NFL FINDS Patriots* EMPLOYEES PROBABLY DEFLATED BALLS

The NFL's Deflategate report is a disaster for Tom Brady

The NFL has finished its investigation into the New England Patriots* and concluded that the team likely intentionally broke league rules and deflated footballs used in the AFC title game.

While the investigation focuses on the actions of two employees, locker room attendant Jim McNally and equipment assistant John Jastremski, the report also concludes that Tom Brady "was at least generally aware of the inappropriate activities of McNally and Jastremski involving the release of air from Patriots* game balls."

This is a pretty damning accusation against one of the NFL's biggest stars.

The league's evidence against Brady centers on three main points: 1) his reaction to the condition of game balls used in a Week 7 game against the New York Jets in October, 2) how he interacted with McNally and Jastremski following subsequent games, and 3) how he communicated with the two after Deflategate exploded.

The report points to evidence of Brady's interest and knowledge of ball inflation levels as early as October 2014, several months before the AFC Championship game. In a text message exchange between McNally and Jastremski following a game against the Jets, Brady is portrayed as angry about the condition of the footballs (NSFW language below



http://finance.yahoo.com/news/nfls-deflategate-report-disaster-tom-222506038.html

****This link provides text messages between the "deflators"

FanSince72 wrote:

ImmaculateGreenePolamalu wrote:

FanSince72 wrote:

ImmaculateGreenePolamalu wrote:

FanSince72 wrote:

Why does anyone care about this?

What cracks me up is that the Banksters and their 1% buddies ran the U.S. economy into the ground and then bilked this country out of nearly a trillion dollars of taxpayer bailout money - most of which ended up being handed out in bonuses - and not a single charge has been filed against any of them.

But no stone has been left unturned in the quest for "the truth" about just how much air was in a football.


Ridiculous.

Well we are on a football forum talking about events that impact the sport we follow so it's natural that we care about this. And who's to say the aforementioned doesn't bother me. It's the same crooked spirit furthermore. Maybe the Patriots***** and Brady shouldn't fucking constantly do crap like this if they don't want people like me to care about this. Actually win legitimately but I think they're incapable of doing that because they're not as good as everyone says they are. A truly great team wouldn't constantly being doing crap like NE has for the past decade plus.

What's most laughable about this is that in the game in which this alleged "crime" was committed, Brady & Co. scored just 17 points during the first half while presumably using the under-inflated footballs.
But according to the NFL, the balls were correctly inflated at halftime after which Brady & Co. then scored 28 points using properly inflated footballs.





So where is the "unfair advantage" in under-inflated footballs?

Then later that week, Aaron Rogers said that he preferred OVER-inflated footballs because he felt that he could grip the ball better (and thus throw more accurately).
So one guy likes a soft football and another prefers a firm football.

So what's the problem?

To me, it's simply about personal preference and it makes no difference at all in terms of whether or not a team is better able to score.

Much ado about nothing.

I think your mind is made up and I understand that but if you're going to bring up the margin of the victory over the Colts which brought this to the league's attention, I think it's fair to bring up that Jastremski and McNally were talking about deflating balls as far back as October which is right around the time Brady started to heat up after a shaky start. Furthermore, the margin is irrelevant. The Watergate Break-In wasn't a lesser deal since Nixon beat McGovern in a landslide and I will point out that school children are still punished for cheating on tests they would have aced anyhow so the idea that the Pats*** would have beat the Colts regardless doesn't hold water to me. What ultimately bothers me though is that the Pats*** obstructed the investigation and that Brady lied. You're right that QBs do have their own preferences. The difference is we haven't heard stories about Aaron Rodgers asking GB's equivalent of Jastremski and McNally to deflate balls and giving them gifts to do it.And furthermore why have rules about the pressure of the balls if it's not a problem. Honestly, my solution would be and this is yet another strike against Brady in my book is that both teams should use the same balls.  Brady was a big proponent in changing the rule to have the teams have different balls.

So are you suggesting that this somehow compares to Watergate?

Really?


You DO realize that football is a game, right?

