AFC Championship - Pats/Colts

rass · Post by **rass** » Mon Sep 07, 2015 11:50 am

mister d wrote:
Rush2112 wrote:I've ... lapped up ... p...e...e... leaked by the ...cent...a...ur...

Best one ever.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Mon Sep 07, 2015 2:53 pm

Rush2112 wrote:
The Sybian wrote:I railed against Rush, because he continually argued that their was no ironclad case against Brady,

Was there ever an ironclad case against Brady? The report that was cited as a basis for the suspension includes the phrase "more probably than not" and is based on leaps of science and cherry-picking of testimony. He may have some part in deflating the balls to the lower amount of of the range (we do have actual proof that he likes them at 12,5 PSI) but there isn't any ironclad proof brother, hence the 30+ pages of discussion.

You have to be doing this intentionally to piss me off now. As I said now for the fourth time:

Sybian for the FOURTH FUCKING TIME NOW wrote:Fuck you and your "rock solid case." We've been through this 3 times already, this isn't a criminal case where the evidence needs to be "beyond reasonable doubt," it is a workplace investigation and labor dispute where the burden of proof is a "preponderance of the evidence." This means 51%, "more likely than not." You don't need a rock solid case. A slightly less flimsy case than the defense is all you need. If a reasonable (non-Patriot Fan) person looks at the evidence, does it seem more likely Brady or the Pats cheated. There can be all sorts of doubts or unknown facts, or even compelling evidence on Brady's side, if there is the slightest bit more evidence against Brady, then the NFL can rightly suspend Brady and conclude "it is more likely than not" that Brady/Pats cheated.

You don't need a goddamned "ironclad case!!!!" You need a "preponderance of the evidence." The report used phrases like "more probable than not," BECAUSE THAT IS THE FUCKING STANDARD IN AN INVESTIGATION. Seriously, I know you aren't this fucking stupid. If an investigation comes up 99% percent likely that the employee committed a violation, do you know what language the report is going to say? "It is more probable than not Joe Fuckface violated the Company's policy." The only time I will use any other language is if the employee fully admits to every single allegation against him.

So one final time (dear God, I hope this time it sinks in), if the facts of the investigation show it is 51% likely the violation occurred and Brady's testimony was 49% believable, the report will say it is "more probable than not" Brady cheated. And in a properly conducted investigation, the NFL doesn't make any arguments of wrongdoing. Anyone with information or direct knowledge tells the investigator what they know, but it isn't (or shouldn't be) an adversarial preceding. The NFL defending their process is adversarial, but not an investigation. The purpose of the investigation is to allow the NFL to make a decision based on the facts as best they can be determined.

Rush2112 · Post by **Rush2112** » Mon Sep 07, 2015 5:23 pm

You sir are the one that used the term ironclad case.

I understand the difference between the types of cases, t and the more probable than not case against was thrown out because the NFL manufactured data to fit their ideas of what happened. Aside from some texts what evidence points to more probable than not?

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Mon Sep 07, 2015 5:56 pm

Rush2112 wrote:I understand the difference between the types of cases, t and the more probable than not case against was thrown out because the NFL manufactured data to fit their ideas of what happened.

I thought I was done with this thread, because I had made all my points and Johnnie at least is being reasonable, but this is just flat-out wrong. Nowhere in his opinion did Judge Berman say that the NFL failed to meet the "more probable than not" standard. Nor did he ever say that the NFL "manufactured data." You are completely mischaracterizing Judge Berman's opinion in an attempt to make it seem like Brady was "exonerated," when in fact that never happened. Judge Berman invalidated the suspension for three reasons, none of which have to do with the NFL being unable to meet the "more probable than not" standard or with the NFL "manufacturing data":

1. Even if Brady did exactly what the Wells Report concluded he did, he did not have notice, either through the league's policies or its prior disciplinary actions, that being aware of an improper ball-deflation scheme was a suspension-worthy offense.

2. The NFL did not allow Brady to call Jeff Pash as a witness at the arbitration held before Goodell.

3. The NFL failed to provide Brady copies of Ted Wells's interview notes in connection with the arbitration held before Goodell.

In fact, if you look on page 20 of Berman's opinion, which is embedded here (Berman decision), he says, "An arbitrator's factual findings are generally not open to judicial challenge, and we accept the facts as the arbitrator found them." In other words, Berman accepted Goodell's factual conclusions as to what Brady and the dorito dinks did.

