At Least He Isn't Accused of Using Underinflated Footballs

[laughedatbytime]

Because then it would be a big deal. Can you imagine if he traded in his cell phone too? It gives me shivers just thinking about it.

 

http://deadspin.com/...n-91-1757224765

This makes Brady not guilty how?

 

Because when a petitioner (Brady) overturns an arbitration award in court, in a proceeding in which the respondent (the NFL) is entitled to win EVEN IF the arbitrator (Goodell) makes LEGAL or FACTUAL errors, due to the court's finding that arbitrator (Goodell) engaged in misconduct, fair minded people would not suggest the underlying arbitration award is valid. When the arbitrator (Goodell) is also the person who's decision (that Brady cheated and should be suspended a quarter of the season) was also the subject of arbitration itself, fair minded people would not suggest the original decision is worthy of deference.

 

But the point is that Manning may have used HGH after recovering from a neck injury, and later, and then apparently sent goons to the home of his accuser's parents to shut his accuser up. One goon apparently told the parents, falsely, he was a cop. And not a peep out of the likes of you.

 

Tell me how you don't love Trump.

Let's get the minor points out of the way first.

 

TB12 has enough love for Trump for all of us. They're both winners after all.

 

This thread isn't about Manning, at its core (as none of your threads or references to him are; they're about Gisele's husband) so why would I talk about him here. When someone starts a thread about Manning, I'll address it.

 

As a pedant, I do need to point out that there is a difference between "who's" and "whose". One would expect someone who makes his living with parsing language (and exhibiting obsequious obeisance to judges...I understand, it's part of the job, and your commitment to your craft doesn't appear to end at the courthouse door, which is to be admired, I guess) to know this.

 

As far as deference goes, I don't think you should be the one who is the arbiter of what should be deferred to, since excessive deference is just as harmful as a lack of same. The fact that someone brought up the outcome of the AFC Championship game as if it had any bearing to the subject of whether or not parties acted in a manner outside established rules may not be as harmful to the fabric of our society, as, say, rulings that growing wheat for one's own consumption is interstate commerce, rights are conveniently found (or not, depending on whether one favors them or not) in "emanations" and "penumbras" of the Bill of Rights, or that "separate but equal" is a "thing", but it's something that it would be worthwhile not to worship just because your guy (temporarily, in all likelihood) got away with something.

 

This thread isn't about Manning? Did you read the article?

The thread title made it perfectly clear what it was about. Didn't matter if it was about Manning, Tannehill, or Bobby Hoying. Just as long as it wasn't about your hero.

 

So, yes or no. Did you read the article? Because the thread title and my OP didn't mention Brady.

 

Why would I start a thread about Tannehill? He stinks. His team does too. His team has, in fact, stunk for the better part of 20 years.

If Brady didn't cheat, this thread would not exist.

 

Brady's record against the Dolphins without (the unique) home field advantage is 6-7. Of course, without the advantages of home field he has to rely on his own abilities. Not hard to draw inferences from that...

[Rick N. Backer]

Because then it would be a big deal. Can you imagine if he traded in his cell phone too? It gives me shivers just thinking about it.

 

http://deadspin.com/...n-91-1757224765

This makes Brady not guilty how?

 

Because when a petitioner (Brady) overturns an arbitration award in court, in a proceeding in which the respondent (the NFL) is entitled to win EVEN IF the arbitrator (Goodell) makes LEGAL or FACTUAL errors, due to the court's finding that arbitrator (Goodell) engaged in misconduct, fair minded people would not suggest the underlying arbitration award is valid. When the arbitrator (Goodell) is also the person who's decision (that Brady cheated and should be suspended a quarter of the season) was also the subject of arbitration itself, fair minded people would not suggest the original decision is worthy of deference.

 

But the point is that Manning may have used HGH after recovering from a neck injury, and later, and then apparently sent goons to the home of his accuser's parents to shut his accuser up. One goon apparently told the parents, falsely, he was a cop. And not a peep out of the likes of you.

 

Tell me how you don't love Trump.

Let's get the minor points out of the way first.

 

TB12 has enough love for Trump for all of us. They're both winners after all.

 

This thread isn't about Manning, at its core (as none of your threads or references to him are; they're about Gisele's husband) so why would I talk about him here. When someone starts a thread about Manning, I'll address it.

 

As a pedant, I do need to point out that there is a difference between "who's" and "whose". One would expect someone who makes his living with parsing language (and exhibiting obsequious obeisance to judges...I understand, it's part of the job, and your commitment to your craft doesn't appear to end at the courthouse door, which is to be admired, I guess) to know this.

