collapse

* Recent Posts

2024 Coaching Carousel by willie warrior
[Today at 03:50:16 AM]


2024 NCAA Tournament Thread by Plaque Lives Matter!
[Today at 01:02:54 AM]


45 minutes ago at the Dallas Westin by MuggsyB
[Today at 12:19:24 AM]


2024 Transfer Portal by CountryRoads
[Today at 12:05:42 AM]


Are we still recruiting anyone for the 24-25 season. by Don_Kojis
[Today at 12:04:21 AM]


Where is Marquette? by marqfan22
[March 28, 2024, 09:29:52 PM]


Chicago bars for Fri game by Daniel
[March 28, 2024, 08:47:22 PM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address.  We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or register NOW!


Author Topic: Ban New England from Super Bowl?  (Read 19245 times)

WarriorInNYC

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 618
Re: Ban New England from Super Bowl?
« Reply #25 on: January 23, 2015, 08:11:41 AM »
What surprises me about this whole ordeal are two things:

1.  Belichick denies all involvement and not knowing anything.  This is a man who is a control freak of a head coach.  Wouldn't someone like BB, had he ACTUALLY not known about this at all, upon finding out about members of his staff or team doctoring balls against the rules, wouldn't he want to find out who had done this?  Wouldn't he want to get to the bottom of it so he knows who on his staff/team are messing around against the rules, something that his particular team is heavily scrutinized for considering their past?  For him to say he had ABSOLUTELY no idea yesterday tells me either 1) he's lying or 2) he doesn't care one bit that his team cheated and he isn't going to put forth any effort trying to find out.

2.  This has already been pointed out by several folks.  Brady has been on record of being very particular about the PSI of his footballs at 12.5.  11/12 were deflated by 20%.  To say that he did not notice is completely ridiculous.

Add to the fact that none of the Colts balls were deflated AND 1 out of the 12 Patriots balls was completely normal.  This removes any implications that weather could have played in this.

CTWarrior

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4072
Re: Ban New England from Super Bowl?
« Reply #26 on: January 23, 2015, 08:59:21 AM »
If they are not careful they are both (Brady and Belichick) going to get suspended.  Possibly for the Superbowl or for a long time next season.

The NFL is not going to mess with the Super Bowl.  Any suspensions or discipline will take place after the Super Bowl, under the pretext that there wasn't enough time to complete the investigation before the Super Bowl.  If the Patriots next Sunday, I think there is a greater likelihood that the NFL will not do anything to them, because they're not going to want to taint their champion.  If this were David Stern's NBA, they would get officials who would make sure Seattle got evey call in the Super Bowl.
Calvin:  I'm a genius.  But I'm a misunderstood genius. 
Hobbes:  What's misunderstood about you?
Calvin:  Nobody thinks I'm a genius.

WarriorInNYC

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 618
Re: Ban New England from Super Bowl?
« Reply #27 on: January 23, 2015, 09:07:13 AM »
The NFL is not going to mess with the Super Bowl.  Any suspensions or discipline will take place after the Super Bowl, under the pretext that there wasn't enough time to complete the investigation before the Super Bowl.  If the Patriots next Sunday, I think there is a greater likelihood that the NFL will not do anything to them, because they're not going to want to taint their champion.  If this were David Stern's NBA, they would get officials who would make sure Seattle got evey call in the Super Bowl.

Agreed.  No way the NFL wants to get to the bottom of this before Super Sunday.  That is already evident considering the NFL's "investigation" has not included talking to Tom Brady yet.

GGGG

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: Ban New England from Super Bowl?
« Reply #28 on: January 23, 2015, 09:12:16 AM »
RANT TIME...and this will stray off topic.

Let's face it, this really is a minor issue, but it is indicative of the way the NFL now operates under Goodell.  When something bad happens, shrug your shoulders and say you had no clue what was happening.  (Because you are either lying or intentionally not trying to find the truth.)  It is better to be seem incompetent rather than being underhanded.  From the concussion issue, to the Ray Rice issue, to the Redskins name, to now this.  Just babble a few words, send out an "investigative report" of some sort, put together some cheesy commercials to show that you really care, and then move on.  People will watch anyway right?

