|
Post by BillyMax on May 22, 2015 10:58:02 GMT -5
Not NFL News... But Michael Sam signed with the Montreal CFL team. Hope he won't get screwed.
|
|
andrew8798
FANatic
on 24/7 this month
Posts: 106,084
|
Post by andrew8798 on May 22, 2015 12:24:14 GMT -5
ESPN's Tania Ganguli and the Houston Chronicle's John McClain report the Texans are the favorites to appear on this year's HBO Hard Knocks.
Cowboys signed CB Orlando Scandrick to a one-year, $9.5 million contract extension through 2019.
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on May 22, 2015 12:38:53 GMT -5
Not NFL News... But Michael Sam signed with the Montreal CFL team. Hope he won't get screwed. He'll be in NXT by 2017.
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,359
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on May 22, 2015 13:42:31 GMT -5
ESPN's Tania Ganguli and the Houston Chronicle's John McClain report the Texans are the favorites to appear on this year's HBO Hard Knocks. Cowboys signed CB Orlando Scandrick to a one-year, $9.5 million contract extension through 2019. Geez, that's more per year than the Colts are paying Vontae Davis, a true shutdown corner.
|
|
andrew8798
FANatic
on 24/7 this month
Posts: 106,084
|
Post by andrew8798 on May 22, 2015 16:18:30 GMT -5
Mike Florio: Wise or unwise, once false PSI info was leaked to ESPN, the NFL's agenda became to find the Patriots and Tom Brady guilty of tampering.
|
|
|
Post by Seth Drakin of Monster Crap on May 22, 2015 16:23:40 GMT -5
Goodell has turned down the NFLPA's request for the commissioner to recuse himself from the Brady appeal.
|
|
Ben Wyatt
Crow T. Robot
Are You Gonna Go My Way?
I don't get it. At all. It's kind of a small horse, I mean what am I missing? Am I crazy?
Posts: 41,500
|
Post by Ben Wyatt on May 22, 2015 16:35:04 GMT -5
Mike Florio: Wise or unwise, once false PSI info was leaked to ESPN, the NFL's agenda became to find the Patriots and Tom Brady guilty of tampering. Wheather or not you believe this, the fact that the league didn't debunk Mortensen's report is an issue that should be addressed
|
|
|
Post by Hugh Mungus on May 22, 2015 17:04:44 GMT -5
Mike Florio: Wise or unwise, once false PSI info was leaked to ESPN, the NFL's agenda became to find the Patriots and Tom Brady guilty of tampering. This has turned to the NFL equivalent of "Wag the Dog".
|
|
BRV
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants him some Taco Flavored Kisses.
Posts: 16,936
|
Post by BRV on May 22, 2015 17:12:23 GMT -5
Mike Florio: Wise or unwise, once false PSI info was leaked to ESPN, the NFL's agenda became to find the Patriots and Tom Brady guilty of tampering. Wheather or not you believe this, the fact that the league didn't debunk Mortensen's report is an issue that should be addressed The reason this entire ordeal became the witch hunt that it did is because of Chris Mortensen's report on the Wednesday after the AFC Championship Game. If that false bit of information never leaks, then this whole thing likely quietly fades into oblivion and the punishment the Patriots receive is probably on par with what the Falcons were given for pumping noise into the Georgia Dome; they receive a fine in the area of $100,000, the team is probably docked a mid-round draft pick, and that's that. But after Mortensen received a leak from a league source with patently false information, the flood gates opened and it suddenly became a hunt for justice, morphing a misdemeanor traffic ticket into a felony investigation. There's two ways to look at it: either someone from the NFL intentionally leaked damaging information about the Patriots or they leaked what they believed to be correct, but nobody in the league had the stones to verify it upon publication. Either way, Chris Mortensen should have said nuts to confidentiality and burned his source for leaking him incorrect information. Reporting false information as though it were true is damaging to him and makes him appear to be a disreputable reporter.
