Golden Boy Tom Brady suspended four games

[Rick N. Backer]

I fully admit that I dislike, OK hate, the Patriots and Brady. That's why I've been pleased to see the evidence emerge as it has, I don't want to have to defend something that I don't believe to be true. And I don't think I would. Again, because I don't have to I don't know if that's the case. But if you look at all of the facts I don't see how you can believe he's credible in any way. Even his laugh when he was first interviewed on WEEI by a friendly audience the laughter sounded forced. To believe that an NFL quarterback with such meticulous habits and preparation and an expressed desire to have the footballs inflated as low as possible would not be able to tell that the balls were underinflated strains any possible standard of credulity you could come up with, especially with the texts that went back and forth between the guilty parties.

 

A little house cleaning.

 

What is the source of the evidence you say has emerged? Mr. Wells? Mr. Goodell?

 

https://www.aei.org/...ells-report.pdf

 

If they are right, then there is no evidence the Patriots did anything wrong.

 

I've already read this (search for my Norman Ornstein joke if you want to find it).

 

From the article:

the Colts ball pressure dropped too little rather than because the Patriots ball pressure dropped too much.

 

Uh huh. If the air temperature had that effect on the ball that quickly, football would be unplayable in freezing conditions.

 

 

Moreover, it is also reported that the Tom Brady offered to help Mr. Wells obtain his texts through other means. What if that's true? Why would Mr. Wells and Mr. Goodell have declined? Too much expense? Too much time?

Maybe they had enough info already and didn't feel it was necessary. Maybe (not to get this sent to SOCN) they thought he was as trustworthy as Hillary when she offers to be "helpful" in the investigations into her email scandals.

 

Someone who is investigating alleged wrongdoing says "we have enough info already"? That sounds more like someone who is looking for a particular outcome.

I would think that something like that happens in every investigation at some point, or the investigation would never end.

 

I like the Tom is as trustworthy as Hillary theory better though.

 

That hasn't been my experience. Mine has been that someone who isn't looking to "prove" a particular theory invites people, particularly a "target" to submit any information that may be helpful. I suppose if Brady offered up his travel itinerary from Super Bowl 38 they could say no thanks. But since his text messages are so obviously critical here, according to Mr. Goodell, I would think he would want them.

[Rick N. Backer]

As far as beating the shit out of the Seahawks, in the Super Bowl I watched the Patriots were the stupidest play call in the history of professional football away from losing the game. They did, however, have a preponderance of the points at the end of the game, much like they did in the Colts game.

 

The offense hung 28 points on the Seahawks defense.

Yes, they did. Which is hardly beating the shit out of someone on either side of the ball.

 

It is when you advertise yourself as having arguably the best defense in history.

Playing Colin Kaepernick and the detritus that the Cardinals and Rams were running out there at QB for 38% of your schedule may give you an inflated opinion of your talents.

 

Oddly, a very similar defense didn't get quite as many points hung on them by the great Peyton Manning and Co. one year earlier.

According to Football Outsiders (a statistical website run by Patriot homer Aaron Schatz), the Seahawks pass defense over 19 games was 30% better than the league average defense in 2013 and 10% better (ranking 3rd in the league) in 2014. So the defense wasn't nearly as good. You are right, though, the Pats performance was relatively better than the Broncos in the same game. The Cowboys, though, for one, were more impressive vs Seattle.

 

I'll make your day though, Larry Lucchino is stepping down at the end of the year.

 

I'd be interested to know what the league averages were in 2013 and 2014. 30% better and 10% better than the league average for two different years isnt all that helpful.

[laughedatbytime]

As far as beating the shit out of the Seahawks, in the Super Bowl I watched the Patriots were the stupidest play call in the history of professional football away from losing the game. They did, however, have a preponderance of the points at the end of the game, much like they did in the Colts game.

 

The offense hung 28 points on the Seahawks defense.

Yes, they did. Which is hardly beating the shit out of someone on either side of the ball.

 

It is when you advertise yourself as having arguably the best defense in history.

Playing Colin Kaepernick and the detritus that the Cardinals and Rams were running out there at QB for 38% of your schedule may give you an inflated opinion of your talents.

 

Oddly, a very similar defense didn't get quite as many points hung on them by the great Peyton Manning and Co. one year earlier.

According to Football Outsiders (a statistical website run by Patriot homer Aaron Schatz), the Seahawks pass defense over 19 games was 30% better than the league average defense in 2013 and 10% better (ranking 3rd in the league) in 2014. So the defense wasn't nearly as good. You are right, though, the Pats performance was relatively better than the Broncos in the same game. The Cowboys, though, for one, were more impressive vs Seattle.

 

I'll make your day though, Larry Lucchino is stepping down at the end of the year.

 

I'd be interested to know what the league averages were in 2013 and 2014. 30% better and 10% better than the league average for two different years isnt all that helpful.

It's a statistical average that takes into account a myriad of factors with a ton of statistics so providing all of them would not be possible. In general though leaguewide offensive performance does not move much from year to year in the absence of a rule change. I don't think that anything in this regard is going to provide more than a quarter of the difference and could just as easily go the other way.

