LOL Pats Fans - it never ends

[zyron]

Give me some evidence of ANY other time they did this?? By the same logic, Calhoun must have over-texted thousands of times, because he did it once. And by the way, the balls were replaced for the second half, which the Pats won, I believe 28-0. The denial and extrapolation by the Pats-haters is unreal here. Keep trying to poke holes, we have 4 Super Bowls in the last 15 years, 3 of which occurred before any "cheating" allegtions wereeer uttered. I frankly don't see how this is any different than JC's "cheating". You can't have it both ways.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH, your a f%^&*ng idiot.

 

[PcketknfNiels]

The situations are 100% different and have been talked about many times.

Other than being exactly the same, hardly being discussed at all since the initial comment, and you clearly either not reading/comprehending what I said under the link, you are 100% correct.

 

[PcketknfNiels]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH, your a f%^&*ng idiot.

You are. You're.

 

[zyron]

Other than being exactly the same, hardly being discussed at all since the initial comment, and you clearly either not reading/comprehending what I said under the link, you are 100% correct.

Wow, just wow.

 

[PcketknfNiels]

Pats fans are on their final (far-fetched) argument: false equivalence. Eventually they'll give in, but they're a stubborn bunch.

Even though ESPN influence probably has something to do with the current conference situation UConn finds themselves in...

 

[PcketknfNiels]

Wow, just wow.

Okay, other than 1 guy going under the accepted range and the other guy going over, explain how they're "totally opposite".

 

[superjohn]

You are so missing the point, it's comical. I never denied that the Pats "cheated"" if that's what you want to call it. All I said is that if you believe this somehow "taints" the Patriots legacy, then you must admit that UConn's legacy must also be tainted because of JC's "cheating". If you agree w that, then I have no problem with your criticism of the Pats. If you don't, then you're just a hypocrite living in a glass house throwing stones. Neither of the so called "offenses" ever determined the outcome of one single game, never mind the 4 championships each team owns. So which is it??

Your reading comprehension stinks. What does my being a Giants fan have to do with me thinking the UConn situation and the Patriots situation are not at all alike? I don't think the situation at UNC or Syracuse is at all similar to the Patriots situation either. First of all they aren't so called "offenses" second of all, how do you know their cheating never determined the outcome of one single game. Why do you think they were breaking these rules, just for the fun of it? I along with pretty much everyone outside of the Boston area think they did it to gain a competitive advantage.

 

[zyron]

Okay, other than 1 guy going under the accepted range and the other guy going over, explain how they're "totally opposite".

If, the Patriots gave the refs under-inflated footballs and the refs didn't check them, that is 100% the refs fault. If the Packers gave the refs regulation footballs, the refs checked them, than a Packers employee went into a bathroom, with the balls, to use the urinal (even though there was no urinal in the bathroom), inflated the balls to what Rodgers likes, and then brought them on the field, that would be the same.

Rodgers never inflated the balls after the refs checked.

 

[PcketknfNiels]

If, the Patriots gave the refs under-inflated footballs and the refs didn't check them, that is 100% the refs fault. If the Packers gave the refs regulation footballs, the refs checked them, than a Packers employee went into a bathroom, with the balls, to use the urinal (even though there was no urinal in the bathroom), inflated the balls to what Rodgers likes, and then brought them on the field, that would be the same.

Rodgers never inflated the balls after the refs checked.

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/...o_referee_doesnt_document_football_psi_levels

 

[zyron]

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/...o_referee_doesnt_document_football_psi_levels

Well that had absolutely nothing relevant to what I said, thanks, I guess.

 

[PcketknfNiels]

But seriously, how do you know Rodgers doesn't inflate balls after they're checked? According to you, the Pats have cheated in some form or fashion going back to 2001, and only just now got caught for ball pressure regulation.

 

[PcketknfNiels]

Well that had absolutely nothing relevant to what I said, thanks, I guess.

Nothing comes particularly easy to you, does it?

 

[zyron]

But seriously, how do you know Rodgers doesn't inflate balls after they're checked? According to you, the Pats have cheated in some form or fashion going back to 2001, and only just now got caught for ball pressure regulation.

You're (Happy?) right, they were never sanctioned for anything else in that time period.

 

[PcketknfNiels]

You're (Happy?) right, they were never sanctioned for anything else in that time period.

Did they get caught for ball pressure regulation before? And you're missing the point, you think they've been cheating since at least 2001, Spygate wasn't until 2008, Deflategate wasn't until 2015. How can you be positive about Rodgers?

 

[zyron]

Did they get caught for ball pressure regulation before? And you're missing the point, you think they've been cheating since at least 2001, Spygate wasn't until 2008, Deflategate wasn't until 2015. How can you be positive about Rodgers?

First, I never said that, and if I did, show me. Second, I don't have to be, he wasn't caught.

 

[PcketknfNiels]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH, your a f%^&*ng idiot.

What exactly does this constitute?

And, for the record, the Pats haven't actually been caught on deflate-gate as of now. There's no smoking gun. Again, this really has nothing to do with the logic gap I've pointed out though, and you've at best merely inflected your opinion as to how the Brady and Rodgers situations are "completely opposite".

