#DFG: Canceling the Noise

[TheoShmeo]

I think you are right that the NFLPA is going all in. 
 
As a lawyer who sometimes litigates, proceeding as if you have a slam dunk legal case is, in my view, pretty unusual.  What I mean is that even if you think you have the law and the facts heavily on your side, most lawyers have a healthy respect for the Law of Unintended Consequences and the fact that judges can be rather unpredictable.
 
In short, I don't have a lot of belief in slam dunk winners.  We've all seen slam dunks get muffed.  

 

[tims4wins]

 
Since people were asking, unless I'm mistaken, that first argument from the WaPo piece:
 
 
would be an example of a basis for a ruling that vacates the punishment and remands it back to the NFL for adjudication whereby the NFL would basically be required to issue no punishment.
 
It also would have two other interesting elements:

1. It would make concrete OnWisc's contention that what actually happened didn't end up mattering at all.
2. It would allow Brady to get off on what would be seen as a mere technicality, which would cause football fans across America to go utterly bonkers.

 

 
How is it that - unless I am mistaken - through the thousands of posts on this, no one here brought this up as a means for Brady to win in court? This seems like a fantastic argument, unless I am missing something.

 

[pappymojo]

I think you are right that the NFLPA is going all in. 
 
As a lawyer who sometimes litigates, proceeding as if you have a slam dunk legal case is, in my view, pretty unusual.  What I mean is that even if you think you have the law and the facts heavily on your side, most lawyers have a healthy respect for the Law of Unintended Consequences and the fact that judges can be rather unpredictable.
 
In short, I don't have a lot of belief in slam dunk winners.  We've all seen slam dunks get muffed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7rPIg7ZNQ8

 

[Harry Hooper]

 
How is it that - unless I am mistaken - through the thousands of posts on this, no one here brought this up as a means for Brady to win in court? This seems like a fantastic argument, unless I am missing something.

 
It's back in the old thread.

 

[tims4wins]

 
It's back in the old thread.

 
Wow, looks like you pointed it out but no one seemed to pick on it. Nicely done.

 

[TheoShmeo]

Thanks, Pappy.  That does make the point I was getting at rather well.  So would an NBA player bouncing a dunk off the rim, as we see from time to time.  And less dramatically, so would linking a Judge's decision that no one saw coming or, at the very least, that caught most legal observers by surprise.
 
And, mostly off thread topic but what the hell, I have to say, even now:
 
1. Watching that play is, to say the very least, incredibly enjoyable;
 
2. Butler's single minded, all in approach is astounding, rookie or veteran; what gonads;
 
3. The Decision WAS highly questionable, but Butler's play was so good that it's really insane that all the discussion about the Decision overshadowed what Butler did such that Butler's magnificence became almost an after thought;
 
4. That so many Pats Haters, I'm looking particularly at you Francessa, were as butthurt as they were about the play call is such a nice cherry on top of the sundae;
 
5. Every single time I watch that I worry that Hightower is going to cause Butler to bobble the ball;
 
6. Wilson's even handed response to blowing the Super Bowl is bizarre, even with the Almighty whispering in his ear;
 
7. Wilson did not get enough blame for the throw and Lockette did not get enough blame for not boxing Butler out;
 
8. That they threw was not really the stunner under the circumstances (26 seconds, making sure they could run three downs if necessary); that they threw high to the middle of the field was;
 
9. If things had been reversed and Blount had been 1-5 on runs from the 1 during the season (as Lynch was), that would have been nagging at me as a Pats fan;
 
10. One day I hope Belichick will explain exactly why he did not call a time out there; did he think he would cause PC to panic a bit?  Did he have no confidence that Brady could lead them back down the field in the remaining time if he called time and then let Seattle score?  Did he have a brain fart?  At the time, not calling a time out seemed inexplicable and literally every Pats fan around me and, as it turns out, every Pats fan I have discussed this with or read talking about it here, was screaming for Bill to call a time out.  This is even more mysterious in a "all's well that ends well" sort of way than Francona bringing in Pedro into Game 7 and that was pretty freaking mysterious; and
 
11. Screw you, Bob Kravitz, Mort, Roger Goodell and everyone else responsible for -- like it or not -- taking away some of the focus on that incredible play and game, and substituting in its place the insane, opportunistic, preposterous and truly made up DG controversy.      
 
Apologies for the non-DG aspect of this post.  I couldn't resist.  

 

[ManhattanRedSox]

10. One day I hope Belichick will explain exactly why he did not call a time out there; did he think he would cause PC to panic a bit?  Did he have no confidence that Brady could lead them back down the field in the remaining time if he called time and then let Seattle score?  Did he have a brain fart?  At the time, not calling a time out seemed inexplicable and literally every Pats fan around me and, as it turns out, every Pats fan I have discussed this with or read talking about it here, was screaming for Bill to call a time out.  This is even more mysterious in a "all's well that ends well" sort of way than Francona bringing in Pedro into Game 7 and that was pretty freaking mysterious; and

 
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000468110/article/bill-belichick-explains-no-timeout-at-end-of-super-bowl

 

[Myt1]

Theo is 100% right about there being very few real slam dunks in this world. And I really would caution people against assuming that's what we've got here.

"Standard of Review" is the first part of the argument section of an appellate brief for a reason. Not infrequently, it can be the ballgame.

 

[quint]

 
No. Schefter was on the radio in New England and said it.
 
The radio station then tweeted out he said it.

I understand that. Do you understand what I wrote or are you just sort of posting for the sake of posting?

 

[Average Reds]

Theo is 100% right about there being very few real slam dunks in this world. And I really would caution people against assuming that's what we've got here.

"Standard of Review" is the first part of the argument section of an appellate brief for a reason. Not infrequently, it can be the ballgame.

 
If you are saying that this case is not a sure thing, I agree 100%.  But since Theo himself made the point that not even slam dunks are sure things, I'm not sure the analogy is the problem.
 
The larger point shouldn't be lost because of colloquial phrasing.  So here's another crack at the post that was the jumping off point for the discussion:
 
I have no real way to assess the strength of the case.  But the NFLPA is acting in a manner that makes it clear that they are itching to litigate.  Which tells us that they either believe they have an overwhelmingly favorable case or they are running an inexplicable bluff.

 

[The Big Red Kahuna]

I understand that. Do you understand what I wrote or are you just sort of posting for the sake of posting?

Multiple people have tried to point out to you... you're wrong and coming across as a d-bag.
 
The point was it would mean more if Schefter had said it on SportsCenter or some other national outlet (i.e. not catering to the MA audience)
 
We all get how @ASchefter/Twitter works. That's not the point.

 

[bakahump]

Right.  Slam dunks are not sure things......but they are pretty damn close.  The NFLPA seems to think they have a Pretty damn good case.
 
Slam dunks are not 100% successful......but they are 99% successful (or something similar).
 
So while any litigation with a human element is less certain then a dunk and hyperbole comes into play.....there is probably a 70-80% chance of this being decided in favor of Brady/the union.

 

[Dogman]

Multiple people have tried to point out to you... you're wrong and coming across as a d-bag.
 
The point was it would mean more if Schefter had said it on SportsCenter or some other national outlet (i.e. not catering to the MA audience)
 
We all get how @ASchefter/Twitter works. That's not the point.

 
I don't. Was my post not clear?
 
Quint???

 

[joe dokes]

I wouldn't read very much into the pre-lawsuit utterances of soon-to-be litigants. It's the rare high-profile lawsuit (or criminal trial) in which at least one of the parties doesn't claim victory before the race has started, regardless of either the actual merits or what the uttering party actually believes.

 

[Dogman]

 
I think you meant to reply to "Quint" with your 'I don't'?  Otherwise, I have no idea what you're saying... 

 
 
That's because you haven't read the thread. If you want to be in the conversation, do us all (yourself included) a favor and read it. This way you are informed. You should practice this through all avenue's of life.  Examples it would help:  who to vote for, how to program a DVR, how to better understand your favorite baseball team, who writes good, your mom and what TheoSMeo's friends think. 
 
Tres important, especially the last one.

 

[Myt1]

 
If you are saying that this case is not a sure thing, I agree 100%.  But since Theo himself made the point that not even slam dunks are sure things, I'm not sure the analogy is the problem.
 
The larger point shouldn't be lost because of colloquial phrasing.  So here's another crack at the post that was the jumping off point for the discussion:
 
I have no real way to assess the strength of the case.  But the NFLPA is acting in a manner that makes it clear that they are itching to litigate.  Which tells us that they either believe they have an overwhelmingly favorable case or they are running an inexplicable bluff.

Or that they think they have nothing to lose or gain from acting any differently. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a far more than average position entrenchment going on in this case because non-legal considerations may be contributing to a general lack of head to head clash between the parties and their decision making.

TL; DR: Goodell's history tells me that he gives zero fucks about being overturned on appeal. That drastically alters using the parties' behavior to handicap or read tea leaves, I think.

As for slam dunks, which I originally wrote as "spam dunks," I guy I used to work with once said, "I don't care how good you think your case is. You don't have more than an 85% chance of winning."

 

[DJnVa]

I understand that. Do you understand what I wrote or are you just sort of posting for the sake of posting?

 

I understand.
 
I think the point that was being made is that if someone tweets AT someone, that as a default, even if you follow that person, you don't see that tweet. Otherwise my timeline would be thousands of people tweeting AT everyone. So, just because Schefter has 37 million followers, it wouldn't show up as a default on his followers timelines just because he was mentioned.

 

[TheoShmeo]

Myt1, it's got to be more than "nothing to lose or gain," no?
 
Whenever I have worked on anything that was really public or high stakes -- read: where there were a lot of smart people involved with decision making -- there was little that was done that was not super calculated.
 
My guess is that many hours were spent and much debate was taken trying to decide whether to leak the general legal strategy and re-emphasize that the NFLPA/Brady will not accept any games.  I would assume that leak was made for a very specific reason or set of reasons and it's far from doesn't hurt/help.
 
That does not mean it's the right decision or we here on SoSH have put our fingers on their rationale.
 
And I must say, it remains a little curious to me as none of the reasons we've batted around have seemed very good to me.  And that does support your point.  Still....

 

[lexrageorge]

Myt1, it's got to be more than "nothing to lose or gain," no?
 
Whenever I have worked on anything that was really public or high stakes -- read: where there were a lot of smart people involved with decision making -- there was little that was done that was not super calculated.
 
My guess is that many hours were spent and much debate was taken trying to decide whether to leak the general legal strategy and re-emphasize that the NFLPA/Brady will not accept any games.  I would assume that leak was made for a very specific reason or set of reasons and it's far from doesn't hurt/help.
 
That does not mean it's the right decision or we here on SoSH have put our fingers on their rationale.
 
And I must say, it remains a little curious to me as none of the reasons we've batted around have seemed very good to me.  And that does support your point.  Still....

Moving into rank speculation:
 
First, I'm going off the assumption that the highly experienced NFLPA attorneys handling Brady's appeal probably can read with some degree of accuracy how well the hearing went for their client.  I'm guessing the types of questions being asked, the responses, the reaction to these responses, Goodell's body language, etc. were closely studied by Kessler and his team.  Does it seem reasonable that they are "85% certain" of the outcome?  
 
In the "nothing to lose" department, if Kessler and Co. have concluded a suspension of at least one game is inevitable, then there truly is nothing to lose by going public.  And while I would never confuse Goodell with a rational actor, even he would not be stupid enough to change the punishment based on the NFLPA stating that they would appeal any suspension, this last point a fact that would be obvious to anyone with a kindergarten level education.  
 
In the "what is gained" department, I would say PR, especially among the players.  Basically the union is reminding all the players they have their backs, and they will fight arbitrary punishments to the end for their members, and that they have really good lawyers that will come up with really good arguments during the appeal.  In the event that the grand extinction comet hits the earth Goodell vacates the suspension, the NFLPA looks even more heroic to their members.  That's worth something in the long run. 

 

[simplyeric]

Thanks, Pappy.  That does make the point I was getting at rather well.  So would an NBA player bouncing a dunk off the rim, as we see from time to time.  And less dramatically, so would linking a Judge's decision that no one saw coming or, at the very least, that caught most legal observers by surprise.
 
And, mostly off thread topic but what the hell, I have to say, even now:
 
1. Watching that play is, to say the very least, incredibly enjoyable;
 
2. Butler's single minded, all in approach is astounding, rookie or veteran; what gonads;
 
3. The Decision WAS highly questionable, but Butler's play was so good that it's really insane that all the discussion about the Decision overshadowed what Butler did such that Butler's magnificence became almost an after thought;
 
4. That so many Pats Haters, I'm looking particularly at you Francessa, were as butthurt as they were about the play call is such a nice cherry on top of the sundae;
 
5. Every single time I watch that I worry that Hightower is going to cause Butler to bobble the ball;
 
6. Wilson's even handed response to blowing the Super Bowl is bizarre, even with the Almighty whispering in his ear;
 
7. Wilson did not get enough blame for the throw and Lockette did not get enough blame for not boxing Butler out;
 
8. That they threw was not really the stunner under the circumstances (26 seconds, making sure they could run three downs if necessary); that they threw high to the middle of the field was;
 
9. If things had been reversed and Blount had been 1-5 on runs from the 1 during the season (as Lynch was), that would have been nagging at me as a Pats fan;
 
10. One day I hope Belichick will explain exactly why he did not call a time out there; did he think he would cause PC to panic a bit?  Did he have no confidence that Brady could lead them back down the field in the remaining time if he called time and then let Seattle score?  Did he have a brain fart?  At the time, not calling a time out seemed inexplicable and literally every Pats fan around me and, as it turns out, every Pats fan I have discussed this with or read talking about it here, was screaming for Bill to call a time out.  This is even more mysterious in a "all's well that ends well" sort of way than Francona bringing in Pedro into Game 7 and that was pretty freaking mysterious; and
 
11. Screw you, Bob Kravitz, Mort, Roger Goodell and everyone else responsible for -- like it or not -- taking away some of the focus on that incredible play and game, and substituting in its place the insane, opportunistic, preposterous and truly made up DG controversy.      
 
Apologies for the non-DG aspect of this post.  I couldn't resist.  

And THIS is why DFG has been so enjoyable, as frustrating as it is b

 

[dcmissle]

Or it could be a Union member of Camp Brady trying to lock the client in more securely (don't go wobbly), or it could be Camp Brady effing with the NFL for the sake of doing so or because the NFL is effing with them, or it could be completely uncalculated, or over something we do not know about ...
 
Maybe they are pissed at the media.  There have been NFLN and ESPN types talking about how Brady HAS to deal here.  So maybe it's a no-we-don't.
 
It could be any number of things, or nothing at all beyond somebody mouthing off or doing the reporter a solid.

 

[Myt1]

Myt1, it's got to be more than "nothing to lose or gain," no?
 
Whenever I have worked on anything that was really public or high stakes -- read: where there were a lot of smart people involved with decision making -- there was little that was done that was not super calculated.
 
My guess is that many hours were spent and much debate was taken trying to decide whether to leak the general legal strategy and re-emphasize that the NFLPA/Brady will not accept any games.  I would assume that leak was made for a very specific reason or set of reasons and it's far from doesn't hurt/help.
 
That does not mean it's the right decision or we here on SoSH have put our fingers on their rationale.
 
And I must say, it remains a little curious to me as none of the reasons we've batted around have seemed very good to me.  And that does support your point.  Still....

I think there's a lot here that's accurate. My point is that, especially if the level of legal position entrenchment that I suspect actually exists, the non-legal dispute specific concerns are the dog that's wagging its tail for both parties.

If little is going to change in legal stances regarding Brady's specific case, I think it makes sense to view the parties' actions as calculated to affect, or at least implicate, larger policy goals or issues.

 

[Myt1]

"Broader" might be more accurate

 

[dcmissle]

It's gotten now to the point that I hate everybody covering this story with the exception of Florio and Schefter ... the other day, even Reiss made a massive unforced error ... The story is old and not aging well.

 

[Myt1]

IMHO, we're at the Belichick apotheosis. It is what it is.

 

[Sportsbstn]

For the NFLPA:  A member is suspended 4 games for a trash report of suspicions, an incompetent league when it comes to the footballs and their handling and measurements, a commissioner that thinks he is Wyatt Earp handing out punishment in the wild west and double and triple standards all over the place.  This is exactly the kind of case that the NFLPA HAD to go all in on.  The fact it is Brady just raises the stakes a bit more.
 
My question once again for the legal minds, is how good of a chance does Brady have to get an injunction against the NFL in court?

 

[Doctor G]

So if the NFLPA argument is that the rule in question applies only to club personnel and not to players. then the punishment that Kraft accepted would be the only legitimate discipline that could be handed down. To punish Brady for failing to adequately supervise club personnel would seem to be to impose a responsibility on him that is not included in the players contract.
Can the club and the player both be held responsible for the same offense? Especially when the club has already accepted responsibility.

 

[Section15Box113]

Especially when the club has already accepted responsibility.

Careful. The club decided not to fight.

Here's what he said:

"So, I think I made it clear when the report came out that I didn’t think it was fair – there was no hard evidence and everything was circumstantial – and at the same time, when the discipline came out, I felt it was way over the top, as it was unreasonable and unprecedented in my opinion."

Snip

"You know, what I’ve learned over the last two decades is that the heart and soul of the strength of the NFL, that it’s a partnership of 32 teams and what’s become very clear over those two decades [is] that at no time should the agenda of one team outweigh the collective good of the full 32. So I have a way of looking at problems that are very strong in my mind, and before I make a final decision, I measure nine times and I cut once, and I think maybe if I had made the decision last week it would be different than it is today, but believing in the strength of the partnership and the 32 teams, we have concentrated the power of adjudication of problems in the office of the commissioner, and although I might disagree with what is decided, I do have respect for the commissioner and believe that he’s doing what he perceives to be in the best interest of the full 32.

So, in that spirit, I don’t want to continue the rhetoric that’s gone on for the last four months. I’m going to accept, reluctantly, what he has given to us, and not continue this dialogue and rhetoric, and we won’t appeal."

That is accepting a punishment he disagreed with.

Not accepting responsibility.

 

[Reverend]

For the NFLPA:  A member is suspended 4 games for a trash report of suspicions, an incompetent league when it comes to the footballs and their handling and measurements, a commissioner that thinks he is Wyatt Earp handing out punishment in the wild west and double and triple standards all over the place.  This is exactly the kind of case that the NFLPA HAD to go all in on.  The fact it is Brady just raises the stakes a bit more.
 
My question once again for the legal minds, is how good of a chance does Brady have to get an injunction against the NFL in court?

Do you mean a temporary injunction pending the court's resolution of the case should they proceed to court? Very good.

Or do you mean a permanent injunction? That won't happen--it's just now how it works. (See below.)

Or do you mean the court nullifying the league's decision and resolving the issue on its own? Very unlikely.

Should the court find in favor of Brady, it would most likely nullify the punishment (vacate) based on the fact that it was wrongly handled and then send it back to the league (remand) to redo the punishment correctly in ways consistent with the reasons the court gives as to why it was done wrongly before.

Sorry if that sounds a bit pedantic, but the law uses all these terms quite precisely, whereas people are not so precise in common speech, so I'd figure I'd parse it out. Is that helpful?

 

[Sportsbstn]

Do you mean a temporary injunction pending the court's resolution of the case should they proceed to court? Very good.

Or do you mean a permanent injunction? That won't happen--it's just now how it works. (See below.)

Or do you mean the court nullifying the league's decision and resolving the issue on its own? Very unlikely.

Should the court find in favor of Brady, it would most likely nullify the punishment (vacate) based on the fact that it was wrongly handled and then send it back to the league (remand) to redo the punishment correctly in ways consistent with the reasons the court gives as to why it was done wrongly before.

Sorry if that sounds a bit pedantic, but the law uses all these terms quite precisely, whereas people are not so precise in common speech, so I'd figure I'd parse it out. Is that helpful?

 
Thanks, yep I was referring to the temporary injunction.  

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Holy shit. ESPN has a set of fantasy football commercials running, with a guy debating whether he wants to be commissioner again this year and coming up with a reason why the other guys wouldn't be good. In one he says about a guy "he can't be commish, he's softer the footballs in Foxboro."

Really?

 

[Reverend]

Holy shit. ESPN has a set of fantasy football commercials running, with a guy debating whether he wants to be commissioner again this year and coming up with a reason why the other guys wouldn't be good. In one he says about a guy "he can't be commish, he's softer the footballs in Foxboro."
Really?

Holy shit that's funny.

 

[Myt1]

Generally, to get a temporary injunction, you have to show two things:

1. A susbstantial likelihood of success on the merits; and
2. A substantial likelihood of irreparable harm.

The more you can show on 1, the less you need on 2, and vice versa. It's one of those rare legal concepts that has some elegance about it.

Regardless of the merits, missing games is the sort of thing that's really high on the irreparable harm scale. I can't recall right now, but I swear there's some really helpful language in an NFL-centric case about that.

 

[dcmissle]

Yes, and to refine it further, a third factor is a balance of hardships between the parties. Here TB's irreparable harm is manifest, and the NFL has none. This resolves the balance of hardships in TBs favor, which is perhaps why Myt elegantly omitted it.

Bottom line -- if TB can show a smidge of likely success on the merits, he ought to get a PI.

Additionally, if RG slow walks his decision and pushes it much further, he is screwing himself. Because then he is putting the judge in a time bind. Judges don't appreciate being put in pressure cookers than can be reasonably avoided through thoughtful planning.

If he pushes this to August and I'm the judge, I sign the PI as casually as I discard a cocktail napkin. After reading the papers, of course.

 

[twothousandone]

That is accepting a punishment he disagreed with.

Not accepting responsibility.

But it is also accepting that there is "ëvidence", while criticizing it as not "hard" evidence.It is acknowledging "circumstantial"-- not relying on nature as THE cause. I guess this response is slightly off topic, but the Patriots capitulated without declaring (from Kraft, again) unequivocal innocence. Without saying no one touched the footballs, Brady had nothing to do with anything, and Wells is absolutely wrong in the deference he gave to the referree's memory on some things but not others.
 
For me, it is that exact statement you have qoted that says Kraft did not believe in the complete innocence of his team. He may, now. But he didn't, then.I understad why it may not solve the union's argument (which is what led you there.)  But it highlight's for me, again, Kraft thinks there IS circumstantial evidence.

 

[Average Reds]

Are you under the impression that there isn't circumstantial evidence? Because that's not really in dispute.

I've read your post several times and I can't figure out what point you are making.

 

[Harry Hooper]

But it is also accepting that there is "ëvidence", while criticizing it as not "hard" evidence.It is acknowledging "circumstantial"-- not relying on nature as THE cause. I guess this response is slightly off topic, but the Patriots capitulated without declaring (from Kraft, again) unequivocal innocence. Without saying no one touched the footballs, Brady had nothing to do with anything, and Wells is absolutely wrong in the deference he gave to the referree's memory on some things but not others.
 
For me, it is that exact statement you have qoted that says Kraft did not believe in the complete innocence of his team. He may, now. But he didn't, then.I understad why it may not solve the union's argument (which is what led you there.)  But it highlight's for me, again, Kraft thinks there IS circumstantial evidence.

 
Kraft's statement May 6th on the Wells Report {emphasis added}:
 
 

“When I addressed the media at the Super Bowl on January 26 – over 14 weeks ago – I stated that I unconditionally believed that the New England Patriots had done nothing inappropriate in this process or in violation of the NFL rules and that I was disappointed in the way the league handled the initial investigation. That sentiment has not changed.
 
“I was convinced that Ted Wells’ investigation would find the same factual evidence supported by both scientific formula and independent research as we did and would ultimately exonerate the Patriots. Based on the explanations I have heard and the studies that have been done, I don’t know how the science of atmospheric conditions can be refuted or how conclusions to the contrary can be drawn without some definitive evidence.
 
“What is not highlighted in the text of the report is that three of the Colts’ four footballs measured by at least one official were under the required psi level. As far as we are aware, there is no comparable data available from any other game because, in the history of the NFL, psi levels of footballs have never been measured at halftime, in any climate. If they had been, based on what we now know, it is safe to assume that every cold-weather game was played with under inflated footballs. As compelling a case as the Wells Report may try to make, I am going to rely on the factual evidence of numerous scientists and engineers rather than inferences from circumstantial evidence.
 
