MHS831

Dawg, these are realistic names. Yes, they are beaten-down stocks--we can't afford the big names. I hope people understand what you are doing here.

your points are contradictions. I see what you are trying to say, but you can't blame the people who don't like cheating and complain when they feel the tables were tilted. Who polices the NFL? The whistle blowers and complainers. If you want to overlook the cheating and blame those who oppose it. Bias--"ridiculous tapes" Shows me that you do not have any idea how much of an advantage that would be. You also don't mention the other tapes and notes that Goodell (Robert Kraft's buddy) destroyed without reason. Excuses suggests that the Pats did not have an unfair advantage. They did, and their balls were found to be out of compliance--since the annoying complainers only complained that the balls were underinflated and it happened DURING the game, how do call that an "excuse?" I have a pretty good idea that an audit/internal investigation of BB's operation would uncover a lot more of this king of crap--stuff you call smart. Just play by the damn rules and stop trying to find loopholes.

If this is the case, and the Pats were being courageous, why did they initially deny spygate and now this? Just say, "we always do it. We are smart, everyone else is dumb." I am not sure that I would call the whistle-blowers cowards. They seem to be only way our NFL rulebook is being enforced.

He is such a liar. How arrogant do you have to be to say that, knowing people with actual degrees will rip you to pieces. Liars think they fool everyone.

All of the footballs on one side except one. It miraculously was not impacted by BB's air-pressure reducing phenomena.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/bill-nye-calls-bs-on-bill-belichick-what-he-said-didnt-make-any-sense/ar-AA8zn0l?ocid=U141DHP Bill Nye calls BS on BB

Sure. I understand that I am playing "Conspiracy Theory," but 1 ball at the bottom (when I would guess there would be several) that is a good 2 lbs different? My conspiracy theory suggests that the equipment manager: Ballboy division missed one.

Sure. My only question to BB about his theory and research would be, "Why were all the balls not uniform?" In other words, 1 ball was in compliance. One ball was not exposed to the treatments and barometric pressure (sarcasm) he so unscientifically tried to explain to us. Was that ball kept indoors? Was it not roughed up? Maybe it was the kicking ball, and it makes sense that it would be inflated to the max. However, nobody said that--I am just trying to anticipate his answer.

I think there is a bit of a cover up going on. What was today actually about? I think there was some pre-investigation positioning going on: An attempt to put this to rest on their end so they will not be asked about it all week.--- To trivialize the ordeal. (BB was "embarrassed" by the amount of time he had to spend on this--ready to focus on something more important--this is an attempt to make himself the victim by having to spend his precious time on nonsense). To win over the public and put pressure on the NFL-maybe preventing them from using the science behind ball deflation. If the NFL presents data that shows the balls would not lose 2 lbs of pressure in 2 hours in any weather, they can say that it contradicts their study) To put blame on the refs--(Johnny Cochran found fault in the LAPD, for example) The NFL needs to ask: 1. Why were the Colts' balls in compliance? 2 If the balls were deflated as suggested by rubbing, temperature, and atmospheric conditions, why was 1 ball inflated properly? 3. Do the equipment managers know how Brady likes his shoulderpads, helmets, facemask placement on that helmet, etc. without having to ask him every game? If so, would they also know how he likes his footballs inflated? If so, has Brady not made public comments about ball inflation? Did anyone notice Bill's attitude about spygate? Did he sound like a man remorseful about breaking rules and tarnishing the shield? No, he was still making excuses about trying to gain unfair advantages.

He is probably going to rise after the combine, but who knows.( he interviews well) I think he could be a late-second rounder by draft day.

I think Bersin should have made the pro bowl since no other punt goalie made it.

That punt return average (19.1) is higher than some Kick return averages. Double take.

I thought Bersin was better than Lafell last year during camp. Glad to see it. How many SC small college players do we have?.

I agree-we are talking about 3 undrafted players competing for the starting spots. Frankly, if all three were cut, I am not sure any would be picked up. Chandler is my favorite.

At T, we are going to be better than everyone thinks. I like our depth on the OL, so maybe a competition will produce some overachievers.