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,359
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on May 22, 2015 21:03:16 GMT -5
Remind me again just what supposedly false info was leaked, I recall Morty's report saying all tested Patriot balls failed inspection (which was true) and that some were nearly 2 psi low (also true). I don't remember any false information, outside of accusations from users of a Boston-area sports radio station's blog that the only ball that failed was the one intercepted ball (which did fail but was not held against the Patriots).
|
|
|
Post by Pooh Carlson on May 22, 2015 21:39:55 GMT -5
^^^ That's what I'm wondering, too. What was the false info?
|
|
BRV
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants him some Taco Flavored Kisses.
Posts: 16,936
|
Post by BRV on May 22, 2015 21:55:39 GMT -5
Remind me again just what supposedly false info was leaked, I recall Morty's report saying all tested Patriot balls failed inspection (which was true) and that some were nearly 2 psi low (also true). I don't remember any false information, outside of accusations from users of a Boston-area sports radio station's blog that the only ball that failed was the one intercepted ball (which did fail but was not held against the Patriots). Chris Mortensen's Tweet which started the snowball rolling downhill: Eleven of the 12 Patriots footballs were underinflated by two pounds each. Not "nearly" 2 PSI. At least two, if not more. The reality, according to The Wells Report, is that of the 11 Patriots footballs tested, none were 2 PSI low. They were all below 12.5, but they were hovering between 12.3 and 10.9. Also, according to The Wells Report, three of the four Colts footballs that were tested were found to be below the league-mandated 12.5 PSI. Imagine how different this entire ordeal is if Mortensen Tweets out "75 percent of Colts footballs tested were found to be underinflated." Because that's how irresponsible and inaccurate his initial Tweet was.
|
|
|
Post by Pooh Carlson on May 22, 2015 22:43:41 GMT -5
Remind me again just what supposedly false info was leaked, I recall Morty's report saying all tested Patriot balls failed inspection (which was true) and that some were nearly 2 psi low (also true). I don't remember any false information, outside of accusations from users of a Boston-area sports radio station's blog that the only ball that failed was the one intercepted ball (which did fail but was not held against the Patriots). Chris Mortensen's Tweet which started the snowball rolling downhill: Eleven of the 12 Patriots footballs were underinflated by two pounds each. Not "nearly" 2 PSI. At least two, if not more. The reality, according to The Wells Report, is that of the 11 Patriots footballs tested, none were 2 PSI low. They were all below 12.5, but they were hovering between 12.3 and 10.9. Also, according to The Wells Report, three of the four Colts footballs that were tested were found to be below the league-mandated 12.5 PSI. Imagine how different this entire ordeal is if Mortensen Tweets out "75 percent of Colts footballs tested were found to be underinflated." Because that's how irresponsible and inaccurate his initial Tweet was. This post is just as inaccurate as that tweet.
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,359
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on May 22, 2015 23:26:31 GMT -5
Remind me again just what supposedly false info was leaked, I recall Morty's report saying all tested Patriot balls failed inspection (which was true) and that some were nearly 2 psi low (also true). I don't remember any false information, outside of accusations from users of a Boston-area sports radio station's blog that the only ball that failed was the one intercepted ball (which did fail but was not held against the Patriots). Chris Mortensen's Tweet which started the snowball rolling downhill: Eleven of the 12 Patriots footballs were underinflated by two pounds each. Not "nearly" 2 PSI. At least two, if not more. The reality, according to The Wells Report, is that of the 11 Patriots footballs tested, none were 2 PSI low. They were all below 12.5, but they were hovering between 12.3 and 10.9. Also, according to The Wells Report, three of the four Colts footballs that were tested were found to be below the league-mandated 12.5 PSI. Imagine how different this entire ordeal is if Mortensen Tweets out "75 percent of Colts footballs tested were found to be underinflated." Because that's how irresponsible and inaccurate his initial Tweet was. I will not argue about the Mortensen tweet because I legitimately did not remember the exact details. While the Patriots certainly did not look good in all of this, that report was a little inaccurate but not as blatantly false as some here were implying. I must say this again, and I will be very clear and explain myself. If you or anyone else expect me to take what you say even remotely seriously, you simply have to drop this nonsense about "75% of the Colts balls tested failed inspection". You need to do this for a number of reasons, and I will explain them fully right now: 1) You look silly and sound like you don't know what you are talking about. The reason I say this is that the Wells Report makes it clear that official NFL inspection requires each ball to be tested twice for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it appears the gauges are not universally calibrated (though they really should be). Because of this, in order to pass an NFL inspection each ball simply has to be within specifications during one of the two mandated tests. All Colts balls did this. None of the Patriots balls did. It's really as simple as that. 2) It is a defense that defies logic. The Colts sent in a request that the NFL keep an eye on ball pressure. Do you honestly think that they would try any funny business under those circumstances? 