Belichick Runs Brady Over With Bus

Submitted by ndscott50 on January 22nd, 2015 at 10:38 AM

Or not I guess.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/22/belichick-subtly-points-finger-at-brady/

It seems like he is really throwing Brady under the bus on this one.  I guess we will see what Brady has to say at 4 but it seems like the coach could have presented more of a united front here.

(changed title as people did not care for the joke)

Comments

The_Mad Hatter

January 22nd, 2015 at 11:12 AM ^

Sometimes I think that maybe they should be legal at the pro level.  We're talking about grown men, trying to earn a living doing things that require exceptional physical strength.  Who are we to say what they can and can't put into their bodies?  Baseball games were certainly a lot more interesting when all the batters were roided up.

Then again, that would put players not willing to take the health risks at a significant disadvantage.

Just spit balling here, as I don't care much about inflateghazzi.

superstringer

January 22nd, 2015 at 11:40 AM ^

^^ THIS ^^

A few years ago, I remember reports that GIRLS as young as 9 were trying PEDs, because they thought it would make them look better.  It was all trickle-down from boys using it in college, then HS, then junior high, for performance and to make themselves look more athletic and muscular.  WOTS converted that into "it'll make girls look better too," and hence, girls started using it.

All of this came from pros using them, and teen and preteens thinking, well if it works for them..  So this is the very real concern.

But as far as the players go, if they want to use, then that's their choice, I have no problem.  FRANKLY -- I put the PED use issues squarely on the shoulders of the players' unions. If the majority of players truly want PEDs out of their sport b/c it creates an unfair choice (use PEDs and suffer later, or, lose your job on the team now), then the unions should be fighting the PEDs left and right. The NFLPA and MLBPA and NBPA should require testing of their members that goes way, way beyond what owners want (who, frankly, should be indifferent, if not actually favoring PEDs). But unions don't seem to want to fight it all that aggressively. So stop thinking the players are hurt by the PEDs, because if that really was true, they'd be doing something about it collectively.

But the collective decisions by pro players to use PEDs has consequences beyond just themselves.

The_Mad Hatter

January 22nd, 2015 at 12:07 PM ^

were not using PED's.  That sounds like some grade A media fearmongering.

Probably one girl that took some of her older brother's HGH thinking that her boobs would grow faster.  Mom flips out, calls channel 2, media freak the hell out omfg what about the children ensues.

Other than that I agree with your post.

robpollard

January 22nd, 2015 at 12:51 PM ^

I have a very hard time believing 2nd graders are using PEDs. However, once they are in middle school or high-school? For sure.

http://www.rasmussen.edu/degrees/justice-studies/blog/performance-enhan…

For example, this study says 4.5% of 9th-graders have used steriod pills or shots without a prescription. And that's not including/considering other PEDs (e.g., Adderral).

If we have Rivals, 24/7, Scout etc ranking/sorting athletes as soon as they get to 6th or 7th grade (if not earlier), you can bet plenty of parents and kids are going to consider what they need to do to move up in the rankings and stay "competitive" to get that scholarship/make that team/etc.

Deltroit3030

January 22nd, 2015 at 3:42 PM ^

The problem with letting guys take PED's in College or Pros.. and just saying, "anybody who  wants to, take them".. is that there are a lot of players who don't want to take all the risks that come with PED's but they want to play the sport. Not really fair for guys who don't want the side effects but are good enough to play in these leagues without a performance enhancer.

BornInA2

January 22nd, 2015 at 12:57 PM ^

Cheating is cheating. Defining cheating on a person-by-person basis based on what *they* think *should* be okay doesn't really work, right? I'm guessing a whole shitpile of NFL receivers would be all-in for just one foot inbounds and a return of stickum.

And I'm guess OL guys would be aces with outright tackling pass rushers, because you know, that's not like taking performance enhacing drugs, right?

Hardware Sushi

January 22nd, 2015 at 10:56 AM ^

This is a dumb take, much dumber than the one you criticize.

Equating underinflated balls to steroids is like equating driving 2 miles over the speed limit to drunk driving.

