purbeast0
No Lifer
- Sep 13, 2001
- 53,756
- 6,633
- 126
Phoenix86
Lifer
- May 21, 2003
- 14,644
- 10
- 81
This goes hand in hand with shop law, if it applies. Basically the shop boss can't make up rules and penalties on the spot. If something isn't allowed it needs to be spelled out, if it's not allowed it has to have a known punishment.
I'm sure there's leeway on both ends a bit, rules like conduct detrimental to the league doesn't list specific actions like turning over a cell phone, but you might require "if you don't, this will go against the conduct detrimental policy". That didn't happen.
Also, BEFORE the violation happens, there needs to be known punishment. Do X get Y-Z. However, again, that didn't happen. They didn't tell Brady, if you don't give us your phone you'll get 4 games.
These laws protect typical production shop floor workers, where foremen and shop bosses are notorious for creating policy and punishment by shooting from the hip. Which is exactly what Goodell seems to be doing.
Reading Florio the key to a "settlement" is both sides make concessions. It has also been "leaked" (or more accurately stated publically) Brady is not willing to make any settlement / concession of wrong doing.
As noted that player policy doesn't mention ball tampering.
But that is in the NFL rule book. Which says the penalty for such includes, but not limited to, a $25,000 fine. The NFL isn't the only one spinning--Brady's representation tried to claim the penalty was only $25,000 and the NFL was breaking their rules by heaping punishment on Brady above and beyond what the NFL rulebook dictates.
Which is absolutely not true.
Both parties have their own "spin zone."
The best way I have heard the general "framing" of the situation is there are two sub-currents of thought: (1) what can the NFL prove Brady did/didn't know or do and (2) what in reality did Brady know/do.
It is highly debatable what the NFL can prove Brady is guilty of ball tampering (even less so that it matters) but have more position to claim he hindered their investigation regarding integrity of the game (their core business). Hence the baby fit over cooperation (not just by Brady but also by the Patriots, i.e. denied subsequent access to the NFL's satisfaction to the equipment guys; Kraft felt it was "excessive"). The NFL frames the issue as an integrity of the game issue and their stance is they did not receive the proper cooperation to guarantee integrity of the game and are throwing the book at Brady [because they are a multi-billion dollar business and are pissing that in their view his actions detracted from the biggest event of the year.]
Brady is banking on the principle they cannot prove he did anything.
The NFL feels there is enough evidence from the AFCCG and previous complaints that regardless of a smoking gun ("proof") that there is no question he was cheating and knew it.
I haven't heard from many pundits that they think Brady is innocent (outside Patriot homers). The general temperature is Brady did it, but is there proof he did it in the AFCCG and if the NFL has enough objective proof he did it. i.e. 51% proof he probably did. But doesn't really answer the question, "But did he do it/know about it???" Which the counter argument isn't, "Tommy boy is 100% innocent" but "You cannot prove it."
TraumaRN
Diamond Member
- Jun 5, 2005
- 6,893
- 63
- 91
I'm literally waiting with baited breath for that first really cold December or January outdoor game and you get a noticeable drop because it is 15 or 20 F outside and they inflated them in a 70F room. CAN'T WAIT.
Also did anyone else pick up on this little gem?
From SI.com this morning.
Thanks a big big change from Goodell et al. and I'd be willing to bet the judge will ask about that change on Wednesday...unless the NFL is holding out on evidence, in which case WTF would they do that for?
That isn't necessarily it--at least not all of it.
First and foremost is Brady can be viewed as a beneficiary of the "Patriot Way." Player after player was churned over as a commodity (Bill mastered the new NFL before everyone else imo) with the exception of Brady. Huge stars were pretty much cast off when their cost/benefit analysis wasn't deemed in the Patriot's favor.
Which goes back to his first 4 seasons when they won 3 Super Bowls. Brady wasn't deemed a top tier quarterback like Farve, Manning, Warner, Gannon, McNabb, or even a McNair or Garcia. Brady was viewed -- MUCH LIKE RUSSELL WILSON -- to be the beneficiary of a great team.
