NFL.com adds asterisk next to Tom Brady's name

[dynasty13]

Im reading the above to be snarky and condescending. I thought for sure you said they never went more than 2 years absent from the SB with Brady. The poster says you're wrong and I agree with him. Unless we're all drinking that crazy water i NE.

 

 

From what you have above.. I'm not looking it up and am trusting you...

 

2008  Pitt vs AZ

2009 N.O vs Indy

2010  G.B vs Pitt

 

Is that not 3 years and is not 3>2 ?

 

Brady didn't play in '08. I said that in the 13 years he has started (2001 through 2014 minus 2008) he hasn't played 2 seasons in a row without being in the Superbowl. 

[Superman]

Brady didn't play in '08. I said that in the 13 years he has started (2001 through 2014 minus 2008) he hasn't played 2 seasons in a row without being in the Superbowl. 

 

2005-2006.

[dynasty13]

2005-2006.

 

I'm sorry, I mis-spoke on my last post...I meant he has never gone MORE THAN 2 seasons without playing in the Superbowl. My original post was correct, though.

 

The only time since he's been here that the TEAM has gone more than 2 season's without a Superbowl appearance was 2008, 2009, 2010...but as I mentioned, Brady was out in 2008 and didn't count it.

[dw49]

Brady didn't play in '08. I said that in the 13 years he has started (2001 through 2014 minus 2008) he hasn't played 2 seasons in a row without being in the Superbowl. 

 

 

Brady started in 2008.

 

There.. were even for you not just stating that before.. instead of making us remember the season he was injured.

[basspapaw]

Alright I give Toms the best ever,he does not deserve the ridicule he is getting , He comes from the planet Integrity , 100 light years from from here. On the planet Integrity they live in a different dimension where any on who believes this gets beemed to New England.

[dynasty13]

Brady started in 2008.

 

There.. were even for you not just stating that before.. instead of making us remember the season he was injured.

 

Regardless, the fact remains that the Patriots played in the 2011 Superbowl and that was the point that he was trying to refute. 

[dynasty13]

Alright I give Toms the best ever,he does not deserve the ridicule he is getting , He comes from the planet Integrity , 100 light years from from here. On the planet Integrity they live in a different dimension where any on who believes this gets beemed to New England.

 

I don't remember anyone trying to make that point...just asking for consistency to how people view teams.

[Superman]

I'm sorry, I mis-spoke on my last post...I meant he has never gone MORE THAN 2 seasons without playing in the Superbowl. My original post was correct, though.

 

The only time since he's been here that the TEAM has gone more than 2 season's without a Superbowl appearance was 2008, 2009, 2010...but as I mentioned, Brady was out in 2008 and didn't count it.

 

Cool deal, I didn't go back to find the original comment, but figured that's what you might have meant. The Pats weren't in the SB 2012-2013 either. But three years in a row, nope, not counting 2008. As you know, I think Brady's a great QB, but that speaks to how good the Pats have been as a team over the past decade and a half. That's a really big deal. And most of those years that they weren't in the SB, they were in the conference championship. Fourteen consecutive winning seasons, and most of the time drafting at the end of the first round. No question that they are a formidable program. 

 

This year will be a huge test. I don't think Brady misses four games, all said, but they are trying to rebuild their secondary, and will likely have to play a completely different coverage scheme. I don't think the Pats have the pass rush needed to really bolster an average secondary. They'll be strong against the run. On offense, it's still Gronk and Edelman. If Brady does miss time, Garoppolo doesn't have Randy Moss to throw to like Matt Cassel did. The Pats can usually figure it out, but I don't think it will just be a walk in the park.

[dynasty13]

Cool deal, I didn't go back to find the original comment, but figured that's what you might have meant. The Pats weren't in the SB 2012-2013 either. But three years in a row, nope, not counting 2008. As you know, I think Brady's a great QB, but that speaks to how good the Pats have been as a team over the past decade and a half. That's a really big deal. And most of those years that they weren't in the SB, they were in the conference championship. Fourteen consecutive winning seasons, and most of the time drafting at the end of the first round. No question that they are a formidable program. 

 

This year will be a huge test. I don't think Brady misses four games, all said, but they are trying to rebuild their secondary, and will likely have to play a completely different coverage scheme. I don't think the Pats have the pass rush needed to really bolster an average secondary. They'll be strong against the run. On offense, it's still Gronk and Edelman. If Brady does miss time, Garoppolo doesn't have Randy Moss to throw to like Matt Cassel did. The Pats can usually figure it out, but I don't think it will just be a walk in the park.

