#DFG: Canceling the Noise

Is there any level of suspension that you would advise Tom to accept?


  • Total voters
    208

TomTerrific

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,581
Wayland, MA
jasail said:
I think the answer here is obvious. It's been apparent since the moment Brady lawyered up and was obvious today that Brady and the Pats are not stepping down from this and are fully intent on either going to courts or at least making it look that way. Roger/NFL holds all the cards. They have the report, they have the penalties, they have the power of the CBA and they have public opinion in their favor. He holds the high ground and he's not going to cede an inch to the Patriots until he has to. Like it or not, Brady/Pats are the ones that need to gain ground. It would be stupid for Roger to play it any other way and he likely has the support of the owners in this. Both camps are in for the long-haul. 
 
Yes, I think so too. I'm pretty much of the opinion that Kraft has decided he's going to do whatever he can to take Goodell down, and this is all about the long game in that regard. Part of that decision is sacrificing his best chance of getting the team punishment reduced.
 
The website is the first volley, and as such I'm not as concerned about the "Deflator" ridicule as some here are. It's a great joke today, but those only last so long, and the website and the points it has raised will remain.  And even so, it's had a salutary short-term impact--I'll bet it cemented the deal that Roger would hear Brady's appeal, which to my mind can only enhance Brady's chances of getting him into court. Getting Goodell into court is a big part of the long game.
 
In addition to laying out a set of facts that people will think about and absorb over time, it serves notice to Goodell that Kraft won't be cowed, and reminds him that has tremendous resources that he can call on. It serves the same notice to the other owners, and forces them to contemplate what might happen when a team is at such loggerheads with the Commissioner and feels compelled to respond in any way open to it, and what impact that might have on their business. And that, ultimately, is what I think Kraft is aiming at. He's trying to demonstrate to the other owners that they damn well better think about whether they would want their business sullied in the way that a prolonged war between Kraft and Goodell would engender, or would they rather just get another Commish.
 
Nov 20, 2009
139
Tito's Pullover said:
Am I the only person that only learned today that "jkt" was supposed to mean "jacket"?  I previously read it as a typo of "jk".  In other words, "Deflate and give someone that ball, just kidding".
 
Still doesn't make much sense.  Bird doesn't seem like a very funny fellow.
I had no idea, I thought it was an unfixed typo for jk. Up until today I've barely even considered this specific text because it was so lacking in context or meaning, I couldn't make any sense of it. Until I saw the screencap from the matching time on the game video I was thinking it had to be referring to the freebie souvenirs. Seeing that I don't understand how anyone could think it's referring in any way to deflating footballs without some further information coming out.
 
Through this whole process I've had a slight belief that the Patriots were guilty of something but not knowing what. I didn't particularly care, either, because ball deflation is such a minor infraction with minimal benefits that the NFL could have come out with video of McNally here bringing the official bag of balls into Tammany Hall and showing him deflating them all one by one dubbed over with the Hindenburg disaster audio and gleefully accepted the fine or late-round picks taken during the offseason. The most disturbing thing about it for me up until recently was having to watch the writhing corpse of journalism be beaten in full view of the entire world.
 
I don't expect the majority of people to waste their time reading the Wells report or the rebuttal now so it's hard for me to get too upset about people believing the Patriots cheated. The Wells report was the definition of inconclusive, and thanks to Spygate and the Patriots continued success, it's not surprising so many people are willing to look at a 50/50 proposition and be unable to shake the belief that they were doing something. It is fascinating that it seems to have equal affect on almost everybody, with everyone having very little to fall back on besides their tribal affiliations and general perceptions (like Brady benefiting from tuck rules).
 
As it goes on we have:
 
a) commissioner Goodell who is a self-righteous, authoritarian disciplinarian type and who has seemingly rose to his position in life only by doubling down at every possible opportunity, and his lackeys,
versus
b) a somewhat meek billionaire who was known for playing quiet backroom politics and who has been called family by former players, with his star model- and actress-marrying ne'er-do-wrong GOAT-tier quarterback
 
Belichick, the grumpy evil mastermind, has been exonerated at this point. 
 
