rmcjacket23

1. If you haven't seen people saying that he should be banned for life, then go re-read the comments on many of the articles after the Wells Report came out. Banned for life, SBs revoked, etc. All ideas shared by multiple fans of the Ravens on these very boards. 2. Not once have I suggested the Patriots shouldn't be punished for it... I just don't have any idea where people come up with these mostly arbitrary punishments. If people want season bans... what's the basis for that? Is it just because someone wants to be self-righteous and "send a message to the kids", or is it just because someone doesn't like Brady and wants to see him gone? Like it or not, precedence matters. I have zero doubt that the NFL looked at this infraction, compared it to other infractions that they deemed to be "cheating" and issued a punishment in accordance with it. While there's no doubt that there's always a since of being "arbitrary" in any punishment, at least the NFL can in most cases look at something, gauge the temperature in the room, and assess a respectable punishment based on precedence and their interpretation of the facts. I think too many people have decided that punishment is supposed to be devised based on this notion of it being a deterrent to other people. That's a byproduct of a punishment, not the reason why the punishment should be given.

1. No, they didn't. They ran legal plays. That has been confirmed over and over and over again. That's not a subject for debate or interpretation. The Patriots violated ZERO NFL rules on those plays. Not debatable, not subject to interpretation. 2. Shady means nothing to me, because its inherently subjective. Its like accusing somebody of being "unethical"... its meaningless, because two people's subjective opinions about what is "shady" or "unethical" are completely different, and neither is right or wrong, because there is no right or wrong when it comes to those terms. I look at it and say... did they violate any rules with the formations they used? The answer is no, therefore I don't care. Remember... not liking the formation they were using (or in most fans case, simply not understanding it) isn't a requirement in order for the play to be considered "not-shady". This conversation has nothing to do with whether we "could have" won the game, or what Torrey did or didn't do. I never once said that we couldn't have or shouldn't have won that game. I'm simply making sure that people don't think that our defense was outstanding in the second half and that the reason they gave up 21 points was because of allegedly "shady" formations. We gave up large amounts of yardage and mostly got worked over by Brady for a large portion of the second half while he was using standard NFL formations that everybody understands. Whether people want to accept that or not is their problem.

Yeah we added some offensive players, like we should have. But right now, we really don't know a ton about our offense at all. We know we have Joe, and we're pretty sure we have a solid O-line. Do we know for sure that Forsett will be a great back again for us with a new OC? I don't. Do I have supreme confidence in our passing weapons? Not really. You could argue that Perriman and Williams might be our most "talented" pass catchers and they've never caught a ball in the NFL before. They could both struggle heavily in year 1, and it wouldn't surprise me nor should it surprise anybody else. Our offense, particularly given we have yet another new OC, is still a pretty large question mark if you ask me. There's talent and particularly young talent, but that doesn't necessarily translate into production.

But that's my entire point... the NFL won't get that message. At all. Roger Goodell gets loudly booed every single time he comes to the podium to announce a draft pick on draft day, and its been that way for years. Does the NFL care? Of course not. If they were that concerned about it, then he wouldn't be announcing the picks at all... they'd let some lacky do it. He doesn't even need to be there, and the event would do just fine. The NFL reacts to "unhappiness" in the fanbase when the fanbase actually takes actions that effect the NFL. How loud the fanbase boos somebody doesn't have any effect on the NFL. At best, you may get a smirk out of Brady, and even that's a stretch. Plus, I certainly don't buy the notion that reducing Brady's punishment is going to make somebody boo louder. You were already going to boo him before he was even caught cheating, and his suspension being reduced really has nothing to do with him, because that's not his call, so you're really booing the wrong person. In a circle back kind of way, it actually would probably mean that Goodell just gets booed louder when the 2016 draft comes around, but we already know neither he nor the NFL cares about that.

But that's the thing... its not about just one team. We know that the Patriots cheated... twice. We also know the Saints cheated, the Browns cheated, and the Falcons cheated. And those are just the cheaters that we actually know of, completely excludes the one's we think happened. THEN... you throw in the Ray Rice case, Adrian Peterson and others, and the outrage that came from the NFL's perceived incompetence in handling it... AND REVENUE STILL INCREASES. The same people that think Brady should be banned for life are the same people who portray this alleged outrage over most if not all of these incidents, and yet, the maximum response they can come up with is "booing"? Seriously?