 

Agreed about this season...it will be very interesting to see how the team responds not only to having the perceived Superbowl target on their back, but also a potential target from the deflated footballs fallout and having to play without their quarterback for maybe a quarter of the season. 

 

I'm dying for it to start back up...hockey will be over in a couple weeks and the Sox arent playing good enough ball for me to be excited about it yet!

[jvan1973]

You must be right. I bet most fans forget what year their team played in the Superbowl... ... ...

2014: New England over Seattle

2013: Seattle over Denver

2012: Baltimore over San Fransisco

2011: NY Giants over New England

2010: Green Bay over Pittsburgh

2009: New Orleans over Indianapolis

2008: Pittsburgh over Arizona

2007: NY Giants over New England

2006: Indianapolis over Chicago

2005: Pittsburgh over Seattle

2004: New England over Philadelphia

2003: New England over Carolina

2002: Tampa Bay over Oakland

2001: New England over St. Louis

So youre going with the fact that the patriots played in a superbowl in the 2011 calendar year? I knew what you meant from the beginning. Brady started the season in 2008 though, so the entire line is incorrect anyway

[dynasty13]

So youre going with the fact that the patriots played in a superbowl in the 2011 calendar year? I knew what you meant from the beginning. Brady started the season in 2008 though, so the entire line is incorrect anyway

 

Are you really trying this hard to be right? We are talking about seasons. The Patriots played in the Superbowl that season. You claimed they didn't.

 

Brady was knocked out 7 minutes into the 2008 season. I am throwing that season out for obvious reasons. He played as many snaps that season as a backup who comes in at the end of one single game. 

 

2014: New England over Seattle

2013: Seattle over Denver

2012: Baltimore over San Fransisco

2011: NY Giants over New England

2010: Green Bay over Pittsburgh

2009: New Orleans over Indianapolis

2007: NY Giants over New England

2006: Indianapolis over Chicago

2005: Pittsburgh over Seattle

2004: New England over Philadelphia

2003: New England over Carolina

2002: Tampa Bay over Oakland

2001: New England over St. Louis

 

There...that should make it easier for you to understand. 6 Superbowl appearances in 13 seasons as the starting quarterback. Never more than two seasons between Superbowls for him. 

[Shane Bond]

You can not really compare what Armstrong did with what the Patriots supposedly did with the footballs or really any football team.  Biking is an individual sport and if that person is taking banned stuff he effects 100% of his team, so there is a direct correlation between his act and his entire "team" and the entirety of his competition as he is biking 100% of the game, where football has three phases.  Now had all of the pats starters and most of the back up took PEDs and they were all caught, then one could make a correlation, which btw, is what the Steelers did in the 70s, and btw, is why I mentioned them.  The Steelers are actually closer to your Armstrong analogy than the pats, just saying, and there is no * next to their rings. 

 

Personally, I can not get too worked up about what the pats did as I agree with Dynasty 13 sentiment on the matter, 0.2 psig, really folks are really that concerned.  And when we step back and look at things and our collective opinion on psig Jan. 1st 2015, nobody really cared.  Its not like the pats were caught taping a walk through, had a bug or camera in the colts locker room, openly messed with the headset, pumped in crowd and so on, things that have a history of folks complaining about and offenders getting fined.   Up until Jan 2015, a person effecting balls was at best a warnable offense, the Vikings game taught us that point

 

Indeed, all of this circus comes down to a few facts when we try to come to an assessment if the psig really means something.  First, in the 8 years Brady has played since the rule change in 2006 (well his entire career actually) there has never EVER been a complaint about the psig of the football, not one.  No ref, no opposing player ever complained about the inflation of the pats balls.  Which means it is really a non issue.  Had the inflation in question been an concern from a feel standpoint, somebody would of caught it.  Indeed, they were able to catch a practice ball back in 2004/5, so clearly the refs are well versed in knowing if a ball feels off and to such an extent that it would be noticed when it is handle some 70-100 times a game by the refs.  But yet silence from 2001-2014 regarding air inflation.  Which means either the pats did not anything at all or if there were balls outside of 12.5-13.5 range. it was not something that concerned the NFL, refs, players or teams, period.  And the cherry on top of this is the fact that Walt Anderson's gauges were off from each other by about 0.40 psig, which is 40% of the range, yah the inflation of football is a real concern for the sport.   If the NFL was so diligent that the tight range was important then the would not have a ref walking around with a gauge that is 40% off of that range.