And this has become how society acts.  Whether it is Congress, the NFL, the banking industry in 2008, etc. etc. etc., just do what is minimally acceptable to keep doing business the way you always have.  Don't reach for a higher standard.  Don't aspire to be a moral beacon of any sort.  As long as the money rolls in and you keep your positions of power, there really is no need to change right?

I have said this for awhile, but people don't resent the rich and powerful because they are rich and powerful.  They resent them because their wealth and power allows them to operate under different rules.  I had a chance to meet S.C. Johnson, Jr. in the late 1990s.  He was running SC Johnson and Sons at the time, and was worth billions, but you could not tell it.  The way he talked to people was very down to earth.  He gave away a sh*t ton of money, but still talked about how he felt that he was responsible for leaving the earth a better place than when he got here.  He was a leader of a chemical company, but was a huge environmentalist - he had the company take CFCs out of their products in the 70s before it was really considered a major issue.

He died in 2004.  Last year his son SC Johnson, III was sentenced for repeatedly sexually assaulting his step daughter.  He admitted to indecently touching her "15-20 times," beginning at the age of 12.  His sentence?  4 months.

I know I am reaching, but this stuff gets so tiring.

reinko

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2696
Re: Ban New England from Super Bowl?
« Reply #29 on: January 23, 2015, 09:19:13 AM »
RANT TIME...and this will stray off topic.

Let's face it, this really is a minor issue, but it is indicative of the way the NFL now operates under Goodell.  When something bad happens, shrug your shoulders and say you had no clue what was happening.  (Because you are either lying or intentionally not trying to find the truth.)  It is better to be seem incompetent rather than being underhanded.  From the concussion issue, to the Ray Rice issue, to the Redskins name, to now this.  Just babble a few words, send out an "investigative report" of some sort, put together some cheesy commercials to show that you really care, and then move on.  People will watch anyway right?

And this has become how society acts.  Whether it is Congress, the NFL, the banking industry in 2008, etc. etc. etc., just do what is minimally acceptable to keep doing business the way you always have.  Don't reach for a higher standard.  Don't aspire to be a moral beacon of any sort.  As long as the money rolls in and you keep your positions of power, there really is no need to change right?

I have said this for awhile, but people don't resent the rich and powerful because they are rich and powerful.  They resent them because their wealth and power allows them to operate under different rules.  I had a chance to meet S.C. Johnson, Jr. in the late 1990s.  He was running SC Johnson and Sons at the time, and was worth billions, but you could not tell it.  The way he talked to people was very down to earth.  He gave away a sh*t ton of money, but still talked about how he felt that he was responsible for leaving the earth a better place than when he got here.  He was a leader of a chemical company, but was a huge environmentalist - he had the company take CFCs out of their products in the 70s before it was really considered a major issue.

He died in 2004.  Last year his son SC Johnson, III was sentenced for repeatedly sexually assaulting his step daughter.  He admitted to indecently touching her "15-20 times," beginning at the age of 12.  His sentence?  4 months.

I know I am reaching, but this stuff gets so tiring.

Ding ding.

And Sherman put it best.  The NFL was going to BAN Marshawn Lynch from playing last Sunday if he wore gold shoes.  These shoes did not have little rockets attached to them for him to go faster, or springs in them for him to jump higher.  The color of them.


StillAWarrior

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4205
Re: Ban New England from Super Bowl?
« Reply #30 on: January 23, 2015, 09:57:54 AM »
What surprises me about this whole ordeal are two things:

1.  Belichick denies all involvement and not knowing anything.  This is a man who is a control freak of a head coach.  Wouldn't someone like BB, had he ACTUALLY not known about this at all, upon finding out about members of his staff or team doctoring balls against the rules, wouldn't he want to find out who had done this?  Wouldn't he want to get to the bottom of it so he knows who on his staff/team are messing around against the rules, something that his particular team is heavily scrutinized for considering their past?  For him to say he had ABSOLUTELY no idea yesterday tells me either 1) he's lying or 2) he doesn't care one bit that his team cheated and he isn't going to put forth any effort trying to find out.

2.  This has already been pointed out by several folks.  Brady has been on record of being very particular about the PSI of his footballs at 12.5.  11/12 were deflated by 20%.  To say that he did not notice is completely ridiculous.