All of the statistics I have provided occurred 100% AFTER THE ENTIRE DRIVE where the players used "shady" plays. I know exactly the drive you are talking about, where the TE caught back to back like 20 yard passes down the middle when Vereen was marked as ineligible. Gronk caught a 5 yard TD pass on that drive. The 150 yards and two TDs the Ravens gave up that I am referring to occurred AFTER that drive, on completely separate drives, with completely valid and "non-shady" formations where the Ravens knew who was eligible. AFTER the "shady" drive, the Patriots had the ball three more times where they were actually attempting to score. The first one, Brady completed back to back passes for 19 yards, and then Edelman completed the 51 yard TD pass on a HB pass to tie the game (a play in which our secondary looked incredibly foolish). We gave up 3 passes for 70 yards on that drive, resulting in a TD. The next drive, the Pats went three and out, which I guess somehow validates the "sound" defensive play of the second half. The next drive, the game winning drive, Brady went 8 for 9 for 72 yards, culminating in a 23 yard TD pass, and they never ran a 3rd down play on that entire drive. So, again, you really are just stereotyping an entire half of football based on ONE drive where they used "shady" plays to score a TD. That has zero impact on the fact that in two drives after that drive, the Ravens allowed 11 of 12 balls to be completed, for over 140 yards... all out of completely "non-shady" formations. If your assertion is that because of that "shady" drive it created a ripple effect that unraveled our entire defense, then again, all you're really saying is that we were too mentally weak on defense to win that game.

LOL, nice try. 150 yards was the amount of legitimate passing yardage that was given up by the defense of the Baltimore Ravens on "non-shady" plays in the second half., particularly from mid-3rd quarter on. Two TD passes was the amount of passing TDs the Ravens gave up in the second half on "non-shady plays" (they gave up 3 total on the second half, but you already knew that). The ripple argument is nice and all, but that basically just means that we were mentally weak. If using "shady plays" on ONE drive is so devastating to our defenses psychy that we then allow two more legitimate TD drives (almost exclusvely through the air mind you) after that, then we didn't deserve to win the game anyway. But I'll bite on this notion that we were "sound" in the 2nd half... please provide examples. Which specific players were allegedly "sound" and what did they actually do to perform at that level? If we are not going to go quantitative, then we should have no problem going qualitative. Its one thing to be upset because the Patriots used allegedly "shady plays" to score a TD, but its completely different to stereotype the entire half as such when its simply not true.

So what you're saying is that people are outraged, yet they aren't willing to do anything about it to actually show their outrage, other than (lol at this notion)... booing somebody? Stop and think about this notion for a minute... the response to something is allegeding so outraging is to boo. There is no single greater indicator of fake outrage than having your maximum amount of action being booing somebody.

Now you're just reaching. There's still another 11 completions for almost 150 yards from the mid-3rd quarter on that were done with completely and utterly "non-shady" formations. We gave up two legitimate passing TDs in the first half, and two legitimate passing TDs in the second half, and the yardage numbers (if you exclude the "shady" drive) were higher in the second half for Brady. I suppose if we were comparing our second half pass defense to that of what we accomplished in Pittsburgh when we gave up 6 TDs, then sure we were "sound". By normal NFL standards... not sound.

But that's all we ever hear from fans... words. Booing. Hundreds of thousands of people every year will plop down good money to Boo Tom Brady Very, very, very good news for the NFL, the Patriots, and for Tom Brady. That means people aren't really outraged after all. If they were, the booing would actually decrease, because the stadium would have less people in it. Everybody fully understands. Its just a difference in level of perspective for most.

I think Canty is pretty safe. He's got a base salary under $1M, a very small cap number, and he's basically the only "veteran" on an extremely young DL. You risk playing the season with a complete group of mostly unproven players on the DL if you cut Canty.