Just to make it entirely clear what Berman actually ruled, I'm copying below the paragraph of the opinion that summarizes his conclusions:

The Court is fully aware of the deference afforded to arbitral decisions, but, nevertheless, concludes that the Award should be vacated. The Award is premised upon several significant legal deficiencies, including (A) inadequate notice to Brady of both his potential discipline (four-game suspension) and his alleged misconduct; (B) denial of the opportunity for Brady to examine one of two lead investigators, namely NFL Executive Vice President and General Counsel Jeff Pash; and (C) denial of equal access to investigative files, including witness interview notes.

So, try as you might, you simply cannot say that Berman's opinion shows that the NFL did not have sufficient facts to establish that it was more probable than not that Brady was aware of improper ball deflation.

howard · Post by **howard** » Mon Sep 07, 2015 7:23 pm

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Mon Sep 07, 2015 7:48 pm

Rush2112 wrote:You sir are the one that used the term ironclad case.

I understand the difference between the types of cases, t and the more probable than not case against was thrown out because the NFL manufactured data to fit their ideas of what happened. Aside from some texts what evidence points to more probable than not?

First, thanks to Joe K for saving me the time in explaining the scope of Berman's decision. There is a lot of sketchy evidence, sure, but looking at the evidence and the exculpatory statements by Brady, I think most people find Brady's statements and defenses pretty lame. Maybe he genuinely did nothing, and I really don't care if he did or not, it sure seems like something fishy was going on, and Brady at least knew about it. My opinion of Brady doesn't change either way. My opinion of whinyassed delusional "the world is against us" Pats fans hasn't changed, it is just fortified by your contortions of logic and common sense. I'm not saying all Pats fans whiny and delusional, and I don't mean to limit it to Pats fans, Red Sox fans were even worse prior to finally winning a WS. All of your arguments start from the premise that Brady's hands are clean, and you poke a few holes in some of the evidence. Even if we assume all of your arguments are true, it still doesn't necessarily outweigh the evidence against Brady. My whole point is that it doesn't matter if you can poke some holes in the case against Brady or provide some reasonable doubt, Brady needed to show his evidence was more believable than the evidence against him.

The only thing that is relevant WRT to the investigation is whether it seems like Brady was part of a group that violated a policy. Remove your Brady colored glasses for a second, and tell me if you think the story sounds shady. Would I bet money that Brady violated the policy? Not much. Did Wells prove Brady did anything wrong? Of course not, and few investigations do prove anything definitively. Did Brady provide evidence more compelling than the evidence against him? I think it is completely reasonable to say he didn't.

The Judge's decision changes nothing in the report and does nothing to affect the finding that Brady likely cheated. All it says is the league didn't handle the disciplinary process correctly.

Rush2112 · Post by **Rush2112** » Mon Sep 07, 2015 9:24 pm

I've never said that something shady wasn't going on. If something was I believe it's something along the lines of do what you have to do to get the balls to 12.5 psi.

The current Patriots regime has a history of doing things that stretch the rules, not break them.

As for Berman's ruling, there are footnotes poking holes in the Brady cheated idea.

Also is a tad difficult not looking worth Patriot colored glasses when the majority of people on this board were talking each leak or piece of information and automatically making assumptions. I'm a sports fan, but the Patriots have been the only team that I've been a diehard fan of since day one.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Mon Sep 07, 2015 10:00 pm

I believe you believe the worst case was them subverting the process to get to a still legal PSI.

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Tue Sep 08, 2015 8:06 am

Rush2112 wrote:

The current Patriots regime has a history of doing things that stretch the rules, not break them.

ok.

Rex · Post by **Rex** » Tue Sep 08, 2015 8:42 am

mister d wrote:So what are our options for not having this thread die?

1. Pats appeal to get 1st round pick back and Goodell hears appeal.

2. Goodell appeals reversal, appeal is granted.

3. Baby Hands Brady can't complete passes beyond 12 yards this season.

Anything else?

Yes, i believe the answer is 4) Anything else.

Brontoburglar · Post by **Brontoburglar** » Tue Sep 08, 2015 8:45 am

Given this report, this thread will never die. Ugh.

Rex · Post by **Rex** » Tue Sep 08, 2015 8:49 am

Truly the gift that keeps on giving.

