And the deflated balls story plot thickens

[DutchBird]

3 is really the key here. If those stories are correct (and I'm not saying they are) then you can't begin to suggest what Tommy told us yesterday was true. Add fucking liar to the charge.

Putting this on BB is questionable. Not that he doesn't micro manage, but this could well be Brady alone if he did have it done on purpose.

The only question to me is can this be proven as some sort of natural or accidental thing because if not it's cheating and they should be held accountable for it.

BB did not consider whatever he did during Spy-gate to be a problem; in fact, sometime before or around the scandal broke, it was made explicitly clear by the NFL that what the Pats were doing WAS illegal, yet BB continued his clearly illegal behaviour until (and perhaps even after) the whole story broke. And even then he maintained he was not doing something illegal.

So I see no reason at all to give BB the benefit of the doubt here.

 

[NEPatsfan]

Brady looked uncomfortable at first...then started to get more comfortable when he realized how easy it was to play dumb...then, of course, got so comfortable he became his normal smug self.

I get the ball...I drop back and I throw it. I don't sit there and squeeze it.

No f'ing shit you douchebag.

Good thing your comments and thoughts aren't tainted by bias.

 

[Money]

Good thing your comments and thoughts aren't tainted by bias.

Right back at ya...twofold.

 

[NEPatsfan]

BB did not consider whatever he did during Spy-gate to be a problem; in fact, sometime before or around the scandal broke, it was made explicitly clear by the NFL that what the Pats were doing WAS illegal, yet BB continued his clearly illegal behaviour until (and perhaps even after) the whole story broke. And even then he maintained he was not doing something illegal.

So I see no reason at all to give BB the benefit of the doubt here.

And don't take this the wrong way, take off your team hat and step back and look at it from flyover point of view.

The league was never actually able to come up with any rule that was broken other than the fact the cameraman wasn't in an enclosed structure.

When you actually step back and read what they came up with it's a mess of a ruling, regardless of what level you consider what the Pats did to be on.

 

[R.J. MacReady]

So I'm confused. You say something about what I said and plausibility and yet your counter was Rodgers admitted to cheating on ball pressure and that is supposed to back you up how?

How the balls came to be under inflated isn't the key. It's that it was done ON PURPOSE and knowing full well that it is against the rules. The refs being known to not catch it doesn't somehow excuse it or shift blame. Whether they presented 12 under inflated balls and got away with getting them in the game or somehow deflated them after isn't the key.

Now that your golden boy has categorically denied any knowledge or involvement you can add lying to his list of charges if they were in fact presented short of their acceptable limits on purpose as you now claim might have happened?

If the refs let balls into the game that do not meet specs, how is that on anyone but the refs?
What's the point of the inspection by the refs when any balls that get into the game that do not meet specs, the punishment is automatically on the team?

And how great would those inspections be when there is no punishment for doing a bad one.

 

[NEPatsfan]

Right back at ya...twofold.

And you would be wrong. I have no issue looking at it objectively with my Pats hat off.

I happen to do something similar to this for a living.

 

[SJ76]

BB did not consider whatever he did during Spy-gate to be a problem; in fact,
sometime before or around the scandal broke, it was made explicitly clear by the
NFL that what the Pats were doing WAS illegal,

"The rule which the Patriots violated was the policy that prohibits use of equipment for the taping of offensive or defense signals. "


this story will tell you all you need to know. Patriots were stealing signs from 2000-2007 and finally got busted in 2007.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=fish_mike&id=3387401

 

[HammerDown]

Good thing your comments and thoughts aren't tainted by bias.

Like you?

 

[SJ76]

It seems the AFC championship game always has some issue with the Pats.



"The advancing sophistication in New England's videotaping practices apparently is also evident on the tapes, which begin with a Sept. 25, 2000, game against Miami and run through that 2002 game against San Diego. It's also obvious throughout that the video shooter has one job on game day: to capture the opposing team's sideline coaches.
In one of the last tapes that Walsh shot -- the 2002 AFC Championship Game against the Pittsburgh Steelers -- the finished product includes sideline footage of the Pittsburgh coaches sending in signals, followed by a scan of the scoreboard that captures down, distance and game time, followed by two separate shots of the ensuing play, one from above the press box and the other from an end zone camera."

 

[WizardHawk]

If the refs let balls into the game that do not meet specs, how is that on anyone but the refs?
What's the point of the inspection by the refs when any balls that get into the game that do not meet specs, the punishment is automatically on the team?

