#DFG: Canceling the Noise

[LuckyBen]

Anyone seriously thinking that Kraft's statements will somehow lead to his ouster is completely delusional.  Kraft has every right to say what he said.  
 
I doubt he's going to "do" anything, as there is really not much nothing he can do.  But I wouldn't be completely surprised if he tells Goodell to go F off next time there's a controversy. 

I'm sure he's not worried, he'll have Woody and Irsay on his side.

 

[ivanvamp]

Brady has had the opportunity to sacrifice JJ and JM in order to save himself and has gone out of his way to avoid that.

 
 

 
He probably asked the guys if they messed with the balls (why else would he contact Jastremski after the investigation started?), and they likely said they didn't. In that case, I don't want Tom to throw low level team employees under the bus to save his own ass.

 

 
I understand it.  But at the time, NOBODY thought that this would be the result.  I'm more confident than ever that nothing wrong took place.  And if you're Brady and nothing wrong happened, it's understandable to take the tack he did.  
 
All I'm saying is that I think if he took that approach, there's a reasonable chance this thing blows over pretty quickly.
 
But then again, spygate.  
 
(of course, in that case the Patriots admitted to breaking the rules, so it's not quite an apples to oranges comparison)

 

[HomeBrew1901]

 
It's a fact that the Patriots handled Spygate in the manner in which you suggest would lead to no bog shits coming from it. What happened there Mr. Reasonable?

 
 

In fairness, you say Goodell and the NFL would've been fair and impartial which is far more outrageous. This is and has always been about damaging the Patriots b

There is no conspiracy by the NFL against Brady and the Patriots.  It's exactly like Kraft said, it's Goodell and his toadies trying to justify a harsh and uncalled for punishment.
 
What you're missing on Spygate is that they had hard proof that BB was taping signals in areas where he wasn't allowed to and all teams were warned prior to the season not to.  They had no hard proof here, Brady wouldn't be admitting guilt just that he likes his ball prepared a certain way and that he had no idea what the guys were doing from there. 
 
Outside of the biggest Patriot's haters everyone wants this story to just go away because it's all dumb.  A die hard Eagles fan walked into my office while Kraft was speaking and immediately walked out because he's so sick of hearing about it.
So yeah, I think this could have all gone away 6 months ago if both sides decided to act like adults and didn't let the lawyers get involved.
 
Hell even Brady and BB thought it was a joke 6 months ago as evidenced by their initial press conferences when they were asked about it

 

[mauf]

Calling on you smart people of SoSH with your strong logical reasoning skills. 
 
I've thought a lot about the cell phone.  When I think critically about it, it’s so bad only an innocent person oblivious of what awaited them could make the mistake. 
 
Largely, there’s only two types of people who destroy evidence:
 
1.    People hiding something
2.    People not hiding something
 
Said differently…
1. People who are trying to hide evidence they fear will come to light. 
2. And people who are ignorant of the fact that what they are doing will come back to haunt them. 
 
The only way #1 makes sense is if Brady knew he was going to be found guilty of influencing ball pressure by the league (despite knowing that they would have zero evidence linking him to it) and was afraid his phone would be discoverable thereby incriminating him.  But this requires him to be oblivious of the fact that he would never have to produce his phone.  He would clearly have to think there was something to be gained by destroying his phone or else he doesn’t do it.   Right?
 
But it’s illogical to think that Brady didn’t consult his lawyers first.  The timing suggests that they had already told the NFL he was not going to produce his phone.  Therefore, it is illogical that he thought he was gaining something in a future legal battle by destroying his phone.
 
Therefore, it’s really tough logic to put Brady in box #1.  He never would have had to turn over his phone unless he himself chose to sue the league for defamation.  For him, destroying his phone offered zero upside.  Only someone completely ignorant of what awaited them would make that choice.
 
What's wrong with my logic?  What logic is more believable?

I don't think your logic holds. Aaron Hernandez destroyed data too; he wanted the evidence gone badly enough that he was willing to live with how bad it looked. Or maybe he just didn't pause to consider how it would look.

Very different circumstances, to put it mildly, but Brady did the same -- either he failed to consider the appearances, or he consciously decided he was willing to live with them to get rid of whatever was on that phone (which might or might not have had something to do with deflated footballs).

 

[MuppetAsteriskTalk]

 
 

 
 
I understand it.  But at the time, NOBODY thought that this would be the result.  I'm more confident than ever that nothing wrong took place.  And if you're Brady and nothing wrong happened, it's understandable to take the tack he did.  
 
All I'm saying is that I think if he took that approach, there's a reasonable chance this thing blows over pretty quickly.
 
But then again, spygate.  
 
(of course, in that case the Patriots admitted to breaking the rules, so it's not quite an apples to oranges comparison)

 
 
Right, so guilty or not the only choice is to admit guilt. Anything short of admitting guilt results in the hounds of hell being unleashed. Oh, and immediately admitting guilt over a silly procedural issue also results in the hounds of hell being unleashed.
 
Good points all around chap.

 

[rodderick]

OK, it was all in the ball preparation section, here are the footnotes.
 
 

 
I haven't seen this get any attention nationally. What could we do for someone like Florio to pick up and start running this angle? If anything else, it shows the league didn't really give a flying fuck about ball prep procedures, as long as QBs were comfortable with the footballs.

 

[Ed Hillel]

I hope Kraft's first move, from here on out, is to bring back McNally and Jastremski, assuming they want anything to do with the league anymore. Roger has already publicly denied that they asked the Patriots to suspend/fire them, so get the band back together.
 
#FreeDoritoDink

 

[rodderick]

I don't think your logic holds. Aaron Hernandez destroyed data too; he wanted the evidence gone badly enough that he was willing to live with how bad it looked. Or maybe he just didn't pause to consider how it would look.

Very different circumstances, to put it mildly, but Brady did the same -- either he failed to consider the appearances, or he consciously decided he was willing to live with them to get rid of whatever was on that phone (which might or might not have had something to do with deflated footballs).

 
Hernandez could've been compelled by a judge to produce his phone as evidence, Brady couldn't. If he told the NFL "fuck you, you aren't getting my phone", that's the end of it.

 

[amarshal2]

I don't think your logic holds. Aaron Hernandez destroyed data too; he wanted the evidence gone badly enough that he was willing to live with how bad it looked. Or maybe he just didn't pause to consider how it would look.

Very different circumstances, to put it mildly, but Brady did the same -- either he failed to consider the appearances, or he consciously decided he was willing to live with them to get rid of whatever was on that phone (which might or might not have had something to do with deflated footballs).

 
I see these as totally different and don't' think your analogy makes sense.
 
Hernandez had something to hide.  Hernandez's phone would have been discoverable (IANAL, right?)
 
Hernandez had something very clear to gain by destroying his phone.  He destroyed evidence that would have seen the light of day and would have implicated him in the murder.  In return, he looked bad.  That was a good trade (thought not good enough).
 
Hernandez is in box #1.

 

[Bleedred]

 
I haven't seen this get any attention nationally. What could we do for someone like Florio to pick up and start running this angle? If anything else, it shows the league didn't really give a flying fuck about ball prep procedures, as long as QBs were comfortable with the footballs.

Andrew Luck's violation was before the refs inspected the balls.  Brady's was after.  That's how RG would distinguish the two, and not treating Luck's digression as seriously

 

[RG33]

In all honesty, there's a lot of truth to this.  Imagine if Brady had just said right at the beginning, "yeah I tell the ball guys I want them as low as possible, right to the 12.5 number the rulebook allows.  I guess it's possible that on occasion if the refs give the balls to them higher than that they may think, geez, Tom likes them at 12.5 so we need to do something about that.  If they did that that's unfortunate, and you'll have to talk to them about it, but obviously I never would have told them to do THAT."
 
If that was how Brady responded initially, there's probably a fair chance this blows over fairly quickly.  I'm not certain it would, but there's a fair chance of it.

Or, the NFL would have said "Tom Brady admits to cheating" and would have suspended him for a full season.

 

[DJnVa]

Andrew Luck's violation was before the refs inspected the balls.  Brady's was after.  That's how RG would distinguish the two, and not treating Luck's digression as seriously

 

Or treating it, you know, at all.

 

[( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)]

Andrew Luck's violation was before the refs inspected the balls.  Brady's was after.  That's how RG would distinguish the two, and not treating Luck's digression as seriously

 
RG equated not following the balls rules to trying to get a competitive advantage and PEDs.  The Colts/Luck didn't follow the ball rules either, presumably to also get a competitive advantage.  RG opened this door.
However, this is wayyyyyy too nuanced a point to get any actual traction.  People don't want nuance or having to think.  They want soundbites.  

 

[crystalline]

 
In all honesty, there's a lot of truth to this.  Imagine if Brady had just said right at the beginning, "yeah I tell the ball guys I want them as low as possible, right to the 12.5 number the rulebook allows.  I guess it's possible that on occasion if the refs give the balls to them higher than that they may think, geez, Tom likes them at 12.5 so we need to do something about that.  If they did that that's unfortunate, and you'll have to talk to them about it, but obviously I never would have told them to do THAT."
 
If that was how Brady responded initially, there's probably a fair chance this blows over fairly quickly.  I'm not certain it would, but there's a fair chance of it.

Is this sarcasm? Because that's basically what Brady said in his press conference.

 

[ivanvamp]

Andrew Luck's violation was before the refs inspected the balls.  Brady's was after.  That's how RG would distinguish the two, and not treating Luck's digression as seriously

 
Just like taking steroids before a game is not the same as using stickum during a game.  There's a "difference".  But both are actual violations of the rules regarding football tampering.  And the Colts DID tamper with the intercepted football during the AFCCG, in clear violation of the rules.  

 

[Ed Hillel]

If you are going to sell, you don't trash -- you get out quietly to maximIze asset value.

And how would this benefit us fans, apart from the ephemeral emotional satisfaction? Bob Kraft has been an ideal owner.! The only wart I can think of is his support of RG.

 
I'm so through with Roger and contented with the success of Brady and Belichick that I'm not sure I would care about the negative effects contrasted with the emotional satisfaction. I would trade in another Super Bowl win to see Goodell taken away in handcuffs for corruption. I think the guy is that bad for the league.
 
I just want to watch football, I don't have the energy for the consistent long, drawn-out controversies. I'd watch The Kardashians if I wanted this reality TV bullshit.

 

[BelichickFan]

Andrew Luck's violation was before the refs inspected the balls.  Brady's was after.  That's how RG would distinguish the two, and not treating Luck's digression as seriously

 
Not a good argument for Roger, unlike PSI this isn't something the refs can inspect nor test for.
 
I tweeted the link to post 936 to Florio, maybe he'll pick up on it.

 

[nighthob]

RG equated not following the balls rules to trying to get a competitive advantage and PEDs.  The Colts/Luck didn't follow the ball rules either, presumably to also get a competitive advantage.  RG opened this door.

Hilariously if you reread the part on the Colts' ball preparation the Colts' equipment manager says that there's a competitive advantage to doing it this way. So it gets worse and worse for the Artless Roger's logic.

 

[Two Youks]

Man, it's a good thing the league has Deflategate to distract everyone from the Seaus in a couple weeks.....

 

[soxhop411]

“@JasonColeBR: Insider Buzz: NFL Players ‘Dismayed’ Union Is Defending ’Cheater’ Tom Brady http://t.co/QCRm5jSTX1 via @bleacherreport”

 

[Corsi]

“@JasonColeBR: Insider Buzz: NFL Players ‘Dismayed’ Union Is Defending ’Cheater’ Tom Brady http://t.co/QCRm5jSTX1 via @bleacherreport”

 
The next thing Jason Cole gets right will be the first.

 

[Harry Hooper]

I hope Kraft's first move, from here on out, is to bring back McNally and Jastremski, assuming they want anything to do with the league anymore. Roger has already publicly denied that they asked the Patriots to suspend/fire them, so get the band back together.
 
#FreeDoritoDink

 
Maybe, though Jastremski violated the direct orders of his boss in doling out swag, and also may have misappropriated some memorabilia.
 
Speaking of misappropriating memorabilia, Kraft needs to speak about the "committed to integrity of the game" NFL folks stealing footballs during the AFCCG.

 

[Dan Murfman]

Scarborough ME Police watch over Goodell's property.
 
http://www.pressherald.com/2015/07/29/scarborough-police-watch-over-roger-goodells-home-on-prouts-neck/

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

I think lost is Tom's statement, which made and continues to make complete sense to me, but I guess I'm in the minority, because nobody is talking about it.  My immediate reaction when I heard that he didn't have the phone was that it really didn't matter, because he wasn't going to produce it anyway.  Was it an error for his lawyers not to treat an informal NFL proceeding like it was a full blown lawsuit and tell him to preserve the phone?  Yes.  
 
That said, imagine that instead of what happened, Tom had said to Goodell and the League:  Look, my samsung phone is in a safe.  I gave you everything you wanted.  But I am not giving you the phone.  I'm not setting that precedent for other players.  You have all the texts I sent on this matter from other phones, and you know all the players in this, and so my phone would add nothing except personal stuff that I'm just not going to give you.  The end. 
 
There would be no functional difference between that situation and the present one -- the fact that he replaced the phone is a red herring that adds nothing.  You can decide that he's hiding behind protecting other players and precedent to avoid revealing incriminating evidence if you like, but that's the same as we learned months ago.  The only thing replacing the phone means is there is that he now apparently can never do that which he was never going to do.

 

[AB in DC]

A non-troll friend of mine asks the following Questions:
 
 
1. Why did Brady destroy his telephone?
2. Why did Brady's legal team provide neither McNally nor Jastremski to testify during the appeal when requested?
3. Why did McNally call himself "the Deflator" on his email way back in 2014 if, as you argued earlier, Brady actually preferred fully inflated balls?
4. Why did McNally tell Jastremski back in 2014 that he had a "big needle" for him (as opposed to a pump), and then make reference to payback or else it would be a "Rugby sunday," which he himself acknowledged for the investigators meant that the rugby reference referred to an over-inflated ball, like a rugby ball?
 
How I'd respond
1.  He didn't.  He switched out phones and offered to give access to all folks with whom he texted from that phone.  He would never give up the phone given his union and celebrity status.
2.  Not his position to offer them up.  How could he even compel them to appear.   They don't get 2/5 bites of the apple.
3.  There's nothing in the Deflator text that incriminates Brady.  Zero.
4.  See #3
 
Other thoughts?

 
We really need a FAQ for this sort of thing.
 
Anyone got a good wiki we can use?

 

[jsinger121]

Mike Garafolo ‏@MikeGarafolo  7m7 minutes ago
Judge Richard Berman has been assigned to NFL's suit in NYC. A few NYC legal minds describe him as "fair" and more than capable on this one.

 

[Otis Foster]

Judge Berman's bio:
 
http://www.pli.edu/Content/Faculty/Hon_Richard_M_Berman/_/N-4oZ1z13eyo?ID=PE464347

 

[drbretto]

I think lost is Tom's statement, which made and continues to make complete sense to me, but I guess I'm in the minority, because nobody is talking about it.  My immediate reaction when I heard that he didn't have the phone was that it really didn't matter, because he wasn't going to produce it anyway.  Was it an error for his lawyers not to treat an informal NFL proceeding like it was a full blown lawsuit and tell him to preserve the phone?  Yes.  
 
That said, imagine that instead of what happened, Tom had said to Goodell and the League:  Look, my samsung phone is in a safe.  I gave you everything you wanted.  But I am not giving you the phone.  I'm not setting that precedent for other players.  You have all the texts I sent on this matter from other phones, and you know all the players in this, and so my phone would add nothing except personal stuff that I'm just not going to give you.  The end. 
 
There would be no functional difference between that situation and the present one -- the fact that he replaced the phone is a red herring that adds nothing.  You can decide that he's hiding behind protecting other players and precedent to avoid revealing incriminating evidence if you like, but that's the same as we learned months ago.  The only thing replacing the phone means is there is that he now apparently can never do that which he was never going to do.

 
It is a red herring. And you're right in that it really wouldn't make a difference fundamentally.
 
But... this IS like the 14th unfortunate coincidence/unforced error in this whole debacle. Regardless of the rest of the details, it still is going to look bad. And It's yet another "answer" for some loud mouthed fan of another team that looks at your Pats hat and decides to tell you what he thinks.

 

[RedOctober3829]

 
It is a red herring. And you're right in that it really wouldn't make a difference fundamentally.
 
But... this IS like the 14th unfortunate coincidence/unforced error in this whole debacle. Regardless of the rest of the details, it still is going to look bad. And It's yet another "answer" for some loud mouthed fan of another team that looks at your Pats hat and decides to tell you what he thinks.

The ship of public opinion has sailed.  I could care less what other fans think of the Patriots.

 

[( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)]

There would be no functional difference between that situation and the present one -- the fact that he replaced the phone is a red herring that adds nothing.  You can decide that he's hiding behind protecting other players and precedent to avoid revealing incriminating evidence if you like, but that's the same as we learned months ago.  The only thing replacing the phone means is there is that he now apparently can never do that which he was never going to do.

Except 99% of the people and media assume that the very first thing that would happen when this gets to court is that the phone would be subpoenaed. My understanding is that while this would have been possible it also would have been extremely unlikely to happen.

The phone thing is only a big thing because the uninformed masses believe that it would have been a significant part of the court proceedings.

I will never forgive the local media (never mind the national media) for their willful ignorance regarding the looming court proceedings. This stuff is not hard to learn about and would have really lead to some interesting discussions and kept this saga framed much more appropriately to reality. Instead they took the easy way out, I'm actually not sure why I should have expected anything different.

 

[DJnVa]

 
"I would trade in another Super Bowl win to see Goodell taken away in handcuffs for corruption."
 
I'm sitting at my desk at work, waiting for my erection to subside after reading this. 
 

 

Who wrote that?

 

[drbretto]

The ship of public opinion has sailed.  I could care less what other fans think of the Patriots.

 
I'm less concerned with the "public" than I am about individual persons. All it takes is an accusation to get any Jets of Colts fan to shout all over twitter or whatever. This has reached a point where you probably can't even have a conversation with a rational fan of an opposing team. There's so many of these little things that if that's all you've been seeing (because that's all ESPN talks about) then it's going to take a powerpoint presentation to talk sense into anyone and you'll always look like a crazy, rabid cheater apologist. 

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Did Goodell actually change the "more probably than not at least generally aware" finding
Of the Wells report? He didn't couch this opinion in that language.

 

[uncannymanny]

I think lost is Tom's statement, which made and continues to make complete sense to me, but I guess I'm in the minority, because nobody is talking about it.  My immediate reaction when I heard that he didn't have the phone was that it really didn't matter, because he wasn't going to produce it anyway.  Was it an error for his lawyers not to treat an informal NFL proceeding like it was a full blown lawsuit and tell him to preserve the phone?  Yes.  
 
That said, imagine that instead of what happened, Tom had said to Goodell and the League:  Look, my samsung phone is in a safe.  I gave you everything you wanted.  But I am not giving you the phone.  I'm not setting that precedent for other players.  You have all the texts I sent on this matter from other phones, and you know all the players in this, and so my phone would add nothing except personal stuff that I'm just not going to give you.  The end. 
 
There would be no functional difference between that situation and the present one -- the fact that he replaced the phone is a red herring that adds nothing.  You can decide that he's hiding behind protecting other players and precedent to avoid revealing incriminating evidence if you like, but that's the same as we learned months ago.  The only thing replacing the phone means is there is that he now apparently can never do that which he was never going to do.

It's completely different. Now you're risking walking into a federal court having not only not been forthcoming, but having blatantly lied under oath. Having done it, if indeed intentional and there's no better explanation (still think there is), being honest and upfront is a hell of a lot better.

 

[Section15Box113]

I'm fairly certain all Kraft can do at this point is say stuff in front of a microphone and make jerk-off gestures whenever Goodell talks to him on the phone.

He can do that.

While the Brady case no longer hinges on the science and there may well be no way for Kraft to win in court (though, as noted above, that avenue is technically still available to him), there's another angle.

He can also push to make sure that the league follows through on recording and releasing halftime and postgame measurements.

The lost #1 pick will not be out-of-sight-out-of-mind. It will come up in every mock draft and draft preview show following the end of the league year. Ahead of the draft, the Peter Kings of the world (who as recently as this week were saying that they can't come to judgement on this without seeing that data) would likely be reporting the results.

If the data is fairly collected and reported - which may be two huge ifs - we will see a clear pattern similar to the AFCCG for a season's worth of cold weather games.

Data from game after game showing not only that balls get softer when it's cold and harder when they warm up, but that it happens to the degree that the data suggests it did in the AFCCG, would turn heads. High-profile reporting of a season's worth of results and an exoneration of Brady in Federal court might - and that's a key word - might be enough to exert enough pressure to return the 32nd pick in the 2016 NFL draft.

Are there pitfalls? Sure. The league may "randomly" select games in a calculated manner. (Possible.) Or they may not record how long balls have been inside before testing. (Obviously a big deal - and at this point likely given the procedures released the other day.) Or they could have gauge issues. And this is just naming a handful of things within the League's control. Another big one? Brady could lose in court. Then no case would stick.

There are a lot of maybes and ifs here, without question.

I think this is his long game. Only hard data, with people seeing it happen to their team on a week-in, week-out basis, could change minds.

Will it work? Maybe. Maybe not. Everyone might be so sick of the story that no one will care. And even if people do, Goodell may be too entrenched to reinstate the picks, even if the evidence is solid.

But it is likely the team's only real recourse.

 

[mikeot]

"I would trade in another Super Bowl win to see Goodell taken away in handcuffs for corruption."

 
Who wrote that?

 
The talented Mr. Ed Hillel.

 

[yecul]

Regarding the notion that a different handling of the situation -- claim ignorance, blame the ballboys as lone actors, miscommunication, etc -- would have allowed this to blow over are naive, IMO.
 
The offenses are not similar at all, but the handling is illustrative of this point. Ray Rice came clean. He looked Goodell in the eye and detailed his altercation as it happened. Reports indicate that he was forthright and honest. Then the video happened. Public opinion was swayed in a big way and Goodell reacted.
 
The train got rolling and there was no stopping it.

 

[ivanvamp]

 
Mike Garafolo ‏@MikeGarafolo  7m7 minutes ago
Judge Richard Berman has been assigned to NFL's suit in NYC. A few NYC legal minds describe him as "fair" and more than capable on this one.
 

 
This is another aspect that demonstrates the lack of real fair process on Goodell's part.  Obviously they delayed the ruling on the appeal until they could get all their legal ducks in a row to fire this utterly unprecedented shot before Kessler had time to file his suit.  How can that be deemed impartial and fair?  
 
It's shrewd, for sure, and clever.  But it's not impartial and fair, and not at ALL designed to give Brady a fair hearing.

 

[pappymojo]

Was the phone destroyed (on purpose) or did it break?  Seems to be conflicting descriptions.

 

[Joe D Reid]

Judge Berman's bio:
 
http://www.pli.edu/Content/Faculty/Hon_Richard_M_Berman/_/N-4oZ1z13eyo?ID=PE464347

Davis Polk alums are the best.

 

[sodenj5]

If I were on trial and my reputation was at stake and I potentially had evidence that could clear me of any wrongdoing, I certainly would not destroy it. While Brady has a right to privacy and may not want the contents of some of his texts becoming public record, if he truly had nothing to hide and the texts on his phone prove that over 10,000 messages he never once instructed anyone to tamper with or illegally modify any game balls, he wouldn't have erased or deleted or destroyed that ace up his sleeve. He could have withheld
submitting the texts until he absolutely had to in federal court to finally clear his name after exhausting every other avenue. He didn't. Those texts no longer exist.
 
Him saying that he could give Goodell a list of all of the people he was in contact with over that time and ask them for their phones is basically giving him a huge middle finger. Because there's zero chance Goodell can get anyone outside of the NFL to turn over their phones to potentially incriminate Brady.

 

[DJnVa]

Was the phone destroyed (on purpose) or did it break?  Seems to be conflicting descriptions.

 
 
The phone apparently broke, so he needed a new one. When he got the new one, he destroyed the old one.
 

 

[Valek123]

 
This is another aspect that demonstrates the lack of real fair process on Goodell's part.  Obviously they delayed the ruling on the appeal until they could get all their legal ducks in a row to fire this utterly unprecedented shot before Kessler had time to file his suit.  How can that be deemed impartial and fair?  
 
It's shrewd, for sure, and clever.  But it's not impartial and fair, and not at ALL designed to give Brady a fair hearing.

 
I'm clearly not a lawyer, but I know the NFL pushed this to NY for advantageous reasons to confirm it's ruling.  But does this trump the NFLPA's lawsuit if it's filed elsewhere to supercede that motion, or in other words does this force the entire court process through this Supreme court justice?

 

[drbretto]

Was the phone destroyed (on purpose) or did it break?  Seems to be conflicting descriptions.

 
Both. He had a broken phone and when he replaced it, had his secretary destroy the old one so data doesn't leak.

 

[RedOctober3829]

Regarding the notion that a different handling of the situation -- claim ignorance, blame the ballboys as lone actors, miscommunication, etc -- would have allowed this to blow over are naive, IMO.
 
The offenses are not similar at all, but the handling is illustrative of this point. Ray Rice came clean. He looked Goodell in the eye and detailed his altercation as it happened. Reports indicate that he was forthright and honest. Then the video happened. Public opinion was swayed in a big way and Goodell reacted.
 
The train got rolling and there was no stopping it.

The comparison in public opinion is different in the Brady case vs. the Rice case.  In the Rice case, you had it in black and white what happened on video and it's not hard to fathom why public opinion shifted there.  In the Brady case, the public opinion swayed when Chris Mortensen put out a false report that 11 of the 12 balls were way under the legal PSI limit.  So, public opinion swayed on something that was totally false while you could actually see what Rice did to his fiancee.  It shifted even further yesterday when they characterized Brady as destroying his phone to hide evidence from the NFL.  Do we know how exactly it was gotten rid of?  Did it break or did he destroy it on purpose?  I know what side the media and the public will run with because it fits the narrative that was first brought forth in January on a false report.  

 

[DJnVa]

 
It's shrewd, for sure, and clever.  But it's not impartial and fair, and not at ALL designed to give Brady a fair hearing.

 
The hearing was supposed to be fair. That's over. They are now adversaries and while I think RG should be drawn and quartered, you can't think that they aren't going to act in their best interests at this point.
 
 
 
So, legal folks---when she we hear something about the NFL's filing and if the NFLPA will be filing separately in Minnesota?

