No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Here is my missed connection again, this time with more flirting for ncs (I think the nudity in the avatar is sufficent):

NotBob, I saw you on 44th Street (wink). You were on the phone talking about sports, perhaps (hair flip), and I was with a colleague walking to a meeting (wink wink). I did not say hi -- I apologize profusely (hair flip), I forgot your real name (wink wink) and I didn't want to interrupt your call (which may not have been about sports) (wink wink) and say Hi NotBob (hair flip), which would have confused my colleague (butt wiggle) and also perhaps you (wink wink).

Now I remember your real name (butt wiggle, hair flip wink wink). It came to me about 5 min after we passed you (wink wink).

I hope all is well with you. Lookin' good! (sexy smile, hair flip, butt wiggle, wink wink)

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by greatwhitenorthchick

Here is my missed connection again, this time with more flirting for ncs (I think the nudity in the avatar is sufficent):

NotBob, I saw you on 44th Street (wink). You were on the phone talking about sports, perhaps (hair flip), and I was with a colleague walking to a meeting (wink wink). I did not say hi -- I apologize profusely (hair flip), I forgot your real name (wink wink) and I didn't want to interrupt your call (which may not have been about sports) (wink wink) and say Hi NotBob (hair flip), which would have confused my colleague (butt wiggle) and also perhaps you (wink wink).

Now I remember your real name (butt wiggle, hair flip wink wink). It came to me about 5 min after we passed you (wink wink).

I hope all is well with you. Lookin' good! (sexy smile, hair flip, butt wiggle, wink wink)

If I were NotBob, I would have read it this way in the first place.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

If I were NotBob, I would have read it this way in the first place.

You aren't NotBob and you still read it that way in the first place.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Sorry, can't quote because the other thread is closed.

I think the idea that the NFL lets each team doctor its own footballs (within limits) is silly. Teams haven't been playing with the same balls for years. In particular, the idea that the Colts complained about the Patriots *before* this game and the NFL let things proceed as they did makes a mockery of the idea that they really care about the integrity of play. I think the whole ruckus is highly overblown, for all the reasons expressed by Charlie Pierce, who has my proxy on this. That said, I'm not interested in defending Brady, for the reasons stated by Pierce. I am somewhat more inclined to defend the team, again for the reasons stated by Pierce. The penalties levied by the NFL are highly proportionate to the league's desire to appear to be tough, but not to the gravity of what happened relative to other things the league has ever penalized.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Sorry, can't quote because the other thread is closed.

I think the idea that the NFL lets each team doctor its own footballs (within limits) is silly. Teams haven't been playing with the same balls for years. In particular, the idea that the Colts complained about the Patriots *before* this game and the NFL let things proceed as they did makes a mockery of the idea that they really care about the integrity of play. I think the whole ruckus is highly overblown, for all the reasons expressed by Charlie Pierce, who has my proxy on this. That said, I'm not interested in defending Brady, for the reasons stated by Pierce. I am somewhat more inclined to defend the team, again for the reasons stated by Pierce. The penalties levied by the NFL are highly proportionate to the league's desire to appear to be tough, but not to the gravity of what happened relative to other things the league has ever penalized.

I can't read the thing, it's too long, and it's more like what Hitler's daughter might write about her dad. Would you at least paraphrase and redact down to what you feel?

Or just answer this- do you feel the Pats fumbling less than anyone, and the balls being low on air are unrelated?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I can't read the thing, it's too long, and it's more like what Hitler's daughter might write about her dad. Would you at least paraphrase and redact down to what you feel?

Hitler had a daughter? I thought he was unmarried?

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Hitler had a daughter? I thought he was unmarried?

I thought his balls were deflated?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Hitler had a daughter? I thought he was unmarried?

I'm Jewish so I've never focused on hitler's family details. Maybe he was never married, but that doesn't mean he couldn't have a kid. He broke a few Church rules, I believe.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Hitler had a daughter? I thought he was unmarried?

Let me guess: When you were growing up, your parents taught you "The first one can come anytime. The rest all take nine months."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I can't read the thing, it's too long, and it's more like what Hitler's daughter might write about her dad. Would you at least paraphrase and redact down to what you feel?

If you don't want to read it, don't read it.