Too much hindsight. We don't know what would have happened if we signed Graham. Do we know for certain we sign Steve Smith Sr. if we signed Graham? Could we still afford to pay Eugene Monroe or Dennis Pitta (obviously the Pitta thing didn't work out too well)? There's no way to possibly know. If we were to pretend that signing Graham would have cost us either Monroe or Pitta, I'd have 100% preferred to sign Monroe or Pitta over Graham at the time we made the decision. Its the most irrelevant perk that fans have... we have the ability to second-guess decisions the FO or team makes after knowning precisely what the following events are. Ozzie simply doesn't have that luxury.

Agreed, and I expect that's precisely what he will do. BUT... he's also at the least veteran depth. So an injury to Webb or Jimmy might force him outside. While he's not nearly as good there, its hard to tell now whether he would do a better job than somebody like Asa or Melvin on the outside either. My suspicion is he would perform better, but obviously corner would still be a weakness.

I'd expect Brooks to start the year on PUP, and possibly never come off, so I think you have at least one open roster spot there. Just a hunch, but I don't think we keep 8 DL on the 53 man roster either. If we do, I'd expect at least 2 of them (possibly 3) to be inactive on gamedays most of the time anyway.

Probably not, but certainly wouldn't surprise me. We've already seen Saints players get full suspensions wiped away from their involvement in BountyGate when they pushed the legal envelope with the NFL. And all of those players also played well when their appeal process was still tied up in litigation with an independent party.

Yeah, I'm not buying most of this... I'm not defending the Patriots. I'm defending the notion that Brady and specific individuals are somehow getting punished for SpyGate and the public is incorrectly lumping the two together, which again, he had as much to do with that as you or I did. What, specifically, did Tom Brady do wrong in the SpyGate saga? What was he specfically accused of? Like I addressed already, the fines and the draft picks are a reflection of an ORGANIZATIONAL punishment. Its a reflection of, as you say, habitual cheaters. Its a bit hypocritical and confusing to me though, given that the Wells Report, which the NFL financed and ultimately used to base its judgment on, largely exonerated people like Belichick and Kraft (basically the representatives of the organization) from any wrongdoing in this situation. I supposed the league's entire foundation for these punishments is based on this notion that they failed to allow Wells to interview McNally again, but that's not really relevant to me. Tom Brady's suspension is an individual suspension. Its a suspension of a single player from the team, much like every other suspension is. If a player gets popped for PEDs, he gets suspended. He doesn't get suspended AND the team gets fined a draft pick. Therefore, what the league is saying is that Tom Brady deflating some footballs as a FIRST TIME OFFENDER (because he's never been even vaguely accused of cheating at any other point in his career, and certainly not during SpyGate) is warranted of a four game suspension. If the argument is that its the equivalent of PED use, then I'm fine with it, but it would appear that the public seems to think this is actually a light sentence for Brady, which is mind-boggling to me, considering nobody claimed that Ngata's suspension was "light" at the time that happened. I don't really care much about the "legacy" argument, because fans perception of legacy and what legacy actually is are generally completely different. I have zero doubt that Tom Brady doesn't care one bit about whether the public thinks his rings or performances are "tainted" one bit. He knows he's won SBs, he knows he's set records, he knows his coaches and peers within the business respect him and think he's one of the greatest QBs they've ever seen, and he knows he's going straight to the HOF. That's a legacy. Much in the same way an average human being would, if I were to take stock of my life and try to determine my "legacy", it wouldn't be based at all on what a stranger who doesn't know me or know anything about me thinks of me. In his case, its what his peers and people within the industry think of him that matters. As for comparing off-field incidents to on, the comparisons may not exactly be fair, but they are extremely relevant to me and particularly to the NFL. In the NFL's case, off-field transgressions actually matter significantly more, because they can alter the bottom line of the league in a much harsher way, and they cross into areas where the public cares more. The NFL cares about money... a lot. I'd argue its the number one thing they care about (even moreso than integrity, which most fans pretend to care about but really don't when it comes down to it), and if that's the case, they care a lot more about the monetary consequences of somebody knocking out their wife than they do about their star QB deflating some footballs. The last time I checked, there were numerous sponsors who were extremely interested (and ultimately in the ear of the NFL) in regards to punishment for public figures who commit violent crimes like domestic violence and child abuse. And the last time I checked, approximately ZERO sponsors I've heard of care even vaguely about what Brady did with footballs or what his punishment was. Like it or not, the NFL cares much more about actions than words. They know that as much as the public likes to play the self-righteous card in situations like Brady's, they know the same people are watching games, going to games, and wearing jerseys, regardless of the punishment. Its the actions of guys like Rice, and more importantly, the NFL's response to it, that can alter whether certain demographics watch games, attend games, and wear jerseys, and whether certain sponsors pay them millions to advertise their product. Brady's and the Pats' transgressions don't even move the needle in that regard, hence why you're starting to see more severe punishments for off-field problems than on.