(IMO it is overlooked that great QB play isn't limited to attempts/yards/touchdowns but also turnovers and taking risks when needed to get the key first down, not necessarily volume. Brady was good about playing within his system/limits unlike other top tier QBs who either by their nature couldn't control themselves [Farve, who I love] or had to make up for their teams).
Part of the hate is the tuck rule. He didn't make the rule but he benefited. Which goes back to the "he is more lucky than good."
Winning a couple Super Bowls by thin margins against teams like Carolina doesn't help. Nor the fact a kicker (!) winning an MVP over the QB.
The perception of Bill cheating before the Ram game hurts, too. Not just the background chatter of taping but the actual game. Everyone wants to talk about how Seattle holds and PIs (and hence the rule changes) even if a number of studies show they didn't do so more than others. But Bill absolutely took advantage of the soft playoff officiating and had his DBs mugging the Colts and Rams. It was obnoxious and not normal (despite what Patriot fans will tell you) for the time. It isn't a foul if the refs don't call it. This was a "let them play" ref mentality and it didn't sit well with a lot of non-Boston area fans. Brady benefited from such.
Brady also isn't always viewed (right or wrong) as a very nice "guy" in regards to football. Part of this is a projection of the Patriot way. Part of that is his berating of teammates. Comments about hold outs. Saying f*** on TV like he did during the Green Bay game.
And it didn't help his image our America when the headlines were he cheated/dumped his pregnant girl friend for a Super Model. Doesn't even matter what the truth it. Even without a lot of women fans (at the time) guys wives/girlfriends saying, "Hey, do you know that famous QB guy who always wins?" He got a girl pregnant and cheated on her! What a scum bag." The obvious result is no sane man would root for Brady with that gal around. You don't counter back, "Well, in Tom's defense, she was a crazy woman and they weren't really together." WRONG ANSWER.
There is some of that. But that is far from the entire Tom Brady story.
purbeast0
No Lifer
- Sep 13, 2001
- 53,756
- 6,633
- 126
saying FUCK on national tv when he's pissed about something, as well as getting mad at teammates who are fucking up, is awesome IMO. i WISH the redskins QB's (or team as a whole) would get pissed off for being the laughing stock of the NFL, but they seem to not even care.
OK, understandable.
But there are two sides to this. And even if you strongly disagree these are reasons why some fans don't like Brady *aside from* his greatness on the field. It isn't fair to say, "People only hate Brady because he is great" and then when presented with a reason why some people dislike him to act as if that is an absurd reason.
Prudes watch football, too.
Not to mention parents with their children. Yes, some parents still don't like to expose their children to "bad" behavior and language. They also are wanting them to see good sportsmanship -- they don't want the biggest stars they kids latching onto acting certain ways because they don't want their 10 year old at football practice screaming at their teammates and cussing. I have never viewed athletes as role models but I think on-field behavior does translate to children "it is the way the game is to be played." I don't want the preppy little tikes QB cussing at my kids and screaming when someone makes a mistake because that is how the game is modeled to him. Doesn't mean I can stop Brady from being who he is but it also doesn't mean I have to be a fan of his behavior.
waggy
No Lifer
- Dec 14, 2000
- 68,143
- 10
- 81
You think that this is new or done before bill? EVERY fucking team is like this. WEll duh they didn't cast off brady (yet). he is still top 5 QB in the legue. what the actual fuck. i hope the arguments get better because this is just fucking idiotic.
wait..he wins 3 super bowls in his first few years. Yet you are saying he wasn't a elite QB? uhm...ok.
lol
bwhahahahaha
fuck man. you are insane.
The whole thing about obstruction and whether he should be suspended because of that, whether the balls were tampered with or not:
Think of it this way: You know how a defendant can get away with having drugs or a gun or something because it's found the police didn't do a legal search? So basically, everything they found "never happened" because they weren't in the right to begin with?
With me?
This case is kind of like that, but with a different twist:
The balls were not underinflated "to begin with", and science proves it. A pound or so loss, after being outside in the cold for 2-3 hours, is not only normal, it should be EXPECTED.