Okay, that's fair. This is different than Watergate. However, if you look at the context of what I said. I only brought up Watergate to point out that the significance of that scandal wasn't mitigated by the fact that Nixon won in a landslide. And as I said there are other examples that work here too like a student getting punished and equally scrutinized for cheating on a test that he would have otherwise passed.And furthermore if the texts are to be believed, it seems this was happening long before the Indy game and in fact the Pats* had won a close one with the Ravens the previous week. I just don't think "The Pats* won by 38 points so ergo this is irrelevant" is a valid defense.

Atlanta Dan wrote:

FanSince72 wrote:

Atlanta Dan wrote:

FanSince72 wrote:

ImmaculateGreenePolamalu wrote:

FanSince72 wrote:

Why does anyone care about this?

What cracks me up is that the Banksters and their 1% buddies ran the U.S. economy into the ground and then bilked this country out of nearly a trillion dollars of taxpayer bailout money - most of which ended up being handed out in bonuses - and not a single charge has been filed against any of them.

But no stone has been left unturned in the quest for "the truth" about just how much air was in a football.


Ridiculous.

Well we are on a football forum talking about events that impact the sport we follow so it's natural that we care about this. And who's to say the aforementioned doesn't bother me. It's the same crooked spirit furthermore. Maybe the Patriots********* and Brady shouldn't fucking constantly do crap like this if they don't want people like me to care about this. Actually win legitimately but I think they're incapable of doing that because they're not as good as everyone says they are. A truly great team wouldn't constantly being doing crap like NE has for the past decade plus.

What's most laughable about this is that in the game in which this alleged "crime" was committed, Brady & Co. scored just 17 points during the first half while presumably using the under-inflated footballs.
But according to the NFL, the balls were correctly inflated at halftime after which Brady & Co. then scored 28 points using properly inflated footballs.




So where is the "unfair advantage" in under-inflated footballs?

Then later that week, Aaron Rogers said that he preferred OVER-inflated footballs because he felt that he could grip the ball better (and thus throw more accurately).
So one guy likes a soft football and another prefers a firm football.

So what's the problem?

To me, it's simply about personal preference and it makes no difference at all in terms of whether or not a team is better able to score.

Much ado about nothing.

I officially have found all the comforts of a new home here now that you are present to bait posters

Brady would have been more successful if he has Arians as his HC - now that is a competitive advantage:heh:

Hmm...

An Arians comment in less than 20 minutes!

Not bad!


BTW, You must be a good lawyer because you dodged my comment AND threw in a misdirect in just two short sentences.

I did not dodge anything - if Brady did not think it would provide a competitive advantage why would he do it - or do you actually believe Dumb and Dumber were deflating footballs while Brady knew nothing about it?

Brady was looking for an edge that is not permitted under the rules and got caught - in my day job that is something that gets you named as a defendant

He did it for the same reason that Aaron Rogers said he likes an over-inflated football...it just feels better in his hand.

It's the same reason why I prefer a golf glove, it makes the club feel more secure in my hand.
And before you say it, I know golf gloves are legal, but some players prefer wearing one on their lead hand, other prefer two gloves while still others don't use any.

It's all about personal comfort or more to the point, what makes one FEEL more comfortable and I doubt there is any discernible empirical advantage in wearing a glove other than in the mind of the individual.

Brady (or Rogers for that matter) may feel as if their personal preferences allow them to feel more confident, but they still have to take a snap, go through their reads, identify a target, deliver the ball to that target while avoiding defenders and then someone has to catch the ball.

That's a lot of variables and I seriously doubt that a couple of pounds of air removed from (or added to) a football is going to make all of that easier to the point of being "unfair".

FanSince72 wrote:

He did it for the same reason that Aaron Rogers said he likes an over-inflated football...it just feels better in his hand.

It's the same reason why I prefer a golf glove, it makes the club feel more secure in my hand.
And before you say it, I know golf gloves are legal, but some players prefer wearing one on their lead hand, other prefer two gloves while still others don't use any.

