NFL Offseason 2015: Patriots victimized by Goodell, own damn selves

[Locke_Lamora]

Fine, Vikings, Panthers, whoever. The fact that it's a forgettable fact indicates something.

Right and I remember that time when the Vikings and Panthers in 2007 were caught up in spyg.... Oh Wait that was the patriots :-P

Anywho I was going to write more but Mexal summed it up beautifully, including a little dig at rock ;-)

[DanteGabriel]

My contention is I have no idea; they haven't been caught.

And yea, I read Florio's link. It's probably true. The NFL league office is a fucking mess. Definite mismanagement there. Much better than "everyone is jealous of the Patriots" thesis that the Herald is putting out there.

Fine. I think the Herald headlines you posted make a clumsy and overblown case. I believe that the Patriots are a lightning rod, for multiple reasons, one of which is jealousy of other organizations. Do you know the Boston Herald? They are our New York Post.

Right and I remember that time when the Vikings and Panthers in 2007 were caught up in spyg.... Oh Wait that was the patriots :-P

Anywho I was going to write more but Mexal summed it up beautifully, including a little dig at rock ;-)

Well, I remember that the Broncos were busted multiple times for salary cap violations in the years they won Super Bowls, which I think affects competitive balance more than a pound of PSI in footballs, but the punishment for repeated violations was nowhere near this, and stink hasn't stuck to them much. The difference seems to be that the league office wanted the Broncos' misdeeds to get swept under the rug and forgotten, while this time around someone wanted to make the Pats a pinata.

[Reny of Storms End]

Not that I'm going to say this is ALL about jealousy or anything. It's not. The Patriots clearly have pushed the envelope and it pushed back on them. But I can't begrudge fellow Patriots fans from thinking that this story became a national media event in large part because a lot of people that dislike them. You can just go on the internet and see people who are very gleeful that the Patriots got in trouble and got in a stiff penalty. No offense but if your a Patriots fan it's not an uncommon occurrence to go to another part of the country and get "I hate the Patriots" comments I you are out to eat and have a jersey on or something.

It's not a big deal but I think it's not surprising that Patriots fans feel that a lot of this is about that. I can understand other people seeing it that way. But there is a contingent of people that were cheering this on.

This reminds me of five or six years ago when everyone in Pittsburgh was sure Goodell and the NFL were targeting the Steelers and specifically James Harrison for hits to the head. So I can understand feeling like the league (not the owners) is against you. While at the same time realize it's probably just the NFL blubdering along as usual.

Don't worry though you aren't the only fan base who gets yelled at for wearing your teams attire.

[Locke_Lamora]

Fine. I think the Herald headlines you posted make a clumsy and overblown case. I believe that the Patriots are a lightning rod, for multiple reasons, one of which is jealousy of other organizations. Do you know the Boston Herald? They are our New York Post.

Well, I remember that the Broncos were busted multiple times for salary cap violations in the years they won Super Bowls, which I think affects competitive balance more than a pound of PSI in footballs, but the punishment for repeated violations was nowhere near this, and stink hasn't stuck to them much.

Wasn't that before Godells time? I mean granted hes worked for the office his whole life but he wasn't the commish. Isn't that the argument some of you Pats fans were using as to why everyone hates the Pats, and are out to get them cause they're too good recently. Saying you can't use the fact that none of the other dynasty teams were not treated like this (49ers, Steelers, Cowboys) because it was a different era. Does that not apply to this situation as well?

[DanteGabriel]

Wasn't that before Godells time? I mean granted hes worked for the office his whole life but he wasn't the commish. Isn't that the argument some of you Pats fans were using as to why everyone hates the Pats, and are out to get them cause they're too good recently. Saying you can't use the fact that none of the other dynasty teams were not treated like this (49ers, Steelers, Cowboys) because it was a different era. Does that not apply to this situation as well?

Why should "different era" mean that a team should be treated differently for rules violations? And yes, Goodell was one of Tagliabue's lieutenants at the time the Broncos' violations were uncovered and punished. The stunning difference between punishments is absolutely reasonable to hang on him.