Add to the fact that none of the Colts balls were deflated AND 1 out of the 12 Patriots balls was completely normal.  This removes any implications that weather could have played in this.

I think it is unlikely, but potentially believable, that Belichick didn't know.  I would think that if someone (whether it be Brady, the equipment manager or someone else) decided they were going to mess with the footballs after inspection, that would not be done with Belichick's knowledge.  But, I suppose it could happen.  Like you, I think he'd be pretty pissed about it, but he's not really one who shows a lot of emotion to the press.

I'm having a really hard time believing Brady.  Even if he hadn't ever expressed a pretty specific preference for balls inflated to the low side, I cannot believe that he didn't notice a difference between the balls in the first half and the second half.  I would find him much more credible if he'd admit that he noticed a difference, but didn't know anything about it ("yeah, the balls in the first half were great...I like them a little softer, and then in the second half they were harder...but it obviously didn't affect the way we played, and I have no idea why they were different from one half to the next...").  The guy makes his living throwing a football, he noticed the difference.  Frankly, by saying he didn't even notice, he's made me think he's totally full of crap.  Everyone knows that these teams work the balls over to get them the way the QB likes them, and there's nothing wrong with that under the rules as long as they pass inspection.  For Brady to act like he can't tell the difference simply is not believable. 

And I think the weather thing is pretty ridiculous.  I've seen reports suggesting that even in extreme cold the balls wouldn't lose two pounds of pressure.  Oh, and it was 51 degrees in Boston Sunday, not exactly the type of extreme weather that would wreak havoc with pressure in the footballs.
Never wrestle with a pig.  You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.

WarriorInNYC

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 618
Re: Ban New England from Super Bowl?
« Reply #31 on: January 23, 2015, 10:10:52 AM »
I think it is unlikely, but potentially believable, that Belichick didn't know.  I would think that if someone (whether it be Brady, the equipment manager or someone else) decided they were going to mess with the footballs after inspection, that would not be done with Belichick's knowledge.  But, I suppose it could happen.  Like you, I think he'd be pretty pissed about it, but he's not really one who shows a lot of emotion to the press.

I'm having a really hard time believing Brady.  Even if he hadn't ever expressed a pretty specific preference for balls inflated to the low side, I cannot believe that he didn't notice a difference between the balls in the first half and the second half.  I would find him much more credible if he'd admit that he noticed a difference, but didn't know anything about it ("yeah, the balls in the first half were great...I like them a little softer, and then in the second half they were harder...but it obviously didn't affect the way we played, and I have no idea why they were different from one half to the next...").  The guy makes his living throwing a football, he noticed the difference.  Frankly, by saying he didn't even notice, he's made me think he's totally full of crap.  Everyone knows that these teams work the balls over to get them the way the QB likes them, and there's nothing wrong with that under the rules as long as they pass inspection.  For Brady to act like he can't tell the difference simply is not believable. 

And I think the weather thing is pretty ridiculous.  I've seen reports suggesting that even in extreme cold the balls wouldn't lose two pounds of pressure.  Oh, and it was 51 degrees in Boston Sunday, not exactly the type of extreme weather that would wreak havoc with pressure in the footballs.

Agreed, good points.

I also do believe that BB may not have had any knowledge of it at all.  But again, why would he not want to get down to the bottom of it?  It is his team and he is well known to be a complete control freak.

And yes, the weather point is ridiculous that I have seen people bring up.  This issue has never come up in Lambeau or other places when the cold has gotten real bad.

Chicago_inferiority_complexes

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 844
Re: Ban New England from Super Bowl?
« Reply #32 on: January 23, 2015, 10:21:59 AM »
RANT TIME...and this will stray off topic.

Let's face it, this really is a minor issue, but it is indicative of the way the NFL now operates under Goodell.  When something bad happens, shrug your shoulders and say you had no clue what was happening.  (Because you are either lying or intentionally not trying to find the truth.)  It is better to be seem incompetent rather than being underhanded.  From the concussion issue, to the Ray Rice issue, to the Redskins name, to now this.  Just babble a few words, send out an "investigative report" of some sort, put together some cheesy commercials to show that you really care, and then move on.  People will watch anyway right?