 

As far as deference goes, I don't think you should be the one who is the arbiter of what should be deferred to, since excessive deference is just as harmful as a lack of same. The fact that someone brought up the outcome of the AFC Championship game as if it had any bearing to the subject of whether or not parties acted in a manner outside established rules may not be as harmful to the fabric of our society, as, say, rulings that growing wheat for one's own consumption is interstate commerce, rights are conveniently found (or not, depending on whether one favors them or not) in "emanations" and "penumbras" of the Bill of Rights, or that "separate but equal" is a "thing", but it's something that it would be worthwhile not to worship just because your guy (temporarily, in all likelihood) got away with something.

 

This thread isn't about Manning? Did you read the article?

The thread title made it perfectly clear what it was about. Didn't matter if it was about Manning, Tannehill, or Bobby Hoying. Just as long as it wasn't about your hero.

 

So, yes or no. Did you read the article? Because the thread title and my OP didn't mention Brady.

 

Why would I start a thread about Tannehill? He stinks. His team does too. His team has, in fact, stunk for the better part of 20 years.

If Brady didn't cheat, this thread would not exist.

 

Brady's record against the Dolphins without (the unique) home field advantage is 6-7. Of course, without the advantages of home field he has to rely on his own abilities. Not hard to draw inferences from that...

 

Obviously the "Fins" have been the better team over that period. And their post season achievements bear that out.

[laughedatbytime]

Because then it would be a big deal. Can you imagine if he traded in his cell phone too? It gives me shivers just thinking about it.

 

http://deadspin.com/...n-91-1757224765

This makes Brady not guilty how?

 

Because when a petitioner (Brady) overturns an arbitration award in court, in a proceeding in which the respondent (the NFL) is entitled to win EVEN IF the arbitrator (Goodell) makes LEGAL or FACTUAL errors, due to the court's finding that arbitrator (Goodell) engaged in misconduct, fair minded people would not suggest the underlying arbitration award is valid. When the arbitrator (Goodell) is also the person who's decision (that Brady cheated and should be suspended a quarter of the season) was also the subject of arbitration itself, fair minded people would not suggest the original decision is worthy of deference.

 

But the point is that Manning may have used HGH after recovering from a neck injury, and later, and then apparently sent goons to the home of his accuser's parents to shut his accuser up. One goon apparently told the parents, falsely, he was a cop. And not a peep out of the likes of you.

 

Tell me how you don't love Trump.

Let's get the minor points out of the way first.

 

TB12 has enough love for Trump for all of us. They're both winners after all.

 

This thread isn't about Manning, at its core (as none of your threads or references to him are; they're about Gisele's husband) so why would I talk about him here. When someone starts a thread about Manning, I'll address it.

 

As a pedant, I do need to point out that there is a difference between "who's" and "whose". One would expect someone who makes his living with parsing language (and exhibiting obsequious obeisance to judges...I understand, it's part of the job, and your commitment to your craft doesn't appear to end at the courthouse door, which is to be admired, I guess) to know this.

 

As far as deference goes, I don't think you should be the one who is the arbiter of what should be deferred to, since excessive deference is just as harmful as a lack of same. The fact that someone brought up the outcome of the AFC Championship game as if it had any bearing to the subject of whether or not parties acted in a manner outside established rules may not be as harmful to the fabric of our society, as, say, rulings that growing wheat for one's own consumption is interstate commerce, rights are conveniently found (or not, depending on whether one favors them or not) in "emanations" and "penumbras" of the Bill of Rights, or that "separate but equal" is a "thing", but it's something that it would be worthwhile not to worship just because your guy (temporarily, in all likelihood) got away with something.

 

This thread isn't about Manning? Did you read the article?

The thread title made it perfectly clear what it was about. Didn't matter if it was about Manning, Tannehill, or Bobby Hoying. Just as long as it wasn't about your hero.

 

So, yes or no. Did you read the article? Because the thread title and my OP didn't mention Brady.

 

Why would I start a thread about Tannehill? He stinks. His team does too. His team has, in fact, stunk for the better part of 20 years.

If Brady didn't cheat, this thread would not exist.

 

Brady's record against the Dolphins without (the unique) home field advantage is 6-7. Of course, without the advantages of home field he has to rely on his own abilities. Not hard to draw inferences from that...

 

Obviously the "Fins" have been the better team over that period. And their post season achievements bear that out.

They don't have the same home field "advantage" the Patriots have, apparently. They can get the best of Brady when they're on a level playing field.