“Throughout the process of this nearly four-month investigation, we have cooperated and patiently awaited its outcome. To say we are disappointed in its findings, which do not include any incontrovertible or hard evidence of deliberate deflation of footballs at the AFC Championship game, would be a gross understatement. In addition, given our level of cooperation throughout the process, I was offended by the comments made in the Wells Report in reference to not making an individual available for a follow-up interview. What the report fails to mention is that he had already been interviewed four times and we felt the fifth request for access was excessive for a part-time game day employee who has a full-time job with another employer.
 
“While I respect the independent process of the investigation, the time, effort and resources expended to reach this conclusion are incomprehensible to me. Knowing that there is no real recourse available, fighting the league and extending this debate would prove to be futile. We understand and greatly respect the responsibility of being one of 32 in this league and, on that basis, we will accept the findings of the report and take the appropriate actions based on those findings as well as any discipline levied by the league.”

 
 
Statement Here

 

[TheoShmeo]

A client/friend told me tonight that his 10 year-old son who goes to football camp with mostly NY Giants fan and NY Jets fan kids wears his Gronk shirt every day.  And every time the kid catches the ball or makes a play, he gets razzed.  "Nice catch, even though you must have been cheating."
 
Kid to his dad: "If the Sox win the World Series this year, they better not cheat!"
 
This makes me want to do something drastic, as my mother used to say.
 
And yes, I know, kids are kids. 
 
But GFY everyone who blew this up and handled this the wrong way.  GFY to hell.

 

[Freddy Linn]

So Russell Wilson is hosting the Nickelodeon Kids Choice Sports awards, and he is supposed to throw a few 40-yarders at Fatheads of himself. He misses them all and then says that the balls must have been deflated.

This was after the joke that he was going to give a Super Bowl ring to a kid. The one he should have won.

 

[E5 Yaz]

So Russell Wilson is hosting the Nickelodeon Kids Choice Sports awards, and he is supposed to throw a few 40-yarders at Fatheads of himself. He misses them all and then says that the balls must have been deflated.

This was after the joke that he was going to give a Super Bowl ring to a kid. The one he should have won.

 
That raises an important question: Why the hell are you watching the Kids Choice Sports Awards on Nickelodeon?

 

[Freddy Linn]

 
That raises an important question: Why the hell are you watching the Kids Choice Sports Awards on Nickelodeon?

Duh.

For the Derek Jeter is super awesome and my inspiration for everything tribute and sliming.

I couldn't hear so well because my eight year-old daughter was booing the TV.

 

[amarshal2]

This is old but I don't remember seeing it around here.

Rumors that ESPN is at odds with Olbermann over his criticism of the NFL. Additionally, there's speculation in Bristol that the MNF lineup is intentionally weak this year as payback for Simmons and Olbermann.

ESPN walks a particularly fine line in how its reporters and personalities handle the professional sports leagues that are so critical to the network's success. ESPN's Monday Night Football deal (which extends through 2021) is worth $15.2 billion to the NFL. It is the richest rights deal among the NFL's TV partners — which also includes CBS, Fox and NBC — in part because it comes with extensive highlight rights critical to feeding content to ESPN's myriad sports programs. ESPN has had MNF since 2006, with the current deal representing an increase of more than 70 percent — $1.9 billion per year up from $1.1 billion — over the previous agreement. And while NFL schedulers have historically worked to spread marquee matchups among its TV partners, the upcoming MNF schedule is viewed as one pointedly lacking in high-interest games, with multiple sources inside ESPN's Bristol, Conn., headquarters believing the "terrible" schedule is “pay back for Simmons and Olbermann,” as one source put it.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/espn-wants-keith-olbermann-quit-806220

Naturally, ESPN has denied parts of the allegations.

Edit: in here due to relevance of ESPNs lack of coverage of anything critical of NFL in #DG

 

[CaptainLaddie]

Guys, he was masturbating.  That's why he was watching the Kids Choice Awards.
 
Because he was masturbating.  While watching it.
 
Masturbating.