Part of it is the nature of news coverage now. Part of it is Goodell's incompetence. Part of it is because Belichick has made a lot of enemies. I'm pissed that filming from the wrong location and deflating footballs (both of which other teams/coaches admitted to having done, themselves) has come to define my team more than salary cap violations and innovation in the field of PED use defined the dynasties of the past.

I acknowledge the Patriots have done wrong -- I just don't think they deserve the level of opprobrium that they've gotten for what I regard to be pretty pissy violations.

[Locke_Lamora]

Why should "different era" mean that a team should be treated differently for rules violations? And yes, Goodell was one of Tagliabue's lieutenants at the time the Broncos' violations were uncovered and punished. The stunning difference between punishments is absolutely reasonable to hang on him.

Part of it is the nature of news coverage now. Part of it is Goodell's incompetence. Part of it is because Belichick has made a lot of enemies. I'm pissed that filming from the wrong location and deflating footballs (both of which other teams/coaches admitted to having done, themselves) has come to define my team more than salary cap violations and innovation in the field of PED use defined the dynasties of the past.

I acknowledge the Patriots have done wrong -- I just don't think they deserve the level of opprobrium that they've gotten for what I regard to be pretty pissy violations.

Well I was just bringing that up as to the whole Era discussion that had been going on before, with the way you presented it, would go against you in this one. Can't really have it both ways now... Also I just looked up the broncos thing, 950,000 dollar fine in 1998 (Roughly 1.4 million adjusted) and a third round pick. Also no prior incident for the Broncos(ie no SPYGATE). Both teams potentially got superbowls out of their fiascoes (and the potentially leans more towards the Broncos than the Patriots, Patriots basically lose the SB with no Tommy boy) and the individual player who lied and did not cooperate with the investigation got slapped with a 4 game ban.

This is what I don't get. As a Patriots fan what would you rather have... A superbowl and the punishments as they are, or no superbowl because Brady told the truth and was suspended with a slap on the wrists. The Patriots won this one, that's why I can't understand how wildly upset the fanbase is. Using the Broncos punishment which basically is even with what the Pats were handed, using Ray Rice... I mean I just don't get it

[DanteGabriel]

Well I was just bringing that up as to the whole Era discussion that had been going on before, with the way you presented it, would go against you in this one. Can't really have it both ways now... Also I just looked up the broncos thing, 950,000 dollar fine in 1998 (Roughly 1.4 million adjusted) and a third round pick. Also no prior incident for the Broncos(ie no SPYGATE). Both teams potentially got superbowls out of their fiascoes (and the potentially leans more towards the Broncos than the Patriots, Patriots basically lose the SB with no Tommy boy) and the individual player who lied and did not cooperate with the investigation got slapped with a 4 game ban.

This is what I don't get. As a Patriots fan what would you rather have... A superbowl and the punishments as they are, or no superbowl because Brady told the truth and was suspended with a slap on the wrists. The Patriots won this one, that's why I can't understand how wildly upset the fanbase is. Using the Broncos punishment which basically is even with what the Pats were handed, using Ray Rice... I mean I just don't get it

The Broncos were found in 2004 to have violated the salary cap a second time from 1996 to 1998. That's a second violation. You could argue that they were just as non-cooperative in that as the Patriots were here, since they didn't come clean about the extent of their crimes when the first violation was uncovered in 2001. It's multiple instances of the same crime in a two- or three-year timespan, while the Pats' punishment for ball deflation was exacerbated by illegal videotaping eight years ago. The financial fines are basically meaningless -- why only third-round picks for the Broncos for their repeaed salary cap cheating, while the Pats will end up losing two first-rounders and a fourth? Why aren't the Broncos synonymous with cheating, with talk of asterisks on their achievements?

As for the Super Bowl or punishment -- I don't believe, if Brady had come clean in the two or three days after the story broke, that he would have been suspended for the Super Bowl. I don't think you can treat it as a foregone conclusion that they would have suspended him, since the league's argument seems to be that the severity of the suspension is due to his failure to cooperate with the investigation.

And yes -- player lied, did not cooperate with investigation, gets slapped with four-game suspension... Like I pointed out before, Brett Favre lied and refused to cooperate with a league investigation, with this same commissioner, and got a $50,000 fine.

