Rocky Landing

In seven, or so, years, when Shady reaches full puberty, he'll look back on this and feel awfully stupid. That invite is one of the most embarrassing things I have ever seen from an NFL player. TO, in his prime, would find it tacky. Good God! For now, I'm just trying to avoid looking in his direction. But, if he continues to embarrass himself once training camp starts, someone is going to have to sit him down, and go Bill Bellichick on his ass.

You're not really helping your case, here...

Not sure if the Harvard guys worked that into their math...

These articles are... perplexing. The CBS article is downright silly. It states that if Goodell doesn't reduce Brady's suspension he will receive "blowback from the general public," because the Hardy suspension was four games. The author calls that "the Hardy effect." That is a stupid statement on its face. Why the "general public" would measure one by the other is beyond me, but if the "general public" were to make a comparison, and presumedly they consider domestic abuse worse than cheating, does domestic abuse now become some sort of standard by which to judge other, completely unrelated offenses?

I think that Alonzo, had he not been injured, would not have had as stellar a year as he did under Pettine, much in the same way Robey was suited to Pettine's D. But, he might have had a standout year under Ryan. Be that as it may, we acquired an elite RB because we couldn't acquire an elite QB. I know some on here think of Spiller as elite. I don't think he is. But, we now have elite players at every offensive skill position, save the QB. When we get an opportunity for an elite QB, then we'll figure out how to restructure for that eventuality.

The Pats* lost some key players in FA, including Shane Vareen, Vince Wolfork, and both their starting CBs, including Derelle Revis.

Me too. But, I think that McCoy, Jackson, Dixon, Felton, Connor, and K. Williams standing by on the PS is one hell of a good roster.

It's getting a little obnoxious, at this point. I think it's pretty obvious that Goodell know what he wants to do. Is he just afraid of the inevitable sh**storm that WILL occur-- regardless of the decision? C'mon, Goodell! Get yr balls out of granny's purse!!! No. In the year that Brady blew his knee out in the first game, BB and the Pats* still had a good season. And that was with some no-name backup QB. I don't even remember his name... Matt something...

He does indeed-- noted as one of his strengths from several sources.

Nothing like a cheating scandal that threatens the integrity of the game to boost ratings!. Plus, all of the arcane legal minutia to Brady's appeal is just a bonus to lock up the "legal profession demographic"-- icing on the cake! Good job, people!!!

Keeping two FBs on the 53 would probably fall under the heading of "bold prediction" on my part. But, it wouldn't be that bold. Several of Ryan's offenses have had two FBs. I kind of hope it happens. It would be cool to see how Ryan/Roman would use two FBs (both on the field at the same time?), and if Shady gets as many carries as predicted, we're not going to see much of the #3 RB, much less a #4. And, now that I have looked into Connor a bit, he seems like an intriguing player-- very good at his position, consummate professional, and hits HARD. If our O-line continues to be a weakness (not unlikely, unfortunately), FB could be an even more important position for this offense, considering the predictions of "ground and pound."

I was watching reruns of Hard Knocks from 2010 with the Jets last week, and I'm starting to suspect that we may end up with two full backs on the roster-- Felton, and Connor. And, I wouldn't be disappointed. It's hard to imagine not having Felton on the roster, and (in 2010, at least) Rex had an absolute hard-on for Connor. He was Rex's pick in the '10 draft, and rex gloated and bragged about him. And, I will say, from the perspective of that show, Connor was one hard hitting rookie. If that happens, I could certainly see us going with three RBs, and putting K. Williams on the PS. I think he would be a perfect candidate for the PS, as the league seems to be rife with talented backs these days-- especially rookies-- and I suspect he would be safe there. That would still put the competition between Dixon, and Brown, TBD in TC.

I don't believe that is at issue.

I think there's a big gap in that path. Really, you're bringing up two different issues: 1) Was it reasonable for Wells to ask for the texts that he did? And, 2) Was there sufficient evidence for the punishment? If the defendant (NFL) petitions for a subpoena for the text records, the court will want to know why they are relevant to the civil case. If the answer is, "we believe there is relevant evidence that would have helped the investigation," the actual content would not have any relevance for the civil case. Why they thought the texts would have helped the investigation would be the point of contention-- not what is contained in them, after the fact. That same point also applies to the question of sufficient evidence. If Wells never saw them, then they weren't part of the evidence. The question in the civil trial is not whether or not Brady is guilty-- he won't be the one on trial-- it's whether the NFL had sufficient evidence at the time to reach their conclusions, and mete out their punishment. Any evidence that has been, or could be uncovered, after the fact, is irrelevant to those questions. The only ruling the court could make regarding the texts is whether Wells was reasonable in his attempts to see them, and if it was reasonable to assume, at the time, that Brady was withholding information. That's my take, anyway. But, you may be onto something in terms of there being room for creativity. But, Brady's team would have to seriously screw up to somehow open the door for the actual contents of those texts to become relevant, imo.

