cdumler7
Well-Known Member
This is a telling passage:
It must be added that that Brady gained no evident competitive advantage from the use of the deflated balls in the Patriots' 45-7 win over the Colts. In footnote 73 of the report, the investigators note they were not asked to investigate or evaluate the competitive impact of the deflated balls. They nevertheless add that, in the first half, when the balls were under-inflated, Brady completed barely half of his passes (11/21) for one touchdown. In the second half, when the balls were re-inflated, Brady completed over 85 percent of his passes (12/14) for two touchdowns.
If there is no competitive advantage, is it still cheating? Maybe beating the Colts is just so easy that Brady wanted to try it with a handicap?
A one game sample is pretty pathetic to try and use as your example. WE have no clue how long they had been doing the deflating. I mean think about the Ravens game and how one throw could have been the difference. Throw in then the stats that show in 2007 when the Patriots were allowed to start getting the balls to their specifications fumbled dropped by half. Now you can say BB takes players out that fumble but what then was he doing before 2007? Wasn't he doing that before 2007 as well? So again your one game sample only holds up if that is the only time that they thought to do something like this. Throw in even if I could get an A on a test by my own ability yet I decide to cheat and get an A isn't that still considered cheating. EVen if I could have done well on my own cheating is still cheating.