 

So no I am not overly worked about the inflation of the football in the AFCCG.  If the pats did indeed let some air out of the balls (as opposed maybe Walt Anderson did not check them pregame) then based on the facts in the wells report, which gauge Anderson used and the effect of temperature on the balls, the decrease in inflation from 12.5 is not major of a deal for me.  So yes there may have been a violation, but not one that is a significant one in my book, especially when we have a violation of the same rule by the Vikings only a few weeks earlier.

Its not just about deflategate, we are talking all the 4 championship.

 

Even with deflategate, it doesn't impact only one person. Impacts whoever touches the ball. Moreover, QB is a key player for any team. Do the percentages.

[basspapaw]

I don't remember anyone trying to make that point...just asking for consistency to how people view teams.

OK sorry uncalled for

[-JJ-]

Cool deal, I didn't go back to find the original comment, but figured that's what you might have meant. The Pats weren't in the SB 2012-2013 either. But three years in a row, nope, not counting 2008. As you know, I think Brady's a great QB, but that speaks to how good the Pats have been as a team over the past decade and a half. That's a really big deal. And most of those years that they weren't in the SB, they were in the conference championship. Fourteen consecutive winning seasons, and most of the time drafting at the end of the first round. No question that they are a formidable program. 

 

This year will be a huge test. I don't think Brady misses four games, all said, but they are trying to rebuild their secondary, and will likely have to play a completely different coverage scheme. I don't think the Pats have the pass rush needed to really bolster an average secondary. They'll be strong against the run. On offense, it's still Gronk and Edelman. If Brady does miss time, Garoppolo doesn't have Randy Moss to throw to like Matt Cassel did. The Pats can usually figure it out, but I don't think it will just be a walk in the park.

Nah 16-0.   Just follow the yellow brick road

 

Actually I expect a down year tho I been wrong on that before.

If Brady is out 4 games they would need to go 2-2.

 

Strong secondary or front 7- that is the question. One can't afford both.  With the passing rules favoring the WR a great secondary is not enough- it has to be excellent. I didn't think Revis would be that good but he was and made the difference.

 

I would take an excellent secondary but it has to be literally the best.  A strong front 7 even with a pass rush is not good enough these days by itself.

[amfootball]

Nah 16-0.   Just follow the yellow brick road

 

Actually I expect a down year tho I been wrong on that before.

If Brady is out 4 games they would need to go 2-2.

 

Strong secondary or front 7- that is the question. One can't afford both.  With the passing rules favoring the WR a great secondary is not enough- it has to be excellent. I didn't think Revis would be that good but he was and made the difference.

 

I would take an excellent secondary but it has to be literally the best.  A strong front 7 even with a pass rush is not good enough these days by itself.

lol. Yes, 16-0, right?

 

I agree that this seems like a down year perhaps although Bill has fooled us before. I love what they have done with the front 7 but the back end is anyone's guess. I am still hopeful for a trade like Bill did for Talib a few years ago.

 

But you know this is the first time in ten years where I just don't care as much about how the team does. That 4th Lombardi was very sweet and provided much closure on getting that elusive 4th ring. While I would love a 5th and 6th, I think I have come to appreciate just how hard it is to get a SB win. So many things have to fall into place and perhaps we were a bit spoiled with the 3 in 4 for years when it seemed so easy. I think this past year was maybe the most gratifying as a fan I have ever had. There is nothing left for Bill and Brady to achieve except to add to the already amazing record. I hope they do but I am Ok too if they don't either.

[Flying Elvis]

Nah 16-0.   Just follow the yellow brick road

 

Actually I expect a down year tho I been wrong on that before.

If Brady is out 4 games they would need to go 2-2.

 

Strong secondary or front 7- that is the question. One can't afford both.  With the passing rules favoring the WR a great secondary is not enough- it has to be excellent. I didn't think Revis would be that good but he was and made the difference.

 

I would take an excellent secondary but it has to be literally the best.  A strong front 7 even with a pass rush is not good enough these days by itself.

I disagree on the secondary. The Patriots damn near won the super bowl the year they had the 31st ranked pass defense. The 32nd ranked pass defense that year were the Packers who went 15-1. The 30th ranked pass defense that year were the Saints who went 13-3. The 29th ranked pass defense that year won the super bowl. A great secondary is not as essential as one might think.

[amfootball]

I disagree on the secondary. The Patriots damn near won the super bowl the year they had the 31st ranked pass defense. The 32nd ranked pass defense that year were the Packers who went 15-1. The 30th ranked pass defense that year were the Saints who went 13-3. The 29th ranked pass defense that year won the super bowl. A great secondary is not as essential as one might think.

