The Patriots deflated footballs Sunday night.

Originally posted by theduke85:
How could you possibly read my post and insinuate that I'm saying "why bother punishing anyone?" The opening sentence of my conclusion was literally "Brady should be punished. I've said this all along."

You can really break down the argument to two main points. You are conflating the two ideas and trying to pigeonhole my thoughts.

Point 1: Brady got caught cheating. Should he be punished?
Yes, of course he should be punished. If there are no consequences for having rules, what's the point of having them? They would never be respected. Punishing Brady discourages cheating. Cheating is bad, we don't want it.

Point 2: Brady got caught cheating. Does it taint the integrity of the game or taint his legacy?
No, I don't think it does. I mean, yeah, sure, the sensationalist media blows this story wildly out of proportion. But ultimately, saying what Brady did is a heinous crime is just ridiculous (again, to quote Joe Montana, "everybody is afraid to say it, but if the guy did it, so what? Just pay up and move on. It's no big deal."). Do you see what Montana is saying? "Punish him" and "it's not a big deal". You can feel both things at one time. They are not mutually exclusive. All I'm saying is, if you think this taints Brady's accomplishments, then I sure as hell hope you think Montana's/Walsh's/Justin Smith's accomplishments are tainted too, because they did the similar things.

here is where we'll disagree then. i have no idea how you apply that statement to the ravens' game. one blown pass out of 33 thrown could have easily turned the game. everyone is fond of bringing up the colts blowout .... no one mentions that the pats were down 3 with 5 minutes to go against baltimore the game before

i don't GAF what it does or doesn't do to brady's legacy. and i don't care how montana feels about it .... they are both subordinate to the game .... or should be

.... quit focusing on issues peripheral to the integrity of the game

Originally posted by furrian:
here is where we'll disagree then. i have no idea how you apply that statement to the ravens' game. one blown pass out of 33 thrown could have easily turned the game. everyone is fond of bringing up the colts blowout .... no one mentions that the pats were down 3 with 5 minutes to go against baltimore the game before

Anecdotally -- from what I've read at least -- most active/former players think an under-inflated ball would have a negligible impact on the game.

ESPN's Sports Science ran a feature on the deflated balls and they concluded that "under-inflated balls had a minuscule effect on any given play." If you want to watch the segment (it's only 2:30) you can find it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ_S8F3mKFE ; the summary is basically that the ball is easier to grip, at the expense of the ball traveling slightly slower. Brady had 17 incompletions in the Ravens game: maybe if the ball was slightly faster one of the passes gets completed and it changes the dynamics of the game. You're swinging a double-edged sword, because there are pros and cons however much the ball is inflated (which is why it's a quarterback preference). The biggest impact -- and this isn't just from Sports Science, this seems to be the consensus is as a whole -- is that under-inflated balls would be most beneficial in slippery conditions. There wasn't precipitation in the Ravens game, so that's a moot point.

Yes, I get it though. Theoretically under-inflated balls could've been the difference. Conceivably these under-inflated balls could have been the deciding factor, all it takes is one play. But that said, think about how complex and sophisticated the game of football is. There are dozens -- if not hundreds -- of subtle, intricate factors that influence every play. Every player has an assignment, every player has to execute proper technique, the quarterback needs to scan the field properly, etc, etc, etc. I find it incredibly hard to believe that under-inflated footballs would be the deciding factor.

The integrity of the game is important. However, I'm not going to get up in arms about something like deflating footballs. I have seen virtually nothing that leads me to believe it's a big deal. The only reason this is a big story is because the media is pushing it down our throats and sensationalizing it like they do with every other story. From a moral/ethical standpoint, I'm much more disgusted with the denial/cover-up than I am the act of deflation itself.

Originally posted by theduke85:

Originally posted by furrian:

here is where we'll disagree then. i have no idea how you apply that statement to the ravens' game. one blown pass out of 33 thrown could have easily turned the game. everyone is fond of bringing up the colts blowout .... no one mentions that the pats were down 3 with 5 minutes to go against baltimore the game before

Anecdotally -- from what I've read at least -- most active/former players think an under-inflated ball would have a negligible impact on the game.

ESPN's Sports Science ran a feature on the deflated balls and they concluded that "under-inflated balls had a minuscule effect on any given play." If you want to watch the segment (it's only 2:30) you can find it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ_S8F3mKFE ; the summary is basically that the ball is easier to grip, at the expense of the ball traveling slightly slower. Brady had 17 incompletions in the Ravens game: maybe if the ball was slightly faster one of the passes gets completed and it changes the dynamics of the game. You're swinging a double-edged sword, because there are pros and cons however much the ball is inflated (which is why it's a quarterback preference). The biggest impact -- and this isn't just from Sports Science, this seems to be the consensus is as a whole -- is that under-inflated balls would be most beneficial in slippery conditions. There wasn't precipitation in the Ravens game, so that's a moot point.

