[News] Late For Work 5/7: NFL World Reacts To Legend Ed Reed's Retirement

[rmcjacket23]

Cheating is cheating regardless of how you slice it and regardless of who is doing it they should be punished. You can best believe any other player or any other team would get their just do. Brady will not get what he deserves and we all know it. Sad state of affairs.

Everybody knows there's going to be punishment.

 

The problem fans have is when the punishment doesn't fit the punishment YOU would like to see. But realistically, that's not the NFL's problem, because they aren't in the business of punishing people based on how the public thinks they should be punished.

 

I honestly don't know what would happen to anybody else. In my opinion, the punishment would probably be less if it was Tyrod Taylor who did this. If this was the Minnesota Vikings organization that did this, it gets approximately 1% of the media attention that the Patriots get for this, and I don't think the average QB gets a suspension from this.

 

As much as the public hates to admit, there's a significant, significant downside to being a mass public figure and getting in trouble. And in many cases, the punishment greatly exceeds what the average persons punishment would be.

[stixfix69]

Doesn't it really matter, just another blemish on their franchise resume....Even though they still got the Lombardi, everyone who isn't a Pats fan will look at them as cheaters....

[RavensReck27]

I agree with you there. I'm just gonna dabble is some pscho-analysis here, nothing provable or concrete, just a hunch.

I think that Brady, Bellichick and especially Kraft have been desperate to shake off the stink of spygate ever since that scandal broke. Though they'll deny it to their graves, it irks them, Kraft the most, that their previous three Lombardi's come with an asterisk in the mind of many many fans.

After spygate, they kept getting close to winning. The almost perfect season ruined. The Giants beat them in another close one. We beat them in the AFC Championship. They had another chance this year to make it and silence all the critics, and what happens? Right on the verge of being vindicated, their hopes get deflated.

You could tell all throughout the Super Bowl lead up, even to the point of the presentation of the Lombardi, that Kraft was really ticked off. And you can sense in his words from yesterday that he's incredibly irked that the one Super Bowl that was supposed to finally vidicate them has now been marred by this scandal.

But hey, that's the price you pay. Bill may be a great coach, and Tom is a great QB, but fundamentally they have little scoundrels inside their conscience that got fed up with never reaching the mountain top.

Good intake. 

[RavensReck27]

This is probably the best way I can put it. If the Ravens were caught deflating footballs, and this whole deflate gate was about us, YOU ALL KNOW that we would be saying that this situation is over exaggerated, and that we should only be fined because the media exploitation is already punishment enough. The Patriots have a target on them, I know that, but put yourself in their shoes for a moment. People just like to see things they hate suffer. There is nothing you can say to me to change my opinion on the matter. It is cheating, yes, but it is not on the scale that the mass majority are putting it out to be.

Edited May 7, 2015 by RavensReck27

[stixfix69]

If it were us, they would want to ban us....ha ha ha...yes we are the villains, but we play by the rules....

[stixfix69]

All i know is every time the Pats play away games, the opposing fans will fill the stadium with their pumps.....

[RavensBaltimore]

The facts are is that there is no proof to back up your statement other than one statistic. The Patriots are a well coached team, and have always been good at being clean with the ball.  To say that the improvement of fumble percentage is due to deflated footballs is invalid.  An argument can easily be made that fumbling was obviously an issue for them at that time, and the Pats cracked down on that at practice.  You are jumping to conclusions.  To say they cut down such a problem just because their footballs were SLIGHTLY deflated, then you are obviously overestimating the effect of a football being slightly deflated.  The Pats actually did WORSE with the deflated footballs against the Colts.  It was until they used regulation balls that they started dominating in the second half.  So from common sense, and that fact, slightly deflated footballs are very minor in the grand scheme of things.

The Patriots have not always been clean with the ball in terms of fumbles. Like I said, they were average until after 2006, which was when Brady lobbied to be able to deflate the balls legally. It wasn't until then that the Patriots started leading the league by far in fewest fumbles, with no transition period. I never said there was "proof", but since the chances of that happening by chance are literally almost 0, I'm not jumping to conclusions at all. There may not be a 100% chance, but there is better than a 99% chance that something out of the ordinary caused that sudden change. Since it was directly after Brady tried to get deflating the ball to be legal, and he has now been caught deflating the ball, put 2 and 2 together. There is even a 1 in a billion chance that DNA matches are inaccurate, but no one questions that evidence because there is no absolute "proof".  The reference you gave with the Colts game means nothing, because one half of a game is way too small a sample size to say they did better without the ball being deflated.