I think it's safe to say that Brady and Kraft are on the same page here and are being forthright and honest about what's going on. Goodell, on the other hand, can only infer and intuit that someone, somewhere has wronged him. Despite recently buying a $5 million hatchet, he still has very little in the way of proof or evidence of anything, and what he does have has already been presented publicly. There is a chance that incriminating evidence was withheld and swept into the internal investigation so as to save embarrassment, but I think it's unlikely.
 
Brady and Kraft are the only ones who could possibly know the real, actual, historical truth here. It's impossible for Goodell to after his investigation ended up looking like a Nick Cafardo column. I used to think it was possible that something went on, and that eventually Kraft would accept the penalties for it even if they were unbecoming and a little too harsh, but the more and more this gos on the harder and harder I find that to believe. One of these two groups is bluffing, but we already know what Goodell has.
 
If this is correct then I hope Kraft and Brady fight it to the death.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,428
Waltham, MA
Harry Hooper said:
 
 
Fair enough, but as just one counter-example, Anderson's recollection about never losing the ball bag in 19 years (doubtful on its face) could have readily been questioned, if Wells/NFL had wanted to.
It's crazy. Anderson never lost a bag of balls in 19 years, but it happened twice on that January night - once before kick off, and now we know, once before the 2nd half.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,428
Waltham, MA
Papelbon's Poutine said:
I'm sure this has been said somewhere in all these pages, so apologies for repeating, but I still find the whole bathroom thing mind blowing. If there was all these extra eyes that prevented McNally from doing his usually thing, why duck into the bathroom and try to rush through it? It was raining out - the balls are constantly being covered by or wiped down with towels. It would have been much easier to do on the sideline in this situation, more accurate and less suspicious. If he's that good at doing it so quickly, he'd have no trouble doing it under a towel.
Even if they had access to the balls, I think you are severely underestimating the risk of doing this out in the open - towel or no towel. I'd much rather have the security of 4 walls around me.

But he was taking a piss so it doesn't matter.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,114
Portsmouth, NH
djbayko said:
Even if they had access to the balls, I think you are severely underestimating the risk of doing this out in the open - towel or no towel. I'd much rather have the security of 4 walls around me.

But he was taking a piss so it doesn't matter.
No one noticed a colts equipment manager taking a gauge to a ball on the sideline and you think someone of importance would notice a ball boy either being in contact with the balls illegally or someone futzing with a needle under a towel?

The 80k people are watching the game on the field. The people involved in the game are preoccupied. Literally no one is going to notice it and even if they were looking for it from the opposite sideline with a pair of binoculars, there's little chance they would be able to catch him or someone else. They're claiming he did it in about 10 seconds per ball. No one is noticing that.

Taking the balls without permission and outside of protocol/normal practice, then ducking into a bathroom to try to do it is way more reckless, suspicious and risky, imo.
 

Bergs

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2005
13,752
JasonVaritekIsMyCaptain said:
Decent take from the NYTimes, just hysterical to see the comments section on a paper like this. A somewhat elitist take on the usual cesspool: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/15/sports/football/patriots-criticize-wells-report-in-lengthy-rebuttal.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Decent? It's an aimless excercise in smug and cowardly indifference only the NYT could get away with. Fuck, I hate Americans.
 

natpastime162

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,803
Pennsylvania
jasail said:
I think the answer here is obvious. It's been apparent since the moment Brady lawyered up and was obvious today that Brady and the Pats are not stepping down from this and are fully intent on either going to courts or at least making it look that way. Roger/NFL holds all the cards. They have the report, they have the penalties, they have the power of the CBA and they have public opinion in their favor. He holds the high ground and he's not going to cede an inch to the Patriots until he has to. Like it or not, Brady/Pats are the ones that need to gain ground. It would be stupid for Roger to play it any other way and he likely has the support of the owners in this. Both camps are in for the long-haul. 
 
It's Jim Irsay authored fanfiction
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
28,988
AZ
jasail said:
I think the answer here is obvious. It's been apparent since the moment Brady lawyered up and was obvious today that Brady and the Pats are not stepping down from this and are fully intent on either going to courts or at least making it look that way. Roger/NFL holds all the cards. They have the report, they have the penalties, they have the power of the CBA and they have public opinion in their favor. He holds the high ground and he's not going to cede an inch to the Patriots until he has to. Like it or not, Brady/Pats are the ones that need to gain ground. It would be stupid for Roger to play it any other way and he likely has the support of the owners in this. Both camps are in for the long-haul.
Seems about right when you put it that way.
 

PseuFighter

Silent scenester
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2003
13,259
11211
has anyone else connected this?
 
16:39:40 JM “Nice dude…jimmy needs some kicks….lets
make a deal…come on help the deflator”
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Apa0nG1OfUc
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,428
Waltham, MA
Papelbon said:
No one noticed a colts equipment manager taking a gauge to a ball on the sideline and you think someone of importance would notice a ball boy either being in contact with the balls illegally or someone futzing with a needle under a towel?

The 80k people are watching the game on the field. The people involved in the game are preoccupied. Literally no one is going to notice it and even if they were looking for it from the opposite sideline with a pair of binoculars, there's little chance they would be able to catch him or someone else. They're claiming he did it in about 10 seconds per ball. No one is noticing that.

Taking the balls without permission and outside of protocol/normal practice, then ducking into a bathroom to try to do it is way more reckless, suspicious and risky, imo.
Okay, we have to agree to disagree on the relative risks there.

Also, taking the balls by himself doesn't seem to be outside the norm. It may not be allowed by the official rules, but it seems to have been regularly overlooked by the refs and other NFL officials if you are to believe the rebuttal.
 

Nick Kaufman

protector of human kind from spoilers
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2003
10,763
A Lost Time
Never in the history of humanity has so much energy, treasure and intellectual brainpower has been expended on an issue as trivial as this.
 

Nick Kaufman

protector of human kind from spoilers
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2003
10,763
A Lost Time
This thing is starting to remind me of the Garry Condit affair. Do you remember it? It was the big scandal that had people occupied in the summer of 2001, when congressman Garry Condit was accused of murdering the intern he was having an extramarital affair with. Everyone was convinced that Condit had done it. He was disgraced and soon thereafter lost his seat. Only problem was that Condit hadn't killed Sandra Levy. Some random psychopath had.
 
In many ways that affair served as a symbol of a happier, more innocent time, before our world was shattered by Sept. 11, Anthrax, endless war and financial crises.

Years from now, when flesh eating zombies roam the earth, the last bands of survivors will nostalgically reminisce about the good old days when we could afford to waste our time with trivialities such as deflategate.
 

soxfanSJCA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2005
110
Outer Space
Nick Kaufman said:
This thing is starting to remind me of the Garry Condit affair. Do you remember it? It was the big scandal that had people occupied in the summer of 2001, when congressman Garry Condit was accused of murdering the intern he was having an extramarital affair with. Everyone was convinced that Condit had done it. He was disgraced and soon thereafter lost his seat. Only problem was that Condit hadn't killed Sandra Levy. Some random psychopath had.
 
In many ways that affair served as a symbol of a happier, more innocent time, before our world was shattered by Sept. 11, Anthrax, endless war and financial crises.
Years from now, when flesh eating zombies roam the earth, the last bands of survivors will nostalgically reminisce about the good old days when we could afford to waste our time with trivialities such as deflategate.
Yeah, and whenever football is brought up in a nostalgic post zombie apocalypse conversation, one or more of those survivors will bring up spygate, or ballgate... 
 

soxfanSJCA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2005
110
Outer Space
I may someday reconcile that Tom Brady's reputation has been absolutely destroyed without any proof at all, but i have not yet.
This charade was seemingly never about football pressure, or even integrity. This was about settling scores.
If it were truly about pressure or integrity, the witch hunt would have ended when the lack of evidence became apparent.
 
 The NFL has acted, not acted, omitted, obfuscated, and railroaded throughout this ordeal.
People with integrity, and people trying to uphold integrity simply do not act the way The NFL has.
(In Wells defense, i do not think that he or his firm were paid to uphold integrity.)
 
 Fortunately, really great things usually happen when Robert Kraft and Tom Brady work on a common goal together,
so i will withhold any worries until they play out the legal options...
 

veritas

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2009
3,010
Somerville, MA
Tom Brady needs to channel his inner Erlich Bachman for that day he appeals to Goodell, walk into the meeting, put his actual balls on the table, and tell Roger he can rescind the suspension completely or he'll see him in court.
 
This whole ordeal is a farce. It's like sending someone to prison for a year for resisting arrest after they were arrested without probable cause.
 
There is no Rev said:
 
 
Right. But alternately, if your employer tries to fuck you over beyond the rules stipulated in whatever agreement is controlling on your employment, you fight, yeah?
 
One of the striking things about this situation, to me anyway, is that the Patriots could be guilty but the NFL still out of line. There doesn't seem to be enough consideration of that. I mean, Missouri just found their process to be illegal, for example.
Do you fight? Through the courts? Who has the financial means to pursue that kind of court battle?

Anyways the punishment is another special from the Goodell dartboard of justice. It's certainly too harsh (compare to bounty-gate, a much much more serious threat to the integrity of the NFL), but what are you going to do? The owners voted Roger the power to make these sorts of capricious rulings. If the owners have a problem they should expel Roger. Simple as that.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
11,971
Seattle, WA
Why aren't the interview transcripts being made available?
 
Dumb and Dumber will either come off as lying snivelrods, or their explanations in context might be instructive.
 
I assume a Patriot's lawyer was present...so I'm betting on the former. In any case, the most disappointing thing about all of this is the lack of primary materials - including texts.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
12,257
Maine
geoduck no quahog said:
Why aren't the interview transcripts being made available?
 
Dumb and Dumber will either come off as lying snivelrods, or their explanations in context might be instructive.
 
I assume a Patriot's lawyer was present...so I'm betting on the former. In any case, the most disappointing thing about all of this is the lack of primary materials - including texts.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but isn't one of the Patriots' contentions that their counsel wasn't allowed to sit in on interviews? Or was that just interviews with NFL personnel (Anderson, etc)?

Regardless, I think it would be a bit naive to think the Pats have put everything they have on the public table.
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
For those that think that the Patriots' salvo yesterday means that they shot their wad and won't take it to court, perhaps you're right.  But I don't think that what they said really surprised any of us in terms of the line of argumentation they'd take.  I mean, they had to attack the faulty assumptions, the bad science, and the selective use of the facts by Wells.  They did all of those things.  Maybe we didn't know all the particulars before, but I'm sure Wells and company knew most of them already.  
 
One of my concerns is if Brady sues and loses, but the court doesn't get around to processing his case until mid-late season.  That is, the injunction allows him to play early on, yay, great.  But then in December the case is lost and now Brady has to serve his suspension, and that absolutely kills their playoff hopes.  
 

MarcSullivaFan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 21, 2005
3,412
Hoo-hoo-hoo hoosier land.

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,607
Mid-surburbia
86spike said:
That's specific to disputes involving teams. Individual player discipline is a different matter and unrelated.
 
What makes you say this?
 
 
A former employee of the St. Louis Rams Partnership, Todd Hewitt, seeks a writ of
mandamus requiring the circuit court to vacate its order compelling arbitration of his claim
of age discrimination against the St. Louis Rams Partnership and three of its affiliates. Five
judges find that a writ of mandamus is the appropriate mechanism to review whether the
trial court erred in sustaining a motion to compel arbitration. Four judges find that
Mr. Hewitt’s employment contract contained a valid and enforceable arbitration clause that
required him to arbitrate disputes, including his statutory claims, against the Rams. Four
judges also find that the National Football League’s dispute resolution procedural guidelines
setting out the essential terms of arbitration were not referenced in Mr. Hewitt’s
employment contract and, therefore, were not incorporated into his contract. Four judges 
further find that the terms of the contract designating the NFL commissioner, an employee
of the team owners, as the sole arbitrator with unfettered discretion to establish the rules for
arbitration are unconscionable and, therefore, unenforceable. 
 

http://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=86195
 
This decision was about a low-level employee with a statutory claim against the team being forced into arbitration by the lower court.  I don't see a second team mentioned at all in the summary.
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
riboflav said:
 Disagree. There is literally nothing the NFL or RG have done since this stupid, made-up scandal broke that suggests that he will do anything other than deny Brady's appeal completely.
 
This.  I can't see any way that Goodell rescinds Brady's suspension.  The Patriots' response yesterday probably pissed him off in a major way.  He's not going to back down now.
 

wiffleballhero

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 28, 2009
2,248
In the simulacrum
ALiveH said:
The next step in Kraft's strategy should be the polygraph.
 
Find a NYC polygraph firm willing to do it for free, or issue an open offer to the NFL to split the cost with them.  Just find a way to have it appear to be and actually be as neutral, objective, and fair as possible.
 
Have Brady do it at his local boys & girls club in San Mateo, and have ESPN broadcast the whole thing live.  It will be as massive as Lebron's The Decision.  If Brady is really telling the truth he'll agree to it.  And, if the polygraph absolves him it will be huge massive PR win that would completely turn public opinion.  And, it would also give Goodell a legitimate face-saving out to reverse all the punishments.
 
I think that's their best shot, since they've tried a bunch of other stuff that hasn't worked.
And if Brady does not pass the test, the world will know because Roger Goodell will ax him gong-show style.
 

sodenj5

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
4,096
CT
ivanvamp said:
 
This.  I can't see any way that Goodell rescinds Brady's suspension.  The Patriots' response yesterday probably pissed him off in a major way.  He's not going to back down now.
 
They've seriously gone through the trouble of completely tarnishing the record of one of the faces of the NFL for the last decade and the reigning Super Bowl champs. They've spent months and millions of dollars in the process. Why would they ease up even slightly now? They're in way too deep at this point.
 

Hoya81

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 3, 2010
4,701
RGREELEY33 said:
No. Which is why he is going to sue.

I mean, I know you're playing devil's advocate to everyone's posts about Brady's innocence, but Brady stated before his presser that he did nothing wrong. He stated in his presser that he did nothing wrong. He told the league he did nothing wrong. He told Wells and his investigators that he did nothing wrong. He came out after the discipline was handed down and had his agent tell the world that he did nothing wrong. If there was the least bit of "shady" going on, I honestly don't think he would have done all of this. That, coupled with the horseshit "evidence" that is the Wells Report allows me to state emphatically that I believe he is completely innocent and will fight to his last resort to prove so. I may be wrong, but I think that is highly doubtful.
This is where I am. One of the parts of the Wells report that convinced me that Brady wasn't involved was that Brady adamantly denied first to Belichick in a 1 on 1 and then got up in front of the team and repeated the denial. While it's possible that Brady is Ryan Braun redux, one of the most consistent aspects of his public persona is his dedication to his teammates. For him to have lied to the team in this would severely undercut his ability to be an authority on and off the field.
 

Morning Woodhead

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 16, 2011
967
Whether it's true or not, I can not believe the media is not the slightest bit interested in the Colts "needle up the sleeve" trick.  If this were another team being investigated, and it said the Patriots ball boys had needles up their sleeves, that would take over the story. 
 

TomTerrific

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,581
Wayland, MA
Morning Woodhead said:
Whether it's true or not, I can not believe the media is not the slightest bit interested in the Colts "needle up the sleeve" trick.  If this were another team being investigated, and it said the Patriots ball boys had needles up the sleeve, that would take over the story. 
 
Unfortunately, I can rather easily believe it. Look at my .sig.
 
Per my "Kraft vs. Goodell Death Match" post above, I think this is a bit of dirty laundry thrown out there mainly with the other owners in mind. The media aren't the target here.
 

sodenj5

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
4,096
CT
Morning Woodhead said:
Whether it's true or not, I can not believe the media is not the slightest bit interested in the Colts "needle up the sleeve" trick.  If this were another team being investigated, and it said the Patriots ball boys had needles up their sleeves, that would take over the story. 
 
Mainly because it's a vague accuasation that LIKELY happened, if it happened, when Peyton was around, because it seems Luck's preference is to have the balls firm. Would make sense with Peyton's neck injuries, one of the things he struggled with was his grip strength.
 

BrunanskysSlide

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 29, 2003
1,137
The more I read these text messages, the more I come away with two conclusions, one which will help the Pats/Brady in an appeal and one will not.  First, I think the skeptics of the report have valid arguments that a lot of the banter between JJ and JM were taken out of context.  Whether it was RG telling TW to write up an NFL favorable narrative or TW being vindictive about not getting "full cooperation," it caused TW to take all of the texts out of context and construe them against the Patriots.  The most damning example is that jacket example from above.  The more I read that, there's no way that message has anything to do with balls, and quite frankly supports the Pats/Brady that JM used the term deflate as both an nickname and verb to lose weight/girth even if it seemed like a stupid explanation at first blush.  The needle conversations and getting shoes sizes and shirts were also all wrongly used as evidence against them, it appears they got/stole free gear all the time, so what. The needle conversations could have also just been stupid banter about TB liking balls at the low end, and legally needing to cater to TB's exacting needs.  I don't see anything linking the needle discussions to putting balls at an illegal psi or even deflating them legally after the refs inspected them.  Separating out all those explanations and harmless texts will help the Pats/Brady at the next level. 
 
The problem for the Patriots and Tom Brady will be how a fact finder interprets the more vague and less explainable text messages, even assuming the Pats/Brady's lawyers explain away the middle-school vocabulary of these two. I personally think the "going to espn...yet" comment is problematic.  The explanation is that a presumably deleted response from JJ to JM about the stealing sneaker comment was an angry one and JM then joked about going to espn to report stealing team sneakers.  That to me has more problems passing the brown bag test than the losing weight comment.  First, I can't buy that JM would ever, even jokingly, threaten to go to espn over team sneakers being stolen.  It doesn't even make sense in the context of a joke.  Moreover, why would JJ delete his angry response, if that's what happened to text in the middle, unless something was said that he realized shouldn't have been.
 
The only other text I would have problems with as a fact finder is when JJ says to TB something like, "Dave (equipment manager) has questions and knows it's unrealistic you did it yourself".  JJ's explanation was that it was a joke about Dave saying there were cameras on TB all night.  I could actually buy an explanation where Dave made a joke and said if this happened it wasn't TB because his pretty face was plastered on the TV all night, so if it happened someone else actually did it or was in non it. Then JJ starts getting grilled and says to TB as a heads up that Dave knows it's unrealistic you did it yourself.  But, three issues I have: 1) If that were the explanation, why wouldn't JJ say something more along the lines of "Dave thinks someone else did this because it's unrealistic you could do it yourself."  The Dave knows part of that text would say to me as a fact finder that JJ and TB know something Dave didn't and don't want him to.  2) JJ denied the "it" had anything to do with deflating footballs, per the TW report.  But, that isn't true even given their explanation.  It was all about the deflated footballs, trying to explain that text was about something else doesn't make any sense. 3) I also didn't see them address this exchange fully in the WellsContext, unless I missed it.  Not that they have to by any means, but they did address deflator and all. 
 
To be clear, I support the Pats/Brady in this and these texts could have completely innocuous meanings, which I would actually support in this whole mess.  I still believe the investigation and TW report was a witch hunt and sting operation that was wholly unnecessary, exorbitantly expensive, needlessly has ruined careers and legacies, and resulted in ridiculous fines/penalties over something that honestly doesn't matter at all.  I'm just saying there are issues for both sides and out of the texts I find these ones the hardest to get around. 
 

BrunanskysSlide

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 29, 2003
1,137
Devizier said:
I honestly think the response was dumb, dumb, dumb. Just glad it wasn't written in Comic Sans.
I can't agree more.  Let's assume that this goes to litigation.  One of my biggest concerns is that the Patriots own attorney can now be called as a witness, right?  If he plastered all these things in this response for the world to see, won't the NFL be able to argue the team waived any privileged communications between Goldberg and the team/players?  So, if there are any inconsistencies between this response and the future testimony Goldberg could be an impeachment witness against his own client.
 

Ralphwiggum

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
5,906
Needham, MA
Well, yes, if the Pats response is filled with half truths and built on bits of outs-of-context text messages and other partial bits of witness recollections taken out of context, then it was dumb.
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
32,708
Hartford, CT
BrunanskysSlide said:
I can't agree more.  Let's assume that this goes to litigation.  One of my biggest concerns is that the Patriots own attorney can now be called as a witness, right?  If he plastered all these things in this response for the world to see, won't the NFL be able to argue the team waived any privileged communications between Goldberg and the team/players?  So, if there are any inconsistencies between this response and the future testimony Goldberg could be an impeachment witness against his own client.
 
Um, no?
 

BrunanskysSlide

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 29, 2003
1,137
Mystic Merlin said:
 
Um, no?
 
I'm guessing you're probably right and I would fight it tooth and nail if I were Goldberg and the NFL tried to call me to the stand.  But, I would try it if I were the NFL if the circumstances called for it.  If one of the witnesses contradicts something in this response and says they never told Goldberg something and I was on the NFL's side, I would try calling Goldberg to impeach the witness.  If he asserted L/C privilege, I would argue he waived it on that particular subject when he wrote this response and can confirm that his client told him what he wrote in that public report. 
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
28,289
Southwestern CT
BrunanskysSlide said:
 
I'm guessing you're probably right and I would fight it tooth and nail if I were Goldberg and the NFL tried to call me to the stand.  But, I would try it if I were the NFL if the circumstances called for it.  If one of the witnesses contradicts something in this response and says they never told Goldberg something and I was on the NFL's side, I would try calling Goldberg to impeach the witness.  If he asserted L/C privilege, I would argue he waived it on that particular subject when he wrote this response and can confirm that his client told him what he wrote in that public report. 
 
I haven't gone through everything the Pats released yesterday, but can you provide examples of information that was released that you think might be privileged? 
 

Joshv02

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,633
Brookline
BrunanskysSlide said:
 
If one of the witnesses contradicts something in this response and says they never told Goldberg something and I was on the NFL's side, I would try calling Goldberg to impeach the witness.  
What are you impeaching?
 

EL Jeffe

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 30, 2006
819
The part that I still can't get my head around is Gardi's letter to the Patriots. I mean, it explicitly states that one of the Patriots footballs measured in at 10.1 That's demonstrably untrue. An NFL Senior VP sent an NFL team a letter indicating facts that they KNEW were false. This board loves (LOVES) to Occam's Razor things, but I honestly can't come up with a single, plausible scenario that makes any sense here. It wouldn't have been a typo. It wasn't some rogue lackey firing off a letter with a bunch of second hand info he'd heard. It was a Senior VP outright lying about facts. Say what you will about The Tweedles' text messages; at least they're open to some sort of interpretation AND there's the jacket text that at least lends their explanation some level of evidence. Gardi's letter, on the other hand, is completely indefensible. And it's just skating by into the ether.
 
As much as Mort's ALL THE BALLZ WERE 10.5!!!!11!! report was awful and sucked and poured gasoline onto what otherwise would have been a minor footnote, I can at least wrap my head around it. Everyone in the league leaks misinformation. Teams, players, agents, coaches, GMs, it's all in the proverbial game. They're anonymous rumors and innuendo, and it happens. Gardi and the NFL knowingly outright put their names on demonstrably false information. That's just f*cking nuts to me. Perhaps I'm just naive, but what in the actual hell with that?
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
I know how people will respond to this or react when they read it even if they don't respond here.  They will say "it's Tom Brady, he is a master at preparation and he, as much as anyone, is disciplined and prepared enough to deal with whatever comes and still be 100% ready." We saw that in spades during the two weeks leading up to the SB, when Tom was only the MVP of the game.
 
That having been acknowledged, I have some concern about how this massive off field distraction will be for Brady.   The time spent on this and the emotional toll COULD affect him on the field when he gets back (or immediately if he is playing pending the results of a court appeal).
 
Yes, aced the challenge before the SB.  But that was a concentrated period when, especially during the last week, he could put his head down and charge toward a single, defined goal.  Here is there is more time and less of a clear target (other than Goodell's mug), and with every year Tom probably needs even more focus than he had before.
 
Again, I appreciate the answer that Tom, of all people, can handle this.   I would probably give that answer or think it if someone else posted the above.  But I STILL have some level of concern over the level of Tom's distractions this off-season, even while I can't wait to see him channel his well deserved anger.
 

BrunanskysSlide

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 29, 2003
1,137
Average Reds said:
 
I haven't gone through everything the Pats released yesterday, but can you provide examples of information that was released that you think might be privileged? 
 
I also can't tell exactly what might and might not be privileged, it's just an immediate fear I have whenever statements of attorneys are made to third parties.  But, for example, let's say JJ testifies at some point that it's not true that "deflator" was a term for weight loss.  Who knows why that would happen, let's just say it does.  I would assume Goldberg knows that because JJ/TM told him that or told someone in the organization that.  As Pats employees, I am guessing they fall under the guise as part of the client umbrella for Goldberg.  Let's say the NFL/Wells wants to impeach JJ to show he did say it meant losing weight to show he changes his story all the time and is a liar.  Wouldn't Goldberg/JJ have waived privilege on that very topic by allowing it to be conveyed to third parties with this reponse?  Especially if it were directed by the Pats to release it, which I'm sure is the case?
 

Gambler7

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2003
3,416
EL Jeffe said:
The part that I still can't get my head around is Gardi's letter to the Patriots. I mean, it explicitly states that one of the Patriots footballs measured in at 10.1 That's demonstrably untrue. An NFL Senior VP sent an NFL team a letter indicating facts that they KNEW were false. This board loves (LOVES) to Occam's Razor things, but I honestly can't come up with a single, plausible scenario that makes any sense here. It wouldn't have been a typo. It wasn't some rogue lackey firing off a letter with a bunch of second hand info he'd heard. It was a Senior VP outright lying about facts. Say what you will about The Tweedles' text messages; at least they're open to some sort of interpretation AND there's the jacket text that at least lends their explanation some level of evidence. Gardi's letter, on the other hand, is completely indefensible. And it's just skating by into the ether.
 
As much as Mort's ALL THE BALLZ WERE 10.5!!!!11!! report was awful and sucked and poured gasoline onto what otherwise would have been a minor footnote, I can at least wrap my head around it. Everyone in the league leaks misinformation. Teams, players, agents, coaches, GMs, it's all in the proverbial game. They're anonymous rumors and innuendo, and it happens. Gardi and the NFL knowingly outright put their names on demonstrably false information. That's just f*cking nuts to me. Perhaps I'm just naive, but what in the actual hell with that?
 
Don't forget it also says all the Colts balls were above 12.5, when in actuality 3 out of the 4 tested were not based on one of the gauges. 
 

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
6,463
Westwood MA
nattysez said:
 
He's wearing a big, "puffy" coat, and JM told him to "deflate" the coat and give it to someone else.
 
 
 
JM told him to "deflate" because he looks bulbous in the coat; give it to someone refers to the other coat he's holding in his hands.
 
That's how I'm reading that.
 
Too bad there wasn't a deflate reference in the Seinfeld episode where George is wearing that gore tex jacket and we'd really be on to something with all of this.
 
 
 
 
 
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
CaptainLaddie said:
For the record, when Vilma took the NFL to court, he was able to play while everything was happening.
This is correct.  Matt Chatham and others have pointed out that if this goes as anticipated, and Brady shifts this to court after Goodell's BS response to Tom's current appeal, Tom will almost certainly be playing week one as the court appeal will not have been resolved by then.
 
The risk is that the Court rules and the suspension is reduced to 1 or 2 games late in the season or even in the playoffs.  Would Brady cut a deal at some point to avoid the latter risk?
 
Different point: Is it me or does the fact that THREE OF THE FOUR COLTS BALLS were below 12.5 at the half under one of the gauges totally destroy the Colts case?  That fact screams out to me.  If I were Brady, I'd be hammering home how that completely eviscerates Wells' case and this whole damn thing.  That would be my lead comment and I'd close with it.   
 

Joshv02

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,633
Brookline
If Brady gets a court to give in injunction, then its more probably than not, so to speak, that he'd get the ban overturned.  (A federal court is very unlikely to lower a suspension; its going to be a process oriented decisions and may end up just kicking it back to the NFL to make a new decision [which they'd decline probably to do]).