2015 NFL Off Season

Off Topic
761

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I think it’s pretty funny how you just can’t entertain the idea that a top athlete might have cheated because he’s your boy. [/quote]

I don’t entertain the idea the government was behind 9/11 either, and I don’t even like the government.

Evidence man, evidence. The NFL had cart blanch over the cell phones ON THE OTHER END, which would have had everything Brady said on it, and their testimony. There is zero evidence Brady cheated, zero. But I’M the one with bias issues?

Zero
Evidence

I hope if you’re ever on a jury, for the sake of the defendant, you see my point here.

[quote]

Why would I eat crow because some judge overturned the ruling? [/quote]

…

Not true in the slightest. Just because they didn’t get the results they wanted doesn’t mean they weren’t capable. Maybe, just maybe they weren’t actually guilty, but you know you won’t entertain that idea because lord knows why.

Not why it was overturned, but was pointed out by the judge during arbitration.

Something like 95% of these cases are upheld, this one isn’t, and your assumption is “Brady got away with one”… Maybe he wasn’t guilty? Maybe the NFL overstepped it’s bounds, again, oh wait, they did, hence the overturning.

Hmmm, to name just a few:

  1. gain support from 31 other team owners
  2. gain support for fucking up Ray Rice & Peterson suspensions
  3. Keep NFL in the headlines all summer
  4. gain support from fanboys of 31 other teams
  5. Show their dominance
  6. distract from the fucking up of bountygate
  7. revenge for the Pats beating up on their favorite teams for all this time. (Ravens email pretty much sums this idea up nicely.)

Fixed that for you. You’ve assumed his guilt since the beginning and you know it. You never afforded him “innocent until proven guilty”.

I give you credit though, most people who talked shit are pretty silent today.

762

Lol, Beans, it is so predictably easy to get your jimmies in a rustle over this topic…

763

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Lol, Beans, it is so predictably easy to get your jimmies in a rustle over this topic…[/quote]

Yes, because otherwise rational and intelligent people (you) start acting like democrats when it comes to sports.

Sorry man, that’s a low blow, and you don’t deserve that insult, or any I threw at you, intentionally or not.

764

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I think it’s pretty funny how you just can’t entertain the idea that a top athlete might have cheated because he’s your boy. [/quote]

I don’t entertain the idea the government was behind 9/11 either, and I don’t even like the government. [/quote]

I would hope not. Do you entertain the idea that Hillary Clinton has sent classified information through her private server? She’s pretty adamant she didn’t and she destroyed the server after wiping it and she destroyed a bunch of emails. Sound familiar?

The NFL did not have cart blanch over any cell phone as far as I know. All they had was information volunteered to them. They do not have the authority to compel players to provide evidence like law enforcement does.

[quote]

Not true in the slightest. Just because they didn’t get the results they wanted doesn’t mean they weren’t capable. Maybe, just maybe they weren’t actually guilty, but you know you won’t entertain that idea because lord knows why. [/quote]

The NFLs ability to obtain evidence is limited. It’s why they couldn’t get the Ray Rice tape. It’s why they couldn’t get Tom’s records.

Dude, come on. The NFL loves the Patriots. Everyone outside of New England know this is fact. Maybe the NFL went after Brady for some of the reasons you mentioned, but as revenge is absolutely not one of them.

[quote]You’re right though. No evidence what-so-ever Tom cheated. But I’ll name a whole bunch of other people who did in order to justify the fact I’m being just as biased as I’m accusing you of being.

Fixed that for you. You’ve assumed his guilt since the beginning and you know it. You never afforded him “innocent until proven guilty”. [/quote]

Do you know what all of them had in common? Every single one of them was “innocent” they were being treated “unfairly.” Until the proof came out.

Lord Beans, you act like I’ve sentence him to death. There’s plenty of circumstantial evidence that suggest he cheated. A lot of athletes do cheat.

Serious question, do you think it is more likely that this is some grand conspiracy against a star player or that that star player actually got away with cheating.

765

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Lol, Beans, it is so predictably easy to get your jimmies in a rustle over this topic…[/quote]

Yes, because otherwise rational and intelligent people (you) start acting like democrats when it comes to sports.

Sorry man, that’s a low blow, and you don’t deserve that insult, or any I threw at you, intentionally or not. [/quote]

Lol, it’s fine man. Do I think Brady cheated, yes. That is because I think most top athletes cheat as much as they can while getting away with it. I don’t care who they are or where they play.

