Deflategate Central (one thread, merged, moderated)

[amfootball]

Yeah .. that feature is nice. Pretty neat.

 

 

If you are saying that all this is getting old.. I agree.     0 games ... 2 games ... 4 games. What ever... do it and move on as it does no one any good to keep debating this.    

Yeah, not just old but tiresome really. Whatever the games are, if any, the Pats will be fine so I am ready for some football at this point.

 

Here is this nugget from today that is pretty interesting:

"The next step in the Deflategate case should come Monday night or Tuesday, when the judge rules on the matter of whether the parties may submit court documents under seal or whether those documents might be made public. The documents include the transcript of Brady's June appeal hearing with Goodell. If they're made public, they would reveal the full extent of the conversation involving the cellphone the league claims Brady destroyed after league investigators asked him for it. A source also said the union, in its arguments that day, used excerpts from the arguments it made in earlier cases involving Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson. The documents in those cases were sealed." http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/13372133/new-england-patriots-qb-tom-brady-attend-aug-12-settlement-hearing

 

I have to admit, I would love it if the appeal hearing docs became public as that would make for some fantastic reading. lol.

[amfootball]

Why is it always a deflection of what another player has done? Can just one time can you stick to Brady? You can bring up a thousand excuses or deflections about what other teams or players have or haven't done but it has zero to do with Brady. Has any players got by with cheating or compromising the rules? Yes, Does that make what Brady done OK? No. It does in your mind. I have pretty much stayed out of this but it is very hard to sit here and read this pile of horse dung without chiming in.

What deflection? I was asked a question about competitive advantage of the deflated footballs and answered it.

[amfootball]

Wow. This is a bit of a bombshell from Christ Mortensen on ESPN yesterday:

 

Mortensen admitted that while he could have a “better job vetting” the story, he doesn’t think misreporting that 11 footballs were underinflated by two pounds per square inch was a big issue. If he just reported the balls were “severely underinflated,” another term he used repeatedly in his reporting, it would have caused just as big an uproar.

— He thinks the entire Wells Report is a joke and that Tom Brady doesn’t deserve a suspension.

“I was also on the record as saying there never should have been an independent investigation. There should have been a review, get it to the competition committee, slap people on the wrist and move on. But that’s not what the league chose to do.”

 

http://nesn.com/2015/08/christ-mortensen-nfl-investigating-deflategate-was-a-mistake/

[SteelCityColt]

What deflection? I was asked a question about competitive advantage of the deflated footballs and answered it.

 

[NFLfan]

Wow. This is a bit of a bombshell from Christ Mortensen on ESPN yesterday:

Mortensen admitted that while he could have a “better job vetting” the story, he doesn’t think misreporting that 11 footballs were underinflated by two pounds per square inch was a big issue. If he just reported the balls were “severely underinflated,” another term he used repeatedly in his reporting, it would have caused just as big an uproar.

— He thinks the entire Wells Report is a joke and that Tom Brady doesn’t deserve a suspension.

“I was also on the record as saying there never should have been an independent investigation. There should have been a review, get it to the competition committee, slap people on the wrist and move on. But that’s not what the league chose to do.”

http://nesn.com/2015/08/christ-mortensen-nfl-investigating-deflategate-was-a-mistake/

"He thinks the entire Wells Report is a joke"

Did Mortenson say it was a "joke"? I doubt that. Pats fans seem to like using words like "joke" or "sham" to describe anything that they disagree with (Wells Report, decisions by Goodell).

[amfootball]

"He thinks the entire Wells Report is a joke"

Did Mortenson say it was a "joke"? I doubt that. Pats fans seem to like using words like "joke" or "sham" to describe anything that they disagree with (Wells Report, decisions by Goodell).

Him saying there never should have been an investigation to begin with is stronger actually than calling the Wells report a joke.

[NFLfan]

Him saying there never should have been an investigation to begin with is stronger actually than calling the Wells report a joke.

I disagree. If that were the case, why is there a need to add that he called it a joke when he did not. As soon as I read that part, I realized this was not credible and it was biased. I did not bother to open the link.

[amfootball]

I disagree. If that were the case, why is there a need to add that he called it a joke when he did not. As soon as I read that part, I realized this was not credible and it was biased. I did not bother to open the link.

