jason

The why I can't answer. Psychological is all I can guess. But that is a "difference" that I just don't believe one can be punished for. Especially when it was found that the Colts had balls with inflation issues.

But the thing is, I have felt thousands of footballs. I know. It is difficult to believe anyone not involved on a regular basis with footballs TODAY really knows. What you probably remember from HS is not the same. I know it doesn't feel different when its close to the range. Drastically under? Sure. And that is where the HS balls and their "kicking ball" BS comes into play. But when it is close nobody can tell. It is guess work at best.

HAAAAAHAHAHAHA.

Psychological? Really? Getting some tail in the morning could provide psychological advantage. A mentor, positive mental imagery, lucky rabbit's foot...all essentially psychological advantage. Why risk it? Beats me, because the ball is the same.

Dude. Did Tom Brady and the Pats locker room bang your girl? What you propose is insane for some imperceptibly deflated balls that didn't provide any substantial benefit. Lifetime? That's complete nonsense, and you have something else on this issue.

Great post. Was it cheating? Sure, if Brady actually knew. Did it provide an advantage? No.

Basketballs are waaaaay different, specifically because they bounce. And it wasn't just me, it was a group of guys ranging from the SEC to DII, four of five who played NCAA football. The MTV video speaks VOLUMES. They took out more and people could barely notice. With less, it's virtually imperceptible.

It's kind of a double-edged sword. Traditional is probably not the right word, because there has been cheating in sports since the first two cavemen raced. More appropriate is something like "strict interpretationist". In that regard, sure, the cheating goes against everything you hold close (even though there has been cheating since the first game of the NFL). But on the other hand, that same old-fashioned values, no nonsense line of reason aligns with the comments against your point. Old timers who played the game feel disrespected about cheating, but there is no way they blame the ball for a loss. A good craftsman never blames his tools, and to get up in arms about just the deflategate issue contradicts the "traditionalist" view of things just as much as it supports that view-point.

Most calls are judgement calls. Quite the contrary. The rules are very specific, verbose even, and the officials have whittled it down even further in their own mechanics and guidelines. Trust me - the guys who are "wrong" are graded as such, and they don't stick around a long time if they continue to be wrong. I can't convince you. I'm telling you it's almost imperceptible. And it's funny because I had an Arena game recently where the visiting coach complained about the PSI level of the balls. He thought they were over-inflated. I told him I'd look into it while thinking of rolling my eyes. Guess what? The balls almost all fell within the appropriate range, some a tiny bit more, some a tiny bit less. If I had juggled them and then tossed one back, you couldn't have told the difference. That room full of officials with roughly 50 years experience combined couldn't tell, and multiple are in major college BCS officiating. This I can't speak to, but it doesn't sound right. I don't know the weights/measurements of all that. What I do know is the gauge we use is similar to one you use on a bicycle tire or something like that. You can't tell unless it's probably 2+PSI difference. I don't really know. I'd have to do more research into the specifics of an NFL football. I could copy/paste that section out of the NCAA rulebook though.

Maybe as a piece of a larger issue, I'm fine with the deflategate being thrown in. It's jaywalking on a murderer's rap sheet. Otherwise, however, it's not really substantial enough for all the fuss it's raised.

I don't disagree with your notion that cheating is an important issue and all forms of it are similar, but I'm telling you there is virtually no difference in one PSI, and it wouldn't have made a difference. The officials can tell when a ball is way too deflated, and they would have gotten rid of it. I've felt thousands of footballs from all various locations, teams, and levels...trust me on this. As an official, I see things in terms of "advantage gained." That's why there isn't a holding call on every play. In this case, it was nothing more than a quick jersey tug...no real restriction or advantage.

I bet Jerry Jones gave him the "We have proven with our support of Bryant and Hardy, and our draft, that we view each player on an individual basis, and get his side of the story before condemning him"-reasoning. Great pick up for them. They have loudly displayed that they'd rather swing for the fences than try for average or slightly above average.

If the 2-5-4 (or 2-4-5) ends up being true, I agree about the Ratliff/Goldman front.

So... A HoF pass rusher is a backup? The best DE from last year (Young pre-injury) is a third stringer? Shea McClellin, who finally has a chance to play his college position is now an ILB? I will say one thing positive, however, about the alignment. If Goldman starts as a rookie at NT beside Ratliff, we probably won't be giving up much rushing yardage on that side.

I don't give a damn about semi-deflated balls, because I honestly don't think it matters. The PSI difference is negligible, and I can guaran-damn-tee that if the officials felt a ball that was significantly altered - and they handle the ball on every play - they would have chucked it out for another one. That happens on ALL levels. What I do care about is your what-if. I have said the same thing for years. It altered the league dynamics in unfathomable ways.

LA?! Lower Alabama? Sweet. See you there if they make the Super Bowl. I'll be cheering on your boy!

I'm happy to have White, but catch radius doesn't mean a lot if the defender is in the WR's hip pocket and has a similar "deflect radius." Give me a WR who creates a "pass radius" via superior routes, over the hyper-athletic guy. Make no mistake, I'm all aboard the Kevin White train, but I liked Cooper more and thought he would have been a better fit.

That author is not someone I agree with. They needed OL. They didn't really need all that TE action, but I figure they have a heavy-jumbo, double-TE package in mind. And the LB pick is going to work.

I agree that White > Scherff, but I don't think that has anything to do with position. If Johnathen Ogden falls into your lap, you draft him over just about every playmaker in the history of the game. That dude was a playmaker maker. He should have had a shirt that said, "I make playmakers." But in general, I want a GM who doesn't try to outsmart everyone and pick a surprise like SMC. The majority here knew it was a bad pick, and some vehemently defended it, but it just didn't make sense then or now. That type of GM is not who I want. It may be boring to pick the BPA and link that up to team needs, but that's the best approach.

I second that motion.

That's crazy. I predict the Bengals will be a monster running the ball in 1-2 years, and their offense will be even better. Two monster, elite OTs, and another goodTE, and I just don't see how they won't succeed on offense. As for defense, they took Burfict when nobody else would, and that turned out to be a huge steal. I think Lewis knows his LBs.

I don't mind the discussion about past issuers and players. The realization that nothing can be done is there, but it's still our team, and anything is in bounds with past, current , former players. It's possible to embrace the current while still being upset, and wanting to be proven right, about past moves.

Please give me a GM who will do that year in and year out. That's how successful franchises are built.

As an official, I particularly enjoyed the no-call on the massive hold at 2:00. Yikes.

No way he would have lasted until the 4th