under inflated footballs are evidence
and
you have to hold the coach responsible for what goes on
so
the only question is
how serious is this?
it is not that serious
but
hatred for belichick is
NFL 2014
- Thread starter Nick M
- Start date
- Status
under inflated footballs are evidence
and
you have to hold the coach responsible for what goes on
so
the only question is
how serious is this?
it is not that serious
but
hatred for belichick is
That's evidence. The thing itself establishes the violation prima facie. The only question is who benefits and who was directly responsible. In the absence of proof on the latter the former is established in sufficiency (under your control/altered) to invite sanction and establish guilt.
who benefited?
But this isn't a courtroom. In the court of public opinion, there's a big contingent that will always believe the worst about New England. No changing that.
When it comes down to the league establishing actual, cold, hard, tangible guilt...so far, nada. There's no body, no Zapruder film, not even an interest, apparently, in speaking directly to the man who literally had the evidence in his hands all night.
What we have, instead, is this:
a) a head coach and quarterback who stuck their necks out and emphatically denied all allegations
b) a team known for being notoriously tight-lipped who's openly addressed and dismissed the entire issue
c) a curious lack of transparency on the part of a league that swore itself to rectify that very issue in light of its foolish ways this season
Bottom line: Tom Brady and Bill Belichick are acting like men with zero to hide. The Great Gray Hood's even allowing his players to talk Ballghazi, which given the Kremlin-like levels of secrecy in Foxborough is extremely telling and uncharacteristic. If Belichick knew there was something amiss, there's no way he doubles down at his presser or allows Blount, Wendell, and others to speak about the issue.
The Pats aren't acting guilty of anything, like it or not. And given Belichick's track record--and character--that leads me to believe the Pats are likely as interested to know what really happened as everybody else.
Some observations from the talking heads over at WEEI, the Pats's flagship station (and home of the boom-or-bust Red Sox):
They have no case. The burden of proof is on the league and they have no case. Which is why the guys from PSI: Foxboro have been chasing their tails all week. I’m saying right now the officiating crew never inspected the footballs before the game. Let he who has never told his boss he did something on his checklist that he didn’t really do because he didn’t feel like it cast the first stone.
They have no case. The burden of proof is on the league and they have no case. Which is why the guys from PSI: Foxboro have been chasing their tails all week. I’m saying right now the officiating crew never inspected the footballs before the game. Let he who has never told his boss he did something on his checklist that he didn’t really do because he didn’t feel like it cast the first stone.
Caledvwlch
New member
Was it Fauria or Merloni?
I also am of the persuasion that something is amiss in that nobody said anything about a ball feeling low on air from the Colts when they were on defense. Could Bill actually be a victim? That is a little bit from left field but it is still there.
Caledvwlch
New member
He's one of their most unabashed homers, but he might be right. I s'pose we'll find out.
Caledvwlch
New member
Right. There's a much higher threshold/burden in a courtroom.
Sure, but that's no real argument on point. It's on par with, "Look how they did after the deflation was corrected". Doesn't have much to do with anything. Nixon part two.
Well, no. The balls themselves establish a rules violation. The fact that the difference existed on one side and with the balls in their keeping.
Pro forma. Like a state trooper asking, "Were you speeding?"
No, officer. I feel completely comfortable saying I wasn't speeding.
Given what was happening they really had to. It was the only way to make sure they could push this past the Super Bowl.
What do you want to know, the PSI of each ball? I wouldn't mind knowing that too.
Like every politician caught in a public scandal. Get ahead of it and push your agenda. So it depends on how you look at it.
What doesn't depend would be those balls, for one team, being deflated in accord with the record stated preference of the team's qb.
Why not? So long as he's sure there's no tape and no one who doesn't stand to lose who has anything to do with it.
Neither did the Saints.
His track record is a good bit of the reason that only one state in the latest ESPN poll gave either him or his qb a passing grade on believability.
Hoo boy but I'm sick of the Nixonian comparisons. I'd rather hear another joke that involves a word that starts with "b" and ends with "l."
Or an oversight on the part of the officials. Whether the league likes it or not they haven't been able to establish who, where, or exactly when tampering occurred.
They easily could've stonewalled. If they're lying they've guaranteed themselves fines, suspensions, and a permanent loss of legacy and prestige. Why? Why would they double down and paint themselves into this kind of a corner? Why not just stay mum? There is literally nothing to be gained by talking.
Actually, yeah. That'd come in handy.
Which still doesn't prove anything. At all. Or maybe the league will start fining teams and docking draft picks based on rumors, speculation, and losing a decade-long popularity contest. That oughta go over well.