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:14 am

That ESPN report has some pretty interesting details -- especially the part about how terrified Goodell was of a Congressional investigation into Spygate -- and also makes it pretty clear that if Goodell loses his job, it sure as hell won't be because of Deflategate. I guess it makes sense that he wouldn't go so aggressively after Brady unless he had the backing of the league's ownership.

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:37 am

This IS rather wonderfully provocative:

Now, the Patriots realized that they were on to something, a schematic edge that could allow their best minds more control on the field. Taping from the sideline increased efficiency and minimized confusion. And so, as Walsh later told investigators, the system improved, becoming more streamlined -- and more secretive. The quarterbacks were cut out of the process. The only people involved were a few coaches, the video staff and, of course, Adams. Belichick, almost five years after being fired by the Browns and fully aware that this was his last best shot as a head coach, placed an innovative system of cheating in the hands of his most trusted friend.

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:42 am

Oh my:

AS THE PATRIOTS became a dynasty and Belichick became the first coach to win three Super Bowls in four years, an entire system of covert videotaping was developed and a secret library created. "It got out of control," a former Patriots assistant coach says. Sources with knowledge of the system say an advance scout would attend the games of upcoming Patriots opponents and assemble a spreadsheet of all the signals and corresponding plays. The scout would give it to Adams, who would spend most of the week in his office with the door closed, matching the notes to the tapes filmed from the sideline. Files were created, organized by opponent and by coach. During games, Walsh later told investigators, the Patriots' videographers were told to look like media members, to tape over their team logos or turn their sweatshirt inside out, to wear credentials that said Patriots TV or Kraft Productions. The videographers also were provided with excuses for what to tell NFL security if asked what they were doing: Tell them you're filming the quarterbacks. Or the kickers. Or footage for a team show.

The cameramen's assignments differed depending on the opponent. For instance, Walsh told investigators that against Indianapolis he was directed to take close-ups of the Colts' offensive signals, then of Peyton Manning's hand signals. Mostly, though, the tapes were of defensive signals. Each video sequence would usually include three shots: the down and distance, the signal, and, as an in-house joke, a tight shot of a cheerleader's top or skirt. The tape was then often edited, sources say, so that Adams' copy contained only the signals, in rapid fire, one after another. According to investigators, Walsh once asked Adams, "Are the tapes up to standards?"

"You're doing a good job," Adams said. "But make sure that you get everyone who's giving signals, even dummy signals."

As much as the Patriots tried to keep the circle of those who knew about the taping small, sometimes the team would add recently cut players from upcoming opponents and pay them only to help decipher signals, former Patriots staffers say. In 2005, for instance, they signed a defensive player from a team they were going to play in the upcoming season. Before that game, the player was led to a room where Adams was waiting. They closed the door, and Adams played a compilation tape that matched the signals to the plays from the player's former team, and asked how many were accurate. "He had about 50 percent of them right," the player says now.

During games, Adams sat in the coaches' box, with binoculars and notes of decoded signals, wearing a headset with a direct audio line to Belichick. Whenever Adams saw an opposing coach's signal he recognized, he'd say something like, "Watch for the Two Deep Blitz," and either that information was relayed to Brady or a play designed specifically to exploit the defense was called. A former Patriots employee who was directly involved in the taping system says "it helped our offense a lot," especially in divisional games in which there was a short amount of time between the first and second matchups, making it harder for opposing coaches to change signals.

Post by **brian** » Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:48 am

Or this:

In fact, many former New England coaches and employees insist that the taping of signals wasn't even the most effective cheating method the Patriots deployed in that era. Several of them acknowledge that during pregame warm-ups, a low-level Patriots employee would sneak into the visiting locker room and steal the play sheet, listing the first 20 or so scripted calls for the opposing team's offense. (The practice became so notorious that some coaches put out fake play sheets for the Patriots to swipe.)

But that doesn't sound like cheating to me, just some tomfoolery.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:55 am

No wonder the bills can never beat them.

Ryan · Post by **Ryan** » Tue Sep 08, 2015 10:07 am

Rex · Post by **Rex** » Tue Sep 08, 2015 10:16 am

this is the best Behind the Music ever

DaveInSeattle · Post by **DaveInSeattle** » Tue Sep 08, 2015 10:20 am

Can we call them Cheaters again?

Post by **brian** » Tue Sep 08, 2015 10:30 am

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Tue Sep 08, 2015 10:35 am

Rush2112 wrote:I've never said that something shady wasn't going on. If something was I believe it's something along the lines of do what you have to do to get the balls to 12.5 psi.

