Browns linebacker Karlos Dansby joined PFT Live on NBC Sports Radio to promote Montez Renault, a new skin-care line he developed with former teammate Chris Butler.
Only if you care what ESPN thinks. I'm not sure that was the Pats goal, however.drleather2001 said:GJGE Patriots.
Way to blow it.
When did lawyers decide to start making long winded extraneous statements to the press?dcmissle said:What a shit show ...
MarcSullivaFan said:When did lawyers decide to start making long winded extraneous statements to the press?
When they ony care about winning in the court of public opinion.MarcSullivaFan said:When did lawyers decide to start making long winded extraneous statements to the press?
You think Goodell ordered Wells to hold his pc?Ed Hillel said:
Don't think the lawyers themselves have made any decisions in the past few days.
Well, if that was the goal, it ain't working. First do no harm.Ferm Sheller said:When they ony care about winning in the court of public opinion.
Given what we've seen from Wells and Goldman, this hasn't been the profession's finest hour. Let's hope Kessler does better.MarcSullivaFan said:When did lawyers decide to start making long winded extraneous statements to the press?
kartvelo said:You think Goodell ordered Wells to hold his pc?
Thanks. Happy to write it up a little more professionally for ITP if they want me to.Mooch said:Ivan, this post should be spread far and wide. Outstanding.
There's no chance Wells would have held that press conference without Goodell's approval.kartvelo said:You think Goodell ordered Wells to hold his pc?
Which points in the statement do you think were revelations to Wells/Goodell, either as facts or likely arguments?dcmissle said:I would have expected this under Kiam or the Sullivans but never Bob Kraft.
All the reasons why Wells' presser was stupid apply here, but more so because of the Pats' baggage.
This isn't going to move the needle in our favor one iota; in fact, it probably makes it worse. The brand takes a beating.
It certainly will not help with Goodell or the owners; in fact, it probably hurts.
And the irony is, in an appeal, the team could have made this points confidentially (not a public proceeding) and without giving the adversary prior notice.
I know Bob signed off, but he is getting old. If this is Jonathan's coming out party, that's not good news for us.
Your job is to keep the client from walking off a cliff.Ed Hillel said:
Don't think the lawyers themselves have made any decisions in the past few days.
Blow what? Was public sentiment with them?drleather2001 said:GJGE Patriots.
Way to blow it.
Meh, this seems overwrought. They made some missteps, IMO, but the brand was taking a beating either way. "Embracing your inner Raider fan" means not giving a fuck what the commissioner and the other owners think.dcmissle said:I would have expected this under Kiam or the Sullivans but never Bob Kraft.
All the reasons why Wells' presser was stupid apply here, but more so because of the Pats' baggage.
This isn't going to move the needle in our favor one iota; in fact, it probably makes it worse. The brand takes a beating.
It certainly will not help with Goodell or the owners; in fact, it probably hurts.
And the irony is, in an appeal, the team could have made these points confidentially (not a public proceeding) and without giving the adversary prior notice.
I know Bob signed off, but he is getting old. If this is Jonathan's coming out party, that's not good news for us.
dcmissle said:I would have expected this under Kiam or the Sullivans but never Bob Kraft.
All the reasons why Wells' presser was stupid apply here, but more so because of the Pats' baggage.
This isn't going to move the needle in our favor one iota; in fact, it probably makes it worse. The brand takes a beating.
It certainly will not help with Goodell or the owners; in fact, it probably hurts.
And the irony is, in an appeal, the team could have made these points confidentially (not a public proceeding) and without giving the adversary prior notice.
I know Bob signed off, but he is getting old. If this is Jonathan's coming out party, that's not good news for us.
MarcSullivaFan said:Your job is to keep the client from walking off a cliff.
Approved and ordered are different things. I was responding to a post that said the lawyers weren't the ones who had made the decisions to hold the press conf & release the rebuttal.lexrageorge said:There's no chance Wells would have held that press conference without Goodell's approval.
Or a check from the offices of the National Football League. We’re talking apples and oranges as far as the connections go.GregHarris said:Passive investment? I mean really guys? It's not like they handed him a friggen bag of cash.
dcmissle said:1. He was supposed to be an impartial investigator; during the presser he bared his teeth and took on the role of an advocate. That is going to be woven into "the story" as told by TB and maybe Kraft.
2. He said some uninformed things helpful to the accused. Those sound bites are going to be used. Strict rules of evidence will not apply as we go forward.
3. I think his value as a witness has been compromised -- or at least the accused have helpful cross-examination they didn't before yesterday. In any hearing, it's likely not going to be sufficient to argue generally that Kraft and TB were not cooperative because they did not gives us this or that. The duty to cooperate is not without boundaries. As a hearing officer I want to know why what was asked for was needed, and how the investigation was compromised by failing to provide it. Not in the abstract -- concretely. I want to know these things to determine whether there was a violation and, if so, the severity of that violation to measure the reasonableness of the sanction.
Wells would seem to be best positioned to testify to this. I don't know if I want Mr. Thin Skin on the stand, especially since it will open him to questions on the impartiality of the investigation generally, and particularly if they get discovery from Mr. Thin Skin's files.
I suppose I'm glad to know this now if I am team Goodell, but teams Brady and Kraft know it too. Great lawyers can be shitty witnesses and worse clients.
LuckyBen said:Step away from the keyboard man, you are taking this wayyyy too personal.
