Deflation-gate: did the Patriots deflate the ball in their 45-7 rout of the Colts on Sunday or did they not? Forget ISIS, and Hebdo. Forget Boka Haram and Teheran: that is the question.
Deflating the ball makes it easier to pass and catch in cold wet weather. Is that why Tom Brady and his Pats mauled Andrew Luck and his Colts?
To be sure, deflated ball or not, the Pats were better, as even deflationists admit, as in smarter, bigger, meaner -- altogeher more evil.
Plus here's a question I don't see asked, though it should be: if it was easier for Brady to throw and his receivers to catch, why not the same for the Colt's great young q'back Andrew Luck and his receivers?
Brady is right to chortle at the silliness of this whole thing.
Except for one thing: Pat coach Bill Belichick.
It was Belichick who cooked up Brady throwing to Julian Edelman in the Pats win against the Ravens two Sundays ago. It was a schoolyard razzle-dazzle play that just doesn't happen in big time football. Brady throws to Edelman, a running back (who happens to have been a college q'back). The Ravens go after Edelman as if he were going to run. Little do they suspect he's about to pass. Their defense has no one on the case.
And then there is the way Belichick is reconfiguring his receivers, within the rules, to be sure, but rules it seems no other coach has made much use of. He sends his offensive lineman in, their role being to protect the q'back. But some come in and declare themselves right there in real time eligible to receive passes, leaving whomever to play defense.
The opposing team can't grok.
If the footballs were intentionally deflated, which I doubt, I wouldn't put it past Belichick. Belichick is capable of anything, even waterboarding balls. He's just that kind of guy. He reminds me of Dick Cheney, except he's a thousand times more wily and applies his evil genius to the more honorable pursuit of football, honorable, that is, as compared to Cheney and his kinds of war.