[HemiBeers]

[Rick N. Backer]

Because then it would be a big deal. Can you imagine if he traded in his cell phone too? It gives me shivers just thinking about it.

 

http://deadspin.com/...n-91-1757224765

This makes Brady not guilty how?

 

Because when a petitioner (Brady) overturns an arbitration award in court, in a proceeding in which the respondent (the NFL) is entitled to win EVEN IF the arbitrator (Goodell) makes LEGAL or FACTUAL errors, due to the court's finding that arbitrator (Goodell) engaged in misconduct, fair minded people would not suggest the underlying arbitration award is valid. When the arbitrator (Goodell) is also the person who's decision (that Brady cheated and should be suspended a quarter of the season) was also the subject of arbitration itself, fair minded people would not suggest the original decision is worthy of deference.

 

But the point is that Manning may have used HGH after recovering from a neck injury, and later, and then apparently sent goons to the home of his accuser's parents to shut his accuser up. One goon apparently told the parents, falsely, he was a cop. And not a peep out of the likes of you.

 

Tell me how you don't love Trump.

Let's get the minor points out of the way first.

 

TB12 has enough love for Trump for all of us. They're both winners after all.

 

This thread isn't about Manning, at its core (as none of your threads or references to him are; they're about Gisele's husband) so why would I talk about him here. When someone starts a thread about Manning, I'll address it.

 

As a pedant, I do need to point out that there is a difference between "who's" and "whose". One would expect someone who makes his living with parsing language (and exhibiting obsequious obeisance to judges...I understand, it's part of the job, and your commitment to your craft doesn't appear to end at the courthouse door, which is to be admired, I guess) to know this.

 

As far as deference goes, I don't think you should be the one who is the arbiter of what should be deferred to, since excessive deference is just as harmful as a lack of same. The fact that someone brought up the outcome of the AFC Championship game as if it had any bearing to the subject of whether or not parties acted in a manner outside established rules may not be as harmful to the fabric of our society, as, say, rulings that growing wheat for one's own consumption is interstate commerce, rights are conveniently found (or not, depending on whether one favors them or not) in "emanations" and "penumbras" of the Bill of Rights, or that "separate but equal" is a "thing", but it's something that it would be worthwhile not to worship just because your guy (temporarily, in all likelihood) got away with something.

 

This thread isn't about Manning? Did you read the article?

The thread title made it perfectly clear what it was about. Didn't matter if it was about Manning, Tannehill, or Bobby Hoying. Just as long as it wasn't about your hero.

 

So, yes or no. Did you read the article? Because the thread title and my OP didn't mention Brady.

 

Why would I start a thread about Tannehill? He stinks. His team does too. His team has, in fact, stunk for the better part of 20 years.

If Brady didn't cheat, this thread would not exist.

 

Brady's record against the Dolphins without (the unique) home field advantage is 6-7. Of course, without the advantages of home field he has to rely on his own abilities. Not hard to draw inferences from that...

 

Obviously the "Fins" have been the better team over that period. And their post season achievements bear that out.

They don't have the same home field "advantage" the Patriots have, apparently. They can get the best of Brady when they're on a level playing field.

 

Brady's been to 6 Super Bowls. Why haven't the "Fins" won a playoff game this century?

 

Maybe Brady's played on some of the "Fins'" "damp" fields. That's been known to happen.

[laughedatbytime]

Because then it would be a big deal. Can you imagine if he traded in his cell phone too? It gives me shivers just thinking about it.

 

http://deadspin.com/...n-91-1757224765

This makes Brady not guilty how?

 

Because when a petitioner (Brady) overturns an arbitration award in court, in a proceeding in which the respondent (the NFL) is entitled to win EVEN IF the arbitrator (Goodell) makes LEGAL or FACTUAL errors, due to the court's finding that arbitrator (Goodell) engaged in misconduct, fair minded people would not suggest the underlying arbitration award is valid. When the arbitrator (Goodell) is also the person who's decision (that Brady cheated and should be suspended a quarter of the season) was also the subject of arbitration itself, fair minded people would not suggest the original decision is worthy of deference.

 

But the point is that Manning may have used HGH after recovering from a neck injury, and later, and then apparently sent goons to the home of his accuser's parents to shut his accuser up. One goon apparently told the parents, falsely, he was a cop. And not a peep out of the likes of you.

 

Tell me how you don't love Trump.

Let's get the minor points out of the way first.

 

TB12 has enough love for Trump for all of us. They're both winners after all.

 

This thread isn't about Manning, at its core (as none of your threads or references to him are; they're about Gisele's husband) so why would I talk about him here. When someone starts a thread about Manning, I'll address it.

