Maybe we just cheated?

TeamFirst · May 20, 2015

Denial is not one of the steps of recovery I believe.

FirstAndGoal · May 20, 2015

I'm pretty sure that if they had to measure that many balls, and a ball came in at 12.4, the refs are going to let it go and not bother pumping it up.

1) It wasn't a big deal until the Patriots did it.
2) It's not an exact science with the equipment and procedures
3) Because of #1 & #2, I seriously doubt they're going to be up in arms for something so minor.

I'd be willing to bet that even balls on the low end of the measurement were not deemed significant enough to stick a needle in and pump them up. It's a complete farce about these "off by 1.3 when it should only be off by 1.1".

BobDigital · May 20, 2015

Tunescribe said:
I see you attended the Ted Wells School of Let's Get 'Em, Facts Be Damned.

McNally threatening to go to ESPN. -- A joke in a text message

McNally taking the balls into the bathroom in the first place and the particular one he choose. -- 100 seconds to take a leak and wash his hands, or let air out of 12 footballs?

No follow up in person interview for McNally. -- He already was interviewed FOUR times, including a SEVEN-HOUR interview by Wells. He has a full-time job and family. If Wells didn't get what he "needed" in the first SEVEN-HOUR interrogation, that's his problem.

Brady Refusing to hand over his phone or text -- He wasn't required to and was advised not to because it would've set a precedent in subsequent disciplinary cases. Besides, Wells already had all pertinent messages between Brady and the ballboys.

I don't believe Brady did not know McNally. I think he lied and why lie? -- Why do you think he lied? He might not have known McNally by name or remembered his face before or even after the sting occurred.

I see you try to explain away my concerns. Honestly I don't think you did a good job. I don't think your explanations are good and that is the problem.

A joke that's context appears to be dubious
McNally going to that bathroom, why not a closer one?
Pats should have allowed another interview if Wells wanted. Period. Pay McNally for his time If you are concerned about it.
Brady should have handed over his phone. I don't care about precedent and he was a key figure in this investigation. Also we only know what text those 2 sent to Brady. What text might be relevant that Brady sent to others? We don't know.
McNally has worked there for a very long time and been on the sideline a lot and handles the football's Brady uses. I just highly doubt he would not at least know his name and face.

Bruins29 · May 20, 2015

BobDigital said:
I see you try to explain away my concerns. Honestly I don't think you did a good job. I don't think your explanations are good and that is the problem.

A joke that's context appears to be dubious
McNally going to that bathroom, why not a closer one?
Pats should have allowed another interview if Wells wanted. Period. Pay McNally for his time If you are concerned about it.
Brady should have handed over his phone. I don't care about precedent and he was a key figure in this investigation. Also we only know what text those 2 sent to Brady. What text might be relevant that Brady sent to others? We don't know.
McNally has worked there for a very long time and been on the sideline a lot and handles the football's Brady uses. I just highly doubt he would not at least know his name and face.

Well its obvious someone did not read the Wells report, the Pats rebuttal or more importantly follow this case and the nuances.

Not surprising. All of your points above heave clear and reasonable explanations.

BobDigital · May 20, 2015

Bruins29 said:
So basically if Bob Smith was acting "suspicious" about the murder of Joe blow but Joe Blow was still alive you would still think Bob Smith may have done it.

Ahhhhhh brilliant.

We are speaking entirely about 2 different standards of proof needed here.

If you want to talk about upping the standard of proof in the NFL fine. I am all for that. It should be more that 51% but that is what it currently is.

Bruins29 · May 20, 2015

BobDigital said:
We are speaking entirely about 2 different standards of proof needed here.

If you want to talk about upping the standard of proof in the NFL fine. I am all for that. It should be more that 51% but that is what it currently is.

You are strawmaning here and doing it badly. Joe Blow is alive and well. There is no murder despite what some slimeball named Ted Wells wanted people to think.

BobDigital · May 20, 2015

AndyJohnson said:
so evidence isn't part of your analysis, just a feeling huh?

I am using evidence and facts. It is not "hard evidence" though. It depends what you mean by evidence. How about we just call it information?

BobDigital · May 20, 2015

Bruins29 said:
Well its obvious someone did not read the Wells report, the Pats rebuttal or more importantly follow this case and the nuances.

Not surprising. All of your points above heave clear and reasonable explanations.

I have read much of the report and the entire rebuttle. I don't agree with the Rebuttle's explanations for these things. They were not good enough for me. I don't buy it.

Bruins29 · May 20, 2015

BobDigital said:
I have read much of the report and the entire rebuttle. I don't agree with the Rebuttle's explanations for these things. They were not good enough for me. I don't buy it.

You keep avoiding the real issue though. Oh well. Think what you want.

TeamFirst · May 20, 2015

Kraft folded like weasel for something.

How do you accept a punishment when you know you did nothing wrong. Its about integrity! You fight until you exhaust all avenues, you fight for everything you supposedly stand for. You just don't accept a penaty like this for nothing.

BobDigital · May 20, 2015

Bruins29 said:
You are strawmaning here and doing it badly. Joe Blow is alive and well. There is no murder despite what some slimeball named Ted Wells wanted people to think.

How did I straw man? Explain in detail.

Ring 6 · May 20, 2015

BobDigital said:
I am using evidence and facts. It is not "hard evidence" though. It depends what you mean by evidence. How about we just call it information?

But there is none.
There is not a single piece of evidence or testimony that anything untoward was done.
The only evidence created is that someone read text messages and asked what they meant, then called the person a liar and concluded their interpretation was a fact.
There is nothing else.
Evidence is testimony or fact that something occurred. That's just not there.
On top of this if you don't know the balls were underinflated, you can't find someone guilty of something you can't prove is.
Lets put it another way. If the balls were under lock and key the all day long, and no member of the Patriots had access, you have the exact same evidence that you are using.

Bruins29 · May 20, 2015

BobDigital said:
How did I straw man? Explain in detail.

I have made my point clearly and multiple times with several analogies. Also, I can not find anyone here yet that disagrees with me or even would.

I am not here to tell you that you are not in reality.

BobDigital · May 20, 2015

Bruins29 said:
You keep avoiding the real issue though. Oh well. Think what you want.

Explain the real issue. I think the real issue is did the patriots break the rules.

I gave my reasons why I think they did. You gave your reasons why you don't like those reasons. I told you I don't think your explanation or anyone else's explains away my points (at least to me).

You are entitled to your opinion on the matter.

Ring 6 · May 20, 2015

TeamFirst said:
Kraft folded like weasel for something.

How do you accept a punishment when you know you did nothing wrong. Its about integrity! You fight until you exhaust all avenues, you fight for everything you supposedly stand for. You just don't accept a penaty like this for nothing.

You do when you have 2 groups asking you to do 2 different things, and you chose one or the other.
Kraft was told he must pick between The Elite and The Help.

Mr. Plow · May 20, 2015

PrairiePat said:
Kraft goes to an owners meeting and suddenly changes his tune. Does that imply
(a) 31 owners got on his case about supporting the 'shield' and threatened him financially
(b) coincidentally some smoking gun evidence suddenly surfaced against the Pats

I'm going with A.

Correct.

If there were any "smoking gun" evidence against the Pats, the NFL would be throwing it right in front of the media, without a qualm. Look what they've done in this investigation. They've thrown p.s.i. numbers out there that turned out to be fake, and left them out there for months. Any information that makes the Pats look bad, the NFL had their fax machines whirring.

No, this was a business decision. And a horrible business decision.

BobDigital · May 20, 2015

Bruins29 said:
I have made my point clearly and multiple times with several analogies. Also, I can not find anyone here yet that disagrees with me or even would.

I am not hear to tell you that you are not in reality.

No explain my straw man in detail. You did not just then. If you think I used a logically fallacy explain why and if so i'll correct it.

BobDigital · May 20, 2015

AndyJohnson said:
But there is none.
There is not a single piece of evidence or testimony that anything untoward was done.
The only evidence created is that someone read text messages and asked what they meant, then called the person a liar and concluded their interpretation was a fact.
There is nothing else.
Evidence is testimony or fact that something occurred. That's just not there.
On top of this if you don't know the balls were underinflated, you can't find someone guilty of something you can't prove is.
Lets put it another way. If the balls were under lock and key the all day long, and no member of the Patriots had access, you have the exact same evidence that you are using.

Let me tell you were I agree and disagree.

No one admitted anyone did it? Sure.
Text messages are the only sources of evidence? Again depends how you use evidence. The text messages are the only physical evidence IMO as I found the football highly inconclusive.
There is nothing else? Well depends if you count suspicious behavior and uncooperativeness

Then you go into guilty and prove... that is court of law standards. Not the ones the NFL uses. Going by court of law of course this has no legs.
Then you talk about if the balls were under lock and key and no one on the Patriots had access you'd have the same evidence. No. Then you could prove the Patriots could not get to the footballs making everything else completely meaningless. The Patriots had opportunity which without it makes everything else fall apart. If McNally did not go into the bathroom and provided no window to do anything the case is gone cause it can be illustrated nothing could have happen.

TeamFirst · May 20, 2015

After really thinking about it.. I am more pissed off that Kraft led me/us fans on this we are innocent crusade for 4 months just so he could fold up. I think that is what pisses me off the most. This could have been over 4 months ago!!! Most of us called he was going fold like a weasel and he did. Why are we surprised.

Ring 6 · May 20, 2015

BobDigital said:
We are speaking entirely about 2 different standards of proof needed here.

If you want to talk about upping the standard of proof in the NFL fine. I am all for that. It should be more that 51% but that is what it currently is.

I believe it was above the law that pointed out this 51% standard is being horrendously bastardized.
A 51% standard does not mean that a series of events that are necessary to reach a conclusion must be 51% likely.
For example, if we assume it is:
51% likely that the science proves the balls could have been tampered with
51% that Anderson was wrong about the gauge
51% that Anderson was right about what he measured.
51% likely that The Deflator could have deflated them in the john
51% likely that the texts between Dorito Dink and the Deflator were about deflating
51% likley that Brady wanted to have balls under 12.5
51% likely that Brady's discussion with DD the next morning were about deflating

That does NOT meet the legal standard of the evidence being 51% in favor of guilt.

The standard is that the sum total of the evidence is 51% or more correct, not that a number of things all could have happened.

Maybe we just cheated?

On the Game Day Roster

In the Starting Line-Up

Pro Bowl Player

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

Pro Bowl Player

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

Pro Bowl Player

Pro Bowl Player

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

On the Game Day Roster

Pro Bowl Player

PatsFans.com Supporter

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

Pro Bowl Player

PatsFans.com Supporter

Practice Squad Player

Pro Bowl Player

Pro Bowl Player

On the Game Day Roster

PatsFans.com Supporter

Similar threads