Florio: Source Says that Wells Report takings so long because investigation turned to the NFL

Rob0729 said:

I'm done. Andy and I can go away think that we each won the argument. Unless anyone is up for us arguing for 10 pages why each of know we won the argument. Anyone?

Click to expand...

Terminated.

1960Pats said:

I just caught a piece on NFL Network about the Grigson guy from Indy. Anyone know his claim to fame?

Click to expand...

Trading a first round draft pick for Trent Richardson.

Rob0729 said:

It defines any reporter who lives off of rumors. Same goes with almost every reporter. Even guys like Adam Schefter fall into this categtor.

Click to expand...

Which is my point. I think its well known that Florio is wrong more than most.

He is just saying what Mike Reiss said. He is hearing this, but he doesn't know if it is true or not. Reiss doubted the motives of his source. Curran just doesn't know if his source is just spreading rumors he thinks are facts.

Click to expand...

He did not say Reiss was his source.

And you are complaining about me putting word in my mouth. Everyone other than Sharks of Vegas knows the Wells investigation will be largely about the Pats. Breer never said otherwise. He just said he thinks the key part of the report will be about the League and Colts. Huge difference.

Click to expand...

I'm not putting words in your mouth, I am restating what you said in the other discussion. Is it inaccurate? In what way?
The discussion was that you felt Breer's article meant the investigation was not focussed on the Patriots and you felt it was 'proof' because he is 'dialed in to the league'. Am I misrepresenting your position?

The sources do not conflict at all. Curran doesn't talk about what his sources are saying about the investigation of the Patriots. Florio is only talking that his source says that Wells looks to be looking at the league with the same effort that Curran said his source is doing with the Patriots. Neither report confirms or denies the other. Curran never says that his source said that the investigation is exclusively or even primarily on the Patriots. Florio never says that Curran's report is false and that the investigation has turned away from the Pats.

Click to expand...

The source may not have conflicted but the posts about what they meant did. Breers article (without a source by the way) was being used to state that the investigation was not about the Patriots but the league There were pages of posts about what is between the lines because he is 'dialed in'. My position was it was his opinion, without inside info. Currans piece led it to seem they were focussed on the Patriots.
Both can be correct, but both interpretations really cannot.

This is a case where both Curran's and Florio's sources could be 100% correct. I am having a hard time finding a single way these sources contradict each other. Wells has been investigating this thing for nearly three months. I am sure he has put everyone involved under a microscope from the Pats to Kensil to Grigson to the refs to whoever.

Click to expand...

See above. The contradiction is in the conclusion being drawn.
If you are no longer saying Breer's article means the investigation is not about the Patriots, then there is nothing to discuss other than there are a bunch of people throwing hypotheses out there.

When a reporter openly questions the validity of his source, I always give it less weight. If Curran had a strong feeling about his source, he wouldn't have added that line. The direct quote Curran puts in the article seems like hyperbole to begin with.

Click to expand...

We differ. I think Curran's line is implied in virtually every 'sourced' article.

Again, if Curran openly questions the validity of the source's information in the article. It does change the value as a sourced rumor.

Click to expand...

see above. We can disagree here, but I think we both agree it is pretty much equal to Florios either way.

You are insulting and condescending to everyone you argue with. Not just me. And yes, you have insulted me multiple times calling my arguments stupid and stuff like that

Click to expand...

That is just wrong. I do not insult anyone. (Possibly in retaliation I have)
Condescending is in the eye of the beholder. I do not attempt to be condescending but I put little effort into politeness in a discussion, so maybe it is taken that way, but not intended.
I am sure I have called an argument stupid, if I thought it was. That is not an insult. Calling you stupid, would be, and I have never done that. What you posted early was, and I have never made a comment like that to you. Feel free to find any, but don't waste your time they do not exist.

. It seems like such in your nature that maybe you just don't see it when you post it. You insult people all the time.

Click to expand...

I really do not. Again, I post on topics I feel strongly about.I am not easily swayed on those topics. If disagreeing with your is insulting that is really your issue. If you think being adamant about my opinion and painstakingly responding to why I disagree with the opposite is insulting I'm not sure what to tell you.

PatsFanSince74 said:

From your lips to God's ears.
Christmas in April!

Click to expand...

My guess is August...

To me, the interesting thing about the Florio report is that leaks from league sources have suddenly started up again after months of silence. To me, this suggests that the NFL wants to start putting some info about the report out there ahead of its release. To hint at what's in it. To soften the impact of its release by spreading the reaction out over days. To soften the battlefield, if you will.

Note that the leaks from the league sources did not tip him off to look for massive sanctions against the Pats.

hwc said:

Trading a first round draft pick for Trent Richardson.