And this has become how society acts.  Whether it is Congress, the NFL, the banking industry in 2008, etc. etc. etc., just do what is minimally acceptable to keep doing business the way you always have.  Don't reach for a higher standard.  Don't aspire to be a moral beacon of any sort.  As long as the money rolls in and you keep your positions of power, there really is no need to change right?

I have said this for awhile, but people don't resent the rich and powerful because they are rich and powerful.  They resent them because their wealth and power allows them to operate under different rules.  I had a chance to meet S.C. Johnson, Jr. in the late 1990s.  He was running SC Johnson and Sons at the time, and was worth billions, but you could not tell it.  The way he talked to people was very down to earth.  He gave away a sh*t ton of money, but still talked about how he felt that he was responsible for leaving the earth a better place than when he got here.  He was a leader of a chemical company, but was a huge environmentalist - he had the company take CFCs out of their products in the 70s before it was really considered a major issue.

He died in 2004.  Last year his son SC Johnson, III was sentenced for repeatedly sexually assaulting his step daughter.  He admitted to indecently touching her "15-20 times," beginning at the age of 12.  His sentence?  4 months.

I know I am reaching, but this stuff gets so tiring.

Pathological lying is now a daily fact of life. Can see it all around us.

MerrittsMustache

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4676
Re: Ban New England from Super Bowl?
« Reply #33 on: January 23, 2015, 10:57:58 AM »
Belichick and Brady's responses reminded me of busted baseball players stating that they "never knowingly" took PEDs.

Oversimplified dramatization...

Brady and Belichick conspicuously discuss how Tom likes the game footballs to be filled less than the league allows, but what can ya do? It's not like the assistant equipment manager could deflate them after the ref's inspection. Nearby assistant coach nods at the assistant equipment manager who takes the necessary actions to ensure that the balls are deflated to the star QB's liking. As you can see, Brady and Belichick had no knowledge of what was going on and it was simply a rogue assistant taking matters into his own hands.

Texas Western

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1207
Re: Ban New England from Super Bowl?
« Reply #34 on: January 23, 2015, 11:17:02 AM »
NFL is a creator of  TV content.  Everything is view through the prism of TV ratings. A little controversy will hype the interest. After the fact the Pats will get their wrist slapped. Goodell has zero creativity nor original content. He got where he got by being a typical corporate a... kisser.  Lifetime NFL guy who is never going to rock the boat.

StillAWarrior

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4205
Re: Ban New England from Super Bowl?
« Reply #35 on: January 23, 2015, 06:54:36 PM »
Hmmm...the footballs were properly inflated at half and remained properly inflated throughout the remainder of the game.  So much for the extreme weather theory (on an unseasonably warm January day).  As if the Colts' balls remaining properly inflated hadn't already shot that one down.
Never wrestle with a pig.  You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.

Groin_pull

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1861
Re: Ban New England from Super Bowl?
« Reply #36 on: January 23, 2015, 06:58:58 PM »
Hmmm...the footballs were properly inflated at half and remained properly inflated throughout the remainder of the game.  So much for the extreme weather theory (on an unseasonably warm January day).  As if the Colts' balls remaining properly inflated hadn't already shot that one down.

Not much to think about. Belicheat and Brady are lying. They would never admit to anything...especially right before the Super Bowl. Hope the NFL drops the hammer on that organization. But doubtful, because Robert Kraft is a league favorite. Now if this were the Oakland Raiders......

Tugg Speedman

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8836
Re: Ban New England from Super Bowl?
« Reply #37 on: January 24, 2015, 09:26:23 AM »
@NickTimiraos 20h20 hours ago
Could deflated balls explain why the Patriots share of fumbles to plays run is off the charts?

http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/?p=2932  pic.twitter.com/3Ko2QyE1TU



Lennys Tap

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 12221
Re: Ban New England from Super Bowl?
« Reply #38 on: January 24, 2015, 11:10:18 AM »
RANT TIME...and this will stray off topic.

Let's face it, this really is a minor issue, but it is indicative of the way the NFL now operates under Goodell.  When something bad happens, shrug your shoulders and say you had no clue what was happening.  (Because you are either lying or intentionally not trying to find the truth.)  It is better to be seem incompetent rather than being underhanded.  From the concussion issue, to the Ray Rice issue, to the Redskins name, to now this.  Just babble a few words, send out an "investigative report" of some sort, put together some cheesy commercials to show that you really care, and then move on.  People will watch anyway right?

