Quiddity said:
Admitting they did it (even if it were true, which many, myself included believe is not the case) will do them no good. They behaved with Spygate when it came to admitting their wrong doing. They accepted the punishment and we didn't see much if any of a fight from them (certainly in comparison with this). What did we get out of that? Goodell destroying the evidence. Goodell punishing the team so harshly for something that would be 100% within the rules if they filmed from another position that the general public thought it to be far worse than it actually was. Forcing Kraft and Belichick to apologize in front of all the other owners when everyone knows that many other teams were doing exactly the same thing. Years upon years upon years of the team getting bashed to death by the general public and the media and all their accomplishments dragged through the mud. After all that they should simply buckle under and admit to something which they don't think they did in the first place?
Felger isn't coming after this from a standpoint of what is right for the team. If they were to admit to such things, he would immediately move the goal posts. We have years worth of him doing this. Don't think that this would be any different. Heck, he's demanding the league punish both the team and Belichick at this point, despite the report absolving them of wrong doing.
Belichick did nothing wrong, nor is he accused of doing anything wrong in the Wells report, right? I wasn't so sure of that last January, but it's evident that even the most controlling of Head coaches leave the football "conditioning" left up to the starting QB.
Kraft's only culpability is just being head of an organization that had McNally sneaking balls into the bathroom to deflate them after they'd been signed off by the Ref. Not a big deal, since he's only a part time employee, but that's where the $25,000 fine comes in, and maybe 2 fines for two employees. There would/should be no draft pick forfeiture unless Goodell feels that the Patriots did not fully cooperate with the investigation, and the feeling is that they Patriots did not make McNally available for an interview, AFTER Wells finally got the text messages.
Brady is guilty of being "more probable than not of a general awareness" of the football deflation. All he had/has to say is that, yes, he likes the balls soft, and that, yes, he has given these two guys some grief in the past when he ended up with balls inflated too much. He should also add that while he never assumed they'd ever go to lengths of deflating balls after they'd been signed by the ref, he understands the position that he put McNally and Jastremski in, given his (Brady's) stature within the organization. And that he never explicitly told them to "under-inflate," but never explicitly told them not to.. he didn't think that was his responsibility, but that, in light of what happened before the Colts' game, it should be the responsibility of every starting QB to set boundaries.
Yup.. absolute line of bullshT, but that's all SOME what to hear, especially Goodell. Brady admits to NOW being "generally aware" that if you put too much pressure on a couple of toadies, they may go too far. That is all Brady has to do. it would have been better if he said it last January. it would have been better if he had said that to the Wells commission (and maybe he did, and maybe this will come out if he appeals.), but there's still time to do it now, although time is almost up.
I used to work for a small company that depended upon a line of bank credit, secured by a percentage of the company's receivables. When sales slowed, the receivables dropped and were in danger of falling below the amount required to continue securing the line of credit. The CEO ranted and raved at the AR clerk that they needed a certain receivable amount. She ended up fudging the receivables just enough to continue to secure the line of credit. She was 23 years old and made $12 an hour. If the bank had ever performed an audit, would the CEO have been criminally liable? Probably not. But he certainly was "more probable than not generally aware" of what was going on.
EDIT: sorry about this being off-topic, but this is the gist of what Felger is talking about in "admitting guilt." His take is generally correct, as far as managing the consequences of an issue that has already been decided. There is nothing to be gained by trying to appear to have been unjustly treated. You just try to mitigate the damages and move on.