3) You actually are actively undermining the argument that the Patriots might have not been as blatant with their cheating as currently accused. Consider my second point. The Colts were not going to do anything to deflate their balls under those circumstances, so the fact that each inspected ball lost an average of slightly under 0.5 psi from the 13 psi they tested at pre-game means that the cold weather conditions actually did slightly lower the psi in all of the balls out on the field (it also demonstrated that one gauge read lower than the other one, which makes the lowest readings on the Patriots balls slightly less egregious). Considering that the Patriots set their balls at the minimum for the pre-game inspection, I honestly believe that not all of their balls were tampered with even if they did fail inspection. In fact, I would say with some certainty that ball #7 (the one with a 12.3 psi reading) was not tampered with at all and a couple of others might not have been as well (though, obviously most of them had been tampered with somewhat). My viewpoint tempers that a little if you let it by accepting my argument. Your argument, however, attempts to detract from an argument that worked slightly in the Patriots' favor. 4) I have heard the Patriots organization and Bob Kraft described over the years as classy, but their current attempts to deflect is anything but classy, is counterproductive, and any true Patriots fan should not feed into this rhetoric as it only erodes your teams dignity and legacy. Do you know what a classy organization does when accused of cheating? They release statements like, "We disagree with the findings and do not believe that the conclusions are supported by the evidence presented." Classy organizations DO NOT release statements that are in the vein of, "We believe that no credible evidence was presented to support these claims and besides, the other team are dirty cheats based on rumors that we now claim that we have heard. Despite the fact that we have absolutely no evidence to back up our claims, we are telling the truth and the actual evidence in this report is all lies and innuendos!" Seriously, the only people that don't know that this isn't a legitimate defense are toddlers. Don't do your team a disservice by feeding into this.
|
|
BRV
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants him some Taco Flavored Kisses.
Posts: 16,936
|
Post by BRV on May 23, 2015 15:57:00 GMT -5
I will not argue about the Mortensen tweet because I legitimately did not remember the exact details. While the Patriots certainly did not look good in all of this, that report was a little inaccurate but not as blatantly false as some here were implying. What we have here is a failure to communicate. Either you're misunderstanding the point I'm trying to convey or I'm doing a piss-poor job of explaining myself. Either way, I'll interpret it as my own error and break it down. The whole issue with the Mortensen Tweet is that it set off a firestorm that never should have existed. The amount of air that was lost from the football was a negligible amount, as the lowest football was 1.4 PSI below the allowable rate. If Mortensen's initial report states what The Wells Report conveyed, that 11 of 12 Patriots footballs were underinflated, but most were by fewer than 1.0 PSI and the most was 1.4 PSI, I really don't think this evolves into the issue it became. No I don't and I never said that I did. I feel like this is where our roads really diverged. I simply said The Wells Report found that 3 of the 4 Colts balls tested were under 12.5 PSI. According to the report, that's a fact. I'm not implicating any malfeasance by the Colts, I'm sure air pressure or science or whatever can give a perfectly logical explanation for why that happened. What I was trying to say was that saying something like "75% of Colts footballs were underinflated" is just as wildly irresponsible and inaccurate as "11 Patriots footballs were 2 pounds under", which, again, is the whole reason this issue blew up and led national news for a week. And that's exactly what the Patriots did after The Wells Report was released. Robert Kraft's statement from May 6: "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." It wasn't until the NFL handed down completely irrational, out-of-whack, and wholly indefensible punishments that the Patriots had no choice but to fight back. When Kraft issued that statement, I'm sure he thought the team would be levied a fine and lose a mid-round draft pick, which even in itself is an absurd punishment for monkeying around with the football, as seen by the penalty the Chargers received for the Stickum towel situation and the memo that the Vikings received for heating footballs on the sidelines. In his wildest dreams, I don't think Kraft ever could have envisioned something as absurd as a four-game suspension for Tom Brady, losing a first- and fourth-round draft pick, and a $1 million fine. Once the NFL decided that was the punishment for being "generally aware" that it was "more probable than not" that the team might have had a hand in reducing the air pressure in a football by between 0.5 and 1.4 PSI, then he had no choice but to fight back with statements and context reports.
