Rocky Landing

Is that a "chicken or the egg" thing? Winners get to talk trash all they want, but losers have to keep their traps shut? BTW- we went 9-7 last season.

Well, then how about a more apt analogy? If you fired several managerial positions, and hired new ones, and then another employee raved about how much better the new staff was to work with, would you be pissed? But, these are pointless analogies, anyway. Professional athletes aren't professional politicians. And, as a fan, I'm much more interested in hearing what players actually think, rather than some hackneyed, rote pablum. I wish more players would speak their mind. I wish they all would.

What does this have to do with anything?

Offense-- Emmitt Smith Defense-- Brian Urlacher

I have no problem with Watkins saying these things, In fact, I have no problem with any player speaking honestly about anything, ever. Even if it involves sticking their foot in their mouths. What I can't stand is the rote, "I just want to do whatever I can to help my team win, get better each and every day, blah, blah, blah..." usually spoken in monotone with about zero emotion.

Schadenfreude, anyone? http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/find-new/3460656/posts

I have to wonder how long Brady will be willing to go with this. It seems to me that the longer he goes, the more he tarnishes his image. And, that being said, it's one hell of a shot across the bow from the league to file suit first.

Unfortunately, the court could (and in my opinion, likely will) place an injunction on the suspension, pending a civil trial. I know what you mean...

Interesting.... This answers a lot. I wonder how this will affect the injunction being sought by the NFLPA?

The very reasonable fear is that Brady will use the courts to nullify the leagues suspension by dragging out the process. That could justifiably be seen as an inappropriate use of the judicial system, and justify blocking an injunction.

I think the difference (if I'm correct in my assumptions-- that's a big "if") is that blocking the injunction is not affirming the NFL's findings, but affirming their authority to hand out a suspension. Brady is still free to sue.

The thing that makes Tyrod the dark horse to start is that so little is known about him. The thing that makes Tebow the dark horse is that so much is known about him.

I haven't found anything regarding the NFL filing suit. I would assume they are seeking to block an injunction that they are expecting from Brady. That way, a fed judge would have to overturn another court's ruling by imposing an injunction, rather than just ruling for an injunction on its own merits. But, that is just speculation on my part.

In my opinion, the revelation that Brady destroyed his phone is a game changer, and the absolute stupidest thing Brady could have done. The content of those texts went from being inadmissible, to admissible for any civil case that might be aimed at his exoneration. Before, the league would have been limited only to the information they had during the investigation, and subsequent suspension. Now, they will be able to ask him why he destroyed the phone, and will be able to challenge his answer, making the contents of the texts relevant. Amazing!

From Schefter: "On or shortly before March 6, the day that Tom Brady met with independent investigator Ted Wells and his colleagues, Brady directed that the cell phone he had used for the prior four months be destroyed. He did so even though he was aware that the investigators had requested access to text messages and other electronic information that had been stored on that phone." OMG Almighty!!! I owe everyone on this board an apology! Here I was arguing that Brady's texts could not be subject to subpoena. But, what did Brady do? He opened the door to them actually being relevant in a civil case! Or, perhaps more accurately-- he has closed the door on an entire avenue of his appeal that could have resulted in his actual exoneration, unless he is willing to have the contents of his texts made public. Wow!

It would not be admissible evidence, because there isn't any case that Brady could bring against the NFL that would make them so. The only evidence relevant to any case Brady might bring would be those things that the NFL knew at the time of the investigation, and subsequent suspension. Since the NFL was never given access to his phone, there isn't any relevance. Brady will not be on trial here.

I still haven't read a reasonable explanation of why the court would allow his phone to be subpoenaed.

The argument would be that he was contractually obligated.

A baby who made just under 1,000 yards while being constantly double-teamed? Seriously? This is really just offensive, and why most on this board would probably agree with mead107.

This is one of those lame, click-bait websites that are only trying to get you to click on as many pages as possible, so that you will see as many ads as possible. These sites are to be ignored.

You're seriously linking a website written by a Patriots* apologist for the express purpose of deflecting the obvious perception that the Patriots* are the most egregious cheaters in the league?

To the OP: I'm sorry, but your post seems a little bit whiney, and paranoid. How can you expect to improve an ailing team without garnering media attention? Only losing teams fly under the radar. And, winning doesn't happen by accident. You have to make a lot of noise first, and pundits are going to start paying attention. If we fall short, we keep trying. Eventually, we will start winning, and all the people who are "laughing" (no one is laughing at a team trying to win, btw) will start respecting. Think of it like the homely, book-nerd girl at the prom, who lets her hair down, and takes her glasses off, and everybody realizes she is totally hot. Just try not to be her even nerdier friend who says, "Oh my God!, What are you doing??? Everyone's going to laugh at you..."

It bothers me when an article, masquerading as news, shows an obvious bias by cherry-picking data, and ignoring any evidence that contradicts its agenda. But, this article goes the extra step, and actually dismisses opposing evidence out of hand as being non-factual, going as far as to intone the "natural gas law"-- which doesn't exist, btw-- as opposed to the ideal gas law, which has been used to debunk the notion that temperature changed could have accounted for that amount of ball deflation. In fact, this article even goes as far as to suggest that here is no proof that the balls were "all that deflated" in the first place. I'm also getting tired of the endless scapegoating applied to Goodell. I'm not particularly a fan of his, and I, too, dislike his heavy-handed, corporate approach to the game (although, it is a business). But, Goodell is not the one who complained about the Pats* deflating the balls, he's not the one who measured them at halftime, he's not the one who carried out the investigation, and he's not the one who levied the four-game suspension. The article utterly ignores any part that Brady, or the Patriots* played in this fiasco, other than to completely dismiss any blame, and describe him as, "hung out to dry." In my opinion, an article this bias-- easily to the point of dishonesty-- should not have found its way onto a national news site claiming reputability, such as Yahoo.

Utterly bogus, Brady apologist article.

You mean, one of Roger Goodell's assistants is an avid reader of TBD.