766

817×960 154 KB

:slight_smile:

767

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Serious question, do you think it is more likely that this is some grand conspiracy against a star player or that that star player actually got away with cheating. [/quote]

Do I think Brady instructed anyone to or was aware that anyone adjusted ball pressure AFTER they were inspected by the Ref? No. because there is zero evidence, circumstantial or not, of this. There is literally zero reason to believe Brady told anyone to do anything of that nature AFTER the ref inspection.

Do I think Brady said something along the lines of “put em around this (was below the low threshold)” knowing it would more likely than not get through the inspection (a-la Rodgers), and if not, set at 12.5? yeah, sure.

Do I think the vast majority of non-Pat’s fans are butt-hurt cry babies and upset the Pats win so much, and that is 1000% the reason for the “he MUST be guilty” self convincing in the face of zero evidence he did? Yes.

768

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I would hope not. Do you entertain the idea that Hillary Clinton has sent classified information through her private server? She’s pretty adamant she didn’t and she destroyed the server after wiping it and she destroyed a bunch of emails. Sound familiar?

[/quote]

Somehow, and I know this is crazy, but by some black magic, there appears to be EVIDENCE she is lying. Something there is none of in the case you’re comparing it to.

The NFL had the phones on the other end of Brady’s. WTF would be on his not on theirs?

EDIT: and why on Earth would these two numb skulls NOT rat out Brady who obviously was an asshole to work for, did you read those texts?

769

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Just curious how all that crow you all were eating for lunch tastes guys?

I am not really upset that his suspension has been lifted. It does nothing to discredit the allegations that he cheated. He got the suspension dropped because of flaws in the process. I would rather face Brady as a Cowboy’s fan than that other guy y’all have.

annnnnd… I’m done. [/quote]

770

[quote]mbdix wrote:
It does nothing to discredit the allegations that he cheated. [/quote]

Because you choose to ignore where the judge said there is zero evidence of guilt?

Or because your just as much of a fanboy as anybody else and are letting that cloud reason and evidence?

771

2 points of Note:

Last week Judge Berman openly wondered why the NFL would conclude that Brady played some role in deflating footballs when there is no direct evidence of Brady?s involvement. Those comments attracted headlines

So an independent, unbiased third party agrees with me… But people will go one pretending I’m the one with the bias problem… Right…

Second:

Published reports of Judge Berman?s remarks on Wednesday reveal a judge deeply perplexed by the NFL?s system of justice. Most notably, Judge Berman sharply questioned why the NFL refused to let Brady?s legal team ask questions of NFL general counsel Jeffrey Pash during Brady?s appeal on June 23. Remember, Pash edited the so-called ?independent? report authored by attorney Ted Wells, whom the NFL had hired to investigate the Deflategate controversy. Pash?s role in the Wells Report?the key source of information used by Goodell to punish Brady?made Pash a potentially crucial witness in Brady?s appeal.

So, if we’re to apply the same logic of “but da cell phonez” the NFL is guilty of a setup. They refused to let the dude who edited the fucking report used to punish him testify?

If destroying a cell phone means Brady is guilty, not letting the fuckign dude who knows what the original document said, means the NFL is guilty of making up the entire thing and tarnishing Brady out of vengeance. (Keep in mind this theory has AS MUCH EVIDENCE as any anti-Brady theory)…

But, who wants to let any of this critical thinking get in the way of good 'ol Pats hate?

772

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:
It does nothing to discredit the allegations that he cheated. [/quote]

Because you choose to ignore where the judge said there is zero evidence of guilt?

Or because your just as much of a fanboy as anybody else and are letting that cloud reason and evidence?

[/quote]

I honestly haven’t read or followed much about the decision by Judge Berman today.

I did read the texts that were made public earlier this year between Brady, and the two other employees. I also read how something like 11 of 12 footballs taken from the Colt’s playoff game were under the league minimum for air pressure.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck… it’s probably a fucking duck.

773

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

2 points of Note:

Last week Judge Berman openly wondered why the NFL would conclude that Brady played some role in deflating footballs when there is no direct evidence of Brady?s involvement. Those comments attracted headlines [/quote]

This statement from Judge Berman does not raise concerns for me about the NFL and the Commish. It actually raises concerns for me about this Judge.

774

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

2 points of Note:

Last week Judge Berman openly wondered why the NFL would conclude that Brady played some role in deflating footballs when there is no direct evidence of Brady?s involvement. Those comments attracted headlines [/quote]

This statement from Judge Berman does not raise concerns for me about the NFL and the Commish. It actually raises concerns for me about this Judge.

