Patriots’ stupid ‘deflator’ explanation overshadows its takedown of Wells’ report

The New England Patriots’ response to Ted Wells’ report on deflate-gate will be boiled down to one regrettable line, one that generated a few cheap LOLs on social media and made many people ignore about 18,000 or so interesting words elsewhere in the team’s rebuttal that ripped holes in Wells’ report.

In the Patriots’ response that was released Thursday, the team explained that locker room attendant Jim McNally’s text, in which he refers to himself as “the deflator,” was his way of talking about losing weight.

Really?

It’s understandable why that’s become the big focus – it’s laughable – but it’s unfortunate, too, because the other parts of the Patriots’ dissection of Wells’ report put many key points into question.

[Yahoo Sports Fantasy Football is back: Sign up for a league today!]

The Patriots explained McNally’s text to assistant equipment manager John Jastremski in which he refers to himself as “the deflator” like this:

“Mr. Jastremski would sometimes work out and bulk up — he is a slender guy and his goal was to get to 200 pounds. 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. One can specifically see this use of the term in a Nov. 30, 2014 text from Mr. McNally to Mr. Jastremski: “deflate and give somebody that jacket.” (p. 87). This banter, and Mr. McNally’s goal of losing weight, meant Mr. McNally was the “deflator.” There was nothing complicated or sinister about it.“

The jokes soon followed, and for that the Patriots only have themselves to blame. Too bad, because the rest of the massive report makes many points that show how weak the NFL’s case against the Patriots is.

The Patriots have expressed no guilt in deflate-gate and, via WellsReportContext.com, took the rare step on Thursday of firing back at the NFL publicly over the findings of Wells’ report and the punishment that came of it.

Much of New England’s rebuttal looks at the gauges that referee Walt Anderson used. The so-called “logo gauge” and the “non-logo gauge” provided different measurements at halftime. The Patriots say Anderson used the “logo gauge” that comes out with higher readings before the game (the Patriots’ report said this is the only part of the Wells Report in which Anderson’s recollections are dismissed) and the halftime measurements from the lower “non-logo gauge” were used by investigators to show the Patriots’ balls were significantly below the limit of 12.5 psi, which the Patriots say is unfair. The Patriots say if the “logo gauge” is used throughout then the Ideal Gas Law explains the drop in psi.

The Patriots argue that a letter sent to them by the NFL, which states one football was measured at 10.1 psi (an “obvious misstatement,” considering that wasn’t shown in Wells’ report), prejudiced the NFL in the matter. That 10.1 number was also leaked to the media, which “fueled international media misinformation,” but was never corrected. It also points out that the letter says all of the Indianapolis Colts’ footballs used in January’s AFC championship game were over the 12.5 psi regulation, but Wells’ report shows that three of the four balls were under 12.5 when the “non logo gauge” was used.

The Patriots’ rebuttal also says that the league’s level of evidence needed to prove a rules violation wasn’t met because it couldn’t be found on speculation, of which there is plenty of in Wells’ report. It also points out that Wells’ inferred claim that Brady signed some items for McNally means little because quarterbacks sign items all the time.

From the Patriots’ report: “Mr. Brady believes he has never turned down such a request. If receiving an autograph from Mr. Brady is evidence that you are being rewarded by him for nefarious conduct, then hundreds or even thousands of people must be part of a scheme of wrongdoing.”

It makes reasonable justifications for increased communications between Brady and Jastremski after the AFC championship game, and explains why Brady didn’t turn over his text messages and emails. On the latter point, the Pats’ report said basically that all of Brady’s electronic communication with McNally – of which there was none – and Jastremski was already in investigators’ possession, and he didn’t want to give over messages because of the precedent it would set for other players. 

The Patriots’ report also hits a key point, one that many have ignored in the hysteria over the controversy: Nowhere in the 243-page report is there a single bit of evidence that Brady called for game balls to be less than 12.5 psi. To suspend a player four games and do irreparable harm to his legacy, you’d assume the NFL would want to have at least a bit of evidence of his level of wrongdoing, but there is none in the report. From the Patriots’ report:

“The texts that form the heart of this report show two persons with quite uninhibited texting history — and yet NOT A SINGLE TEXT REFERS TO DEFLATING FOOTBALLS TO A LEVEL BELOW REGULATION, TO DEFLATING FOOTBALLS AFTER THE REFEREE’S INSPECTION, OR TO ANY DIRECTIONS FROM MR. BRADY — OR EVEN ANY BELIEF THAT TOM BRADY WOULD PREFER TO USE BELOW REGULATION FOOTBALLS.”

The Patriots’ report also talks about how McNally and Jastremski were “uninhibited texters” not thinking that their texts, including ones cursing about Brady, would be seen publicly, yet there were zero texts between them about a plan to deflate footballs. It also calls into question many times why key parts of testimony are omitted from the report. 

Here’s what the Patriots’ report is: A takedown of the Wells’ work by lawyers. It doesn’t seem to be something done by the team to curry public favor. It seems like it’s a preview of a bigger battle to come.

– – – – – – –

Frank Schwab is the editor of Shutdown Corner on Yahoo Sports. Have a tip? Email him at [email protected] or follow him on Twitter! Follow @YahooSchwab