Brady suspended for 4 games HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

That's the rumor that's leaking in NFL circles right now.

Sorry for this, I really am, but it's relevant to our previous discussions, so I thought it deserved mention.

Penance is Sophie Dee. I know she has a little extra meat on her, but something about her---damn (for the record, if you want to see her best work, combine it with the keyword "POV"):

 

[C-$]

Damn she is nasty.

 

[Pelkowski]

You can do better.

 

[IU Meathead]

That's the rumor that's leaking in NFL circles right now.

Sorry for this, I really am, but it's relevant to our previous discussions, so I thought it deserved mention.

Penance is Sophie Dee. I know she has a little extra meat on her, but something about her---damn (for the record, if you want to see her best work, combine it with the keyword "POV"):

Wonder if he'll be suspended 4 games or 4 regular season games? Will they count preseason games like Crean counts exhibition games?

 

[HA2740]

Wonder if he'll be suspended 4 games or 4 regular season games? Will they count preseason games like Crean counts exhibition games?

My thought is more likely a CTC suspension, but then again, Ray Rice's initial suspension was announced in July but didn't start at all until the day of the first regular season game. But then again, Ray Rice isn't a golden boy quarterback.

I think that 4 game number is being fueled in the rumor mill by the fact the Cheatriot's 5th game is @ Indy and ohhhhhh drama drama drama drama drama drama drama drama drama actual athletic competition drama drama drama drama drama.

I mean the Ginger Dunderhead may do it because there's no established rhyme or reason to player game suspensions, but if that's the specific number of games, it would clearly be to see if they can set the record for most viewed regular season game of all time that Sunday night.

 

[PhishPhan682]

You are a click whore.

 

[crossfire74]

You are a click whore.

But he's innocent and I can prove it in the lab and on a tshirt.

Signed
Out of my mind shooter and edums

 

[Zizkov]

That's the rumor that's leaking in NFL circles right now.

Sorry for this, I really am, but it's relevant to our previous discussions, so I thought it deserved mention.

Penance is Sophie Dee. I know she has a little extra meat on her, but something about her---damn (for the record, if you want to see her best work, combine it with the keyword "POV"):

Why would he be suspended? I thought he didn't do anything wrong.

 

[FL33]

Damn she is nasty.

Liberals like fat skanks.

Fact.

 

[IU Meathead]

Liberals like fat skanks.

Fact.

And hairy armpits.

 

[HA2740]

And hairy armpits.

With tons of government-provided morning after pills.

 

[IU Meathead]

With tons of government-provided morning after pills.

I can show some non liberals:

 

[PhishPhan682]

That first tatted broad made it move

 

[twenty02]

Last one is awesome.

The fat chick posted in the OP.....made me want to vomit

 

[Warison]

Last one is awesome.

The fat chick posted in the OP.....made me want to vomit

Undercleave > anything

 

[IU_Cramer]

My thought is more likely a CTC suspension, but then again, Ray Rice's initial suspension was announced in July but didn't start at all until the day of the first regular season game. But then again, Ray Rice isn't a golden boy quarterback.

I think that 4 game number is being fueled in the rumor mill by the fact the Cheatriot's 5th game is @ Indy and ohhhhhh drama drama drama drama drama drama drama drama drama actual athletic competition drama drama drama drama drama.

I mean the Ginger Dunderhead may do it because there's no established rhyme or reason to player game suspensions, but if that's the specific number of games, it would clearly be to see if they can set the record for most viewed regular season game of all time that Sunday night.

I'd say there's a big difference between telling underlings to deflate footballs and decking out a woman with a punch harder than anything Mayweather threw at Manny.

 

[HA2740]

I'd say there's a big difference between telling underlings to deflate footballs and decking out a woman with a punch harder than anything Mayweather threw at Manny.

Yeah, the former actually has a direct relation to the play of the professional sports league from which you could be suspended.

 

[IU_Cramer]

Yeah, the former actually has a direct relation to the play of the professional sports league from which you could be suspended.

I forgot in our hero-worship society it's totally cool to just look past what is done off the field when considering what is done on the field. If you do something illegal (and last time I checked punching someone, especially to the point that they are knocked unconscious due to your action is illegal) it should have repercussions to your ability to continue to do your job on the field. Much like the real world where in many cases doing something illegal would result in the loss of your job, or at least reprimands there as well.

 

[IU_Cramer]

Just to make up for my semi-serious post.