It's all about personal comfort or more to the point, what makes one FEEL more comfortable and I doubt there is any discernible empirical advantage in wearing a glove other than in the mind of the individual.

Brady (or Rogers for that matter) may feel as if their personal preferences allow them to feel more confident, but they still have to take a snap, go through their reads, identify a target, deliver the ball to that target while avoiding defenders and then someone has to catch the ball.

That's a lot of variables and I seriously doubt that a couple of pounds of air removed from (or added to) a football is going to make all of that easier to the point of being "unfair".

Then change the rule - Bell got blazed on the way to the airport - while that arguably is not a big deal it violates the NFL rules on substance abuse and he got suspended

You cannot pick and choose to only obey the rules that you think are "fair" without bearing the consequences of getting caught for breaking the rule, particularly when you lie about it

One reason Roger said he hammered Vick was because Vick lied about his actions - take a look at what Brady said in his January press conference

With my first post I declare this. Tom Brady is a pretty good QB. He is great when all of the cards are stacked in his favor. If Ben had the cheating mind of Brady then Ben would already have 9 SB's. FU *Pats*, I hope Belicheat dies in a fiery car crash because he is sucking Goodells schong and makes him blow a nut as they are on an on ramp when a tire blows out and they run into a bridge support.

Atlanta Dan wrote:

You cannot pick and choose to only obey the rules that you think are "fair" without bearing the consequences of getting caught for breaking the rule, particularly when you lie about it

Amen.

FanSince72 wrote:

Why does anyone care about this?

What cracks me up is that the Banksters and their 1% buddies ran the U.S. economy into the ground and then bilked this country out of nearly a trillion dollars of taxpayer bailout money - most of which ended up being handed out in bonuses - and not a single charge has been filed against any of them.

But no stone has been left unturned in the quest for "the truth" about just how much air was in a football.


Ridiculous.

the question you should be asking yourself , is, why DO YOU CARE , if we care and wish to discuss this.

SteelerSpartan wrote:

filthy cheaters.......But the punishment for Brady is likely an hour of holding hands and a kiss on the cheek with GODell

Pretty sure there will be kisses, and I doubt they'll be on his cheek.

It was all a misunderstanding. Brady asked them to take care of his balls, but he didn't mean the game balls.

Lokki wrote:

It was all a misunderstanding.  Brady asked them to take care of his balls, but he didn't mean the game balls.

1.  Cheating is cheating whether it's a Tuesday morning or a Friday night.  I don't care if you cheat in sports or in life, cheating is cheating.  We have rules and moral guidelines in place to advocate for fairness in life.  

2. "What's a few pounds of air"- have you ever tried to grip a football in the winter?  It is MUCH easier to grip and accurately throw a football that you can dig your hands into a little more.

3.  This is also a pattern of behavior.  This is now at least number 2 infraction of cheating by a "dynasty".  What does that show about sports?  Sport isn't about actual talent but who can slyly cheat the best?  That would be VERY concerning to me.

4.  I love the prospect that Brady might have to miss the season opener (and not just because we play them).  There would be so much negative media attention and so many camera shots of him pouting on the sideline that it would be hilarious (and a possible drinking game).

Who got caught cheating?

"I did"

Master_Of_Puppets wrote:

FanSince72 wrote:

Why does anyone care about this?

What cracks me up is that the Banksters and their 1% buddies ran the U.S. economy into the ground and then bilked this country out of nearly a trillion dollars of taxpayer bailout money - most of which ended up being handed out in bonuses - and not a single charge has been filed against any of them.

But no stone has been left unturned in the quest for "the truth" about just how much air was in a football.


Ridiculous.

the question you should be asking yourself , is, why DO YOU CARE , if we care and wish to discuss this.  

I'm just wondering why this is such an issue.

Especially because I seriously doubt that anyone could prove that there is any direct connection between the air pressure of a football and the success of a team.

From a rules point of view there may very well have been a violation.
But to conflate a soft football with an unfair competitive advantage is a reach at best and it's THAT part of the argument that bugs me.

