Wells Report and not the one that Ted Wells found.
 
Last edited:

Irish Insanity

Well-known member
Messages
9,885
Reaction score
584
The point is that the league viewed it as an equipment violation and that is something that players are not punished for. While Goodell has likened Brady's situation to a PED offense that falls under "integrity of the game."

It't just a small part of their argument that Goodell didn't follow past protocol.
My question would be what other evidence, or believed evidence, is there that the kicker was in communications with the equipment personnel about it. There is that in the Brady case.
 

irishfan

Irish Hoops Mod
Messages
7,205
Reaction score
607
My question would be what other evidence, or believed evidence, is there that the kicker was in communications with the equipment personnel about it. There is that in the Brady case.

What communication are you referring to? There is nothing about Brady wanting the footballs to be a pressure lower than 12.5.
 

Irish Insanity

Well-known member
Messages
9,885
Reaction score
584
What communication are you referring to? There is nothing about Brady wanting the footballs to be a pressure lower than 12.5.
The 'deflator' or eh at ever he was referring to the guy as in communications.
And that's why I said 'believed evidence' as some believe it's proof, some think it's nothing.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
My question would be what other evidence, or believed evidence, is there that the kicker was in communications with the equipment personnel about it. There is that in the Brady case.
The Feely point isn't about evidence or lack thereof. It's about this principle of "notice." The CBA says that a player can't be punished for a thing that he hadn't gotten notice that he could be punished for it. In other words, the NFL has never stated "a player can be suspended for an equipment violation [regardless of evidence]." Even if there was an e-mail from Golden.Boy.TB12@Patriots.com to the equipment managers with a video of Brady saying "make sure the balls are deflated below 12 PSI," there's nothing in the CBA that provides for anything beyond a fine for the general awareness of an equipment violation.
 

irishfan

Irish Hoops Mod
Messages
7,205
Reaction score
607
The 'deflator' or eh at ever he was referring to the guy as in communications.
And that's why I said 'believed evidence' as some believe it's proof, some think it's nothing.

True. Although they didn't launch a $5 million dollar investigation into Feely and get the texts from his equipment guys, so maybe they would have found something similar. Which was pretty much the whole point in Feely being there and sharing his story with the judge. Doesn't make sense to shrug off an equipment violation (Jets 2009, Panthers heating footballs, Chargers stickem) and then launch a massive investigation for a similar violation.
 
Last edited:

gkIrish

Greek God
Messages
13,184
Reaction score
1,004
The Feely point isn't about evidence or lack thereof. It's about this principle of "notice." The CBA says that a player can't be punished for a thing that he hadn't gotten notice that he could be punished for it. In other words, the NFL has never stated "a player can be suspended for an equipment violation [regardless of evidence]." Even if there was an e-mail from Golden.Boy.TB12@Patriots.com to the equipment managers with a video of Brady saying "make sure the balls are deflated below 12 PSI," there's nothing in the CBA that provides for anything beyond a fine for the general awareness of an equipment violation.

Are you saying that, hypothetically, if the NFL has never specifically said you can be suspending for raping a woman, then they can't suspend a player who rapes a woman?
 

Irish Insanity

Well-known member
Messages
9,885
Reaction score
584
The Feely point isn't about evidence or lack thereof. It's about this principle of "notice." The CBA says that a player can't be punished for a thing that he hadn't gotten notice that he could be punished for it. In other words, the NFL has never stated "a player can be suspended for an equipment violation [regardless of evidence]." Even if there was an e-mail from Golden.Boy.TB12@Patriots.com to the equipment managers with a video of Brady saying "make sure the balls are deflated below 12 PSI," there's nothing in the CBA that provides for anything beyond a fine for the general awareness of an equipment violation.
True. But didn't they 'move' his punishment under the failure to comply language.
True. Although they didn't launch a $5 million dollar investigation into Feely and get the texts from his equipment guys, so maybe they would have found something similar. Which was pretty much the whole point in Feely being there and sharing his story with the judge.
Thanks for the info.

I'm a Patriot hater, I just want to be informed. Lol
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Are you saying that, hypothetically, if the NFL has never specifically said you can be suspending for raping a woman, then they can't suspend a player who rapes a woman?
It doesn't have to be specific, but it does have to be in there. For example, the NFL wouldn't have to have a policy that states "deflating a football or being at least generally aware that a football is deflated constitutes an equipment violation contrary to the integrity of the game and is subject to fines not to exceed $100,000 and suspensions not to exceed four games." They could just say "players guilty of an equipment violation are subject to discipline at the discretion of the Commissioner." I'm pretty sure any crimes/illegal activity is covered by such a blanket statement, even though "raping a woman" might not be spelled out by name.

