[News] Late For Work 5/8: Ravens Already Sign Maxx Williams, Over Half Of Draft Class

[rmcjacket23]

"That's all well and good, but I doubt not providing the NFL with private information (such as text messages and emails) is sufficient enough to classify him as "not cooperating".

 

Yes, it is, there no certain measurement for the amount or "quanitity of information/data" that needs to be withheld to be construed as conduct detrimental to the league.  Just the simple fact that he will not cooperate with the investigation is enough.  They don't want players to be able to say,"Well Brady never turned over information," in future investigations.

 

What are the other instances where Brady did not coperate that we already knew about?

 

Mike Florio has not been wrong in MOST cases.  I think you are over overgeneralizing. 

 

I'm not sure what you are responding to, as I didn't write anything about what the punishment would be nor did Florio.  His point was how the NFL interprets not providing them with information during investigations.  Nothing has been written about the player's assoication. 

But you yourself just admitted that there is "no certain measurement for the quantity/quality of information". So if that's the case, how are you certain then that him not turning over his cellphone automatically means that he isn't in compliance by NFL standards? You couldn't possibly come to that conclusion... unless you knew what that measurement is. When the league determines that a person is not cooperating, its 100% based on some sort of examples or descriptions of times where that player did not. They don't just come out and say "well he didn't cooperate" without having a basis for that statement.

 

Based on the what the report said, we know that Brady failed to comply with meeting with the NFL on more than one occasion as the NFL requested (same thing applies for his "co-conspirators"), and that he made contradictory statements after he publicly denied knowledge of certain aspects that the investigators found he at least should have knowledge of. As I stated earlier, they already had Brady's text messages anyway, because the other parties involved provided them.

 

In the statement you quoted by Florio, he didn't mentioned any of the things you said he did. You posted that specifically to show how Florio basically thinks that the NFL gets what it wants all the time, as in when they want a piece of evidence or what somebody to provide that for them, they get it. I, logically, stated that this was false, and that Florio probably knows that its false. The NFLPA exists to be the opposite side of that equation in certain cases, as well as the fact that we've already seen precedence of the NFL being unable to obtain evidence that they desire from people. 

[rmcjacket23]

I do blame the Patriots for Brady's cheating. 

 

Obviously the organization didn't make clear to him the last time they got caught cheating that integrity matters.  They didn't make clear to him that the rules apply to Patriots players.  He doesn't understand that winning is meaningless if you don't play by the same rules as all of the other professionals.  He doesn't understand that if all of the other QBs don't get to inflate the footballs to their desired psi rates, then he knowingly has an advantage. 

 

That is unethical and the Patriots have not instilled in him in over 10 years that unenthical play is not accpetable to their organization.  They have failed to instill the values of fair play and professionalism into their longest playing team member.  A team captain - a leader on the team too.  Really, really poor reflection of the organization. 

What you just described is the job description of Father, not a professional sports franchise. Teaching integrity and fair play is something that would fall under the responsibility of a parent teaching a group of 10 year old players playing football for the first time.

 

These are adults. They were adults when they entered the league, and they'll be adults when they leave. If they haven't learned that things like integrity or fair play are important by the age of 21, chances are they'll never learn it. They're big boys.. if they want to cheat, they're going to cheat, values or no values.

 

Instilling values is all great and cute and everything, but there are millions of Americans who on a daily basis violate values that have been instilled in them, and its rarely the fault of the person who did or didn't instill them in them. Adults make their own decisions, and they frequently make those decisions knowing fully well what the consequences are.

 

By that logic, shouldn't we hold the Ravens directly responsible for failing to teach Ray Rice that knocking out your wife is a bad thing? Shouldn't we hold the Ravens directly responsible for failing to teach Haloti Ngata that he shouldn't use Adderall? 

 

Very, very, very slippery slope you're going down by blaming a sports franchise for not teaching values to adults. There are zero teams in this league who have done that effectively if that's the case.

Edited May 8, 2015 by rmcjacket23

[JoeyFlex5]

"Marlon Brown came on strong _______________ and figures to have a larger role."

boy if i had a nickel for every time ive heard that and it failed.

[Claire]

But you yourself just admitted that there is "no certain measurement for the quantity/quality of information". So if that's the case, how are you certain then that him not turning over his cellphone automatically means that he isn't in compliance by NFL standards? You couldn't possibly come to that conclusion... unless you knew what that measurement is. When the league determines that a person is not cooperating, its 100% based on some sort of examples or descriptions of times where that player did not. They don't just come out and say "well he didn't cooperate" without having a basis for that statement.

 

Based on the what the report said, we know that Brady failed to comply with meeting with the NFL on more than one occasion as the NFL requested (same thing applies for his "co-conspirators"), and that he made contradictory statements after he publicly denied knowledge of certain aspects that the investigators found he at least should have knowledge of. As I stated earlier, they already had Brady's text messages anyway, because the other parties involved provided them.

