2015 NFL Season

[tim_m]

On another subject what's everyone's thoughts on the PAT and 2 pt conversion changes announced a short time ago?

[faldor]

On another subject what's everyone's thoughts on the PAT and 2 pt conversion changes announced a short time ago?

i like the changes. It'll be interesting to see how much more often teams will go for 2. Even though the 33 yard PAT would still be easier to convert. Especially in windy conditions, you might see more 2 point tries.

[tim_m]

I wouldn't mind seeing more 2 point tries.

[pilferk]

I don't mind the changes...essentially makes the PAT a 33 yard field goal.  That's still pretty close to a "gimme" in football.

Honestly, what I'd REALLY like is for a TD to be worth 7.  Then, as a coach, you have a choice: You can get an additional play, if you want, and try for +1, but if you fail to convert, it's -1.

Net/Net is you still have what amounts to a 2 pt converstion...but you eliminate the time you give up for a PAT.  Speeds up the game a bit.

But I fully realize that's a radical proposal that will NEVER happen.

Back to Brady for one sec: Reports coming out that the Pats decision to appeal was NOT contingent on a reduction in sentence for Brady.

[Sober_times]

I'm up and down on this change. I like the idea of it meaning something but I don't want games decided by a missed extra point. A 33 yard field goal is kind of a gimmie but with the game on the line and an extra point needed to tie, it could be different. I don't want to see games end on a missed extra point. Especially in the Play-offs or some other big time game.

We also won't get anymore swinging gate from Philly. I was hoping that would catch on.

[faldor]

https://www.aei.org/press/deflating-deflategate/

The 2015 American Football Conference championship exploded with controversy when the New England Patriots were accused of deflating footballs prior to the start of their game against the Indianapolis Colts. As a result, the National Football League and its lawyers published a report, known as the Wells Report, which brought about penalty charges against the Patriots and quarterback Tom Brady. However, a new AEI report, by scholars and economists Kevin Hassett and Stan Veuger, finds the Wells report?s statistical analysis was flawed.

? Replication of the reports? analysis reveals that it relies on an unorthodox statistical procedure at odds with the methodology the report describes.
? The report focuses narrowly on the difference between the Colts and Patriots pressure drops. This difference can be caused either by the pressure in the Patriots balls dropping below their expected value or by the pressure in the Colts balls rising above their expected value, with the latter of these scenarios being more likely based on the absolute pressure measurements.
? The difference of the pressure in the Patriots balls can be explained by the fact that sufficient time may have passed between halftime testing of the two teams? balls for the Colts balls to warm significantly, effectively inflating them.

https://www.aei.org/publication/on-wells-report/?utm_source=paramount&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mediahassettdeflategate&utm_content=report

ABSTRACT: In the current ?Deflategate? controversy, the New England Patriots have been accused of illicitly deflating footballs before the start of their 2015 American Football Conference championship game against the Indianapolis Colts. The National Football League and the lawyers it hired have produced a report ? commonly known as the ?Wells report? ? that has been used to justify penalties against the Patriots and quarterback Tom Brady. Although the Wells report finds that the Patriots footballs declined in pressure significantly more than the Colts balls in the first half of the game, our replication of the report?s analysis finds that it relies on an unorthodox statistical procedure at odds with the methodology the report describes. It also fails to investigate all relevant scenarios. In addition, it focuses only on the difference between the Colts and Patriots pressure drops. Such a difference, however, can be caused either by the pressure in the Patriots balls dropping below their expected value or by the pressure in the Colts balls rising above their expected value. The second of these two scenarios seems more likely based on the absolute pressure measurements. Logistically, the greater change in pressure in the Patriots footballs can be explained by the fact that sufficient time may have passed between halftime testing of the two teams? balls for the Colts balls to warm significantly, effectively inflating them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/14/opinion/deflating-deflategate.html?utm_source=paramount&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mediahassettdeflategate&utm_content=report&_r=0

BEFORE ?Deflategate,? the National Football League?s most recent controversy, there was ?Bountygate,? in which New Orleans Saints officials were accused of offering bonuses to Saints players who injured members of opposing teams ? a policy alleged to have been in place from 2009 to 2011. Initially, several Saints officials and players were penalized by the N.F.L.

