ivanvamp said:
I'm afraid you haven't shown me enough of a distinction. The widget is the widget. A gets to z regardless.
#DFG: Canceling the Noise
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
I'm afraid you haven't shown me enough of a distinction. The widget is the widget. A gets to z regardless.
If only Goodell had learned from Taglibue's bountygate decision. The Pats would be down a 1st rounder and $1,000,000, and no one would know how the sausage got made.
No matter how bad the owners treat the players or tilt the field against them there will always be players as long as the owners are willing to pay large sums of money to them. The huge college programs are not going anywhere and there will always be people,willing to make 6, 7, 8 figures a year for playing a game.ivanvamp said:
Replacement players* + missed paychecks + short careers + salary cap makes it easier owners who already make billions to think they can make even more billions if they just beat down the labor a bit more.
*Hard to believe that was almost 30 years ago. But thats a whole generation that will wacth them for a few weeks until the players cave, never having seen the fiasco that was 1987.
Whether they would appeal would turn on a careful analysis of their chances in the Second Circuit. A loss there would hurt significantly more than the ones they have accumulated thus far. This thing is bound to quiet down once Berman rules. There is just not enough going on at the appellate stage to sustain the current level of interest.RGREELEY33 said:
Mara is squealing because he is shrewd. He knows lines are being drawn from the puppet to the masters -- Florio again has been exemplary -- and that's uncomfortable. It was Barzini all along -- 31 of them -- and if Papa Kraft gets shot at the fruit stand, that was simply a case of wrong place/wrong time. Just like with Benson and the Saints, when Papa Kraft was one of the 31.
A safe operating presumption is that all 32 are stone cold killers when it comes to business. And the more they wrap themselves in the flag and eat apple pie -- Mara, Rooney and, yes, Papa Kraft too -- the more reason there is to be wary of them. Kraft slept soundly when Benson was shot at the same fruit stand.
dcmissle said:
Agree with everything and the bolded is why it's always been about Brady for me.
Kraft had a chance to stand up for Benson/the Saints and did nothing. He had a chance to take out Goodell when he botched the Ray Rice punishment and instead he propped him up. What's happening to Kraft and the team is ridiculous, but he's as much to blame as Goodell himself.
Brady is not Kraft. He has recourse and will not go gently, no matter how many "sports journalists" or nervous fans think he should just cut a deal get it behind him. The NFL decided to make him the face of this fiasco and it's blowing up in their faces. Mara sees where it's headed and he is sending a signal (to other owners and RG) that if they don't prevail with Berman it needs to stop.
Agreed all around and this is what I just don't get.Average Reds said:
Brady is the worst player they could possibly have targeted. He has been supportive of the PA, he is wealthy enough to not sweat spending big money on lawyers, and his Dad knows enough about business to advise him how to play hardball and which lawyers to hire. He's almost 40 and has been around the block a few times. Plus everything we know about Belichick suggests he's going to take Brady's side in a railroading. Even the Krafts have turned out to be semisupportive, though I could have seen them choosing the owners over Brady.
Who would have been a worse choice for the NFL to railroad? Manning? Brees? Even if Montana and Elway were still playing, they have the profile but not the financial resources of Brady.
Everything that's happened in response to the NFL has been pretty foreseeable: Brady denies involvement. The PA gets involved. Brady hires Kessler. Brady appeals and challenges the independence of the report. Brady files suit.
The only non slam dunk is that Brady got what seems like a sympathetic judge and not a pro-authority type.
This whole railroading seems like a bad idea from the start.
Someone above outlined an argument that Goodell may be dumb as a fox by attacking Brady --- splitting the owners, and taking a shot at breaking the PA on discipline with little downside risk to him. The more I think about this, the less I see it. What's the best case upside for Goodell? Unchecked disciplinary power? I just don't understand why he's interested in that beyond pure ego. He should be looking for a way to take the power out of his hands to protect against more Rice fiascos. And the downside-- that he gets embarrassed in court and in the public eye and owners like Mara lose confidence in him-- is large, if unlikely.
The question almost seems ridiculous but, ultimately, is it just an unchecked ego? I can't see the use of an attack dog without someone saying, "Attack!"
ipol said:
I think it's just like the Ryan Braun and A-Rod situations, but in reverse. The NFL thought they had something, and when they didn't they were faced with two options:
1. Admit they messed up
2. Double and triple down - lie, cheat, and steal to defend the non-truth
It's no different than Braun - they're willing to cost people their jobs and destroy the reputation of an innocent man to avoid admitting that they did the wrong thing.
It's funny, because if you've listened the last 6 months, you've heard Brady being accused of #2 by most people, that he should just accept that he's been caught. Pretty ironic, considering that his story has never changed and he hasn't tried to pass the buck on anyone else.