 

As a pedant, I do need to point out that there is a difference between "who's" and "whose". One would expect someone who makes his living with parsing language (and exhibiting obsequious obeisance to judges...I understand, it's part of the job, and your commitment to your craft doesn't appear to end at the courthouse door, which is to be admired, I guess) to know this.

 

As far as deference goes, I don't think you should be the one who is the arbiter of what should be deferred to, since excessive deference is just as harmful as a lack of same. The fact that someone brought up the outcome of the AFC Championship game as if it had any bearing to the subject of whether or not parties acted in a manner outside established rules may not be as harmful to the fabric of our society, as, say, rulings that growing wheat for one's own consumption is interstate commerce, rights are conveniently found (or not, depending on whether one favors them or not) in "emanations" and "penumbras" of the Bill of Rights, or that "separate but equal" is a "thing", but it's something that it would be worthwhile not to worship just because your guy (temporarily, in all likelihood) got away with something.

 

This thread isn't about Manning? Did you read the article?

The thread title made it perfectly clear what it was about. Didn't matter if it was about Manning, Tannehill, or Bobby Hoying. Just as long as it wasn't about your hero.

 

So, yes or no. Did you read the article? Because the thread title and my OP didn't mention Brady.

 

Why would I start a thread about Tannehill? He stinks. His team does too. His team has, in fact, stunk for the better part of 20 years.

If Brady didn't cheat, this thread would not exist.

 

Brady's record against the Dolphins without (the unique) home field advantage is 6-7. Of course, without the advantages of home field he has to rely on his own abilities. Not hard to draw inferences from that...

 

Obviously the "Fins" have been the better team over that period. And their post season achievements bear that out.

They don't have the same home field "advantage" the Patriots have, apparently. They can get the best of Brady when they're on a level playing field.

 

Brady's been to 6 Super Bowls. Why haven't the "Fins" won a playoff game this century?

 

Maybe Brady's played on some of the "Fins'" "damp" fields. That's been known to happen.

It's exponentially harder to make the playoffs when a division rival has such a large HFA. What was Brady's best win on the road during his career?

[Rick N. Backer]

Because then it would be a big deal. Can you imagine if he traded in his cell phone too? It gives me shivers just thinking about it.

 

http://deadspin.com/...n-91-1757224765

This makes Brady not guilty how?

 

Because when a petitioner (Brady) overturns an arbitration award in court, in a proceeding in which the respondent (the NFL) is entitled to win EVEN IF the arbitrator (Goodell) makes LEGAL or FACTUAL errors, due to the court's finding that arbitrator (Goodell) engaged in misconduct, fair minded people would not suggest the underlying arbitration award is valid. When the arbitrator (Goodell) is also the person who's decision (that Brady cheated and should be suspended a quarter of the season) was also the subject of arbitration itself, fair minded people would not suggest the original decision is worthy of deference.

 

But the point is that Manning may have used HGH after recovering from a neck injury, and later, and then apparently sent goons to the home of his accuser's parents to shut his accuser up. One goon apparently told the parents, falsely, he was a cop. And not a peep out of the likes of you.

 

Tell me how you don't love Trump.

Let's get the minor points out of the way first.

 

TB12 has enough love for Trump for all of us. They're both winners after all.

 

This thread isn't about Manning, at its core (as none of your threads or references to him are; they're about Gisele's husband) so why would I talk about him here. When someone starts a thread about Manning, I'll address it.

 

As a pedant, I do need to point out that there is a difference between "who's" and "whose". One would expect someone who makes his living with parsing language (and exhibiting obsequious obeisance to judges...I understand, it's part of the job, and your commitment to your craft doesn't appear to end at the courthouse door, which is to be admired, I guess) to know this.

 

As far as deference goes, I don't think you should be the one who is the arbiter of what should be deferred to, since excessive deference is just as harmful as a lack of same. The fact that someone brought up the outcome of the AFC Championship game as if it had any bearing to the subject of whether or not parties acted in a manner outside established rules may not be as harmful to the fabric of our society, as, say, rulings that growing wheat for one's own consumption is interstate commerce, rights are conveniently found (or not, depending on whether one favors them or not) in "emanations" and "penumbras" of the Bill of Rights, or that "separate but equal" is a "thing", but it's something that it would be worthwhile not to worship just because your guy (temporarily, in all likelihood) got away with something.

 

This thread isn't about Manning? Did you read the article?

The thread title made it perfectly clear what it was about. Didn't matter if it was about Manning, Tannehill, or Bobby Hoying. Just as long as it wasn't about your hero.