In 2012, however, we published an analysis of N.F.L. injury data that found that the Saints injured fewer opposing players than all but two teams did in 2009, and fewer than all but one team did from 2009 to 2011. Even if Saints officials offered ?bounties,? there was no good evidence that Saints players were influenced by them.

We presented our findings at an N.F.L. hearing in November 2012. The next month, the N.F.L. vacated all the players? suspensions.

Considering that our impartiality was at least implicitly recognized by the N.F.L. in the past, we believe that our analysis of the evidence in Deflategate, in a study released Friday by the American Enterprise Institute, could help resolve this latest controversy.

Deflategate is a dispute about whether the New England Patriots used deliberately underinflated footballs in their playoff victory over the Indianapolis Colts in January. (Each N.F.L. team provides its own footballs when on offense, and an underinflated football may be easier to handle in cold or wet conditions.)

The N.F.L. commissioned a study, known as the Wells report, that concluded that it was ?more probable than not? that Patriots personnel deliberately violated the rules and that Tom Brady, the Patriots quarterback, was aware of it. Following the release of the Wells report last month, the N.F.L. penalized the Patriots organization and suspended Mr. Brady for four games.

Our study, written with our colleague Joseph Sullivan, examines the evidence and methodology of the Wells report and concludes that it is deeply flawed. (We have no financial stake in the outcome of Deflategate.)

The Wells report?s main finding is that the Patriots balls declined in pressure more than the Colts balls did in the first half of their game, and that the decline is highly statistically significant. For the sake of argument, let?s grant this finding for now. Even still, it alone does not prove misconduct. There are, after all, two possibilities. The first is that the Patriots balls declined too much. The second ? overlooked by the Wells report ? is that the Colts balls declined too little.

The latter possibility appears to be more likely. The Wells report notes the expected pressure for the footballs at halftime in the Patriots-Colts game, factoring in the decline in pressure to be expected when a ball, inflated in a warm room, has been moved to a cold outdoor field. If the Patriots deflated their balls, their pressure levels at halftime should have fallen below the expected level, while the Colts balls at halftime should have hovered around that level.

But when we analyzed the data provided in the Wells report, we found that the Patriots balls declined by about the expected amount, while the Colts balls declined by less. In fact, the pressure of the Colts balls was statistically significantly higher than expected. Contrary to the report, the significant difference between the changes in pressure of the two teams? balls was not because the pressure of the Patriots balls was too low, but because that of the Colts balls was too high.

How could this be? The report?s own findings suggest an explanation: At halftime, N.F.L. officials measured the pressure of ?only a sample? of the Colts balls (four out of 12) before they ran out of time; the second half of the game was about to begin. This implies that the Colts balls sat in the warm room where they were to be measured ? and thus increased in pressure ? for almost the entirety of halftime before being measured.

All of the 11 available Patriots balls, by contrast, were measured at halftime, which suggests that they were measured earlier, when they were colder ? and thus lower in pressure. Although this explanation contradicts the Wells report?s conclusions, it fits all the evidence.

There are other factors discussed in our study that undermine support for the Wells report?s conclusions. For example, there is considerable uncertainty concerning the actual pressure of the footballs. The N.F.L. official who checked the pressure before the game used some combination of two pressure gauges to measure the Patriots and Colts balls, but it is not known which particular combination.

One of the gauges, as the report notes, records pressures that are higher than the other. If the official used that gauge to measure the Patriots balls (but not the Colts balls) pregame, then those balls may well have started out with too little air, which could explain a later appearance of intentional deflation. The report, however, does not consider that possibility.

Our recommendation? When the N.F.L. hears Mr. Brady?s appeal of his suspension later this month, it should proceed with the knowledge that the Wells report is unreliable.