 

[HA2740]

I forgot in our hero-worship society it's totally cool to just look past what is done off the field when considering what is done on the field. If you do something illegal (and last time I checked punching someone, especially to the point that they are knocked unconscious due to your action is illegal) it should have repercussions to your ability to continue to do your job on the field. Much like the real world where in many cases doing something illegal would result in the loss of your job, or at least reprimands there as well.

Actually most states have employment protection laws that prohibit you from being terminated from conduct unrelated to your job requirements. Now the NFL and individual franchises can side-step that with the whole argument about damaging the employer's public image (unless, of course they fvck it up and have to pay Ray Rice $1.58 million in a wrongful termination settlement).

And look Helen Lovejoy, I never said you shouldn't punish Ray Rice or others for off-field conduct. I merely pointed out what Brady did actually impacted actual football game(s). So in a greater moral scheme, no cheating in a professional football game is not as bad as punching your girlfriend. But the two incidents are not being judged side-by-side at the pearly gates. The determination is who gets sat for football games and how much pay earned from playing in said football games gets docked. Punishment within that context and only within that context calls for some readjusting in the egregiousness scales from how they will be judged by God.

 

[IU_Cramer]

Come on now though. Did those deflated balls REALLY affect the game(s) all that much? Is it easier to catch a deflated ball? Sure, but it is also harder to throw a deflated football with the same accuracy and distance as a fully inflated ball. I'm not here to actually defend Brady and the Evil Empire. They have shown time and time again that they are willing to cut as many corners and play it as close to the line and over the line whenever they feel like they can get away with it. I'm just not thinking that these balls being deflated a bit changed the dynamic of the game all that much.

There are ways for businesses to get around those laws and you provided one in your post. Many business can side-step those laws claiming that the action is damaging to their public image. Does Bank of America want a wife-beater on their payroll, especially in today's world of social media outrage? I doubt it.

 

[HA2740]

Did those deflated balls REALLY affect the game(s) all that much? Is it easier to catch a deflated ball?

Quantifying the impact is kind of moot; we're not talking about adjusting Brady's career stats or pointlessly vacating wins. The logical conclusion is that if it didn't matter, you wouldn't have your ball boys make it a point to deflate them. And you can/should be punished for cheating. The impact of the cheating is just an aggravating consideration.

 

[Zizkov]

Come on now though. Did those deflated balls REALLY affect the game(s) all that much? Is it easier to catch a deflated ball? Sure, but it is also harder to throw a deflated football with the same accuracy and distance as a fully inflated ball. I'm not here to actually defend Brady and the Evil Empire. They have shown time and time again that they are willing to cut as many corners and play it as close to the line and over the line whenever they feel like they can get away with it. I'm just not thinking that these balls being deflated a bit changed the dynamic of the game all that much.

There are ways for businesses to get around those laws and you provided one in your post. Many business can side-step those laws claiming that the action is damaging to their public image. Does Bank of America want a wife-beater on their payroll, especially in today's world of social media outrage? I doubt it.

Brady has admitted that he prefers to handle deflated balls.

 

[twenty02]

Cramer, if it didn't matter, why do it?

The analysis that five thirty eight did, regarding the patriots very low fumble rate since 2006 is interesting as well.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

That's the rumor that's leaking in NFL circles right now.

Sorry for this, I really am, but it's relevant to our previous discussions, so I thought it deserved mention.

Penance is Sophie Dee. I know she has a little extra meat on her, but something about her---damn (for the record, if you want to see her best work, combine it with the keyword "POV"):

Brady or not, how do you punish a guy for "probably maybe more likely than not" violating a rule?

Either sack up and say he did it, or let it go and change the procedure.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Cramer, if it didn't matter, why do it?

The analysis that five thirty eight did, regarding the patriots very low fumble rate since 2006 is interesting as well.

Actually, 538 didn't do that analysis; they debunked it. It was (partially) faulty research by some other website that got traction, and 538 (among others) tore it apart.

 

[outside shooter]

VERY interesting development, per Mike Florio at Pro Football Talk:

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

The investigators decided, arbitrarily, that referee Anderson was mistaken.

"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.) And that’s why Wells should have concluded based on the scientific evidence that the question of whether tampering occurred in connection with the AFC title game is inconclusive."

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...n-on-a-key-piece-of-evidence/#comment-4234914

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

VERY interesting development, per Mike Florio at Pro Football Talk:

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

The investigators decided, arbitrarily, that referee Anderson was mistaken.

"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.) And that’s why Wells should have concluded based on the scientific evidence that the question of whether tampering occurred in connection with the AFC title game is inconclusive."