I hate that too, because Hardy is entertaining. One of the points I made when supporting the fact that Gettlemen has not given him a big contract yet was the unpredictable nature of his personality. I think he is on the fast track, and giving him millions may not be anything more than pouring gas on a hot grill. This year, we shall see. But you are right--Greg H. put himself in a position. If the girl was drunk and on cocaine as GH suggested, then why is he with a girl who is drunk and on the powder? If charges are dropped because he is totally innocent, then there will always be that lingering doubt that he paid his way to innocence.

My brother in law lives in Columbus and is an OSU alum. He says that Philly is a hard worker. He said that he assumed a leadership role this season. Philly was not their primary return man. "He is no Hester" He said that he had "pretty good" hands. Nice addition.

Perhaps you should have the person who reads posts to you explain what it is I am saying. Nobody screamed for anyone's head. That is how you twist facts and run with them. Responding to anything you post is a usually a waste of time.

It sounds as if you are looking for slanted, circumstantial reasons to support a person who might have just beaten a woman. There is reason to question some things at the appropriate time, but these questions need to come from objective thinkers. We all hope he is innocent, but I am not going to support him until I know for a fact what happened. You are presenting one-sided, inferential, insignificant, fragmented details and seem convinced that you have turned the tables. The police? You have not questioned their handling of the situation. Why question her actions during and in the aftermath of the alleged assault when she was high and traumatized? If the police offered her medical attention and she refused, why would they then determine her injuries to be insignificant in terms of assault evidence? The injuries do not have to require medical attention to evidence abuse-according to NC law, that is only required as evidence in child abuse cases. Hardy claims to have been hit with a heel that drew blood. Was he offered medical assistance? Finally, maybe she went to a friend/relative's house and they advised her what to do to protect herself? There is no statute of limitations that invalidates an assault charge a few hours after it occurs. Much will come out. I am not blaming Hardy, the police, or the girl. I am simply not going to build a case for a man just because he plays for my favorite football team. I hope this gets worked out, but for now, I am glad we are not into him for $39-50 million guaranteed.

The judge (according to local newscasts) called the injuries disturbing and expressed concern for her safety. If Hardy called 911 and complained that she used her heel against him etc, why was she not also required to spend 24 hours in jail? The biggest question I have, and this goes along with what WOW was saying, is "Why was the home not checked out by police?" Surely the broken glass and the guns would have been red flags that would have necessitated an arrest. However, many of you who are defending Hardy fail to take into consideration the female voice on the other 911 call, that claimed that she "seen" Hardy hitting her. An eyewitness, bruises, etc. could look bad for him. I am not convicting Hardy, but I am not going to defend a person accused of hitting a woman until I am sure he didn't do it. Maybe some here don't find that to be upsetting, but if she were your sister or mother, I am sure you would feel a bit differently about it.

We know that the judge, a female judge, determined the bruises to be disturbing and put Hardy in jail. I am not trying to convict our top DE, but that means little to me if he was hitting a female. There is evidence that suggests Hardy was not as innocent as he appears on the 911 call.

Based on the 911 call, Hardy seemed a bit slurry in speech, but aware. Funny how people assume that she is guilty because she was drunk/high but give GH, a known lunatic, credit for being sensible and proactive. They are basing that on Hardy's statement to the 911 dispatcher. I do not buy it. However, that is not enough to convict him on either. If Snake is right, if it was just restraint, lets see where those bruises were. I understand bruises above the elbow on the arms. Maybe at the wrists. But if they were around the throat, he has a unique way of dealing with angry women.

There is also another 911 call that has a female voice saying that she saw him beating her. I want to give Hardy the benefit of the doubt, but nobody knows what happened. Sure, Hardy may have restrained her at one point, but he could have thrown her around at another point. Question: Was he retraining her around her neck? If you are saying that she was drunk and high, then I would have to ask, "Where are you getting that information?" Was Hardy drunk and/or high and what does that prove anyway? I hope you are right, Snake. I really do. However, if you are not, I want the truth to be told and the real victim cleared and protected.

I didnt read all 200 posts, but I read some of you sounding relieved, as if the girl was the problem. While that could turn out to be true, Just because Hardy called 911 and told his side of the story to the dispatcher, do not think that is evidence of innocence. It sounds convincing and is good news from that perspective, but the judge saw the bruises and marks on her body. The judge felt that the female was the victim. The legal expert who felt that the girl had been assaulted will not be a petty detail that can easily be overlooked.