It is only the beginning few first paragraphs that are the authors the rest is just the transcript of the interview so you can decide for yourself. But is clear that Mort was lied too is angry about the entire situation and how it all went down and thinks the way the NFL handled this situation was wrong.

[pgt_rob]

Do you know why Brady looked uncomfortable ?

It's actually very simple.

He knew that he had done nothing wrong.

 

Dude, haven't you ever watched Law and Order or Cops?

[Flying Elvis]

Perception is not reality. Public opinion is irrelevant. Truth matters.

[dynasty13]

I disagree. If that were the case, why is there a need to add that he called it a joke when he did not. As soon as I read that part, I realized this was not credible and it was biased. I did not bother to open the link.

 

You are correct, Mort never said it was a joke.

 

But I gotta be honest here...why wouldn't you read the link? Too many here are responding to posts after not even reading the links provided, and that is just counter-productive. Who cares if the article is biased? Every single link that has been posted has had some sort of lean one way or the other. I read everything that is posted, especially those portraying the opposite viewpoint...that way I can form an opinion that is actually based on the information out there instead of just covering my ears and ignoring it. 

[amfootball]

You are correct, Mort never said it was a joke.

 

But I gotta be honest here...why wouldn't you read the link? Too many here are responding to posts after not even reading the links provided, and that is just counter-productive. Who cares if the article is biased? Every single link that has been posted has had some sort of lean one way or the other. I read everything that is posted, especially those portraying the opposite viewpoint...that way I can form an opinion that is actually based on the information out there instead of just covering my ears and ignoring it. 

Not to mention that Mort's report has been the subject of many posts here and a focal point of this entire saga so here we have an interview right from the horse's mouth ... a must read IMO for anyone that does want to have an informed opinion.

[jvan1973]

Wow. This is a bit of a bombshell from Christ Mortensen on ESPN yesterday:

Mortensen admitted that while he could have a “better job vetting” the story, he doesn’t think misreporting that 11 footballs were underinflated by two pounds per square inch was a big issue. If he just reported the balls were “severely underinflated,” another term he used repeatedly in his reporting, it would have caused just as big an uproar.

— He thinks the entire Wells Report is a joke and that Tom Brady doesn’t deserve a suspension.

“I was also on the record as saying there never should have been an independent investigation. There should have been a review, get it to the competition committee, slap people on the wrist and move on. But that’s not what the league chose to do.”

http://nesn.com/2015/08/christ-mortensen-nfl-investigating-deflategate-was-a-mistake/

morts opinion is hardly a bombshell

[Bubbz]

What deflection? I was asked a question about competitive advantage of the deflated footballs and answered it.

How about you deflecting my question by not answering it? Weren't you ranting and raving about how the balls deflated naturally and there was no other possible explanation for that, and then in this thread admitted they went into the bathroom and let the air out?

[crazycolt1]

What deflection? I was asked a question about competitive advantage of the deflated footballs and answered it.

Are you serious? You non stop state comments about other QBs and players and what they have done in the past. You even bring up rumors of what players have done in the past. What other players have and haven't done has no bearing on Brady. If I got by with speeding on I-95 in the Boston area and you got a ticket for speeding on I-95 by your calculations, you did nothing wrong. Just because someone else breaks the rules does not give Brady a green light.

[dynasty13]

Are you serious? You non stop state comments about other QBs and players and what they have done in the past. You even bring up rumors of what players have done in the past. What other players have and haven't done has no bearing on Brady. If I got by with speeding on I-95 in the Boston area and you got a ticket for speeding on I-95 by your calculations, you did nothing wrong. Just because someone else breaks the rules does not give Brady a green light.

 

It's not about whether or not something wrong was done...it's a discussion about the fallout i.e. the punishment. If there are past comparable situations, it's worth discussing them and looking at the precedent in terms of punishment that was set there. 

 

Your example works in terms of not giving someone a 'pass' or a 'green light' just because someone else did it too...but lets apply your example to what we are actually talking about here: If you were going 30 MPH over the speed limit and got pulled over and was given a $100 ticket, and then I was pulled over by the same cop on the same road for going the same 30 MPH over the speed limit, why would I get a $200 ticket?