 

So, yes or no. Did you read the article? Because the thread title and my OP didn't mention Brady.

 

Why would I start a thread about Tannehill? He stinks. His team does too. His team has, in fact, stunk for the better part of 20 years.

If Brady didn't cheat, this thread would not exist.

 

Brady's record against the Dolphins without (the unique) home field advantage is 6-7. Of course, without the advantages of home field he has to rely on his own abilities. Not hard to draw inferences from that...

 

Obviously the "Fins" have been the better team over that period. And their post season achievements bear that out.

They don't have the same home field "advantage" the Patriots have, apparently. They can get the best of Brady when they're on a level playing field.

 

Brady's been to 6 Super Bowls. Why haven't the "Fins" won a playoff game this century?

 

Maybe Brady's played on some of the "Fins'" "damp" fields. That's been known to happen.

It's exponentially harder to make the playoffs when a division rival has such a large HFA. What was Brady's best win on the road during his career?

 

How about the 2004 AFC championship in Pittsburgh vs. the 15-1 Steelers? The 2006 divisional game in San Diego vs. the 14-2 Chargers? That's just the playoffs. They've never lost 8 games in a season with him at QB so there have been a lot during the regular season.

[laughedatbytime]

Because then it would be a big deal. Can you imagine if he traded in his cell phone too? It gives me shivers just thinking about it.

 

http://deadspin.com/...n-91-1757224765

This makes Brady not guilty how?

 

Because when a petitioner (Brady) overturns an arbitration award in court, in a proceeding in which the respondent (the NFL) is entitled to win EVEN IF the arbitrator (Goodell) makes LEGAL or FACTUAL errors, due to the court's finding that arbitrator (Goodell) engaged in misconduct, fair minded people would not suggest the underlying arbitration award is valid. When the arbitrator (Goodell) is also the person who's decision (that Brady cheated and should be suspended a quarter of the season) was also the subject of arbitration itself, fair minded people would not suggest the original decision is worthy of deference.

 

But the point is that Manning may have used HGH after recovering from a neck injury, and later, and then apparently sent goons to the home of his accuser's parents to shut his accuser up. One goon apparently told the parents, falsely, he was a cop. And not a peep out of the likes of you.

 

Tell me how you don't love Trump.

Let's get the minor points out of the way first.

 

TB12 has enough love for Trump for all of us. They're both winners after all.

 

This thread isn't about Manning, at its core (as none of your threads or references to him are; they're about Gisele's husband) so why would I talk about him here. When someone starts a thread about Manning, I'll address it.

 

As a pedant, I do need to point out that there is a difference between "who's" and "whose". One would expect someone who makes his living with parsing language (and exhibiting obsequious obeisance to judges...I understand, it's part of the job, and your commitment to your craft doesn't appear to end at the courthouse door, which is to be admired, I guess) to know this.

 

As far as deference goes, I don't think you should be the one who is the arbiter of what should be deferred to, since excessive deference is just as harmful as a lack of same. The fact that someone brought up the outcome of the AFC Championship game as if it had any bearing to the subject of whether or not parties acted in a manner outside established rules may not be as harmful to the fabric of our society, as, say, rulings that growing wheat for one's own consumption is interstate commerce, rights are conveniently found (or not, depending on whether one favors them or not) in "emanations" and "penumbras" of the Bill of Rights, or that "separate but equal" is a "thing", but it's something that it would be worthwhile not to worship just because your guy (temporarily, in all likelihood) got away with something.

 

This thread isn't about Manning? Did you read the article?

The thread title made it perfectly clear what it was about. Didn't matter if it was about Manning, Tannehill, or Bobby Hoying. Just as long as it wasn't about your hero.

 

So, yes or no. Did you read the article? Because the thread title and my OP didn't mention Brady.

 

Why would I start a thread about Tannehill? He stinks. His team does too. His team has, in fact, stunk for the better part of 20 years.

If Brady didn't cheat, this thread would not exist.

 

Brady's record against the Dolphins without (the unique) home field advantage is 6-7. Of course, without the advantages of home field he has to rely on his own abilities. Not hard to draw inferences from that...

 

Obviously the "Fins" have been the better team over that period. And their post season achievements bear that out.

They don't have the same home field "advantage" the Patriots have, apparently. They can get the best of Brady when they're on a level playing field.

 

Brady's been to 6 Super Bowls. Why haven't the "Fins" won a playoff game this century?

 

Maybe Brady's played on some of the "Fins'" "damp" fields. That's been known to happen.