[bmoraven]

Ed Reed helped develop what it means to "Play like a Raven"...Congrats Ed, now get on the Sidelines in Bmore.

Flacco at 97?? If any QB lands higher that didn't go deeper in to the playoffs, it really don't matter. W's and L's...

[Chris G]

Here is the article about the Pats "fumble" issues. The article doesn't explain they wanted the balls to be deflated legally, but that they lobbied for each time to provide their own footballs. The rub was the home QB got to pick the balls. The away QBs didn't think that was fair.

To go from league average to tops by a large margin for a long period of time after being given the ability to provide their own balls...is quite a large "anomaly"

http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2015/the-new-england-patriots-mysteriously-became-fumble-proof-in-2007

[RavensBaltimore]

And that would be true... if ticket sales and merchandise sales weren't increasing as well. Those two things have nothing to do with TV ratings.

 

The real interest in integrity, outside of people selectively choosing to play that card, is when it PERSONALLY affects you. When the integrity of the league has direct impact on you, that's when the outrage is actually warranted. When fans realize that the entire concept of watching the NFL is based on you obtaining entertainment from it, it makes it that much easier to add perspective to the fact that a person may choose to deflate some footballs to provide you with better entertainment.

 

Much in the same way that I'm in the minority (although I think deep down people don't actually care about this either) in that I don't care whether professional athletes use PEDs. I still to this day can't even fathom why HGH isn't legal and actually encouraged in all sports, especially when you consider all of the many health benefits that occur from using it (something the public chooses not to understand). In particular, certain aspects of it that boost injury recovery, which therefore means I get to boost my entertainment sooner, since injured players may be back on the field quicker.

 

The only truly valid argument (and I don't even buy that its valid) ever conceived for why HGH use is banned in professional sports is this laughable notion of protecting past records. Because their fathers and grandfathers couldn't use it, apparently its not fair that they can. Logically, that's completely ridiculous for dozens of reasons, but mostly, because society simply evolves.

The higher the tv ratings, the more famous and recognizable the players are, which means more people will want to see them in person and wear their jerseys, so it is all related.

 

Of course people are more interested in integrity when it affects them personally, but people are more interested in everything when it affects them personally. That concept is not exclusive to integrity.

 

If players could cheat at will and get away with it, then all sports leagues would turn into the WWE. People do watch for entertainment value, but a big part of the main attraction of the entertainment is the highest level of competition. When you constantly allow cheating, the competition becomes fake and gimmicky, and it ruins the whole thing. A scandal here and there will draw more revenue, but that doesn't mean that people actually want it. Murder cases draw higher news ratings, but that doesn't mean people want more homicides. Plus, the whole reason a high profile player getting caught cheating is such a big deal is that it's supposed to be a professional league with competitive integrity. If you allow it, everyone will do it, it won't get anyone's attention anymore, and it will become "sports entertainment", not an actual sport, and I think that's when ratings and revenue will start to drop.

[reed20fence]

If the league goes down the route of game suspension(s) it'd be better to suspend him for playoff games and not regular season games, since that is where they were caught. It'd send a stronger message as well. "You tamper with equipment or bribe staff to tamper with it, your entire season could be flushed down the toilet."

[Bohica5]

What the tell will be if brady and the patsies non-fumbling only win 4-5 games this year when the ball is correct......Can't wait....

[Bohica5]

I would actually put TMZ on it.....I think its been going on his whole career....

[riseNConquer81]

It also didn’t suggest that the Ravens tipped off the Colts about under-inflated balls, as previous reports have claimed.

"reports."

thats a funny way to spell "Pats fan rumors."

[rmcjacket23]

The higher the tv ratings, the more famous and recognizable the players are, which means more people will want to see them in person and wear their jerseys, so it is all related.

 

Of course people are more interested in integrity when it affects them personally, but people are more interested in everything when it affects them personally. That concept is not exclusive to integrity.

 

If players could cheat at will and get away with it, then all sports leagues would turn into the WWE. People do watch for entertainment value, but a big part of the main attraction of the entertainment is the highest level of competition. When you constantly allow cheating, the competition becomes fake and gimmicky, and it ruins the whole thing. A scandal here and there will draw more revenue, but that doesn't mean that people actually want it. Murder cases draw higher news ratings, but that doesn't mean people want more homicides. Plus, the whole reason a high profile player getting caught cheating is such a big deal is that it's supposed to be a professional league with competitive integrity. If you allow it, everyone will do it, it won't get anyone's attention anymore, and it will become "sports entertainment", not an actual sport, and I think that's when ratings and revenue will start to drop.

But its never been about "allowing it". Nobody is suggesting that it should be tolerated and allowed. Everybody here expects punishment, and they're incredibly likely to get it.

 

What I'm saying is that there is a large group of posters on this blogs and others that will say that if the punishment isn't sufficient to THEIR LIKING (which is inherently subjective and thus irrelevant anyway), its the same as the NFL "allowing it", which is completely illogical.

 

If the NFL decided to fine Brady $1M for this, that's punishment. Just because thus punishment doesn't fit somebodies arbitrary (and generally baseless) opinion of what punishment should be doesn't mean that the fine isn't punishment. If the basis of the "their integrity is in question" theory is simply that the NFL didn't issue a punishment to the level that YOU would like, then that is 100% a YOU problem and has nothing to do with integrity whatsoever.

 

What people also shouldn't buy is this notion that dropping the hammer on somebody as punishment will automatically mean that nobody will ever do it again. We can stay right inside the sports industry, particularly at the college level, and see how overly harsh punishments can oftentimes backfire, and in the grand scheme of things, they rarely deter anybody from doing anything.

[riseNConquer81]

The facts are is that there is no proof to back up your statement other than one statistic. The Patriots are a well coached team, and have always been good at being clean with the ball.  To say that the improvement of fumble percentage is due to deflated footballs is invalid.  An argument can easily be made that fumbling was obviously an issue for them at that time, and the Pats cracked down on that at practice.  You are jumping to conclusions.  To say they cut down such a problem just because their footballs were SLIGHTLY deflated, then you are obviously overestimating the effect of a football being slightly deflated.  The Pats actually did WORSE with the deflated footballs against the Colts.  It was until they used regulation balls that they started dominating in the second half.  So from common sense, and that fact, slightly deflated footballs are very minor in the grand scheme of things.

There is as little proof to back up your statements as there is to back up theirs.

You cant say for sure the deflated balls didnt help, one could as easily say you're "obviously" (there's nothing obvious here at all, you're obviously inappropriately using that word) UNDERestimating the ebeneficial effects of underinflated balls.

Just because the Pats didnt score as frequently in the first half as they did in the second does not mean they "did worse." Unless your definition of "doing worse" is solely predicated on scoring frequency. But such reasoning has several clear flaws and certainly wouldnt fly with any one with moderate sensibility about the game.

And neither common sense nor the fact that the Pats scored more in the second half even suggests let alone proves that the deflated footballs are "minor in the grand scheme of things," because once again, you cant even quantify the effect of the deflated balls on the outcome of the game let alone prove that there isnt one.

Football is a game of circumstances, your situation changes and dictates your game plans, play calls, strategy, how aggressive you are on either side of the ball and how aggressive individual players are in there actions and decisions on taking risks. There are an immeasurable number of seemingly small and/or insignificant variables that can spark a dramatic ripple to affect what transpires in a game and its ultimate outcome, the fact that it ended up being a blowout means nothing.

in fact, that is the worst (and unfortunately, most mindlessly repeated) defense of the patriots ive seen to date...because who cheats in order to end up with a nail biter victory? The entire purpose of cheating is to ensure the win...

Edited May 7, 2015 by riseNConquer81

[riseNConquer81]

The real interest in integrity, outside of people selectively choosing to play that card, is when it PERSONALLY affects you. When the integrity of the league has direct impact on you, that's when the outrage is actually warranted.

you're right...partially.

Not about when it affects me, or us...or, general civilians rather.

Its when it affects our team.

Youre making light of the issue of integrity...its not just a biased self serving power grab.

If the Pats get off with this scott free, they will have essentially been given the right to decide when and where they feel like following the rules.

ANd any subsequent punishment of anyone else presents a double standard and demonstrates nepotism and conflicts of interest.

Rules are rules for a reason, and if its left up to the discretion of each team whether or not to follow them, what's the point of any of this?

Get rid of the refs and let people do what they want, that's essentially what's already happening.

[rmcjacket23]

you're right...partially.

Not about when it affects me, or us...or, general civilians rather.

Its when it affects our team.

Youre making light of the issue of integrity...its not just a biased self serving power grab.

If the Pats get off with this scott free, they will have essentially been given the right to decide when and where they feel like following the rules.

ANd any subsequent punishment of anyone else presents a double standard and demonstrates nepotism and conflicts of interest.