 

You've all already determined that Brady is guilty so fine, what's next? The punishment. When Patriots fans mention other situations, we aren't deflecting, we are comparing similar offenses and their penalties. That in no way justifies the action, we aren't defending the action...we are talking about the punishment. It just seems like in this case the punishment is far exceeding those that have been issued in the past for what are widely considered much harsher infractions. That is now the discussion. Whether he was involved or not is over and done with, we don't know and the NFL certainly hasn't proven it one way or the other. The case now is all about the punishment.

[SteelCityColt]

It's not about whether or not something wrong was done...it's a discussion about the fallout i.e. the punishment. If there are past comparable situations, it's worth discussing them and looking at the precedent in terms of punishment that was set there. 

 

Your example works in terms of not giving someone a 'pass' or a 'green light' just because someone else did it too...but lets apply your example to what we are actually talking about here: If you were going 30 MPH over the speed limit and got pulled over and was given a $100 ticket, and then I was pulled over by the same cop on the same road for going the same 30 MPH over the speed limit, why would I get a $200 ticket?

 

You've all already determined that Brady is guilty so fine, what's next? The punishment. When Patriots fans mention other situations, we aren't deflecting, we are comparing similar offenses and their penalties. That in no way justifies the action, we aren't defending the action...we are talking about the punishment. It just seems like in this case the punishment is far exceeding those that have been issued in the past for what are widely considered much harsher infractions. That is now the discussion. Whether he was involved or not is over and done with, we don't know and the NFL certainly hasn't proven it one way or the other. The case now is all about the punishment.

 

Well using your own ill conceived metaphor if I was completely compliant with the officer and accepted the ticket gracefully then I don't think it would be remiss I received a lesser punishment then someone who denies the offence, refuses to accept the ticket and drags it into court...

 

That's exactly how the system works in the UK, you can take a standard fine if you admit the offense or you can go to court and risk bigger punishment.

 

Besides it's not like they are saying yes we did it but the punishment is excessive, so it's not all about punishment at all. 

 

 

 

Speaking of all things deflection, you or AM still haven't the answered the legitimate question about the fumble numbers, even discounting ball tampering..they're anomalous. I guess even deflection runs out and plain old ignoring the inconvenient comes into play  

[ColtRider]

Time heals all 'wounds.'

 

This whole thing will become a footnote, no more, no less. People who don't want to won't forget it, but it won't affect his place on all time lists, it won't affect his place on NFL Network countdowns, it won't affect his place in the Hall of Fame, and it won't affect when he is mentioned years and years from now during Superbowl broadcasts when they talk about him.

 

And I'm sorry to say, but regardless of the outcome of this whole thing, you're just gonna have to get over it too. If he just admitted it at the beginning, the haters would still call him out for it. Their minds were made up the second the Mortensen tweet went public. All the rest is just a show and hasn't changed a thing.

"If he just admitted it all the beginning, the haters would still call him out for it."

Maybe. Hate is a very big word to me. I've never "hated" Brady for everything he's done for the good of the NFL and it's fans. I've hated some of the accusations that have been proven so far with regards to SpyGate, DeFlateGate, illegal formations and the likes. Integrity of one's self comes into play with all of these matters as well, whether it's team related or not. I really do dislike the antics of the Patriots over the years and that says quite a bit, Brady included. Do I "hate", Tom? No. Do I hate the "cheating"? Yes. Big difference.

[Superman]

Do you know why Brady looked uncomfortable ?

It's actually very simple.

He knew that he had done nothing wrong.

But the ONLY report out there was that the footballs were 2 PSI under.

That was the ONLY report, and Brady couldn't understand how that could be true.

As we've found out, that report wasn't remotely true.

 

Question: Is Tom Brady a cheater?

 

Brady's answer: I don't think so.

 

The most softball question of all time, ever, and Brady couldn't unequivocally answer.

[SteelCityColt]

"If he just admitted it all the beginning, the haters would still call him out for it."

Maybe. Hate is a very big word to me. I've never "hated" Brady for everything he's done for the good of the NFL and it's fans. I've hated some of the accusations that have been proven so far with regards to SpyGate, DeFlateGate, illegal formations and the likes. Integrity of one's self comes into play with all of these matters as well, whether it's team related or not. I really do dislike the antics of the Patriots over the years and that says quite a bit, Brady included. Do I "hate", Tom? No. Do I hate the "cheating"? Yes. Big difference.