True. But didn't they 'move' his punishment under the failure to comply language.
I don't think so. It was suggested that they could but I don't know that they actually did. The Wells Report certainly seems to indicate that it was Brady's "general awareness" of wrongdoing that got him into trouble, not failure to comply with the investigation.
 
Last edited:

irishfan

Irish Hoops Mod
Messages
7,205
Reaction score
607
Are you saying that, hypothetically, if the NFL has never specifically said you can be suspending for raping a woman, then they can't suspend a player who rapes a woman?

The equipment violations are in a handout given to the teams, and this handout is not given to players. So for those cases, they are team punishments and not players punishments. So the lack of notice for a player regarding football tampering actually does apply.

Also, this doesn't relate to Brady as much, but the Rice/AP suspensions were overturned for somewhat similar reasons to the one in your post. "Law of shop" I think?

The crux of the issue was the application of the enhanced personal conduct policy, increasing a suspension for players involved with domestic violence from two games to six games. Because that was implemented after the injuries occurred to Peterson's son, delivered by a wooden switch that Peterson was using for discipline, the union contended that the prior standard of punishment should apply.

"Our collective bargaining agreement has rules for implementation of the personal conduct policy and when those rules are violated, our union always stands up to protect our players' rights," Smith said. "This is yet another example why neutral arbitration is good for our players, good for the owners and good for our game."

Doty's courtroom has long been a ground zero of sorts for NFL labor matters, and his ruling pattern has favored the union more often than not.

The increased penalty for domestic violence arose from the furor over the league's handling of former Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice, who was seen on surveillance video knocking out the woman who's now his wife with a punch in an elevator.

Rice was initially suspended for two games before Goodell declared the ban indefinite. The arbitrator who heard Rice's appeal, former U.S. District Judge Barbara Jones, ruled that Goodell's decision was "arbitrary" and an "abuse of discretion."

Despite the NFL's argument that the ruling by Jones was irrelevant to Henderson's, Doty disagreed.

"The court finds no valid basis to distinguish this case from the Rice matter," Doty said.

Judge David Doty rules in favor of Adrian Peterson of Minnesota Vikings
 

gkIrish

Greek God
Messages
13,184
Reaction score
1,004
It doesn't have to be specific, but it does have to be in there. For example, the NFL wouldn't have to have a policy that states "deflating a football or being at least generally aware that a football is deflated constitutes an equipment violation contrary to the integrity of the game and is subject to fines not to exceed $100,000 and suspensions not to exceed four games." They could just say "players guilty of an equipment violation are subject to discipline at the discretion of the Commissioner." I'm pretty sure any crimes/illegal activity is covered by such a blanket statement, even though "raping a woman" might not be spelled out by name.


I don't think so. It was suggested that they could but I don't know that they actually did. The Wells Report certainly seems to indicate that it was Brady's "general awareness" of wrongdoing that got him into trouble, not failure to comply with the investigation.

But isn't there a general clause related to "integrity" or something to that effect. That's where knowledge of equipment violations may fall under.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
But isn't there a general clause related to "integrity" or something to that effect. That's where knowledge of equipment violations may fall under.
Therein lies the value of having Feely there. It shows that, in the past, football PSI has been categorized as an equipment violation and subject to the equipment policies. The issue has come up in the past and it's never been an "integrity of the game" violation that results in discipline to the player, so there's no reason for Mr. Brady to assume that such a thing would apply to him.

This is all irrelevant because he didn't do it.
 

gkIrish

Greek God
Messages
13,184
Reaction score
1,004
Therein lies the value of having Feely there. It shows that, in the past, football PSI has been categorized as an equipment violation and subject to the equipment policies. The issue has come up in the past and it's never been an "integrity of the game" violation that results in discipline to the player, so there's no reason for Mr. Brady to assume that such a thing would apply to him.

This is all irrelevant because he didn't do it.

Were the Jets accused of cheating by another team or was the violation caught during the normal inspection of the balls prior to the game? If the latter, the situations aren't the same at all. The accusation here is that the tampering occurred after the inspection.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Were the Jets accused of cheating by another team or was the violation caught during the normal inspection of the balls prior to the game? If the latter, the situations aren't the same at all. The accusation here is that the tampering occurred after the inspection.
It doesn't matter when the tampering occurred because the text messages from Brady were from months prior.
 
Top