|
|
|
Post by Hugh Mungus on May 23, 2015 16:30:21 GMT -5
Am I the only one who thinks that Goodell is using that event to reassert what little authority he has after being embarrassed by the Ray Rice and AP scandals last year, and that this is playing out like "Wag the Dog"?
In Goodell's mind, he thought that he'd won, but the only thing he did was alienate most of the fanbases; the Patriots for obvious reasons, and everyone else for going light on them (again), as if they want Brady/Belichick to be banned from the NFL for life.
EDIT: I think Kraft now knows how Bisciotti feels after having to defend both Ray Rice and Goodell.
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,359
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on May 23, 2015 18:38:39 GMT -5
I will not argue about the Mortensen tweet because I legitimately did not remember the exact details. While the Patriots certainly did not look good in all of this, that report was a little inaccurate but not as blatantly false as some here were implying. What we have here is a failure to communicate. Either you're misunderstanding the point I'm trying to convey or I'm doing a piss-poor job of explaining myself. Either way, I'll interpret it as my own error and break it down. The whole issue with the Mortensen Tweet is that it set off a firestorm that never should have existed. The amount of air that was lost from the football was a negligible amount, as the lowest football was 1.4 PSI below the allowable rate. If Mortensen's initial report states what The Wells Report conveyed, that 11 of 12 Patriots footballs were underinflated, but most were by fewer than 1.0 PSI and the most was 1.4 PSI, I really don't think this evolves into the issue it became. No I don't and I never said that I did. I feel like this is where our roads really diverged. I simply said The Wells Report found that 3 of the 4 Colts balls tested were under 12.5 PSI. According to the report, that's a fact. I'm not implicating any malfeasance by the Colts, I'm sure air pressure or science or whatever can give a perfectly logical explanation for why that happened. What I was trying to say was that saying something like "75% of Colts footballs were underinflated" is just as wildly irresponsible and inaccurate as "11 Patriots footballs were 2 pounds under", which, again, is the whole reason this issue blew up and led national news for a week. And that's exactly what the Patriots did after The Wells Report was released. Robert Kraft's statement from May 6: "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." It wasn't until the NFL handed down completely irrational, out-of-whack, and wholly indefensible punishments that the Patriots had no choice but to fight back. When Kraft issued that statement, I'm sure he thought the team would be levied a fine and lose a mid-round draft pick, which even in itself is an absurd punishment for monkeying around with the football, as seen by the penalty the Chargers received for the Stickum towel situation and the memo that the Vikings received for heating footballs on the sidelines. In his wildest dreams, I don't think Kraft ever could have envisioned something as absurd as a four-game suspension for Tom Brady, losing a first- and fourth-round draft pick, and a $1 million fine. Once the NFL decided that was the punishment for being "generally aware" that it was "more probable than not" that the team might have had a hand in reducing the air pressure in a football by between 0.5 and 1.4 PSI, then he had no choice but to fight back with statements and context reports. I feel we understand each other a little better, but we still have a few differences of opinion I would like to explore. First, I would say that the kravitz tweet from the night of the game set it all off, supplemented by a later report by Mike Wells (the top Colts beat writer) who witnessed Grigson blow a gasket when he learned that the balls were under inflated. Granted, neither are completely impartial, but they started it all. Second, I don't get your description of the punishment at all. Remember, there does not have to be rock solid evidence against anyone, just that it be more probable than not that attempts to break the rules had occurred. Under that standard, it was found that it was more likely than not that members of the Patriots staff took deliberate steps to purposefully violate league rules for at the very least much of the past season. The evidence, not to mention common sense, suggested Brady was involved in this