Schefter was killing the NFL the moment it was announced. Called it embarrassing a joke, they should be ashamed. They even venue shopped and got their ass handed to them there. He wasn't holding back.
#DFG: Canceling the Noise
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
It's lying.edmunddantes said:
And why shouldn't Schefter be on the war path? He takes his job seriously and the NFL fucked with the integrity of the profession. Some people don't care, like Mort, but Schefter does. It's about time that someone with clout actually call the NFL on their BS.
There is no Rev said:
I think where the NFL went wrong in the case is where many litigants go wrong in appeals. (And, in terms of posture, this was very much like an appeal with a very high standard.) They confused the standard of review with the merits. It's just not enough to reiterate the standard. You still need to engage.
When the other side bears a heavy burden -- and the NFLPA does here -- there is an almost unbearable temptation to get overly enamored with the standard. This is the mistake guys like Munson have been making all month. Has he ever said, after noting how high the standard is, "and here's why the NFLPA can't meet it"? Not really. And the NFL didn't either. There's a standard in some legal cases (which are kind of like these) called "substantial evidence" -- you don't need to show in a challenge to some administrative agency decisions the winning side was correct, just that there was substantial evidence supporting the decision. This is a very low burden (or, conversely, a very difficult standard for the person trying to challenge the administrative decision.) In fact, there are cases that virtually read "substantial" out -- just show me something that's not bullshit in the record and you win.
But you see litigants fall into the same trap sometimes. They spend pages talking about the standard, and all the great cases that talk about how easy it is to satisfy. And then when it comes time to actually point to the substantial evidence, some have grown so in love with the standard, that they half ass the part that truly matters. I think the NFL did that here. They talked about the high standard almost exclusively. And in the few places where they actually engaged with the NFLPA's arguments, it was never really on the merits. They merely attempted to come up with categorical points to argue the NFLPA should not be able to make the arguments they were trying to make -- claiming that Goodell was not required to be neutral or that Wells was not required to be independent or saying, over and over and over, "the arbitrator already rejected this so you can't consider it". Having made those arguments, they treated things as though to address Kessler's arguments would have been to dignify them. What they never did was actually try to say, for example, "here's why players in the NFL have adequate notice what 'conduct detrimental' means." The standard alone doesn't answer that question. And merely telling a judge he can't even ask the question is a risky strategy -- you better be right if you're not going to back it up with, "but even if you do ask the question, here's why we win."
In the end, I believed the NFL had done just enough to win -- and I still think they might. But the truth is that they really didn't give Berman very much to work with here, even had he been in their corner.
Wouldn't the (virtually nonexistent) chance of getting picks back be that somehow, the communications between NFL, Paul Weiss, and Exponent come to light and there is something really damning in there.edmunddantes said:
Outside of the usage of the word "Haters", I actually enjoyed this comment from the ESPN Comments section of a Lester Munson article (italicized for emphasis of unlikelihood stacked on top of unlikelihood on top of unlikelihood) spinning a pretty popular anti-Patriot battle cry back on the NFL
I still read that exchange with Berman & Nash on Pash that he was basically begging Nash to give him something to work with on that issue, and Nash just coming back to the "standard" part ("Goodell gets to decide" was the gist of Nash's response) that you talk about without actually backing it up with anything.DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
“@PhilAPerry: If Brady had been suspended for Week 1, Jonathan Kraft tells @985TheSportsHub that the team would’ve unveiled a banner honoring Brady. (1/2)”
“@PhilAPerry: Kraft: ” ‘1’ and ‘2’ was on it. Not ‘free.’ … Tom may have been a 3x SB MVP and a 4x SB winner, and that may have been a part of it too.“”
“@PhilAPerry: Kraft: ” ‘1’ and ‘2’ was on it. Not ‘free.’ … Tom may have been a 3x SB MVP and a 4x SB winner, and that may have been a part of it too.“”
Yes, but who's going to leak it?Eddie Jurak said:
If we can get Schefter (or someone else looking to make their bones) to go after it, maybe there is something there, but it's going to take a lot of determination, stubborness, and luck to get that information even if it does exist since it requires a sympathetic party on the other side of the reporter to do the leaking. Plus it needs to be someone of unimpeachable integrity so the NFL can't just push it off as "that reporter is a crank" "that employee is a crank" or a myriad of other excuses that people will lap up in seconds.
This was a line of questioning completely ignored by national media outside of maybe Florio and it remains valid. The NFL knew they didn't have much and I would wager those notes and edits would reveal some serious anti-Patriots agenda and arguments. To put it more succinctly if the notes communications with Wells and edits were innocuous they would have been published.PBDWake said:
Kraft continued: "I would never say never to anything. But as I sit here today it's not our intention." (2/2)
4 retweets3 favorites
Reply
Michael Giardi retweeted
Phil Perry @PhilAPerry 3m3 minutes ago
Jonathan Kraft on going after lost first-round pick: "Robert's a man of his word, and we're part of a partnership." (1/2)
This is, I think, very well stated, and I like the analogy.DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
For the record, Daniel Wallach (David? Daniel?) has been doing media rounds lately and has been articulating this as well--it's one thing to talk about the bar but you still have to look at the actual case.