[laughedatbytime]

I fully admit that I dislike, OK hate, the Patriots and Brady. That's why I've been pleased to see the evidence emerge as it has, I don't want to have to defend something that I don't believe to be true. And I don't think I would. Again, because I don't have to I don't know if that's the case. But if you look at all of the facts I don't see how you can believe he's credible in any way. Even his laugh when he was first interviewed on WEEI by a friendly audience the laughter sounded forced. To believe that an NFL quarterback with such meticulous habits and preparation and an expressed desire to have the footballs inflated as low as possible would not be able to tell that the balls were underinflated strains any possible standard of credulity you could come up with, especially with the texts that went back and forth between the guilty parties.

 

A little house cleaning.

 

What is the source of the evidence you say has emerged? Mr. Wells? Mr. Goodell?

 

https://www.aei.org/...ells-report.pdf

 

If they are right, then there is no evidence the Patriots did anything wrong.

 

I've already read this (search for my Norman Ornstein joke if you want to find it).

 

From the article:

the Colts ball pressure dropped too little rather than because the Patriots ball pressure dropped too much.

 

Uh huh. If the air temperature had that effect on the ball that quickly, football would be unplayable in freezing conditions.

 

 

Moreover, it is also reported that the Tom Brady offered to help Mr. Wells obtain his texts through other means. What if that's true? Why would Mr. Wells and Mr. Goodell have declined? Too much expense? Too much time?

Maybe they had enough info already and didn't feel it was necessary. Maybe (not to get this sent to SOCN) they thought he was as trustworthy as Hillary when she offers to be "helpful" in the investigations into her email scandals.

 

Someone who is investigating alleged wrongdoing says "we have enough info already"? That sounds more like someone who is looking for a particular outcome.

I would think that something like that happens in every investigation at some point, or the investigation would never end.

 

I like the Tom is as trustworthy as Hillary theory better though.

 

That hasn't been my experience. Mine has been that someone who isn't looking to "prove" a particular theory invites people, particularly a "target" to submit any information that may be helpful. I suppose if Brady offered up his travel itinerary from Super Bowl 38 they could say no thanks. But since his text messages are so obviously critical here, according to Mr. Goodell, I would think he would want them.

 

Well, thankfully I don't have a lot of experience with the criminal justice system, so I'm going to have to be somewhat deferential in that regard. However, the criminal justice system demands a much higher bar of proof than does this hearing, as you alone among Patriot fans seem able to discern. With the information already gleaned from other sources he may have felt he had enough. And with Brady's extreme guardedness he may not have thought the information he would (and wouldn't) get with the conditions Brady put on the access was worth it.

[Rick N. Backer]

I fully admit that I dislike, OK hate, the Patriots and Brady. That's why I've been pleased to see the evidence emerge as it has, I don't want to have to defend something that I don't believe to be true. And I don't think I would. Again, because I don't have to I don't know if that's the case. But if you look at all of the facts I don't see how you can believe he's credible in any way. Even his laugh when he was first interviewed on WEEI by a friendly audience the laughter sounded forced. To believe that an NFL quarterback with such meticulous habits and preparation and an expressed desire to have the footballs inflated as low as possible would not be able to tell that the balls were underinflated strains any possible standard of credulity you could come up with, especially with the texts that went back and forth between the guilty parties.

 

A little house cleaning.

 

What is the source of the evidence you say has emerged? Mr. Wells? Mr. Goodell?

 

https://www.aei.org/...ells-report.pdf

 

If they are right, then there is no evidence the Patriots did anything wrong.

 

I've already read this (search for my Norman Ornstein joke if you want to find it).

 

From the article:

the Colts ball pressure dropped too little rather than because the Patriots ball pressure dropped too much.

 

Uh huh. If the air temperature had that effect on the ball that quickly, football would be unplayable in freezing conditions.

 

 

Moreover, it is also reported that the Tom Brady offered to help Mr. Wells obtain his texts through other means. What if that's true? Why would Mr. Wells and Mr. Goodell have declined? Too much expense? Too much time?

Maybe they had enough info already and didn't feel it was necessary. Maybe (not to get this sent to SOCN) they thought he was as trustworthy as Hillary when she offers to be "helpful" in the investigations into her email scandals.

 

Someone who is investigating alleged wrongdoing says "we have enough info already"? That sounds more like someone who is looking for a particular outcome.

I would think that something like that happens in every investigation at some point, or the investigation would never end.

 

I like the Tom is as trustworthy as Hillary theory better though.

 

That hasn't been my experience. Mine has been that someone who isn't looking to "prove" a particular theory invites people, particularly a "target" to submit any information that may be helpful. I suppose if Brady offered up his travel itinerary from Super Bowl 38 they could say no thanks. But since his text messages are so obviously critical here, according to Mr. Goodell, I would think he would want them.