If the NFL had the sort of conviction in their case that they pretend to, they'd have been happy to pass this to a neutral arbiter and let the facts speak for themselves. That they didn't tells you everything you need to know, without even getting into all the leaks, misinformation, story changing, and outright lies they've told.
BigSoxFan said:
No, we don't know that Brady's innocent. We also don't know that Manning is innocent or that Brees is innocent. I don't know that you weren't behind the whole thing. But I haven't seen any evidence against Brady that doesn't involve a healthy dose of cherry picking, drawing the worst possible inference, and/or outright deceit.
Can you think of a piece of evidence they've used that doesn't fit that criteria?
I see this is repeated a lot but is it true? How do we know Kraft wasn't talking to Goodell and other owners about the unfairness of Bountygate? Or perhaps he was pissed at Benson for not standing up for the Patriots during Spygate?Average Reds said:
I agree that it's likely that Kraft, a prominent member of the billionaires boys club, is likely to have looked the other way or propped up Goodell during Bountygate but it's at least somewhat possible he did more. In fact, given Kraft's stated approach to these sorts of negotiations, it's perhaps as likely that he tried to broker some kind of peace.
Yeah, and we also don't really know for sure IF anything happened. Something may or may not have happened to begin with (big assumption #1). Brady may or may not have been involved with the something that may or may not have happened (big assumption #2). Brady may or may not now be lying to cover up that he may have been involved in the something that may have happened (big assumption #3).BigSoxFan said:
I believe that league office went into this thinking that they would nail Belichick, buying into the mystique that he controls everything in the organization with an iron fist. Wells would find some evidence somewhere on the team phones or they would sweat one of the equipment guys and they would flip. They were forced to go to a plan B with Brady and have been winging it ever since.Average Reds said:
Sorry, but did Brady "hire" Kessler? I was under the impression he was the NFLPA lawyer on retainer and that this isn't costing Brady a dime above and beyond his union dues...crystalline said:
This was brought up on ESPN the other day. Stephen A Smith said that Brady isn't paying for any of his defense at this point. Kessler is billing the NFLPA 100%. His "source" confirmed that a couple weeks ago. It's so obvious that his source is Vincent....he's the idiot who keeps saying the NFLPA is wasting money on lawsuits.
Of all the despicable things Frank Underwood has done, throwing that goddess in front of a train is by far the worst.PseuFighter said:
Only semi supportive? it's in the NFLPA's hands now so there's nothing Kraft can really do to show support but everything he and Jonathan have said has been very supportivecrystalline said:
"I continue to believe and unequivocally support Tom Brady.....Tom Brady is a person of great integrity and is a great ambassador of the game, both on and off the field......Once again, I want to apologize to the fans of the New England Patriots and [to] Tom Brady. I was wrong to put my faith in the league." - RK
"Tom Brady is a human being and someone I've known for 15 years, and put aside he's a football player, he is the type of guy you would want as your best friend, as your brother, as your father and as your son-in-law. He is a smart, empathetic, caring, honest, great human being.....He is just an exceptional person, aside from the football piece of this, you see what's gone on and he's above that and he's too good....Anything Tom Brady feels is best for him is fine for us.....Tom loves the game of football, cares deeply about his teammates, cares deeply about the fans, and if something made sense to him because it was the right thing to do when he weighed everything together, we would absolutely support him 100 percent with what he wanted to do" - JK. Forget about semi supportive. That's a verbal fellating.
That's correct, but given that Kessler seems to be the only mouth at the hearings, Kessler is also effectively representing Brady's interests. And they are collaborating on briefs and undoubtedly discussing all aspects of the legal strategy.
Someone asked "what's in it for Goodell?" While there is the ego-stroking of even more unchecked power, I think the union-busting is front and center. He is in charge of an operation making billions. But the shareholders (owners) want more billions. They just signed a new TV deal, so there's nothing to increase there for a while. They expect Goodell to produce.
With the salary cap going up ("you mean we have to spend more money"), the *only* place left to increase revenue is to take it from the owner/player split. And a fundamental part of that is to fuck with the PA as often as possible, because the owners know that a strike will benefit them in the long run. Why Brady? Because fucking with the highest profile target is a signal to the rank and file. Even if the NFL loses in court.
With the salary cap going up ("you mean we have to spend more money"), the *only* place left to increase revenue is to take it from the owner/player split. And a fundamental part of that is to fuck with the PA as often as possible, because the owners know that a strike will benefit them in the long run. Why Brady? Because fucking with the highest profile target is a signal to the rank and file. Even if the NFL loses in court.
Small quibble, but that's not the only place to increase revenue for the NFL. It's just one, admittedly large, possibility.
joe dokes said:
What's in it for Goodell? Like $40 million a year. (And like $8 million for Pash). By about Wednesday after the AFCCG deflategate was so completely out of control-a scandal that the NFL had dignified by having subordinates leaking all sorts of shit about how upset the league was--that it would be utterly humiliating for the league office to conclude that the Pats had done nothing wrong. There's only so many times you can fuck things up, and if you're Goodell or Pash who knows if this is going to be the fuck up that ends your highly profitable career in an awesome, awesome job.