 

In the statement you quoted by Florio, he didn't mentioned any of the things you said he did. You posted that specifically to show how Florio basically thinks that the NFL gets what it wants all the time, as in when they want a piece of evidence or what somebody to provide that for them, they get it. I, logically, stated that this was false, and that Florio probably knows that its false. The NFLPA exists to be the opposite side of that equation in certain cases, as well as the fact that we've already seen precedence of the NFL being unable to obtain evidence that they desire from people. 

But you yourself just admitted that there is "no certain measurement for the quantity/quality of information".

 

You neglected to copy everything that I wrote, that is why you did not comprehend it. 

 

His act of not cooperating by not doing what was asked of him is NOT cooperating PERIOD.  He was asked to CHOOSE what he would give them... he wasn't asked to hand over the phone. Brady could CHOOSE which text and email messages.  He chose to give none because he felt they would be skeptical anyway. That was his reasoning. They interpret that as not cooperating. 

 

YOU may see it differently because you are obviously smitten by him.  You are like the husband who has to actually catch the wife in bed with the boyfriend.  Everyone else sees the cheating for years, but the hubby is last to know LOL.  It's okay.  You got it bad.  I have nevwer seen so many men come to a player's defense like I have for Brady.  I swear he has more men who have fallen for him than women.  LOL

 

No, they do not have Brady's text and email messages.  They only have the 2 men's messages.  There are more, however as previously stated Brady chose not to cooperate by giving them HIS text and email messages related to this topic because he felt they would be skeptical about any text and email messages he gave to them. 

 

 

"In the statement you quoted by Florio, he didn't mentioned any of the things you said he did."

 

I don't know what you mean by this statement.  Who is "he didn't mention the thing that I said he did"?

 

 

You posted that specifically to show how Florio basically thinks that the NFL gets what it wants all the time,

 

What?  You make assumptions, but they are not fact, so this is confusing because I have no idea what you mean.  Please stick what is actually written. 

 

"...as in when they want a piece of evidence or what somebody to provide that for them, they get it. I, logically, stated that this was false, and that Florio probably knows that its false."

 

Just because you claim something, that doesn't mean it's logical.  You have to provide the "logic" behind your thinking.  You just make emotional statements.  You don't include facts.  It's obvious this is a very emotional topic for you. 

[Maryland]

I think I want Brady suspended just because it would piss off the NE bandwagon, fair-weather fans. Steelers could still lose anyway--they're without Bell and playing on the road, and their defense is going to be really bad this year with no LeBeau, a garbage secondary, and no pass rush.

[Claire]

What you just described is the job description of Father, not a professional sports franchise. Teaching integrity and fair play is something that would fall under the responsibility of a parent teaching a group of 10 year old players playing football for the first time.

 

These are adults. They were adults when they entered the league, and they'll be adults when they leave. If they haven't learned that things like integrity or fair play are important by the age of 21, chances are they'll never learn it. They're big boys.. if they want to cheat, they're going to cheat, values or no values.

 

Instilling values is all great and cute and everything, but there are millions of Americans who on a daily basis violate values that have been instilled in them, and its rarely the fault of the person who did or didn't instill them in them. Adults make their own decisions, and they frequently make those decisions knowing fully well what the consequences are.

 

By that logic, shouldn't we hold the Ravens directly responsible for failing to teach Ray Rice that knocking out your wife is a bad thing? Shouldn't we hold the Ravens directly responsible for failing to teach Haloti Ngata that he shouldn't use Adderall? 

 

Very, very, very slippery slope you're going down by blaming a sports franchise for not teaching values to adults. There are zero teams in this league who have done that effectively if that's the case.

You are joking, right? 

 

This is a professional sports team.  You get a paycheck.  It's not a slippery slope.  This is not the boy scouts.  You play by the rules.  When you break the rules you get fined and punished because it is a PROFESSIONAL SPORTS LEAGUE. 

 

What do Ray Rice's personal issues have to do with the rules of the game or the integrity of the sport?  Professionalism?  Whether an individual player has domestic violence issues or suffers from alcoholism that doesn't impact an organization's stand on fair play, integrity, or professionalism or abiding by the rules of the league.

 

Ngata was different.  His punishment was suspension from games  and loss of pay because he did impact the integrity of the game. He broke a specific NFL rule.  He knows lying doesn't work with the Ravens.  He was honest.  Integrity is a value for the Ravens organization.  That's why he spoke his truth and took it like a man.  He lost his paychecks. 

 

What world do you live in ...?

[harfordravenfan]

it will be interesting to see if their receiver's or Brady's completion % change much 

 

time will tell I guess

[RavensBaltimore]

It doesn't matter if its Flacco specifically. I said on a weekly basis, and likely from this very organization, you will find players and/or coaches that get as "in their face" as Brady has gotten with refs, and to my recollection, zero of them have been thrown out of a game. Many have been fined/penalized, but then again, so has Brady.

 

That's the point. If this idea is to establish that Brady gets "preferential treatment" based on the idea that he and only he can get in a refs face and scream at them, then its simply false, because many players have done the same thing and faced the same fate Brady did.