True and if you look at the post-season last year, the Pats defense was awful vs the Ravens and Seahawks with Revis having his worst game vs Steve Smith. Still, I would rather have the iron clad secondary. It paid huge dividends all season.

[Flying Elvis]

True and if you look at the post-season last year, the Pats defense was awful vs the Ravens and Seahawks with Revis having his worst game vs Steve Smith. Still, I would rather have the iron clad secondary. It paid huge dividends all season.

Revis and Browner were fun to watch last season. They were solid. They were a good complement to each other. I didn't even mind Browner's penalties because they didn't cost any games. It sure was good for a change not having to worry about the secondary.

[Superman]

Nah 16-0.   Just follow the yellow brick road

 

Actually I expect a down year tho I been wrong on that before.

If Brady is out 4 games they would need to go 2-2.

 

Strong secondary or front 7- that is the question. One can't afford both.  With the passing rules favoring the WR a great secondary is not enough- it has to be excellent. I didn't think Revis would be that good but he was and made the difference.

 

I would take an excellent secondary but it has to be literally the best.  A strong front 7 even with a pass rush is not good enough these days by itself.

 

I look at it from the exact opposite perspective. With the rules favoring receivers, the best way to affect the passing game is up front, disrupting the QB. I'm one of the few who thinks Seattle's secondary has come to be overrated. No question they're really good, and they play a scheme that accentuates their strengths (big credit to the coaching staff, IMO), but they benefit from a defensive front that shuts down the run and can get pressure from everywhere along the line. They disrupt the receivers within the first 5 yards, then they contest balls in the air like crazy, which is made easier by the fact that they play so much zone coverage. 

 

Don't get me wrong, I'll take a really good secondary all day long. But I think the secondary benefits more from a good front 7, rather than the other way around. That's why when we acknowledge that the Pats secondary looks thin, I automatically look at a the front 7 to see what kind of pass rush they'll have. I think, by the end of the season, they'll be blitzing more than they'd prefer in order to manufacture some pressure. It's kind of what the Colts have been doing for the last three years.

 

There's gonna be a lot of pressure on McCourty. Let's see if he's really worth that $9.5m/year.

[amfootball]

I look at it from the exact opposite perspective. With the rules favoring receivers, the best way to affect the passing game is up front, disrupting the QB. I'm one of the few who thinks Seattle's secondary has come to be overrated. No question they're really good, and they play a scheme that accentuates their strengths (big credit to the coaching staff, IMO), but they benefit from a defensive front that shuts down the run and can get pressure from everywhere along the line. They disrupt the receivers within the first 5 yards, then they contest balls in the air like crazy, which is made easier by the fact that they play so much zone coverage. 

 

Don't get me wrong, I'll take a really good secondary all day long. But I think the secondary benefits more from a good front 7, rather than the other way around. That's why when we acknowledge that the Pats secondary looks thin, I automatically look at a the front 7 to see what kind of pass rush they'll have. I think, by the end of the season, they'll be blitzing more than they'd prefer in order to manufacture some pressure. It's kind of what the Colts have been doing for the last three years.

 

There's gonna be a lot of pressure on McCourty. Let's see if he's really worth that $9.5m/year.

Great thoughts here. To your point about the Seattle secondary, Josh McDaniels came out after the Super Bowl and said NE's game plan on offense was to be patient. They understood you could not go deep on the Seattle secondary as they were great at getting underneath passes and intercepting given their speed and athleticism. So the game plan was to work the short game where they would have to come up and cover Edelman and Vereen and handle them after the catch as well. This is where the game was won IMO for the Patriots. The Seattle secondary could not match up and Brady got the ball out of his hands so fast that the rush never got there. And by the fourth quarter, the front was so gassed that rushers were just blowing by him. The most telling part of that game was when Bill came over to Brady in the fourth quarter when they Pats were still down 3 points and told him to just not have any negative plays because the Seattle pass rush could not put together three solid downs in a row to get to him. He talked about how the secondary was also displaced in their zones which is what pretty much allowed Brady to carve them up on the final two drives going 13 for 15.

 

I don't necessarily think the Seattle secondary is overrated but they have limitations and as you say, a big part of their success is relying on the pressure getting there. I am interested to see how much other teams like GB employ the Pats strategy on offense as they have the type of speedy receivers that can get open short.