I've been of the opinion that Brady should show up to an "optional" meeting. Unless the Judge explicitly said "I don't want you or Roger," Brady should do everything in his power to be there short of "Family member died" "grave illness" etc.jsinger121 said:
It is infuriating that some major media outlets are letting the NFL get away with a defense that says the facts don't matter legally the judge doesn't have the right to over rule arbitration. Some prominent media outlet should be making the point that even if technically and legally true, the NFL should stand behind the facts in the case, and if they can't they should not have the right to punish Brady with a suspension. The facts should matter.
Goodell probably gets paid the remainder of his contract even if he gets fired. That's another way billionaires game the system. I was thinking more short term. The only real "atta boys" the Billionaire Boys Club EVER hand out is in response to making their wallets fatter. "We're going to take a lot of shit for this, but it'll fuck up the PA and you guys will make even more money" is roughly how it goes. The "League Office" is paid handsomely to be humiliated from time to time on the owners' behalf.. And then Roger the Billionaire's Family Pet walks back to the house with porcupine needles in his ass and smelling like skunk and gets patted on the head by Jim Irsay and gets his belly rubbed by Jerry Richardson.
He missed practice today in order to get ready to attend the hearing.jimbobim said:
http://nesn.com/2015/08/patriots-training-camp-attendance-tom-brady-absent-before-joint-practices/
Too bad his absence is so obvious and is being reported 24 hours in advance of the hearing. Would have been great if Brady showed up tomorrow by surprise and RG showed up 45 minutes later, breathless, but assuring everyone he totally planned to be there all along.
I remain cynical that even a scathing decision here will result in the owners getting rid of Goodell.
Whether REG deserves the credit or not, a huge percentage of these owners have seen their investment skyrocket during Goodell's tenure as commissioner. Follow the money. Yeah, it's inconvenient that RG is being so thoroughly taken apart by Kessler and the thinking journalists out there (Jenkins, Wetzel, the RS writer, and others). But most fans are blissfully unaware of any of this, and most still cling to Mort's story and do not concern themselves with anything much else. How many of you have dealt with non-moron fans of other teams who know very little about RG's mishandling of this? I am guessing that many here would raise their hands at that, even if their friends are vaguely aware that Goodell has blundered to some extent. For an owner who doesn't care about the Pats or dislikes Kraft/BB, or is just jealous of their success, that Goodell has contributed to him making oodles of cash will override Roger's mistakes, I think.
It is possible that my cynicism is overstated and there will be a tipping point. I would be willing to bet a lot, however, that Goodell survives for quite a while.
Whether REG deserves the credit or not, a huge percentage of these owners have seen their investment skyrocket during Goodell's tenure as commissioner. Follow the money. Yeah, it's inconvenient that RG is being so thoroughly taken apart by Kessler and the thinking journalists out there (Jenkins, Wetzel, the RS writer, and others). But most fans are blissfully unaware of any of this, and most still cling to Mort's story and do not concern themselves with anything much else. How many of you have dealt with non-moron fans of other teams who know very little about RG's mishandling of this? I am guessing that many here would raise their hands at that, even if their friends are vaguely aware that Goodell has blundered to some extent. For an owner who doesn't care about the Pats or dislikes Kraft/BB, or is just jealous of their success, that Goodell has contributed to him making oodles of cash will override Roger's mistakes, I think.
It is possible that my cynicism is overstated and there will be a tipping point. I would be willing to bet a lot, however, that Goodell survives for quite a while.
I have yet to meet any non-moron fan of other teams who have any idea about anything other than the lies.
steveluck7 said:
Agreed. I would have practiced if I was Brady and not let the cat out of the bag.
That shit really doesn't matter. Good for Brady for deciding to show up (if that's why he's missing practice), but the Judge excused both RG and TB and he wouldn't hold it against one or the other for not appearing.jsinger121 said:
Bleedred said:
I agree. Holding it against them would be like saying you would not be penalized for failing to surrender a phone during an investigation, and then using that as proof of wrongdoing.
TheoShmeo said:
100% agree. There is no chance in hell Goodell receives das boot regardless of the outcome with Berman or any other of Goodell's future fuck ups (short of him being exposed of murder, rape, accepting bribes, or anything to stoke the outrage porn embers).
Last Thursday, I overhead co-workers in the office saying "Go Pats" prior to the first pre-season game against Green Bay. While driving home, I saw a bunch of people dressed in Patriots jerseys en route to the bar. In August. Before the first pre-season game. Featuring predominantly dudes that will be lifting boxes on the shipping dock in a month.
