Super Bowl 51 - Illegitimate*

[Joey007]

Losing the first round pick was BS, but...


Really?

 

[SteveGrogan]

I'm sure if there was someone Belichick thought was a can't miss prospect, he would have executed a trade back into the first. He was watching the draft and decided it wasn't worthwhile. It's really no different than a first rounder busting. It sets you back maybe a season or two, but rarely does it set you back a decade. Do you think Easley will set us back 10 years?

I think you're missing the point. I don't think they drafted Easley with the intent to bounce him out in 2 years.

 

[vancanpatsfan]

Shoo, there's nothing even to argue.

Of course there's nothing to argue. Your points make no sense at all.

 

[SteveGrogan]

Losing the first round pick was BS, but...


Really?

If the rest of the football world thinks deflating 1 PSI out of a football could be responsible for success then I'd say my comment about a first round draft pick is spot on.

It's a handicapped league, why else do it? The Patriots have been the standard bearer, even in the years that ended with a loss. So wiping out a first rounder for a penalty that never happened, it delegitimized the game.

 

[ViperGTS]

How do you know it was "fabricated"? The reality is that we can never know because Tom wrecked his phone. And when he wrecked his phone he sealed his fate and not only does the league rule against him because of it, but his action ensures that we can't even reasonably argue his innocence either because he destroyed evidence.

There's a middle schooler in Mass that was just on E:60 that did an extremely basic science experiment that proved that no one deflated the balls. I mean, we can go on and on and I and most here can post numerous independent tests proving nothing unnatural occurred. I have a 12 year old. You have Exponent.

I trust the 12 year old.

 

[Kontradiction]

I think you're missing the point. I don't think they drafted Easley with the intent to bounce him out in 2 years.

I'm not missing the point at all. The pick was a miss, meaning the Patriots got nothing from their first rounder and certainly not a difference maker. It's essentially the same thing. The only difference is that the miss on Easley might be worst since the 2014 draft was an absolute pile of crap even after him (not counting Stork or Butler, who was undrafted anyway). This could very easily be less impactful if the Pats hit on their players in the 2nd and beyond at a higher clip than in 2014.

 

[SteveGrogan]

I'm not missing the point at all. The pick was a miss, meaning the Patriots got nothing from their first rounder and certainly not a difference maker. It's essentially the same thing. The only difference is that the miss on Easley might be worst since the 2014 draft was an absolute pile of crap even after him (not counting Stork or Butler, who was undrafted anyway). This could very easily be less impactful if the Pats hit on their players in the 2nd and beyond at a higher clip than in 2014.

Again, I think you're right. But that 1st rounder was currency for 2 second round picks in 2017 or some other value. To think it has no effect is crazy, I think it's huge. Enough to delegitimize a super bowl win by any other team in 2016.

 

[vancanpatsfan]

There's a middle schooler in Mass that was just on E:60 that did an extremely basic science experiment that proved that no one deflated the balls. I mean, we can go on and on and I and most here can post numerous independent tests proving nothing unnatural occurred. I have a 12 year old. You have Exponent.

I trust the 12 year old.

There were two 2nd US Circuit Appeals Court judges who stated that its well established to assume someone's guilt when they destroy evidence that has been ordered to be produced:

"Finally, any reasonable litigant would understand that the destruction of evidence, revealed just days before the start of the arbitration proceedings, would be an important issue. It is well established that the law permits a trier of fact to infer that a party who deliberately destroys relevant evidence the party had an obligation to produce did so in order to conceal damaging information from the adjudicator."

It's too bad that Tom didn't allow all the evidence to be reviewed because I suppose your 12 year old's experiment might have possibly been considered then.

 

[SteveGrogan]

There were two 2nd US Circuit Appeals Court judges who stated that its well established to assume someone's guilt when they destroy evidence that has been ordered to be produced:

"Finally, any reasonable litigant would understand that the destruction of evidence, revealed just days before the start of the arbitration proceedings, would be an important issue. It is well established that the law permits a trier of fact to infer that a party who deliberately destroys relevant evidence the party had an obligation to produce did so in order to conceal damaging information from the adjudicator."

It's too bad that Tom didn't allow all the evidence to be reviewed because I suppose your 12 year old's experiment might have possibly been considered then.

Evidence that isn't required if you rode the long bus and completed 4th grade.

And evidence that was offered and refused previously.

 

[ViperGTS]

There were two 2nd US Circuit Appeals Court judges who stated that its well established to assume someone's guilt when they destroy evidence that has been ordered to be produced:

"Finally, any reasonable litigant would understand that the destruction of evidence, revealed just days before the start of the arbitration proceedings, would be an important issue. It is well established that the law permits a trier of fact to infer that a party who deliberately destroys relevant evidence the party had an obligation to produce did so in order to conceal damaging information from the adjudicator."