long running attempt to curcumvent the rules. The fine and loss of draft picks are both a reflection of their history of skirting the rules (albeit, for minimal gain) and the long running nature of this particular violation. If it appeared to only be the AFC championship game where this occurred, I seriously doubt the punishment would have been so severe. Seriously though, what kind of punishment do you think would have been fair for an organization with a previous record taking part in a season long attempt to break the rules? A slap on the wrist? You can't even compare this to the Falcons long term efforts to break the rules because those violations only came to light because the owner had the integrity to self report it. Look, I am not saying the punishment was light. It wasn't it also wasn't unfair. Brady is being punished for 1/4 of the time the league believes is the minimum he was involved in a deliberate attempt to break the rules (again, for at least a whole season). Other sports leagues have issued lifetime bans under the same standards, so the notion that he could have been suspended for a season for cheating for a season still seems almost reasonable by comparison. I think anywhere between 2-4 games for such efforts is about right. What about the team itself? No one cares about the fine. They are worth billions, so a million dollar fine would mean nothing unless fines counted against salary caps. Bountygate set the precedent that the head coach and GM are both responsible for cheating in their organization even if they were not involved, but neither were punished at all (which I am fine with, btw). The team lost two draft picks over a two year period in the future because of the long term nature of the rule breaking. The NFL was even nice enough to sit on the Wells Report until after this last draft so that the Patriots could plan ahead for losing their picks instead of losing a high pick right before the draft.
|
|
BRV
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants him some Taco Flavored Kisses.
Posts: 16,936
|
Post by BRV on May 23, 2015 19:34:03 GMT -5
I feel we understand each other a little better, but we still have a few differences of opinion I would like to explore. First, I would say that the kravitz tweet from the night of the game set it all off, supplemented by a later report by Mike Wells (the top Colts beat writer) who witnessed Grigson blow a gasket when he learned that the balls were under inflated. Granted, neither are completely impartial, but they started it all. Of course, Bob Kravitz broke the story with his Tweet, but remember in the first few days after the AFC Championship Game, it was just a sidebar to the post-conference championship and pre-Super Bowl conversation. It didn't become a crisis that led national nightly news until Mortensen reported that 11 of the balls were 2 PSI under. After The Wells Report became public, I remember thinking about what a "just" punishment would be. Obviously, as a Patriots fan, I wanted no fine, no lost draft picks, and no suspensions. But as a realistic football fan, I figured a reasonable punishment would be a fine in the neighborhood of $750,000 to $1 million, loss of a third-round pick, and a two-game suspension for Tom Brady for being a first-time "offender", appealed down to one game. What league has issued a lifetime ban for anything on par with this? When Sammy Sosa was caught with a corked bat, he received an eight-game suspension. When Michael Pineda had a gob of pine tar on his neck, he was suspended for 10 games. When Joe Niekro was found with an emery board and sandpaper in his pocket, he was banned for 10 games. If Tom Brady were found to be doctoring a baseball, he would have received equal to a 40-game suspension for this act. (40 games being a quarter of an MLB season)
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,359
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on May 23, 2015 19:58:39 GMT -5
I really don't follow most sports anymore, so all of my non-NFL references tend to be dated. I was thiinking MLB, where the league has given such bans for many things.
|
|
|
Post by Seth Drakin of Monster Crap on May 23, 2015 20:06:20 GMT -5
Let's just stop arguing over this crap. The anti-Brady side will take whatever they will get or want more while the Brady side will see that this is wrong.
My opinion is it doesn't matter what I believe, bottom line is this suspension will get reduced and ultimately everyone will still complain the next day.
|
|