Anyone who's been bringing up Garvey has been a total joke, imo, at least what I've heard. I mean, Hernandez and Brady are both football players, so those cases are similar too, right?
No one. But isn't it one possible outcome of the NFL's appeal? If NFL wins on notice and loses on Pash/evidence, then a new hearing with disclosure.edmunddantes said:
Phil Perry @PhilAPerry 5m5 minutes ago
Kraft said that Pats are looking for NFL permission to have Jastremski, McNally reinstated. "Something I'm sure we'll be talking about."
2 retweets3 favorites
Reply
Kraft said that Pats are looking for NFL permission to have Jastremski, McNally reinstated. "Something I'm sure we'll be talking about."
2 retweets3 favorites
Reply
The virtually nonexistent chance scenario is probably that Goodell gets canned during the season, and the new guy comes in and declares a sort of Jubilee year as part of a "turn the page" campaign. The current regime is not going to be shamed into turning back, especially while the league's appeal is working its way through the 2d Circuit process.Eddie Jurak said:
That appeal is not going to be finished before the NFL draft happens. No way that re-hearing would occur before the draft, unless somehow the Patriots go to court to get an injunction to try to stop the draft until Brady's case is heard (which would probably make for some interesting legal gymnastics), and a Federal judge than tells the entire NFL you have to wait for us to do this re-hearing so it gives time for the discovery process to reveal potential dirt that'll potentially make the NFL look bad enough that they'll be embarrassed into giving back the picks once enough public pressure builds up on them from the media hounding them.Eddie Jurak said:
It's not really a winning legal argument for an injunction though. Of course, IANAL.
The only hope I have of a leak from the NFL side is someone gets sick of being pushed around by Goodell and Pash or Vincent gets thrown under the bus and does to the NFL what he did To the PA.Eddie Jurak said:
Kraft is playing it smart, going after the Commish's henchmen and sparing Glampers. He knows removing a commissioner is nigh impossible given the NFL bylaws, but flushing some of the anti-Pats folks out of NFL HQ is possible.
You just have to think that the fans of the Steelers, Bills, Jags, and Cowboys are collectively cursing at Goodell under their breaths.
"It was a tough game to begin with and now we get a pissed-off, fire-breathing, vengeful Brady. THANKS Goodell."
"It was a tough game to begin with and now we get a pissed-off, fire-breathing, vengeful Brady. THANKS Goodell."
jimbobim said:
https://twitter.com/PhilAPerry/status/639579275977445377"]5m5
link to tweet minutes ago[/url]
Kraft said that Pats are looking for NFL permission to have Jastremski, McNally reinstated. "Something I'm sure we'll be talking about."
2 retweets3 favorites
This would be fantastic.
Reply
Tony C said:
I'd quibble a bit with your one-liner challenging my one-liner. "It's not uncommon" is probably a better descriptor than "all the time." Irrespective, this is a wholly unique situation and not easily comparable to nearly all other businesses. The anti-trust implications are a rabbit hole I'd prefer to not traverse but we can meet at Watership Down if you'd like.
ipol said:
I was thinking more along the lines of working within the business. Kraft's mention of "the lawyers at the league" may in fact be him painting his targets. But I'll take Average Reds's point about this being a day for celebration and leave the discussion of what Kraft might do for another day. Well, except for this.
Deep anxiety to drunk on your own wine in less than 12 hours. CHB urging Kraft to file a lawsuit to the draft picks back.
This is why good lawyers are necessary and why somebody with common sense, good temperment and good judgment can do quite well as a lawyer.
This is why good lawyers are necessary and why somebody with common sense, good temperment and good judgment can do quite well as a lawyer.
Heard Alan Milstein (NJ lawyer who has stood in front of Berman before) on the radio today.
Essentially, he said:
1. The finding by Wells was based on poor evidence
2. The punishment by Vincent was based on a poor finding
3. The NFL has no chance of overturning this on appeal. Judge Berman was meticulous in developing air-tight arguments for vacating the decision, including not going beyond "lack of notice" and "denial of evidence" to demonstrate how unassailable the declaration of "lack of fairness" is.
Essentially, he said:
1. The finding by Wells was based on poor evidence
2. The punishment by Vincent was based on a poor finding
3. The NFL has no chance of overturning this on appeal. Judge Berman was meticulous in developing air-tight arguments for vacating the decision, including not going beyond "lack of notice" and "denial of evidence" to demonstrate how unassailable the declaration of "lack of fairness" is.
If I were an nfl owner I would just be furious at the millions the league keeps spending to lose in court over and over.
I read Freeman's trash just to see how he's coping and as expected it's a mess of tortured logic. Similar to that NYPOST cited upthread the tenuously founded unequivocal belief Brady was involved is included
I'm on record as saying I think Brady was involved. I'm still convinced of that.
