Rocky Landing

The phraseology that Wells used, such as, "more likely than not," is used to indicate a preponderance of evidence, meaning that something is at least 51% likely. If the two sides really want to be done with this, Brady could admit to that preponderance of evidence, with the caveat that he falls into the 49% of likelihood. Of course, reasonable people understand that the evidence in this case is greater than 51%, but for the purposes of a settlement, that could be easily ignored. Suffice to say, Brady would be admitting to the appearance of guilt, without admitting to the guilt, itself. As far as a perjury case would be concerned, perjury, as a crime, does not rely on a preponderance of evidence. Criminal cases carry a much higher standard of proof in which guilt must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt." Admitting that circumstances could amount to a preponderance of evidence without admitting guilt does nothing to add to that standard of proof required for a criminal case.

I could see this as giving an opening for Brady to save face, if he's smart. (Big "IF" if the way he has handled this issue thus far is any indication...) The wording in Wells' findings gives him this opportunity, i.e., "I'm not admitting guilt, but I could see how someone might see it as, "more likely than not" that I knew what was happening, but I didn't, so I'll accept the basic premise of the Wells Report in its terms of "more likely than not," so in that regard, I accept the findings of the Wells Report." Or, something to that effect. If Goodell is interested in ending this thing, and moving on (how could he not be?), I could see this sort of compromise, with some sort of reduced punishment-- two games, perhaps? Even just a fine. I wouldn't be surprised.

There's definitely a lot of unanswered questions here, and I don't think the order of some of the number twos, and lower should be taken at face value, but... -- I'm glad to see Marqueis Gray as the number two TE. -- I'm glad to see Corey Graham listed as a starting safety. I was pretty surprised when they moved him from CB (before we drafted Darby, IIRC), and was disappointed when it was suggested that he wouldn't be the starter at safety. I thought he did a great job at CB last season, although I understand that his role as such would be different than it was under Schwarz. -- Chris Hogan a lock? -- I would like to go on record as predicting that we will carry two FBs. -- Interesting to see Percy Harvin/Robert Woods sharing a space as starter. Fragile egos? -- Who thinks Darby will overtake McKelvin? -- Who thinks Karlos will overtake Bryce, and Boobie? (And, maybe even Fred?) -- How far could Butler move up the depth chart?

I think Rex was being polite. When Vick took over for a benched Geno in that Chargers game last season, and later admitted that he wasn't prepared, he rendered himself unemployable in the NFL.

I think you need to talk yourself down from the ledge a little bit on this. Cassel starting does not, ipso facto, spell doom. Nor does it mean the next in line on the depth chart is washed up.

What's up with Marquese Gray? Is he there? Can you really stand by this statement? Did Orton throw while running even once last season? My impression of Orton last season was that he was utterly incapable of throwing without his feet planted. Edit: Love reading the analysis, btw. My favorite threads on this board during this time of year. Thanks!

Stay in Ireland for the beer. Come here for the Koolaide!

These concepts are not mutually exclusive.

Welcome to the board! So, are you an EJ fanatic? Or, an EJ hater? 'Cuz you can't be both. NOW, WHICH IS IT???

Socialist?

Gay?

They also had Cassel run a slew of running plays in the scrimmage. I'm not sure they were as interested in evaluating Cassel's passing ability on the field ad they were EJ's and Tyrod's. It's also fair to say that the scrimmage wasn't only about QB evaluation. They have a whole team to evaluate. In terms of the QB's final numbers, I don't think anyone on this board can accurately draw a conclusion. It's impossible for us to know how the coaches were running specific plays, with specifies personnel on the field (not just QBs), and what they were looking at/for on any given play. This scrimmage wasn't a quarterback audition.

I've said this in other threads, but I think that even if EJ or Tyrod starts in Sept, Cassel is as close as we have to a lock on the QB roster. IMO the only way Cassel gets cut is if either, a) he throws caution to the wind (excuse the pun), stops being conservative in his play, and seriously, seriously implodes, or b) Tyrod, or EJ suddenly blow up and turns into a serious contender for franchise QB, rendering Cassel's veteran presence obsolete. Neither of those scenarios seem remotely possible at this moment, and neither would even guarantee Cassel's departure. At this point, Ryan/Roman have to believe that they can game plan for Cassel as a known commodity, and rely on his consistently mediocre performance, and veteran ability to run the offense. And, when it comes to deciding the QB roster, I don't believe that cap space, dead money, salary, or any other financial issue will even be heard in the discussion.

BUST!

That's what I want to hear!

Has Marquise Gray been underwhelming? I admit, I had high hopes for him.

This (as many of your posts) is intellectually dishonest at best. People on here have been rather measured in their responses to you, and have even taken you at your word that you are a "scientist." With a post as reaching as this one, I have to wonder. Whether or not you are a "scientist" (quotation marks earned, at this point), you have abandoned any credibility as being open-minded, unbiased, or honest.

Yeah. I should've said, "a year and a half."

I'm pretty sick of talking about EJ, too, but only because the conversation hasn't changed in two years.

I believe a couple former teammates from Baltimore have hyped him. And, Rex certainly thinks highly of him. He tried to get Taylor on the Jets, as well.

If you are referring to the texts between McNally, and Jastremsky, how could you possibly say that they "lack context?"

Which makes perfect sense. The NFL's judgment was based on the Wells report's findings. If Wells' firm was impartial in its investigation, why would they not be the ones to defend it?

Were the contents of the Wells report not the main points of contention? And, is the league hiding, or denying the fact that they based their judgment on the findings of the Wells report? How could the league be expected to answer concerns regarding that investigation without having representation from that firm to answer those questions? And, how would the presence that firms' legal council, ipso facto, render its investigation impartial?

How so?