 

This notion that Brady gets preferential treatment is largely unfounded. The only real argument is based on the rules established to prevent players from diving at a QBs lower body, which I agree Brady was a catalyst for, although I also don't blame the league, since its incredibly bad for business to have your star QBs out for the season with leg injuries caused by reckless players who aren't nearly as relevant. Its unavoidable in the sport naturally, but it can be deterred, which ironically is what we are talking about now.

 

There's people that literally think that Brady got preferential treatment from the "tuck rule", yet it had literally nothing to do with him, the rule was established long before that play made it famous, and Brady was arguably the biggest catalyst that caused the rule to be removed.

 

He whines on the field, he complains on the field, he begs for calls. I get it, and I don't like it either. But this idea he gets every call he wants all the time is laughable and baseless.

You did mention Flacco specifically in your original post that I responded to, and I doubt you can find something like that happening on a weekly basis. I see players yelling at refs all the time, but I can't remember any other time in the NFL where a player got in a ref's face like a baseball manager that turns his hat around backwards so he can get that much closer. He doesn't necessarily have to be ejected, but if most players did that, it would probably be a flag, and if a player makes contact with an official, which he may have, it's either an automatic flag or ejection. I'm not sure which one. I remember Suggs getting flagged for coming towards a ref with "malice in his heart" even though he never even came close to touching him. I've seen Harbaugh get multiple flags for much less, and I see it all around the league.

 

You can't technically prove whether or not Brady gets preferential treatment, but I've never seen anyone else ask for a flag, well after a play had ended, and get one, despite the fact that there was no apparent violation. I also see him getting away with blatant intentional grounding far more often than anyone else, and the defensive players seem to think he gets special treatment. Even Rodney Harrison, Brady's ex teammate, has mentioned Brady getting ridiculous, favorable calls. Even though it can't be proven, and it may be exaggerated, I wouldn't call it "baseless". People are just trusting their eyes.

[Ngataninch]

It's a cop out to say Tom Brady should be suspended but not against the Steelers. Tom Brady should be suspended for the season--I don't care that it doesn't benefit the Ravens, and I don't care that it helps the Steelers. I read an article that said it would be hard to punish Brady more than Goodell (initially) punished Rice, but the author didn't seem to consider that what Brady did occurred on the field and directly affected game play, then He lied about it, then he refused to cooperate. In real life it is definitely much much worse to commit Rice's or Peterson's crimes, but between the white lines it is much much worse to commit Brady's.

[rmcjacket23]

You are joking, right? 

 

This is a professional sports team.  You get a paycheck.  It's not a slippery slope.  This is not the boy scouts.  You play by the rules.  When you break the rules you get fined and punished because it is a PROFESSIONAL SPORTS LEAGUE. 

 

What do Ray Rice's personal issues have to do with the rules of the game or the integrity of the sport?  Professionalism?  Whether an individual player has domestic violence issues or suffers from alcoholism that doesn't impact an organization's stand on fair play, integrity, or professionalism or abiding by the rules of the league.

 

Ngata was different.  His punishment was suspension from games  and loss of pay because he did impact the integrity of the game. He broke a specific NFL rule.  He knows lying doesn't work with the Ravens.  He was honest.  Integrity is a value for the Ravens organization.  That's why he spoke his truth and took it like a man.  He lost his paychecks. 

 

What world do you live in ...?

You completely dodged and missed the entire point.

 

You said, specifically, that you hold the Patriots accountable for Brady deflating some footballs, and that you blame the organization for not instilling the values of integrity and fair play in him. Those are YOUR words, not mine.

 

Under that scenario, how do you NOT hold the Ravens equally accountable for Ray Rice's transgressions? If you're expectation is that the Patriots organization is supposed to act in the same role as a parent does, and instill values in ADULTS, then why aren't the Ravens or any other organization held to that very same standard?

 

You don't get to be selective when you hold organizations accountable, if your belief is that the Patriots had some sort of responsibility to educate their players on things that the players should have (and probably did but just ignored) learned a decade earlier, then you have to apply that across the entire board, otherwise it comes off as hypocritical and homerish.

 

I strongly suggest you re-read your entire post that I replied to, and take a second to think about what you really said. Anybody that reads what you said is going to take from it the following conclusion... "I blame the Patriots for not teaching Brady about integrity". Stop and think about how ludicrous that conclusion is.

Edited May 9, 2015 by rmcjacket23

[rmcjacket23]

It's a cop out to say Tom Brady should be suspended but not against the Steelers. Tom Brady should be suspended for the season--I don't care that it doesn't benefit the Ravens, and I don't care that it helps the Steelers. I read an article that said it would be hard to punish Brady more than Goodell (initially) punished Rice, but the author didn't seem to consider that what Brady did occurred on the field and directly affected game play, then He lied about it, then he refused to cooperate. In real life it is definitely much much worse to commit Rice's or Peterson's crimes, but between the white lines it is much much worse to commit Brady's.