This country is fucking obsessed with football. There's no way the head gorilla in charge of this money printing behemoth gets canned.
GBrushTWood said:
And yet every few pages we get some Patriots-obsessed fan speculating that the tide may be turning against Goodell.
I live outside of New England and based on my SSS travels, I see two impacts from Deflategate. First, casual football fans, who thought this story was silly to begin with (but gave them the opportunity to take shots at the Patriots and their fans) simply don't care any more. The more hardcore NFL fans also think this whole story is silly but are essentially sick of it by now.
Meanwhile, anyone paying attention to non-field-related news around the NFL is focused on these hearings with judge Berman and not the numerous actual crimes committed by NFL players over the past few months. If I am an NFL owner not named Kraft, I would say that Roger Goodell has had a great 2015 thus far, even if Brady's suspension is vacated.
Yes, De Jesus. That we're talking about the NFL as much as we are outside (or at the same time as) the games that count, training camp and the draft is a win. Almost all publicity is good. That we're talking about offenses other than rape, wife beating and murder? Bonanza!
And for the guys who write the checks, that the "victim" of Roger's latest screw up is the Patriots? Another bonanza!
And for the guys who write the checks, that the "victim" of Roger's latest screw up is the Patriots? Another bonanza!
Once this is over, or a decision has been rendered (hopefully in TB's favor), wouldn't it be nice if Kraft (Jonathan in particular, but Robert too) took every chance to tell Goodell to fuck off, pleasantly, on matters related to the NFL. i.e. Roger will survive this mess regardless of the decision on Brady, but the Krafts DO NOT have to peacefully co-exist with Goodell going forward. They can continue to wield influence, run committee's to help the game, etc. The other owners can see that they are committed to the league and its revenue streams, but they can also let Roger know in no uncertain terms that he's dead to them.
I doubt they'd do it, but they should. It would have virtually zero negative consequences to them. If another owner (or owners) told the Krafts "come on Bob/jonathan, lighten up a little." The response should be: "we are 100% dedicated to the league, its success etc., but Roger Goodell can go fuck himself." Nothing the other owners would do IMO.
I doubt they'd do it, but they should. It would have virtually zero negative consequences to them. If another owner (or owners) told the Krafts "come on Bob/jonathan, lighten up a little." The response should be: "we are 100% dedicated to the league, its success etc., but Roger Goodell can go fuck himself." Nothing the other owners would do IMO.
I think we should distinguish between Goodell feeling pressure or frustration from owners (which I imagine he is now feeling, though I know some feel otherwise) and being booted...those things are very, very different and the probability of the latter is a lot less than of the former.
PedroKsBambino said:
I also want to make clear that I don't think it's binary. I think the league office really didn't want to have another discipline embarrassment and tried to avoid that with the Wells report (oops), but if things went off the rails would Goodell have lost his job? Probably not, especially with all the jockeying that must be going on for more important issues (e.g., an LA franchise and a possible foreign franchise). Could it have hurt his bonus? Sure. Could it have lead to a bunch of RG's guys like Kensil or even Pash getting canned? Maybe.
A point I'll reiterate is that RG's job is going to be secure only as long as the majority of owners think keeping him is a better bet than replacing him--and we have no idea what the owners actually think.
Hoya81 said:
This is where I've been for awhile on this. I love the idea that they keep adding/updating the rules just to vex Belichick. One of his many strengths is to play to the limit of the rules and exploit them accordingly. The more rules they create, the more toys Belichick has to play with. Which is why I've got to think that there's very little chance that the League stops here in going after him. They wanted Brady's texts for a reason, and anything above and beyond DeflateGate would have been eagerly pursued. They were looking for the football equivalent of Monica Lewinsky's stained dress. That they haven't found it yet has got to be frustrating the crap out of them.
Let's not discount that we're also dealing with a group of owners that refuse to believe that any team can come as far as the Pats have, in such a short period of time, and have sustained that level for so long simply by being that much smarter than everyone else. The idea that there's that much of a gap in football IQ can't possibly be the case. Thus... the Pats must be cheating. All this isn't true, of course, as luck has a great deal to do with it.
Bleedred said:
That sounds nice. But, do you think a league office that already has a pretty clear anti-Patriots bias would take well to being treated like that? The Patriots have enough enemies as it is. It's better to try to keep Rog in your pocket than as your enemy. As we've seen, he'll throw penalties around whether they make sense or not and the team has little recourse other than going full Al Davis, which we've seen Bob isn't prepared to do. And I don't know about the zero negative consequences. I'd imagine they'd see their name on fewer and fewer committees (not sure how that works, but if the league is in charge of electing committee members, I'd think they'd start to take away that influence if the Pats started going rogue).
The owners likely wouldn't be able to do much if the Pats went this direction, I just don't know how sound of a business decision it would be.