While I agree, the problem I have is that the fine and draft pick penalties are essentially the "organizational penalties". But the four game suspension for Brady isn't really an "organizational penalty"... its an individual one. It implies that Brady committed an act that warrants a four game suspension. Last time I checked, Brady had nothing to do with SpyGate, so I highly doubt the NFL is handing down a suspension to Brady for something the organization did but he didn't partake in. So in reality, Brady is most likely being treated as a simple first-time offender of an on-field rules violation, and takes into account the fact that he may have lied. To me, that's what makes the 4 game punishment a bit steep in my opinion, because I just don't think his personal transgression warrants that. I think the likelihood of him actually sitting four games is almost non-existent, and I wouldn't be surprised if over half or even all of the suspension is withdrawn.

While that's true, keep in mind that you are only sampling the 2014 season for those PI numbers. 2011: 4/171 2012: 5/78 2013: 6/93 2014: 11/229 So if you actually look at his four year numbers, 2014 is sort of an outlier, since he never had more than 6 PI calls against in his previous 3 seasons. So if we were to simply assume that he caught every one of the passes he was interfered with (highly unlikely) and we add his yardage to his actual yardage, his average season would be 60 catches for 1,040 yards. For context, Steve Smith Sr., who was once viewed as a deep threat but isn't anymore, and who is also a decade older than Torrey, would have put up 84 catches for 1,120 yards when adjusted for DPI impact.

Cut this season? Highly unlikely. I think its more likely you see somebody like a Brown/Aiken/Campanaro not make the roster than SSS. But, I do expect him to have a "reduced" role, and I'd also expect 2015 to be his last season with this team.

Probably a combination of both. I'm sure Perriman is a physical mismatch for a lot of corners in this league, and I'd expect him to dominate rookies and UDFAs. On the other hand, we know rookie secondary players, and particularly corners, often struggle for at least the first year in the league, and Walker is just a 4th round pick. I would say, based on adaption to the league alone, if we get any positive contribution out of Walker as even a nickel corner, I'd consider it a positive rookie season. I'd say Walker has the looks of a possible ST contributor or borderline gameday inactive for most of his rookie season. And that should be acceptable for most Ravens fans.

Undoubtedly true. One has to question though whether or not the NFL is essentially overreacting on its punishment due to the beating they took for under-reacting to other punishments.

Levine was always a safety. He was a safety the same year Elam was drafted. He's depth at safety and a core ST player, which is where most of his value is. Last year was the first year he played corner, and we all know why. Obviously firing a guy who thought he was first round material is overly excessive and overreactionary at a minimum. Luckily, great businesses don't operate that way.

Cutting Elam isn't happening either. It would cost almost $1M more against the cap to cut him than to keep him. Of those four, there's basically a zero percent chance he gets released, barring some off-field transgression.

Much simpler for me... I don't think any reasonable person actually thinks this punishment was lenient. I think most reasonable people believe that the punishment was far closer to harsh than it was to lenient. I get, though don't agree with, the 4 game suspension for Brady, since it very much falls in line with a standard PED suspension for "cheating", although the punishment was likely much more severe, given his lack of cooperation. I thought the fine was sufficient, and its really the only way to hold the other people (ballboys) accountable. The draft pick penalty is laughable to me though, because its completely contradictory to the entire investigation that the NFL had an independent party conduct. But either way, I don't really care.

Based on the details I've seen, McNally met with NFL issues either 4 or 5 times. I believe it was the last time (either the 5th or 6th time) where they didn't allow him to speak with NFL officials. Not everything is as it seems...