For example, many kickers prefer to wear a smaller-sized shoe on their kicking foot because they feel it allows them to make better contact with the ball.
Is that a personal preference or an unfair competitive advantage?

Or how about linemen who wear smaller-sized jerseys so that an opponent would have trouble grabbing and holding them?
Is that also an unfair competitive advantage?
Not to mention that the idea of doing this suggests that "holding" is a problem, which is also a rules violation yet it must happen regularly otherwise why wear the smaller jerseys?

Like I say, taking some air out of a football may be a rules violation (probably more like an infraction) but I still believe that it has more to do with comfort than anything else and does not constitute an unfair competitive advantage.

But that's just my opinion.  

Limas Sweed wrote:

With my first post I declare this. Tom Brady is a pretty good QB. He is great when all of the cards are stacked in his favor. If Ben had the cheating mind of Brady then Ben would already have 9 SB's. FU *Pats**, I hope Belicheat dies in a fiery car crash because he is sucking Goodells schlong and makes him blow a nut as they are on an on ramp when a tire blows out and they run into a bridge support.

*fixed

It's Bane-official.

The Patriots* are 0-4 in Super Bowls.

The other 4 are omitted.

Bane wrote:

It's Bane-official.

The Patriots** are 0-4 in Super Bowls.

The other 4 are omitted.

Well two of the other four happened before Brady and even Belichick joined the team so 0-6 which makes their record worse than the Bills and Vikings.

@fansince72 when the news came out the first time, an artrticle came out that the Patriots* have had a lower fumble rate than many of the other teams for a significant amount of years. Less air in ball = easier to grip = less fumbles (IF this has been going on that long). How many times has a game come down to a turnover?

That's why this kind of stuff matters.

FanSince72 wrote:

Master_Of_Puppets wrote:

FanSince72 wrote:

Why does anyone care about this?

What cracks me up is that the Banksters and their 1% buddies ran the U.S. economy into the ground and then bilked this country out of nearly a trillion dollars of taxpayer bailout money - most of which ended up being handed out in bonuses - and not a single charge has been filed against any of them.

But no stone has been left unturned in the quest for "the truth" about just how much air was in a football.


Ridiculous.

the question you should be asking yourself , is, why DO YOU CARE , if we care and wish to discuss this.  

I'm just wondering why this is such an issue.

Especially because I seriously doubt that anyone could prove that there is any direct connection between the air pressure of a football and the success of a team.

From a rules point of view there may very well have been a violation.
But to conflate a soft football with an unfair competitive advantage is a reach at best and it's THAT part of the argument that bugs me.

For example, many kickers prefer to wear a smaller-sized shoe on their kicking foot because they feel it allows them to make better contact with the ball.
Is that a personal preference or an unfair competitive advantage?

Or how about linemen who wear smaller-sized jerseys so that an opponent would have trouble grabbing and holding them?
Is that also an unfair competitive advantage?
Not to mention that the idea of doing this suggests that "holding" is a problem, which is also a rules violation yet it must happen regularly otherwise why wear the smaller jerseys?

Like I say, taking some air out of a football may be a rules violation (probably more like an infraction) but I still believe that it has more to do with comfort than anything else and does not constitute an unfair competitive advantage.

But that's just my opinion.  

the only thing that's relevant here is that there is a rule in place , the Patriots* and their employees were aware of said rule , and they intentionally broke that rule. how much or how little advantage they gained is irrelevant.

This is now on Goodell. The integrity, his integrity, the league's integrity rests on what he does now.

His record on fair punishment is noted and shows inconsistency.

Spygate was a joke, considering James Harrison paid a glorious sum of money for hits that happened on the field. Yet coaches, owners, and players taking an advantage that defies the laws of 'fair play' gets nothing? Now we have deflategate. What will Der Kommish do with it? How does he punish the Super Bowl champs? Are we sure the league wasn't involved?

All this doesn't matter. It is all in the public's eye now. Anything less than a stringent punishment will prove Goodell doesn't have the balls to lead this league.

