#DeflateGate (Court of Appeals Reinstates Suspension)

[Cman]

Dan Wetzel has a hilarious tongue and cheek take on the new "allegations".
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/alleged-locker-room-break-ins--secret-tapes-and-hamptons-parties--the-patriots-way-191617766.html

[knuckleballer]

If they are right about their accusations, there would be no reason to fear being blackballed by any team other than the Patriots.

Rumors of playbooks missing from visiting locker rooms and hotels, communication equipment not working, and locker rooms being bugged have floated around the league for decades.  No one has ever cared about it before.

You have said that you are not a football fan, so you probably have not read about these many stories that have been around for a long time.

I'll give you an example.  In the late 80s, Bill Parcells accused the great Bill Walsh repeatedly for tampering with the commuciations equipment.  No one ever said the 49ers championships are tainted and Parcells never had problems getting another job.

I've read about playbooks disappearing from locker rooms and visiting hotels since before Belichick was coaching the Patriots.  People used to laugh it off.

Did you read the SI article I posted on the last page?  I think it will give you an idea as to why it is a bigger deal now and why the Patriots are of particular note.

Yes and I read lot of paranoia.  The only part of the story with any substance is Spygate being rehashed again 8 years later.   There was one part of the story about injury reports.  Here's an article responding to that. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/09/08/si-com-story-on-pats-has-compelling-but-inaccurate-anecdote/

[knuckleballer]

If they are right about their accusations, there would be no reason to fear being blackballed by any team other than the Patriots.

Rumors of playbooks missing from visiting locker rooms and hotels, communication equipment not working, and locker rooms being bugged have floated around the league for decades.  No one has ever cared about it before.

You have said that you are not a football fan, so you probably have not read about these many stories that have been around for a long time.

I'll give you an example.  In the late 80s, Bill Parcells accused the great Bill Walsh repeatedly for tampering with the commuciations equipment.  No one ever said the 49ers championships are tainted and Parcells never had problems getting another job.

I've read about playbooks disappearing from locker rooms and visiting hotels since before Belichick was coaching the Patriots.  People used to laugh it off.

I am not a football fan -- but that does not mean that I do not follow the NFL. There are differences between your examples and the present situation that would be made clear to you if, for example, you were to read that sports illustrated story (or that outside the lines report) without an instinctive inclination that dismisses anything that even thinks about besmirching your beloved Patriots.

As it stands, complaining about 'anonymous sources' is just flailing at a very reasonable situation in light of how the NFL and their teams view talking to the media out of turn (Pro tip: the NFL hates that stuff. Hates it. League-wide).

edit: this is coming across a bit rude. Apologies -- need coffee. Not trying to offend.

You don't have to generalize my thinking by claiming I have an instinctive inclination and that am not able to be objective.  I'll happily debate each point.

Complaining about "anonymous sources" is legit because the accusations lack details which makes it impossible to defend and impossible to question the accuser.  it's underhanded.

[D.o.s.]

Did you feel the same way about the scandal for which deflategate is named? Lots of unnamed sources there, too.

[knuckleballer]

Did you feel the same way about the scandal for which deflategate is named? Lots of unnamed sources there, too.

Honestly, I thought the Patriots were guilty after reading the first 20 pages of the Wells report.  But I read the whole thing and I found it misleading and there were noticeable holes in Exponent's report which I have previously written about in this thread.  I don't think it's necessary to continue discussing that.  I'm not sure what you mean by anonymous sources unless you are referring to the leaks or the claim that everyone knows they deflate the balls. 

[Moranis]

If they are right about their accusations, there would be no reason to fear being blackballed by any team other than the Patriots.

Rumors of playbooks missing from visiting locker rooms and hotels, communication equipment not working, and locker rooms being bugged have floated around the league for decades.  No one has ever cared about it before.

You have said that you are not a football fan, so you probably have not read about these many stories that have been around for a long time.

I'll give you an example.  In the late 80s, Bill Parcells accused the great Bill Walsh repeatedly for tampering with the commuciations equipment.  No one ever said the 49ers championships are tainted and Parcells never had problems getting another job.

I've read about playbooks disappearing from locker rooms and visiting hotels since before Belichick was coaching the Patriots.  People used to laugh it off.

I am not a football fan -- but that does not mean that I do not follow the NFL. There are differences between your examples and the present situation that would be made clear to you if, for example, you were to read that sports illustrated story (or that outside the lines report) without an instinctive inclination that dismisses anything that even thinks about besmirching your beloved Patriots.