 

[E5 Yaz]

Guys, he was masturbating.  That's why he was watching the Kids Choice Awards.
 
Because he was masturbating.  While watching it.
 
Masturbating.

 
That explains this:
 

 

[Ed Hillel]

Now hold up a minute. If the footballs were deflated, wouldn't he have hit all his targets with ease?

 

[Leather]

Well the narrative has long since painted over the fact that for a week, there was much hullabaloo about the balls for the Super Bowl (you know, the one the Patriots won and Wilson lost) were handled by the refs and ONLY the refs.

So his statement and implication make no sense on two levels.

 

[TheoShmeo]

I guess being all humble and holy doesn't prevent Wilson from also being yet another opportunistic, DG using douche bag.
 
Then again, maybe he said it with a smile and was clearly joking.  Alas, I missed the broadcast.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

A client/friend told me tonight that his 10 year-old son who goes to football camp with mostly NY Giants fan and NY Jets fan kids wears his Gronk shirt every day.  And every time the kid catches the ball or makes a play, he gets razzed.  "Nice catch, even though you must have been cheating."
 
Kid to his dad: "If the Sox win the World Series this year, they better not cheat!"
 
This makes me want to do something drastic, as my mother used to say.
 
And yes, I know, kids are kids. 
 
But GFY everyone who blew this up and handled this the wrong way.  GFY to hell.

 
Drastic? Like what?
 
I think that you might take sports a bit too seriously. You might want to take a time-out for a bit, Champ. Take a walk, ride a bike, paint a picture. 
 
Jesus Christ. 

 

[smastroyin]

I am actually starting to like the Red Sox less because of whining shithead Patriots fans.  Jesus.
 
This is sports guys.  The Patriots have had one of the best runs in the sports' history.  That means everyone is tired of you and is going to shit on you whenever they get a chance.  It's not unique to the NFL or the Patriots.  Think of the way we treat(ed) Yankee fans or Canadiens fans or Lakers fans.  Yeah, it sucks that someone drummed up a fake thing that gives other fans leverage, but if there wasn't that there would be something else.

 

[RedOctober3829]

Which is why we’ve ranked Tom Brady No. 1 in The MMQB 100, our countdown of the most influential people for the 2015 season. There isn’t yet a final answer on whether or not Brady will serve the length of the original four-game suspension issued by the NFL (or if he will serve any suspension at all), but we know Brady will be back on the field by mid-October, for the ever-so-conveniently scheduled game against the Colts. History tells us Brady will play the A.D. years of his career with a vengeance. So does his longtime teammate, Rodney Harrison:

“You’ve got way over $100 million in the bank. You’ve got a beautiful wife. You’ve got a beautiful family. The natural tendency would be to say, ‘I can lie in my silk sheets and just enjoy life now. I don’t need football.’ But I’m telling you: This is the best thing that could have happened to Tom Brady. This will rejuvenate him. The rest of the league better look out. This year, he’s going to make everybody pay for what’s happened.”

Ever since he has been playing in the spotlight, from the late 90s at the University of Michigan, to being passed over 198 times in the 2000 NFL draft, to the quarterback controversy going into his first postseason, to the post-Spygate, near-perfect 2007 season, Brady has been fueled by the perception that he is being doubted. Now, at age 37, already possessing four championship rings, that fire has been re-lit under the most extreme circumstances. And perhaps not since 1969, when Super Bowl III MVP Joe Namath went toe to toe with commissioner Pete Rozelle and temporarily retired from the NFL over his stake in Manhattan saloon Bachelors III, have we seen a showdown of this magnitude between the league and one of its icons.

It’s not enough for Brady to stand on his B.D. accolades. The reigning Super Bowl MVP, the leader of the closest thing to a modern NFL dynasty, has been challenged. He has so far responded mostly with silence, waiting to make his loudest rebuttal on a field.

“Believe me, he’s not saying anything right now, but this is pissing him off, big-time,” says Harrison, who won two Super Bowls with Brady. “He will be supremely motivated this year. I know him. I know how he thinks. And this is going to be very bad for the rest of the league when they play Brady this year.”

http://mmqb.si.com/2015/07/17/tom-brady-new-england-patriots-nfl-deflategate-the-mmqb-100/