Tom Brady in position to put NFL on defensive over deflate-gate probe

Tom Brady, in a long scheduled appearance at Salem State (Mass.) University on Thursday evening, said virtually nothing about deflate-gate, which means he said plenty about how he will likely move forward.

Brady's lawyers are expected to handle most of his response to the Wells Report, which focused on the inflation levels of the New England Patriots' footballs in January's AFC championship game. You can expect a detailed and ferocious response to the credibility of the 243-page report.

Brady isn't looking for a public relations tour. If he was, Thursday would've served as a perfect opportunity, with a controlled setting of a "speaker's series," a sympathetic interviewer in Jim Gray and a cheering gymnasium of fans, many wearing his jersey, as the audience.

"This is like a Patriot pep rally," Brady noted.

And yet, he deferred, refusing to throw out even a single campaign slogan.

This, even though his father, his agent and his boss (Patriots owner Robert Kraft) have all railed against the Wells Report, which concluded not only that two Patriots staffers most likely deflated the game balls the night of the game, but it is "more probable than not that Brady was at least generally aware of the inappropriate activities."

"It's only been 30 hours so I haven't had much time to digest it," Brady claimed.

"Are you that slow of a reader?" Gray joked.

"Well, my athletic career is much better than my academic career," Brady said with a laugh.

It was a night like that; Brady cool, calm and content. He did note that there is "a process going forward right now. I'm involved in the process."

Expect that process to focus on the Wells Report and everything about it, which isn't where the NFL would like this fight to play out.

If the league was going to make a big deal about deflated footballs – and it did – then it should've sought a clear-cut determination, whether there is guilt or innocence. It was the same with recent high-profile cases in New Orleans and Miami and so on.

What it'll be left with, however, is competing arguments and intense backlash because the problem here lies in the process.

The report, headed by New York attorney Ted Wells, contains some damning evidence and very strong work that paints a painful picture for the Patriots, namely that by any common-sense view, the most likely reason those balls were deflated is because two New England staffers, John Jastremski and Jim McNally, did it.

Specifically, McNally, who dubbed himself "the deflator" carried a bag of just-tested game balls into a small bathroom and used a needle to take a little air out, as Brady prefers. In this case, it went below the minimum 12.5 pounds per square inch.

Common sense also suggests that a couple of equipment guys wouldn't dare mess with the footballs on their own, especially in the moments before such a critical game. Thus it was at Brady's behest.

Facts uncovered by Wells' team bolstered the above theory, which was always the most likely scenario in this scandal. It likewise debunked other competing theories. In the end, if you had to pick the most likely thing that went down, you'd agree with Wells. That doesn't mean it's 100 percent, but it's the most probable.

However, Wells was also terribly weak in spots and this is where the NFL has screwed up the situation.

It starts with the idea of the "independent investigation," which isn't really all that independent, but more problematically doesn't stop at the mere "investigative" stage. This is an "independent conclusion," which required Wells to make assumptions, presumptions and finally a determination on things, some of which are open to fair-minded dispute if not outright disagreement.

By allowing the investigators to also serve as the judge and jury, the entire process goes off the rails. It always will. That's why any reputable legal system separates the jobs.

Of course, the standards of the Wells Report, or any like it from the NFL, remain somewhat of a mystery.

The league has lengthy and definitive rules about whether Dez Bryant caught a pass or not, but not on a subject that has grown this big and involves the reputation of players. Was Wells supposed to make a call based on a preponderance of evidence, clear and convincing evidence, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt or any other standard?

Who knows? The report doesn't say.

Common sense says that the equipment guys did it at the behest of Brady, but is common sense enough when a report like this is obviously going to garner a mountain of media attention and set public perception against three guys?

When there were competing explanations for an action, the report picked a side … and rarely, if ever, was it Brady's or the Patriots employees. Brady's agent complained that the quarterback's side of a story was rarely mentioned in the report, if even considered. Yet at the same time, Wells repeatedly makes a big deal about Brady not handing over text and email records – of what though, and of what value?

Wells' focus on this lack of cooperation felt like a grandstanding tactic. Investigators already had Jastremski's phone and all communication, not to mention myriad other Patriots staffers. Wasn't that enough? Did they suspect Brady wrote a confessional email to someone outside the organization? If we're basing everything on common sense, then common sense says there was no smoking text message to some random person.

It worked though; laid out by Wells as it was, many fans saw that as proof Brady had something to hide. This is why prosecutors aren't allowed to write verdicts in the real world.

Brady's lawyers must love this stuff because it shifts the focus off of the uncomfortable core arguments of the case and onto the fairness of the investigation. They'll be able to go on and on with this one. There are holes all over the place, few of which have anything to do with the basic conclusion.

It might not gain much public sentiment nationally but it'll rally support in New England that the QB was railroaded.

"FrameGate," Brady's father already cleverly called it, even before all the jokes about Tom making his first appearance in the witch trial city of Salem.

Even some who are convinced Brady is guilty will agree that the NFL did a poor job here. So much of this was avoidable by the league. When it comes to these scandals in the future, its independent investigators need to simply dole out the independent facts (not their opinions). This shouldn't be a judgment call left to a bunch of faceless Manhattan lawyers.

It's not fair to Brady and the Pats, who are put in a hostile place. It's not fair to the Indianapolis Colts and the rest of the league that deserve a truth that should be accepted.

The release of the evidence acquired, no matter where it pointed, was all that was needed. The public didn't need Wells to tell them the most plausible scenario. They already knew. They could've figured it out based on McNally carrying that bag of footballs into a bathroom that locked.

Yet by having Wells overstep acceptable standards, the strong parts are weakened, the water gets muddied and the entire story gets exhausting.

It does allow Roger Goodell to hide out in his office, testing the winds of opinion before making a move.

Other than for Roger, this isn't a real good way of doing business.