Giselle is a model this isn't her area of expertise. I mean if it was, vaccines and autism, sure then you rely on the opinion of somebody who made their money by getting photographed, but concussions? No way.
Next one is a full season + ??. If somehow this infraction turned out to be the next one (unlikely, I know), it wouldn't be Tom's fault, so we'd probably lose Bill.I'm happy with another four game suspension/vacation for Tom while Jimmy plays. Worked out fine last year.
The idea that the NFL will be rational with discipline has almost never been correct - I'm not sure why people keep starting with that assumption.Those of you giving precedent of lack of penalties on situations like this are hilarious. They mean nothing and have consistently meant nothing in the past. Why would that matter now?
Yep, there just might be enough "there" there for the NFL to get more involved and yes, levy penalties. The idea that they would be constrained by a lack of "there" is simply wrong.Who had "Under the Rug" as a resolution?
How could Brady possibly be penalized? The CBA makes no obligation on the part of the player to do anything; it's all on the team. Contrary to what's often quoted in the press and on this forum, Goodell does not have a blank check to totally ignore the CBA.Yep, there just might be enough "there" there for the NFL to get more involved and yes, levy penalties. The idea that they would be constrained by a lack of "there" is simply wrong.
And to me, penalizing Brady or more likely, the Pats, for not reporting a concussion (assuming they can actually gather some evidence) given the emphasis on player safety (whether they actually give a shit or not) is a lot easier to understand than penalizing the Pats and Brady for the ball deflation fantasy, regardless of the level of proof.
Regarding Edelman in 49, his odd stagger off the turf seems much more related to his hip injury and not a concussion. The guy traveled to Disneyland the day after the SB and rode in an open vehicle in the sun = not concussed in all probability.Brady gets clobbered in the head on I think the second play from scrimmage of the game tying drive in the Super Bowl. I thought he looked a little woozy. The ref actually even appeared to check on him.
I think I remember having a momentary fear that the eye in the sky would buzz down, but it didn't seem likely in the Super Bowl.
I guess that would become a story with some legs -- if a reporter wanted to push it. The angle would be whether the NFL has a sliding scale for when it decides to buzz down depending on the player and the size of the moment. I think this story has already been written. Heck, it could have easily been speculated on for Edelman in 49. But Brady, especially given the enormity of what happened, would definitely be more of a story that people might care about. I guess I wouldn't care, because it really has nothing to do with the Patriots. I suppose that the haters would use it to say that the win is somehow not legitimate because Brady should have had to be evaluated, but I don't care about that. They aren't taking the trophy away.
But I definitely have noticed some plays where I'm pretty surprised that there is no buzz or evaluation and I guess if anyone tends to focus on that play or one like it somewhere else in the season, we might get the NFL having to play defense on defending its eye in the sky policies.
There's never really going to be rationality about things like this after deflategate.How could Brady possibly be penalized? The CBA makes no obligation on the part of the player to do anything; it's all on the team. Contrary to what's often quoted in the press and on this forum, Goodell does not have a blank check to totally ignore the CBA.
As for the Pats, there's still no there there.
The CBA makes no obligation for players to travel to see Goodell for PED investigations, but Goodell compelled players to do that when the Manning thing came out. Article 46 trumps all.How could Brady possibly be penalized? The CBA makes no obligation on the part of the player to do anything; it's all on the team. Contrary to what's often quoted in the press and on this forum, Goodell does not have a blank check to totally ignore the CBA.
As for the Pats, there's still no there there.
More to the point, it's perfectly rational to have some concern that an irrational and power hungry commissioner will seize on whatever he can to flex his muscles. We know that Goodell was humiliated by Kraft's podium remarks and Patricia's t-shirt. The notion that he would turn himself into a pretzel, especially if he is egged on by the same owners who used DG to correct the perceived SpyGate wrongs, as he seeks some revenge isn't hard to grasp. And he has the perfect fig leaf to wrap himself in -- player safety.The CBA makes no obligation for players to travel to see Goodell for PED investigations, but Goodell compelled players to do that when the Manning thing came out. Article 46 trumps all.
There's no reason for people to be rational about this stuff because the NFL has never been rational about it.
I feel like this should be pinned at the top of BbtL for future "scandals."More to the point, it's perfectly rational to have some concern that an irrational and power hungry commissioner will seize on whatever he can to flex his muscles. We know that Goodell was humiliated by Kraft's podium remarks and Patricia's t-shirt. The notion that he would turn himself into a pretzel, especially if he is egged on by the same owners who used DG to correct the perceived SpyGate wrongs, as he seeks some revenge isn't hard to grasp. And he has the perfect fig leaf to wrap himself in -- player safety.
