Gambler7 said:
Football fans: reporters are very deceptive with the words "league source"--it means anybody related to the NFL--owner, player, agent, league employee, team employee. It does not mean someone from the league office.
#DFG: Canceling the Noise
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
Football fans: reporters are very deceptive with the words "league source"--it means anybody related to the NFL--owner, player, agent, league employee, team employee. It does not mean someone from the league office.
WenZink said:
You can say this as definitively as you want and it doesn't make it any truer. You don't know. The fucking Wells Report didn't claim this with the certainty you are.
dcmissle said:
OK, running with the Godfather theme....
If Wells is Sollozzo and Goodell is Tattaglia, who is Barzini?
Irsay is a clown and I can't imagine anybody listens to him when it comes to league matters. I think there are at least a couple savvier and more powerful owners out there who gave Goodell the go-ahead to drop the hammer on the Patriots. And I'm very curious regarding who they are.
They get Brady's salary back for the suspended games if he's suspended, but I don't think it helps them today.
I doubt they go out and sign a veteran for any real money if they think Jimmy G will be the starter. They'll need a backup for those four games, but Gilbert or reasonable facsimile is what we should get there.
I doubt they go out and sign a veteran for any real money if they think Jimmy G will be the starter. They'll need a backup for those four games, but Gilbert or reasonable facsimile is what we should get there.
Holy shitballs. I'm reading this at 2 and have several pages of this thread left so i'm going to assume that someone has set you straight. "Your take" was that the balls were more than likely deflated? Balls were ABSOLUTELY deflated. Because Brady likes them at 12.5. He instructed his guys that if the game balls were higher than that, then they were supposed to DEFLATE them. NOWHERE in the report does it even SUGGEST that there was a conspiracy between Brady, the knucklehead equipment guys or ANYBODY to deflate the balls BELOW the 12.5. That's the cheese that the innuendo of the report wants people to take. And you took it.genoasalami said:
I'm not moved by the "Pats brought some of this on their own heads" analysis, even if in retrospect you could argue they did some things wrong. You shouldn't have to act with perfect strategic brilliance--particularly in a fast-moving situation with facts constantly evolving--on order to avoid bias, incompetence, and bad faith by people who hold enormous power over you. The NFL is failing at one of its most basic functions right now, and it's not clear to me that anything Bob Kraft could have done better would have changed things. And it's a weird place to put the burden, regardless.
Shelterdog said:
This can't be emphasized too much. There is no way competent counsel would have permitted RK to go out on a limb like he did initially without strong assurances TB had squared up completely and wasn't hiding/redacting anything. If he snookered RK, then this thing will take on a devastatingly different turn. RK will have lawyered up every step in the on-going process meticulously, up to and including pictures of Giselle
IIRC, TB's initial press conference was less than an unqualified success, and his body language was uncomfortable.
jsinger121 said:
"No quarterbacks take out less air than what is mandated by the NFL."
So all quarterbacks take either the league-mandated amount or more out of the ball?
Hmmm.
Hendu for Kutch said:
I'm not saying anything definitively, except that there was video tape of McNally taking the footballs into the bathroom. Do you accept that? That was a violation right there. And that substantially changed the situation from the time that Kraft and Belichick made their press conferences.
Stitch01 said:
Agreed---I think Kraft's actions all along only make sense if he believes they are completely innocent here.
Yes, the only way the fans can effect this would be to make it effect the NFL's pocketbook. Roger would be gone tomorrow if major sponsors started walking away or the value of TV packages and rights declined.
It didn't happen in the Ray Rice fiasco, and its not going to happen here.
It didn't happen in the Ray Rice fiasco, and its not going to happen here.
Stitch01 said:
Secondary boycott? Good luck organizing one. SoSH is not real life extrapolated from a SSS
I do think there's something to the notion that Kraft's willingness to blindly support RG when he applied arbitrary and unjustifiably harsh penalties to other teams for questionable infractions (e.g. punishing Dallas and Washington for like $40 million plus for spending "too much" in an uncapped year) and basically acted like a clown and a bully in every way, has now come back to bite Kraft in a big way. On the plus side, maybe this will finally be the wakeup call that gets RG fired.
Question about a possible sting op by the NFL. Wells says that he didn't find that. "There was no sting operation."
Stitch01 said:
I have no evidence that Kraft was stonewalling. But sometimes stonewalling is the optimum strategy if full cooperation would yield something worse. And it's not a sign of bad character, IMO. The NFL has no subpoena power, so it's not breaking any law, even it does break an NFL rule. Sometimes it's the best way to mitigate the damage.
And please don't respond that I have just claimed that Kraft stonewalled. Just pointing out that it was a possible option with no ethical judgement.
Ted Wells on Brady's guilt: "If I were sitting on a jury, I would have checked the box that said, 'proven.'"
— Bart Hubbuch (@BartHubbuch) May 12, 2015
— Bart Hubbuch (@BartHubbuch) May 12, 2015
I believe so. The balls aren't supposed to be out of view of the officials at some point, No? I believe Anderson said he'd never seen that done before.Bergs said:
Correct me if I am mistaken, but I've always assumed the Patriots were going to get some kind of penalty (not this much, for chrissakes) when I first heard that reported.
I'm not that worried about the on-field effects of the suspension, even if it does stay at four games (which I think unlikely). We have tons of cap space and adding some kind of emergency backup for a few games will hardly make a difference. I expect Jimmy G to be pretty decent, obviously not TB12 level, but I'd say the difference in expected wins over four games is unlikely to be larger than one. We have a pretty easy schedule next year so I would still make us favorites for the division title and contenders for a bye no matter what happens with the appeal.
From a purely on-field standpoint, losing the draft picks is a bigger hit than losing Brady for four games.
From a purely on-field standpoint, losing the draft picks is a bigger hit than losing Brady for four games.
RedOctober3829 said:
This is the same weasel that quit (or got fired) after barely hanging on for a year as a Pats waterboy. I remember him laughing about how that "living breathing" football life wasn't meant for him.
Just kills me that he touts his "Patriots" experience to gain credibility and uses it to get fill-in host gigs and spew Shannon Sharpe-esque BS whenever he's on.
Question about Pats co-operating with investigation. Wells says he wanted second interview with Tom and didn't get it. Wells is pissed on this point.
Was the league lying when it said Jeff Pash was co-leading the investigation with Wells?RedOctober3829 said:
Wells says Tom answered all questions in first interview but Wells is pissed he didn't have proper access to Brady's phone.
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
nattysez said:
I had a legal ethics teacher once make the point that the three major professionals who charge by the hour are hookers, babysitters and lawyers.