[faldor]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/in-trying-to-restore-his-authority-goodell-undermined-his-credibility/2015/05/21/142c8d2c-ffd4-11e4-805c-c3f407e5a9e9_story.html

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell predetermined guilt in DeflateGate; that?s clear now. He has smeared Tom Brady and the New England Patriots without proper evidence or a competent investigation and turned an unimportant misdemeanor into a damaging scandal as part of a personal power play to shore up his flagging authority. In other cases, he just looked inept. In this one, he looks devious.

At the NFL owners meetings in San Francisco on Wednesday night, Goodell as much as admitted that the Wells report is incomplete despite the fact that it took four months, cost millions in legal fees and was supposed to be comprehensive. After all, the league used it to levy historically harsh penalties against Brady and the Patriots, claiming they deflated footballs in the AFC championship game. Nevertheless, Goodell opened the door to walking it back, saying he wants to talk personally to Brady, who has appealed his four-game suspension.

?I look forward to hearing directly from Tom if there is new information or there is information that can be helpful to us in getting this right,? Goodell said.

Now this is the height of disingenuousness. Because we already know the Wells report missed crucial information and didn?t consider important facts. Ted Wells either overlooked or ignored crucial text messages, he used a firm with a reputation for bending science to fit predetermined conclusions and he cherry-picked the memory of an NFL referee. But that?s not all. The Wells report left completely unexamined the fact that the NFL has never once considered the inflation of footballs to be a matter of great integrity or competitive advantage before now.

And this is where Brady can blow the commissioner out of a courtroom. And perhaps out of his job.

League history makes it obvious that Goodell is practicing selective enforcement, purely for his own purpose. The NFL rules simply state that footballs should be inflated within a range of 12.5 to 13.5 pounds per square inch. For nearly a decade it has let each team provide a dozen of its own balls and let quarterbacks choose them according to preference and feel ? and to fiddle with the pressure without penalty. Aaron Rodgers has said he tells his equipment guys to over-inflate the ball and see whether the refs catch it.

That the league has never particularly enforced standards is evident in a hilarious section in which the Wells report eats its own tail. According to Wells, in a game between the Patriots and Jets, it was discovered that the refs had inflated the balls to 16 PSI. Brady got upset when he found them hard to handle. That?s how uneven ball inflation in the NFL is and how weak the Wells report is. The only firm evidence that Brady ever had a conversation with anyone about ball pressure comes in this instance, when the ball was wildly over-inflated to 16 PSI ? by the league?s own refs.

What?s more, messing with the ball has been treated as a misdemeanor in other cases. In a very cold 2014 game between the Carolina Panthers and Minnesota Vikings, sideline cameras showed some team attendants warming footballs in front of heaters ? presumably at the behest of a quarterback. There was no scandal for ?tampering.? There was not even an investigation. You know what kind of edict the NFL issued in that case? A reminder. It sent a memo that softening the ball on the sideline by warming it is not allowed.

At a minimum the Wells report is poor work, and the NFL may well have skewed it. Just consider how the report used referee Walt Anderson?s recollections. It accepts Anderson?s account as accurate when it comes to how pressurized the Patriots? footballs were in pregame. It also accepts Anderson?s account when he said there were two gauges available, one with a logo on it that gave higher readings by almost 0.4.

But when Anderson says he used the gauge that gave the higher PSI measurements, the Wells report suddenly treats Anderson as inaccurate on this point ? and no other. For no apparent reason, Wells insists Anderson must have used the other gauge, the one that gave lower readings, which makes the Patriots look guilty.

As opposed to the higher gauge, which would put it in the realm of possibility that the footballs lost pressure by halftime because of cold weather and the Ideal Gas Law.

Once you?ve read this part of the Wells report, the words it so often employs ? ?more probable than not? and ?likely? ? begin to take on a pernicious tone.

The NFL created its own mischief here. It wrote a rule that says each team can use a dozen of its own balls and left it to the teams to inflate them, without providing any sort of regulation or consistent enforcement. Now, all of a sudden, what a year ago was the subject of a mere memo has become the subject of a months-long million-dollar game of Gotcha. Why?

