#DFG: Canceling the Noise
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
TheoShmeo said:
If this deflating operation was running so smoothly for so many years without even the need for conversation, how did they end up playing with balls at 16 PSI during the Jets game?
Ed Hillel said:
You think? It wouldn't put it past me that he will sue Wells and possibly the NFL for defamation.
CantKeepmedown said:
Brady and Kraft will go nuclear if it's a year.
Also, Jimmy G will go 13-3, win the Super Bowl, and the Pats will get two 2016 #1s for him and everyone will say it was a league conspiracy to get the Pats high draft picks in next year's draft.
I have to say, in an age of anodyne, milquetoast public relations platitudes, that guy's statement is awesome.
Hoya81 said:
You're talking about Roger. His punishments are dependent on how much static he's getting from people yammering at him. The actual seriousness of violations is way down the list in his calculus. It quite probable that his desired outcome here is swinging the hammer to look tough but losing in arbitration vs. brady/NFLPA.
Also, I don't know about the "sting" narrative, because sting operations only work if the party is engaged in misconduct. Better to call it a set-up.
Agreed. Sounds like Brady is going to fight the only place it really matters- the court of public opinion.dcmissle said:
The thing I wonder is whether BB and Kraft will back him or whether he will do it himself.
BroodsSexton said:
Using "It's omission" instead of "Its omission" was not a great start, though.
This is like a replay of what happened pre-SB when BB, Brady and Kraft went ballistic (While Theo was telling us that BB maybe was on the hook for a SB suspension).
If Ted Wells thought he could bury the "sting" in a footnote, he was very naïve. Florio has called it out for what it was, and that is going to frame the whole discussion from TB's standpoint -- they were out to get us, they did not deal with us fairly, and so you have a slanted report that should be viewed with deep skepticism.
If Ted Wells thought he could bury the "sting" in a footnote, he was very naïve. Florio has called it out for what it was, and that is going to frame the whole discussion from TB's standpoint -- they were out to get us, they did not deal with us fairly, and so you have a slanted report that should be viewed with deep skepticism.
ivanvamp said:
That more likely than not probably explains why generally the Patriots lose more games on the road!
Goodell bragged that he is available to the media everyday, I'm sure he'll be available today.
jsinger121 said:
Unless Wells actually lied in the report (hint: he didn't) Brady will not sue anyone for defamation.
I do welcome the inevitable release of the full transcript from Brady's interview. Sunlight is indeed the best disinfectant.
Average Reds said:
I wonder if there's a tortious interference claim that could survive a motion to dismiss. Would it be considered a breach of Brady's contract with the Patriots to not play as a result of suspension? Probably not. That would be interesting, though.
Also, is the Wells Report investigation covered by attorney/client privilege? I'm not sure, if it's primarily fact-finding. Does it count as legal advice to the league?
Stitch01 said:
Same here. This isn't for off the field conduct aka Ray Rice, Greg Hardy or Adrian Peterson where the NFLPA can't really make a huge case. I have confidence that they win an appeal based on them getting Vilma's overturned.
Is Brady's talk at Salem State still on for tonight? If so, I imagine the media circus has already set up its tent on/near campus.
On the news this morning it was reported that it was going on as scheduled and that cameras would not be allowed after the first ten minutes.Ferm Sheller said:
He said they were 13.0-13.1.ivanvamp said:
I agree it's a one-sided report.
I agree it wouldn't hold up in a court of law.
I agree there is far less than definitive proof that Brady knew they were deflating below 12.5.
And I agree the Pats probably intentionally deflated the footballs after the refs approved them.
Given the last one my general reaction is just a lot more muted than yours. I don't want 100% proof to suspend Greg Hardy so I can't ask for it here.
Re: the communications between Brady and the two idiots following the breaking of the story:
1) I don't think it proves anything; it's entirely plausible Brady was blindsided and wanted to talk to them to figure out what, if anything, was going on;
BUT:
2) Someone, if not Brady himself, should have realized the possibility that this would blow up, and that having such communications would possibly look bad.
I can't blame him, but the first thing he should have done was talk to Kraft about it and had a meeting with all of them and kept everything above board from the get-go.
1) I don't think it proves anything; it's entirely plausible Brady was blindsided and wanted to talk to them to figure out what, if anything, was going on;
BUT:
2) Someone, if not Brady himself, should have realized the possibility that this would blow up, and that having such communications would possibly look bad.
I can't blame him, but the first thing he should have done was talk to Kraft about it and had a meeting with all of them and kept everything above board from the get-go.
My reading of it is that Brady is obviously very particular about the balls being 12.5 and if they felt off during a game, these guys got the brunt of his frustration. As such, they thought they were doign him a favor / saving themselves a headache by making sure the balls were at 12.5, and that might have included letting air out afterwardsamarshal2 said:
jsinger121 said:
Right now we're dealing in hypotheticals. I assume the PA supports Brady and will work to reduce any penalty handed down.
But my main point was Goodell for PR purposes comes out as Wyatt Earp dealing harsh justice to an out of control outlaw organization.
Why do you think this? There is absolutely no proof that they did anything wrong and the science in the report has been shown to be flawed, so what makes you think that they probably intentionally deflated balls?amarshal2 said:
dcmissle said:
I think some of this rings true; however, one key piece is missing and that is the motivation to deflate. Were the balls deflated because Tom Brady likes soft footballs, or were they deflated because Tom Brady thinks soft footballs give him an illegal competitive advantage? The first results in a technical violation of the rules based on a preference, but the second is much more nefarious. If we assume the balls were deflated after the Refs checked them, we still need a reason why. Wells wasn't interested in seeking a motive here, possibly because there isn't one other that what he found in text messages: Tom Brady didn't like hard footballs and requested them to be softer.
There are actually multiple facts in the report that are detrimental to Brady doing this to obtain an illegal competitive advantage, such as provide the rule book to the Refs when deflated. Why call attention to rules if you are immediately intending to break them? Maybe Brady is a secret sociopath, but no evidence was presented to support this fact. Wells avoided the tough question, which is unfortunate for the whole scenario.
amarshal2 said:
Two different situations. One is off the field and a criminal case and the other is lets face it a onfield rule violations and nothing more. The cases aren't even in the same ballpark.