 

Well, thankfully I don't have a lot of experience with the criminal justice system, so I'm going to have to be somewhat deferential in that regard. However, the criminal justice system demands a much higher bar of proof than does this hearing, as you alone among Patriot fans seem able to discern. With the information already gleaned from other sources he may have felt he had enough. And with Brady's extreme guardedness he may not have thought the information he would (and wouldn't) get with the conditions Brady put on the access was worth it.

 

You don't know unless you see it. And if someone offers it up you look.

[laughedatbytime]

I fully admit that I dislike, OK hate, the Patriots and Brady. That's why I've been pleased to see the evidence emerge as it has, I don't want to have to defend something that I don't believe to be true. And I don't think I would. Again, because I don't have to I don't know if that's the case. But if you look at all of the facts I don't see how you can believe he's credible in any way. Even his laugh when he was first interviewed on WEEI by a friendly audience the laughter sounded forced. To believe that an NFL quarterback with such meticulous habits and preparation and an expressed desire to have the footballs inflated as low as possible would not be able to tell that the balls were underinflated strains any possible standard of credulity you could come up with, especially with the texts that went back and forth between the guilty parties.

 

A little house cleaning.

 

What is the source of the evidence you say has emerged? Mr. Wells? Mr. Goodell?

 

https://www.aei.org/...ells-report.pdf

 

If they are right, then there is no evidence the Patriots did anything wrong.

 

I've already read this (search for my Norman Ornstein joke if you want to find it).

 

From the article:

the Colts ball pressure dropped too little rather than because the Patriots ball pressure dropped too much.

 

Uh huh. If the air temperature had that effect on the ball that quickly, football would be unplayable in freezing conditions.

 

 

Moreover, it is also reported that the Tom Brady offered to help Mr. Wells obtain his texts through other means. What if that's true? Why would Mr. Wells and Mr. Goodell have declined? Too much expense? Too much time?

Maybe they had enough info already and didn't feel it was necessary. Maybe (not to get this sent to SOCN) they thought he was as trustworthy as Hillary when she offers to be "helpful" in the investigations into her email scandals.

 

Someone who is investigating alleged wrongdoing says "we have enough info already"? That sounds more like someone who is looking for a particular outcome.

I would think that something like that happens in every investigation at some point, or the investigation would never end.

 

I like the Tom is as trustworthy as Hillary theory better though.

 

That hasn't been my experience. Mine has been that someone who isn't looking to "prove" a particular theory invites people, particularly a "target" to submit any information that may be helpful. I suppose if Brady offered up his travel itinerary from Super Bowl 38 they could say no thanks. But since his text messages are so obviously critical here, according to Mr. Goodell, I would think he would want them.

 

Well, thankfully I don't have a lot of experience with the criminal justice system, so I'm going to have to be somewhat deferential in that regard. However, the criminal justice system demands a much higher bar of proof than does this hearing, as you alone among Patriot fans seem able to discern. With the information already gleaned from other sources he may have felt he had enough. And with Brady's extreme guardedness he may not have thought the information he would (and wouldn't) get with the conditions Brady put on the access was worth it.

 

You don't know unless you see it. And if someone offers it up you look.

Even under the conditions the Brady camp set?

 

Do these confitions even exist in the criminal justice system?

[Rick N. Backer]

I fully admit that I dislike, OK hate, the Patriots and Brady. That's why I've been pleased to see the evidence emerge as it has, I don't want to have to defend something that I don't believe to be true. And I don't think I would. Again, because I don't have to I don't know if that's the case. But if you look at all of the facts I don't see how you can believe he's credible in any way. Even his laugh when he was first interviewed on WEEI by a friendly audience the laughter sounded forced. To believe that an NFL quarterback with such meticulous habits and preparation and an expressed desire to have the footballs inflated as low as possible would not be able to tell that the balls were underinflated strains any possible standard of credulity you could come up with, especially with the texts that went back and forth between the guilty parties.

 

A little house cleaning.

 

What is the source of the evidence you say has emerged? Mr. Wells? Mr. Goodell?

 

https://www.aei.org/...ells-report.pdf

 

If they are right, then there is no evidence the Patriots did anything wrong.

 

I've already read this (search for my Norman Ornstein joke if you want to find it).

 

From the article:

the Colts ball pressure dropped too little rather than because the Patriots ball pressure dropped too much.

 

Uh huh. If the air temperature had that effect on the ball that quickly, football would be unplayable in freezing conditions.

 

 

Moreover, it is also reported that the Tom Brady offered to help Mr. Wells obtain his texts through other means. What if that's true? Why would Mr. Wells and Mr. Goodell have declined? Too much expense? Too much time?

Maybe they had enough info already and didn't feel it was necessary. Maybe (not to get this sent to SOCN) they thought he was as trustworthy as Hillary when she offers to be "helpful" in the investigations into her email scandals.

 

Someone who is investigating alleged wrongdoing says "we have enough info already"? That sounds more like someone who is looking for a particular outcome.

I would think that something like that happens in every investigation at some point, or the investigation would never end.

 

I like the Tom is as trustworthy as Hillary theory better though.