And how great would those inspections be when there is no punishment for doing a bad one.

You can blame the refs for not catching it and doing their jobs, but does that mean the blame is on them? The blame is still on the people who are using that system where refs aren't checking to perpetrate an intentional rule violation.

When people exploit holes in oversight we still blame those who did so.

BB did not consider whatever he did during Spy-gate to be a problem; in fact, sometime before or around the scandal broke, it was made explicitly clear by the NFL that what the Pats were doing WAS illegal, yet BB continued his clearly illegal behaviour until (and perhaps even after) the whole story broke. And even then he maintained he was not doing something illegal.

So I see no reason at all to give BB the benefit of the doubt here.

No one suggested he's a saint, but past transgressions do not equal automatically guilty on subsequent situations either.

Of course he could be fully aware of it and involved, but it's just as likely he wouldn't be. You are going to find it much harder to prove he had any involvement than Brady. Stick to what you can prove.

If it's the Pats it will be on Brady. Every former QB I have heard have all said the same thing, no coach ever gets involved with the ball and what the QB wants.

This thing could end up inconclusive due to the leage fning it all up.

You hope it's all fucked up anyway. If that's the case the general public is still going to vilify the Pats harder than ever an it puts in doubt their legacy. Want to see how the first 5 years of ballot for HOF goes for him?

No one would blink twice about finding out the league was incompetent in handling things and blew it hard. In fact, I'm sure we all expect that to some degree.

The only question is how long as Tommy boy been doing this (if guilty of course) and if it has been over any length of time, how many of his former ball boys are available for interview? How many were on less than great terms with him after he left? If he's been doing this for some time someone will come forward. If they do, all hell will break loose.

And over what? Something that at best might give a very slight advantage on a few plays a game? Why do these idiots keep taking such risks over very low reward things? It's freaking crazy to me.

 

[Money]

And you would be wrong. I have no issue looking at it objectively with my Pats hat off.

I happen to do something similar to this for a living.

Well you got me. What I do for a living requires me to be incredibly biased. That's all I know how to be.

 

[williewilliejuan]

Well you got me. What I do for a living requires me to be incredibly biased. That's all I know how to be.

Garment worker? Chef?

 

[R.J. MacReady]

You can blame the refs for not catching it and doing their jobs, but does that mean the blame is on them? The blame is still on the people who are using that system where refs aren't checking to perpetrate an intentional rule violation.

If the refs mess up and let illegal equipment into the game, there is no realistic way you can tell me the team gets hit with cheating. The illegal equipment has to be deemed "sanctioned" because it was inspected by the refs.

 

[R.J. MacReady]

Well you got me. What I do for a living requires me to be incredibly biased. That's all I know how to be.

Now this I agree with.

 

[Money]

If the refs mess up and let illegal equipment into the game, there is no realistic way you can tell me the team gets hit with cheating. The illegal equipment has to be deemed "sanctioned" because it was inspected by the refs.

Have you ever heard of the saying:

Can't see the forest for the trees???

 

[PatsFan2003]

If the refs screwed up and let the illegal balls into the game, the Patriots are still breaking the rules and cheating.

But it's a hell of lot less of a crime then altering the balls midway into the game.

It's also a lot of less of some big conspiracy.

 

[DutchBird]

No one suggested he's a saint, but past transgressions do not equal automatically guilty on subsequent situations either.

Of course he could be fully aware of it and involved, but it's just as likely he wouldn't be. You are going to find it much harder to prove he had any involvement than Brady. Stick to what you can prove.

Would the illegal use of radio-signals in order to (at a minimum) also communicate with Brady after the mandatory cut-off also be done without his knowledge? And that was an accusation that surfaced around the same time of the accusations of him illegally taping opponents, and which Goodell made disappear as well.

 

[RoboticDreams]

Lol @ those who are desperate for something to come of this non "story." 2 psi of air pressure isn't an astronomical number. It really is going to be ok when they win the super bowl. Life will continue, fellas. Eat a Snickers and simmer down.

 

[SJ76]

Robo it isn't you are right. But the weasels still continue to try to gain an advantage.

 

[R.J. MacReady]

If the refs screwed up and let the illegal balls into the game, the Patriots are still breaking the rules and cheating.

But it's a hell of lot less of a crime then altering the balls midway into the game.

It's also a lot of less of some big conspiracy.

You have to realize that this make the inspection process meaningless.

If the teams are ultimately 100% responsible to have legal footballs in the game (as you say they are), then why would the refs be doing the inspections prior to the games?