Don?t tell me it?s because Tom Brady didn?t turn over his cell phone. Wells had all of the phone records and texts between Brady and equipment manager John Jastremski, and there was no communication at all with locker room attendant Jim McNally. The records suggest Brady?s not withholding; he?s just a union man who objects to the precedent of giving his private phone to a commissioner who comes on like J. Edgar Hoover.

And here again, Goodell is practicing selective punishment. Brett Favre didn?t turn his cell over, either, in a far more unpalatable case over sexual harassment in the workplace. Know what Goodell gave him? A $50,000 fine. With no suspension.

The commissioner needed a big case to restore his authority and prestige after a series of judicial embarrassments. Federal judge David Doty reversed him on Adrian Peterson?s suspension. Arbitrator Barbara Jones overturned him (and found him not credible) for suspending Ray Rice twice for the same offense. And former commissioner Paul Tagliabue issued a stunning rebuke in the New Orleans Saints BountyGate case, when he not only reversed player suspensions but found a pattern of ?arbitrary? as well ?selective, ad hoc or inconsistent? punishments by Goodell.

The guess here is that Goodell?s support and respect among owners was eroded badly after he mishandled each of these cases and turned them into months-long scandals that undermined public trust in the league office. DeflateGate is nothing more than a bid to reconsolidate his power. But it?s an overreach as usual, and whatever Goodell gained in the short term may be his undoing in the long term. There was an initial jolt of gratification that Goodell took the much-loathed Patriots and their owner, Bob Kraft, down a peg. But after it will come a more rational examination of his conduct and the flawed content of the Wells report. And with that, distrust.

[faldor]

http://jicohen.kinja.com/how-the-wells-report-made-fake-statistics-look-believab-1711898024

https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/culture-beaker/deflategate-favored-foul-play-over-science?tgt=nr

Hopefully after next week we will never again hear about Deflategate, the controversy surrounding the role of underinflated footballs in January?s conference championship game between the New England Patriots and the Indianapolis Colts. On June 23, the NFL commissioner will hear the appeal of Patriots quarterback Tom Brady?s four-game suspension, one of the punishments that resulted from the controversy. Patriots? team equipment managers may have intentionally underinflated game balls and Brady may have known about it ? I won?t weigh in on that here. But the scandal, which propelled the ideal gas law to the front pages of sports sections, inspired an odd mix of experts to choose science over sports, and that?s almost always a win.

In case you haven?t followed the story: During the first half of the January 18 AFC championship game in Foxborough, Mass., the Colts intercepted a pass thrown by Brady. Suspecting that the ball was underinflated ? rules allow a pressure range of 12.5 to 13.5 pounds per square inch (psi) ? the Colts requested an inspection. Brady is known to prefer his footballs on the low end, around 12.5 psi, and pretty much everyone agrees that that?s what the Patriot balls were inflated to before the game started. But at halftime, officials tested the Patriots? game balls: All measured below the minimum required level of 12.5 psi.

Patriots coach Bill Belichick was one of the first to take a stab at the science, citing ?climatic conditions,? ?equilibrium states? and ?atmospheric conditions,? to explain the deflation. This wasn?t a surprising stance; he?s the coach. But it didn?t take long for real scientists ? and non-Patriots fans ? to weigh in. While Bill Nye (mechanical engineering degree, Seattle Seahawks fan) declared that rubbing the footballs to break them in couldn?t account for pressure changes, others took a measured approach. If the initial pressure of a football measured in a warm locker room during pre-game inspection was 12.5 psi, could the roughly 25-degree-Fahrenheit drop in temperature between the locker room and the rainy field that day account for the lower air pressure of a ball measured at halftime?

Scientist Michael Naughton (expert in condensed matters physics, Buffalo Bills fan) lent his expertise to the matter when the controversy initially blew up. Naughton?s lab at Boston College inflated a football to 13.5 psi at 72? F. Then they stuck it in a fridge and measured the pressure at 42? F (slightly cooler than the low on game night of 47.7? F, the average of measurements from two weather stations near Gillette Stadium). The pressure dropped to 10.5 psi.