As it stands, complaining about 'anonymous sources' is just flailing at a very reasonable situation in light of how the NFL and their teams view talking to the media out of turn (Pro tip: the NFL hates that stuff. Hates it. League-wide).

edit: this is coming across a bit rude. Apologies -- need coffee. Not trying to offend.

You don't have to generalize my thinking by claiming I have an instinctive inclination and that am not able to be objective.  I'll happily debate each point.

Complaining about "anonymous sources" is legit because the accusations lack details which makes it impossible to defend and impossible to question the accuser.  it's underhanded.

This isn't a court of law or even a NFL investigation though.  It is a piece of investigative journalism.  In those, unnamed sources are quite common.  Heck some of them even use purely anonymous sources, but only after numerous rounds of vetting. 

You seem to be mixing up the two and then somehow using that to discredit the piece.  Which is fine, you are a fan, that is what fans do, but I somehow don't think if this was the Jets you would have the same opinion.

[knuckleballer]

What I found bothersome in this is people ignore the smart game planning and good execution while making excuses.  For example, in the 2013 playoffs, the Patriots blew out the Colts.  They didn't do anything tricky.  They knew the Colts had a weak run defense, so they put a 320 lb lineman in the game as a TE, used a 255 lb fullback and a 250 lb tailback.  And they ran right over the Colts line and dominated the game.  You would think other teams would learn from this and do the same thing against the Colts in 2014, but no, each team stuck with their regular game plan.  In mid 2014, the Pats did the same thing against the Colts and again other teams did not copy the strategy and the Colts reached the AFC Championship.  Again, the Pats used a 320 lb OL as TE, a 255 lb fullback, and a 250 lb runningback and ran over the Colts.  That's just good coaching and old fashioned physical football.  Yet, afterwards people accuse them of cheating.  It's sour grapes from around the league.

The eligible lineman used against the Ravens was used by Alabama earlier in the year.  Any team could have copied it, but Belichick is the only one to think of it and people complain.   Go back a few years ago when they were using their quick no huddle offense.  Belichick got that idea from seeing the success Chip Kelly had and brought him in to their training camp and explain how he does it.  Other teams could have done this, but no one did.  And then they complained that it was unfair and they were bending the rules despite the fact it was totally legit.  I could go on...

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

Funny that every source in these reports is anonymous. When I was getting my journalism degree, one of the things I learned was that using anonymous sources was a very weak journalistic practice, and to be avoided if at all possible.

I don't think they were anonymous they just asked not to be named.  Very different.

Come on that isn't splitting hairs.  An anonymous source is one that the journalist doesn't know, an unnamed source is one the journalist does know.  There is an incredibly large difference between those two things.

They refused to put their names next to their accusations.  That's weak.  You are splitting hairs and you know what he meant when he said anonymous.

Most of them still have jobs in the league or would like to in the future.  You don't burn your bridges.  It is in fact pretty common in investigative journalism to have sources who refuse to be named.  Happens all the time.  An unnamed source is not an anonymous source though.  Two vastly different things.

You are right in that they are technically different, but for all practical purposes they are the same—because in both cases, the reader is unable to verify the source. Which means the author could be making it up.

[D.o.s.]

Did you feel the same way about the scandal for which deflategate is named? Lots of unnamed sources there, too.

Honestly, I thought the Patriots were guilty after reading the first 20 pages of the Wells report.  But I read the whole thing and I found it misleading and there were noticeable holes in Exponent's report which I have previously written about in this thread.  I don't think it's necessary to continue discussing that.  I'm not sure what you mean by anonymous sources unless you are referring to the leaks or the claim that everyone knows they deflate the balls.

Well I was talking about watergate, actually. You know, the scandal that gave deflategate it's name (or at least it's suffix).

[D.o.s.]

Funny that every source in these reports is anonymous. When I was getting my journalism degree, one of the things I learned was that using anonymous sources was a very weak journalistic practice, and to be avoided if at all possible.

I don't think they were anonymous they just asked not to be named.  Very different.

Come on that isn't splitting hairs.  An anonymous source is one that the journalist doesn't know, an unnamed source is one the journalist does know.  There is an incredibly large difference between those two things.

They refused to put their names next to their accusations.  That's weak.  You are splitting hairs and you know what he meant when he said anonymous.