 

Previous to this event, probably because I have a degree of separation from Patriots' fans I would have gone for "grudging admiration". Now.... not so much. 

[SteelCityColt]

Question: Is Tom Brady a cheater?

 

Brady's answer: I don't think so.

 

The most softball question of all time, ever, and Brady couldn't unequivocally answer.

 

Can you imagine if he repeats such an exchange in court..... 

[amfootball]

Can you imagine if he repeats such an exchange in court..... 

I would be infinitely more worried about what Goodell would say in court given his testimony in the Rice case ...

[amfootball]

Question: Is Tom Brady a cheater?

 

Brady's answer: I don't think so.

 

The most softball question of all time, ever, and Brady couldn't unequivocally answer.

Of course that is a sound byte to the answer. Cherry picked by many. Here is the full answer:

 

"I don't believe so," he replied. "I feel like I've always played within the rules. I would never do anything to break the rules. I believe in fair play." 

 

[SteelCityColt]

I would be infinitely more worried about what Goodell would say in court given his testimony in the Rice case ...

 

So you're saying if Tom Brady couldn't give a clear denial while under oath you'd not be worried about his innocence that you have protested too muchly? 

[NFLfan]

You are correct, Mort never said it was a joke.

But I gotta be honest here...why wouldn't you read the link? Too many here are responding to posts after not even reading the links provided, and that is just counter-productive. Who cares if the article is biased? Every single link that has been posted has had some sort of lean one way or the other. I read everything that is posted, especially those portraying the opposite viewpoint...that way I can form an opinion that is actually based on the information out there instead of just covering my ears and ignoring it.

If an article that is supposed to be reporting news sounds biased, I won't read it. It is like reading gossip columns or the National Enquirer (don't know if that still exists). How can I trust what I am reading when they lied that Mort called the Wells report "a joke"? I would not be able to tell what else in the article is fiction. It is not worth my time to read it.

I have read what Mort reportedly did and to me it is not that big a deal. The big deal is Tom Brady breaking the rules and lying about it.

[Superman]

Of course that is a sound byte to the answer. Cherry picked by many. Here is the full answer:

 

"I don't believe so," he replied. "I feel like I've always played within the rules. I would never do anything to break the rules. I believe in fair play." 

 

 

Q: Is Tom Brady a cheater?

 

A: No, I'm not.

 

Call it a cherry picked sound byte if you want, but he could have said the above, and then it wouldn't have been cherry picked at all. Not having been in that kind of situation before, I can only assume that if I were asked on national TV, in front of millions, if I were a cheater, I wouldn't have equivocated. 

[dynasty13]

Well using your own ill conceived metaphor if I was completely compliant with the officer and accepted the ticket gracefully then I don't think it would be remiss I received a lesser punishment then someone who denies the offence, refuses to accept the ticket and drags it into court...

 

That's exactly how the system works in the UK, you can take a standard fine if you admit the offense or you can go to court and risk bigger punishment.

 

Besides it's not like they are saying yes we did it but the punishment is excessive, so it's not all about punishment at all. 

 

 

 

Speaking of all things deflection, you or AM still haven't the answered the legitimate question about the fumble numbers, even discounting ball tampering..they're anomalous. I guess even deflection runs out and plain old ignoring the inconvenient comes into play

 

I believe I have spoken to the fumble numbers, as I was surprised that the fumble rates at home (where they have allegedly been fooling with the balls to make it easier to hold on to) were higher than the fumble rates away. I obviously can't speak in absolutes because I don't know the answers...but I noticed something about the numbers as it pertains to the quarterbacks. Each year, quarterbacks are the ones who have the most fumbles on their team, which isn't surprising since they touch the ball on every play...so lets examine those numbers a bit because the quarterback's fumbles essentially determine the team's fumble ranking as a whole.

 

I'm just going to compare New England and Indianapolis for now, because lets face it, that's more interesting to everyone and is actually pretty telling all in themselves. From 2007 to 2010, the Patriots ranked 1st, 4th, 4th, and 1st in fumbles...while the Colts ranked 2nd, 2nd, 1st, and 4th...and a big part of the reason is because both Tom Brady and Peyton Manning rarely fumbled the ball. Neither one had more than 7 fumbles per season during that time...not bad for guys that were often referred to as the two best in the game.