[-JJ-]

I disagree on the secondary. The Patriots damn near won the super bowl the year they had the 31st ranked pass defense. The 32nd ranked pass defense that year were the Packers who went 15-1. The 30th ranked pass defense that year were the Saints who went 13-3. The 29th ranked pass defense that year won the super bowl. A great secondary is not as essential as one might think.

Damn near- that is the keyword.   You can definitely get by in reg season and maybe a PO game or two but at the end.......Revis just by QBs not throwing to him and Browner on the other side was huge. Along with a decent front 7 was the difference in many games.

[-JJ-]

I look at it from the exact opposite perspective. With the rules favoring receivers, the best way to affect the passing game is up front, disrupting the QB. I'm one of the few who thinks Seattle's secondary has come to be overrated. No question they're really good, and they play a scheme that accentuates their strengths (big credit to the coaching staff, IMO), but they benefit from a defensive front that shuts down the run and can get pressure from everywhere along the line. They disrupt the receivers within the first 5 yards, then they contest balls in the air like crazy, which is made easier by the fact that they play so much zone coverage. 

 

Don't get me wrong, I'll take a really good secondary all day long. But I think the secondary benefits more from a good front 7, rather than the other way around. That's why when we acknowledge that the Pats secondary looks thin, I automatically look at a the front 7 to see what kind of pass rush they'll have. I think, by the end of the season, they'll be blitzing more than they'd prefer in order to manufacture some pressure. It's kind of what the Colts have been doing for the last three years.

 

There's gonna be a lot of pressure on McCourty. Let's see if he's really worth that $9.5m/year.

I could go both ways I guess and the game constantly changes and its hard to figure what's best. No question a strong front 7 has and can make an avg secondary look good but is that good enough once you get to a big game.

 

First a great secondary with shut down corners like Ty Law was good because of the physical play but then that type of play changed so the front 7 became more important.

 

All I know is even with an old Revis that changed NE big time last season.

[Flying Elvis]

Damn near- that is the keyword.   You can definitely get by in reg season and maybe a PO game or two but at the end.......Revis just by QBs not throwing to him and Browner on the other side was huge. Along with a decent front 7 was the difference in many games.

Give me a healthy Gronk and I like my chances.

[ColtRider]

I could go both ways I guess and the game constantly changes and its hard to figure what's best. No question a strong front 7 has and can make an avg secondary look good but is that good enough once you get to a big game.

 

First a great secondary with shut down corners like Ty Law was good because of the physical play but then that type of play changed so the front 7 became more important.

 

All I know is even with an old Revis that changed NE big time last season.

Yep. Nice assessment, -JJ-! I've always admired New England's scheming, no matter what situation presented to them. That goes for the offensive and defensive sets just about every play. Belichick and his staff over the last 15 years are the #1 team in the NFL to adjust to extensive game plans that have been thrown their way. Their style of play is why they've been so successful. No doubt. Even with all of the "gated" events surrounding the Patriots, you just cannot ignore their scheming, extreme recognition of substitutions on both sides of the ball at a very fast pace, player versatility, and systematic game plans for each team they've faced.

It's _TEAM_ oriented football at its best!

[Shane Bond]

Yep. Nice assessment, -JJ-! I've always admired New England's scheming, no matter what situation presented to them. That goes for the offensive and defensive sets just about every play. Belichick and his staff over the last 15 years are the #1 team in the NFL to adjust to extensive game plans that have been thrown their way. Their style of play is why they've been so successful. No doubt. Even with all of the "gated" events surrounding the Patriots, you just cannot ignore their scheming, extreme recognition of substitutions on both sides of the ball at a very fast pace, player versatility, and systematic game plans for each team they've faced.

It's _TEAM_ oriented football at its best!

They do get thorough with their schemes, you know what I mean !

[Superman]

I could go both ways I guess and the game constantly changes and its hard to figure what's best. No question a strong front 7 has and can make an avg secondary look good but is that good enough once you get to a big game.

 

First a great secondary with shut down corners like Ty Law was good because of the physical play but then that type of play changed so the front 7 became more important.

 

All I know is even with an old Revis that changed NE big time last season.

 

My point to begin with is that the secondary isn't as good as it was last year, and I don't think the pass rush is good enough to make up for it. So I think we're probably right there with each other.

[-JJ-]

My point to begin with is that the secondary isn't as good as it was last year, and I don't think the pass rush is good enough to make up for it. So I think we're probably right there with each other.

Yep and Revis's don't grow on trees.

 

Oddly enough BB since 2003 SB when DBs dropped like flies he has stayed away from high priced DBs but has always gone with the DLine first then the LB.  It's worked for the most part but some SBs showed the lack of the great DB.  