 

That hasn't been my experience. Mine has been that someone who isn't looking to "prove" a particular theory invites people, particularly a "target" to submit any information that may be helpful. I suppose if Brady offered up his travel itinerary from Super Bowl 38 they could say no thanks. But since his text messages are so obviously critical here, according to Mr. Goodell, I would think he would want them.

 

Well, thankfully I don't have a lot of experience with the criminal justice system, so I'm going to have to be somewhat deferential in that regard. However, the criminal justice system demands a much higher bar of proof than does this hearing, as you alone among Patriot fans seem able to discern. With the information already gleaned from other sources he may have felt he had enough. And with Brady's extreme guardedness he may not have thought the information he would (and wouldn't) get with the conditions Brady put on the access was worth it.

 

You don't know unless you see it. And if someone offers it up you look.

Even under the conditions the Brady camp set?

 

Do these confitions even exist in the criminal justice system?

 

My understanding is Brady offered to review his bill to determine who he texted, and reconstruct it that way. Or Brady could have gotten them from the cloud.

 

In the criminal justice system Brady wouldn't himself be a voluntary source of information. But the person in Wells' position would have subpoena power. So it's a trade off.

[laughedatbytime]

Ok, thanks. I think I'm out for the night. Business trip tomorrow to prepare for.

[goose]

Since "we" all agree that the principles of criminal investigation "must" apply to this matter, so, for example, the refusal to turn over your private property creates the inference that you're hiding something, what do "we" make of a reporter's refusal to answer questions?

 

http://profootballta...eei-appearance/

 

Apparently, only 11 of 12 reminders about his WEEI appearance to Chris Mortensen went through.

Mortensen was scheduled to appear on theDennis & Callahan show at 7:45 a.m. ET, but he has canceled.

“You guys made a mistake by drumming up business for the show and how I would address my reporting for the first time,” Mortensen informed WEEI. “I will not allow WEEI, [Patriots owner Robert] Kraft or anybody to make me the centerpiece of a story that has been misreported far beyond anything I did in the first 48 hours. Maybe when the lawsuit is settled, in Brady’s favor, I hope, we can revisit. Don’t call.”

They tried to call him anyway. No answer.

I like and respect Mort. As Adam Schefter of ESPN said on WEEI on Thursday, Mortensen is a pioneer in this business. But his false report should be the centerpiece of the story. Because without that false report there is no story. More specifically, without that false report, there is no finding of cheating.

The false report instantly changed the narrative from “the NFL checked the Patriots footballs at halftime” to “someone deflated 11 of the 12 the Patriots footballs by two pounds each; what did Brady and Belichick know?” It made another Ted Wells investigation logical, it put the Patriots on the defensive, and it kept the Patriots from responding to the accurate PSI readings by pointing out that, on one of the two air-pressure gauges used, they fall squarely within the range expected by the Ideal Gas Law.

On Thursday, Schefter suggested that Mort was given false information by one or more high-level NFL officials. On Tuesday, the circumstances suggested that Stephen A. Smith of ESPN was given true information by one or more high-level NFL officials to introduce to the public the notion that “Tom Brady destroyed his cellphone.”

This would be a perfect topic for an ESPN Outside the Lines investigation as to how the NFL manipulated the media on multiple occasions for P.R. purposes. If only a couple of prominent ESPN employees hadn’t been pulled into this mess.

By we, do you mean Patriot fans who have no clue what the words "more likely than not" and "was generally aware" mean and want to hold the league to the standards of a criminal trial?

 

Nope, didn't think so..

 

No, you're right. I didn't mean that. I was talking about people who think the standards that apply to justify police inquiry, like someone dressed too fancy in a neighborhood known for drug sales, should apply to support imposing discipline on someone. Brady didn't want to turn over his phone? F*ck him. He's hiding something.

In regards to the phone? Of course he is. And in all likelihood what he was hiding had little to do with deflategate. Lots of personal data on that cell phone.

[Lost In Xanadu]

Since "we" all agree that the principles of criminal investigation "must" apply to this matter, so, for example, the refusal to turn over your private property creates the inference that you're hiding something, what do "we" make of a reporter's refusal to answer questions?

 

http://profootballta...eei-appearance/

 

Apparently, only 11 of 12 reminders about his WEEI appearance to Chris Mortensen went through.

Mortensen was scheduled to appear on theDennis & Callahan show at 7:45 a.m. ET, but he has canceled.

“You guys made a mistake by drumming up business for the show and how I would address my reporting for the first time,” Mortensen informed WEEI. “I will not allow WEEI, [Patriots owner Robert] Kraft or anybody to make me the centerpiece of a story that has been misreported far beyond anything I did in the first 48 hours. Maybe when the lawsuit is settled, in Brady’s favor, I hope, we can revisit. Don’t call.”

They tried to call him anyway. No answer.

I like and respect Mort. As Adam Schefter of ESPN said on WEEI on Thursday, Mortensen is a pioneer in this business. But his false report should be the centerpiece of the story. Because without that false report there is no story. More specifically, without that false report, there is no finding of cheating.