To be clear, I do not think that anything will come of this. I agree there is not much in the way of evidence. Gisellle's comments can be explained away, I suspect. But Roger is a drunken sheriff with a gun, and saying that we know he won't aim it recklessly defies our experiences with him.
Yes, both parts of this are important for this forum, I think, more generally:More to the point, it's perfectly rational to have some concern that an irrational and power hungry commissioner will seize on whatever he can to flex his muscles. We know that Goodell was humiliated by Kraft's podium remarks and Patricia's t-shirt. The notion that he would turn himself into a pretzel, especially if he is egged on by the same owners who used DG to correct the perceived SpyGate wrongs, as he seeks some revenge isn't hard to grasp. And he has the perfect fig leaf to wrap himself in -- player safety.
To be clear, I do not think that anything will come of this. I agree there is not much in the way of evidence. Gisellle's comments can be explained away, I suspect. But Roger is a drunken sheriff with a gun, and saying that we know he won't aim it recklessly defies our experiences with him.
There was a guy in the neighborhood we kids called Dingle. It didn't mean a county of origin. It was a reference to the fact that anything and everything set him off, the bell on the ice cream truck, let alone the garbage trucks on their weekly pass. And by set him off -- ducking for cover, running, yelling and so forth.There's never really going to be rationality about things like this after deflategate.
Hence reading that NFL release and worrying about penalties, which aren't going to happen here unless the Pats were up to some actual scumbaggery this time and the Pats and Brady were super dumb about it, both of which probably didn't happen.
By far the most likely outcome is that the non medical professional speaking in a second language calling something a concussion that wasn't a concussion.
I don't understand why people here talk as if there is any rationality or logical consistency in how the NFL handles....ANYTHING. We could spend all day easily listing the ways that Goodell has been wildly inconsistent and almost (maybe not "almost") arbitrary in his decision-making. Given that it's clear he's been sticking it to the Pats, it's hardly irrational or unreasonable to worry that he could find a way to make this a huge deal and penalize the Patriots accordingly, even if he's not done that in other cases where injuries and/or concussions have been hidden.NFL Launches Inquiry into Brady's Medical Records.
Everyone still comfortable saying that nothing will come of this? Personally, I think the probability that Belichick is banned for a season has just gone up to about 20%. Because if the NFL feels motivated to find something, they will. And if they can claim to be taking a "hard line" on concussions in the process, well, all the better.
Goodell has done a remarkable job sealing off liability on this issue -- the settlement covers most former players, and the risks are so well-known now that the league will likely be able to defend future suits on "assumption of risk" grounds (even states that have abolished that defense usually reach similar results on other grounds).The league absolutely has a reason to attack this and take it seriously. It's not that they want the head trauma issue to go away, that's impossible. They want to appear as proactive as possible to avoid getting their behinds sued off when things get nasty on this issue very soon. Their stance is the CTE equivalent of appearing "tough on crime."
Those of you giving precedent of lack of penalties on situations like this are hilarious. They mean nothing and have consistently meant nothing in the past. Why would that matter now?
The problem is that the Seahawks precedent involved Sherman's knee. Goodell could say that the Patriots failed to disclose a head injury, something that the league takes much more seriously and has protocols in place to protect, and therefore the punishment is a draft pick rather than a warning. And thanks to 2/3 of the Second Circuit, he has the authority to do that.We have multiple situations in the last year where a player has said in a news conference that he had an injury during the season that the team failed to report. Nothing to speak of came of those revelations. I get that the NFL can be inconsistent, but unless there is some hard evidence that the Pats, their doctors, or training staff concealed info on a Tom head injury, I don't expect anything to come of his wife saying he had a concussion where nothing else supports that position.
This is an issue the NFL will take serious because its a head injury, but they've got independent neuro guys on the sidelines and spotters. If the Pats were concealing a condition, there are checks in place to discover it independently. I expect nothing will come of this.
And most of the country will eat it up.If the league does go after this, it will show that their hate of the Pats is bigger then there own self preservation.
They could pursue the proven "Give us your phone. No? Obstruction!" angle.The problem is that the Seahawks precedent involved Sherman's knee. Goodell could say that the Patriots failed to disclose a head injury, something that the league takes much more seriously and has protocols in place to protect, and therefore the punishment is a draft pick rather than a warning. And thanks to 2/3 of the Second Circuit, he has the authority to do that.
I agree with you, though, that the more likely outcome is nothing comes of this. There would need to be documentation somewhere of a concussion. If there were, it would have come out before Mrs. Brady's comments.