Most of them still have jobs in the league or would like to in the future.  You don't burn your bridges.  It is in fact pretty common in investigative journalism to have sources who refuse to be named.  Happens all the time.  An unnamed source is not an anonymous source though.  Two vastly different things.

You are right in that they are technically different, but for all practical purposes they are the same—because in both cases, the reader is unable to verify the source. Which means the author could be making it up.

Yeah this is bogus, though -- unless you don't think ESPN has any vested interest in adhering to the facts, which their position in the world of sports would seem to render unlikely.

Rather: if you put a gun to the head of one of the writers, they could give you a source. This almost certainly isn't a Jayson Blair situation -- and anyone with a degree in journalism should know that the difference extends well into 'practical purposes'.

[knuckleballer]

If they are right about their accusations, there would be no reason to fear being blackballed by any team other than the Patriots.

Rumors of playbooks missing from visiting locker rooms and hotels, communication equipment not working, and locker rooms being bugged have floated around the league for decades.  No one has ever cared about it before.

You have said that you are not a football fan, so you probably have not read about these many stories that have been around for a long time.

I'll give you an example.  In the late 80s, Bill Parcells accused the great Bill Walsh repeatedly for tampering with the commuciations equipment.  No one ever said the 49ers championships are tainted and Parcells never had problems getting another job.

I've read about playbooks disappearing from locker rooms and visiting hotels since before Belichick was coaching the Patriots.  People used to laugh it off.

I am not a football fan -- but that does not mean that I do not follow the NFL. There are differences between your examples and the present situation that would be made clear to you if, for example, you were to read that sports illustrated story (or that outside the lines report) without an instinctive inclination that dismisses anything that even thinks about besmirching your beloved Patriots.

As it stands, complaining about 'anonymous sources' is just flailing at a very reasonable situation in light of how the NFL and their teams view talking to the media out of turn (Pro tip: the NFL hates that stuff. Hates it. League-wide).

edit: this is coming across a bit rude. Apologies -- need coffee. Not trying to offend.

You don't have to generalize my thinking by claiming I have an instinctive inclination and that am not able to be objective.  I'll happily debate each point.

Complaining about "anonymous sources" is legit because the accusations lack details which makes it impossible to defend and impossible to question the accuser.  it's underhanded.

This isn't a court of law or even a NFL investigation though.  It is a piece of investigative journalism.  In those, unnamed sources are quite common.  Heck some of them even use purely anonymous sources, but only after numerous rounds of vetting. 

You seem to be mixing up the two and then somehow using that to discredit the piece.  Which is fine, you are a fan, that is what fans do, but I somehow don't think if this was the Jets you would have the same opinion.

I would absolutely find it bs if it was done against the Jets.  I thought Bountygate and Bullygate were absurd and I think the suspension given to Hardy is unfair.  And no, I'm not mixing up the difference between a court of law and an investigative article.  I'm talking about general fairness.

[knuckleballer]

Did you feel the same way about the scandal for which deflategate is named? Lots of unnamed sources there, too.

Honestly, I thought the Patriots were guilty after reading the first 20 pages of the Wells report.  But I read the whole thing and I found it misleading and there were noticeable holes in Exponent's report which I have previously written about in this thread.  I don't think it's necessary to continue discussing that.  I'm not sure what you mean by anonymous sources unless you are referring to the leaks or the claim that everyone knows they deflate the balls.

Well I was talking about watergate, actually. You know, the scandal that gave deflategate it's name (or at least it's suffix).

Oh, I was confused by what you meant by "for which it is named".  Watergate happened before I was born and I don't really have any strong opinions on it. 

[danglertx]

Funny that every source in these reports is anonymous. When I was getting my journalism degree, one of the things I learned was that using anonymous sources was a very weak journalistic practice, and to be avoided if at all possible.

I don't think they were anonymous they just asked not to be named.  Very different.

Come on that isn't splitting hairs.  An anonymous source is one that the journalist doesn't know, an unnamed source is one the journalist does know.  There is an incredibly large difference between those two things.

They refused to put their names next to their accusations.  That's weak.  You are splitting hairs and you know what he meant when he said anonymous.

Most of them still have jobs in the league or would like to in the future.  You don't burn your bridges.  It is in fact pretty common in investigative journalism to have sources who refuse to be named.  Happens all the time.  An unnamed source is not an anonymous source though.  Two vastly different things.

You are right in that they are technically different, but for all practical purposes they are the same—because in both cases, the reader is unable to verify the source. Which means the author could be making it up.