Highly debatable though, because there's several different viewpoints:

 

1. There's really no possible way to actually quantify, qualify, or even gauge what affect using deflated footballs had on the game. Even the NFL is guessing in that regards.

2. From the overall NFL product perspective, Rice/Peterson's situations are exponentially worse, because they affect the bottom line/perception of the league at an exponentially larger scale. As far as I know, I don't hear of any sponsors, activist groups, etc. who actually have influence on the NFL and their bottom line calling for harsh punishment for Brady and the Pats, because frankly, they don't care. Its a standard in-house punishment as far as they're concerned, much like the league would punish a player for PED use or any other football-related suspensions that would occur. Outside parties, namely sponsors/advertisers, who have the ability to alter the league's financial position in a big way, generally don't care about football-related incidents. They care about incidents that affects their consumers, and incidents occurring off the field (such as domestic violence) are far more important to them. And because of that, they are and should be more important to the NFL.

 

I have no doubt that the NFL is going to be much more cautious and much more thorough in determining the punishment, and I have no doubt they will give consideration to their perception of suspending Brady for an equal or perceived equal amount of time as Ray Rice. That doesn't exactly send a message that anybody is going to respect.

Edited May 9, 2015 by rmcjacket23

[January J]

Highly debatable though, because there's several different viewpoints:

1. There's really no possible way to actually quantify, qualify, or even gauge what affect using deflated footballs had on the game. Even the NFL is guessing in that regards.

2. From the overall NFL product perspective, Rice/Peterson's situations are exponentially worse, because they affect the bottom line/perception of the league at an exponentially larger scale. As far as I know, I don't hear of any sponsors, activist groups, etc. who actually have influence on the NFL and their bottom line calling for harsh punishment for Brady and the Pats, because frankly, they don't care. Its a standard in-house punishment as far as they're concerned, much like the league would punish a player for PED use or any other football-related suspensions that would occur. Outside parties, namely sponsors/advertisers, who have the ability to alter the league's financial position in a big way, generally don't care about football-related incidents. They care about incidents that affects their consumers, and incidents occurring off the field (such as domestic violence) are far more important to them. And because of that, they are and should be more important to the NFL.

I have no doubt that the NFL is going to be much more cautious and much more thorough in determining the punishment, and I have no doubt they will give consideration to their perception of suspending Brady for an equal or perceived equal amount of time as Ray Rice. That doesn't exactly send a message that anybody is going to respect.

personally I would take the word of several NFL hall of famers that have stated what affect it plays on the game. I have heard Jerome bettis , cris carter, mark brunell , and several others ( some who were even Brady's past teammates) state that deflated footballs can be easier to throw, easier to catch, and easier to grip- making it harder to fumble. I don't know about you but id take the word of nfl veterans over hear-say and theories. Edited May 9, 2015 by January J

[rmcjacket23]

personally I would take the word of several NFL hall of famers that have stated what affect it plays on the game. I have heard Jerome bettis , cris carter, mark brunell , and several others ( some who were even Brady's past teammates) state that deflated footballs can be easier to throw, easier to catch, and easier to grip- making it harder to fumble. I don't know about you but id take the word of nfl veterans over hear-say and theories.

So would I. The problem is... there's a similar list of past players who I respect just as much who have laughed this off, claimed its a common occurrence in the league, and even said it may have an adverse effect.

 

We know Aaron Rodgers doesn't like to throw low-deflated footballs and prefer his to be much harder. That's sort of the problem with the whole argument... players are different. Some players like handling deflated footballs, and others like handling much more inflated footballs.

 

Couple that with one of the only facts we actually do know, which is that Brady seemed to do quite a bit better with properly inflated footballs than he did at least for the half where he used illegal footballs, and you can see why simply taking a couple people's word for it might not be the best option.

 

In the end, that's what makes the topic so difficult to discuss, because determining actual impact is borderline impossible. Some might say the actual impact is irrelevant, though I'd suggest that the NFL almost universally bases its decisions on punishment on actual impact rather than things like what "might have been" or the lame "cheating is cheating" argument, which would make all punishments identical with no scaling.

 

The reason I don't get overly upset about it is mostly because I watched Brady play 6 quarters of football with legal footballs, and he looked pretty damn good doing it, which confirms what we all already knew... he's pretty good.

[January J]

So would I. The problem is... there's a similar list of past players who I respect just as much who have laughed this off, claimed its a common occurrence in the league, and even said it may have an adverse effect.

We know Aaron Rodgers doesn't like to throw low-deflated footballs and prefer his to be much harder. That's sort of the problem with the whole argument... players are different. Some players like handling deflated footballs, and others like handling much more inflated footballs.

Couple that with one of the only facts we actually do know, which is that Brady seemed to do quite a bit better with properly inflated footballs than he did at least for the half where he used illegal footballs, and you can see why simply taking a couple people's word for it might not be the best option.