FanSince72 wrote:

Atlanta Dan wrote:

FanSince72 wrote:

Atlanta Dan wrote:

FanSince72 wrote:

ImmaculateGreenePolamalu wrote:

FanSince72 wrote:

Why does anyone care about this?

What cracks me up is that the Banksters and their 1% buddies ran the U.S. economy into the ground and then bilked this country out of nearly a trillion dollars of taxpayer bailout money - most of which ended up being handed out in bonuses - and not a single charge has been filed against any of them.

But no stone has been left unturned in the quest for "the truth" about just how much air was in a football.


Ridiculous.

Well we are on a football forum talking about events that impact the sport we follow so it's natural that we care about this. And who's to say the aforementioned doesn't bother me. It's the same crooked spirit furthermore. Maybe the Patriots*********** and Brady shouldn't fucking constantly do crap like this if they don't want people like me to care about this. Actually win legitimately but I think they're incapable of doing that because they're not as good as everyone says they are. A truly great team wouldn't constantly being doing crap like NE has for the past decade plus.

What's most laughable about this is that in the game in which this alleged "crime" was committed, Brady & Co. scored just 17 points during the first half while presumably using the under-inflated footballs.
But according to the NFL, the balls were correctly inflated at halftime after which Brady & Co. then scored 28 points using properly inflated footballs.




So where is the "unfair advantage" in under-inflated footballs?

Then later that week, Aaron Rogers said that he preferred OVER-inflated footballs because he felt that he could grip the ball better (and thus throw more accurately).
So one guy likes a soft football and another prefers a firm football.

So what's the problem?

To me, it's simply about personal preference and it makes no difference at all in terms of whether or not a team is better able to score.

Much ado about nothing.

I officially have found all the comforts of a new home here now that you are present to bait posters

Brady would have been more successful if he has Arians as his HC - now that is a competitive advantage:heh:

Hmm...

An Arians comment in less than 20 minutes!

Not bad!


BTW, You must be a good lawyer because you dodged my comment AND threw in a misdirect in just two short sentences.

I did not dodge anything - if Brady did not think it would provide a competitive advantage why would he do it - or do you actually believe Dumb and Dumber were deflating footballs while Brady knew nothing about it?

Brady was looking for an edge that is not permitted under the rules and got caught - in my day job that is something that gets you named as a defendant

He did it for the same reason that Aaron Rogers said he likes an over-inflated football...it just feels better in his hand.

It's the same reason why I prefer a golf glove, it makes the club feel more secure in my hand.
And before you say it, I know golf gloves are legal, but some players prefer wearing one on their lead hand, other prefer two gloves while still others don't use any.

It's all about personal comfort or more to the point, what makes one FEEL more comfortable and I doubt there is any discernible empirical advantage in wearing a glove other than in the mind of the individual.

Brady (or Rogers for that matter) may feel as if their personal preferences allow them to feel more confident, but they still have to take a snap, go through their reads, identify a target, deliver the ball to that target while avoiding defenders and then someone has to catch the ball.

That's a lot of variables and I seriously doubt that a couple of pounds of air removed from (or added to) a football is going to make all of that easier to the point of being "unfair".

Once again, you use illogical excuses and completely different examples to try to offer a pathetic excuse for his illegal behavior. What don't you get about trying to compare PERFECTLY LEGAL preferences to BLATANTLY ILLEGAL rules violations? This isn't hard, Fansince. Just slow down while reading and it may finally come to you. Legal=okay. Illegal=not okay.

You try to use some ridiculous "personal comfort" nonsense as some type of justification for breaking the rules. I'm sure some QBs in the NFL would like to have rodeo riders run out on the field on horseback and hogtie opposing linebackers before every play to increase their "personal comfort" level, but that doesn't give them a pass to do it.

Keep on trollin', brother!