 

Lets skip to the Andrew Luck era. From 2012 to 2014, the Patriots ranked 5th, 24th, and 2nd...while the Colts ranked 14th, 4th, and 31st. Why is that interesting? Well, in Luck's rookie year when the Colts were ranked 14th, Andrew Luck himself fumbled the ball 11 times. Not surprising, he was a rookie. The following year when the Colts ranked 4th, Andrew Luck himself only fumbled the ball 6 times. Quite an improvement and the team ranking reflected that. But in 2014 when the Colts ranked 31st, Andrew Luck himself fumbled the ball 13 times. You starting to see the pattern here? The fumble rates can be directly attributed to the number of fumbles by the quarterback himself.

 

Now lets look at Brady over the same period. In 2012, Brady didn't fumble, and the team ranked in the top 5 as a result. The one anomaly for the team was in 2013 when the Patriots ranked 24th. Guess how many fumbles Tom Brady himself had? 10. In 2014, Brady himself only fumbled 6 times, and the team ranked 2nd. 

 

So here's what it comes down to. The number of times the quarterback fumbles greatly determines the team fumble rates. The Patriots and Colts were right there with each other statistically when Brady and Manning were the quarterbacks. When Luck took over, the rankings started to fluctuate based on his play. Not really all that surprising since you guys for years have been talking about how the Patriots had great O-line and protected Brady better than anyone. So if in the end it really is all about the quarterback fumbling the ball, don't you have to take into account other factors such as protection etc?

[crazycolt1]

It's not about whether or not something wrong was done...it's a discussion about the fallout i.e. the punishment. If there are past comparable situations, it's worth discussing them and looking at the precedent in terms of punishment that was set there. 

 

Your example works in terms of not giving someone a 'pass' or a 'green light' just because someone else did it too...but lets apply your example to what we are actually talking about here: If you were going 30 MPH over the speed limit and got pulled over and was given a $100 ticket, and then I was pulled over by the same cop on the same road for going the same 30 MPH over the speed limit, why would I get a $200 ticket?

 

You've all already determined that Brady is guilty so fine, what's next? The punishment. When Patriots fans mention other situations, we aren't deflecting, we are comparing similar offenses and their penalties. That in no way justifies the action, we aren't defending the action...we are talking about the punishment. It just seems like in this case the punishment is far exceeding those that have been issued in the past for what are widely considered much harsher infractions. That is now the discussion. Whether he was involved or not is over and done with, we don't know and the NFL certainly hasn't proven it one way or the other. The case now is all about the punishment.

You are whining about the punishment? There would have been no harsh punishment had Brady cooperated with the investigation. You can bring zillions of things into this to make excuses for Brady. It is Brady himself that caused this whole thing. Had Brady cooperated with the investigation he more than likely would have drew the $25,000 dollar fine and we could all have moved along. If his cooperation would had proved he was innocent then it would have been history. You can point fingers at anyone you care to but the bottom line falls on Brady. It's not rocket science. It's simplicity All the smoke screens and what ifs means zero. Bringing what other players have done in the past has no bearing on this. You think that because Brady is a great player he is above having to answer to an investigation. Brady is the one who turned a simple investigation into a circus because of his choice not to cooperate. In any court of law the ponder of evidence is what determines the final result. You can choose what you care to believe in all you want but it don't hold water in the legal sense. I have a couple of favorite players just like any fan. But if one of those players cost my team owner a 1 million dollar fine, my team 2 draft picks and in the meantime got himself suspended over his not cooperating I would be furious at him, not blaming everything other than him.

[SteelCityColt]

I believe I have spoken to the fumble numbers, as I was surprised that the fumble rates at home (where they have allegedly been fooling with the balls to make it easier to hold on to) were higher than the fumble rates away. I obviously can't speak in absolutes because I don't know the answers...but I noticed something about the numbers as it pertains to the quarterbacks. Each year, quarterbacks are the ones who have the most fumbles on their team, which isn't surprising since they touch the ball on every play...so lets examine those numbers a bit because the quarterback's fumbles essentially determine the team's fumble ranking as a whole.

 

I'm just going to compare New England and Indianapolis for now, because lets face it, that's more interesting to everyone and is actually pretty telling all in themselves. From 2007 to 2010, the Patriots ranked 1st, 4th, 4th, and 1st in fumbles...while the Colts ranked 2nd, 2nd, 1st, and 4th...and a big part of the reason is because both Tom Brady and Peyton Manning rarely fumbled the ball. Neither one had more than 7 fumbles per season during that time...not bad for guys that were often referred to as the two best in the game.

 

Lets skip to the Andrew Luck era. From 2012 to 2014, the Patriots ranked 5th, 24th, and 2nd...while the Colts ranked 14th, 4th, and 31st. Why is that interesting? Well, in Luck's rookie year when the Colts were ranked 14th, Andrew Luck himself fumbled the ball 11 times. Not surprising, he was a rookie. The following year when the Colts ranked 4th, Andrew Luck himself only fumbled the ball 6 times. Quite an improvement and the team ranking reflected that. But in 2014 when the Colts ranked 31st, Andrew Luck himself fumbled the ball 13 times. You starting to see the pattern here? The fumble rates can be directly attributed to the number of fumbles by the quarterback himself.

 

Now lets look at Brady over the same period. In 2012, Brady didn't fumble, and the team ranked in the top 5 as a result. The one anomaly for the team was in 2013 when the Patriots ranked 24th. Guess how many fumbles Tom Brady himself had? 10. In 2014, Brady himself only fumbled 6 times, and the team ranked 2nd. 

 

So here's what it comes down to. The number of times the quarterback fumbles greatly determines the team fumble rates. The Patriots and Colts were right there with each other statistically when Brady and Manning were the quarterbacks. When Luck took over, the rankings started to fluctuate based on his play. Not really all that surprising since you guys for years have been talking about how the Patriots had great O-line and protected Brady better than anyone. So if in the end it really is all about the quarterback fumbling the ball, don't you have to take into account other factors such as protection etc?

 

That still doesn't explain why the Pats numbers are such outliers... and you're cherry picking stats without context. I also think the numbers you do quote are a bit off... Pats didn't rank 24th in 2013, Tom Brady did fumble in 2012 etc etc. 

 

You're also not factoring in things like number of offensive plays run which is the more interesting analysis and the pertinent one to this discussion. 

 

 

As for the home vs away thing... it's kinda obvious? I also don't buy that you can't manipulate a ball for an away game, just because you don't have custody of it at away games doesn't mean you can't doctor them previously, in fact that's what the hoo ha about the 2007 change was.  If there's one thing we've learnt from this saga too, the chain of custody for the balls and/or ball checking was a pretty sloppy process. 

[dynasty13]

That still doesn't explain why the Pats numbers are such outliers... and you're cherry picking stats without context. I also think the numbers you do quote are a bit off... Pats didn't rank 24th in 2013, Tom Brady did fumble in 2012 etc etc. 

 

You're also not factoring in things like number of offensive plays run which is the more interesting analysis and the pertinent one to this discussion. 

 

 

As for the home vs away thing... it's kinda obvious? I also don't buy that you can't manipulate a ball for an away game, just because you don't have custody of it at away games doesn't mean you can't doctor them previously, in fact that's what the hoo ha about the 2007 change was.  If there's one thing we've learnt from this saga too, the chain of custody for the balls and/or ball checking was a pretty sloppy process. 

 

Doctoring the balls isnt the issue. Teams are allowed to prepare the footballs how they want them for both home and away games, but this whole thing is about taking air out of the football after they were cleared by the officials, which could only be done at home games. If they don't have custody of the footballs at away games and McNally doesn't even travel with the team, then what are we talking about here? The whole point is that if the low air pressure is what has caused these anomalous numbers, then the team's fumble rates should be lower at home where this practice has allegedly been taking place for some time. 

 

I'm not cherry picking stats without context though...that's what everyone else is doing when they try to make the case that there is no explanation for how the Patriots fumble rates could be so low. On this forum alone, many Colts fans have made the case for years that Brady has had the best Oline and he has great protection...so that leads to less contact plays and therefor fewer fumbles. THAT is context. There is more to consider of course, but those who are looking just at numbers alone are the ones neglecting context and circumstance. Yes looking back some of my numbers were slightly off, but the point remains unchanged. The quarterback is very much the reason for each team's fumble rate as shown by quarterback fumble statistics each season. 