You've never heard an exaggeration? These guys are ribbing each other. The exaggeration makes it obvious to his buddy that he won't actually follow through.RSFnFL said:Regarding the "don't worry...not going to ESPN....yet" comment.
If you were going to rat an employee out for stealing shoes you would go to ESPN? Even joking, wouldn't you say.."not going to your boss....yet"?
The brand has already been taking a beating. So I don’t think publishing the refutation is as damaging as you seem to think.dcmissle said:I would have expected this under Kiam or the Sullivans but never Bob Kraft.
All the reasons why Wells' presser was stupid apply here, but more so because of the Pats' baggage.
This isn't going to move the needle in our favor one iota; in fact, it probably makes it worse. The brand takes a beating.
It certainly will not help with Goodell or the owners; in fact, it probably hurts.
And the irony is, in an appeal, the team could have made these points confidentially (not a public proceeding) and without giving the adversary prior notice.
I know Bob signed off, but he is getting old. If this is Jonathan's coming out party, that's not good news for us.
dcmissle said:And the irony is, in an appeal, the team could have made these points confidentially (not a public proceeding) and without giving the adversary prior notice.
bankshot1 said:Again I think the Pats response to Wells (not Goodell yet) was meant largely for the other owners who will likely prefer a brokered peace than open warfare.
Maybe this is wishful thinking, but IMO Kraft knows he can not get full satisfaction, but perhaps a middle-ground can be found, in a negotiated truce.
It is a "fuck you" but its largely aimed at the Wells report. IMO its possible that calmer heads (other BSD owners) talk Kraft from going nuclear on Goodell and the league in return for a lighter penalty on the Pats. And that penalty is largely based on less than perfect cooperation. and not on tampering.SuperManny said:
I take is as "fuck you" mode from Kraft which is the response most fans wanted. It probably won't move the needle but it is good to get out there and trash the report as much as possible because it deserves trashing.
The appeal is to the guy that issued the punishment (OK, The Artless Roger used a sockpuppet to issue the punishment, but still...). So the Patriots punishment is set in stone. On the other hand, if you're more interested in pressuring the NFL into appointing an independent arbitrator for the Brady hearing (which is infinitely more important than the two picks) then it probably helps to open a second front for the NFL to have to defend.nolasoxfan said:The brand has already been taking a beating. So I don’t think publishing the refutation is as damaging as you seem to think.
That being said, I agree with you that the documents should have remained out of the public sphere and presented during an appeal.
Even though simple science and math shows that there was nothing unexpected or out of the ordinary about their condition, you think they were tampered with?Otis Foster said:I think there was tampering with the balls. I think TB must have guessed it, even if he didn't actually know it.
lexrageorge said:I honestly don't know what Kraft had to lose from the media perception perspective. We've had folks calling for a yearlong or even a lifetime ban on Brady and Belichick. Other folks are calling the Super Bowl victory against Seattle tainted; others are saying that Brady is another "cheater" much like Belichick. And this is nearly universal, including the local Boston mediots such as Shank and Volin and Gasper and Buckley.
The mediots were going to take down the rebuttal no matter what was in it. They were going to troll $100 bills through the trailer parks of ex-players to come up with additional allegations of Pats "cheating" regardless of any rebuttal. That storm had already been unleashed, and the NFL doubled down on it when it ordered or allowed Wells to hold that press conference, which was nothing more than an orchestrated attack on the Patriots brand.
I get the appeal angle; certainly Kraft didn't do himself any favors with the league office. But if he truly felt cornered with nothing left to lose, it's not surprising when something like this comes out.
Wait til you hear! See, just before the AFCCG last year, .....soxhop411 said:wait.. did I miss something?
This ..AB in DC said:So what? The goal isn't to win a legal hearing. The goal is to win the PR campaign and embarrass the NFL into backing off on their own. If Kraft wins an arbitration hearing, or something, without convincing the public (and fellow owners) that the whole thing was a crock from the get-go, then it's a hollow victory -- the NFL will just come back and find some other random rule violation and revoke a 1st round pick for that, instead.
That is my understanding as well, which puts pressure on Goodell to decide quickly who is hearing it -- himself, one of his "independent" arbitrators, or a genuinely independent arbitrator.epraz said:I believe the appeal hearing has to take place within 10 days unless both sides agree to a delay.
Captaincoop said:If I were Kraft, I would insist on Goodell personally attending the ring ceremony in September, and make a huge public stink if he declines. Make him risk his life walking into Gillette after this, please.
nighthob said:The appeal is to the guy that issued the punishment (OK, The Artless Roger used a sockpuppet to issue the punishment, but still...). So the Patriots punishment is set in stone. On the other hand, if you're more interested in pressuring the NFL into appointing an independent arbitrator for the Brady hearing (which is infinitely more important than the two picks) then it probably helps to open a second front for the NFL to have to defend.
That one "ridiculous explanation" was but a tiny piece of the rebuttal.TheMoralBully said:
Maybe they didn't have public opinion on their side, but there has been plenty of "Ted Well's blew this, what was he thinking" talk over the last two days. Instead of letting that stew while the Wells report is picked apart more and more, they give what sounds like a totally ridiculous explanation to the one portion of the Wells report people found credible. I don't think this blows anything and probably matters little in the ultimate outcome, but the mishandling is still disappointing.