As Eddie George said on The Dan Patrick Show after the ruling was announced:
Tom is a great player, great person. I get it. But through the years, coming out of that organization, there has been various times that they've pushed the envelope in terms of trying to win ballgames. Whether it's stealing signals, whether it's getting the playbook or something...if you did the crime, just take the punishment.
But this clearly shows to me that they play by a different set of rules and they're above the law to some degree.
Freeman goes on to blame Roger for being an ass and losing his legacy because nothing sticks in court. O and Eddy no the court of law just said the Commish abused the" law" which he couldn't do.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2560566-deflategate-ruling-further-annihilates-goodells-legacy-and-the-nfls-image
I'm on record as saying I think Brady was involved. I'm still convinced of that.
As Eddie George said on The Dan Patrick Show after the ruling was announced:
Tom is a great player, great person. I get it. But through the years, coming out of that organization, there has been various times that they've pushed the envelope in terms of trying to win ballgames. Whether it's stealing signals, whether it's getting the playbook or something...if you did the crime, just take the punishment.
But this clearly shows to me that they play by a different set of rules and they're above the law to some degree.
Freeman goes on to blame Roger for being an ass and losing his legacy because nothing sticks in court. O and Eddy no the court of law just said the Commish abused the" law" which he couldn't do.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2560566-deflategate-ruling-further-annihilates-goodells-legacy-and-the-nfls-image
Joe D Reid said:
It's either that, or Goodell has enough detractors during this season that he worries about getting canned and goes back to Kraft to barter the pick for support.
I don't think we have any evidence the owners are smart enough to boot Goodell. But you know Goodell is slimy enough to try and make the deal if they try to.
Damn. I'm in Bay Area. Thought I'd be immune, but nope. Here comes Gary Tanguay on grant Napier show (baseball on other sports channels).
Gary sounded like someone promised him a puppy than decided to shoot it in front of him.
Plus Grant Napier is another "this changes nothing" type. This ruling only about process not Brady guilt. Gary was right there with him. Then grant crowing about "even a New England guy right in the middle of it thinks so too".
Of course if Brady had lost, both would be claiming this proves Brady was complicit.
Gary sounded like someone promised him a puppy than decided to shoot it in front of him.
Plus Grant Napier is another "this changes nothing" type. This ruling only about process not Brady guilt. Gary was right there with him. Then grant crowing about "even a New England guy right in the middle of it thinks so too".
Of course if Brady had lost, both would be claiming this proves Brady was complicit.
Thanks to all for the wonderful links. Sally Jenkins is wonderful here.jimbobim said:
Here's a fun piece: http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/federal-judge-admits-having-brady-on-fantasy-team?intcid=mod-latest
I'm not going to click that link but I assume it is Kirk Minehane's favorite twitter troll.soxhop411 said:
@AdamKilgoreWP: By the end of her Goodell column, Sally Jenkins is Chuck Bednarik standing over Frank Gifford. https://t.co/DzM61jB7VdInsideTheParker said:
EDIT: can someone photoshop that?
edmunddantes said:
And now we see the fruits of Tanguay's strategy of playing contrarian...national voice of the "unbiased" Boston media.
I watched some of the 7-8pm edition of SportsCenter this evening, which was being broadcast live from Gillette, hosted by Lindsay Czarniak (sp? cute blonde chick). Seemed like ESPN had shifted their public stance a bit since earlier in the day today. Maybe they realized they were starting to look ridiculous? During this particular show they discussed DFG with:
- Mike Reiss -- Not surprisingly, could barely contain his jubilance at the NFL getting smacked down. Said that the Patriots were not surprised by the decision, felt they had a very strong case going in.
- Roger Cossack -- Interviewed by Bob Ley. Seemed fairly conciliatory vs. his reported attitude earlier today. Said the NFL will be the underdog in the appeal, that "deference" now favors Brady since his side was the winner at the lower level, and that the appeals court would give a lot of respect to Berman's ruling. Ley characterized the outcome as a "crushing defeat" for the NFL.
- Adam Schefter -- Very openly critical of the NFL, as has reported earlier in the thread. Said that the legal experts he's talked to give the NFL "very little chance" on appeal. Noted that this is the continuance of a pattern of the NFL getting consistently overturned on punishments. Called the Brady case an "embarrassing loss" for the NFL.
- Brian Griese -- Was on to talk about tonight's college games, but since asked about DFG, expressed his opinion that he felt "disenfranchised" by the NFL, that they had engaged in an "abuse of power" and had been grossly unfair to Brady.
- Andrew Brandt -- Thought Berman's decision was a "stunning rebuke" to the NFL, and seemed to agree with a lot of what Berman had to say. Thinks Goodell's job is safe for now but that there may be changes "around him", including possibly to how discipline is handled going forward.
You were wrong before and you're wrong now. The fact that you think an ex-player (one who lost one of the biggest games of his career to the Patriots) repeating what amounts to nothing more than baseless rumors counts for evidence ("clearly shows") more than speaks for itself.jimbobim said:
