Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Patriots investigation (merge)


dw49
 Share

Recommended Posts

So you're telling me that there's mo evidence of guilt, as no facts of Patriot guilt have emerged.

 

 

No what I'm telling you is the fact that all the NE balls are defaulted and n one of the Colt balls are deflated , that's circumstantial evidence against the Pats. The fact that something of some substance made Grigson feel he had a right to bring this to the leagues attention before that game , would be again "circumstantial evidence " that something exits there. Now I understand that's an assumption but assuming Grogson is not an * , it's a reasonable leap to make. 

 

I'm not saying there is enough evidence that we have seen or know of to say the Pats are guilty of any wrong doing . What I'm saying is to say that there is no more reason to suspect the Pats of deflating footballs than there is the Colts is not true. I think most reasonable people would say I'm right here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 722
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. "There is a body. These witnesses saw THAT suspect at the crime scene. That suspects clothes were bloody". That's a circumstantial court case.

 

What we have here is more like this..."sources claim that there is a body. Other sources say the victim had just a broken leg. Sources say this suspect was spotted near the alleged victim. Other sources say he wasn't exactly near the victim but was 10 miles away. Another source says this other suspect might have done it to frame the first suspect."

 

 

It's also things like 

 

1) The husband had a girlfriend.

2) The wife had a large insurance policy in her name

3) The wife may have been suspected of killing her last husband... sometimes allowed .. sometimes not

4) They were heard arguing and threats were made.

 

It can be stuff that points to guilt. One would think that 12 deflated footballs are circumstantial evidence to this "case." Not saying it can't be explained away but saying there's no more evidence against the Pats than the Colts is silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See if you and your brethren can follow this, but somehow I doubt it. Both of the above points are opinion, not fact. You have no idea what the facts are.

 

I think you need to understand where those guys are coming from and what is being talked about regarding "facts" as some folks short hand their statements.   When people talk about "facts" in the manner in which they are talking about they are talking facts as they would appear in a court of law and what "facts" are present in the court of law.  After all in the end of a day we are trying to come to a fair conclusion so why not use rules and policies that our courts have used for years.

 

The trouble that we have with all of the leaks are they are hearsay and if attempted to be used in the court of law for the truth of the matter asserted therein, they would be inadmissible as hearsay with no exception and would thus not be in the front of the jury to hear.  Thus none of the "my source told me facts"  "facts" get before the jury and thus are not "facts" as one would define them.

 

The other problem is a need to show that there were actions by the pats to violate the rules, something that is presently devoid in the facts as presented.  We have sources all over the board on these things as the PSI and where they were and it ranges from the pats are 100% at fault from a circumstantial standard point (i.e. a number of their balls are outside what one might expect the weather to do and thus they must of done something) to the colts look funny (all the balls are within the realm of what one might expect the weather would do except the one on the colts side lines) to no one is at fault.

 

Regardless, based on the principles of hearsay there are no facts that we know of that would react the jury's ears to prove any of the above, colts or pats.   And THAT is what one means regarding facts.  So no we do not need to know what "facts" are in our post. 

It is certainly fun to chat and speculate, and that is what we fans love to do, but that is all we are doing is speculating and coming to opinions "that 'if'' such and such is true, then this is my conclusion".  But in the gun to our head do we have facts scenario we do not have any as of yet and we just need to wait till the NFL has completed it investigation and releases its findings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just flat out don't even care anymore.

 

These circular discussions, arguments, whatever anybody cares to call them, have been going in circles, for pages and pages, and days and days.

 

I'm just done.  That's all.

 

I hear yah I really have not spent much time on the matter.   but thanks for taking the time to read the posts that you have read. 

 

How bout a unicorn and puppy for your efforts . . . . :unicorn: . . . :wag:

:shake:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said that others viewing the pats as "cheaters" doesn't bother you. At the risk of continuing this round and round, I simply don't get why you are posting so much trying to convince others that they aren't "cheaters" if what others believe doesn't "bother" you.

My overall point is that I think most people DO care and ARE bothered if their team is viewed as cheaters. We've seen this a lot in baseball with the steroid issues.