[IndyRC_Racer]

There are a few things about this whole scandal that I just can't wrap my head around.

 

 

- Why would Kraft accept the team's punishment from the league if there wasn't some real evidence of wrong doing?

 

Was there some behind the scenes deal that Kraft was promised if he quietly accepted his team's punishment? Or is there additional damning information that he was provided that the public isn't aware of that made fighting this issue pointless? Obviously this is speculation on my part. But the facts of the matter are that Kraft isn't fighting the fine or loss of draft picks (at least at this time).

 

- What actual messsages were on Brady's phone that he didn't want anyone to see?

 

Let's assume that Brady is in fact innocent of any involvement with defaltion of footballs. What exactly was in the messages he exchanged with the 2 equipment guys? Did the communication between them contain some other embarrassing information that would make Brady look worse than cheating at football? It is easy to speculate on this issue becuase there has been no meaningful response from Brady about what was on his cell phone. Perhaps he is being advised (by a lawyer) to keep his mouth shut about any specific communication.

 

----------

 

The biggest problem I've had with this whole issue is that the Patriots and Brady aren't behaving like I would expect totally innocent parties to behave.

[IndyRC_Racer]

If QB fumbles have a large affect on a team's fumble statstics, then couldn't an underinflated football help the QB hold onto the ball better? Since the ball has to go from the center to the QB on almost every play, wouldn't a ball that is easier to grip help reduce the chances of a fumbled snap? Wouldn't it also reduce the chances of a fumbled hand-off or a strip sack?

 

Another thing to factor is that simply looking at fumble statistics that are higher in a given year can't account for things like weather or an injured player. DIdn't Tom Brady have some hand injuries that could have affected his ability to hold onto the ball during the year with higher fumbles?

 

It is easy to point to statistics and bend them to the narrative we want to tell.  We can either choose to believe that it is because of better coaching/players or some external reason such as underinflated balls.

[ViriLudant]

You are whining about the punishment? There would have been no harsh punishment had Brady cooperated with the investigation. You can bring zillions of things into this to make excuses for Brady. It is Brady himself that caused this whole thing. Had Brady cooperated with the investigation he more than likely would have drew the $25,000 dollar fine and we could all have moved along. If his cooperation would had proved he was innocent then it would have been history. You can point fingers at anyone you care to but the bottom line falls on Brady. It's not rocket science. It's simplicity All the smoke screens and what ifs means zero. Bringing what other players have done in the past has no bearing on this. You think that because Brady is a great player he is above having to answer to an investigation. Brady is the one who turned a simple investigation into a circus because of his choice not to cooperate. In any court of law the ponder of evidence is what determines the final result. You can choose what you care to believe in all you want but it don't hold water in the legal sense. I have a couple of favorite players just like any fan. But if one of those players cost my team owner a 1 million dollar fine, my team 2 draft picks and in the meantime got himself suspended over his not cooperating I would be furious at him, not blaming everything other than him.

Please prove that Brady did not cooperate. He provided EVERYTHING that Wells asked for, and offered to give all of the text information that he had available.

[amfootball]

Q: Is Tom Brady a cheater?

 

A: No, I'm not.

 

Call it a cherry picked sound byte if you want, but he could have said the above, and then it wouldn't have been cherry picked at all. Not having been in that kind of situation before, I can only assume that if I were asked on national TV, in front of millions, if I were a cheater, I wouldn't have equivocated. 

Sure but at the time all he was going was Mort's erroneous report so even he did not know if they had been tampered with by his guys and of course he was also in the middle of preparations for the Super Bowl so I am willing to cut him some slack. Definitely not the best response he could have said but under the circumstances and given the context of his entire quote it was fine. 

[Nadine]

Hey shouldn't you guys be talking about NFL training camps instead of ......ya know   ?