Whether it was justified, or not, I would take McCoy at his word that he felt that he had gotten bad service, or had been disrespected in some way. No one tips 20¢ just to be a douche. That being said, he kinda seems like a douche.

Please describe any civil suit that Brady could bring against the NFL that would allow the NFL to subpoena something from Brady?

Well, the Red Wings have won the Governor's Cup 10 times. And, Wombat won the Kings Harbor Champion of Champions regatta in 2014. So, there's that...

I didn't say that the league's defense would be limited to what's in the report. I said that they would only be allowed to ask questions that specifically pertained to the Wells report, the statements they made during their depositions to Wells, and their relationship with that committee. (And, that is assuming that as part of Brady's suit, he was challenging the findings of the Wells report.) Anything beyond that would be immediately challenged, and ruled inadmissible. That would certainly include any text messages that the Wells committee didn't get to see. Be that as it may, I have a hard time finding any leg for Brady to stand on. Prejudice based on a disproportionate punishment compared to other cases? Something procedural relating to due process? Some violation of the CBA that I haven't heard about? I honestly don't know. But, I also can't imagine a scenario where a civil suit brought by Brady would result in any new information about Brady. The only things that could be challenged are the things that are already there-- the pressure tests, or the interviews with people like Jastremsky, and McNally. I suppose Brady could challenge the legality of Wells' questioning of himself, Jastremsky, or McNally, or his methods of acquiring information. Or Goodell's methods, for that matter. That would likely be a due process issue. But, I don't see how Brady wins on any issue. Sorry about the long post, machine gun.

Are you suggesting that Goodell should have ignored the Wells report? Or, never commissioned it? Should Brady's actions be ignored? I'm not sure what you think Goodell should have done differently. Also, are you aware that Brady was one of the most outspoken proponents of the rule change that allowed teams to handle their own balls?

If Brady is contesting the conclusions of the Wells report, how could the league argue that it had reached the correct conclusion based on evidence that Wells didn't have? And if Jastremsky, and McNally are called to testify, the defendant would only be allowed to ask questions that specifically pertained to the Wells report, the statements they made, and their relationship with that committee. The civil trial will have nothing to do with whether or not Brady is actually guilty. Brady won't be the one on trial. It will only pertain to the conclusions of the Well report based on the evidence that it had at the time-- assuming that Brady is contesting the validity of that report. The only things that will be allowed in a civil are those things that pertain directly to the damages being claimed. If no one involved with creating the damages (Wells, and the NFL) ever saw the texts, how could they be relevant to those damages?

Exactly right, assuming that is relevant to the basis for his lawsuit. If Brady does contest the findings of the Wells report, the civil trial would have to be based on the evidence the league had during their investigation. That does not include Brady's texts. It does include the fact that Brady refused to hand over the texts. But, that fact would have to stand on its own. The actual content would not be relevant to the conclusions reached by the league, and the Wells report.

In a civil trial, you have to petition to subpoena something, and it has to be deemed relevant. And, it is Brady suing the NFL, not the other way around. On what grounds could the contents of something the NFL never saw be relevant to Brady's lawsuit? If the NFL can show that they thought the contents were relevant to the NFL's initial investigation, the best that the court could do is affirm that it was appropriate for the NFL to ask for them in the first place. But, that has nothing to do with the actual content.

There seems to be a generally accepted notion that his texts will be subpoenaed. But, in order for that to happen, the content of said texts would have to be relevant to the lawsuit. I don't see any way that would be the case.

Bills Team Wombat (Martin 242 sailing) LA Clippers Rochester Red Wings (AAA Baseball) TBD-- whichever NFL team lands in Los Angeles

Sure. Although, it was a misdemeanor. So, he now has a criminal record, which can be a serious hassle for many years to come. Is this the year some jackass flies a drone over a game?