[Yehoodi]

Its not just about deflategate, we are talking all the 4 championship.

 

Even with deflategate, it doesn't impact only one person. Impacts whoever touches the ball. Moreover, QB is a key player for any team. Do the percentages.

 

As I mentioned in my post it does not effect the entire team, regardless of how you try to spin it.  It is not 100% of the team. 

 

On top of that the fact that this has never been mentioned before; and more importantly, speaking of touches, the fact that so many folks touched the balls after the balls came out of the locker room not wearing a pats uniform and not a peep out of anybody for Brady's entire career.

 

Had this been such a heinous act or created such an advantage as is trying to be claimed, some one would have approached the pats earlier.   The refs are skilled enough to know if a ball feels off, indeed, the refs were able to detect that practice ball back in 2004/2005. 

 

The fact that no one said anything when folks had their hands on the balls in question speaks volumes for me when folks try to claim any foul requires some kind of asterisk.

[Shane Bond]

As I mentioned in my post it does not effect the entire team, regardless of how you try to spin it.  It is not 100% of the team. 

 

On top of that the fact that this has never been mentioned before; and more importantly, speaking of touches, the fact that so many folks touched the balls after the balls came out of the locker room not wearing a pats uniform and not a peep out of anybody for Brady's entire career.

 

Had this been such a heinous act or created such an advantage as is trying to be claimed, some one would have approached the pats earlier.   The refs are skilled enough to know if a ball feels off, indeed, the refs were able to detect that practice ball back in 2004/2005. 

 

The fact that no one said anything when folks had their hands on the balls in question speaks volumes for me when folks try to claim any foul requires some kind of asterisk.

No one is spinning anything. I stayed out of this entire discussion till now.

 

Let me ask you this. I dont care if it impacts or it doesnt. There is a rule in place, why was it broken?. Give me a straight answer rather than talking about how other team break rules. This is about pats and lets answer that.

[amfootball]

As I mentioned in my post it does not effect the entire team, regardless of how you try to spin it.  It is not 100% of the team. 

 

On top of that the fact that this has never been mentioned before; and more importantly, speaking of touches, the fact that so many folks touched the balls after the balls came out of the locker room not wearing a pats uniform and not a peep out of anybody for Brady's entire career.

 

Had this been such a heinous act or created such an advantage as is trying to be claimed, some one would have approached the pats earlier.   The refs are skilled enough to know if a ball feels off, indeed, the refs were able to detect that practice ball back in 2004/2005. 

 

The fact that no one said anything when folks had their hands on the balls in question speaks volumes for me when folks try to claim any foul requires some kind of asterisk.

To your point, Wells spent 100 days to find a history or any pattern of deflation and he found nada. Just the practice balls in 2004. To me that speaks louder than anything ... not to mention that the league admitted that they did not take Grigson's complaint seriously so they obviously did not think the Pats had been doing anything previously ...

[Gramz]

This story has been spun more ways than a top..

 

 

 

[Yehoodi]

No one is spinning anything. I stayed out of this entire discussion till now.

 

Let me ask you this. I dont care if it impacts or it doesnt. There is a rule in place, why was it broken?. Give me a straight answer rather than talking about how other team break rules. This is about pats and lets answer that.

 

I have too stayed out of the discussion and for a number of reasons.

 

To simplify things lets assumed there was a rules violation.  The only thing left to discuss is a remedy, which is my point in my posts.  Why the rule was violated is really irrelevant to the discussion of a remedy. 

 

In the sport of hockey one who is found with an illegal stick (too much curve on the stick) is given a 2 minute minor penalty, equal to say a 15 yard unsportsmanlike penalty in football.  The presumed reason for the illegal stick is that one might get an advantage in shooting the puck, why a particular person might or might not want to do this is really irrelevant, we have a rule a violation of that rule and the penalty is 2 minutes in the sin bin.  Not complicated.

 

Problem is we really have no precedent of a rule violation for this particular rule other than what the Vikings did which only incurred a remedy of a simple warning.  No one care or asked why they broke the rule as their intentions were not relevant or a concern when handing out the remedy of just a warning. 

 

In light of the above the question then becomes what is a remedy for a violation of this particular rule in the AFCCG?  Problem is when we look at how the NFL (and other sports) have looked at rules like this we find not a very big fine that is handed out.  When we try to look outside of actual fines and violations at how serious does the NFL take this rule, we fine nothing.   Which is my point about the prior history of balls in the hands of the refs during the Pats game yielded ZERO of any concern.   Which means either it never happened prior to the AFCCG or if it did happen it was not a concern to the NFL, who treated just like the minor infraction of an illegal stick, otherwise we would of heard about this a long time ago.  But silence and silence speaks volumes on the severity, well lack thereof, of the violation.  That is my point.