[Locke_Lamora]

The Broncos were found in 2004 to have violated the salary cap a second time from 1996 to 1998. That's a second violation. You could argue that they were just as non-cooperative in that as the Patriots were here, since they didn't come clean about the extent of their crimes when the first violation was uncovered in 2001. It's multiple instances of the same crime in a two- or three-year timespan, while the Pats' punishment for ball deflation was exacerbated by illegal videotaping eight years ago. The financial fines are basically meaningless -- why only third-round picks for the Broncos for their repeaed salary cap cheating, while the Pats will end up losing two first-rounders and a fourth? Why aren't the Broncos synonymous with cheating, with talk of asterisks on their achievements?

As for the Super Bowl or punishment -- I don't believe, if Brady had come clean in the two or three days after the story broke, that he would have been suspended for the Super Bowl. I don't think you can treat it as a foregone conclusion that they would have suspended him, since the league's argument seems to be that the severity of the suspension is due to his failure to cooperate with the investigation.

And yes -- player lied, did not cooperate with investigation, gets slapped with four-game suspension... Like I pointed out before, Brett Favre lied and refused to cooperate with a league investigation, with this same commissioner, and got a $50,000 fine.

Again you make some very valid points, yet still clutch straws at others. Brett Favres dick pics have absolutely nothing to do with the integrity of the game whatsoever.

You can't really argue that they were non-cooperative because of the leagues incompetence during the first investigation. Imo that is perfect grounds for why the penalty in 2004 was exactly the same as the first one in 2001. It would be the same as if the Patriots were deflating balls prior too inspection. That is 100% on the officials and therefore the league. Just like how Aaron Rodgers attempts to get balls passed that are over inflated. If they pass that's on the league. Aaron Rodgers is getting in zero trouble for this, and rightfully so. Furthermore both these violations stem from the same incident, which is not the case between SPYGATE and deflategate (Oh how I chuckle with "gates"). I will also add on that I believe SPYGATE is worse as if effects the game more (all imo).

So you have 2 million dollars and two third round picks (stemming from ONE violation) vs. 1.75 million dollars and two firsts with a fourth and a suspension of 4 games for Brady (stemming from two separate violations, with lying, not co-operating, and a history of cheating).

To me this seems right. Again I said I would change this 1st to a 2nd, and to me that makes these two incidents right about equal.

Also I haven't read up about the Broncos thing much other than a cursory glance and that article you linked. If they did truly not co-operate and try to lie and cover up the salary cap thing than imo yes the Broncos got away very lightly. Still does not mean that this penalty is wrong for the Patriots, as i'll say again two wrongs do not make a right and all that...

[BormonReborn]

Again you make some very valid points, yet still clutch straws at others. Brett Favres dick pics have absolutely nothing to do with the integrity of the game whatsoever.

You can't really argue that they were non-cooperative because of the leagues incompetence during the first investigation. Imo that is perfect grounds for why the penalty in 2004 was exactly the same as the first one in 2001. It would be the same as if the Patriots were deflating balls prior too inspection. That is 100% on the officials and therefore the league. Just like how Aaron Rodgers attempts to get balls passed that are over inflated. If they pass that's on the league. Aaron Rodgers is getting in zero trouble for this, and rightfully so. Furthermore both these violations stem from the same incident, which is not the case between SPYGATE and deflategate (Oh how I chuckle with "gates"). I will also add on that I believe SPYGATE is worse as if effects the game more (all imo).

So you have 2 million dollars and two third round picks (stemming from ONE violation) vs. 1.75 million dollars and two firsts with a fourth and a suspension of 4 games for Brady (stemming from two separate violations, with lying, not co-operating, and a history of cheating).

To me this seems right. Again I said I would change this 1st to a 2nd, and to me that makes these two incidents right about equal.

Also I haven't read up about the Broncos thing much other than a cursory glance and that article you linked. If they did truly not co-operate and try to lie and cover up the salary cap thing than imo yes the Broncos got away very lightly. Still does not mean that this penalty is wrong for the Patriots, as i'll say again two wrongs do not make a right and all that...

The big difference in my opinion though is the validity of the information when it comes to Deflategate.