It's exponentially harder to make the playoffs when a division rival has such a large HFA. What was Brady's best win on the road during his career?

 

How about the 2004 AFC championship in Pittsburgh vs. the 15-1 Steelers? The 2006 divisional game in San Diego vs. the 14-2 Chargers? That's just the playoffs. They've never lost 8 games in a season with him at QB so there have been a lot during the regular season.

The Charger game where the turning point in the game was the play where threw the interception? Not that beating a Schottenheimer team in the playoffs isn't the pinnacle of clutch.

 

 

So you've got one big road win over a team with a rookie QB in 15 years. And there was much rejoicing. yay

 

 

[treeduck]

http://www.nationalledger.com/media/images/football-photos/Johnny-Manziel-Las-Vegas-disguise.jpg

[Rick N. Backer]

Because then it would be a big deal. Can you imagine if he traded in his cell phone too? It gives me shivers just thinking about it.

 

http://deadspin.com/...n-91-1757224765

This makes Brady not guilty how?

 

Because when a petitioner (Brady) overturns an arbitration award in court, in a proceeding in which the respondent (the NFL) is entitled to win EVEN IF the arbitrator (Goodell) makes LEGAL or FACTUAL errors, due to the court's finding that arbitrator (Goodell) engaged in misconduct, fair minded people would not suggest the underlying arbitration award is valid. When the arbitrator (Goodell) is also the person who's decision (that Brady cheated and should be suspended a quarter of the season) was also the subject of arbitration itself, fair minded people would not suggest the original decision is worthy of deference.

 

But the point is that Manning may have used HGH after recovering from a neck injury, and later, and then apparently sent goons to the home of his accuser's parents to shut his accuser up. One goon apparently told the parents, falsely, he was a cop. And not a peep out of the likes of you.

 

Tell me how you don't love Trump.

Let's get the minor points out of the way first.

 

TB12 has enough love for Trump for all of us. They're both winners after all.

 

This thread isn't about Manning, at its core (as none of your threads or references to him are; they're about Gisele's husband) so why would I talk about him here. When someone starts a thread about Manning, I'll address it.

 

As a pedant, I do need to point out that there is a difference between "who's" and "whose". One would expect someone who makes his living with parsing language (and exhibiting obsequious obeisance to judges...I understand, it's part of the job, and your commitment to your craft doesn't appear to end at the courthouse door, which is to be admired, I guess) to know this.

 

As far as deference goes, I don't think you should be the one who is the arbiter of what should be deferred to, since excessive deference is just as harmful as a lack of same. The fact that someone brought up the outcome of the AFC Championship game as if it had any bearing to the subject of whether or not parties acted in a manner outside established rules may not be as harmful to the fabric of our society, as, say, rulings that growing wheat for one's own consumption is interstate commerce, rights are conveniently found (or not, depending on whether one favors them or not) in "emanations" and "penumbras" of the Bill of Rights, or that "separate but equal" is a "thing", but it's something that it would be worthwhile not to worship just because your guy (temporarily, in all likelihood) got away with something.

 

This thread isn't about Manning? Did you read the article?

The thread title made it perfectly clear what it was about. Didn't matter if it was about Manning, Tannehill, or Bobby Hoying. Just as long as it wasn't about your hero.

 

So, yes or no. Did you read the article? Because the thread title and my OP didn't mention Brady.

 

Why would I start a thread about Tannehill? He stinks. His team does too. His team has, in fact, stunk for the better part of 20 years.

If Brady didn't cheat, this thread would not exist.

 

Brady's record against the Dolphins without (the unique) home field advantage is 6-7. Of course, without the advantages of home field he has to rely on his own abilities. Not hard to draw inferences from that...

 

Obviously the "Fins" have been the better team over that period. And their post season achievements bear that out.

They don't have the same home field "advantage" the Patriots have, apparently. They can get the best of Brady when they're on a level playing field.

 

Brady's been to 6 Super Bowls. Why haven't the "Fins" won a playoff game this century?

 

Maybe Brady's played on some of the "Fins'" "damp" fields. That's been known to happen.

It's exponentially harder to make the playoffs when a division rival has such a large HFA. What was Brady's best win on the road during his career?

 

How about the 2004 AFC championship in Pittsburgh vs. the 15-1 Steelers? The 2006 divisional game in San Diego vs. the 14-2 Chargers? That's just the playoffs. They've never lost 8 games in a season with him at QB so there have been a lot during the regular season.

The Charger game where the turning point in the game was the play where threw the interception? Not that beating a Schottenheimer team in the playoffs isn't the pinnacle of clutch.