The false report instantly changed the narrative from “the NFL checked the Patriots footballs at halftime” to “someone deflated 11 of the 12 the Patriots footballs by two pounds each; what did Brady and Belichick know?” It made another Ted Wells investigation logical, it put the Patriots on the defensive, and it kept the Patriots from responding to the accurate PSI readings by pointing out that, on one of the two air-pressure gauges used, they fall squarely within the range expected by the Ideal Gas Law.

On Thursday, Schefter suggested that Mort was given false information by one or more high-level NFL officials. On Tuesday, the circumstances suggested that Stephen A. Smith of ESPN was given true information by one or more high-level NFL officials to introduce to the public the notion that “Tom Brady destroyed his cellphone.”

This would be a perfect topic for an ESPN Outside the Lines investigation as to how the NFL manipulated the media on multiple occasions for P.R. purposes. If only a couple of prominent ESPN employees hadn’t been pulled into this mess.

By we, do you mean Patriot fans who have no clue what the words "more likely than not" and "was generally aware" mean and want to hold the league to the standards of a criminal trial?

 

Nope, didn't think so..

 

No, you're right. I didn't mean that. I was talking about people who think the standards that apply to justify police inquiry, like someone dressed too fancy in a neighborhood known for drug sales, should apply to support imposing discipline on someone. Brady didn't want to turn over his phone? F*ck him. He's hiding something.

In regards to the phone? Of course he is. And in all likelihood what he was hiding had little to do with deflategate. Lots of personal data on that cell phone.

Texts he didn't want Giselle to see ;)

[laughedatbytime]

Since "we" all agree that the principles of criminal investigation "must" apply to this matter, so, for example, the refusal to turn over your private property creates the inference that you're hiding something, what do "we" make of a reporter's refusal to answer questions?

 

http://profootballta...eei-appearance/

 

Apparently, only 11 of 12 reminders about his WEEI appearance to Chris Mortensen went through.

Mortensen was scheduled to appear on theDennis & Callahan show at 7:45 a.m. ET, but he has canceled.

“You guys made a mistake by drumming up business for the show and how I would address my reporting for the first time,” Mortensen informed WEEI. “I will not allow WEEI, [Patriots owner Robert] Kraft or anybody to make me the centerpiece of a story that has been misreported far beyond anything I did in the first 48 hours. Maybe when the lawsuit is settled, in Brady’s favor, I hope, we can revisit. Don’t call.”

They tried to call him anyway. No answer.

I like and respect Mort. As Adam Schefter of ESPN said on WEEI on Thursday, Mortensen is a pioneer in this business. But his false report should be the centerpiece of the story. Because without that false report there is no story. More specifically, without that false report, there is no finding of cheating.

The false report instantly changed the narrative from “the NFL checked the Patriots footballs at halftime” to “someone deflated 11 of the 12 the Patriots footballs by two pounds each; what did Brady and Belichick know?” It made another Ted Wells investigation logical, it put the Patriots on the defensive, and it kept the Patriots from responding to the accurate PSI readings by pointing out that, on one of the two air-pressure gauges used, they fall squarely within the range expected by the Ideal Gas Law.

On Thursday, Schefter suggested that Mort was given false information by one or more high-level NFL officials. On Tuesday, the circumstances suggested that Stephen A. Smith of ESPN was given true information by one or more high-level NFL officials to introduce to the public the notion that “Tom Brady destroyed his cellphone.”

This would be a perfect topic for an ESPN Outside the Lines investigation as to how the NFL manipulated the media on multiple occasions for P.R. purposes. If only a couple of prominent ESPN employees hadn’t been pulled into this mess.

By we, do you mean Patriot fans who have no clue what the words "more likely than not" and "was generally aware" mean and want to hold the league to the standards of a criminal trial?

 

Nope, didn't think so..

 

No, you're right. I didn't mean that. I was talking about people who think the standards that apply to justify police inquiry, like someone dressed too fancy in a neighborhood known for drug sales, should apply to support imposing discipline on someone. Brady didn't want to turn over his phone? F*ck him. He's hiding something.

In regards to the phone? Of course he is. And in all likelihood what he was hiding had little to do with deflategate. Lots of personal data on that cell phone.

Texts he didn't want Giselle to see ;)

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[goose]

Since "we" all agree that the principles of criminal investigation "must" apply to this matter, so, for example, the refusal to turn over your private property creates the inference that you're hiding something, what do "we" make of a reporter's refusal to answer questions?

 

http://profootballta...eei-appearance/

 

Apparently, only 11 of 12 reminders about his WEEI appearance to Chris Mortensen went through.

Mortensen was scheduled to appear on theDennis & Callahan show at 7:45 a.m. ET, but he has canceled.

“You guys made a mistake by drumming up business for the show and how I would address my reporting for the first time,” Mortensen informed WEEI. “I will not allow WEEI, [Patriots owner Robert] Kraft or anybody to make me the centerpiece of a story that has been misreported far beyond anything I did in the first 48 hours. Maybe when the lawsuit is settled, in Brady’s favor, I hope, we can revisit. Don’t call.”

