Interesting Tweet by Peter King

[Rogah]

This is for all you people who think the rule change in 2006 somehow helped Brady (even though you all mistakenly think that the rule was changed in 2007)

"For the record: Teams bring conditioned balls on the road. Teams do not bring ballboys on the road. So if teams have ballboys at home + Brady asked ballboys to doctor balls' inflation levels, that could happen at home. Couldn't happen on the road."

and

"Brady TD passes since 2006:
Home: 131 in 65 games
Road: 138 in 64 games"

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.................

 

[jrumann59]

Ballbouys were not deflating the ball equipment guys do, which they bring on the road to take care of things like the equipment.

 

[Rogah]

Ballbouys were not deflating the ball equipment guys do, which they bring on the road to take care of things like the equipment.

Jim "the deflator" McNally is "the Patriots employee responsible for delivering the Patriots game balls to the game officials for pre-game inspection" and "His work for the Patriots during the 2014-15 NFL season took place only on a part-time/hourly basis on days on which the Patriots had home games."

That's a nice way of calling him a locker room ballboy.

 

[Beast_from_East]

This is for all you people who think the rule change in 2006 somehow helped Brady (even though you all mistakenly think that the rule was changed in 2007)

"For the record: Teams bring conditioned balls on the road. Teams do not bring ballboys on the road. So if teams have ballboys at home + Brady asked ballboys to doctor balls' inflation levels, that could happen at home. Couldn't happen on the road."

and

"Brady TD passes since 2006:
Home: 131 in 65 games
Road: 138 in 64 games"

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.................

You seem to have a very difficult time understanding what the issue is here.

Yes, Brady is a great QB and the Pats spanked the Colts in the AFCCG regardless of how much air was in the balls, that is not the issue. The issue is the constant need to break the rules to gain an advantage "just in case".

That is the point, the Patriots are good enough that they can beat anybody without breaking the rules but they do it anyways. Why film the opposing sidelines if you are the better team? Why take air out of the footballs if you are the better team? Why do the Patriots cheat when they are good enough to win without cheating?

That is the issue here and that is why the punishment must be more severe than just the act of letting air out of the ball. The Patriots obviously didn't learn their lesson from Spygate and continued to cheat, so this time the punishment must be so severe that is will deter the Pats from coming up with some other way to cheat in the future.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

And this still doesn't take away from the fact that Brady called for the balls to be deflated.

And it still doesn't take away from the fact that Brady pleaded with the NFL to allow teams to handle their own game balls. He was on the forefront of it.

Remember, same guy that claimed he didn't 'know nuttin' about PSI, the rule or the rule change despite being the fact that HE was the guy that lobbied for the rule change.

He's a liar and a cheater.

Oh, BTW:

Ints (home): 26
Ints (road): 39

And pre-2006:

1 TD thrown for every 20.7 pass attempts
1 INT thrown for every 38.6 pass attempts

Post-2006

1 TD thrown for every 17.2 pass attempts
1 INT thrown for every 60 pass attempts

So, he decreased his INT per attempt rate by 56%

He was extremely steady and consistent with his INT rate prior to 2007. Same with his fumble rate. Then, at the same time that he lobbied for the rule to be changed and it was changed...he improved his INT rate and fumble rate *immediately* at an astounding rate. There was no steady improvement, it was a drastic, overnight improvement from being quite good to historically great.





YR

 

[Beast_from_East]

Funny how no Pat defender is actually challenging anything in the report...........they accept that finding that the Pats cheated and Brady knew about...........they just say it is no big deal.

That then begs the question, if it is not a big deal and no real advantage, why were the Pats doing it in the first place? Why were they cheating if they were clearly the better team than the Colts as the Pat defenders are claiming they are?

Maybe they are just serial cheaters and cant help themselves, they would cheat no matter who the opponent was, even if it was the Sisters Of The Poor they were playing.

Such a classy organization.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Funny how no Pat defender is actually challenging anything in the report...........they accept that finding that the Pats cheated and Brady knew about...........they just say it is no big deal.

That then begs the question, if it is not a big deal and no real advantage, why were the Pats doing it in the first place? Why were they cheating if they were clearly the better team than the Colts as the Pat defenders are claiming they are?

Maybe they are just serial cheaters and cant help themselves, they would cheat no matter who the opponent was, even if it was the Sisters Of The Poor they were playing.

Such a classy organization.