 

 

So you've got one big road win over a team with a rookie QB in 15 years. And there was much rejoicing. yay

 

Oh my goodness. You want me to include regular season too? Well, in the Brady era they've finished with under 10 wins once, in 2002 when they went 9-7. Every year they have big road wins.

 

You don't want to count Super Bowls too do you? They won last year's. It wasn't in Gillette.

[laughedatbytime]

Oh my goodness. You want me to include regular season too? Well, in the Brady era they've finished with under 10 wins once, in 2002 when they went 9-7. Every year they have big road wins.

 

Well, since he only has one notable postseason road win, you need to get started.

 

You don't want to count Super Bowls too do you? They won last year's. It wasn't in Gillette.

Just makes it harder to get their usual HFA but Brian Dawkins and Kurt Warner seem to think some of the Patriots hard work in getting HFA at a neutral site might have paid off. But I'm sure the esteemed judge Berman and the MENSA members at WEEI know better.

[Rick N. Backer]

Oh my goodness. You want me to include regular season too? Well, in the Brady era they've finished with under 10 wins once, in 2002 when they went 9-7. Every year they have big road wins.

 

Well, since he only has one notable postseason road win, you need to get started.

 

You don't want to count Super Bowls too do you? They won last year's. It wasn't in Gillette.

Just makes it harder to get their usual HFA but Brian Dawkins and Kurt Warner seem to think some of the Patriots hard work in getting HFA at a neutral site might have paid off. But I'm sure the esteemed judge Berman and the MENSA members at WEEI know better.

 

Two big road playoff wins, not counting 4 Super Bowls. You have to remember, when you win a lot of games year in and year out, you tend to play more playoff games at home.

 

Players who lost Super Bowls to the Patriots want to find excuses for the Patriots' success? Hmm. Maybe they should be "Fins" fans.

[LedRush]

Because then it would be a big deal. Can you imagine if he traded in his cell phone too? It gives me shivers just thinking about it.

 

http://deadspin.com/...n-91-1757224765

This makes Brady not guilty how?

 

Because a judge's determination is the only way to decide whether facts exist or not. That's why everyone in the world agrees that OJ didn't kill two people.

[KenJennings]

Neither of them are guilty, and cheap attempts to tear down the greats always remain in full swing.

 

Instead of all the 'my guy as better than your guy' bullshit, playing right into the hands of the iconoclasts, why don't we all realize that those we admire are all victims to the same game we're perpetuating...

[Chicken hawk]

So you have to cheat to win ? What a way of the world.

[LedRush]

Neither of them are guilty, and cheap attempts to tear down the greats always remain in full swing.

 

Instead of all the 'my guy as better than your guy' bullshit, playing right into the hands of the iconoclasts, why don't we all realize that those we admire are all victims to the same game we're perpetuating...

 

Manning could be guilty....the circumstances are certainly enough for doubt to be raised.

 

As for Brady, the evidence is in and you have to be willfully ignorant to think he's not guilty.

[Rick N. Backer]

Double post Edited February 8, 2016 by Rick N. Backer

[Rick N. Backer]

Because then it would be a big deal. Can you imagine if he traded in his cell phone too? It gives me shivers just thinking about it.

 

http://deadspin.com/...n-91-1757224765

This makes Brady not guilty how?

 

Because a judge's determination is the only way to decide whether facts exist or not. That's why everyone in the world agrees that OJ didn't kill two people.

 

California bore the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Lots of "guilty" people are acquitted. The NFL was required to win even if Brady proved Goodell committed clear errors of law or fact. Arbitration awards are almost never overturned. The burden of proof is important to consider when weighing what to take away from a court proceeding. The league lost because it conducted a sham hearing. The hearing was conducted the way it was because the commissioner's ruling was a joke the league didn't want reviewed too closely.

[Rick N. Backer]

Neither of them are guilty, and cheap attempts to tear down the greats always remain in full swing.

 

Instead of all the 'my guy as better than your guy' bullshit, playing right into the hands of the iconoclasts, why don't we all realize that those we admire are all victims to the same game we're perpetuating...

 

Manning could be guilty....the circumstances are certainly enough for doubt to be raised.

 

As for Brady, the evidence is in and you have to be willfully ignorant to think he's not guilty.

 

Man, I loved guys like you when I was a prosecutor. Nod their head with approval whenever a police officer testified, shake their head with disapproval whenever defense counsel talked.

[KenJennings]

Neither of them are guilty, and cheap attempts to tear down the greats always remain in full swing.