If you are saying something shady was going on, then the decision to suspend was valid. You keep assuming the intent was to get the balls to exactly the legal limit. Again, you are assuming this because you are starting with the assumption that the Pats wouldn't cheat. If they weren't cheating or intentionally deflating below 12.5 psi, why resort to the shady methods? Why not just present the balls to the officials at the 12.5 you are so confident the Pats must have been deflating to?

As for the Spygate article, I'm halfway through, and holy fuck. If 10% of that is true, that is an enormous scheme to "stretch the rules." Dressing the videographers in NFL Films shirts and telling them to lie about who/what they were filming and who they were filming for? But, ESPN and the NFL have a vendetta against the Pats, so you know nothing in this article is true.

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Tue Sep 08, 2015 10:39 am

From Drew Magary, on Twitter:

@drewmagary: It's quite something to know now that the ESPN version of @BillSimmons was actually RESTRAINED in its asshole homerism.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Tue Sep 08, 2015 10:42 am

Ryan wrote:

It is kind of Nixonian to cheat when you don't even need to do so.

Post by **brian** » Tue Sep 08, 2015 10:58 am

SI piles on too by the way. Though there's nothing in there worse than the ESPN piece.

Nonlinear FC · Post by **Nonlinear FC** » Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:07 am

I'm not asking this as an apologist... What advantage is gained by taping from unsanctioned areas? As I'm typing, I'm thinking that those doling out signals and those around them know where/how to shield the signals from those spots?

Post by **brian** » Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:18 am

Nonlinear FC wrote:I'm not asking this as an apologist... What advantage is gained by taping from unsanctioned areas? As I'm typing, I'm thinking that those doling out signals and those around them know where/how to shield the signals from those spots?

It's in the piece. Bengal even quoted it above.

Taping from the sideline increased efficiency and minimized confusion

Nonlinear FC · Post by **Nonlinear FC** » Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:26 am

brian wrote:
Nonlinear FC wrote:I'm not asking this as an apologist... What advantage is gained by taping from unsanctioned areas? As I'm typing, I'm thinking that those doling out signals and those around them know where/how to shield the signals from those spots?
It's in the piece. Bengal even quoted it above.

Taping from the sideline increased efficiency and minimized confusion

Yeah, I saw that and it doesn't really say much, frankly. I am only halfway through the article, and I'm seeing other stuff in that piece that might be getting at the real explanation, such as taping dry erase boards and zooming in on hand signals.

Rush2112 · Post by **Rush2112** » Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 am

Nonlinear FC · Post by **Nonlinear FC** » Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:46 am

You realize that statement doesn't actually deny anything in the article, right?

Post by **brian** » Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:47 am

Kinda shocking that the Pats PR department would refute this. That changes everything.

HaulCitgo · Post by **HaulCitgo** » Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:53 am

XXXVI
XXXVIII
XXXIX
XLIX

Rush2112 · Post by **Rush2112** » Tue Sep 08, 2015 12:11 pm

The fact that article is almost entirely based on the views of Matt Walsh, a disgruntled former employee, who is salty about being fired, and repeatedly cites Bill Polian who is still salty that his Colts couldn't beat the Patriots, mentions Arlen Spector's "investigation" which is more based on his support from Comcast and their fight with the NFL. Nice that they also rehash the filming of the walk through that ESPN acknowledged didn't happen in their after midnight apology a few weeks back.

No matter, you'll believe what you want to believe and continue acquisitions and pointing fingers. I'll keep rooting for my team, smile as think of the 4 Lombardi trophies they've hoisted, and enjoy them going F you mode on the NFL this year.

DaveInSeattle · Post by **DaveInSeattle** » Tue Sep 08, 2015 12:17 pm

Rush2112 wrote:The fact that article is almost entirely based on the views of Matt Walsh, a disgruntled former employee, who is salty about being fired, and repeatedly cites Bill Polian who is still salty that his Colts couldn't beat the Patriots, mentions Arlen Spector's "investigation" which is more based on his support from Comcast and their fight with the NFL. Nice that they also rehash the filming of the walk through that ESPN acknowledged didn't happen in their after midnight apology a few weeks back.

No matter, you'll believe what you want to believe and continue acquisitions and pointing fingers. I'll keep rooting for my team, smile as think of the 4 Lombardi trophies they've hoisted, and enjoy them going F you mode on the NFL this year.

