Forgive my cynicism, but in 6 months (or sooner) you'll see Bob and Roger riding segways somewhere together and singing Carly Rae Jepsen songs.redsoxcentury said:AND HE IS BACK BIG!!
us against everyone. can't wait for belichick to speak
Forgive my cynicism, but in 6 months (or sooner) you'll see Bob and Roger riding segways somewhere together and singing Carly Rae Jepsen songs.redsoxcentury said:AND HE IS BACK BIG!!
us against everyone. can't wait for belichick to speak
Exactly. That's all this was ever about brother. Management v labor.ivanvamp said:Just re-read Brady's Facebook post. Really, other players ought to be championing this guy, since this fight is no longer about deflated footballs, but rather the power of the commissioner vs. the rights of the players.
They should be banding together in solidarity support of Brady.
shoosh77 said:When Brady becomes the POTUS, can Bill be the Press Secretary?
Stu Nahan said:These reporters never learn.
Aw gee ya think?( . ) ( . ) and (_!_) said:I wonder if we underestimated Kraft. He may have been playing the long game the whole time. Building a coalition of the willing, meeting with owners one on one, etc... The owners meeting with 31 ill informed owners was probably not the right place to make a fight. Maybe the field has shifted some now.
Or nothing changed and Bob is just doing what is right.
rodderick said:What I find amazing about this fact being used against Brady is that if he were in constant contact with Jastremski, but then the level of communication between them went down after the investigation started, that too would have been interpreted by Goodell as a sign of guilt. Which means the only way this wouldn't be used against Brady is if he had mantained the exact same number of interactions with Jastremski before and after the fact, which would be illogical given the circumstances.
Easy there, Eugene Debs.Bongorific said:Exactly. That's all this was ever about brother. Management v labor.
Stopped just short of saying that he should have ordered the lobsterdcmissle said:Kraft playing the long game alright. It goes from his posterior and tickles his tonsils.
Mooch said:If the courts decide in favor of the NFL, what precedent does it set going forward for employee rights when an employer asks for private communications in a workplace dispute?
ivanvamp said:Just re-read Brady's Facebook post. Really, other players ought to be championing this guy, since this fight is no longer about deflated footballs, but rather the power of the commissioner vs. the rights of the players.
They should be banding together in solidarity support of Brady.
I'm stuck too. Where can I watch the whole thing?PseuFighter said:Killing me that I'm on the train missing this. And on that going to be killing my first hour back in the office this afternoon watching this. Can't wait.
Only for those who foolishly believed that there was any sort of side agreement between RG and Kraft.MuppetAsteriskTalk said:Jesus does that mean RG double crossed Kraft yet again?
HomeBrew1901 said:Aw gee ya think?
That everyone was up in arms about Kraft a few months ago was ridiculous.
That was a FANTASTIC statement by Kraft. Loved every word of it.
Yup. Thinking this rebuttal will change the course of the Goodell era is like looking at the Coyote's latest contraption and concluding that this time the Road Runner is really in trouble.Bleedred said:Forgive my cynicism, but in 6 months (or sooner) you'll see Bob and Roger riding segways somewhere together and singing Carly Rae Jepsen songs.
At the beginning of the Wells report there's a footnote documenting the allowable procedures for football preparation and practices that violate the rule. One of the things that's specifically disallowed according to the NFL's Independent LOLvestigator is using the balls in practice to break them in. Much later in the report, in a footnote documenting the Colts' procedures is the information that Luck insists on using the Colts' balls in practice sessions because he prefers the feel of a football after it's been handled by sweaty hands. Really.pappymojo said:A question for the lawyers...
If what nighthob wrote is true, can this be brought up in the court case.
For example, get Wells/Goodell up on the stand. First ask him about his role as an independent investigator or arbiter. Ask him to read the rule. Ask him to clarify who the rule applies to (teams and team personnel vs. players). Point out that the rule in question did not apply to Brady. Ask him to read the section about how the Colts handled the balls. Ask if the conduct of the Colts was in violation of the rule. Ask why there was no penalty or investigation against the Colts (team or personnel) why a very large penalty was applied against Brady (a player) Use this line of debate to suggest a missing (edit) level of impartiality between Goodell, the NFL, Wells and the Colts. Ask for all communications between these three parties (the NFL (including Goodell), the Colts and the Wells investigators).
Is this still just a wet dream for me?
wow. That stings.( . ) ( . ) and (_!_) said:
Your opinion will change at some point between 2 and 6 when Felger rips it apart. It's what you do.
Agree. It was more of a (for lack of a better term) a peace offering. I'll do you a favor to get this off the front page, now you do what needs to be done to make things right.Average Reds said:Only for those who foolishly believed that there was any sort of side agreement between RG and Kraft.
I, first and foremost, need to apologize to our fans, because I truly believe what I did in May, given the actual evidence of the situation and the leagues history on such matters, would make it much easier for the league to exonerate Tom Brady. Unfortunately I was wrong.tims4wins said:I'm sure Pats.com will have it up later
When it's 9-10 owners it will be "Uh oh Roger". Until then it's Kraft sticking up for his QB.Tyrone Biggums said:An owner siding with the NFLPA...Uh oh Roger
Actually watch the entire press conference and then comment. He explained in detail why he did what he did and that it was obviously a mistake to handle it as he did in May.GBrushTWood said:Maybe I'm just a cynic (and due to work have not seen the press conference today), but to me Kraft continues to appear as a mealy-mouthed fence straddler. I realize he's in an awfully difficult predicament here, but the lines are clearly drawn out. You're either with the NFL and are out to fuck over Brady and the Pats, or you support the Pats. The rhetoric blasting Goodell today while tongue bathing him a few months ago is puzzling.
canderson said:Kraft's statement is nice but means nothing really. That ship sailed when the organization didn't push the NFL. It's a union vs league issue now - Kraft I'd think has his hands tied as an owner to do much of anything to repeal the punishments.