They tried to call him anyway. No answer.

I like and respect Mort. As Adam Schefter of ESPN said on WEEI on Thursday, Mortensen is a pioneer in this business. But his false report should be the centerpiece of the story. Because without that false report there is no story. More specifically, without that false report, there is no finding of cheating.

The false report instantly changed the narrative from “the NFL checked the Patriots footballs at halftime” to “someone deflated 11 of the 12 the Patriots footballs by two pounds each; what did Brady and Belichick know?” It made another Ted Wells investigation logical, it put the Patriots on the defensive, and it kept the Patriots from responding to the accurate PSI readings by pointing out that, on one of the two air-pressure gauges used, they fall squarely within the range expected by the Ideal Gas Law.

On Thursday, Schefter suggested that Mort was given false information by one or more high-level NFL officials. On Tuesday, the circumstances suggested that Stephen A. Smith of ESPN was given true information by one or more high-level NFL officials to introduce to the public the notion that “Tom Brady destroyed his cellphone.”

This would be a perfect topic for an ESPN Outside the Lines investigation as to how the NFL manipulated the media on multiple occasions for P.R. purposes. If only a couple of prominent ESPN employees hadn’t been pulled into this mess.

By we, do you mean Patriot fans who have no clue what the words "more likely than not" and "was generally aware" mean and want to hold the league to the standards of a criminal trial?

 

Nope, didn't think so..

 

No, you're right. I didn't mean that. I was talking about people who think the standards that apply to justify police inquiry, like someone dressed too fancy in a neighborhood known for drug sales, should apply to support imposing discipline on someone. Brady didn't want to turn over his phone? F*ck him. He's hiding something.

In regards to the phone? Of course he is. And in all likelihood what he was hiding had little to do with deflategate. Lots of personal data on that cell phone.

Texts he didn't want Giselle to see ;)

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Didn't Favre text a lady pics of his junk or something? You gotta figure that Brady's phone had to have some spucy stuff on it.

[Rick N. Backer]

http://boston.cbsloc...with-jeff-pash/

 

The Patriots have apparently decided they will fight back.

[LedRush]

http://boston.cbsloc...with-jeff-pash/

 

The Patriots have apparently decided they will fight back.

 

It's fun to see the Patriots make every wrong decision at every possible time. This whole thing should have been over in February, but the Pats keep on shooting themselves in the foot.

[Rick N. Backer]

http://boston.cbsloc...with-jeff-pash/

 

The Patriots have apparently decided they will fight back.

 

It's fun to see the Patriots make every wrong decision at every possible time. This whole thing should have been over in February, but the Pats keep on shooting themselves in the foot.

 

Well not every time. Malcolm Butler made the right decision to jump the route in the Super Bowl. Tom Brady obviously made a lot of the right decisions in that game too since he was the MVP. But you're correct that they did make the wrong decision to assume the league would handle this properly. Mr. Kraft admitted that.

[LedRush]

http://boston.cbsloc...with-jeff-pash/

 

The Patriots have apparently decided they will fight back.

 

It's fun to see the Patriots make every wrong decision at every possible time. This whole thing should have been over in February, but the Pats keep on shooting themselves in the foot.

 

Well not every time. Malcolm Butler made the right decision to jump the route in the Super Bowl. Tom Brady obviously made a lot of the right decisions in that game too since he was the MVP. But you're correct that they did make the wrong decision to assume the league would handle this properly. Mr. Kraft admitted that.

 

When Bobby admitted that, he also tacitly admitted that he was lying when discussing his reasons for dropping his appeal. He's a high-integrity type of guy.

[Rick N. Backer]

http://boston.cbsloc...with-jeff-pash/

 

The Patriots have apparently decided they will fight back.

 

It's fun to see the Patriots make every wrong decision at every possible time. This whole thing should have been over in February, but the Pats keep on shooting themselves in the foot.

 

Well not every time. Malcolm Butler made the right decision to jump the route in the Super Bowl. Tom Brady obviously made a lot of the right decisions in that game too since he was the MVP. But you're correct that they did make the wrong decision to assume the league would handle this properly. Mr. Kraft admitted that.

 

When Bobby admitted that, he also tacitly admitted that he was lying when discussing his reasons for dropping his appeal. He's a high-integrity type of guy.

 

I didn't realize you knew Mr. Kraft. I don't think anyone could honestly read anything he said publicly that way.

 

His house must be beautiful.

[LedRush]

http://boston.cbsloc...with-jeff-pash/

 

The Patriots have apparently decided they will fight back.

 

It's fun to see the Patriots make every wrong decision at every possible time. This whole thing should have been over in February, but the Pats keep on shooting themselves in the foot.

 

Well not every time. Malcolm Butler made the right decision to jump the route in the Super Bowl. Tom Brady obviously made a lot of the right decisions in that game too since he was the MVP. But you're correct that they did make the wrong decision to assume the league would handle this properly. Mr. Kraft admitted that.

