MattM

Any ideas as to what is on TB's phone that he so badly (at the risk of up to a year off) wanted to protect? Remember, he didn't need to turn the phone over to Wells, he was allowed to produce just the texts on the deflategate topic and communications log with the relevant folks involved there, but still chose not to. Remember, too, that the only folks who might have access to the phone were HIS lawyers, who have an ethical duty to not say anything to ANYONE about what they saw on the phone, at the risk of disbarment if they violate that. Personally, my best guess is that there are things on there either relating to the deflation and/or even other similar cheating-related items, but who knows, since he wouldn't let anyone see anything. I think it's certainly fair to infer that there are bad things for him on the phone. Seems pretty obvious to me. What do others think?

As you can see from the report, they asked for the balls to be at the legal limit. If so, why the need for a needle at all? The mere fact that they gave the locker room equipment guy (who is NOT the guy there responsible for prepping the balls, but is instead the guy in the room with the refs at ball measurement time) a needle says all you need to know here. There is only one conclusion from that--they planned to use the needle to lower the pressure in the balls below the allowable lower limit. Full stop. Case closed.

But they did EXACTLY THAT in the Spygate case--they sent a memo saying "don't do this" and yet the Cheats* did exactly what they were told not to do. How many times do they get a pass on crap like this? Ridiculous. During Spygate two separate NFL Compet, Cttee members told the NYT that it was just the Patriots* being brought before them on rules violation allegations over and over....

On the first point, his lawyers likely would have had to make some kind of affirmation about their search being full and complete, which is probably a big part of why your scenario didn't happen. A major law firm is not going to lie for a client, even Tom Brady. All of which again speaks volumes about what was probably on the phone (nothing good for Tom). On the second point, I was able to access the article this morning, but couldn't share it onFB. Now even the link doesn't work for me and I checked the mobile version of the Onion's webpage and can't find it. Add that to the list of odd, along with the various media outlets (many of which (like ESPN and NBC) have League ties and contracts) leaping to the Pats** defense.

Brady and his lawyers were give the option of producing the phone log/texts themselves without turning the phone over. He refused. I wonder why? Remember that we know he did reach out to the two schlubs (repeatedly) after the story broke--we know that from them. His refusal alone should be worth 8 games off. On the interview point, as new evidence surfaces investigators often need to go back and talk again to witnesses--common practice. Here interestingly they wanted to talk to McNally about some newly discovered texts from Brady. See a pattern here? You quote Kraft's response statement as if it were gospel. Simple question--have you read any of the report? If not, why not? The beauty of the Internet age is that it's all there to see for those who want to see it.

Why didn't he turn over his texts/call log to them? The League said he didn't have to turn over his phone and were only interested in his communications on this matter and with those individuals--they were willing to let Brady and his lawyers do the record combing to come up with those, but he still said no. Similarly, why didn't the Pats* allow the interview of McNally about communications with Brady? In fact, they didn't even pass the request along to McNally or his lawyer. Those are all the acts of the innocent, right? Also just have to love the smarmy "We good, bro" vibe of Brady to those guys after they got caught. Guys that clearly hated his guts before that, probably because he was such a jerk to them before he needed their cooperation. I've read the Exec Summary of the report, and it takes a special kind of homer (read: delusional) to hold out any hope that his or her hero(es) were blameless here, from the top of the organization (Kraft (for refusal to fully cooperate) and Brady especially) to the bottom (those two schlubs who did the dirty work). What's interesting is that I tried to share that on FB and the link doesn't work (it shows the wrong article). Not to sound conspiracy theorish, but I've never had that problem before. It linked to two different articles, too, in the two ways you can share on FB.

Anyone seen WEO? Busy coming up with more excuses for the Cheats*? LMFAO! Hey, WEO, maybe Dennard is about to be suspended after all for his DUI plea in Dec, 2013 (about a year late!), since the Cheats* cut him this week!