So if they were at the minimum when checked, then sent outside...then OF COURSE they'd all be a pound or so low by halftime.
Now, to relate this to the police thing: The NFL LIED. They ignored science. If they did not, they'd have simply said "Yeah, the balls were low at the half, but that's to be expected so we aired them back up for the 2nd half".
But they didn't do that....they went with the false info, leaked it to Chris Mortenson, and Deflate-gate went viral. All because of incorrect info in the beginning.
So if the judge backs it all the way up to "what PSI did the balls have in them at the half?" And the NFL's answer is "they were a pound or so low", then "what does science say they should have been, if they were at the minimum to begin with?"...and the answer is "about what we found"............then the rest "never happened". Or shouldn't have.
There was no violation to begin with.
All this crap about Brady's phone...they already have the texts he sent the equipment guys from their phones. Now we have the transcripts where Brady had an issue last year in the Jets game when the balls were way overinflated.....IMO he simply wanted his guys to make sure they were where they should be. And there is no proof to the contrary, that I've seen.
Think of it this way: You know how a defendant can get away with having drugs or a gun or something because it's found the police didn't do a legal search? So basically, everything they found "never happened" because they weren't in the right to begin with?
With me?
This case is kind of like that, but with a different twist:
The balls were not underinflated "to begin with", and science proves it. A pound or so loss, after being outside in the cold for 2-3 hours, is not only normal, it should be EXPECTED.
So if they were at the minimum when checked, then sent outside...then OF COURSE they'd all be a pound or so low by halftime.
Now, to relate this to the police thing: The NFL LIED. They ignored science. If they did not, they'd have simply said "Yeah, the balls were low at the half, but that's to be expected so we aired them back up for the 2nd half".
But they didn't do that....they went with the false info, leaked it to Chris Mortenson, and Deflate-gate went viral. All because of incorrect info in the beginning.
So if the judge backs it all the way up to "what PSI did the balls have in them at the half?" And the NFL's answer is "they were a pound or so low", then "what does science say they should have been, if they were at the minimum to begin with?"...and the answer is "about what we found"............then the rest "never happened". Or shouldn't have.
There was no violation to begin with.
All this crap about Brady's phone...they already have the texts he sent the equipment guys from their phones. Now we have the transcripts where Brady had an issue last year in the Jets game when the balls were way overinflated.....IMO he simply wanted his guys to make sure they were where they should be. And there is no proof to the contrary, that I've seen.
TheGardener
Golden Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 1,945
- 33
- 56
I guess none of us has seen a Steeler use the F word or MF words on TV. Nor a 49'ers coach. Or dozens of other NFL players. There hasn't been rookie football player who already knocked up 3 different women and has 5 kids, and still never married.
Ya, I hate to watch NFL games that go down to the final minute of play before a winner is determined. No playoff or Super Bowl game winners deserve it, unless one team is leading by 20 points or more.
And Bill Belichick invented letting go of good players. Was never done before him.
I read the recent biography of Bill Parcells. When Parcells became head coach of the Giants, he let 2 "star" players go, because they whined about some ankle or shoulder pains. He didn't think they'd be tough enough to play for him. I'm sure Madden was a gentle coach back in 70's, and let guys play a couple years past their prime. That's why his teams won Super Bowls too.
Belichick didn't invent a whole lot of things in the NFL. He just mastered them. A lot of it comes down to communication. Using the Parcell example again, when Parcells was a coach in the college ranks, he told a player several times in practice what to do in a certain game situation. During the game that situation occurred, but the player screwed up by not remembering those instructions. Parcells mentioned it to the head coach. He told Parcells not to blame player but himself. It was obvious to the head coach that Parcells didn't tell the player enough times. Meaning, enough is when the player does what he is instructed to do in a game situation.
I don't think an arbitrator is going to care about PSI's. Though he might be interested in whether the rule has been fairly applied across all teams. This accusation on Brady is not as clear as an baseball umpire checking a broken bat and seeing that it is corked. If there were no CBA, then the NFL commissioner could do whatever the franchise owners empower him to do. But there is a CBA, and that is why the judge will look at the agreement as to wrong doing and punishment. Goodell has a poor track record of winning these types of appeals. That's because he is very careless in this regard. The terms are capricious and arbitrary. Think about how he handled the Rice and Peterson suspensions. They were knee jerk reactions.