 

So this issue is very simple for me.  If the NFL wanted to hand out a token fine of say 250K or say 50K per ball which would be 600k, so be it.  But to hand down one of the biggest fines in the history, without first a warning to the team and for a violation of a rule which the NFL has clearly shown with its actions prior to Jan. 2015 that is was not really a big concern for the NFL, is draconian to say the least.

 

The mobs can still get their satisfaction from a fine.     

[Yehoodi]

To your point, Wells spent 100 days to find a history or any pattern of deflation and he found nada. Just the practice balls in 2004. To me that speaks louder than anything ... not to mention that the league admitted that they did not take Grigson's complaint seriously so they obviously did not think the Pats had been doing anything previously ...

 I hear yah.  The Wells reports was not exactly what some folks want to make it, some kind of independent evaluation of the facts.

 

In my book I look to the Wells report find it praising Walt Anderson's credibility and then when it comes to perhaps the most key piece of evidence in regards to which gauge he used, they chose not to believe him, which altered the results against the pats.  nuff said in my book. 

 

People can retroactivity try to claim some type of heinous element to say 0.8 psig in football.  I am not buying the false bravo post Jan. 2015.  If refs have gauges that read off by 0.40 psig, and two refs can not agree on numbers, when readings can not be repeated, a violation of the same rule does not even register on fans conscience, then we all know what the score is regarding this type of rules violation.

 

Sure if wants to impose a penalty beyond just a warning go ahead, but to imposed something that is draconian was the NFL did is a joke to say the least.  

 

Bottom line we can not go back and change the facts, mentality and concern fans and the NFL had regarding psig in a football prior to Jan. 2015 and any violation of the same.   That is something that will never go away no matter how the NFL or fans west of the Hudson River want to try to retroactivity make things look.  

[Shane Bond]

I have too stayed out of the discussion and for a number of reasons.

To simplify things lets assumed there was a rules violation. The only thing left to discuss is a remedy, which is my point in my posts. Why the rule was violated is really irrelevant to the discussion of a remedy.

In the sport of hockey one who is found with an illegal stick (too much curve on the stick) is given a 2 minute minor penalty, equal to say a 15 yard unsportsmanlike penalty in football. The presumed reason for the illegal stick is that one might get an advantage in shooting the puck, why a particular person might or might not want to do this is really irrelevant, we have a rule a violation of that rule and the penalty is 2 minutes in the sin bin. Not complicated.

Problem is we really have no precedent of a rule violation for this particular rule other than what the Vikings did which only incurred a remedy of a simple warning. No one care or asked why they broke the rule as their intentions were not relevant or a concern when handing out the remedy of just a warning.

In light of the above the question then becomes what is a remedy for a violation of this particular rule in the AFCCG? Problem is when we look at how the NFL (and other sports) have looked at rules like this we find not a very big fine that is handed out. When we try to look outside of actual fines and violations at how serious does the NFL take this rule, we fine nothing. Which is my point about the prior history of balls in the hands of the refs during the Pats game yielded ZERO of any concern. Which means either it never happened prior to the AFCCG or if it did happen it was not a concern to the NFL, who treated just like the minor infraction of an illegal stick, otherwise we would of heard about this a long time ago. But silence and silence speaks volumes on the severity, well lack thereof, of the violation. That is my point.

So this issue is very simple for me. If the NFL wanted to hand out a token fine of say 250K or say 50K per ball which would be 600k, so be it. But to hand down one of the biggest fines in the history, without first a warning to the team and for a violation of a rule which the NFL has clearly shown with its actions prior to Jan. 2015 that is was not really a big concern for the NFL, is draconian to say the least.

The mobs can still get their satisfaction from a fine.

I really don't want to get into remedy and how bad NFL is handling it and what not.

So it appears, you have agreed that there has been a violation of rules.

[Yehoodi]

I really don't want to get into remedy and how bad NFL is handling it and what not.

So it appears, you have agreed that there has been a violation of rules.

 

I did not say that, I just said for the sake of discussing a penalty lets assume that there was a violation.   I did not want to bother to get into whether or not there was a violation in fact, and is why I did not get into this on this board before, and do not want to get into it now.  My only concern is whether or not it was a proper fine. 

