Patriots' Tom Brady: 'I wouldn't do anything to break the rules'
Source: USA Today
FOXBOROUGH, Mass. New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady addressed the team's Deflategate controversy Thursday afternoon.
"I didn't alter the ball in any way," said Brady, explaining he has a "process" to select the balls prior to any game, including Sunday's 45-7 AFC Championship Game victory over the Indianapolis Colts.
"I don't want anyone touching the balls after that ... to me those balls are perfect," he said of his pregame routine.
"Now that happened (balls were altered) obviously on Sunday night." However, he said he didn't detect a change over the course of Sunday night and didn't notice any difference in air pressure between the first and second halves of the game.
"I didn't think twice about it," said Brady. "Once I approve the ball, that's the ball I expect out there on the field."
Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/patriots/2015/01/22/tom-brady-deflategate-reaction-underinflated-balls-bill-belichick-colts/22172661/
See? No scandal here!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Stephen Retired
(190 posts)They've already been inflated. It's like feeling eggs before you boil them, so you get a sense of which ones are likely not to bust.
King_Klonopin
(1,306 posts)And the officiating crew does their own "test" after the QB.
George II
(67,782 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)lovemydog
(11,833 posts)Too much and they can explode.
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)The officials should be an important part of the investigation.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)What's your point?
George II
(67,782 posts)...all throughout the game one official touched the ball before EVERY play. Funny how that person didn't notice anything funny but a Colt's defensive player, who touched the ball once (an interception) noticed that something was wrong.
People are blaming Belichick, Brady, and the Patriots. But how about the official who spotted the ball before EVERY play - was he sleeping? Didn't he notice a difference between the Patriots' balls and the Colts' balls during the first half?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)and every ball had an acceptable PSI
George II
(67,782 posts)ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)The 12 balls supplied by the Colts were checked pre-game, at half time and post-game, and were found to be properly inflated.
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)nt
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)The Pats didn't need to cheat to win the game; they were favored to win. The question is who would benefit most by discrediting the Patriots.
christx30
(6,241 posts)Angleae
(4,482 posts)If the Patriots ultimately lose draft picks, Buffalo, Miami, and New York (Jets) could be boosted. Also the Seahawks due to the constant questioning taking away from preparation for the Super Bowl.
liberalhistorian
(20,814 posts)doesn't need to cheat doesn't mean that they won't. I grew up with teacher parents, who saw more than their fair share of smart students cheating when they didn't need to do so.
And BeliCHEAT and the Cheatriots already have a history of this. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they pulled this off.
Happyhippychick
(8,379 posts)Typical
George II
(67,782 posts)I mentioned this elsewhere here, did anyone think of inspecting the Colts' balls too? Who knows, they might have been in the same condition. How often do they inspect balls during or after a game in the course of the regular season?
I wouldn't be surprised if this is something that is very common but no one whined about it before.
Happyhippychick
(8,379 posts)But I was really just making a joke about men and balls.
tishaLA
(14,176 posts)Dr. Strange
(25,917 posts)He doesn't have a history of cheatin--
Oh, never mind.
TerrapinFlyer
(277 posts)I am not a Patriots or a Colts fan....
The Patriots crushed the Colts. They could have used a basketball, and the score would have been the same.
People need to stop whining about the balls. It's a GAME!
frylock
(34,825 posts)TerrapinFlyer
(277 posts)meanwhile to World continues on....
liberalhistorian
(20,814 posts)anyway. Cheating is cheating, period. In fact, its kind of worse when a person or team would have won or passed anyway and yet they cheated. It's like saying that a student shouldn't be punished for cheating because they would have passed anyway. Yes, they very well may have, but that still doesn't excuse their cheating or make it right.
TerrapinFlyer
(277 posts)otherwise you are just another obsessed ball conspiracy theorist.
liberalhistorian
(20,814 posts)and we can't know for sure yet what, if anything, really happened or who was responsible. I'm saying IF it turns out to be true then it is still wrong regardless of whether or not they would have won anyway.
I seem to recall "spygate" being dismissed and considered a "conspiratorial" attempt to "discredit" the Pats, also, before the truth came out and it cost the team big time.
And nice red herring there. Instead of addressing whether or not cheating is wrong even if you'd have won otherwise, you do nothing but throw around the words "obsessed" and "conspiracy."
C Moon
(12,212 posts)Nyc72dem
(63 posts)blown up media crap
madokie
(51,076 posts)except with those who want there to be a problem here
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Which he almost certainly is.
madokie
(51,076 posts)but that only matters to you and like minded individuals. To me it matters not
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Have you read/seen Mark Brunell or Jerome Bettis's comments to name just two?
madokie
(51,076 posts)It really is not an advantage whether the ball was right on, under or over inflated. It mattered not to the outcome of that game. The patriots kicked the colts ass up one side of the field and down the other the whole game and at one point the pressure was right on according to what I read
Let it rest and lets get on with important things that need to be discussed that might make a difference.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)But I still think Brady lied about it.
liberalhistorian
(20,814 posts)matter? Wow.
Raster
(20,998 posts)Sometimes you just got to step up and do what's right!
shawn703
(2,702 posts)Whether or not the Patriots needed to cheat to win (a 38 point victory would suggest they didn't need to do it) is irrelevant.
If a Republican happens to win in 2016 by 4 points and only intended to steal 2 or 3 points through vote flipping, would it be okay to dismiss it as inconsequential since without the vote flipping the Republican would have won anyway?
liberalhistorian
(20,814 posts)I've been trying to get across and you've said it much better than me.
liberalhistorian
(20,814 posts)Thank you for the comedy break, Mr. Brady, I sure needed it this morning. LOL.