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...n-on-a-key-piece-of-evidence/#comment-4234914

 

[HA2740]

VERY interesting development.......

Your post should have stopped right here because nothing you have ever posted has come remotely close to qualifying as "interesting", much less "very interesting" with the stylistic choice of superfluous capital letters for the adverb.

 

[outside shooter]

NO

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

NO

The truth is the dude called himself "The Deflator," and complained about Brady not giving him enough respect for what he was doing for him.

You have to be borderline retarded to honestly think Brady is innocent in all this.

 

[outside shooter]

If McNally changed the pressure of the footballs, the data suggests that one of two things is true:

a) he took out about 0.26 psi of air on average, thus getting the 1.39 psi average pressure drop predicted by one of the two gauges that might have been used, vs. a 1.13 psi drop as predicted by the ideal gas law. This ignores the effect of water on the footballs, which probably should not be ignored, and could account for all of the "extra" 0.26 psi drop

or

b) he put in about 0.12 psi of air on average, thus getting the 1.01 psi average pressure drop predicted by one of the two gauges that might have been used, vs. a 1.13 psi drop as predicted by the ideal gas law.

Yes, the data does not even make it clear whether he took air out, put air in, or neither.

The officials measured the drop in pressure four of the Colts footballs. Using one gauge they measured a drop of 0.37 psi. Using another gauge they measured 0.56 psi. Average of the two gauges: 0.46 psi drop. The drop in pressure of the Colts footballs is thus inconsistent with the valid scientific prediction of the ideal gas law that footballs will lose 1.13 psi in pressure, just due to the temperature drop. For some reason, the fact that the Colts footballs apparently did not obey the PHYSICAL LAWS OF OUR UNIVERSE has not, to this point, concerned anyone. It should. But...it is easy to explain!

The officials didn't even have time to test all of the Colts footballs because the 13-minute halftime break was ending. The Colts footballs had thus been in the heated room for at least 10 minutes before they were ever tested. They warmed up, maybe halfway to room temperature, which would explain a measurement of about half of the drop that was expected: 1.13/2 = 0.52 psi, saw 0.37-0.56 psi.

The Colts partly warmed-up footballs were then used as the "control" for the earlier-analyzed Patriots footballs. A ENORMOUS degree of importance, in the Wells report, was placed into the fact that the difference in the drop in pressure of the Colts footballs vs. the drop in pressure of the Patriots footballs was statistically significant. They even had a Princeton professor verify the statistical difference. The difference in the order in which the two groups of footballs were analyzed, as they were of course warming up toward room temperature, could fully account for this statistical significance, however!

 

[outside shooter]

By the way, Florio's posts today follow email discussions that I had with him THIS MORNING.

I pointed out the discrepancy where the scientists, in a key moment, arbitrarily chose to ignore the memory of the referee.

Florio replied,

and I quote,

"You're right! I can't believe that I did not notice that. Thanks!"

This is why he posted: "Earlier today, I spent way too much time hunting-and-pecking my way through an item regarding the problems with the two pressure gauges used to measure the Patriots footballs at halftime of the AFC title game. I spent so much time focused on the nuances that I didn’t give proper attention to perhaps the most obvious problem of all."

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

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

If McNally changed the pressure of the footballs, the data suggests that one of two things is true:

a) he took out about 0.26 psi of air on average, thus getting the 1.39 psi average pressure drop predicted by one of the two gauges that might have been used, vs. a 1.13 psi drop as predicted by the ideal gas law. This ignores the effect of water on the footballs, which probably should not be ignored, and could account for all of the "extra" 0.26 psi drop

or

b) he put in about 0.12 psi of air on average, thus getting the 1.01 psi average pressure drop predicted by one of the two gauges that might have been used, vs. a 1.13 psi drop as predicted by the ideal gas law.

Yes, the data does not even make it clear whether he took air out, put air in, or neither.

The officials measured the drop in pressure four of the Colts footballs. Using one gauge they measured a drop of 0.37 psi. Using another gauge they measured 0.56 psi. Average of the two gauges: 0.46 psi drop. The drop in pressure of the Colts footballs is thus inconsistent with the valid scientific prediction of the ideal gas law that footballs will lose 1.13 psi in pressure, just due to the temperature drop. For some reason, the fact that the Colts footballs apparently did not obey the PHYSICAL LAWS OF OUR UNIVERSE has not, to this point, concerned anyone. It should. But...it is easy to explain!

