The media is just going to attack the weakest parts of the argument, such as McNally's "deflator" moniker as a weight loss thing, along with Brady's reason for calling Jastremski, etc. That is just what the media does, and if there was any doubt, just look how they've loved this scandal so far, misrepresenting facts and sensationalizing everything.
I do assume the rebuttal was made for the public, of which about 0.001% which actually read it, and the rest will just hop on the juicy headlines, many of which will be critical of the rebuttal for the more controversial, far-fetched points.
In my opinion, only three areas should have been addressed:
1. The science behind the "deflation" and the circumstances about the Colts balls/Patriots balls BOTH being under, which includes both the false leaks and the actual numbers. The Walt Anderson "best recollection", frankly, is the strongest point in the entire appeal. The actual numbers are the head of the snake; kill it and the body dies. If the Patriots can prove the balls were not tampered with, nothing else matters.
2. Regarding the Brady-McNally-Jastremski triangle, two very basic points would have sufficed. First, of course Brady's communication to Jastremski will pickup inevitably after he is accused publicly of a crime. Second, McNally referenced INFLATING the balls more than DEFLATING when he said he would give Tom watermellons, balloons, etc. So, basically, you have a guy who is responsible for getting the footballs to Tom's liking. He inflates them; he deflates them. He jokes about inflating them to big and nicknames himself the deflator. Big whoop. Nothing in there that references an illegal scheme. Nothing in there whatsoever that even references shady activity. There was absolutely no need to explain every single text message, justify the reasons for not turning over information, etc. etc.
3. The clear bias that was shown from the NFL in leak reporting, letters to the Patriots, Wells investigation discrepancies, etc. Patriots did a good job detailing that in their rebuttal, but again, people can only consider a few points at once.
The public doesn't digest 58 points; just give them a few that are your strongest and most obvious. When you attack everything, you just come across as defensive and "willing to say anything". That's because if just one point is weak, that's going to then color the rest of the case in the eyes of the public.
I think that Patriots PR department has once again failed the team as they have so often; they are just clueless about how to speak to the public and how to get their point across. Luckily, it is irrelevant to Brady's legal case, but you can chalk up another missed opportunity from the PR department in the battle of public opinion.
I'm sure I'll get a lot of "Dislikes" for this, so have away.