How sure could he possibly be that not a single ball boy or equipment grunt doesn't spill? They don't have an in-house Hernandez to deal with rats. (Or so I assume.)
Well thank God the ever-scientific polls provided by ESPN are here to clear this all up.:rotfl:
Don't blame you. But it works. Who else made one?
An oversight on 11 of twelve balls on only one team in the contest within the context of that stated preference.
lain: It's remarkable to watch a cynic go Pollyanna on a dime. :chuckle: Who, no, but the rest I think was established pretty definitively.
Wouldn't have been in their best interests. Public sentiment was running pretty strongly against them and the noise wasn't dying down.
It is literally a rules violation on its face. And the measurements took place during the game. That's why the second half had properly inflated balls. Before then and after the officials did the initial testing the responsibility for the property rested with the controlling party, the Pats.
Or maybe they'll say, "It was in your hands after we tested it and it came back altered. You're responsible. And if the coach doesn't know and Tom doesn't know well, we do and we'll say to them what we said to New Orleans."
How many people do you think he'd need to have know about it and manage it? Could be one guy, the guy who gets and hands the ball to the official. Who knows? But if I'm that guy the last thing I'm going to do is rat myself out and the team that pays me. What's the upside?
lain: Not really helping.It clears up why they got out in front of it. The NFL and its merchandising is driven by public perception.
At this rate a few thousand talking heads, armchair psychologists, and assorted pundits. This is football, we're talking, not the guy with access to a nuclear one.
Assuming they were in fact inspected at all. Wouldn't be the first time the officials plain screwed up.
There's nothing definitive yet, that's the whole point. No smoking gun. Inference, yes. Nothing else.
Yes, and we all know how much they've cared about public perception and noise before.:chuckle:
They've essentially guaranteed an end to their careers as they know it if you're right. Why would they do this?
Then give me a who, where, how, and when.
Know what? They know it happened but after that everything remains speculation. The league will be nailing them lacking cold hard facts and evidence, which at least they had with New Orleans.
What was the upside of the grunts who talked long and loud about Spygate? Not Mangini, mind you--the guy doing the actual taping for the Pats.
Spite, slights imagined or otherwise, guilt...
But to be clear I think they would have won decisively without the stupid move. I think Bill is arguably the best coach in the game, certainly on defense and Tom is one of the greatest to play the position. If they come up with video tape of Bill and Tom tapping the balls on the sideline it wouldn't change that. The only thing this and spygate will cost either is a strong argument for undisputed if they win the Super Bowl and someone is inclined to make the argument. Not that the argument should have been made, but you were already hearing some suggest it would be time to look at it.
I'd be surprised if any outside of New England and a few homers in the press will attempt it now.
I'd be surprised if any outside of New England and a few homers in the press will attempt it now.
It's a good answer, but I hadn't heard it before I wrote it. Not surprised. It works for, "Why would they?" Another good or disturbing answer, given Brady saying it felt normal, would be "habit".
Given the NFL has a vested interest in as clean a contest as possible it would have been in their interest to have cut this story off at the knees with that if it had been the case. They've publicly cut the legs off officials before and it would be far better than the ongoing for the shield.
They care about the commissioner's office's response and he's not a fan of their coach.
Because all that can be demonstrated is that someone did it. Absent a smoking gun they're dulling the edge of public sentiment that is driving an already bloodied NFL front office.
I don't have to. Neither does the commissioner. All he has to do is say what I wrote in my last and a version of what was said to the Saints, ignorance is no excuse, a variation of institutional control speeches.
When, they know. Where, they know. Who is the mystery and I can't see that one being solved.
They never tied the coach to a thing. He sat out a year.
Again, this doesn't have to go beyond one guy and Bill or, more likely, one guy and Tom. It's not like a bounty scheme with players and coaches involved.
Okay, now to something really important: trash talking leading into the SB.
A DB for the Seahawks has said Gronk isn't that great. That he's big but if you put your hands on him you can limit him.
:rotfl:
A DB for the Seahawks has said Gronk isn't that great. That he's big but if you put your hands on him you can limit him.
:rotfl:
No evidence, no witness, no nothing.
Make no mistake: I have a Pat's beanie worth to eat here. And will, if need be. (Seriously, did that dude just puke off a fence?)
Which in retrospect might have been more understandable if they took a stand against all the blood-curdling offenses we'd all endured. Our bad. All of us.
In other words: "You did it ONCE, baby, you do it AGAIN!"
You got right there the mystery of the Civil War, man.
- Status