Rocky Landing

You're right. (Fixed it-- my math was off, anyway.) I had forgotten Bryant's upper hand. I put Carrington on my list, more or less, as wishful thinking. I was a fan of his when he was playing OLB for us, and I was disappointed when we cut him. He seems like a real hard working, good-work-ethic kind of guy, and a good fit for a Ryan defense, as he's something of a hybrid. I was surprised to see him listed as a DT. But, in all honesty, I'm a little mystified by how we are going to move people around on defense. It's going to fascinating to see-- we will likely have a very similar, if not nearly identical, starting defensive roster from last season, but used in enormously different ways. And who knows? It's hard to think of someone like Jarius Wynn, for example, being on the bubble, or Stephan Charles, but they very well could be. I can't wait to read the reports out of TC. It should be one of the funnest, ever.

I'm updating my final 53 prediction, pre-training camp. After some consideration, I am of the mind that we will carry two fullbacks. Tyrod will win the QB competition, and we will cut EJ. We cut Gay. Personel are listed as they are on the current roster per BuffaloBills.com: QB (3) T. Taylor, M. Cassel, M. Simms C (1) Eric Wood G (4) R. Incognito, J. Miller, K. Urbik, C. Richardson T (4) C. Glenn, S. Henderson, C. Kouandjio, T. Chandler RB (4) L.McCoy, F. Jackson, A. Dixon, K. Williams FB (2) J. Felton, J. Connor TE (3) C. Clay, M. Gray, N. O’Leary W (6) S. Watkins, P. Harvin, R. Woods, C. Hogan, M. Easley, D. Lewis DE (5) M. Williams, J. Hughs, J. Wynn, M. Lawson, M. Buchanon DT (5) K. Williams, M. Darius, A. Carrington, S. Charles, Corbin Bryant LB (4) N. Bradham, P Brown, R.Johnson, Ty Powell CB (5) S. Gilmore, L. McKelvin, N. Robey, R. Darby, R. Brooks S (4) A. Williams, C. Graham, D. Williams, B. Rambo LS (1) G. Sanborne K/P (2) D. Carpenter, C. Schmidt

I wish I could agree with this, but I can't. From all indications, every O-linesman who has been interviewed regarding Kromer has spoken extremely highly of him, and not just in the hackneyed, scripted way we are used to hearing in interviews. Losing Kromer will likely have an impact.

So, when discussing the difference in coaching during an interview, Watkins, rather than answering honestly, should say the same old scripted crap" "I just want to do whatever I can, each and every day, to help my team win. At the end of the day, I just want to be the best player I can be. I just need to work hard, and make plays, each and every day..." God, I hate those interviews. I'd much rather watch a player mumbling with his cleats in his mouth.

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?