Or just answer this- do you feel the Pats fumbling less than anyone, and the balls being low on air are unrelated?

I have not spent a lot of time reading this stuff, and maybe for that reason am not convinced there's anything more than an interesting correlation.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If you don't want to read it, don't read it.



I have not spent a lot of time reading this stuff, and maybe for that reason am not convinced there's anything more than an interesting correlation.

Smh.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If you don't want to read it, don't read it.



I have not spent a lot of time reading this stuff, and maybe for that reason am not convinced there's anything more than an interesting correlation.

I'm convinced there's not actually a correlation. Or even an abnormal fumble rate.

http://statsbylopez.com/2015/05/09/glmm/

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I have not spent a lot of time reading this stuff, and maybe for that reason am not convinced there's anything more than an interesting correlation.

If you don't want to read it, then don't read it.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health..._pressure.html

Unlike Burger's link, this one deals pretty fairly with the full debate over the fumble issue.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I think the idea that the NFL lets each team doctor its own footballs (within limits) is silly. Teams haven't been playing with the same balls for years.

I completely agree. But I don't see what this has to do with anything. The NFL acceded to Brady's (and other quarterback's) requests to use their own balls as long as those balls met certain minimum standards. This wasn't good enough for Brady, so he broke the rule. And no one is going to convince me he wasn't instructing those guys to break the rule.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

In particular, the idea that the Colts complained about the Patriots *before* this game and the NFL let things proceed as they did makes a mockery of the idea that they really care about the integrity of play.

I hadn't heard it was before the game, but if they had, I agree with you there. Although, it seems possible that the refs were told to really check the balls carefully when submitted before the game and they checked out. And then they may have noticed they were underinflated sometime during the first half and checked them and switched them out at halftime.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I think the whole ruckus is highly overblown, for all the reasons expressed by Charlie Pierce, who has my proxy on this.

Although I generally agree that 2 games is probably appropriate, here's the problem with your article:

"Almost nobody believed anything anyone from the Patriots said back then, and the only way to keep yourself sane at all was to remind yourself that this entire mishegas was over the amount of air present in the footballs used in the first half of a 45-7 game."

The fact that Brady refused to cooperate with the investigation is telling to me. I think they've been deflating balls for years. But at the very least, they surely deflated the balls in the close-fought, cold-weather Baltimore game the week before. And Brady may not be handling this well with all the clumsy cover-up, but he and the Patriots (and the NFL, for that matter), have succeeded in limiting scrutiny by everyone looking at this to the first half of the Indy blowout. Ridiculous. Like I said, a properly-inflated ball is much harder to catch in the cold because it's much slicker and harder to grip. The outcome of that Baltimore game could easily have been affected by the manipulation of the footballs Brady used.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

That said, I'm not interested in defending Brady, for the reasons stated by Pierce. I am somewhat more inclined to defend the team, again for the reasons stated by Pierce. The penalties levied by the NFL are highly proportionate to the league's desire to appear to be tough, but not to the gravity of what happened relative to other things the league has ever penalized.

Agree. But you can't separate Brady's actions from the organization. And you guys got caught for fucking filming another team's practice. If the NFL is going to increase the severity of punishment for players based on past infractions, I don't know why they shouldn't with the teams.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

And you guys got caught for fucking filming another team's practice. If the NFL is going to increase the severity of punishment for players based on past infractions, I don't know why they shouldn't with the teams.

No. They filmed the Jets' defensive coaches (and their signals) from their own sidelines. They were allowed to watch the Jets' defensive coaches from their own sidelines, and they were allowed to film the Jets' defensive coaches from other places, but they were not allowed to film the Jets' defensive coaches from their own sidelines. And there again, I come out in the same place: They broke a rule, but the collective hysteria about it is grossly out of all proportion to what they did. While a rule is a rule, it's hard for me to get excited about the breaking of stupid rules. Both episodes remind of the public shaming that Jon Ronson wrote his most recent book about -- there's something irresistible about jumping on the "Patriots are cheaters" bandwagon, and there's something irresistible about inflating what they actually did. Hank knows they cheated for years every time they didn't fumble the ball, and you know they filmed other teams' practices. The narrative is just too strong.