The punishment for the crime is in the rules. Just like scuffing baseballs, curving hockey sticks, and a bunch of other minor competitive offenses that can occur in sports. Page 96 of the NFL rulebook.

ak47

January 22nd, 2015 at 11:23 AM ^

It is a perfect analogy because in both cases a large portion of players knowingly break a rule and the one's who get caught get punished.  I'm not arguing that they have equal impacts on the game or that the punishment should be equal.  The point of the analogy was that just because other players break the same rule that doesn't mean getting caught breaking that rule shouldn't be punished.  Congrats to Peyton and Aaron that they have not gotten caught doing it yet but if they do they should get punished too.  The number of players who break a rule doesn't change its value as a rule. 

superstringer

January 22nd, 2015 at 11:49 AM ^

As Jessie Pinkman once said:  "Sometimes you need a criminal lawyer, and sometimes you need a CRIMINAL lawyer."

Paraphrased:  There is cheating, and there is CHEATING.

Is deflating a football more like [A} offensive lineman holding a defender's jersey under his armpit, where it's hidden from the ref, or [B] using PEDs?  Because [A] happens all the time, is part of the game, and when it's called its called.  (I don't recall anyone saying Hannah or Montoya shouldn't be in the HOF because they were occasionally called for holding.)  But [B] is generally viewed as an extreme form of cheating that is so out of bounds it'll keep you out of the hall of fame.

Seems deflating is like holding.  We have QBs admitting it happens all the time.  Morever, the NFL apparently lets teams "doctor" the balls to their QBs' liking -- scuffing the surfaces, applying weird oils, etc. -- so while this is a technical violation it's hardly outside the spirit of the rules. 

Now, if a team tampered with the OTHER teams' balls so that THEIR QB would be disadvantaged, that's totally different.  But making your QB feel better about the balls is entirely permitted, it's just that this one form is technically not permitted. 

I'm not impressed.

ak47

January 22nd, 2015 at 11:57 AM ^

Right but when you get caught holding you take the 10 yard penalty and nobody argues that what you did was within the rules.  Like I said I'm not arguing the punishments should be the same or the outrage should be the same but people are trying to argue that this has no material impact on the game and thus should not be worth talking about.  That is crazy to me.

How can you not think this could impact a game.  If a qb can throw the ball 10 yards further that can be the difference between a td or interception.  If a wr can make a catch he couldn't with a fully inflated ball it could keep a crucial drive alive, if a player is able to grip a ball better and thus fumbles less it impacts the game.   Maybe it had no material impact on the game but it could have and thus when you get caught you get punished and reprimanded.  The fact that is happens a lot doesn't mean you shouldn't get reprimanded.

lilpenny1316

January 22nd, 2015 at 10:52 AM ^

The league has bent over backwards to make this a passing league.  If you cough on a receiver, you get a flag.  You touch a QB after he throws the ball and it's a personal foul.  And they want to go the extra step of doctoring the balls.  

They are given enough lattitude within the rules that they have a built in advantage every game.  They should stop being crybabies because the balls have too much air in them and just play the game.

bluebyyou

January 22nd, 2015 at 10:46 AM ^

This whole thing is f***ing ridiculous.  That the NFL has managed to suck themselves into this discussion makes you question just whom is running the show.  

What I still find amazing is that no one is talking about the relationship between temperature and pressure except on MGoblog.

ak47

January 22nd, 2015 at 10:49 AM ^

Because it wouldn't account for a 2 psi difference and would have impacted the colts balls at the exact same rate if the issue was weather.  Or because apparently the Patriots did this against the Ravens as well when it was 50 degrees at kickoff.  Or because they had also done this against the colts in the regular season which is part of why the Colts knew to keep the balls so they could prove it. Or because it was only 11 of 12 balls and if it wad due to weather it would have been all 12.  I mean the list of reasons that weather is a weak excuse is pretty lengthy.

Huma

January 22nd, 2015 at 11:14 AM ^

Someone else did the math and showed it would have needed to be 140 degrees. Also, even if 85 is the right number, how would the patriots have filled the balls with 85 degree air unless they specifically intended to do so to cause the balls to deflate at ambient temp?