And this has become how society acts.  Whether it is Congress, the NFL, the banking industry in 2008, etc. etc. etc., just do what is minimally acceptable to keep doing business the way you always have.  Don't reach for a higher standard.  Don't aspire to be a moral beacon of any sort.  As long as the money rolls in and you keep your positions of power, there really is no need to change right?

I have said this for awhile, but people don't resent the rich and powerful because they are rich and powerful.  They resent them because their wealth and power allows them to operate under different rules.  I had a chance to meet S.C. Johnson, Jr. in the late 1990s.  He was running SC Johnson and Sons at the time, and was worth billions, but you could not tell it.  The way he talked to people was very down to earth.  He gave away a sh*t ton of money, but still talked about how he felt that he was responsible for leaving the earth a better place than when he got here.  He was a leader of a chemical company, but was a huge environmentalist - he had the company take CFCs out of their products in the 70s before it was really considered a major issue.

He died in 2004.  Last year his son SC Johnson, III was sentenced for repeatedly sexually assaulting his step daughter.  He admitted to indecently touching her "15-20 times," beginning at the age of 12.  His sentence?  4 months.

I know I am reaching, but this stuff gets so tiring.

Your anecdote nonwithstanding there is nothing new about the rich and powerful being able to play by different rules. And for every son not as responsible as his rich and powerful father I'm sure there's one who is a better steward. Governments, churches, businesses, etc., have a long and storied history of going to any lengths possible to maintain their wealth and power. And so it goes...

forgetful

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4728
Re: Ban New England from Super Bowl?
« Reply #39 on: January 24, 2015, 11:56:04 AM »
RANT TIME...and this will stray off topic.

Let's face it, this really is a minor issue, but it is indicative of the way the NFL now operates under Goodell.  When something bad happens, shrug your shoulders and say you had no clue what was happening.  (Because you are either lying or intentionally not trying to find the truth.)  It is better to be seem incompetent rather than being underhanded.  From the concussion issue, to the Ray Rice issue, to the Redskins name, to now this.  Just babble a few words, send out an "investigative report" of some sort, put together some cheesy commercials to show that you really care, and then move on.  People will watch anyway right?

And this has become how society acts.  Whether it is Congress, the NFL, the banking industry in 2008, etc. etc. etc., just do what is minimally acceptable to keep doing business the way you always have.  Don't reach for a higher standard.  Don't aspire to be a moral beacon of any sort.  As long as the money rolls in and you keep your positions of power, there really is no need to change right?

I have said this for awhile, but people don't resent the rich and powerful because they are rich and powerful.  They resent them because their wealth and power allows them to operate under different rules.  I had a chance to meet S.C. Johnson, Jr. in the late 1990s.  He was running SC Johnson and Sons at the time, and was worth billions, but you could not tell it.  The way he talked to people was very down to earth.  He gave away a sh*t ton of money, but still talked about how he felt that he was responsible for leaving the earth a better place than when he got here.  He was a leader of a chemical company, but was a huge environmentalist - he had the company take CFCs out of their products in the 70s before it was really considered a major issue.

He died in 2004.  Last year his son SC Johnson, III was sentenced for repeatedly sexually assaulting his step daughter.  He admitted to indecently touching her "15-20 times," beginning at the age of 12.  His sentence?  4 months.

I know I am reaching, but this stuff gets so tiring.

I agree with all of this.

MerrittsMustache

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4676
Re: Ban New England from Super Bowl?
« Reply #40 on: January 27, 2015, 10:06:31 AM »
Belichick and Brady's responses reminded me of busted baseball players stating that they "never knowingly" took PEDs.

Oversimplified dramatization...

Brady and Belichick conspicuously discuss how Tom likes the game footballs to be filled less than the league allows, but what can ya do? It's not like the assistant equipment manager could deflate them after the ref's inspection. Nearby assistant coach nods at the assistant equipment manager who takes the necessary actions to ensure that the balls are deflated to the star QB's liking. As you can see, Brady and Belichick had no knowledge of what was going on and it was simply a rogue assistant taking matters into his own hands.