Ya, I hate to watch NFL games that go down to the final minute of play before a winner is determined. No playoff or Super Bowl game winners deserve it, unless one team is leading by 20 points or more.
And Bill Belichick invented letting go of good players. Was never done before him.
I read the recent biography of Bill Parcells. When Parcells became head coach of the Giants, he let 2 "star" players go, because they whined about some ankle or shoulder pains. He didn't think they'd be tough enough to play for him. I'm sure Madden was a gentle coach back in 70's, and let guys play a couple years past their prime. That's why his teams won Super Bowls too.
Belichick didn't invent a whole lot of things in the NFL. He just mastered them. A lot of it comes down to communication. Using the Parcell example again, when Parcells was a coach in the college ranks, he told a player several times in practice what to do in a certain game situation. During the game that situation occurred, but the player screwed up by not remembering those instructions. Parcells mentioned it to the head coach. He told Parcells not to blame player but himself. It was obvious to the head coach that Parcells didn't tell the player enough times. Meaning, enough is when the player does what he is instructed to do in a game situation.
I don't think an arbitrator is going to care about PSI's. Though he might be interested in whether the rule has been fairly applied across all teams. This accusation on Brady is not as clear as an baseball umpire checking a broken bat and seeing that it is corked. If there were no CBA, then the NFL commissioner could do whatever the franchise owners empower him to do. But there is a CBA, and that is why the judge will look at the agreement as to wrong doing and punishment. Goodell has a poor track record of winning these types of appeals. That's because he is very careless in this regard. The terms are capricious and arbitrary. Think about how he handled the Rice and Peterson suspensions. They were knee jerk reactions.
That isn't what I said.
I didn't say, "I didn't think Tom Brady was elite his first 5 years". I said he wasn't (past) deemed a top tier followed by a list of names of QBs playing at the time. Which was followed up with "was viewed".
And I stand by what I said. At the time Brady was not considered an elite quarterback. Good enough to win with but not the reason the Patriots were winning Super Bowls. Which is why I brought Wilson into the discussion as it is almost an identical issue (and my opinion is what Wilson contributes to the team is very underrated).
2001
Yards - 22nd
Comp % - 3rd
Att - 24th
Y/Att - 9th
TD - 11th
TD% - 10th
INT - 12th
Int% - 14th
Rating - 5th
Sack - 23rd
2003
Yards - 9th
Comp % - 12th
Att - 6th
Y/Att - 13th
TD - 12th
TD% - 11th
INT - 6th
Int% - 6th
Rating - 10th
Sack - 14th
2004
Yards - 11th
Comp % - 14th
Att - 22nd
Y/Att - 9th
TD - 6th
TD% - 5th
INT - 12th
Int% - 11th
Rating - 8th
Sack - 5th
Only once (2003) did Tom Brady receive any MVP votes.
And getting a couple votes doesn't say much when you look at 2013 when Manning should have had all 50 but one putz thought to vote for Brady. Not only was he nowhere as good as Manning that regular season but there were other QBs with better seasons.
2013
Winner
Broncos quarterback Peyton Manning (49 votes) 13-3 record, 5,477 passing yards*, 55 TD*, 10 INT, 68.3 percent, 659 attempts
Runner-up
Patriots quarterback Tom Brady (1 vote) 12-4 record, 4,343 passing yards, 25 TD, 11 INT, 60.5 percent, 628 attempts
Which IMO is an example of east coast bias / name recognition.
Wilson wasn't a top 3 QB in 2013 but you look at his passing stats and what he meant for the Seattle offense. He bested Brady in TDs, TD%, INT, INT%, Yard/Attempts, Rating, etc. Their total yards were very close (when including rushing) and tied for Gaming Winning Drives. Seattle had a better record at 13-3 (NE at 12-4). NE lead in pts per game (#3 at 27.75 against Seattle's #9 at 26.06) but pts. per play heavily favors Seattle (NE #2 in total plays ran, Seattle was #29--very slow pace offense). Seattle was #28 in total drives, versus NE's #8, but scored more pts per drive (#8 vs #9).