Fan since72, I coach high school football and was a former high school quarterback and believe me, it definitely is an advantage to have your footballs slightly under inflated especially in cold weather. It just gives you the quarterback and also the running backs and receivers an advantage throwing, catching and holding onto the ball. That's why the rule exists in the first place. Even at the high school level, the officials check the psi of the balls before the games. A rule was broken knowingly and then THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT OF A COVERUP which might even be worse than the rule violation. Cry Brady needs to pay, and pay dearly or many fans, not just Steeler fans, will be very pissed. But I would still rather see us kick his ass in the first game at THEIR place on national TV.

Pappy wrote:

Fan since72, I coach high school football and was a former high school quarterback and believe me, it definitely is an advantage to have your footballs slightly under inflated especially in cold weather. It just gives you the quarterback and also the running backs and receivers an advantage throwing, catching and holding onto the ball. That's why the rule exists in the first place. Even at the high school level, the officials check the psi of the balls before the games. A rule was broken knowingly and then THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT OF A COVERUP which might even be worse than the rule violation. Cry Brady needs to pay, and pay dearly or many fans, not just Steeler fans, will be very pissed. But I would still rather see us kick his ass in the first game at THEIR place on national TV.

so what you are saying is that you and high school football across America as part of the bigger anti Tom Brady conspiracy that fan since has uncovered?

Report: Tom Brady could be suspended for up to one year
By John Breech | CBSSports.com
May 7, 2015 2:40 pm ET

Tom Brady's offseason might extend until 2016 if the NFL decides to drop the proverbial hammer on the Patriots* quarterback and at least one report is indicating that the league could slam the hammer down hard.

According to the Miami Herald, Brady could be suspended for up to one year thanks to the part he played in Deflategate.

"Everything is being studied. Everything is being considered," an NFL source told the Herald.

Now, that doesn't mean that Brady will be suspended for the year, but it does mean that the NFL is at least considering it. Brady's punishment could end up being a shorter suspension, but the source told the Herald not to dismiss the possibility of a year-long suspension.

READ MORE: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25177527/report-tom-brady-could-be-suspended-for-up-to-one-year

SteelersYak wrote:

Report: Tom Brady could be suspended for up to one year
By John Breech | CBSSports.com
May 7, 2015 2:40 pm ET

Tom Brady's offseason might extend until 2016 if the NFL decides to drop the proverbial hammer on the Patriots** quarterback and at least one report is indicating that the league could slam the hammer down hard.

According to the Miami Herald, Brady could be suspended for up to one year thanks to the part he played in Deflategate.

"Everything is being studied. Everything is being considered," an NFL source told the Herald.

Now, that doesn't mean that Brady will be suspended for the year, but it does mean that the NFL is at least considering it. Brady's punishment could end up being a shorter suspension, but the source told the Herald not to dismiss the possibility of a year-long suspension.

READ MORE: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25177527/report-tom-brady-could-be-suspended-for-up-to-one-year

I'm honestly shocked that they are. I doubt he will be but this has me doubting we'll see him. And I will add this, those who say this doesn't taint him or his accomplishments are kidding themselves because they love the story of Tom Brady the 6th round draft pick turned all-pro/first ballot of famer more than the reality which is that Tom's been surrounded by controversy from the Tuck Rule (which I concede was an official error) to this present controversy. If Barry Bonds can go from having the most home runs ever to someone who will have to be inducted by the Veterans Committee, why shouldn't Tom suffer some loss to his reputation and legacy. I am not saying that his records should be taken away but when talking about Tom Brady, this has to be discussed. It just has to. I'm sorry. I know the sportswriters love Brady and his story but he's tainted.

ImmaculateGreenePolamalu wrote:

If Barry Bonds can go from having the most home runs ever to someone who will have to be inducted by the Veterans Committee, why shouldn't Tom suffer some loss to his reputation and legacy. I am not saying that his records should be taken away but when talking about Tom Brady, this has to be discussed. It just has to. I'm sorry. I know the sportswriters love Brady and his story but he's tainted.

Damn '72, we had some kids in Chi Town get a baseball championship taken away for having players from out side the district playing on the team and you want to give Brady a pass? Punish the kids but let the Cheats keep their shit? Hell no!

The adults should be setting an example here but Good ole G'Dell will cower down to Kraft and company.