In the end, that's what makes the topic so difficult to discuss, because determining actual impact is borderline impossible. Some might say the actual impact is irrelevant, though I'd suggest that the NFL almost universally bases its decisions on punishment on actual impact rather than things like what "might have been" or the lame "cheating is cheating" argument, which would make all punishments identical with no scaling.

The reason I don't get overly upset about it is mostly because I watched Brady play 6 quarters of football with legal footballs, and he looked pretty damn good doing it, which confirms what we all already knew... he's pretty good.

I don't know why ppl always bring up the Aaron Rodgers comment. Yes he likes his footballs on the high side of the Legal spectrum. The difference is this is within the rules. There are obviously set rules for a reason - or else teams would be going out there with a damn near flat football. Yes Brady played several quarters with the properly inflated footballs and performed very well. He's a spectacular quarterback. Which confirms nothing other than his stupidity bc it was absolutely unnecessary ! You say it's lame but cheating is cheating and I kind of wish these things would be lumped together -it would make the scaling a lot easier bc there are already set punishments. In my opinion sticky gloves - spraying uniforms with cooking oil- putting Vaseline on your arms - and deflated footballs are all generally the same type of violations and should warrant (generally) the same type of punishment. However The difference with Brady and the pats is this isn't really their first rodeo- they've been accused of cheating before. And also Brady evidentially lied his tail off during that press conference. So instead of just a small fine and slap on the wrist I think it now warrants a short suspension of Atleast a game or two. I also have a feeling that there will be a few more developments in this whole deflate gate thing in the upcoming week. We will see what happens.

[rmcjacket23]

I don't know why ppl always bring up the Aaron Rodgers comment. Yes he likes his footballs on the high side of the Legal spectrum. The difference is this is within the rules. There are obviously set rules for a reason - or else teams would be going out there with a damn near flat football. Yes Brady played several quarters with the properly inflated footballs and performed very well. He's a spectacular quarterback. Which confirms nothing other than his stupidity bc it was absolutely unnecessary ! You say it's lame but cheating is cheating and I kind of wish these things would be lumped together -it would make the scaling a lot easier bc there are already set punishments. In my opinion sticky gloves - spraying uniforms with cooking oil- putting Vaseline on your arms - and deflated footballs are all generally the same type of violations and should warrant (generally) the same type of punishment. However The difference with Brady and the pats is this isn't really their first rodeo- they've been accused of cheating before. And also Brady evidentially lied his tail off during that press conference. So instead of just a small fine and slap on the wrist I think it now warrants a short suspension of Atleast a game or two. I also have a feeling that there will be a few more developments in this whole deflate gate thing in the upcoming week. We will see what happens.

The reason people bring up Rodgers is to sort of dismiss this notion that having deflated footballs is 100% better for QBs. The point is that not every QB prefers footballs the same way, so deflated footballs for Brady would be a good thing apparently, and for Rodgers it would be a bad thing. Its purely a matter of preference.

 

I don't really lump Spygate in with this, because its a completely separate incident in my opinion, involving completely separate people. Brady had nothing to do with Spygate as far as I know, nor does Belichick have anything to do with this.

 

No doubt the lying and lack of cooperation will play into the punishment.

[Ngataninch]

Highly debatable though, because there's several different viewpoints:

 

1. There's really no possible way to actually quantify, qualify, or even gauge what affect using deflated footballs had on the game. Even the NFL is guessing in that regards.

2. From the overall NFL product perspective, Rice/Peterson's situations are exponentially worse, because they affect the bottom line/perception of the league at an exponentially larger scale. As far as I know, I don't hear of any sponsors, activist groups, etc. who actually have influence on the NFL and their bottom line calling for harsh punishment for Brady and the Pats, because frankly, they don't care. Its a standard in-house punishment as far as they're concerned, much like the league would punish a player for PED use or any other football-related suspensions that would occur. Outside parties, namely sponsors/advertisers, who have the ability to alter the league's financial position in a big way, generally don't care about football-related incidents. They care about incidents that affects their consumers, and incidents occurring off the field (such as domestic violence) are far more important to them. And because of that, they are and should be more important to the NFL.

 

I have no doubt that the NFL is going to be much more cautious and much more thorough in determining the punishment, and I have no doubt they will give consideration to their perception of suspending Brady for an equal or perceived equal amount of time as Ray Rice. That doesn't exactly send a message that anybody is going to respect.

I understand your point entirely, but I think it is essential to the NFL product to accept two very basic premises--football is a game and games have rules.  The NFL consumer is buying sportsmanship and parity. Changing the air pressure in the football may not have a significant effect on actual play, but it is obviously cheating if it is done after an official inspection.  If changing the pressure of the football is so insignificant than why pay off a "deflater" to do it?  For these reasons your first point is irrelevant.  This was an orchestrated conspiracy to modify game balls after official inspections that appears to have occurred for no less than the 4 games.  