 

When Bobby admitted that, he also tacitly admitted that he was lying when discussing his reasons for dropping his appeal. He's a high-integrity type of guy.

 

I don't think anyone could honestly read anything he said publicly that way.

 

 

 

He stated that he dropped the appeal for one reason. Then, later on, he said that he dropped the appeal for a completely different reason, and because he didn't get what he wanted dropping the appeal was a mistake. As I said, Bobby's never been known to be a high-integrity kinda guy.

[Rick N. Backer]

“When I addressed the media at the Super Bowl on January 26 – over 14 weeks ago – I stated that I unconditionally believed that the New England Patriots had done nothing inappropriate in this process or in violation of the NFL rules and that I was disappointed in the way the league handled the initial investigation. That sentiment has not changed.

“I was convinced that Ted Wells’ investigation would find the same factual evidence supported by both scientific formula and independent research as we did and would ultimately exonerate the Patriots. Based on the explanations I have heard and the studies that have been done, I don’t know how the science of atmospheric conditions can be refuted or how conclusions to the contrary can be drawn without some definitive evidence.

“What is not highlighted in the text of the report is that three of the Colts’ four footballs measured by at least one official were under the required psi level. As far as we are aware, there is no comparable data available from any other game because, in the history of the NFL, psi levels of footballs have never been measured at halftime, in any climate. If they had been, based on what we now know, it is safe to assume that every cold-weather game was played with under inflated footballs. As compelling a case as the Wells Report may try to make, I am going to rely on the factual evidence of numerous scientists and engineers rather than inferences from circumstantial evidence.

“Throughout the process of this nearly four-month investigation, we have cooperated and patiently awaited its outcome. To say we are disappointed in its findings, which do not include any incontrovertible or hard evidence of deliberate deflation of footballs at the AFC Championship Game, would be a gross understatement. In addition, given our level of cooperation throughout the process, I was offended by the comments made in the Wells Report in reference to not making an individual available for a follow-up interview. What the report fails to mention is that he had already been interviewed four times and we felt the fifth request for access was excessive for a part-time game day employee who has a full-time job with another employer.

“While I respect the independent process of the investigation, the time, effort and resources expended to reach this conclusion are incomprehensible to me. Knowing that there is no real recourse available, fighting the league and extending this debate would prove to be futile. We understand and greatly respect the responsibility of being one of 32 in this league and, on that basis, we will accept the findings of the report and take the appropriate actions based on those findings as well as any discipline levied by the league.

I felt it was important to make a statement today, prior to the start of training camp. After this, I will not be talking about this matter until after the legal process plays itself out, and I would advise everyone in the organization to do the same and just concentrate on preparation for the 2015 season.

The decision handed down by the league yesterday is unfathomable to me. It is routine for discipline in the NFL to be reduced upon appeal. In the vast majority of these cases, there is tangible and hard evidence of the infraction for which the discipline is being imposed, and still the initial penalty gets reduced. Six months removed from the AFC championship game, the league still has no hard evidence of anybody doing anything to tamper with the PSI levels of footballs.

I continue to believe and unequivocally support Tom Brady. I first and foremost need to apologize to our fans, because I truly believe what I did in May, given the actual evidence of the situation and the league’s history on discipline matters, would make it much easier for the league to exonerate Tom Brady.

Unfortunately, I was wrong.

The league’s handling of this entire process has been extremely frustrating and disconcerting. I will never understand why an initial erroneous report regarding the PSI level of footballs was leaked by a source from the NFL a few days after the AFC championship game, [and] was never corrected by those who had the correct information. For four months, that report cast aspersions and shaped public opinion.

Yesterday’s decision by Commissioner Goodell was released in a similar manner, under an erroneous headline that read, “Tom Brady destroyed his cellphone.” This headline was designed to capture headlines across the country and obscure evidence regarding the tampering of air pressure in footballs. It intentionally implied nefarious behavior and minimized the acknowledgement that Tom provided the history of every number he texted during that relevant time frame. And we had already provided the league with every cellphone of every non-NFLPA that they requested, including head coach Bill Belichick.

Tom Brady is a person of great integrity, and is a great ambassador of the game, both on and off the field. Yet for reasons that I cannot comprehend, there are those in the league office who are more determined to prove that they were right rather than admit any culpability of their own or take any responsibility for the initiation of a process and ensuing investigation that was flawed.

I have come to the conclusion that this was never about doing what was fair and just. Back in May, I had to make a difficult decision that I now regret. I tried to do what I thought was right. I chose not to take legal action. I wanted to return the focus to football.

I have been negotiating agreements on a global basis my entire life. I know there are times when you have to give up important points of principle to achieve a greater good. I acted in good faith and was optimistic that by taking the actions I took the league would have what they wanted. I was willing to accept the harshest penalty in the history of the NFL for an alleged ball violation because I believed it would help exonerate Tom.

I have often said, ‘If you want to get a deal done, sometimes you have to get the lawyers out of the room.’ I had hoped that Tom Brady’s appeal to the league would provide Roger Goodell the necessary explanation to overturn his suspension. Now, the league has taken the matter to court, which is a tactic that only a lawyer would recommend.