That structure falls apart, however, if the clubs don't do their part -- following protocols, getting concussed players out of games, and keeping them out until they are medically cleared to play again. I expect the NFL's investigation will focus exclusively on whether the Patriots followed the rules; if they did and Brady deceived them, that's on him. But if the league concludes Brady was in fact concussed, and that the Patriots' medical staff knew or should have known about it, then I would expect the Ginger Hammer to come down hard on the organization (and rightly so).NFL Launches Inquiry into Brady's Medical Records.
Everyone still comfortable saying that nothing will come of this? Personally, I think the probability that Belichick is banned for a season has just gone up to about 20%. Because if the NFL feels motivated to find something, they will. And if they can claim to be taking a "hard line" on concussions in the process, well, all the better.
I thought that at first too, but the full statement says that the league has been in contact with the players' association and they will work together to gather additional information from the Patriots' medical staff and Mr. Brady.It seems that the CBS story, although time-stamped today, might be behind the curve? This is from the ESPN story yesterday:
"In a statement issued later Wednesday, the league said records it reviewed did not indicate Brady had suffered any type of head ailment.
'We have reviewed all reports relating to Tom Brady from the unaffiliated neurotrauma consultants and certified athletic trainer spotters who worked at Patriots' home and away 2016 season games as well as club injury reports that were sent to the league office,' an NFL spokesman said. 'There are no records that indicate that Mr. Brady suffered a head injury or concussion, or exhibited or complained of concussion symptoms.'"
I think one has to conclude that she and Tom have different views about if and when he should retire, right? Isn't that by far the most likely explanation?What the hell is wrong with Gisele though? How on earth does she not realize that this is a terrible thing to comment or joke about? Didn't she just live through the last 28 months with him? It's mind-boggling.
Yes, I remember last training camp where BB held a press conference to specifically say "if Jimmy G plays well he can win the quarterback job".It feels somehow more likely that Tom Brady hid any concussion symptoms from the team than that the team would hide it.
Why?
Jimmy Garoppolo.
Brady plays for a coach that's about 'next man up'. And he's likely (and probably quite accurately) concerned that if Garoppolo plays, Brady may never get the job back.
Correct. Unless 1) The Pats were up to actual scumbaggery like knowingly playing guys that have concussions and violating NFL protocols and 2) were dumb enough to do so in a way such that they can be shown circumventing the rules nothing is going to come of this. Its not going to be like deflategate where massive penalties are assessed over nothing. If they were fucking with the concussion protocols after everything that's happen they kind of deserve whatever they get, but doubt that was happening here.Goodell has done a remarkable job sealing off liability on this issue -- the settlement covers most former players, and the risks are so well-known now that the league will likely be able to defend future suits on "assumption of risk" grounds (even states that have abolished that defense usually reach similar results on other grounds).
That structure falls apart, however, if the clubs don't do their part -- following protocols, getting concussed players out of games, and keeping them out until they are medically cleared to play again. I expect the NFL's investigation will focus exclusively on whether the Patriots followed the rules; if they did and Brady deceived them, that's on him. But if the league concludes Brady was in fact concussed, and that the Patriots' medical staff knew or should have known about it, then I would expect the Ginger Hammer to come down hard on the organization (and rightly so).
The other owners will all be frightened -- they don't have their arms around this issue any better than the Pats do -- so I don't think you'll have the same dynamic as DFG with other owners pushing Goodell to make an example of New England. I'm therefore cautiously optimistic that nothing will come of this investigation.
Whatever Gisele might want in regards to Tom's future, to purposely sabotage his career rather than negotiating or convincing him to retire on his own would show what kind of selfish person she really is. If she wants him to retire, it's because she cares about him, and that behavior would be counterintuitive.I think one has to conclude that she and Tom have different views about if and when he should retire, right? Isn't that by far the most likely explanation?
Just for clarity: when do Rocco and the boys show up?He should just say the concussions were actually hers, he's never had any, and this is a family matter and not any of the NFL's business.
I can always count on SoSH for the perfect takeHe should just say the concussions were actually hers, he's never had any, and this is a family matter and not any of the NFL's business.
Out of here?The simplest way out here is for Brady to throw his wife under the bus a bit here since she is the one that outed him on TV. It would be a simple matter to say something along the lines of:
"My wife like all good spouses is looking after my best interests. There are often times when I come home from work with headaches, aches and pains. With the issues of CTE being in the forefront of many players minds her concern for me is understandable. I do however have to remind her on occasion that a few hours googling medical symptoms doesn't yet confer her a medical degree. Have I mentioned I love my wife?"
And let it ride.