#DFG: Canceling the Noise
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
To play devil's advocate here, is it crazy to think that even if Tom/Bill/Kraft knew they were guilty the morning after the AFC Championship, lying might have been the right move? Would anyone here have rather played the Super Bowl without Bill or Tom than lose the draft picks?
Fwiw, I don't definitively think the Pats are guilty of anything, and though I have my doubts that we weren't doing something, I think the penalty is absurd. I'm just saying that I'm glad we're getting angry Roger now rather than during media week.
Fwiw, I don't definitively think the Pats are guilty of anything, and though I have my doubts that we weren't doing something, I think the penalty is absurd. I'm just saying that I'm glad we're getting angry Roger now rather than during media week.
so 4 game suspension for "failing to cooperate" and the only thing he did not do is provide his phone. This is so getting overturned.
LuckyBen said:
Not to fantasize too loudly, but the real jeopardy for him and his firm would be other, larger clients or potential clients questioning the report and his/PW's integrity.
Wells once again saying he is independent and investigation was not slanted. Now going into cell phone texts as key evidence points.
Guess what Tom. You don't have subpoena power and its not collectively bargained that he has to hand over his phone.ifmanis5 said:
Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:
A one game difference last season meant we could have been playing on the road in the AFC title game.
Three of the four games are Pittsburgh (11-5 last year, and we'll be without Brady and Blount), at new-look Buffalo and that defense, and against a good Dallas team. That's not an easy road for a kid from an FCS school making his first starts. I'm not saying that's murderer's row, but it's not Jacksonville, Oakland, and Tampa Bay either.
RedOctober3829 said:
Absolutely. Especially when the league has zero subpoena power and no authority via the CBA to get this phone. He fully cooperated if I am looking at this as a judge.
Ted Wells seems surprisingly thin skinned. The other fact that came out of this is the failure to present McNally, was after a total of 4 interviews (1 with Wells and 3 by his associates).
I don't know. The fact that it's tacked onto a very specific and believable story about Jim being ambushed at home makes it ring true to me. Otherwise, it's a very elaborate lie.Bleedred said:
Regarding the dishonest wording in the Wells Report, frankly, I believe Goodell's fingerprints are all over the final edit of rhar document.
Why? Thats not putting his personal reputation on the line that Brady is definitely a bad actor, that's a clever way of repeating the exact conclusion that's in the report. Its the exact same standard that is used in civil trials.PedroKsBambino said:
Right, and there's no evidence of global warming just because my Outer Banks cottage is now a dollhouse for baby sharks.Mooch said:
A summary statement is meaningless. If the interviewer let him off the hook on that, s/he should be back reading hog futures at 4 AM on Iowa public radio.
Fact: Grigson provided some kind of warning that sufficiently identified the risk.
Fact: Neither the NFL nor the Dolts ever saw fit to tell the NEP to stay on the right side of the road.
Fact: The problem was flagged during the AAFC championship game, not before.
Fact: The issue was deemed important enough to warrant a finding of violating league rules, and a punitive fine..
Fact: The NFL insisted that the violation could have had a substantive impact on the game, or maybe some other game - see below.. (What kind of weed are they smoking?)
With all this, how could they possibly permit the game to go forward without a warning, and why? Simple answer: Because it was more important to snare the NEP. Their only disappointment was that the Dolts had played so badly that they couldn't possibly claim they would have won had the balls not been doctored. A closer first half and slightly different readings could have resulted in a forfeiture at half time.
That folks is I believe the classic definition of a sting.
Wait - Paul, Weiss attorneys were present at the first three interviews, not just NFL security officials? Is that what he said?RIFan said:
Ted Wells says "I believe that to the bottom of my heart" that text messages implicate Tom Brady.
— Rachel Nichols (@Rachel__Nichols) May 12, 2015
Which texts by Brady and to who?
— Rachel Nichols (@Rachel__Nichols) May 12, 2015
Which texts by Brady and to who?
If I were a betting man, this will be received less as Wells sounding defensive and more him doubling down on Brady being guilty.dcmissle said:
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
Marciano490 said:
I mean, I get the humor there, but you're leaving out therapists, consultants, psychologists, tutors, architects, interpreters, painters, web developers, etc.
/pedantic
Wells is a God in the legal field. He's probably never questioned, ever, by anyone in his firm or in the ABA. If questions were asked challenging the efficacy of his work product and his impartiality, I'm not surprised he got defensive. I would have loved to have heard this...and would have loved more if a good litigator was planted among the questioners.RIFan said:
if Paul Weiss could not get all the info they needed after one interview, let alone four then they were incompetent. you don't generally get multiple depositions of the same person, so you have to be prepared for everything. same should apply.RIFan said:
Forget the timing. Is this really a scenario where you want to alienate certain people in your audience? You'll have lost some peoole in the room as soon as they see the subject matter and get any whiff of your slant.drleather2001 said:
Unless you know they're all die hard NE fans, of course, but there's no guarantee of that even in NE.
Stitch01 said:
He did not specify civil trial in the quoted section, as an aside...words matter in these things.
He is conducting a press conference where he has said it is 'proven'. If you don't think that is putting his reputation on the line, you are absolutely kidding yourself
I don't see how Ted Wells throwing a public tantrum over the idea that anyone would dare question him is a good look for the NFL.
More to the point, Wells has just ensured that he is now seen as a central figure in the appeals process, which is really odd behavior for a lawyer.
I'm not surprised he got defensive, but I'm shocked that he took those sentiments public.
He may be a God in the legal field, but he just made a rookie mistake by making this about him instead of placing the interests of the client first.
More to the point, Wells has just ensured that he is now seen as a central figure in the appeals process, which is really odd behavior for a lawyer.
Bleedred said:
I'm not surprised he got defensive, but I'm shocked that he took those sentiments public.
He may be a God in the legal field, but he just made a rookie mistake by making this about him instead of placing the interests of the client first.
Marciano490 said:
Are you kidding? Other clients are looking at this and thanking their professional hitmen that there are people who will mop up shit like this.
Is the media failing again and not going to ask about why they chose to ignore the Ref's recollection on which gauge he used pre-game for no good reason?
That's the smoking gun in the report. It shows that the report is total BS.
That's the smoking gun in the report. It shows that the report is total BS.
E5 Yaz said:
The NFLPA can request a neutral arbitrator, and it's highly likely they will get it in this case.