Yet Brady picked up an MVP vote during Manning's ridiculous record setting year and Wilson got zilch. It is all about perception.
And the perception in the press during Brady's first 5 seasons (sat year 1, won 3 of 4 Super Bowls there after) was he was an up and coming quarterback but not yet elite.
My opinion he was underrated his first 4 seasons as a starter. I think fans focus on volume stats and not what a player contributes to their team model and what is asked of them. But I don't think Brady was elite his first couple seasons. I think his Passer rating shows this. He was edging up slowly from middle of the pack to the bottom of the Top 10. His volume stats were lacking (which helps Passer Rating; i.e. a 50% reduction in attempts doesn't necessarily result in 50% reduction in TDs) but because the volume was low his INT% was down, too.
In 2001-2004 Brady was good enough to win a Super Bowl with and a player on the come. But I don't think many GM's would have picked him in 2001-2004 over Manning, Farve, Warner, etc. He was not in that elite QB class.
I think it is a serious case of revisionist history to project elite status on Brady in 2001-2004 as that wasn't how he was viewed in general by the press or around the NFL. You can find articles that are provocative by picking him because he is a "winner" (much like Wilson today) but in general when you look at how people rates players we see how Wilson is generally bottom range of Top 10 (our out of it) 2012-2014 and not on average a Tier 1 QB (although some evaluators put him in such--but some call him a Tier 3 guy!). Brady fell into a similar camp.
But just as people cannot comprehend why Brady is disliked -- aside for being a winner, because that is the only reason people hate the Patriots, amiright? -- cannot fathom a time when Brady wasn't considered one of the best in the league. But it is the truth--he wasn't generally considered elite during the 2001-2004 dynasty run.
My opinion was (and still is) he was undervalued during that time.
That isn't the point.
If ESPN was showing Russell Wilson scream f*** on TV or showing him screaming and berating teammates and you asked the person who said he didn't like Brady doing the same thing they would probably say they don't like Wilson doing it, either.
Brady has been around long enough, been big enough, and irritated opposing fans long enough (by winning) that his missteps have put off some fans.
See: Big Ben.
Nothing Ben will do will change many fans' opinion of him. He could have changed and surely other NFL players have done worse and still been liked but his misdeeds came to light and due to his stardom fans made a choice on him.
People who don't dislike Ben don't typically do so because he wins. They dislike him because he has a seedy history of acting like a low life scrum bag and put his team's success at risk through some stupid stuff.
TheGardener
Golden Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 1,945
- 33
- 56
You certainly can have your opinion about the legacy of Brady and can make the case of Manning over Brady. But it comes down to opinion. Belichick often says that he doesn't think stats are important. There's only one stat that he values, and that is the "W".
Really this isn't about who won World War II. Please get over yourself.
Last edited:
TheGardener
Golden Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 1,945
- 33
- 56
purbeast0
No Lifer
- Sep 13, 2001
- 53,756
- 6,633
- 126
SunnyD
Belgian Waffler
Eh, Brady is an arrogant asshole. Him having a winning record only serves to play into that even more. He's never had the chance to have been humble, and unfortunately he's been in a culture of "Do whatever it takes to win*" from day 1 which doesn't help either. That's why people hate Brady - he's just a sore a winner as he is a sore loser.
Nobody hates Brady because he said fuck on TV and was upset his teammates weren't doing their jobs. And, if the guys who Brady was "upset" weren't equally as upset they fucked up, they shouldn't on the field. There are two types of people: people who've played competitive sports and people who haven't. One will get butthurt over someone saying "stop fucking up, get your head in the game asshole." The other will feed of that energy, and be motivated to do better.
I don't see Brady ever being a sore winner. He gets a bad rap by the armchair QBs of the world, similar to Cristiano Ronaldo does. Everyone sees him as arrogant and pompous when the reality is the exact opposite. Sure, both get visibly upset when they aren't winning, but that is because they are so competitive. Both also work their asses off every week to be better.
