buffalonian

The chance of Brady winning on rehearing from the 2nd Circuit en banc, or from SCOTUS is extremely low. That being said, it could certainly delay the suspension if Brady is granted a stay while he litigates in these courts. If Brady requests relief from the Circuit and SCOTUS, the earliest his case will be finished is sometime in October. It certainly could be even later.

He may very well play against us week 4. If Brady asks the 2nd Circuit for en banc review, it could take a couple months before the Circuit renders a decision. Even If the Circuit denies Brady's request quickly, Brady will almost certainly file a cert petition with SCOTUS. Briefing wouldn't likely be completed until the fall, and in any event SCOTUS won't start conferencing cases until the fall session sometime in October. They break in June for the entire summer. I think there is a good chance that Brady will get a stay while this litigation is going on, meaning he will be active for the game against the Bills.

Ref and TV timeouts have made NFL games nearly unwatchable. I still tune into every Bills game of course, but that has more to do with being a loyal Bills fan than an NFL fan. Whereas I used to also sometimes watch non-Bills NFL games on a Sunday or Monday, I now find them to be far too tedious and almost never do (despite having the Directv ticket). For a completely different experience, try watching an English Premiere League match; with two 45 minute halves, one 15 minute break, and no commercials, the action is constant and the game is over in less than 2 hours. It may seem impossible now, but the NFL is not building its fanbase for the future. Kids today do not spend 4 hours watching one thing on television and the NFL has made football seem slow paced and boring to them. The NFL will need to fix the interminable nature of its televised games or it will lose fans in droves one day.

People keep referencing the "police official" who says that McCoy should have stayed in Buffalo. To clarify, he is not a police official at all, but is John McNesby, the head of the local FOP. For context, McNesby once backed a police Lieutenant who was fired by the Philly PD for sucker punching a woman during the Puerto Rican Day parade. It was caught on videotape. In that instance, McNesby claimed that the cop was unjustly fired, in part because the investigation of the incident was not complete. http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2012/10/04/philadelphia-fop-stands-behind-officer-fired-for-videotaped-slapping-of-woman/ Unsurprisingly, he does not seem to share the same concerns here where the alleged perpetrator is not a cop, and the alleged victims are. McNesby has an agenda and does not speak on behalf of the police department, or I would suggest, with any sense of objectivity. Give his words no weight, especially in the context of this situation.

In Pennsylvania, proving conspiracy requires an agreement to engage in criminal conduct and an overt act in furtherance of that agreement. If McCoy was merely present while his friend started beating someone up he is not culpable for assault or conspiracy. However, if he assisted in the assault he can be found guilty as an accomplice, even without an agreement, which is a different standard than a co-conspirator

The point is not to bash police because they are police, and also not to jump to the conclusion that MCCoy is at fault because the other guys are police. The media seems to be making a big deal of the fact that these were off duty cops, even referring to their length of time in the department and their rank. How is that relevant here? It's not relevant because they weren't acting as police officers. They were guys in a bar drinking, just like McCoy. It is only relevant if the Philly PD is handling the case differently because it involved 2 cops. So the issue isn't about whether cops are good or bad, but is whether the story here is being shaped, and conclusions being prematurely reached because the incident involved police.

"Top notch police department." Whatever gave you that idea? Unfortunately, the power of the FOP in Philadelphia has made it virtually impossible to fire bad cops in the city. While there are certainly good cops in Philly, the inability to weed out many bad ones, has stained the credibility of the department. Here is one of many examples. http://mobile.philly.com/news/local/?wss=/philly/news/local&id=313429311& I would wait before rushing to judgment here. And that likely includes waiting beyond the police version of events.

I think that when a team moves it should be treated like a new franchise in terms of record, statistics, etc. I inderstand that it is essentially the same organization that existed in the old city, but there is nothing more important to the identity of a sports franchise than its location.

"Jills' Lawsuit Gathers Steam"

You might be right. The 67 years might be a renewal period that begins running after an initial term of 28 years, which = 95 years. If they didn't copyright it the film would be in the public domain now and could be sold to anyone by anyone.

Copyrighted Recordings that predate 1977 enter the public domain 67 years after publication if the Copyright holder maximizes its renewals of the copyright. That is where 2034 comes from.

I believe the tape will enter the public domain in 2034. If I were him, I'd keep it until then, at which time there will actually be a market for the tape not dependent solely on the valuation of the NFL. It's hard to believe that the NFL is so greedy that it won't at least negotiate with the guy to try an obtain an invaluable piece of league history.

There is no legal defense in criminal law based on a person having CTE or brain damage. While evidence of the disease may be used as mitigation at sentencing, or in some rare cases for a lesser degree of murder, nobody will ever be acquitted because they have CTE. That being said, brain damage can lead to criminal conduct in that a person's brain is no longer capable of processing information the way a healthy brain can. For example, a person with frontal lobe damage might have a difficult time with impulse control when confronted with a stressful or seemingly threatening scenario. That person might react in a violent or aggressive manner when a healthy person would have been equipped to respond in a more reasonable manner. Knowing that a person has brain disease helps to at least understand why he might have acted a certain way.

As much as I remember watching that game, and as much as I love the Bills and Bills fans' remarkable response to that loss, I am so tired by it. I don't want to think about that game anymore. When we hopefully win, that game will be nothing more than a footnote. Now it looms large; unfortunately.

This is the most depressing post in the history of TBD.

"Oh, uh, there won't be any money, but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness"

Well said. Looking forward, I don't think we will see cheerleaders at Bills games again, which seems right. Whereas cheerleading is an athletic undertaking at the collegiate level, it is nothing more than an outdated spectacle at NFL games.

Rex has to stop mandating that his players read Nietzsche as a component of their off-season conditioning. "If you gaze long enough into the abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you."

An interesting article in the NYTimes yesterday that connects more dots from Al Jazeera's source, Charles Sly, concerning an international doping ring that allegedly involved US professional athletes. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/sports/baseball/al-jazeera-peyton-manning-derek-jeter-charles-sly.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=1&referer=http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/01/06/two-athletes-not-named-peyton-manning-sue-al-jazeera/

Whaley also has to be thinking about 2017. Hopefully we will have to give Taylor a big contract after he plays awesome in 2016. And Gilmore will be up too.

I think it was earlier in the second half. I remember him limping off the field. That makes his hit on Fitz even more impressive.

This is not good for the Eagles. Are there no better personnel people out there? Hard to believe that their guy is someone who hasn't made a good football personnel decision since the Clinton administration. This is perplexing. His Wikipedia page says that he has been an advisor with the Eagles since 2012 so maybe this is just an interim thing, although it doesn't sound like it.

Wow. That is depressing.

Love your post Jimmy, but I have to correct your use of the erroneous term, "computer net." The proper word is, "intranets." For example, you could say, "if you wasn't on the intranets, I'd break your spleens." I hope the Bills win this weekend, but that the Jets will make the playoffs with s Steelers loss. I'll be cheering for your boys in playoffs.

I wonder if he is back tracking because he was videotaped violating federal drug laws and HIPPA regulations. It is an interesting question whether the reporter should have included the segment about Manning in her documentary. On one hand, the "pharmacist" who made the allegations about Manning was also videotaped providing steroids to a baseball player for the Cubs in the documentary, and providing drugs to the undercover English athlete. There are also apparently employment records showing that the guy worked at the clinic where Manning's wife was being treated with HGH. On the other hand, there was no direct evidence, beyond this one guy's videotaped admission, that Manning was using the HGH himself. I guess the question is, how much evidence should you have before you file a news report?