Apparently it wasn't the assistant equipment manager but rather a locker room attendant. I was so close!

http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/12232207/nfl-looking-new-england-patriots-locker-room-attendant-deflategate-investigation

tower912

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 23355
Re: Ban New England from Super Bowl?
« Reply #41 on: January 27, 2015, 10:33:10 AM »
He went into a bathroom for 90 seconds.   The main problem is that he didn't wash his hands thoroughly. 
Luke 6:45   ...A good man produces goodness from the good in his heart; an evil man produces evil out of his store of evil.   Each man speaks from his heart's abundance...

It is better to be fearless and cheerful than cheerless and fearful.

MU B2002

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2112
  • Father to future alums in 2029 & 2037.
Re: Ban New England from Super Bowl?
« Reply #42 on: January 27, 2015, 10:37:15 AM »
He went into a bathroom for 90 seconds.   The main problem is that he didn't wash his hands thoroughly. 

http://deadspin.com/report-man-probably-took-piss-with-two-bags-of-footb-1681959964

Was just going to add this.
"VPI"
- Mike Hunt

Benny B

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5969
Re: Ban New England from Super Bowl?
« Reply #43 on: January 27, 2015, 03:34:29 PM »
He went into a bathroom for 90 seconds.   The main problem is that he didn't wash his hands thoroughly. 

"Excuse me sir, that sign in the bathroom about washing your hands... that's just for the employees, right?"
Wow, I'm very concerned for Benny.  Being able to mimic Myron Medcalf's writing so closely implies an oncoming case of dementia.

brewcity77

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 26360
  • Warning-This poster may trigger thin skinned users
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: Ban New England from Super Bowl?
« Reply #44 on: January 27, 2015, 03:50:24 PM »
Leading up to Wrestlemania IV, the Million Dollar Man paid referee Earl Hebner's twin brother to throw a Saturday Night's Main Event Championship Match between Andre the Giant and Hulk Hogan.  Andre then sold the belt to the Million Dollar Man, a clear violation of WWF rules. 

League Commissioner Jack Tunney then decided the only correct course of action would be to make Wrestlemania IV a tournament, granting both the Million Dollar Man and Hogan a first-round bye.

I don't follow the NFL, but I don't see why this wouldn't apply.

That was one of the best Wrestlemanias ever, and the only way they could get the belt off Hogan, who had held it for four years. Those were the good old days of wrestling for me.
This space reserved for a 2024 National Championship celebration banner.

Groin_pull

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1861
Re: Ban New England from Super Bowl?
« Reply #45 on: January 27, 2015, 03:57:04 PM »
Apparently it wasn't the assistant equipment manager but rather a locker room attendant. I was so close!

http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/12232207/nfl-looking-new-england-patriots-locker-room-attendant-deflategate-investigation


Hahaha. The Deflatriots have found their fall guy. This poor slob will be hung out to dry. Because I'm sure he took it upon himself to deflate those balls. ::)


tower912

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 23355
Re: Ban New England from Super Bowl?
« Reply #46 on: January 27, 2015, 04:07:05 PM »
He is going to argue that he was deflating his bladder. 
Luke 6:45   ...A good man produces goodness from the good in his heart; an evil man produces evil out of his store of evil.   Each man speaks from his heart's abundance...

It is better to be fearless and cheerful than cheerless and fearful.

Groin_pull

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1861
Re: Ban New England from Super Bowl?
« Reply #47 on: January 27, 2015, 04:30:15 PM »
This will fade away because the NFL wants it to. Goodell and Kraft are buddies. You watch, the Deflatriots will get a slap on the wrist (like a fine) because of a "lack of evidence" and that will be that.

Let me say again...I hate Boston. I hate their teams. I hate their fans.

4everwarriors

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 15995
Re: Ban New England from Super Bowl?
« Reply #48 on: January 27, 2015, 07:09:56 PM »
Wonder if any of the Patriot cheerleaders ever inflated their game time assets?
"Give 'Em Hell, Al"

Dr. Blackheart

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 13006
Re: Ban New England from Super Bowl?
« Reply #49 on: January 28, 2015, 01:38:25 PM »
He went into a bathroom for 90 seconds.   The main problem is that he didn't wash his hands thoroughly. 

Was there a second shooter?

 

feedback