clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

The New England Patriots rebuttal to the Wells report is beyond hysterical

New, comments

The Patriots rebuttal was unintentionally hilarious. Dani Bostick breaks down laughing, and then breaks it down.

Mark J. Rebilas-USA TODAY Sports

Nice try, Patriots. And by "nice try," I actually mean, "Wow, did that lawyer get paid to write that rebuttal because it seems like something I’d come up with for a sports humor site I write for."

The Patriots continued to fight back today against the findings of the Wells report, this time avoiding ad hominem attacks against Ted Wells and shifting focus to the report itself.

I am sure the Patriots’ fan base will think the report is convincing and proves without a doubt that their quarterback and organization are guilty of no wrongdoing whatsoever and that they have been the victims of a biased independent investigator and an NFL that enjoys targeting teams unfairly. My sincere hope for Patriots’ fans who are experiencing these feelings of injustice and persecution is that they find solace in the GoFundMe account they created to help a billion-dollar business.

Here are some of the main points of the rebuttal. My rebuttal to the rebuttal under each point:

Patriots: "Texts acknowledged to be attempts at humor and exaggeration are nevertheless interpreted as a plot to improperly deflate footballs, even though none of them refer to any such plot."

My Thoughts: Yes, it is indeed funnier to refer to an overly inflated ball as a rugby ball instead of simply writing, "I will inflate the ball to the maximum acceptable pressure to infuriate the quarterback of our team." On the other hand, the report did not rely on text messages alone to reach the conclusion that the balls had been deflated. What other evidence was there? THE BALLS WERE UNDERINFLATED.

Patriots: There is a scientific explanation for this.

My Thoughts: This might have been worthy of consideration before the investigation, but the report includes an entire section on the LACK of scientific explanation. It was written by actual scientists.

Patriots: "There is no evidence that Tom Brady preferred footballs that were lower than 12.5ps and no evidence anyone even thought he did."

My Thoughts: I can only assume that they are not using commonly accepted definitions of "lower than" "anyone" and "thought."

Yes. This is actually a very plausible explanation, and applies to their next argument. Their very best argument. (And by best, I mean, "Are you kidding me??????"

Patriots: "Mr. McNally is a big fellow and had the opposite goal: to lose weight. ‘Deflate’ was a term they used to refer to losing weight."

My Thoughts: Bwahahahahahahaahahahahahahaha. I don’t want to ruin this comedic moment by adding extraneous commentary. Let me just resume laughing for a bit. Seriously, my dogs were napping and just looked over at me like, "What the f*#$, lady?" (Yes, it was the "f" word. I want to quote them accurately.) I almost think my dogs would be smart enough to understand why this is so funny.

Serious question: Do any non-Patriots fans think this is anything other than hilarious? If so, please post in the comments section, or hit me up on Twitter. Also if you have ever referred to 'You-on-a-Diet' by using the term "deflator," I’d like to hear about that too.

Meanwhile, they had no rebuttal for Brady’s refusal to turn over text messages. Couldn't the Patriots have come up with something?  I get why Brett Favre didn't want to turn over his text messages in the NFL’s 2010 sexting investigation. He would have been turning over pictures of his penis. What was Brady trying to hide?

I’m surprised the rebuttal didn't say that the entire Patriots organization uses this new definition of "deflate" and Brady didn't want to turnover highly personal evidence of his own anatomical "deflation" and "inflation." And with that, I rest my case.