 

Instead of all the 'my guy as better than your guy' bullshit, playing right into the hands of the iconoclasts, why don't we all realize that those we admire are all victims to the same game we're perpetuating...

 

Manning could be guilty....the circumstances are certainly enough for doubt to be raised.

 

As for Brady, the evidence is in and you have to be willfully ignorant to think he's not guilty.

 

I've seen extensive evidence, and I have yet to be convinced that there was any infraction at all.

[Rick N. Backer]

Neither of them are guilty, and cheap attempts to tear down the greats always remain in full swing.

 

Instead of all the 'my guy as better than your guy' bullshit, playing right into the hands of the iconoclasts, why don't we all realize that those we admire are all victims to the same game we're perpetuating...

 

Manning could be guilty....the circumstances are certainly enough for doubt to be raised.

 

As for Brady, the evidence is in and you have to be willfully ignorant to think he's not guilty.

 

I've seen extensive evidence, and I have yet to be convinced that there was any infraction at all.

 

Most people who have done more than read the "executive summary" of Attorney Wells' report have reached the same conclusion.

[Amps211]

Neither of them are guilty, and cheap attempts to tear down the greats always remain in full swing.

 

Instead of all the 'my guy as better than your guy' bullshit, playing right into the hands of the iconoclasts, why don't we all realize that those we admire are all victims to the same game we're perpetuating...

 

Manning could be guilty....the circumstances are certainly enough for doubt to be raised.

 

As for Brady, the evidence is in and you have to be willfully ignorant to think he's not guilty.

 

I've seen extensive evidence, and I have yet to be convinced that there was any infraction at all.

 

Most people who have done more than read the "executive summary" of Attorney Wells' report have reached the same conclusion.

 

do Brady supporters really believe that "The Deflator" means weight loss? ... I just find that too much to swallow .. I mean what are the odds that dude is being honest about that ... I dunno about Brady for sure but I really believe those two guys at some point messed with some footballs .. and if they were doing that without Brady's knowlege again I'd have to say ...what are the odds??

[LedRush]

Because then it would be a big deal. Can you imagine if he traded in his cell phone too? It gives me shivers just thinking about it.

 

http://deadspin.com/...n-91-1757224765

This makes Brady not guilty how?

 

Because a judge's determination is the only way to decide whether facts exist or not. That's why everyone in the world agrees that OJ didn't kill two people.

 

California bore the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Lots of "guilty" people are acquitted. The NFL was required to win even if Brady proved Goodell committed clear errors of law or fact. Arbitration awards are almost never overturned. The burden of proof is important to consider when weighing what to take away from a court proceeding. The league lost because it conducted a sham hearing. The hearing was conducted the way it was because the commissioner's ruling was a joke the league didn't want reviewed too closely.

 

Facts exist independent of judicial decisions.

[LedRush]

Neither of them are guilty, and cheap attempts to tear down the greats always remain in full swing.

 

Instead of all the 'my guy as better than your guy' bullshit, playing right into the hands of the iconoclasts, why don't we all realize that those we admire are all victims to the same game we're perpetuating...

 

Manning could be guilty....the circumstances are certainly enough for doubt to be raised.

 

As for Brady, the evidence is in and you have to be willfully ignorant to think he's not guilty.

 

I've seen extensive evidence, and I have yet to be convinced that there was any infraction at all.

 

Most people who have done more than read the "executive summary" of Attorney Wells' report have reached the same conclusion.

 

That's incredibly stupid, even for you.

[laughedatbytime]

Neither of them are guilty, and cheap attempts to tear down the greats always remain in full swing.

 

Instead of all the 'my guy as better than your guy' bullshit, playing right into the hands of the iconoclasts, why don't we all realize that those we admire are all victims to the same game we're perpetuating...

 

Manning could be guilty....the circumstances are certainly enough for doubt to be raised.

 

As for Brady, the evidence is in and you have to be willfully ignorant to think he's not guilty.

 

I've seen extensive evidence, and I have yet to be convinced that there was any infraction at all.

 

Most people who have done more than read the "executive summary" of Attorney Wells' report have reached the same conclusion.

 

do Brady supporters really believe that "The Deflator" means weight loss? ... I just find that too much to swallow .. I mean what are the odds that dude is being honest about that ... I dunno about Brady for sure but I really believe those two guys at some point messed with some footballs .. and if they were doing that without Brady's knowlege again I'd have to say ...what are the odds??

If Brady and Belichick are known for anything, it's their laissez faire approach to what goes on at their facility. And if I had a dime for everyone who said they were going to the gym to deflate, I'd buy the Presidential election.