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

SCarolinaMaize

January 22nd, 2015 at 11:29 AM ^

normally put out warm air, not sure what the exact temperature of the air, but it is definately above room temps.  

I don't really care either way on this subject, but if Brady likes lower pressures and instructs his equipment manager to inflate them to the lowest allowed pressure, it is not out of the realm of possibilities that they could drop below league policy over the course of a game.

ak47

January 22nd, 2015 at 12:01 PM ^

Then he should either get his balls removed by the ref over the course of the game as they drop below the league threshold or his equipment manager should inflate the balls slightly more than normal to account for the temperature.  If you choose to have the balls at the lowest possible range then you run the risk of having the balls being taken from you and getting fined when the weather changes.  The risks of living life on the edge.

pescadero

January 22nd, 2015 at 12:41 PM ^

If you choose to have the balls at the lowest possible range then you run the risk of having the balls being taken from you and getting fined when the weather changes.

 

That would be creating new rules... if you tamper with the ball after inspection, it's a fine. If it changes through no action of yours - the ball can be removed from play but there is no mechanism in the rules allowing punishment.

pescadero

January 22nd, 2015 at 12:37 PM ^

Someone else did the math and showed it would have needed to be 140 degrees.

 

Then they're really bad at math.

 

Also, even if 85 is the right number, how would the patriots have filled the balls with 85 degree air unless they specifically intended to do so to cause the balls to deflate at ambient temp?

 

Maybe the Patriots specifically intended to do so to cause the balls to deflate at ambient temp... which as far as I can read would be perfectly legal.

 

The balls have to pass the inspection a couple hours before the game, and you can't tamper with them after the inspection. Filling them with heated air would be legal as far as I can tell.

As to why the Patriots balls showed more deflation - maybe they started less inflated.
 

Rules require balls to be inflated between 12.5psig and 13.5psig.

Assume:
Colts filled their balls with 70F air to 13.5psig
Patriots filled their balls with 90F air to 12.5psig.

Both would be legal and would pass the official inspection 2.25 hours prior to the game.

Drop the temperature to 50F:
Colts balls will be at 12.5psig (just barely legal)
Patriots balls will be at 10.5psig (2psi under legal)
 

aplatypus

January 22nd, 2015 at 12:18 PM ^

there is no evidence it was done in any previous games. 

And dude, give it a rest. The refs reinflated the balls at the half so they were equal in the second half, in which the Pats further destroyed the Colts. I don't know if Tom Brady stole your wannabe girlfriend in high school or something, but chill out, you are way too worked up about this when 90% of the people on earth think it's a stupid discussion to bergin with. 

sasmjjsly

January 22nd, 2015 at 10:46 AM ^

Let's pay attention to one thing and one thing only during this entire saga: let's see how many former or current QBs come out and condemn the Patriots over this. I'm predicting that number will be ZERO.

ak47

January 22nd, 2015 at 11:27 AM ^

And if a cop chooses to give you a ticket for that they legally can. And by the sound of it it seems more like going 66 in a 55.  Everyone drives 10 over the speed limit but going 11 over is what is going to make the difference and get you a ticket.  Maybe everyone deflates the ball but the Patriots took it a step too far with a 2 psi differnce and anyone who has ever played catch with a football in cold air knows it is harder to catch because the ball has less give.

CompleteLunacy

January 22nd, 2015 at 11:57 AM ^

But usually you don't hold press conferences and make news cycles out of a speeding ticket. That's kind of the point here. It's curious why the NFL and ESPN have latched so hard on this storyline, if only because the news thrives on "controversies", no matter how small. Judging by the number of threads on the subject here - a football blog not covering the NFL or based in either super bowl city location - seems to indicate that it's working.

If the investigation found any wrongdoing, even just a bit of negligence, GREAT! Give the Pats a paltry fine and move on. Like a speeding ticket.

But anyone comparing this in any way to "Spygate" is just...ugh.