It's too bad that Tom didn't allow all the evidence to be reviewed because I suppose your 12 year old's experiment might have possibly been considered.

Again, it's not my fault those loser justices didn't know all the facts. Wells said he didn't need the phone. It wasn't required by the CBA. He got the info he wanted. Then in the punishment ruling it turns into Brady destroying a phone that wasn't germaine to the investigation.

I wouldn't read to much into what a federal judge said about something he knows nothing about. The whole ruling is actually invalid. It's like someone wrote it, without knowing anything about the case.

 

[vancanpatsfan]

Evidence that isn't required if you rode the long bus and completed 4th grade.

And evidence that was offered and refused previously.

Of course its required. Why do you think the Court of Appeals judges made this reference.

And evidence that was previously offered?!?! And then destroyed?!?! If you expect anyone to believe that then you're going to be banging your head against the wall the rest of your life.

 

[SteveGrogan]

Of course its required. Why do you think the Court of Appeals judges made this reference.

And evidence that was previously offered?!?! If you expect anyone to believe that then you're going to be banging your head against the wall the rest of your life.

Hey, whichever team you are a fan of. Good luck this year, just know that even if you win the Super Bowl, it'll be not really a super bowl.

 

[Joker]

There were two 2nd US Circuit Appeals Court judges who stated that its well established to assume someone's guilt when they destroy evidence that has been ordered to be produced:

"Finally, any reasonable litigant would understand that the destruction of evidence, revealed just days before the start of the arbitration proceedings, would be an important issue. It is well established that the law permits a trier of fact to infer that a party who deliberately destroys relevant evidence the party had an obligation to produce did so in order to conceal damaging information from the adjudicator."

It's too bad that Tom didn't allow all the evidence to be reviewed because I suppose your 12 year old's experiment might have possibly been considered then.

Judge Robert A. Katzmann, the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, strongly disagrees with the two judges who ruled in favor of the NFL. In a separate dissenting opinion, Judge Katzmann explains that, in his opinion, Commissioner Roger Goodell’s punishment of Brady exceeded the findings of the Ted Wells report.

“The Wells Report . . . concluded that it was ‘more probable than not that Tom Brady . . . was at least generally aware of the inappropriate activities of [Jim] McNally and [John] Jastremski involving the release of air from Patriots game balls’ . . . and that it was ‘unlikely’ that McNally and Jastremski deflated the balls without Brady’s ‘knowledge,’ ‘approval,’ ‘awareness,’ and ‘consent,'” Judge Katzmann writes. “The Commissioner’s final written decision, however, went further. It found that Brady ‘knew about, approved of, consented to, and provided inducements and rewards in support of a scheme by which, with Mr. Jastremski’s support, Mr. McNally tampered with game balls.”

Judge Katzmann sees those differences as material: “The misconduct found in the Wells Report is indisputably less culpable than inducing and rewarding cheating through the payment of memorabilia, as was found in the Commissioner’s final decision.”

The dissenting opinion also points to the failure of the Commissioner to compare Brady’s alleged misconduct to the use of stickum, an equipment violation for which a first offense triggers a fine of $8,268.

“Given that both the use of stickum and the deflation of footballs involve attempts at improving one’s grip and evading the referees’ enforcement of the rules, this would seem a natural starting point for assessing Brady’s penalty,” Judge Katzmann writes. “Indeed, the League’s justification for prohibiting stickum — that it ‘affects the integrity of the competitive and can give a team an unfair advantage’ . . . — is nearly identical to the Commissioner’s explanation for what he found problematic about the deflation — that it ‘reflects an improper effort to secure a competitive advantage in, and threatens the integrity of, the game.’”

Judge Katzmann then ends the dissenting opinion with a message that will provide some (but not much_ solace to Patriots fans who will be unhappy with the luck of the draw that resulted in Katzmann not having a second judge on the three-judge panel who agreed with him: “It is ironic that a process designed to ensure fairness to all players has been unfairly used against one player.”

Berman ruled against the NFL. The CHIEF JUSTICE Of the 2nd district did too.Chin is an ill- informed loose cannon and Barrington Parker has ties to Charles Goodell going back 5 decades. STFU you ignorant POS.

 

[vancanpatsfan]

Again, it's not my fault those loser justices didn't know all the facts. Wells said he didn't need the phone. It wasn't required by the CBA. He got the info he wanted. Then in the punishment ruling it turns into Brady destroying a phone that wasn't germaine to the investigation.

I wouldn't read to much into what a federal judge said about something he knows nothing about. The whole ruling is actually invalid. It's like someone wrote it, without knowing anything about the case.

Well if what you're saying is true then why is that not subject to an appeal? Because that would be a no-brainer then.

But for some inexplicable reason it hasn't been raised in court yet? Why is that?

 

[Kontradiction]

Again, I think you're right. But that 1st rounder was currency for 2 second round picks in 2017 or some other value. To think it has no effect is crazy, I think it's huge. Enough to delegitimize a super bowl win by any other team in 2016.

I didn't say losing it had no effect. Not even close. I'm saying that I don't think losing it will have the impact that you think it will.

 

[ViperGTS]

Of course its required. Why do you think the Court of Appeals judges made this reference.

And evidence that was previously offered?!?! And then destroyed?!?! If you expect anyone to believe that then you're going to be banging your head against the wall the rest of your life.

You know nothing. You've walked into a pit of venomous vipers who have dissected and crosschecked every single aspect of this sham job. I would stop now before you dig yourself deeper into an argument that cannot be won. Not because of the homersism or misguided views of members of this forum.

Because the facts don't bear out what you, people such as you, and the NFL WANT them to.

 

[SteveGrogan]

I didn't say losing it had no effect. Not even close. I'm saying that I don't think losing it will have the impact that you think it will.

To be fair, I don't think it will have much if any impact at all. Mainly because of the way they draft.

But it doesn't matter. It still could have. And it makes the league and it's leveling of the playing field phony. Which makes Super Bowl 51, bogus.

 

[SteveGrogan]

You know nothing. You've walked into a pit of venomous vipers who have dissected and crosschecked every single aspect of this sham job. I would stop now before you dog youself deeper into an argument that cannot be won. Not because of the homersism or misguided views of members of this forum.

Because the facts don't bear out what you, people such as you, and the NFL WANT them to.

Eventually this kind of stuff goes away along with the hurt feelings. What will be left is clear published evidence of a railroading. And why? We all know why.

The Patriots are the greatest franchise of all time. They broke the league.

 

[vancanpatsfan]

Judge Robert A. Katzmann, the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, strongly disagrees with the two judges who ruled in favor of the NFL. In a separate dissenting opinion, Judge Katzmann explains that, in his opinion, Commissioner Roger Goodell’s punishment of Brady exceeded the findings of the Ted Wells report.

“The Wells Report . . . concluded that it was ‘more probable than not that Tom Brady . . . was at least generally aware of the inappropriate activities of [Jim] McNally and [John] Jastremski involving the release of air from Patriots game balls’ . . . and that it was ‘unlikely’ that McNally and Jastremski deflated the balls without Brady’s ‘knowledge,’ ‘approval,’ ‘awareness,’ and ‘consent,'” Judge Katzmann writes. “The Commissioner’s final written decision, however, went further. It found that Brady ‘knew about, approved of, consented to, and provided inducements and rewards in support of a scheme by which, with Mr. Jastremski’s support, Mr. McNally tampered with game balls.”

Judge Katzmann sees those differences as material: “The misconduct found in the Wells Report is indisputably less culpable than inducing and rewarding cheating through the payment of memorabilia, as was found in the Commissioner’s final decision.”

The dissenting opinion also points to the failure of the Commissioner to compare Brady’s alleged misconduct to the use of stickum, an equipment violation for which a first offense triggers a fine of $8,268.

“Given that both the use of stickum and the deflation of footballs involve attempts at improving one’s grip and evading the referees’ enforcement of the rules, this would seem a natural starting point for assessing Brady’s penalty,” Judge Katzmann writes. “Indeed, the League’s justification for prohibiting stickum — that it ‘affects the integrity of the competitive and can give a team an unfair advantage’ . . . — is nearly identical to the Commissioner’s explanation for what he found problematic about the deflation — that it ‘reflects an improper effort to secure a competitive advantage in, and threatens the integrity of, the game.’”

Judge Katzmann then ends the dissenting opinion with a message that will provide some (but not much_ solace to Patriots fans who will be unhappy with the luck of the draw that resulted in Katzmann not having a second judge on the three-judge panel who agreed with him: “It is ironic that a process designed to ensure fairness to all players has been unfairly used against one player.”

Berman ruled against the NFL. The CHIEF JUSTICE Of the 2nd district did too.Chin is an ill- informed loose cannon and Barrington Parker has ties to Charles Goodell going back 5 decades. STFU you ignorant POS.

Ummmm...you do understand that they're arguing that the NFL overstepped and that the punishment is disproportionate to the alleged offence. They aren't arguing that Brady is not guilty - you do realize that?

And that the two judges that ruled to overturn put a tremendous amount of weight on the fact that Brady destroyed evidence which Katzmann for some inexplicable reason didn't address.

 

[SteveGrogan]

Ummmm...you do understand that they're arguing that the NFL overstepped and that the punishment is disproportionate to the alleged offence. They aren't arguing that Brady is not guilty - you do realize that?

And that the two judges that ruled to overturn put a tremendous amount of weight on the fact that Brady destroyed evidence which Katzmann for some inexplicable reason didn't address.

Like I said, good luck this year with whoever your team is. Just know, you can't actually win a real super bowl. The year is illegitimate.