The officials didn't even have time to test all of the Colts footballs because the 13-minute halftime break was ending. The Colts footballs had thus been in the heated room for at least 10 minutes before they were ever tested. They warmed up, maybe halfway to room temperature, which would explain a measurement of about half of the drop that was expected: 1.13/2 = 0.52 psi, saw 0.37-0.56 psi.

The Colts partly warmed-up footballs were then used as the "control" for the earlier-analyzed Patriots footballs. A ENORMOUS degree of importance, in the Wells report, was placed into the fact that the difference in the drop in pressure of the Colts footballs vs. the drop in pressure of the Patriots footballs was statistically significant. They even had a Princeton professor verify the statistical difference. The difference in the order in which the two groups of footballs were analyzed, as they were of course warming up toward room temperature, could fully account for this statistical significance, however!

Once again, you ignore all of the evidence in the report which points to this being a pattern. Regardless of what happened vs. the Colts, the Deflator clearly was doing Brady a favor by keeping the balls at a lower pressure than they should have been.

This is something that's been ongoing, not just one game.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

By the way, Florio's posts today follow email discussions that I had with him THIS MORNING.

OH WELL THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING.

 

[HA2740]

If McNally changed the pressure of the footballs, the data suggests that one of two things is true:

a) he took out about 0.26 psi of air on average, thus getting the 1.39 psi average pressure drop predicted by one of the two gauges that might have been used, vs. a 1.13 psi drop as predicted by the ideal gas law. This ignores the effect of water on the footballs, which probably should not be ignored, and could account for all of the "extra" 0.26 psi drop

or

b) he put in about 0.12 psi of air on average, thus getting the 1.01 psi average pressure drop predicted by one of the two gauges that might have been used, vs. a 1.13 psi drop as predicted by the ideal gas law.

Yes, the data does not even make it clear whether he took air out, put air in, or neither.

The officials measured the drop in pressure four of the Colts footballs. Using one gauge they measured a drop of 0.37 psi. Using another gauge they measured 0.56 psi. Average of the two gauges: 0.46 psi drop. The drop in pressure of the Colts footballs is thus inconsistent with the valid scientific prediction of the ideal gas law that footballs will lose 1.13 psi in pressure, just due to the temperature drop. For some reason, the fact that the Colts footballs apparently did not obey the PHYSICAL LAWS OF OUR UNIVERSE has not, to this point, concerned anyone. It should. But...it is easy to explain!

The officials didn't even have time to test all of the Colts footballs because the 13-minute halftime break was ending. The Colts footballs had thus been in the heated room for at least 10 minutes before they were ever tested. They warmed up, maybe halfway to room temperature, which would explain a measurement of about half of the drop that was expected: 1.13/2 = 0.52 psi, saw 0.37-0.56 psi.

The Colts partly warmed-up footballs were then used as the "control" for the earlier-analyzed Patriots footballs. A ENORMOUS degree of importance, in the Wells report, was placed into the fact that the difference in the drop in pressure of the Colts footballs vs. the drop in pressure of the Patriots footballs was statistically significant. They even had a Princeton professor verify the statistical difference. The difference in the order in which the two groups of footballs were analyzed, as they were of course warming up toward room temperature, could fully account for this statistical significance, however!

I know it is beating a dead horse, but the obvious answer is outside shooter. He most demonstrates the kind of obsessive behavior and ability to slip from the edge of sanity you see in actual serial killers. Plus he's a middle-age white guy that claims to have advance educational degrees - also very common traits of serial killers.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I see you've mastered the multi-quote.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

By the way, Florio's posts today follow email discussions that I had with him THIS MORNING.

I pointed out the discrepancy where the scientists, in a key moment, arbitrarily chose to ignore the memory of the referee.

Florio replied,

and I quote,

"You're right! I can't believe that I did not notice that. Thanks!"

Seriously. I'm nominating this for douchiest post of the year.

 

[outside shooter]

If my job were to make sure that the officials to not inflate the footballs to 13 psi, as they are trained to do, but rather to 12.5 psi, as the rulebook allows, my job would then be to make sure that the footballs were PROPERLY deflated, within legal limits. If I have to argue that point every week, then I am always arguing for legal deflation. I might refer to myself, jokingly, as the deflator, because I have to argue for it time and time again.

But I am only arguing about the scientific aspects of ths case, which are summed up rather well by the Steelers fan Mr. Florio:

"Wells should have concluded based on the scientific evidence that the question of whether tampering occurred in connection with the AFC title game is inconclusive"

 

[HA2740]

By the way, Florio's posts today follow email discussions that I had with him THIS MORNING.

Picture of who OS is referring to as "Mike Florio":