Yeah this is bogus, though -- unless you don't think ESPN has any vested interest in adhering to the facts, which their position in the world of sports would seem to render unlikely.

Rather: if you put a gun to the head of one of the writers, they could give you a source. This almost certainly isn't a Jayson Blair situation -- and anyone with a degree in journalism should know that the difference extends well into 'practical purposes'.

You mean like 11 of the 12 balls are more than 2psi low?  If someone doesn't believe in what they say strong enough to go on the record you should be really careful about reporting it.  ESPN hasn't seemed to meet that burden regardless of your opinions on their vested interest in adhering to the facts and how their position in the world of sports would seem to render unlikely.  Eight years after the fact they were still saying the Patriots taped the Ram's walkthrough even though that had been debunked and apologized for already.

[knuckleballer]

Funny that every source in these reports is anonymous. When I was getting my journalism degree, one of the things I learned was that using anonymous sources was a very weak journalistic practice, and to be avoided if at all possible.

I don't think they were anonymous they just asked not to be named.  Very different.

Come on that isn't splitting hairs.  An anonymous source is one that the journalist doesn't know, an unnamed source is one the journalist does know.  There is an incredibly large difference between those two things.

They refused to put their names next to their accusations.  That's weak.  You are splitting hairs and you know what he meant when he said anonymous.

Most of them still have jobs in the league or would like to in the future.  You don't burn your bridges.  It is in fact pretty common in investigative journalism to have sources who refuse to be named.  Happens all the time.  An unnamed source is not an anonymous source though.  Two vastly different things.

You are right in that they are technically different, but for all practical purposes they are the same—because in both cases, the reader is unable to verify the source. Which means the author could be making it up.

Yeah this is bogus, though -- unless you don't think ESPN has any vested interest in adhering to the facts, which their position in the world of sports would seem to render unlikely.

Rather: if you put a gun to the head of one of the writers, they could give you a source. This almost certainly isn't a Jayson Blair situation -- and anyone with a degree in journalism should know that the difference extends well into 'practical purposes'.

You mean like 11 of the 12 balls are more than 2psi low?  If someone doesn't believe in what they say strong enough to go on the record you should be really careful about reporting it.  ESPN hasn't seemed to meet that burden regardless of your opinions on their vested interest in adhering to the facts and how their position in the world of sports would seem to render unlikely.  Eight years after the fact they were still saying the Patriots taped the Ram's walkthrough even though that had been debunked and apologized for already.

ESPN made the claim about taping the Rams practice a couple of weeks ago and then apologized for it.  Yet, there it was again in yesterday's article.

[D.o.s.]

Funny that every source in these reports is anonymous. When I was getting my journalism degree, one of the things I learned was that using anonymous sources was a very weak journalistic practice, and to be avoided if at all possible.

I don't think they were anonymous they just asked not to be named.  Very different.

Come on that isn't splitting hairs.  An anonymous source is one that the journalist doesn't know, an unnamed source is one the journalist does know.  There is an incredibly large difference between those two things.

They refused to put their names next to their accusations.  That's weak.  You are splitting hairs and you know what he meant when he said anonymous.

Most of them still have jobs in the league or would like to in the future.  You don't burn your bridges.  It is in fact pretty common in investigative journalism to have sources who refuse to be named.  Happens all the time.  An unnamed source is not an anonymous source though.  Two vastly different things.

You are right in that they are technically different, but for all practical purposes they are the same—because in both cases, the reader is unable to verify the source. Which means the author could be making it up.

Yeah this is bogus, though -- unless you don't think ESPN has any vested interest in adhering to the facts, which their position in the world of sports would seem to render unlikely.

Rather: if you put a gun to the head of one of the writers, they could give you a source. This almost certainly isn't a Jayson Blair situation -- and anyone with a degree in journalism should know that the difference extends well into 'practical purposes'.

You mean like 11 of the 12 balls are more than 2psi low?  If someone doesn't believe in what they say strong enough to go on the record you should be really careful about reporting it.  ESPN hasn't seemed to meet that burden regardless of your opinions on their vested interest in adhering to the facts and how their position in the world of sports would seem to render unlikely.  Eight years after the fact they were still saying the Patriots taped the Ram's walkthrough even though that had been debunked and apologized for already.

That has, actually, nothing to do the differences between an anonymous source and an unnamed source, but sure, if you think that the Outside the Line piece is fabricated because they're quoting people by title rather than given name, that's your prerogative.