 

On your second point, sponsors are motivated by profit.  They call for suspensions, or not, to protect their public image and maximize their earning potential, typically this means reading the public perception and responding accordingly.  In this case there is less public outcry because there are no advocacy groups that rally against the abuse of footballs.  Abusing women and children are among the most universally offensive actions a person can take, but they more seem to affect the individual athlete's product rather than the NFL product--thus resulting in the termination of endorsement contracts.  This incident on the other hand can serve to either tarnish Tom Brady's product or tarnish both Tom Brady's and the NFL's product.  The general perception around 31/32 of the NFL is that this is a serious offense.  The general perception seems to be (and I may me off on this one due to my limited exposure to national sports fans) that Goodell and Kraft are good friends.  The general perception seems to be that the Patriots foster an environment that encourages skirting as close to the rules as possible, and occasionally breaking them when no one's looking.  It is important to the NFL product image that this game at least appears fair, so it is important that Goodell punishes egregious, uncooperative, lying cheaters like #12 to satisfy the perception of the vast majority of the NFL--teams, owners, and fans alike.

 

Tom Brady, Bill Belichick, and Robert Kraft cheat to win.  This is not an isolated incident.  Brady did it.  He lied about it.  He refused to cooperate.  He deserves to be punished for all three actions.  The Patriots employ the people who did it.  They denied Wells access to McNally after Wells obtained the text messages.  Kraft deserves to be punished.   Belichick may get punished too, but based on his initial reaction ("You'll have to ask Tom about that") I doubt he was involved.

[Ngataninch]

Highly debatable though, because there's several different viewpoints:

 

1. There's really no possible way to actually quantify, qualify, or even gauge what affect using deflated footballs had on the game. Even the NFL is guessing in that regards.

2. From the overall NFL product perspective, Rice/Peterson's situations are exponentially worse, because they affect the bottom line/perception of the league at an exponentially larger scale. As far as I know, I don't hear of any sponsors, activist groups, etc. who actually have influence on the NFL and their bottom line calling for harsh punishment for Brady and the Pats, because frankly, they don't care. Its a standard in-house punishment as far as they're concerned, much like the league would punish a player for PED use or any other football-related suspensions that would occur. Outside parties, namely sponsors/advertisers, who have the ability to alter the league's financial position in a big way, generally don't care about football-related incidents. They care about incidents that affects their consumers, and incidents occurring off the field (such as domestic violence) are far more important to them. And because of that, they are and should be more important to the NFL.

 

I have no doubt that the NFL is going to be much more cautious and much more thorough in determining the punishment, and I have no doubt they will give consideration to their perception of suspending Brady for an equal or perceived equal amount of time as Ray Rice. That doesn't exactly send a message that anybody is going to respect.

Furthermore, there is no need to quantify the effect, we only need to qualify the action.  He cheated to gain a competitive advantage--whether he actually gained an advantage is irrelevant.   

Edited May 9, 2015 by Ngataninch

[rmcjacket23]

Furthermore, there is no need to quantify the effect, we only need to qualify the action.  He cheated to gain a competitive advantage--whether he actually gained an advantage is irrelevant.   

And that may be true. But if its a fundamental "rules violation" like you said, and I tend to agree that it is, then we already have at least a reasonable precedence for punishment. We know that the NFL establishes a PED policy, with is a violation of rules that affects on-field performance (same as Deflategate). We know that policy basically dictates a four game suspension for a player on a first offense, which is what Brady qualifies under. PED use actually, in my opinion, fits this mold rather well. Its a willful violation of the rules in order to gain a competitive advantage, and from the NFL's perspective, they can't possibly determine how it affects on field play... only that it probably does.

 

Its up to the NFL to determine if Deflategate rises to that level or not. There's no doubt the NFL is in a tough spot. All of this talk of year-long suspensions would seem to be counter-productive to the NFL, mostly because it would create backlash from the public in a greater fashion that the entire incident ever did. You and I might not care about public backlash, but the NFL does.

[January J]

You got that right- ESP after he's botched several incidents over the last few years and gets boo"d every time he makes a public appearance -you can bet he cares about public backlash. I agree that it pretty much should be in the same category as PED use- but like we were saying - you have to take into account the lying, and perhaps the fact that they are repeat offenders. I don't necessarily think bellechek should be punished- mainly bc there is nothing that directly ties him to any of this. But common sense tells me that with his great attention to detail and his extremely close relationship with Brady, that he was Atleast somewhat aware of what was going on. He seemed a lot more convincing than tom did In his press conference - so maybe he honestly didn't know- or maybe he's just a better liar. He's obviously smarter than Brady, and probably 75% of the ppl he's around. So he probably just wisely kept himself seperated from all of it. Ofcourse that's just speculation. But should he be accountable as the one who oversees the team is the question.