Once again, I want to apologize to the fans of the New England Patriots and Tom Brady. I was wrong to put my faith in the league. Given the facts, evidence, and laws of science that underscore this entire situation, it is completely incomprehensible to me that the league continues to take steps to disparage one of its all-time great players, and a man for whom I have the utmost respect.

Personally, this is very sad and disappointing to me.

[laughedatbytime]

http://boston.cbsloc...with-jeff-pash/

 

The Patriots have apparently decided they will fight back.

 

It's fun to see the Patriots make every wrong decision at every possible time. This whole thing should have been over in February, but the Pats keep on shooting themselves in the foot.

 

Well not every time. Malcolm Butler made the right decision to jump the route in the Super Bowl. Tom Brady obviously made a lot of the right decisions in that game too since he was the MVP. But you're correct that they did make the wrong decision to assume the league would handle this properly. Mr. Kraft admitted that.

 

When Bobby admitted that, he also tacitly admitted that he was lying when discussing his reasons for dropping his appeal. He's a high-integrity type of guy.

 

I didn't realize you knew Mr. Kraft. I don't think anyone could honestly read anything he said publicly that way.

 

His house must be beautiful.

I don't see how anyone could honestly read anything he said publicly in any other way. Led is far from the first person to make that point.

[Rick N. Backer]

http://boston.cbsloc...with-jeff-pash/

 

The Patriots have apparently decided they will fight back.

 

It's fun to see the Patriots make every wrong decision at every possible time. This whole thing should have been over in February, but the Pats keep on shooting themselves in the foot.

 

Well not every time. Malcolm Butler made the right decision to jump the route in the Super Bowl. Tom Brady obviously made a lot of the right decisions in that game too since he was the MVP. But you're correct that they did make the wrong decision to assume the league would handle this properly. Mr. Kraft admitted that.

 

When Bobby admitted that, he also tacitly admitted that he was lying when discussing his reasons for dropping his appeal. He's a high-integrity type of guy.

 

I didn't realize you knew Mr. Kraft. I don't think anyone could honestly read anything he said publicly that way.

 

His house must be beautiful.

I don't see how anyone could honestly read anything he said publicly in any other way. Led is far from the first person to make that point.

 

Spell it out for me, please.

[laughedatbytime]

http://boston.cbsloc...with-jeff-pash/

 

The Patriots have apparently decided they will fight back.

 

It's fun to see the Patriots make every wrong decision at every possible time. This whole thing should have been over in February, but the Pats keep on shooting themselves in the foot.

 

Well not every time. Malcolm Butler made the right decision to jump the route in the Super Bowl. Tom Brady obviously made a lot of the right decisions in that game too since he was the MVP. But you're correct that they did make the wrong decision to assume the league would handle this properly. Mr. Kraft admitted that.

 

When Bobby admitted that, he also tacitly admitted that he was lying when discussing his reasons for dropping his appeal. He's a high-integrity type of guy.

 

I didn't realize you knew Mr. Kraft. I don't think anyone could honestly read anything he said publicly that way.

 

His house must be beautiful.

I don't see how anyone could honestly read anything he said publicly in any other way. Led is far from the first person to make that point.

 

Spell it out for me, please.

From Mr. Kraft's "apology": "I truly believe what I did in May, given the actual evidence of the situation and the league’s history on discipline matters, would make it much easier for the league to exonerate Tom Brady."

[JohnRogers]

True that in the end the footballs were within NLF rules for PSI?

[Rick N. Backer]

http://boston.cbsloc...with-jeff-pash/

 

The Patriots have apparently decided they will fight back.

 

It's fun to see the Patriots make every wrong decision at every possible time. This whole thing should have been over in February, but the Pats keep on shooting themselves in the foot.

 

Well not every time. Malcolm Butler made the right decision to jump the route in the Super Bowl. Tom Brady obviously made a lot of the right decisions in that game too since he was the MVP. But you're correct that they did make the wrong decision to assume the league would handle this properly. Mr. Kraft admitted that.

 

When Bobby admitted that, he also tacitly admitted that he was lying when discussing his reasons for dropping his appeal. He's a high-integrity type of guy.

 

I didn't realize you knew Mr. Kraft. I don't think anyone could honestly read anything he said publicly that way.

 

His house must be beautiful.

I don't see how anyone could honestly read anything he said publicly in any other way. Led is far from the first person to make that point.

 

Spell it out for me, please.

From Mr. Kraft's "apology": "I truly believe what I did in May, given the actual evidence of the situation and the league’s history on discipline matters, would make it much easier for the league to exonerate Tom Brady."

 

Tell me what he said in May that directly contradicts that.

[LedRush]

True that in the end the footballs were within NLF rules for PSI?

 

No, all the balls were under the lowest allowable limit. If you give the Patriots the benefit of the doubt, 8 of 12 balls were between 1-2 PSI below the lowest allowable limit.