[amfootball]

I believe I have spoken to the fumble numbers, as I was surprised that the fumble rates at home (where they have allegedly been fooling with the balls to make it easier to hold on to) were higher than the fumble rates away. I obviously can't speak in absolutes because I don't know the answers...but I noticed something about the numbers as it pertains to the quarterbacks. Each year, quarterbacks are the ones who have the most fumbles on their team, which isn't surprising since they touch the ball on every play...so lets examine those numbers a bit because the quarterback's fumbles essentially determine the team's fumble ranking as a whole.

 

I'm just going to compare New England and Indianapolis for now, because lets face it, that's more interesting to everyone and is actually pretty telling all in themselves. From 2007 to 2010, the Patriots ranked 1st, 4th, 4th, and 1st in fumbles...while the Colts ranked 2nd, 2nd, 1st, and 4th...and a big part of the reason is because both Tom Brady and Peyton Manning rarely fumbled the ball. Neither one had more than 7 fumbles per season during that time...not bad for guys that were often referred to as the two best in the game.

 

Lets skip to the Andrew Luck era. From 2012 to 2014, the Patriots ranked 5th, 24th, and 2nd...while the Colts ranked 14th, 4th, and 31st. Why is that interesting? Well, in Luck's rookie year when the Colts were ranked 14th, Andrew Luck himself fumbled the ball 11 times. Not surprising, he was a rookie. The following year when the Colts ranked 4th, Andrew Luck himself only fumbled the ball 6 times. Quite an improvement and the team ranking reflected that. But in 2014 when the Colts ranked 31st, Andrew Luck himself fumbled the ball 13 times. You starting to see the pattern here? The fumble rates can be directly attributed to the number of fumbles by the quarterback himself.

 

Now lets look at Brady over the same period. In 2012, Brady didn't fumble, and the team ranked in the top 5 as a result. The one anomaly for the team was in 2013 when the Patriots ranked 24th. Guess how many fumbles Tom Brady himself had? 10. In 2014, Brady himself only fumbled 6 times, and the team ranked 2nd. 

 

So here's what it comes down to. The number of times the quarterback fumbles greatly determines the team fumble rates. The Patriots and Colts were right there with each other statistically when Brady and Manning were the quarterbacks. When Luck took over, the rankings started to fluctuate based on his play. Not really all that surprising since you guys for years have been talking about how the Patriots had great O-line and protected Brady better than anyone. So if in the end it really is all about the quarterback fumbling the ball, don't you have to take into account other factors such as protection etc?

Great stuff here dynasty. I have not run the numbers but I also think you will see that the Pats passed more from 2007 to now therefore they had less carries by a RB therefore less chances to fumble. I believe the Pats have been top 3 or better in pass attempts since 2007.

[crazycolt1]

Please prove that Brady did not cooperate. He provided EVERYTHING that Wells asked for, and offered to give all of the text information that he had available.

Keep living in your dream world. He did not provide ALL text between him and the two equipment men. He destroyed his cell phone and then lied about his procedure on the destruction of his cell phones. What I say to you is exactly my comment to AM. "I don't think so" is not a no answer. After all this is not Isis and no one got killed.

[BullsColtsFan1]

Hey shouldn't you guys be talking about NFL training camps instead of ......ya know   ?

+1  Did Tom Brady get suspended for deflating footballs or something?

[ViriLudant]

Keep living in your dream world. He did not provide ALL text between him and the two equipment men. He destroyed his cell phone and then lied about his procedure on the destruction of his cell phones. What I say to you is exactly my comment to AM. "I don't think so" is not a no answer. After all this is not Isis and no one got killed.

More lies.

Wells has all texts from McNally and J.

[Superman]

Sure but at the time all he was going was Mort's erroneous report so even he did not know if they had been tampered with by his guys and of course he was also in the middle of preparations for the Super Bowl so I am willing to cut him some slack. Definitely not the best response he could have said but under the circumstances and given the context of his entire quote it was fine.

You guys are really trying to make a trump card out of this Mortensen report. It's immaterial.

Whether the footballs were deflated or not, even if someone purposely did it, if Brady had nothing to do with it, the answer is an easy "NO." It was a softball, right down the middle, and he whiffed. Whoever asked him that question gave him a perfect opportunity to sell his innocence, and he didn't even come close.

He wasn't asked whether he had ever filed an incorrect tax return. "I don't think so" would have made sense then. "Are you a cheater?" is an easy question to answer.