I think I am just so used to the cheating label at this point. lol. Spygate is what 8 years old now? It kind of is what it is. I think I would be bothered more if I really believed the taping of defensive signals really affected anything or this air ball pressure thing if tampering is somehow proved.

 

As I have stated on other threads, no pro sport is played on the up and up. Neither is life for that matter. Would I rather spyage never happen or this air ball thing? Sure. But as Pete Carroll said prior to the Super Bowl, coaches and players try to do things with integrity but fail and as they are human but then they try again. I was always proud of the way the Patriots handled spygate. They admitted it, accepted the penalty which at the time was the harshest ever handed out by the league and did not even so much as appeal. Now compare that to how the Saints handled Bountygate with the multiple appeals, court cases, etc and the difference shows itself in spades.

 

I think the biggest life lesson in all this is that we all fail but how we respond, how we accept responsibility and what do to make amends if we can is what counts and is ultimately the true test of character. And it is this last reason why I believe maybe more than anything that the Pats did not tamper - they have denied it so vehemently at all levels from ownership to the coach to the QB. I really don't believe they would put everything at stake to get caught lying over this type of issue.

 

So we'll see. I am passionate about my team so I will always be on threads like this but the topic itself is kind of worn out at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you need to understand where those guys are coming from and what is being talked about regarding "facts" as some folks short hand their statements.   When people talk about "facts" in the manner in which they are talking about they are talking facts as they would appear in a court of law and what "facts" are present in the court of law.  After all in the end of a day we are trying to come to a fair conclusion so why not use rules and policies that our courts have used for years.

 

The trouble that we have with all of the leaks are they are hearsay and if attempted to be used in the court of law for the truth of the matter asserted therein, they would be inadmissible as hearsay with no exception and would thus not be in the front of the jury to hear.  Thus none of the "my source told me facts"  "facts" get before the jury and thus are not "facts" as one would define them.

 

The other problem is a need to show that there were actions by the pats to violate the rules, something that is presently devoid in the facts as presented.  We have sources all over the board on these things as the PSI and where they were and it ranges from the pats are 100% at fault from a circumstantial standard point (i.e. a number of their balls are outside what one might expect the weather to do and thus they must of done something) to the colts look funny (all the balls are within the realm of what one might expect the weather would do except the one on the colts side lines) to no one is at fault.

 

Regardless, based on the principles of hearsay there are no facts that we know of that would react the jury's ears to prove any of the above, colts or pats.   And THAT is what one means regarding facts.  So no we do not need to know what "facts" are in our post. 

It is certainly fun to chat and speculate, and that is what we fans love to do, but that is all we are doing is speculating and coming to opinions "that 'if'' such and such is true, then this is my conclusion".  But in the gun to our head do we have facts scenario we do not have any as of yet and we just need to wait till the NFL has completed it investigation and releases its findings.

 

 

You could say the same thing at this point in time even if it leaked out that the ball "old man" admitted to the Wells committee that he deflated footballs in the bathroom. It wouldn't be admissible until the old man or person from the Wells committee stated it in court. So if you want to say those guys are correct as nothing as been properly substantiated , I guess have at it. What these two are saying is that there is no more evidence that would make the Pats more likely to have derated footballs than there is against the Colts. Kind of like saying the police were just as likely to have shot the victim as the suspected killer because they want to divert guilt away from themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I am just so used to the cheating label at this point. lol. Spygate is what 8 years old now? It kind of is what it is. I think I would be bothered more if I really believed the taping of defensive signals really affected anything or this air ball pressure thing if tampering is somehow proved.

 

As I have stated on other threads, no pro sport is played on the up and up. Neither is life for that matter. Would I rather spyage never happen or this air ball thing? Sure. But as Pete Carroll said prior to the Super Bowl, coaches and players try to do things with integrity but fail and as they are human but then they try again. I was always proud of the way the Patriots handled spygate. They admitted it, accepted the penalty which at the time was the harshest ever handed out by the league and did not even so much as appeal. Now compare that to how the Saints handled Bountygate with the multiple appeals, court cases, etc and the difference shows itself in spades.