[/quote]

lmao…

And I’m the biased fanboy…

Right

775

[quote]mbdix wrote:

I did read the texts that were made public earlier this year between Brady, and the two other employees. [/quote]

And? point out which ones show proof of Brady being a “cheat”?

You can’t, but please do. The NFL can’t either, so when you do, I’m sure they will pay you.

[quote] I also read how something like 11 of 12 footballs taken from the Colt’s playoff game were under the league minimum for air pressure.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck… it’s probably a fucking duck.[/quote]

Did you read the part where the ref didn’t even write down what pressure the balls were at during pregame inspection? Have you read any of the articles pointing out that yes, science exists, and can explain “under-inflation” assuming it even happened, because there is zero documentation that they weren’t that pressure before the game. How about the fact that two different gauges were used, both yielding significantly different pressures, and using one pregame and then another at half could account for the vast majority of the pressure difference there is zero documentation exist?

Also, did you fail to note that in that entire report they failed to provide a single ounce of evidence there was tampering? The sure as shit assume it, just like you do. But we all know what ASSuming does.

I deal with evidence and documentation in my job, a lot. You can “quack like a duck” all you want, but if you can’t prove anything, which neither you nor the NFL can, well maybe you’ll end up with as much egg on your face as Goodell…

Don’t ever talk about “integrity of the game” here again, because you don’t even have the integrity to look at anything other than how you feel about a situation, certainly not the facts and circumstances.

776

777

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I would hope not. Do you entertain the idea that Hillary Clinton has sent classified information through her private server? She’s pretty adamant she didn’t and she destroyed the server after wiping it and she destroyed a bunch of emails. Sound familiar?

[/quote]

Somehow, and I know this is crazy, but by some black magic, there appears to be EVIDENCE she is lying. Something there is none of in the case you’re comparing it to. [/quote]

That black magic is a court order and FBI investigation. Something the NFL cannot do.

[quote]
The NFL had the phones on the other end of Brady’s. WTF would be on his not on theirs? [/quote]

I think Brady is a smart enough person not to type a text message that says, “Deflate the game balls after the refs inspect them.”

He could of easily told the ball boys in person or over the phone. Who gains from the balls being deflated?

[quote]
EDIT: and why on Earth would these two numb skulls NOT rat out Brady who obviously was an asshole to work for, did you read those texts? [/quote]

Ya, that I do agree with. It is a whole in my side’s argument.

778

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/08/19/deflategate-hearing-tom-brady-roger-goodell-richard-berman

2 points of Note:

Last week Judge Berman openly wondered why the NFL would conclude that Brady played some role in deflating footballs when there is no direct evidence of Brady?s involvement. Those comments attracted headlines

So an independent, unbiased third party agrees with me… But people will go one pretending I’m the one with the bias problem… Right…
[/quote]

Because the ball boys gained nothing from deflating the balls except unemployment?

Except that the NFL has deflated footballs. Someone deflated them and I seriously doubt the ball boys were doing it for shits and giggles.

[quote]
But, who wants to let any of this critical thinking get in the way of good 'ol Pats hate? [/quote]

It’s football, logic doesn’t play a role here :wink:

779

From what I read, the court decision was not about whether or not Brady did it but rather whether or not the suspension was consistent with the player conduct handbook and past punishments. The judge ruled that the suspension was not.

In fact, the NFL didn’t suspend Brady for ordering the deflation as there was no evidence of that. They suspended him for impeding the investigation and for general knowledge of wrongdoing. The problem they ran into, and the ruling the judge made, was that the NFL had not punished for those offenses in the past, at least in not the same degree.

The fact remains, though, that the balls were deflated. Unless the Ravens did it in order to frame the Patriots for doing it, it stands that someone from the Patriots organization did deflate the balls. It also seems unlikely that someone from the Patriots organization would deflate the balls without Tom Brady encouraging it. That doesn’t necessarily imply wrongdoing on Brady’s part. He may have simply asked that the balls be as soft as possible and not have asked for post inspection deflation. Given the lack of other evidence, Brady has to be given the benefit of the doubt.

Either way, the punishment is probably an overreaction. It’s not as if the Ravens’ game was close. This is really the heart of the judge’s decision. As this is not a criminal matter, neither impeding the investigation nor general knowledge of violations are inherently punishable.

780

[quote]Silyak wrote:
He may have simply asked that the balls be as soft as possible and not have asked for post inspection deflation. [/quote]

Good post overall, and a fair comment IMO.

What I’ve quoted is the most likely scenario in the entire fiasco. Just like Rodgers admitted to doing except with the balls harder.

But fanboys gonna fanboy and be all like “Brady is a Cheat”. Which is pretty much 100% envy.