Click to expand...

The idea was a good one.

The player evaluation and compensation given up was seriously flawed and moronic on many levels.

Robo and Andy - enough.

Any more and I will recommend to Ian to block your posting capability in this thread going forward.

Nobody truly gives a care about your petty competition. It infects too many threads. PM each other if you need to argue with yourselves.

.

hwc said:

To me, the interesting thing about the Florio report is that leaks from league sources have suddenly started up again after months of silence. To me, this suggests that the NFL wants to start putting some info about the report out there ahead of its release. To hint at what's in it. To soften the impact of its release by spreading the reaction out over days. To soften the battlefield, if you will.

Note that the leaks from the league sources did not tip him off to look for massive sanctions against the Pats.

Click to expand...

Either that or to get the buzz going. We all know the league loves buzz. Good buzz. Bad Buzz. Doesn't matter...

Idiots.

Rob0729 said:

I am sorry, I misspoke. That isn't pretty much confirmed. It was 100% confirmed. Dean Blandino, head of officials, confirmed that pregame all balls were only given pass/fail ratings and the PSI was not recorded.

Click to expand...

"not recorded" does not necessarily imply "not known".

Hypothetically:
Wells: Walt, what do you recall about the balls at the pre-game check?
Walter Anderson: They were all right around 12.5 PSI.
Wells: Did you notice anything odd or strange?
Anderson: Nope. They were all at least 12.5 PSI -- we approved them, after all. Some may have been a little bit higher, but they were all pretty close to 12.5.

Yes, you are correct that they cannot on a ball-by-ball basis match pregame readings to halftime readings. But if the ref saw there was little variation between the balls at checkin, that doesn't really matter.

rlcarr said:

"not recorded" does not necessarily imply "not known".

Hypothetically:
Wells: Walt, what do you recall about the balls at the pre-game check?
Walter Anderson: They were all right around 12.5 PSI.
Wells: Did you notice anything odd or strange?
Anderson: Nope. They were all at least 12.5 PSI -- we approved them, after all. Some may have been a little bit higher, but they were all pretty close to 12.5.

Yes, you are correct that they cannot on a ball-by-ball basis match pregame readings to halftime readings. But if the ref saw there was little variation between the balls at checkin, that doesn't really matter.

Click to expand...

Unless Anderson has a great memory, he cannot know which ball was which and what each ball's PSI. And even then, it would not be strong evidence.

Flip it the other way and use your scenario except Anderson said that he remembered them all to be about 13.5 PSI although they didn't record it and based on that information the Wells Report comes to the conclusion that the Pats had to have tampered with the balls and should be punished. You would hit the roof.

Without knowing the exact (or at least recorded) before and after PSI of each ball, you cannot use science to convict or exonerate the Pats. It is can be strong evidence either way, but even if they had that information I am sure Wells would not ended the investigation there.

I hate the phrase "smoking gun" in this investigation. Let's compare this to a murder investigation. In this case, the coroner is still determining whether the suspect died due to foul play or natural causes. "Smoking gun" implies that the person was murdered and there is a suspect but not quite enough evidence yet to arrest him. A big step has been skipped.

PatsFanSince74 said:

Nah. But, if we're lucky, he'll throw Kensil and a couple of others under the bus and apologize to the Pats, not for conducting the investigation but for what it revealed of how his staff behaved. I'll choose to say that that is a glass that is half full.

Click to expand...

Kensil is close to R. Stokoe. If he is found to be dirty, or others in Goodell's employ guilty of shenanigans, it could make the league office look very, very bad.

Quoting Florio's post: "As one league source recently explained it to PFT, the league’s investigation has expanded to explore its own behavior, including for example the identity of person(s) who leaked to the media information that suggested the Patriots did something wrong."

So Florio opines as if leaks are still coming out of the league offices while Wells is adding investigating the same leakers .... another Florio fiction piece ... I will wait for the report.

Now that the president and Romo have taked about our balls again, it is a perfect time to get this over and done with. Get the report out before the draft! Then its all blue sky for the league once the dust settles and the draft steam rolls the news!
Oh, one more thing, lets nail the Jets for tampering before the draft also! I love the sound of Jet fans crying!

Rob0729 said:

Unless Anderson has a great memory, he cannot know which ball was which and what each ball's PSI. And even then, it would not be strong evidence.

Click to expand...

I already said he wouldn't know the specific PSI of each specific ball. I'm saying that unless there was big variation in the balls' starting pressures, not knowing the specific starting PSI of each ball isn't that big a deal, especially considering the imprecision of the gauge.

Rob0729 said:

Flip it the other way and use your scenario except Anderson said that he remembered them all to be about 13.5 PSI although they didn't record it and based on that information the Wells Report comes to the conclusion that the Pats had to have tampered with the balls and should be punished. You would hit the roof.

Click to expand...

Only if I believed that Anderson lied (or that the NFL lied about what Anderson told them). So yes, in that sense I'd be ticked off that there was no paper trail. However (going with your scenario), I don't see it to be some incredible, unbelievable thing that a human could correctly remember that none of the balls he measured were under 13. Or that he could correctly remember that at least three were right on 13.5. You really don't think you could remember something like that??

Rob0729 said:

Without knowing the exact (or at least recorded) before and after PSI of each ball, you cannot use science to convict or exonerate the Pats. It is can be strong evidence either way,

Click to expand...

Yes you can, in theory. If, for example, Anderson said he was certain that all the balls were at least 13 PSI at checkin and he was certain that all the balls at halftime were under 11 PSI, that would be legitimately very damning, even without anything being recorded and without any ball-by-ball before-and-after measurements.

Similarly, if he was certain all balls were under 13 PSI at checkin and certain all balls were at least 12 PSI at halftime that would legitimately be very exculpatory even without anything being logged.

Now, in actuality it will almost certainly be tighter than that, so yes, I agree with you that science will be unable to definitively exonerate or convict NE. But I think it will point strongly towards on or the other (I, of course, believe it will point towards exoneration).

IcyPatriot said:

So Florio opines as if leaks are still coming out of the league offices while Wells is adding investigating the same leakers .... another Florio fiction piece ... I will wait for the report.

Click to expand...

The league office is no longer involved in the investigation. That is important to note. This is not a leak from the investigation, but quite possibly, a leak from those being investigated now.

.

Tunescribe said:

Quoting Florio's post: "As one league source recently explained it to PFT, the league’s investigation has expanded to explore its own behavior, including for example the identity of person(s) who leaked to the media information that suggested the Patriots did something wrong."

Click to expand...

NOOOooooooo!
Now Wells will have to investigate THIS leak!

We've entered Infinite Loop territory!!! We're cursed!

Rob0729 said:

I am sorry, I misspoke. That isn't pretty much confirmed. It was 100% confirmed. Dean Blandino, head of officials, confirmed that pregame all balls were only given pass/fail ratings and the PSI was not recorded.

Click to expand...

That doesn't mean they weren't measured, it only says they were not recorded
Interviewing the ref and having him say "The Patriots balls were all at the lower end of the range' would be considered proof of where they were to start.

http://nesn.com/2015/01/dean-blandino-deflategate-wasnt-a-sting-psi-in-footballs-werent-logged/

Whether they did it at halftime is irrelevant for scientific standpoint.

Again, with no data stating how much each ball was deflated, it is impossible to exonerate or incriminate the Pats on science alone.

Click to expand...

If the ref stated the above and all were within the expected scienitific range at halftime, yes that would exonerate them with science. By the same token if the science said the lowest the pressure could be if it started within range was X and they measured below that it surely would be incriminating.

shmessy said:

Robo and Andy - enough.

Any more and I will recommend to Ian to block your posting capability in this thread going forward.

Nobody truly gives a care about your petty competition. It infects too many threads. PM each other if you need to argue with yourselves.

.

Click to expand...

Please explain to me what I have done wrong.

rlcarr said:

I already said he wouldn't know the specific PSI of each specific ball. I'm saying that unless there was big variation in the balls' starting pressures, not knowing the specific starting PSI of each ball isn't that big a deal, especially considering the imprecision of the gauge.



Only if I believed that Anderson lied (or that the NFL lied about what Anderson told them). So yes, in that sense I'd be ticked off that there was no paper trail. However (going with your scenario), I don't see it to be some incredible, unbelievable thing that a human could correctly remember that none of the balls he measured were under 13. Or that he could correctly remember that at least three were right on 13.5. You really don't think you could remember something like that??



Yes you can, in theory. If, for example, Anderson said he was certain that all the balls were at least 13 PSI at checkin and he was certain that all the balls at halftime were under 11 PSI, that would be legitimately very damning, even without anything being recorded and without any ball-by-ball before-and-after measurements.

Similarly, if he was certain all balls were under 13 PSI at checkin and certain all balls were at least 12 PSI at halftime that would legitimately be very exculpatory even without anything being logged.

Now, in actuality it will almost certainly be tighter than that, so yes, I agree with you that science will be unable to definitively exonerate or convict NE. But I think it will point strongly towards on or the other (I, of course, believe it will point towards exoneration).

Click to expand...

Its pretty safe to assume Andersons integrity would not be questioned.