When discussing Belicheat one also can't overlook his absolutely classless response to losing--his running off the SB field early in 2007 w/o shaking Coughlin's hand (I honestly think he was afraid to start crying on national TV) and putting McCourty out to talk on his behalf to the media after a playoff loss a couple of years ago come to mind. No class or sportsmanship at all. On the point of his personal life, the allegation wasn't just cheating on his own wife, but also doing that cheating with someone else's wife to boot.

We're not talking 3rd/4th down--we're talking about these !@#$s standing all !@#$ing game, which is more than a bit different.... We were--thanks for following along.

I've gotten my now 76-year old dad season tix for about the last ten years. We finally were able to upgrade to lower bowl seats a few years back and that was his biggest complaint. He was in like row 6 the first year and 9 the second, but in each case was still forced to stand nearly all game due to such knuckleheads. Not easy for a guy his age and it used to really piss him off. We've since moved back to row 16, which makes it a little better, but still. I'm also all for the craft beer idea above, too. Whether that makes me a hipster douche, too, I'll leave that for others to decide.....

The fact we play New England* (on extra rest after playing a Bell-less Steeler team Week 1) in week 2 tells me the League has decided Marcel gets at least 2 weeks off

This^^^^^. I've also read elsewhere that Brady's a Republican, which is consistent with his move here (maybe he and Joe "You Lie!" What's His Name from South Carolina can go hang out some time). I really can't understand that attitude. Very disrespectful. I couldn't stand W Bush, but I'd never think about turning down an invitation to the WH even if he was the occupant giving it.

The fact we play New England* week 2 means he's looking at (at least) two weeks off (see Bell, Le'Veon)....

You mean we have 9 games against team's coming off extra rest? I know we have at least two--one on short rest no less!

Totally agree--just brutal....

We start with the two best teams in the conference (ie, very possibly 0-2). Nice way to take the edge off an up and coming team. Absolutely detest this schedule.

Uhh, they get 11 days' rest against us in Week 2 and get an extra says' rest by playing us on Monday night, so once again, schedule advantage Pats*. Anyone else sick of this crap?

I hate it--the barbelled nature of it (first two and last two all home with a streak of five away games in six weeks in the middle) just sucks

Nice to see the Cheats* get extra rest against us yet again. How many !@#$ing times has that happened over the last ten years? WTF....

It all depends on where you draw the boundaries of the inquiry. They went way back in this article. I'd wager that the Pats* move way up that list if you look at only the last five or six years, for ex., as I seem to recall them having several recent seasons (not just the one mentioned) with zero or one (the avg per team should be two) such games. For ex., I remember us having a League record 9 or 10 such games over a 2 year period that saw them have like 1 such game, although I could be wrong as I'm too lazy to look that up. For those downplaying the importance of this, I also recall a NYT article on NFL schedule making two years ago in which the maker was quoted as saying that by far the most frequent request he got was--wait for it---don't give us games against teams with extra rest. So it looks to me like teams, coaches and players would disagree with you on the level of importance here. As noted above, I was very glad when Whaley basically called BS on this two years ago. Notice we haven't had any of those 4 or 5 game seasons since?

They deal with that in the article. A 4% worse chance of winning against a team with more rest--although some years it was much higher (like 14% in 2010). Personally, I was ecstatic to see Whaley publicly shame the NFL on this crap a few years back, after we had 9 better rested opponents in two years....

My favorite is still Flutie going on local radio after Spygate broke and saying he once picked up a QB helmet by mistake on the sidelines and the Coaches were still talking to the QB well after the League-mandated cutoff. He was initially treating it like a joke. Seems like someone then talked to him about that since I don't believe he repeated that story any time thereafter. All detailed in O'Leary's Spygate book for those interested.

Don't forget that Rodney Harrison got caught there the only way you could--by being dumb enough to buy HGH in his own name and shipping it to his house from a pharmacy that got busted selling steroids. Anyone else ever wonder how all those old vets on their early teams seemed to regain a step while there? Or how a few years back they had 3 of the 5 RBs in the whole League 32 or older (Morris, Taylor and Faulk)?

I had thought that might be the case, too, but the Fitz timeline overlap intrigued me....

Oh, well, the conjecture was fun while it lasted....