Yes, I get it though. Theoretically under-inflated balls could've been the difference. Conceivably these under-inflated balls could have been the deciding factor, all it takes is one play. But that said, think about how complex and sophisticated the game of football is. There are dozens -- if not hundreds -- of subtle, intricate factors that influence every play. Every player has an assignment, every player has to execute proper technique, the quarterback needs to scan the field properly, etc, etc, etc. I find it incredibly hard to believe that under-inflated footballs would be the deciding factor.

The integrity of the game is important. However, I'm not going to get up in arms about something like deflating footballs. I have seen virtually nothing that leads me to believe it's a big deal. The only reason this is a big story is because the media is pushing it down our throats and sensationalizing it like they do with every other story. From a moral/ethical standpoint, I'm much more disgusted with the denial/cover-up than I am the act of deflation itself.

I think being able to grip the ball and secure it better for the running backs and even the wideouts and tightends after a pass had more to do with it then anything.
I believe over the course of all these games and all these years it's helped keep there fumbling the lowest in the nfl. Your telling me that isn't an advantage?

Originally posted by jeepzilla:

Originally posted by theduke85:

Originally posted by furrian:

here is where we'll disagree then. i have no idea how you apply that statement to the ravens' game. one blown pass out of 33 thrown could have easily turned the game. everyone is fond of bringing up the colts blowout .... no one mentions that the pats were down 3 with 5 minutes to go against baltimore the game before

Anecdotally -- from what I've read at least -- most active/former players think an under-inflated ball would have a negligible impact on the game.

ESPN's Sports Science ran a feature on the deflated balls and they concluded that "under-inflated balls had a minuscule effect on any given play." If you want to watch the segment (it's only 2:30) you can find it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ_S8F3mKFE ; the summary is basically that the ball is easier to grip, at the expense of the ball traveling slightly slower. Brady had 17 incompletions in the Ravens game: maybe if the ball was slightly faster one of the passes gets completed and it changes the dynamics of the game. You're swinging a double-edged sword, because there are pros and cons however much the ball is inflated (which is why it's a quarterback preference). The biggest impact -- and this isn't just from Sports Science, this seems to be the consensus is as a whole -- is that under-inflated balls would be most beneficial in slippery conditions. There wasn't precipitation in the Ravens game, so that's a moot point.

Yes, I get it though. Theoretically under-inflated balls could've been the difference. Conceivably these under-inflated balls could have been the deciding factor, all it takes is one play. But that said, think about how complex and sophisticated the game of football is. There are dozens -- if not hundreds -- of subtle, intricate factors that influence every play. Every player has an assignment, every player has to execute proper technique, the quarterback needs to scan the field properly, etc, etc, etc. I find it incredibly hard to believe that under-inflated footballs would be the deciding factor.

The integrity of the game is important. However, I'm not going to get up in arms about something like deflating footballs. I have seen virtually nothing that leads me to believe it's a big deal. The only reason this is a big story is because the media is pushing it down our throats and sensationalizing it like they do with every other story. From a moral/ethical standpoint, I'm much more disgusted with the denial/cover-up than I am the act of deflation itself.

I think being able to grip the ball and secure it better for the running backs and even the wideouts and tightends after a pass had more to do with it then anything.
I believe over the course of all these games and all these years it's helped keep there fumbling the lowest in the nfl. Your telling me that isn't an advantage?

Their fumble rate is statistically an outlier.

Brady himself admitted he likes the balls at the league minnimum. Why do you think that is?

Ian Rapoport ‏@RapSheet 3m3 minutes ago Tom Brady's suspension has officially been nullified, according to Judge Berman's filing. He will play Thursday vs #Steelers.

Haha, f**k you Goodell! (for losing out to Brady and all the stupid inconsistent suspensions you've dealt for the last year) Also, f**k the patriots.

So I guess we should play everybody and sue when Godell tries to suspend them...? This is such BS

Originally posted by jreff22:
So I guess we should play everybody and sue when Godell tries to suspend them...? This is such BS

If you knew you could win a case while being suspended wouldn't you appeal knowing they had no evidence on you in federal court? I would... Rather I did it or not.

So does this mean he's not gonna be suspended at all?Not even a game?

Cheaters can get away with anything. Spygate, Deflategate. Not to mention other inconsistencies like the Tuck rule, etc.

What a tainted dynasty.

Originally posted by Txniner80:
So does this mean he's not gonna be suspended at all?Not even a game?

correct, can play game 1

Bring back Aldon & Ahmad immediately LOL

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by jreff22:
So I guess we should play everybody and sue when Godell tries to suspend them...? This is such BS

THIS!!! WTF??? So let me get this straight - if you do something off the field that only affects YOU, you're punished more harshly but if you do something that could potentially affect the game itself, no penalty???? Wow. If Bruce Miller gets ONE DAY from the league, I would play him and then sue the league for enforcing a conduct policy that did not affect his occupation whatsoever.

mother f**ker cheated in the Superbowl and doesn't even get a slap on the wrist

Play Brooks, Miller, and f**k it call Aldon

The govt and privately owned sports leagues do not mix. ( Like the Barry Bonds witch hunt)

Finally, Tom Brady catches a break.