Have we finally found Bill Simmon's stealth account? You left out the "Hate us 'cause they ain't us!" part...

howard · Post by **howard** » Tue Sep 08, 2015 12:21 pm

Blah blah blah Arlen Spector blah blah Magic Bullet Theory Joke blah

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Tue Sep 08, 2015 12:21 pm

Rush2112 wrote:The fact that article is almost entirely based on the views of Matt Walsh, a disgruntled former employee, who is salty about being fired, and repeatedly cites Bill Polian who is still salty that his Colts couldn't beat the Patriots, mentions Arlen Spector's "investigation" which is more based on his support from Comcast and their fight with the NFL. Nice that they also rehash the filming of the walk through that ESPN acknowledged didn't happen in their after midnight apology a few weeks back.

No matter, you'll believe what you want to believe and continue acquisitions and pointing fingers. I'll keep rooting for my team, smile as think of the 4 Lombardi trophies they've hoisted, and enjoy them going F you mode on the NFL this year.

ESPN had about 90 different sources for that article, so it's definitely not "almost entirely based on the views of Matt Walsh." Also, I seem to remember Polian's Colts beating the Patriots in the 2006 AFC Championship Game, but you're probably right that he's still so bitter about the two prior losses that he would just blatantly make stuff up. What's your explanation for why John Mara supported Goodell in Deflategate? Was he just bitter that his Giants only beat the Patriots by 3-4 points both times they faced them in the Superbowl?

DaveInSeattle · Post by **DaveInSeattle** » Tue Sep 08, 2015 12:27 pm

brian wrote:

What's funny is that Simmon's is pretty much a bandwagon fan* of the Patriots. I know that he now goes on and on about how he's always been a huge fan of the team, but when I was first aware of him, when he was writing for AOL and sending out an email thing every morning, he never ever talked about the Pats. I remember being really surprised when the Pats made the Super Bowl after the '01 season and all of a sudden he was the PatriotsSuperFan. Before that, all he wrote about was the Celtics and the Red Sox.

* - not that I'm disrespecting bandwagon fans. I'm pretty much the classic definition of a bandwagon fan these days. I've got no time for investing in bad/uninteresting teams.

Post by **brian** » Tue Sep 08, 2015 12:29 pm

He proved it by not caring about the Bruins until they won a Stanley Cup. He's the fucking worst.

Rush2112 · Post by **Rush2112** » Tue Sep 08, 2015 12:30 pm

Joe K wrote:
Rush2112 wrote:The fact that article is almost entirely based on the views of Matt Walsh, a disgruntled former employee, who is salty about being fired, and repeatedly cites Bill Polian who is still salty that his Colts couldn't beat the Patriots, mentions Arlen Spector's "investigation" which is more based on his support from Comcast and their fight with the NFL. Nice that they also rehash the filming of the walk through that ESPN acknowledged didn't happen in their after midnight apology a few weeks back.

No matter, you'll believe what you want to believe and continue acquisitions and pointing fingers. I'll keep rooting for my team, smile as think of the 4 Lombardi trophies they've hoisted, and enjoy them going F you mode on the NFL this year.
ESPN had about 90 different sources for that article, so it's definitely not "almost entirely based on the views of Matt Walsh." Also, I seem to remember Polian's Colts beating the Patriots in the 2006 AFC Championship Game, but you're probably right that he's still so bitter about the two prior losses that he would just blatantly make stuff up. What's your explanation for why John Mara supported Goodell in Deflategate? Was he just bitter that his Giants only beat the Patriots by 3-4 points both times they faced them in the Superbowl?

"ESPN has 90 sources" though how many are named? Polian's Colts beat the Patriots after he complained and had rules changed.

As I said believe what you want to believe, I'll believe that ESPN is continuing to be a PR mouthpiece for the NFL. If this story has so much meat and is so truthful and has had so many sources it's really interesting that it took 8 years for it so see the light of day.

I also find it interesting they mention the tape library from 2000-2007. Taping signals from outside the designated areas wasn't illegal until 2007 and was and taping of signals from those areas still is in widespread use around the league. A leading statement for mouthbreathers to look at scream "cheaters, cheaters!!!"

Rush2112 · Post by **Rush2112** » Tue Sep 08, 2015 12:31 pm

brian wrote:He proved it by not caring about the Bruins until they won a Stanley Cup. He's the fucking worst.

Actually he was more anti-ownership. Then again most of Boston didn't care about the Bruins. Also, I hate the fucking Bruins.