HeadSmart labs, a Pittsburgh-based engineering firm that ordinarily conducts research related to helmets and concussions, also turned its attention to the matter. Experiments done by CEO Tom Healy (mechanical engineering Ph.D. student, Patriots fan) and others in the lab (not Patriots fans) simulated field conditions by placing 12 balls inflated to 12.5 psi in a cold room for 2.5 hours. Measurements revealed an average drop of 1.07 psi, well within the range of the halftime measurements. Saturating the balls with water to mimic field conditions bumped the measurements down another 0.75 psi, they conclude in a technical paper. (HeadSmart has launched a crowd-funding campaign to raise research funds to further investigate the matter.)

The kerfuffle provided a teachable moment for physics teachers everywhere, and despite Deflategate fatigue, homework problems featuring the ideal gas law ? which relates temperature, pressure and volume to an amount of a gas (in moles) ? will likely be assigned for years to come. This science matters well beyond the football field: Understanding the gas law means knowing whether a scuba diver will experience potentially fatal bends when returning to surface waters, why life-saving contraptions like fire extinguishers and airbags work, and how hot air balloons and combustion engines do their stuff.

But instead of acknowledging that game day conditions could have accounted for the psi changes, an acknowledgement that wouldn?t preclude other evidence of foul play, the NFL?s Wells Report concludes that there?s an ?absence of a credible scientific explanation for the Patriots halftime measurements.?

It would be one thing if the Wells Report (which consulted Daniel Marlow, experimental high energy physics expert at Princeton) just said that additional evidence (bathroom breaks and text messages, among other things) was more compelling than the pressure data. Or if it noted that the pressure data are ambiguous, collected so haphazardly that they wouldn?t be allowed in a high school science fair: Two different gauges that differed by approximately 0.4 psi were used in taking measurements, and it isn?t clear which one was used in the pre-game measurements because those data were not recorded. At halftime, 11 Patriots? balls and four Colts? balls were measured, and while all of the Patriots? balls measured below 12.5 psi, three of the four Colts? balls also did, according to one of the gauges.

Post-game psi measurements of four Patriots balls ranged from 12.95 to 13.65. These data, the Wells Report acknowledges (in a footnote), ?did not provide a scientifically reasonable basis on which to conduct a comparative analysis.? If the report can acknowledge poor methodology for the post-game data, why not acknowledge that for the pre-game and halftime data as well?

Roderick MacKinnon of Rockefeller University specifically addressed the scientific methodology in a letter posted to The Wells Report in Context, the Patriots? rebuttal to the report?s conclusions (MacKinnon, professor of molecular neurobiology and biophysics, and chemistry Nobel laureate, was conducting experiments in a basement microscope facility and couldn?t immediately respond to my requests for his team allegiance):

?The scientific analysis in the Wells Report was a good attempt to seek the truth, however, it was based on data that are simply insufficient. In experimental science to reach a meaningful conclusion we make measurements multiple times under well-defined physical conditions. This is how we deal with the error or ?spread? of measured values,? MacKinnon notes.

Football fans are a loyal bunch. (Let it be said that I live in Boston and while I appreciate a quarterback who can make fun of himself, I do not have a favorite football team). But it?s refreshing to see some put aside team loyalty in favor of Team Science.

[AxlsMainMan]

Beyond Brady: Three key questions about the Steelers v. Patriots game

Deflategate and Tom Brady have dominated Patriots coverage for the last few months, and it is hard not to speculate on the fate of Brady's appeal when we consider the Steelers first game of the season. Let's put Brady aside and examine some other questions about the season opener.

1) Can the Steelers establish a run game without Le'Veon Bell?

This question has been asked many times during the offseason, but I'm asking it again since it is almost certain Bell will be serving his suspension for smoking dope with LeGarrette Blount last August. Blount will also be out for that game, so the Patriots will be facing a similar situation in terms of the run game, but Le'Veon Bell is a more critical cog in the machine for the Steelers. In fact, he isn't a cog. He is the machine.