 

[zyron]

What exactly does this constitute?

And, for the record, the Pats haven't actually been caught on deflate-gate as of now. There's no smoking gun. Again, this really has nothing to do with the logic gap I've pointed out though, and you've at best merely inflected your opinion as to how the Brady and Rodgers situations are "completely opposite".

HAHAHAHAHA, wow, you really are a moron. I am done responding to you.

 

[upstater]

Trust me - when I was making the post, I knew you would be first up to tell me I was wrong. Bottom line - they have an equipment manager nicknamed the Deflater. There's nothing more a reasonable person needs to know.

Uh, no. The deflater is not the equipment manager. He's a ballboy. You gotta get the basics down. And this deflater, who is so good, managed on many occasions not to deflate the balls. He was even told to bring a rulebook to show the refs. what the proper gauge should be.

But even if the balls were manually deflated some games in the past, we don't know which ones.

And that's no more relevant than other players saying they had balls manipulated in the past.

What triggered this is the AFCCG footballs. The first one tested on the field, intercepted ball, was 11.75, a hair under.

The rest of the balls were as expected from natural temp changes. If they deflated them, they would have been lower.

 

[zyron]

Uh, no. The deflater is not the equipment manager. He's a ballboy. You gotta get the basics down. And this deflater, who is so good, managed on many occasions not to deflate the balls. He was even told to bring a rulebook to show the refs. what the proper gauge should be.

So why were they suspended indefinitely by the Pats today? Why aren't they standing by their "innocent" employees? Robert Kraft was adamant that they did nothing wrong, why isn't he backing them up?

 

[upstater]

None of you haters have had the balls to address this:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...best-recollection-on-a-key-piece-of-evidence/

Page 52 of the Wells report reveals that it was Anderson’s “best recollection” that he used before the game the gauge with the logo and the longer, crooked needle. In other words, Anderson recalls using the gauge before the game that, based on the halftime measurements, leads to a finding of no tampering.

So how did Ted Wells get around the “best recollection” of Walt Anderson? Wells persuaded Anderson to admit that it’s “certainly possible” he used the other gauge. And the company hired to provide technical support for the Wells report concluded based on a convoluted explanation appearing at pages 116-17 of the report that it is “more probable than not” that Anderson used the other gauge.

In other words, the Wells report concludes on this critical point that it’s “more probable than not” that Anderson’s “best recollection” was wrong.

Why should Anderson’s “best recollection” be doubted? He knew that there was a concern about tampering with the footballs. He presumably was paying more careful attention to the process of getting the balls filled with air before the AFC title game than he normally does.

So which gauge did you use, Walt, realizing that there could be a question later about the inflation of the footballs?

“Well, my best recollection is that I used the one with the long, crooked needle.”

Is it possible, Walt, that you used the other gauge that was available? You know, the one that for whatever reason measures the air pressure at 0.3 to 0.45 PSI lower?

“Well, I don’t know about that. . . .”

Isn’t it possible, Walt?

“Well, it’s certainly possible.”

That’s how investigations that start with a predetermined outcome and work backward unfold. (Holy crap, I think I’m beginning to agree with Don Yee.)

Right in the Wells Report, they cooked the findings to signal tampering, when the testimony of the referee who took the measurements would have lead to the conclusion there was no tampering. Let me bold the pertinent conclusion for you guys again:

"In other words, Anderson recalls using the gauge before the game that, based on the halftime measurements, leads to a finding of no tampering."

 

[upstater]

So why were they suspended indefinitely by the Pats today? Why aren't they standing by their "innocent" employees? Robert Kraft was adamant that they did nothing wrong, why isn't he backing them up?

You do realize that the NFL suspended them today, right?

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/5974...nfl-suspends-brady-4-games-deflated-footballs

The league also indefinitely suspended the two equipment staffers believed to have carried out the plan, including one who called himself "The Deflator."

 

[zyron]

You do realize that the NFL suspended them today, right?

The New England Patriots announced that "employees John Jastremski and James McNally have been indefinitely suspended without pay by the club, effective on May 6th



Unless the story changed, every article but AP is reporting they were suspended by Pats.

 

[upstater]

The New England Patriots announced that "employees John Jastremski and James McNally have been indefinitely suspended without pay by the club, effective on May 6th



Unless the story changed, every article but AP is reporting they were suspended by Pats.

It was in the NFL decision that came out with Wells. Reiterated today. Just like the Patriots can't reinstate Brady, they can't with the other employees either. Those guys will have to appeal the NFL's decision.

So, what do you think of the Walt Anderson gauge thing? Why would they go out of their way to lie about that?

 

[johnhuskies95]

Even though ESPN influence probably has something to do with the current conference situation UConn finds themselves in...

WTF does that have to do with what we're talking about?

 

[johnhuskies95]

Um because words mean things?

Obviously. But it's not a strong defense for Patriots fans. The guys behind the report would have to be idiots to use any kind of certainty in their language, even if they were 99.99999% sure.