[harfordravenfan]

You got that right- ESP after he's botched several incidents over the last few years and gets boo"d every time he makes a public appearance -you can bet he cares about public backlash. I agree that it pretty much should be in the same category as PED use- but like we were saying - you have to take into account the lying, and perhaps the fact that they are repeat offenders. I don't necessarily think bellechek should be punished- mainly bc there is nothing that directly ties him to any of this. But common sense tells me that with his great attention to detail and his extremely close relationship with Brady, that he was Atleast somewhat aware of what was going on. He seemed a lot more convincing than tom did In his press conference - so maybe he honestly didn't know- or maybe he's just a better liar. He's obviously smarter than Brady, and probably 75% of the ppl he's around. So he probably just wisely kept himself seperated from all of it. Ofcourse that's just speculation. But should he be accountable as the one who oversees the team is the question.

I'd say no he shouldn't be if nothing links him to it. Won't expect our coach to be held accountable for a player choosing to take a ped and that seems to be the best comparison

[January J]

I'd say no he shouldn't be if nothing links him to it. Won't expect our coach to be held accountable for a player choosing to take a ped and that seems to be the best comparison

one difference between PED use and this is while PED use is giving an athletic advantage to one player- deflating footballs possibly benefits the entire team. But generally it is somewhat similar.

[January J]

Hope perriman signs soon- rookies need to be careful out there practicing before they sign a contract. Fowler of the jaguars just tore his acl on the first day of rookie camp and hadnt signed his contract yet. Now I think there is a rule where teams are still obligated to negotiate with the player in good faith- but I'm sure it would have been much more beneficial to have already had an agreement.

Edited May 9, 2015 by January J

[harfordravenfan]

one difference between PED use and this is while PED use is giving an athletic advantage to one player- deflating footballs possibly benefits the entire team. But generally it is somewhat similar.

Agreed and as I mentioned before... It will be interesting to see if the pats receivers or Brady's completion %'s go down or if we see the rbs fumble more. One could speculate if the stats did drop that the deflated balls "could've" happened often or at least use a drop in stats to justify that it did clearly give them an edge... But again, it would just be an opinion and those that didn't believe would argue even if all areas saw a drop in performance

Edited May 9, 2015 by harfordravenfan

[rmcjacket23]

Agreed and as I mentioned before... It will be interesting to see if the pats receivers or Brady's completion %'s go down or if we see the rbs fumble more. One could speculate if the stats did drop that the deflated balls "could've" happened often or at least use a drop in stats to justify that it did clearly give them an edge... But again, it would just be an opinion and those that didn't believe would argue even if all areas saw a drop in performance

In theory, that could work. The problem is... we really only know for certain that Brady used deflated footballs for a single half and nothing more. We can guess and play the "well clearly its not the first time he's done it card", but that's all it will ever be... guessing.

 

The only other thing we do know is that for the next 6 quarters after that, he used legal footballs. So again, if we compare the two, he was significantly better with legal footballs.

[rmcjacket23]

one difference between PED use and this is while PED use is giving an athletic advantage to one player- deflating footballs possibly benefits the entire team. But generally it is somewhat similar.

Potentially. We know it doesn't benefit the Patriots defense, because they aren't even touching the footballs that Brady was playing with.

 

While an individual player taking PEDs MAY only benefit him, if he plays better, the overall production of the team increases. If Tom Brady is taking steroids that allows him to be stronger, and therefore throw the ball harder or farther, the entire offense would benefit from that in theory, particularly if they are aware of it.

[January J]

In theory, that could work. The problem is... we really only know for certain that Brady used deflated footballs for a single half and nothing more. We can guess and play the "well clearly its not the first time he's done it card", but that's all it will ever be... guessing.

The only other thing we do know is that for the next 6 quarters after that, he used legal footballs. So again, if we compare the two, he was significantly better with legal footballs.

. I mentioned this in another post already- but if I'm not mistaken they have texts from earlier on in the year after a jets game on a rainy night in foxborough where Brady was complainin about the pressure of the footballs. It was also said he performed pretty badly that day- not that I think it matters. Not sure exactly where I heard this but I know it was circulating around several media outlets including espn- not sure if it was in the actual wells report. I for one ain't readin that massive thing ! But you can pretty much gather from that it was done more than once. That's not guessing that's actual evidence. Whether you choose to believe the evidence is on you. But common sense tells you they are not going to do something like that for the very first time in the championship game risking being punished right before the superbowl unless they've done it before and thought they could get away with it. Once again- if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a freakin duck. No need to overthink it. Edited May 9, 2015 by January J

[Ngataninch]

And that may be true. But if its a fundamental "rules violation" like you said, and I tend to agree that it is, then we already have at least a reasonable precedence for punishment. We know that the NFL establishes a PED policy, with is a violation of rules that affects on-field performance (same as Deflategate). We know that policy basically dictates a four game suspension for a player on a first offense, which is what Brady qualifies under. PED use actually, in my opinion, fits this mold rather well. Its a willful violation of the rules in order to gain a competitive advantage, and from the NFL's perspective, they can't possibly determine how it affects on field play... only that it probably does.

 

Its up to the NFL to determine if Deflategate rises to that level or not. There's no doubt the NFL is in a tough spot. All of this talk of year-long suspensions would seem to be counter-productive to the NFL, mostly because it would create backlash from the public in a greater fashion that the entire incident ever did. You and I might not care about public backlash, but the NFL does.

For the most part I agree, except with the length of the suspension... I think the initial action dictates a four game suspension, but something more must be done about the lack of cooperation after the action.  The situation comes across as a conspiracy to cover up wrong doing.  The suspension should be four games for cheating, and twelve games for the cover up.  The difference between this and PED's is that there is some definitive proof with PED's so there is less argument and rarely is there a cover-up.  I can't recall a single player that adamantly denied using PED's and if they did it didn't matter, they failed the drug test, they were suspended.  Tom Brady just attempted to cheat on his "drug test" (the Wells investigation) by refusing to "pee in the cup" (turn over his cell phone) in this case the NFL MUST assume the worse case scenario and MUST deliver a harsh, swift punishment.

[January J]

For the most part I agree, except with the length of the suspension... I think the initial action dictates a four game suspension, but something more must be done about the lack of cooperation after the action. The situation comes across as a conspiracy to cover up wrong doing. The suspension should be four games for cheating, and twelve games for the cover up. The difference between this and PED's is that there is some definitive proof with PED's so there is less argument and rarely is there a cover-up. I can't recall a single player that adamantly denied using PED's and if they did it didn't matter, they failed the drug test, they were suspended. Tom Brady just attempted to cheat on his "drug test" (the Wells investigation) by refusing to "pee in the cup" (turn over his cell phone) in this case the NFL MUST assume the worse case scenario and MUST deliver a harsh, swift punishment.

I like the analogy but it's a little off base. When you join the nfl you are mandated to do certain things like take drug tests etc. - but turning over your phone isn't one of them . If I was innocent of any wrong doing I wouldn't turn my phone over either.(not saying that he is) , in my opinion that part of it isn't the same thing. But even without the phone records there is still proof that he lied and it does seem like there was an effort of a coverup. So I think that will definitely come into play when a punishment is delivered- I just don't think him not turning over his phone is relevant. Even if it doesn't look very good. 12 games is way too harsh - compare that to the suspension Greg hardy just got and you will have another public outcry ,I could see the headline now - " the nfl places deflated footballs and domestic violence in the same category" Edited May 9, 2015 by January J

[rmcjacket23]

. I mentioned this in another post already- but if I'm not mistaken they have texts from earlier on in the year after a jets game on a rainy night in foxborough where Brady was complainin about the pressure of the footballs. It was also said he performed pretty badly that day- not that I think it matters. Not sure exactly where I heard this but I know it was circulating around several media outlets including espn- not sure if it was in the actual wells report. I for one ain't readin that massive thing ! But you can pretty much gather from that it was done more than once. That's not guessing that's actual evidence. Whether you choose to believe the evidence is on you. But common sense tells you they are not going to do something like that for the very first time in the championship game risking being punished right before the superbowl unless they've done it before and thought they could get away with it. Once again- if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a freakin duck. No need to overthink it.

Even if that were true, the Jets game scenario only basically shows that Brady did NOT cheat during that game. If he's complaining about the pressure of the footballs, that likely means that they weren't deflated to the level he wanted, meaning that they were legally inflated. So in that instance, he wouldn't have even violated any rules.

[rmcjacket23]

For the most part I agree, except with the length of the suspension... I think the initial action dictates a four game suspension, but something more must be done about the lack of cooperation after the action.  The situation comes across as a conspiracy to cover up wrong doing.  The suspension should be four games for cheating, and twelve games for the cover up.  The difference between this and PED's is that there is some definitive proof with PED's so there is less argument and rarely is there a cover-up.  I can't recall a single player that adamantly denied using PED's and if they did it didn't matter, they failed the drug test, they were suspended.  Tom Brady just attempted to cheat on his "drug test" (the Wells investigation) by refusing to "pee in the cup" (turn over his cell phone) in this case the NFL MUST assume the worse case scenario and MUST deliver a harsh, swift punishment.

Sends a horrible, horrible, horrible message though, particularly to the public that already perceives the NFL in a negative light. All you're really saying in that instance is that deflating footballs and lying about it is at least equal to knocking your wife out cold. And if you wanted to argue it based on the INITIAL response from the league, deflating footballs and lying about it is 8 times as harsh as knocking your wife out cold.

 

Again, public perception might not be relevant to you or even me, but it matters very, very, very much to the NFL. A 12 game suspension for lying, frankly regardless of what you're lying about, will come off to just about everybody as excessive, baseless, and frankly reckless.

 

There's no shortage of players who got popped for PED usage that likely lied about it. Even after they're caught, they deny that they did anything wrong, and occasionally attack the methods by which the sample was collected. I can't recall anytime in the NFL where they issue a harsher punishment from somebody denying it, which is the exact same as lying in that instance.

 

I have no doubt that they lying and lack of cooperation will factor into the punishment, but seems borderline ridiculous to make the that aspect of the punishment 3 times as harsh as the actual act itself. Seems highly counter-productive.