The other violations were CLEAR violations. The language that was used in the Wells reports, is "More probably than not" or "More probably than not generally aware". There is no smoking gun here. Even reading the texts, it just appears that Brady is picky about the ball conditions... not that he is intentionally breaking a rule (though I will stipulate that he at least is unintentionally breaking it) The league should take the stance that there own procedures need tightening, and that since there is no CLEAR evidence of an intentional rule breaking, that a minor fine should be given.

There is also the factor of the effect of the game. There is also no clear proof that ball PSI gives a team a competitive advantage. You hear that all QBs and receivers like the PSI differently ...or even that they are ambivalent about it.

When you look at what the Falcons did with the crowd noise, that is a CLEAR competitive advantage. Their fine was "only" (because it was still pretty large) $350K and a 5th round pick. Why the disparity?

The bottom line is that there seems to be some other agenda here.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

I believe that the Patriots are a lightning rod, for multiple reasons, one of which is jealousy of other organizations. Do you know the Boston Herald? They are our New York Post.

Sure, but the primary reason at this point is that they have been proven to be cheaters. Brady brought this on himself. I agree that the punishment is ridiculous (specifically the draft picks), but this incident wasn't brought about by any other teams jealousy. This is self-inflicted.

[DanteGabriel]

Again you make some very valid points, yet still clutch straws at others. Brett Favres dick pics have absolutely nothing to do with the integrity of the game whatsoever.

Come now. If this were about the integrity of the game, those deflated balls would never have been used.

Everything everyone says about the Patriots bringing this on themselves, they're right. Rock said the same thing like a week ago. But people also seem to agree that the punishment, at least the draft picks, went way beyond what's reasonable. And I think that is partly because Goodell was afraid of being too lenient on the owner that people accused him of being too cozy with, and out of a desire to please the other 31 bosses he has. You think Goodell does anything like this without at least taking some soundings from the rest of the league?

[Bronn Stone]

It is clearly the case that the league has concluded (and I say rightly so) that the Patriots compliance with league rules is begrudging and their attitude is 'catch us if you can'. The penalties reflect this attitude. Those in the 02xxx zipcodes may believe that this is jealousy, but I'd say that it is well-earned by Mr. Belichick. "Catch me if you can" IS his attitude.

Also, the back and forth between the investigator and Brady may have tied into this. Would your impression of the validity of the penalties change if you learned Wells told Brady's people that "if Tom won't turn over his phone under these circumstances, we are going to assume there is something damning on it and penalize accordingly"? Mine surely would.

One text to a coach or management person from Brady demanding that Jastremski do a better job preparing the footballs the way he wants changes the entire conversation. And it may well exist.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

One text to a coach or management person from Brady demanding that Jastremski do a better job preparing the footballs the way he wants changes the entire conversation. And it may well exist.

Which is why I think this lawsuit of Brady's is unlikely to materialize. If he does sue the league, they would subpeona his phone records. I have to believe that conversation exists somewhere on that phone.

[Locke_Lamora]

The big difference in my opinion though is the validity of the information when it comes to Deflategate.

The other violations were CLEAR violations. The language that was used in the Wells reports, is "More probably than not" or "More probably than not generally aware". There is no smoking gun here. Even reading the texts, it just appears that Brady is picky about the ball conditions... not that he is intentionally breaking a rule (though I will stipulate that he at least is unintentionally breaking it) The league should take the stance that there own procedures need tightening, and that since there is no CLEAR evidence of an intentional rule breaking, that a minor fine should be given.

There is also the factor of the effect of the game. There is also no clear proof that ball PSI gives a team a competitive advantage. You hear that all QBs and receivers like the PSI differently ...or even that they are ambivalent about it.

When you look at what the Falcons did with the crowd noise, that is a CLEAR competitive advantage. Their fine was "only" (because it was still pretty large) $350K and a 5th round pick. Why the disparity?

The bottom line is that there seems to be some other agenda here.

Again I asked before, show me one team doing something similar that has SPYGATE in the rear-view. Falcons have nothing of the sort, and I also disagree about the amount of the advantage to be had but clearly that is debateable. What is not debatable is that Brady clearly got an advantage, as otherwise he would have never done it.