I've heard some Pats defenders debate the report. Most of it is about the wording the NFL used. What they don't understand is that the NFL wants to protect itself from defamation of character suits from Brady. The idea is that by not being definitive, some Pats defenders believe that provides 'reasonable doubt.' But, this isn't exactly a court of law and as such, the NFL could not get access to Brady's personal cell phone and e-mail. They got the cell phones of the jamokes equipment guys because those cell phones were given to them by the Pats and thus is considered NFL property. So, it's not really a fair comparison to say that the language isn't strong enough by court of law standards, but not allowing the NFL to same access that the police would get in a criminal trial.

The other defense is that there is 'no actual proof' that Brady did this. This is more commonplace in today's society. There is a misconception that in a court of law that the prosecutor cannot indict based on circumstantial evidence and a jury cannot convict based on circumstantial evidence. This couldn't be further from the truth. There is no law that states either can't happen. If there was, it would be very hard to convict a large majority of criminals. Instead, if you have pretty daming circumstantial evidence, a jury can reach the conclusion that the person is guilty even without hard, physical evidence.

The issue with cheating goes well beyond the Colts game. It's very much like the movie Time Cop, if one thing changes in say a regular season game in October, it could potentially have a ripple effect in what happens in other games. Lose a game in October you would have won by cheating, maybe you don't get that HFA in the playoffs. Maybe you end up facing a team that matches up well against you. Maybe that WR fumbles a football one too many times and now you bench him for putting the ball on the turf and he doesn't have that big game in the playoffs.




YR

 

[Staubacher]

You went from claiming inside sources and calling everyone idiots to grasping at straws.

Lol. Pathetic.

This is for all you people who think the rule change in 2006 somehow helped Brady (even though you all mistakenly think that the rule was changed in 2007)

"For the record: Teams bring conditioned balls on the road. Teams do not bring ballboys on the road. So if teams have ballboys at home + Brady asked ballboys to doctor balls' inflation levels, that could happen at home. Couldn't happen on the road."

and

"Brady TD passes since 2006:
Home: 131 in 65 games
Road: 138 in 64 games"

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.................

 

[Beast_from_East]

I've heard some Pats defenders debate the report. Most of it is about the wording the NFL used. What they don't understand is that the NFL wants to protect itself from defamation of character suits from Brady. The idea is that by not being definitive, some Pats defenders believe that provides 'reasonable doubt.' But, this isn't exactly a court of law and as such, the NFL could not get access to Brady's personal cell phone and e-mail. They got the cell phones of the jamokes equipment guys because those cell phones were given to them by the Pats and thus is considered NFL property. So, it's not really a fair comparison to say that the language isn't strong enough by court of law standards, but not allowing the NFL to same access that the police would get in a criminal trial.

The other defense is that there is 'no actual proof' that Brady did this. This is more commonplace in today's society. There is a misconception that in a court of law that the prosecutor cannot indict based on circumstantial evidence and a jury cannot convict based on circumstantial evidence. This couldn't be further from the truth. There is no law that states either can't happen. If there was, it would be very hard to convict a large majority of criminals. Instead, if you have pretty daming circumstantial evidence, a jury can reach the conclusion that the person is guilty even without hard, physical evidence.

The issue with cheating goes well beyond the Colts game. It's very much like the movie Time Cop, if one thing changes in say a regular season game in October, it could potentially have a ripple effect in what happens in other games. Lose a game in October you would have won by cheating, maybe you don't get that HFA in the playoffs. Maybe you end up facing a team that matches up well against you. Maybe that WR fumbles a football one too many times and now you bench him for putting the ball on the turf and he doesn't have that big game in the playoffs.




YR

Excellent response, I agree completely.

 

[NeonNinja]

This is for all you people who think the rule change in 2006 somehow helped Brady (even though you all mistakenly think that the rule was changed in 2007)

"For the record: Teams bring conditioned balls on the road. Teams do not bring ballboys on the road. So if teams have ballboys at home + Brady asked ballboys to doctor balls' inflation levels, that could happen at home. Couldn't happen on the road."

and

"Brady TD passes since 2006:
Home: 131 in 65 games
Road: 138 in 64 games"

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.................

Hmmmmmmmm, you sound pathetic and looking for any excuse. We aren't buying, your QB and organization are liars and cheats. You have been eviscerated enough, peace out.

 

[BoysFan4ever]

You seem to have a very difficult time understanding what the issue is here.

Yes, Brady is a great QB and the Pats spanked the Colts in the AFCCG regardless of how much air was in the balls, that is not the issue. The issue is the constant need to break the rules to gain an advantage "just in case".

That is the point, the Patriots are good enough that they can beat anybody without breaking the rules but they do it anyways. Why film the opposing sidelines if you are the better team? Why take air out of the footballs if you are the better team? Why do the Patriots cheat when they are good enough to win without cheating?

That is the issue here and that is why the punishment must be more severe than just the act of letting air out of the ball. The Patriots obviously didn't learn their lesson from Spygate and continued to cheat, so this time the punishment must be so severe that is will deter the Pats from coming up with some other way to cheat in the future.

Rogah will never accept they are cheaters. Never

 

[BoysFan4ever]

You went from claiming inside sources and calling everyone idiots to grasping at straws.

Lol. Pathetic.

True.

 

[1fisher]

This is for all you people who think the rule change in 2006 somehow helped Brady (even though you all mistakenly think that the rule was changed in 2007)

"For the record: Teams bring conditioned balls on the road. Teams do not bring ballboys on the road. So if teams have ballboys at home + Brady asked ballboys to doctor balls' inflation levels, that could happen at home. Couldn't happen on the road."

and

"Brady TD passes since 2006:
Home: 131 in 65 games
Road: 138 in 64 games"

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.................

Just change your avatar already....geez!

 

[Staubacher]

Just change your avatar already....geez!

The real "Rogah" doesn't like liars and cheats.

 

[khiladi]

Warren Sharper dispels the myth that Jim McNally was only at home games via the Wells Report..

Read the footnote... Brady and the organization are guilty as hell... There is a reason the Patriots are refusing to cooperate. The best manner in which this goes for them is Tom Brady alone is implicated and it's seen as a single individual. It's systematic, from top to bottom.

 

[khiladi]

I've heard some Pats defenders debate the report. Most of it is about the wording the NFL used. What they don't understand is that the NFL wants to protect itself from defamation of character suits from Brady. The idea is that by not being definitive, some Pats defenders believe that provides 'reasonable doubt.' But, this isn't exactly a court of law and as such, the NFL could not get access to Brady's personal cell phone and e-mail. They got the cell phones of the jamokes equipment guys because those cell phones were given to them by the Pats and thus is considered NFL property. So, it's not really a fair comparison to say that the language isn't strong enough by court of law standards, but not allowing the NFL to same access that the police would get in a criminal trial.

The other defense is that there is 'no actual proof' that Brady did this. This is more commonplace in today's society. There is a misconception that in a court of law that the prosecutor cannot indict based on circumstantial evidence and a jury cannot convict based on circumstantial evidence. This couldn't be further from the truth. There is no law that states either can't happen. If there was, it would be very hard to convict a large majority of criminals. Instead, if you have pretty daming circumstantial evidence, a jury can reach the conclusion that the person is guilty even without hard, physical evidence.

The issue with cheating goes well beyond the Colts game. It's very much like the movie Time Cop, if one thing changes in say a regular season game in October, it could potentially have a ripple effect in what happens in other games. Lose a game in October you would have won by cheating, maybe you don't get that HFA in the playoffs. Maybe you end up facing a team that matches up well against you. Maybe that WR fumbles a football one too many times and now you bench him for putting the ball on the turf and he doesn't have that big game in the playoffs.

YR

http://www.patspulpit.com/2015/5/8/...-than-not-requirement-because-of-the-patriots

"More probable than not," also known as a "preponderance of the evidence," is used in civil cases, versus "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal cases. The league actually operated under the concept of "beyond a reasonable doubt" before Roger Goodell changed the requirements "to preserve the competitive integrity of the league" and "maintain public confidence [in the sport]."

So basically, "more probable than not" in NFL terminology means guilty. Why did Goodell change it to that terminology to this phrase, from "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Because of Spygate... Oh, the irony...

 

[Longboysfan]

Warren Sharper dispels the myth that Jim McNally was only at home games via the Wells Report..

Read the footnote... Brady and the organization are guilty as hell... There is a reason the Patriots are refusing to cooperate. The best manner in which this goes for them is Tom Brady alone is implicated and it's seen as a single individual. It's systematic, from top to bottom.

Why? Why get the facts right in the first place.
Quote on stats within the norm not those outside the norm.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

So basically, "more probable than not" in NFL terminology means guilty. Why did Goodell change it to that terminology to this phrase, from "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Because of Spygate... Oh, the irony...

YR

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Why? Why get the facts right in the first place.
Quote on stats within the norm not those outside the norm.

Somebody made an oopsy.





YR

 

[khiladi]

Why? Why get the facts right in the first place.
Quote on stats within the norm not those outside the norm.

All I know is the Patriots started to bring this guy with them on the road. So the argument of Rogah is hogwash. As Sharper said in a tweet two days ago, he's surprised this aspect of the Patriots bringing the main guy behind the scandal has not gotten that much attention yet.