Rules are rules for a reason, and if its left up to the discretion of each team whether or not to follow them, what's the point of any of this?

Get rid of the refs and let people do what they want, that's essentially what's already happening.

But again, neither I nor anybody else I've heard thinks that there should be NO punishment for this.

 

My point is... what happens if the punishment isn't sufficient based on yours or my personal feelings about what the punishment should be?

 

It would appear that many fans would coincide a lack of a sufficient punishment in their eyes to be the same thing as condoning the cheating, or, in their eyes, hurting the integrity of the league.

 

The entire argument, at least for me, has shifted from should there be punishment to what level of punishment should there be. In my opinion, that's where people are playing the "integrity" card.

[The Mom Gene]

But again, neither I nor anybody else I've heard thinks that there should be NO punishment for this.

 

My point is... what happens if the punishment isn't sufficient based on yours or my personal feelings about what the punishment should be?

 

It would appear that many fans would coincide a lack of a sufficient punishment in their eyes to be the same thing as condoning the cheating, or, in their eyes, hurting the integrity of the league.

 

The entire argument, at least for me, has shifted from should there be punishment to what level of punishment should there be. In my opinion, that's where people are playing the "integrity" card.

All of this actually answered my question about integrity...  They have none.

The question for me is, like you, "how will they punish him"...  and yes, will it be enough, and if not, then...  was it because it WAS Tom Br*dy....  The QB Queen of the NFL. 

 

(I'd call him the Golden boy, but that would be an insult to Johnny U)

 

If they ever set a precedent about "valuable" players...  it's now.

[catgirl54]

They need to quit the NFL rankings if they're going to be this off. Flacco at 97??? It makes absolutely no sense. And not to take anything away from Mosley, but that Flacco is actually behind him in the rankings is just crazy. He's gone from being #13 the year after being Super Bowl MVP to #97, after a season in which he had a QB rating of 91%. Go figure.

[RavensInNC]

So Brady always has to know where Ed Reed is, is that why he wanted to karate kick him and take him out? http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000210992/article/ed-reed-tom-brady-kick-might-have-caused-hip-injury

[RavensBaltimore]

[Postapocalypse Raven]

Ryan Clark 

 

✔@Realrclark25

Kind of fitting that Ed & Troy retire the same year. How awesome will it be if they get it right & go into the HOF together?!

8:19 PM - 6 May 2015

 

One small problem with that Ryan Clark!

 

"If Reed doesn’t make an NFL comeback this season, he will be eligible for the Hall of Fame in 2019 and Polamalu in 2020."

http://www.baltimoreravens.com/news/article-1/Late-For-Work-413-Ed-Reed-May-Not-Be-Hall-Of-Fame-Lock-Everyone-Thinks-He-Is/7d9fcf7a-7b66-45ce-9618-01ef6ba9498c

 

So to answer your question it wouldn't be awesome at all if they got into the HOF together, and quite frankly it would suck.

Edited May 7, 2015 by Postapocalypse Raven

[mettro79]

After a season like Joe had last year it's disappointing and crazy that he dropped that much in the rankings; but it's not like he's ever been treated fair by the media. And in the grand scheme of things it doesn't really matter. Joe will, once again, go out there this year and prove those doubters wrong.

[Mystigo_Dragon]

Placing the name, "Ed Reed" and the word "instinctive" in the same sentence says it all to me - period!

Edited May 7, 2015 by Mystigo_Dragon

[Underdogsontop!]

It would be really great if Ed Reed could come back as a coach and a mentor, to share his knowledge and wisdom about the game with our new young DB corps. Mold them and coach them up the Ball Hawk/Raven way!

[riseNConquer81]

But again, neither I nor anybody else I've heard thinks that there should be NO punishment for this.

 

My point is... what happens if the punishment isn't sufficient based on yours or my personal feelings about what the punishment should be?

 

It would appear that many fans would coincide a lack of a sufficient punishment in their eyes to be the same thing as condoning the cheating, or, in their eyes, hurting the integrity of the league.

 

The entire argument, at least for me, has shifted from should there be punishment to what level of punishment should there be. In my opinion, that's where people are playing the "integrity" card.

and they wouldnt be wrong.

There are always gonna be people on extreme opposite ends of the spectrum of opinion about how much punishment is deserved. Some will go scorched earth, some wouldnt punish them at all.

No matter how varied the opinions though, they all collectively tend to form a bell curve, and the point along the curve where all the votes stack up is generally what could be considered a fair and reasonable consensus.

At the very least, people who arent patriots fans and have no conflicting interest in presenting the patriots in the best light can agree that Brady should be suspended for some significant period of time, 2-4 games. As unlikely as it may be, most will probably agree that the Lombardi should be vacated as well since they never had the right to compete for it to begin with given this transgression.

Its a safe bet better than 50% of people will be happy with one or the other. Some will say they should lose all their superbowls.

No matter what they do, not everybody is going to be totally happy, but the goal isnt trying to please everyone necessarily, so much as not insult their intelligence. The public knows the difference between a sincere attempt to punish wrongdoing and love tap PR move to pander to non patriot fans.

If the outcome ends up being more the latter than the former than the "integrity card" should be played; because nobody likes a BS'er.

[Postapocalypse Raven]

 

 

Lol... Said what!

[RavensBaltimore]

But its never been about "allowing it". Nobody is suggesting that it should be tolerated and allowed. Everybody here expects punishment, and they're incredibly likely to get it.

 

What I'm saying is that there is a large group of posters on this blogs and others that will say that if the punishment isn't sufficient to THEIR LIKING (which is inherently subjective and thus irrelevant anyway), its the same as the NFL "allowing it", which is completely illogical.

 

If the NFL decided to fine Brady $1M for this, that's punishment. Just because thus punishment doesn't fit somebodies arbitrary (and generally baseless) opinion of what punishment should be doesn't mean that the fine isn't punishment. If the basis of the "their integrity is in question" theory is simply that the NFL didn't issue a punishment to the level that YOU would like, then that is 100% a YOU problem and has nothing to do with integrity whatsoever.

 

What people also shouldn't buy is this notion that dropping the hammer on somebody as punishment will automatically mean that nobody will ever do it again. We can stay right inside the sports industry, particularly at the college level, and see how overly harsh punishments can oftentimes backfire, and in the grand scheme of things, they rarely deter anybody from doing anything.

When I used the term "allow", I was talking about cheating in general, after you suggested players should also be allowed to use HGH. I never said anything about the type of punishment Brady should get, but I do believe that slapping a multi-millionaire on the wrist is basically the same thing as allowing it. I understand that what type of punishment is deserved is subjective, but as a rule of thumb, in all situations, not just this one, the punishment has to outweigh the reward, otherwise, there is no deterrent. 

 

Saying that harsh punishments rarely deter anybody from doing anything is just flat out wrong. You don't see nearly as many shots to a qb's knee's, horsecollar tackles, or defenders launching themselves into the head area of defenseless receivers because they are now 15 yd penalties. MLB has significantly cut down on steroid use because of the harsher penalties. You're never going to be able to stop everyone from cheating, but imposing fair, strict punishments does make a big difference.

[RavensReck27]

We are a more educated society, as a whole, then we ever have been, but we have not evolved in what we feel is justice. Some people see something, and they decide what they think must be done based off how they feel. That is not how justice is suppose to work. True justice works on a fair and non-biased scale. They should look at this "deflate gate" as how much did Tom Brady even know that this was so frowned upon in the league. The NFL rule book is so complex that it is almost impossible to know every rule. Do you guys know every rule in the sport you play/played? Probably not. That being said, ignorance is not an excuse, but it should be taken into account. Another factor you should take into account is how much did the deflated balls actually affect the game? Coming from me, who has played football in high school and with my friends in the backyard my whole life, as long is the ball isn't flat then we don't even consider that as a problem. I highly DOUBT that a SLIGHTLY deflated ball had as much affect on the game as you guys think. Again, if this were the Ravens you would 100% agree. Why? because you are biased for the Ravens, and biased against the Patriots. When has the pressure of a football ever been an issue in the NFL? Why would Tom Brady KNOW that this of all things was bad and this kind of scandal could possibly occur from this. I think Brady WAS behind the deflation, but I think he didn't consider it as full blown CHEATING at the time. Overall, it is against the rules and he will be punished, but I think he wasn't aware of how severe what he was doing was, and I think it didn't have nearly as much affect on the game as most people think. With the media scandal torturing the Pats since the Super Bowl, I think the further punishment should NOT be TOO severe. Personally, I think they should just be fined, but what I think will happen is that they will be fined, and they will lose a draft pick or two. Just because the NFL wants to please the people, the fans. I DO NOT think Tom Brady should, or will, get suspended. Courts adjourned.

Edited May 7, 2015 by RavensReck27