DeAngelo Williams should be able to pick up some slack and, more importantly, he's probably not going to go for a ride with his teammates and get stoned, so that's a plus in the avoid-suspensions-for-drug-use department. The offensive line is strong enough and the Steelers are preparing for a known quantity instead of being caught off-guard by Blount's walk-off and Bell's injury. That is an advantage over the situation they faced going into the playoff game, during which they appeared completely crippled by Bell's absence. Williams, Dri Archer, and Josh Harris have time to prepare and come up with a game plan that works well with their strengths and takes into account their deficiencies.

2) What kind of performance can we expect out of Ben Roethlisberger?

This question is somewhat tied to the first: it will depend- to some extent- if the Steelers can establish a run game. If they can, then it will be interesting to see if Roethlisberger will completely pick apart the Patriots ailing secondary. With Darelle Revis gone, the Patriots will probably have to revert to a soft-zone-type defense, which could work to the Steelers advantage and also put more pressure on the Patriots linebackers. Antonio Brown and Martavis Bryant are a nightmare duo even for the best of secondaries, so this could end up being a very high scoring game for Roethlisberger who is coming off one of his best seasons with just under 5,000 yards.

3) Who can cover Patriots TE Rob Gronkowski?

Every team that faces the Patriots asks themselves this question, and very few have found a good answer. No linebacker has demonstrated an ability to cover Gronk successfully. Depending on where Gronkowski lines up, Sean Spence or Ryan Shazier could be faced with this herculean task. In the secondary, it could be Shamarko Thomas or whoever is playing in the slot.

The Steelers can aim to contain Grownkowski. Aiming to stop him, in my mind, is fatuous. It's like trying to defeat Ganon in the Legend of Zelda without the Silver Arrow. Death Mountain, I mean Gillette Stadium, isn't in Hyrule, and metaphorical silver arrows are hard to come by, especially with Steelers D has been suffering to the extent that it has. Hopefully Butler can work some magic and find a solution to the unsolvable problem of the Gronk.

http://www.behindthesteelcurtain.com/2015/6/27/8856693/beyond-brady-three-key-questions-about-the-steelers-v-patriots-game

[faldor]

The Pats added to the front seven, so hopefully they'll be vastly improved there. They better be, because their secondary could be quite bad. They'll probably revert back to the bend but don't break defense where teams march up and down the field against them, but they clamp down in the red zone. I'm not sure how important establishing the run against them will be if their secondary is as soft as it appears. QB's should have a field day against them.

[AxlsMainMan]

I'm thinking...

Giants
Seahawks
Packers
Saints

WC: Cardinals, Lions

Patriots
Broncos
Steelers
Colts

WC: Ravens, Dolphins

[pilferk]

NFL upholds full 4 game suspension for Brady.

Guess we're headed to court, now?

http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/13331590/tom-brady-4-game-suspension-upheld-roger-goodell

Some highlights:

In announcing the decision, Goodell cited new information that on or shortly before March 6, Brady had directed that the cell phone he had used for the prior four months be destroyed. The NFL said in the statement that Brady destroyed the phone even though he was aware that investigators had requested access to text messages and other electronic information that had been stored on the phone.

According to the NFL, Brady had exchanged nearly 10,000 text messages, none of which can now be retrieved. The NFL also said in its statement that the destruction of the cell phone was not disclosed until June 18, almost four months after investigators had first sought information from him.

Goodell said in the statement he found that Brady "went beyond a mere failure to cooperate in the investigation and supported a finding that he had sought to hide evidence of his own participation in the scheme." Based on Ted Wells' report and the evidence presented at that hearing, Goodell also said that Brady was aware of, and took steps to support, the actions of other team employees to deflate game footballs below the levels allowed under NFL rules.

As for Goodell taking 35 days to determine Brady's appeal, sources told ESPN's Dan Graziano that it was rooted in the NFL's viewpoint that its decision had to be designed, vetted and written to withstand a court challenge. Thus, the delay was mostly about whether the league is comfortable in the legal presentation of the decision.

[JAEBALL]

NFL upholds full 4 game suspension for Brady.