 

[cshea]

If I were on trial and my reputation was at stake and I potentially had evidence that could clear me of any wrongdoing, I certainly would not destroy it. While Brady has a right to privacy and may not want the contents of some of his texts becoming public record, if he truly had nothing to hide and the texts on his phone prove that over 10,000 messages he never once instructed anyone to tamper with or illegally modify any game balls, he wouldn't have erased or deleted or destroyed that ace up his sleeve. He could have withheld
submitting the texts until he absolutely had to in federal court to finally clear his name after exhausting every other avenue. He didn't. Those texts no longer exist.
 
Him saying that he could give Goodell a list of all of the people he was in contact with over that time and ask them for their phones is basically giving him a huge middle finger. Because there's zero chance Goodell can get anyone outside of the NFL to turn over their phones to potentially incriminate Brady.

The phone being destroyed was bad, but the problem for Brady is that any and all evidence Brady or the Patriots have given the leave was dismissed as not credible or unreliable. The league chooses to believe Exponent, dismiss AEI. Shit like that. There is nothing out there that would satisfy the league.

 

[( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)]

If I were on trial and my reputation was at stake and I potentially had evidence that could clear me of any wrongdoing, I certainly would not destroy it. While Brady has a right to privacy and may not want the contents of some of his texts becoming public record, if he truly had nothing to hide and the texts on his phone prove that over 10,000 messages he never once instructed anyone to tamper with or illegally modify any game balls, he wouldn't have erased or deleted or destroyed that ace up his sleeve. He could have withheld
submitting the texts until he absolutely had to in federal court to finally clear his name after exhausting every other avenue. He didn't. Those texts no longer exist.
 
Him saying that he could give Goodell a list of all of the people he was in contact with over that time and ask them for their phones is basically giving him a huge middle finger. Because there's zero chance Goodell can get anyone outside of the NFL to turn over their phones to potentially incriminate Brady.

 
It's so infuriating that you bought you the NFL's spin hook line and sinker.  Brady's texts in no way, whatsoever provide evidence that would clear him of wrongdoing.  If none of this texts mention football or PSI, then all that means is that none of his texts mention footballs or PSI.  
 
The texts are not a smoking gun, no matter how badly the NFL wants you to believe that.  It is not hard to imagine a scenario where we end up in the exact same place today but Brady did turn over every single text to the NFL.  
 
It is also very unlikely that he would have had to ever submit his phone in federal court.  
 
I'm sorry to call you out directly, but this is a great example of how the NFL has spun this around and made the phone into evidence of wrong doing when it is really immaterial to the entire thing.   If I do not have a single text on my phone that says I murdered someone, then that does not prove that I did not murder someone.  

 

[yecul]

The comparison in public opinion is different in the Brady case vs. the Rice case.  In the Rice case, you had it in black and white what happened on video and it's not hard to fathom why public opinion shifted there.  In the Brady case, the public opinion swayed when Chris Mortensen put out a false report that 11 of the 12 balls were way under the legal PSI limit.  So, public opinion swayed on something that was totally false while you could actually see what Rice did to his fiancee.  It shifted even further yesterday when they characterized Brady as destroying his phone to hide evidence from the NFL.  Do we know how exactly it was gotten rid of?  Did it break or did he destroy it on purpose?  I know what side the media and the public will run with because it fits the narrative that was first brought forth in January on a false report.  

 
Precisely. Public opinion is fickle and can be swayed. Most importantly, it had been proven that public opinion will have a direct impact on penalties and that there are parties in the NFL willing to sway said opinion.
 
Additional leaks. More amped up data point getting out. Etc. 
 
Regardless... the entire foundation of this case is that the NFL is fully convinced the Pats did something wrong. A different statement from Brady is unlikely to change things.
 
Besides, this assumes that he'd be truthful in making such a statement. It's possible that he's totally guilty, partially guilty, perhaps even generally aware, but it's also possible he's entirely innocent as he's professed. Why would he admit to something he -- at this time -- it totally denying?
 
Sorry the idea that he could control the outcome of this is foolhearty

 

[RedOctober3829]

dcmissle or any other lawyers, do you agree with this?
 
https://twitter.com/McCannSportsLaw/status/626431107848892416