 

As for the actual violation or not, I trust the Wells report as much as I trust Walt Anderson and the pats.  Who knows maybe Walt Anderson did not even check the psig, in which case the pats handed balls in underinflated and there is no violation of the rule in question, maybe McNally did duck into the bathroom to release some air, maybe Brady knew this and too that it would take the balls below 12.5, and so on.   I don't really trust anyone, but at the same time I can see that the facts are not clear one way or the other.  And this is my two cents on the matter and I don't plan to spend any more time on it other than what I started.  For us to hijack a thread to spread 30 pages discussing a rules violation in fact would be pointless.

 

I only chimed in on the penalty as it clearly seems harsh to me.   That is all.   If you have thoughts on if the fine is fair and have support for it the level of the fine then we can discuss it.

[Shane Bond]

I did not say that, I just said for the sake of discussing a penalty lets assume that there was a violation. I did not want to bother to get into whether or not there was a violation in fact, and is why I did not get into this on this board before, and do not want to get into it now. My only concern is whether or not it was a proper fine.

As for the actual violation or not, I trust the Wells report as much as I trust Walt Anderson and the pats. Who knows maybe Walt Anderson did not even check the psig, in which case the pats handed balls in underinflated and there is no violation of the rule in question, maybe McNally did duck into the bathroom to release some air, maybe Brady knew this and too that it would take the balls below 12.5, and so on. I don't really trust anyone, but at the same time I can see that the facts are not clear one way or the other. And this is my two cents on the matter and I don't plan to spend any more time on it other than what I started. For us to hijack a thread to spread 30 pages discussing a rules violation in fact would be pointless.

I only chimed in on the penalty as it clearly seems harsh to me. That is all. If you have thoughts on if the fine is fair and have support for it the level of the fine then we can discuss it.

The fact that you want to discuss whether the punishment is harsh indirectly says "yes, i admit there is a violation but punishment is harsh"

[HOZER]

I have too stayed out of the discussion and for a number of reasons.

To simplify things lets assumed there was a rules violation. The only thing left to discuss is a remedy, which is my point in my posts. Why the rule was violated is really irrelevant to the discussion of a remedy.

In the sport of hockey one who is found with an illegal stick (too much curve on the stick) is given a 2 minute minor penalty, equal to say a 15 yard unsportsmanlike penalty in football. The presumed reason for the illegal stick is that one might get an advantage in shooting the puck, why a particular person might or might not want to do this is really irrelevant, we have a rule a violation of that rule and the penalty is 2 minutes in the sin bin. Not complicated.

Problem is we really have no precedent of a rule violation for this particular rule other than what the Vikings did which only incurred a remedy of a simple warning. No one care or asked why they broke the rule as their intentions were not relevant or a concern when handing out the remedy of just a warning.

In light of the above the question then becomes what is a remedy for a violation of this particular rule in the AFCCG? Problem is when we look at how the NFL (and other sports) have looked at rules like this we find not a very big fine that is handed out. When we try to look outside of actual fines and violations at how serious does the NFL take this rule, we fine nothing. Which is my point about the prior history of balls in the hands of the refs during the Pats game yielded ZERO of any concern. Which means either it never happened prior to the AFCCG or if it did happen it was not a concern to the NFL, who treated just like the minor infraction of an illegal stick, otherwise we would of heard about this a long time ago. But silence and silence speaks volumes on the severity, well lack thereof, of the violation. That is my point.

So this issue is very simple for me. If the NFL wanted to hand out a token fine of say 250K or say 50K per ball which would be 600k, so be it. But to hand down one of the biggest fines in the history, without first a warning to the team and for a violation of a rule which the NFL has clearly shown with its actions prior to Jan. 2015 that is was not really a big concern for the NFL, is draconian to say the least.

The mobs can still get their satisfaction from a fine.

The punishment they received for Spygate was their warning, or first strike.

[Yehoodi]

The fact that you want to discuss whether the punishment is harsh indirectly says "yes, i admit there is a violation but punishment is harsh"

 

The pats did not violate the rules, happy now? 

[Yehoodi]

The punishment they received for Spygate was their warning, or first strike.

 

What does the taping have to do with inflation of footballs anymore than PEDs?

[dynasty13]

The punishment they received for Spygate was their warning, or first strike.

 

I've heard this a lot...calling the Patriots 'repeat offenders' and that's why the punishment was so ridiculous. But Yehoodi is right, this situation has nothing to do with Spygate...it was a simple equipment violation and it's nonsense that the league included Spygate as part of its justification for discipline.