Guess we're headed to court, now?

http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/13331590/tom-brady-4-game-suspension-upheld-roger-goodell

Some highlights:

In announcing the decision, Goodell cited new information that on or shortly before March 6, Brady had directed that the cell phone he had used for the prior four months be destroyed. The NFL said in the statement that Brady destroyed the phone even though he was aware that investigators had requested access to text messages and other electronic information that had been stored on the phone.

According to the NFL, Brady had exchanged nearly 10,000 text messages, none of which can now be retrieved. The NFL also said in its statement that the destruction of the cell phone was not disclosed until June 18, almost four months after investigators had first sought information from him.

Goodell said in the statement he found that Brady "went beyond a mere failure to cooperate in the investigation and supported a finding that he had sought to hide evidence of his own participation in the scheme." Based on Ted Wells' report and the evidence presented at that hearing, Goodell also said that Brady was aware of, and took steps to support, the actions of other team employees to deflate game footballs below the levels allowed under NFL rules.

As for Goodell taking 35 days to determine Brady's appeal, sources told ESPN's Dan Graziano that it was rooted in the NFL's viewpoint that its decision had to be designed, vetted and written to withstand a court challenge. Thus, the delay was mostly about whether the league is comfortable in the legal presentation of the decision.

As a impartial viewer... I was hoping they cut it to 2, and then brady said ok, so we can move on...

I was also hoping Brady would be around week 4 vs Dallas.

[pilferk]

Yeah, i still think 4 is too much.

As for playing week 4, if this goes to court, and the judge agrees to hear it, i expect it will take awhile to play out...and the judge will issue an injunction on serving til the case is resolved.

Of course, for brady, that means risking being out games, say, 13-16....which could be much more important that games 1-4. Or, worse, having to serve some of the suspension during the playoffs.....

[faldor]

Not surprised at all that the suspension was upheld. I don't think the NFL had any intention of reaching a compromise. The only thing that made me think there was a slight possibility was that Greg Hardy's 10 game suspension was reduced to 4. Obviously a different case altogether. But I thought maybe it would look bad for a guy who beat the crap out of his girlfriend gets the same suspension as a guy who is charged as being generally aware that some air was taken out of footballs.

But again, this thing got personal early on, and neither side is willing to budge.

I'm not sure why Brady's lawyer offered the information that his cell phone was destroyed. It doesn't seem like a good move on their part. He'd have been better off just refusing to let them see his phone, whether it was destroyed or not. Is it possible that the league checked his phone records and found out he had gotten a new phone in March, and thus asked him what happened to his old phone? I just don't see the advantage of offering that information up. It's tough to explain, and defend.

[pilferk]

Not surprised at all that the suspension was upheld. I don't think the NFL had any intention of reaching a compromise. The only thing that made me think there was a slight possibility was that Greg Hardy's 10 game suspension was reduced to 4. Obviously a different case altogether. But I thought maybe it would look bad for a guy who beat the crap out of his girlfriend gets the same suspension as a guy who is charged as being generally aware that some air was taken out of footballs.

But again, this thing got personal early on, and neither side is willing to budge.

I'm not sure why Brady's lawyer offered the information that his cell phone was destroyed. It doesn't seem like a good move on their part. He'd have been better off just refusing to let them see his phone, whether it was destroyed or not. Is it possible that the league checked his phone records and found out he had gotten a new phone in March, and thus asked him what happened to his old phone? I just don't see the advantage of offering that information up. It's tough to explain, and defend.

Discovery.

They pretty much had to tell the nfl during appeal, or risk having to disclose when going to trial, and having a judge look poorly on the lack of disclosure during the appeal process.

They are generally held to looser evidentiary rules during appeal, but thats sort of a biggie, too. Withholding that bit of info could, in and of itself, be seen as undermining the process, and not cooperating. I don't think the nflpa was willing to risk that.....

[faldor]

Not surprised at all that the suspension was upheld. I don't think the NFL had any intention of reaching a compromise. The only thing that made me think there was a slight possibility was that Greg Hardy's 10 game suspension was reduced to 4. Obviously a different case altogether. But I thought maybe it would look bad for a guy who beat the crap out of his girlfriend gets the same suspension as a guy who is charged as being generally aware that some air was taken out of footballs.