 

I think the biggest life lesson in all this is that we all fail but how we respond, how we accept responsibility and what do to make amends if we can is what counts and is ultimately the true test of character. And it is this last reason why I believe maybe more than anything that the Pats did not tamper - they have denied it so vehemently at all levels from ownership to the coach to the QB. I really don't believe they would put everything at stake to get caught lying over this type of issue.

 

So we'll see. I am passionate about my team so I will always be on threads like this but the topic itself is kind of worn out at this point.

 

 

In all fairness the penalty handed down to the Saints involved people's livelihood , earrings and careers. A big fine to Robert Kraft had nowhere that impact on lives

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No what I'm telling you is the fact that all the NE balls are defaulted and n one of the Colt balls are deflated , that's circumstantial evidence against the Pats. The fact that something of some substance made Grigson feel he had a right to bring this to the leagues attention before that game , would be again "circumstantial evidence " that something exits there. Now I understand that's an assumption but assuming Grogson is not an * , it's a reasonable leap to make.

I'm not saying there is enough evidence that we have seen or know of to say the Pats are guilty of any wrong doing . What I'm saying is to say that there is no more reason to suspect the Pats of deflating footballs than there is the Colts is not true. I think most reasonable people would say I'm right here.

"

No, that's not circumstantial evidence. In any court of law.

Someone is dead (deflated balls) does not = Joe Smith killed him (Patriots knowingly deflated the balls).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the quote from Carroll. He said this on Jan. 28 when asked about deflategate.

 

"It should always be understood that you wish to maintain the highest level of integrity," Carroll said with sage-like tones. "That doesn't mean that we always make the right choices and do the right things in all of our lives. We make mistakes, we screw up, we misinterpret a situation. Integrity is demonstrated by how you come out of that, not by the fact that you falter or you err. It's how you respond."

 

http://www.newsday.com/sports/football/super-bowl/for-pete-carroll-integrity-is-how-you-respond-to-controversy-1.9876379

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that's not circumstantial evidence. In any court of law.

Someone is dead (deflated balls) does not = Joe Smith killed him (Patriots knowingly deflated the balls).

 

No, that's not circumstantial evidence. In any court of law.

Someone is dead (deflated balls) does not = Joe Smith killed him (Patriots knowingly deflated the balls).

 

 

 

 

No but if you were with Joe Smith the night he died and had motive to kill him , that's circumstantial evidence . You are kidding right ? Tell me your not serious and really do understand 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by Nadine, February 25, 2015 - shot
Hidden by Nadine, February 25, 2015 - shot

Actually, you have completely failed in that respect.

Show met his evidence of Patriot guilt. You keep refusing to do this.

Apparently not only do you not know the difference between a fact and an opinion you also have reading comprehension issues.

Link to comment

Sure but what they did affected people's lives and livelihood.

 

 

I'm not comparing the two offenses. I'm just stating a reason why maybe The Saints fought the decision more than the Pats fought theirs. I'm not even sure what the Pats did during that Spygate era. If you listen to M Faulk , it's a lot more significant than what you al claim. I really didn't care then enough to read everything written nor do I care to revisit it. However I'm not ready to concede to your evaluation that the Pats were valiant in accepting the penalty while the Saints showed "less character." It's way to much apples to oranges for me to agree to that one. Furthermore , other than Favre spraining an ankle , I'm not sure how much they "affected lives and livelihoods." Also as many of your compadres would say " every team goes after the other teams star players."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the quote from Carroll. He said this on Jan. 28 when asked about deflategate.

 

"It should always be understood that you wish to maintain the highest level of integrity," Carroll said with sage-like tones. "That doesn't mean that we always make the right choices and do the right things in all of our lives. We make mistakes, we screw up, we misinterpret a situation. Integrity is demonstrated by how you come out of that, not by the fact that you falter or you err. It's how you respond."

 

http://www.newsday.com/sports/football/super-bowl/for-pete-carroll-integrity-is-how-you-respond-to-controversy-1.9876379

I forgot Pete Carroll was such a role model. Responding to his "misinterpretation" by skipping town on USC when the punishments for his actions were coming shows us how he really feels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not comparing the two offenses. I'm just stating a reason why maybe The Saints fought the decision more than the Pats fought theirs. I'm not even sure what the Pats did during that Spygate era. If you listen to M Faulk , it's a lot more significant than what you al claim. I really didn't care then enough to read everything written nor do I care to revisit it. However I'm not ready to concede to your evaluation that the Pats were valiant in accepting the penalty while the Saints showed "less character." It's way to much apples to oranges for me to agree to that one. Furthermore , other than Favre spraining an ankle , I'm not sure how much they "affected lives and livelihoods." Also as many of your compadres would say " every team goes after the other teams star players."

I am lost on your Faulk comment as he may be the most bitter individual when it comes to losing. He admitted that during the Super Bowl that his ire toward the Pats is par for the course with any team that beat him. So take that for what it is worth. But the Pats never so much as said boo to the league about spygate. Bill took full responsibility and they accepted the fine and the loss of a first round pick without an appeal. That was a huge penalty at the time, biggest in NFL history. Bountygate is a great comparison as it blew up to the same level as spygate with the notable differences being Sean Payton lying that he knew about it only to have his email account found to have emails to Williams. That is why he got suspended a year. And then you have the players and their appeals and trying to sue the league etc. Again, chatacter is tested in how you  respond, not the offense. Look at what AP is doing right now with the Vikes. Guy can't seem to understand that he messed up royally and his team still wants him back despite it. His agent got physical with an exec from the Vikes. Ridiculous.

 

In the end, to each his own but like I said, I have always been proud of the way the Pats handled spygate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I forgot Pete Carroll was such a role model. Responding to his "misinterpretation" by skipping town on USC when the punishments for his actions were coming shows us how he really feels.

His behavior does not make his statement any less accurate. Developing character is a life long process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you need to understand where those guys are coming from and what is being talked about regarding "facts" as some folks short hand their statements.   When people talk about "facts" in the manner in which they are talking about they are talking facts as they would appear in a court of law and what "facts" are present in the court of law.  After all in the end of a day we are trying to come to a fair conclusion so why not use rules and policies that our courts have used for years.

 

The trouble that we have with all of the leaks are they are hearsay and if attempted to be used in the court of law for the truth of the matter asserted therein, they would be inadmissible as hearsay with no exception and would thus not be in the front of the jury to hear.  Thus none of the "my source told me facts"  "facts" get before the jury and thus are not "facts" as one would define them.

 

The other problem is a need to show that there were actions by the pats to violate the rules, something that is presently devoid in the facts as presented.  We have sources all over the board on these things as the PSI and where they were and it ranges from the pats are 100% at fault from a circumstantial standard point (i.e. a number of their balls are outside what one might expect the weather to do and thus they must of done something) to the colts look funny (all the balls are within the realm of what one might expect the weather would do except the one on the colts side lines) to no one is at fault.

 

Regardless, based on the principles of hearsay there are no facts that we know of that would react the jury's ears to prove any of the above, colts or pats.   And THAT is what one means regarding facts.  So no we do not need to know what "facts" are in our post. 

It is certainly fun to chat and speculate, and that is what we fans love to do, but that is all we are doing is speculating and coming to opinions "that 'if'' such and such is true, then this is my conclusion".  But in the gun to our head do we have facts scenario we do not have any as of yet and we just need to wait till the NFL has completed it investigation and releases its findings.

Good post, I agree with almost all of it. My only point was that the poster was stating things as fact when they were, in truth, opinion. As the saying goes, you are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thread note: This is the only thread approved for DeflateGate discussion.  Please limit responses in it to that topic, and not get on to the character of those posting in the thread.  I'd really dislike having the only DeflateGate thread shut down until Wells report becomes public.  Please be respectful of each others viewpoints and opinions and stay on the topic please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am lost on your Faulk comment as he may be the most bitter individual when it comes to losing. He admitted that during the Super Bowl that his ire toward the Pats is par for the course with any team that beat him. So take that for what it is worth. But the Pats never so much as said boo to the league about spygate. Bill took full responsibility and they accepted the fine and the loss of a first round pick without an appeal. That was a huge penalty at the time, biggest in NFL history. Bountygate is a great comparison as it blew up to the same level as spygate with the notable differences being Sean Payton lying that he knew about it only to have his email account found to have emails to Williams. That is why he got suspended a year. And then you have the players and their appeals and trying to sue the league etc. Again, chatacter is tested in how you  respond, not the offense. Look at what AP is doing right now with the Vikes. Guy can't seem to understand that he messed up royally and his team still wants him back despite it. His agent got physical with an exec from the Vikes. Ridiculous.

 

In the end, to each his own but like I said, I have always been proud of the way the Pats handled spygate.

 

 

Maybe this will help you "find your way home" on my Faulk comment. Maybe he's softened it since this but I'm seldom so far out in left field that I leave people "bewildered" at what I'm talking about. He seems to say in his opinion it had a lot to do with that game. He also seems to question the league's integrity concerning burning the tapes. Anyway read it .. pretty short read and let me know if it sounds like a guy that says he's just sore because they beat him. Maybe your right and tha's what tis looks like but I think not. As far as being proud of the Pats after Spygate , that's your prerogative . Me .. I don't even know if we ever got the whole story on what really went down. The loss of a first is pretty bad but geez.. teams blow picks all the time. Ehh and it was pick 1.31 at that. The fines were like you and me paying a traffic ticket.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe this will help you "find your way home" on my Faulk comment. Maybe he's softened it since this but I'm seldom so far out in left field that I leave people "bewildered" at what I'm talking about. He seems to say in his opinion it had a lot to do with that game. He also seems to question the league's integrity concerning burning the tapes. Anyway read it .. pretty short read and let me know if it sounds like a guy that says he's just sore because they beat him. Maybe your right and tha's what tis looks like but I think not. As far as being proud of the Pats after Spygate , that's your prerogative . Me .. I don't even know if we ever got the whole story on what really went down. The loss of a first is pretty bad but geez.. teams blow picks all the time. Ehh and it was pick 1.31 at that. The fines were like you and me paying a traffic ticket.  

I don't think the league handled it well, big surprise. Goodell should not have burned the tapes but I am not sure how that is an indictment on the Pats. They handed the tapes over as requested, Goodell said what was on the tapes was consistent with what the Pats told him, portions of the tapes were aired so I am not sure what Faulk's beef still is. Personally, I think he is still steaming over Martz not running him more in that game. The Pats had 5 DBs on the field a lot, they never blitzed and played lots of coverage. They were primed to be run on and Martz would not do it. It was dumbfounding, his offensive game plan vs the defensive strategy of the Pats.

 

Did you catch Faulk go off after the SB with Carroll not giving Lynch the ball? lol. I think it brought back horrible memories for him. He kept saying if I was Marshawn, I would be so upset. Then of course they cut to Lynch coming off the field after the pick and he is laughing. Man, that guy is odd but it made me giggle. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the league handled it well, big surprise. Goodell should not have burned the tapes but I am not sure how that is an indictment on the Pats. They handed the tapes over as requested, Goodell said what was on the tapes was consistent with what the Pats told him, portions of the tapes were aired so I am not sure what Faulk's beef still is. Personally, I think he is still steaming over Martz not running him more in that game. The Pats had 5 DBs on the field a lot, they never blitzed and played lots of coverage. They were primed to be run on and Martz would not do it. It was dumbfounding, his offensive game plan vs the defensive strategy of the Pats.

 

Did you catch Faulk go off after the SB with Carroll not giving Lynch the ball? lol. I think it brought back horrible memories for him. He kept saying if I was Marshawn, I would be so upset. Then of course they cut to Lynch coming off the field after the pick and he is laughing. Man, that guy is odd but it made me giggle. :)

 

 

To be truthful , I don't think there was a lot more to Spygate that what was reported. If so I think there would have been at least innuendoes . And I'm too old to care. As far as Faulk and other talking heads , I mostly turn them off. I used to watch all those NFL shows and ESPN years ago but they aggravate me more than enlighten me. It's exactly like arguing with Quiz , Virludant and JerrodMays. I totally destroy them but end up aggravated in the end. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be truthful , I don't think there was a lot more to Spygate that what was reported. If so I think there would have been at least innuendoes . And I'm too old to care. As far as Faulk and other talking heads , I mostly turn them off. I used to watch all those NFL shows and ESPN years ago but they aggravate me more than enlighten me. It's exactly like arguing with Quiz , Virludant and JerrodMays. I totally destroy them but end up aggravated in the end. 

I won't take it personally that I did not make your aggravation list. Or am I on my own list?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be truthful , I don't think there was a lot more to Spygate that what was reported. If so I think there would have been at least innuendoes . And I'm too old to care. As far as Faulk and other talking heads , I mostly turn them off. I used to watch all those NFL shows and ESPN years ago but they aggravate me more than enlighten me. It's exactly like arguing with Quiz , Virludant and JerrodMays. I totally destroy them but end up aggravated in the end.

Wow. You can't even understand the concept of a "fact" in this entire situation, and you've "destroyed" us?

Hysterical.

Let's also remember how you bought into Mort's report 110%, despite the fact that he even took it down afterwards to "fix" some inaccuracies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone think it passes the logic test that Brady (or any qb) would want 12 game balls at all different levels of inflation versus 12 uniform balls if given a choice? How would an advantage be gained in that scenario? If anything, it sounds like a disadvantage (unless the difference between 12.5 and 10.5 isn't noticeable).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NFL came out and said the Patriots had multiple under inflated football's. Even though that's a fact, people are still claiming one of those was deflated by the Colts.

Grigson notifies the league in November and before the AFCCG. The NFL found multiple balls under inflated. So why would the Colts then let air out of another ball. THEY ALREADY KNEW THE PATRIOTS WERE PLAYING WITH UNDER INFLATED BALLS!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone think it passes the logic test that Brady (or any qb) would want 12 game balls at all different levels of inflation versus 12 uniform balls if given a choice? How would an advantage be gained in that scenario? If anything, it sounds like a disadvantage (unless the difference between 12.5 and 10.5 isn't noticeable).

When your heart is on the line your brain sometimes fails a logic test.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone think it passes the logic test that Brady (or any qb) would want 12 game balls at all different levels of inflation versus 12 uniform balls if given a choice? How would an advantage be gained in that scenario? If anything, it sounds like a disadvantage (unless the difference between 12.5 and 10.5 isn't noticeable).

So the Colts were complaining for months to the league because it isn't noticeable and is a disadvantage to the Patriots? Think about it. You will see what you're saying doesn't make sense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. You can't even understand the concept of a "fact" in this entire situation, and you've "destroyed" us?

Hysterical.

Let's also remember how you bought into Mort's report 110%, despite the fact that he even took it down afterwards to "fix" some inaccuracies.

 

 

What I posted to was this statement by you and it's ridiculous. I totally destroyed you and those that backed that statement. Circumstantial evidence is evidence . I have no idea how you are bringing me into this ridiculous "fact" argument. As far as the Mort thing , what you have is again ridiculous. Once Rapoports report came out < i totally said NE could be innocent of any wrong doing. 

 

Here's your ridiculous statement and it mentions "EVIDENCE" not "fact,"

 

Virdulant states....

 

"ROFL

there is just as much evidence that the Colts deflated the ball as there is the Patriots. Fact. "

 
So yes you were totally destroyed. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't take it personally that I did not make your aggravation list. Or am I on my own list?

 

 

No you are OK. We battle a bit but you eventually are reasonable. I mean go ahead and comment on Virdulant and myself. I'm interested to hear what you have to say....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the Colts were complaining for months to the league because it isn't noticeable and is a disadvantage to the Patriots? Think about it. You will see what you're saying doesn't make sense.

No I was actually asking for your explanation as to how the advantage would work...every ball is different, so...go ahead and tell me what's gained? It sounds a lot like asking a golfer if he'd prefer to hit the same brand of ball on every hole or change it up every hole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When your heart is on the line your brain sometimes fails a logic test.

by the way...I am laughing out loud at the "heart on the line" comment. I couldn't care less now that the trophy is in Foxboro. But I have a sneaking suspicion that I DO know someone whose heart may be hurting if this Wells report is as uneventful as most people believe it will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

by the way...I am laughing out loud at the "heart on the line" comment. I couldn't care less now that the trophy is in Foxboro. But I have a sneaking suspicion that I DO know someone whose heart may be hurting if this Wells report is as uneventful as most people believe it will be.

 

 

Do you really think Colt fans will have a "broken heart " if the report shows nothing ? We were beat 45-7 .  Other than seeing NE punished if they did something wrong .. who should care ? It's not like e were cheated out of a win .. that would be different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you really think Colt fans will have a "broken heart " if the report shows nothing ? We were beat 45-7 .  Other than seeing NE punished if they did something wrong .. who should care ? It's not like e were cheated out of a win .. that would be different.

not most Colts fans. But there are clearly some (and not just Colts fans) who are a tad obsessed with seeing the Pats get smacked down. Hell - Gregg Doyel pretty much put that out there in his Friday article. He's hoping for a year long suspension for Belichick and the Super Bowl title being vacated. That type of trolling tends to get Pats fans interested....I'll freely admit that I can't wait to see that d-bags hopes and dreams come crashing and burning to earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's also things like

1) The husband had a girlfriend.

2) The wife had a large insurance policy in her name

3) The wife may have been suspected of killing her last husband... sometimes allowed .. sometimes not

4) They were heard arguing and threats were made.

It can be stuff that points to guilt. One would think that 12 deflated footballs are circumstantial evidence to this "case." Not saying it can't be explained away but saying there's no more evidence against the Pats than the Colts is silly.

If we're talking about circumstantial evidence, well then wouldn't the fact that the sole 'enough to be considered odd' under inflated ball was the one that the Colts had in their possession qualify as such? And then when taking other things into consideration like:

1. The Colts hate the Patriots.

2. The Colts wanted the NFL to look into deflated footballs.

3. The Colts higher ups have conflicting stories about their knowledge of it.

See? One could connect those dots too as long as we're just speculating. Look, do I think the colts had anything to do with this? Of course not...that's crazy. But circumstantial evidence is not proof, and as far as we know, the fact is that there is nothing at this point that confirms any of the speculative claims that people have been making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not most Colts fans. But there are clearly some (and not just Colts fans) who are a tad obsessed with seeing the Pats get smacked down. Hell - Gregg Doyel pretty much put that out there in his Friday article. He's hoping for a year long suspension for Belichick and the Super Bowl title being vacated. That type of trolling tends to get Pats fans interested....I'll freely admit that I can't wait to see that d-bags hopes and dreams come crashing and burning to earth.

 

 

If the evidence proves that they deflated footballs , the penalties should be stiff . 25K and 1st rounder IMO. If they come to the conclusion that they handled footballs in a way that they knew would result in less than 12.5 PSI , they should probably still get some kind of fine and loss of maybe a 4th. If they don't have evidence that points to one of those two , then it shouldn't be brought up again. Some might say that there is nothing in the rule book against presenting a ball that passes initial inspection with the knowledge that it will be under once subjected to game conditions. I can see that train of thought , I just don't agree with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we're talking about circumstantial evidence, well then wouldn't the fact that the sole 'enough to be considered odd' under inflated ball was the one that the Colts had in their possession qualify as such? And then when taking other things into consideration like:

1. The Colts hate the Patriots.

2. The Colts wanted the NFL to look into deflated footballs.

3. The Colts higher ups have conflicting stories about their knowledge of it.

See? One could connect those dots too as long as we're just speculating. Look, do I think the colts had anything to do with this? Of course not...that's crazy. But circumstantial evidence is not proof, and as far as we know, the fact is that there is nothing at this point that confirms any of the speculative claims that people have been making.

 

 

The fact that NE had 12 under inflated footballs is way more powerful than saying the Colts don't like the Pats.

 

We don't know for sure if the ball that came from the Colt sideline was the only seriously inflated one. 

 

The Colts would look very stupid if the only defaulted ball came after they had it on their sideline. That in itself is really more evidence against the Pats. The Colts knew their footballs were under inflated and all 12 were.

 

The fact that Pagano said he didn't know beforehand really is no proof of guilt.

 

Your assertion that circumstantial evidence is not proof is not really correct. There are plenty of murder cases with no body and no eye witness where 12 out of 12 people vote guilty. Their might be a tad of physical evidence but many times it's pretty much all or almost all circumstantial. It depends on how powerful and how much circumstantial evidence there is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...