This is not a court of law, more like a civil case but even then that is not an apt comparison. They have clear evidence that the balls were tampered with, Tom Brady is the Patriots quarterback. He CLEARLY knew what was going on and any other speculation is disingenuous at best, and laughable at worst. Why else does Tom Brady go on national television and lie stating that he doesn't know what the ball feels like... heck he doesn't even have nerves in his hand he can't feel anything why would he care about the PSI of the balls lol (/S) Absolute clear LIE. This was the guy who, along with Peyton, petitioned Godell to allow him to doctor up the balls anyway he liked so long as they passed inspection. Well clearly TB took it too far and... well here we are.

The wording of the report "More probably than not" Is only there to save themselves from some form of a defamation suit. They know what really happened, the public knows, the NFL knows, and TB knows as well. No smoking gun needed.

[Mexal]

The big difference in my opinion though is the validity of the information when it comes to Deflategate.

The other violations were CLEAR violations. The language that was used in the Wells reports, is "More probably than not" or "More probably than not generally aware". There is no smoking gun here. Even reading the texts, it just appears that Brady is picky about the ball conditions... not that he is intentionally breaking a rule (though I will stipulate that he at least is unintentionally breaking it) The league should take the stance that there own procedures need tightening, and that since there is no CLEAR evidence of an intentional rule breaking, that a minor fine should be given.

Just to be fair, the report was written like a legal civil case. In a Civil case, there is no need to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "more probably than not" is sufficient to find for the plaintive. I agree there is no "beyond a reasonable doubt" but that language was specifically put in there because he didn't need to do that.

Wanted to make that clear in case you weren't aware.

[Mexal]

The wording of the report "More probably than not" Is only there to save themselves from some form of a defamation suit. They know what really happened, the public knows, the NFL knows, and TB knows as well. No smoking gun needed.

It's there to make it clear they didn't need to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt". In a civil case, "more probable than not" is enough to prove guilt and find for the plaintive. It was written like a civil case which is why the language is as such.

Just posting that in case you weren't clear.

[Locke_Lamora]

Come now. If this were about the integrity of the game, those deflated balls would never have been used.

Everything everyone says about the Patriots bringing this on themselves, they're right. Rock said the same thing like a week ago. But people also seem to agree that the punishment, at least the draft picks, went way beyond what's reasonable. And I think that is partly because Goodell was afraid of being too lenient on the owner that people accused him of being too cozy with, and out of a desire to please the other 31 bosses he has. You think Goodell does anything like this without at least taking some soundings from the rest of the league?

Well I don't know about that, but wouldn't that be the Colts issue anyway? No effect on the punishment of the Patriots? As I've already stated I think the NFL is not a perfect ship... Doesn't change that the Patriots have cheated.

Most Media outside of Boston that I have read seem to think the punishments are only slightly too much (same as I do btw). Obviously there are outliers on both sides, Merclius Wiley for thinking it is FAR too lenient for instance. Really only in Boston is the majority seeing this as a travesty.

[DanteGabriel]

Well I don't know about that, but wouldn't that be the Colts issue anyway? No effect on the punishment of the Patriots? As I've already stated I think the NFL is not a perfect ship... Doesn't change that the Patriots have cheated.

Most Media outside of Boston that I have read seem to think the punishments are only slightly too much (same as I do btw). Obviously there are outliers on both sides, Merclius Wiley for thinking it is FAR too lenient for instance. Really only in Boston is the majority seeing this as a travesty.

Oh, well, if the news media of competing markets believe the punishment is fine, and Marcellus Wiley, who started his career with the Bills, believes they were too lenient, I guess the case is closed!

What are you trying to establish here?

[Locke_Lamora]

It's there to make it clear they didn't need to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt". In a civil case, "more probable than not" is enough to prove guilt and find for the plaintive. It was written like a civil case which is why the language is as such.

Just posting that in case you weren't clear.

Correct, but If they had stated the truth, that Tom Brady was behind it without a shadow of a doubt, than they would have needed a smoking gun or they would be liable for a defamation case. Just really covering their asses to be honest.

[Locke_Lamora]

Oh, well, if the news media of competing markets believe the punishment is fine, and Marcellus Wiley, who started his career with the Bills, believes they were too lenient, I guess the case is closed!

What are you trying to establish here?

Yes this is generally how a majority works. If the homerist (fun fake word :-) ) local Boston news believes TB is innocent or the punishment is too harsh that makes it so? Boston is in the minority on this one.