But again, this thing got personal early on, and neither side is willing to budge.

I'm not sure why Brady's lawyer offered the information that his cell phone was destroyed. It doesn't seem like a good move on their part. He'd have been better off just refusing to let them see his phone, whether it was destroyed or not. Is it possible that the league checked his phone records and found out he had gotten a new phone in March, and thus asked him what happened to his old phone? I just don't see the advantage of offering that information up. It's tough to explain, and defend.

Discovery.

They pretty much had to tell the nfl during appeal, or risk having to disclose when going to trial, and having a judge look poorly on the lack of disclosure during the appeal process.

They are generally held to looser evidentiary rules during appeal, but thats sort of a biggie, too. Withholding that bit of info could, in and of itself, be seen as undermining the process, and not cooperating. I don't think the nflpa was willing to risk that.....

That makes sense. Can't they still get him for not cooperating by destroying possible evidence?

It's also my understanding that while this makes Brady look bad, this won't really matter in court. It's more about the procedure. So he could still have a pretty fair shot.

[JAEBALL]

There's a report saying they almost bargained it down to one game but the league refused to seal all the findings so Brady said no to that.

Don't dislike Brady ... But take ur medicine and move on.

[faldor]

There's a report saying they almost bargained it down to one game but the league refused to seal all the findings so Brady said no to that.

Don't dislike Brady ... But take ur medicine and move on.

The NFLPA is saying those reports are rubbish, I think that's the word they used. I honestly don't think the NFL had any desire to cut a deal, so I'll choose to believe those reports are untrue. Just like so many before them.

[pilferk]

Not surprised at all that the suspension was upheld. I don't think the NFL had any intention of reaching a compromise. The only thing that made me think there was a slight possibility was that Greg Hardy's 10 game suspension was reduced to 4. Obviously a different case altogether. But I thought maybe it would look bad for a guy who beat the crap out of his girlfriend gets the same suspension as a guy who is charged as being generally aware that some air was taken out of footballs.

But again, this thing got personal early on, and neither side is willing to budge.

I'm not sure why Brady's lawyer offered the information that his cell phone was destroyed. It doesn't seem like a good move on their part. He'd have been better off just refusing to let them see his phone, whether it was destroyed or not. Is it possible that the league checked his phone records and found out he had gotten a new phone in March, and thus asked him what happened to his old phone? I just don't see the advantage of offering that information up. It's tough to explain, and defend.

Discovery.

They pretty much had to tell the nfl during appeal, or risk having to disclose when going to trial, and having a judge look poorly on the lack of disclosure during the appeal process.

They are generally held to looser evidentiary rules during appeal, but thats sort of a biggie, too. Withholding that bit of info could, in and of itself, be seen as undermining the process, and not cooperating. I don't think the nflpa was willing to risk that.....

That makes sense. Can't they still get him for not cooperating by destroying possible evidence?

It's also my understanding that while this makes Brady look bad, this won't really matter in court. It's more about the procedure. So he could still have a pretty fair shot.

1) they might be able to get him for not cooperating/destroying evidence (well, the nfl will argue they have gotten him) but not for lying about the evidence. Again, brady/et al don't want to give the judge any bad taste in their mouth. That kind of "surprise" wouldn't play well for them in court. And, given the evidentiary rules....the lie might be seen as a violation of the process they are arguing the nfl violated.

2) the nflpa and brady WANT it to be about procedure and policy.....the nfl is going to counterargue its about evidence and discretion of the commisioners office. It all depends on what the judge decides, and the fewer "surprises", the easier it is for Bradys team to keep the focus on procedure, and not evidence. Bradys team doesn't want anything to crop up that bolsters the nfls claims. This way, its all above biard when the judge reviews the case before deciding to hear it or not.

Honestly, i think it's slightly better than even odds (60/40) a federal judge even chooses to hear the case. It will likely depend whose docket it goes on. Given the collective bargaining agreement and the broad powers of discretion it gives the commish over all things not specifically mentioned....its not a slam dunk Bradys case gets heard.

If it does, i don't expect resolution before november/december.