The Boston Dangler
Lifer
- Mar 10, 2005
- 14,647
- 2
- 0
TheGardener
Golden Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 1,945
- 33
- 56
Dear Mr Boston Dangler,
Isn't it redundant to say you are located in the The Democratic People's Republic of Massachusetts?
Maybe I'm all charged up over the Crunchy versus Smooth Peanut Butter debate.
Isn't it redundant to say you are located in the The Democratic People's Republic of Massachusetts?
Maybe I'm all charged up over the Crunchy versus Smooth Peanut Butter debate.
The Boston Dangler
Lifer
- Mar 10, 2005
- 14,647
- 2
- 0
no, not at all. the additional specificity reinforces brand identity and assures my valued customers they are indeed receiving genuine bostonian brilliance and not duped by knockoffs from virginia, kentucky or georgia.
Your not following the story as it's been developing, the Federal judge will not be concerned if he he thinks Brady did or did not engage in what he is accused of, what the NFLPA and Brady are trying for is a PROCEDURAL mistake by the league. Article 46 gives the commissioner great and broad powers but it does not give him the ability to conduct an appeal and impose a fine/suspension if the PROCESS was not fair. They have given Brady's lawyer's some important issues to bring in front of the judge such as Well's acting as an NFL counsel when he was supposed to be the one doing the investigating. Also testimony from the appeal where Well's admits that he did not tell Brady that failure to produce the phone will result in a suspension. Also the Vincent cross-examination where he admitted players are not given anything in their rulebook detailing any possible suspensions for equipment violations. He was also asked about the 2 recent instances (Minnesota warming balls), he tried to play that off as "a couple of ball-boys got out of line", well fine, but wasn't the Minnesota QB "generally aware" he was no longer handling 8-degree balls vs toasty ones from in front of the heater?. Then the Rodgers deal where he willfully admitted his staff tried to sneak overinflated balls past the Ref's, in other words "attempting to cheat", zero investigation, zero punishment.
I don't quite understand the "sore winner" comment, I can't remember him taunting anyone or any team after winning a game. Let's face it though, if you've had the level of success Brady has there will be an ego to go along with it but I can't see where it's any worse than any other QB or other successful sports figure. The fact that he shook hands with Sherman after the SB and called him a "great player" is pretty cool IMO, after the whole "you mad bro?" deal has been in his face for 3 years since losing that game to Seattle he could have chosen that moment for an "in your face" comment, he didn't.
purbeast0
No Lifer
- Sep 13, 2001
- 53,756
- 6,633
- 126
if you aren't doing whatever it takes to win, i wouldn't want you on my team, as well as it's within boundaries of the rules, and being borderline on the rules is fine by me.
also, how is he arrogant? because he is a winner that makes him arrogant?
and when you are the best of the best, you HAVE to have a little arrogance and cockiness. you don't get there by being a pushover.
Anubis
No Lifer
no one seems to remember how pissed MJ used to get when they were losing. its a side effect of all competitive people across all sports
also I think some of the hate for him/the pats in general comes from how much they hate the press core and give 1 word answers after games - it comes off as arrogance but really its pure distain for the press
I love BB because of this
fuck the press
also I think some of the hate for him/the pats in general comes from how much they hate the press core and give 1 word answers after games - it comes off as arrogance but really its pure distain for the press
I love BB because of this
fuck the press
Last edited:
purbeast0
No Lifer
- Sep 13, 2001
- 53,756
- 6,633
- 126
yeah bill belichick is awesome, he's hilarious to watch. he gives stupid answers to stupid questions. the majority of media questions are stupid. the worst though are the small interviews the nba does between quarters with the coaches. you can tell nobody on the court likes them.
my sister had dinner with bill belichick a while back and said he is a hilarious person when not putting on his gameface. very humble and easy to talk to as well.
my sister had dinner with bill belichick a while back and said he is a hilarious person when not putting on his gameface. very humble and easy to talk to as well.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter