JohnC

There is no doubt that Brady had concerns about air pressure in the balls he used. It is publicly acknowledged that he desired a lower filled ball. The question is did he instruct the ball guys to lower the pressure below the minimum limit? Brady categorically denies that he ever instructed the staff to go below the allowable level. I don't know what the ball guys told the investigators. I'm not sure that they have even admitted to lowering the level for the Colt game. Brady says that he didn't instruct anyone to violate any rules. Is there proof that he did? I don't believe so though most posters believe otherwise. If it is proven that a ball handler tampered with the ball it is still not proven that Brady instructed him to do so. Again, my position is that I don't believe that Brady told him to violate the rules regarding PSI levels. If the ball was tampered with and Brady wasn't involved then I don't see how he could be culpable for the infraction that had no bearing on the game or had a bearing on performance.

Astro, Fantastic summary. One of the radio, TV or news outlets should hire you as an adjunct camp employee. I've felt from the beginning of the camp that Cassel is going to be the starter and Taylor will be the backup. In my opinion Manuel's long term prospects with the Bills is not very promising, even if he remains on the roster this season.

Roger Goodell sabotaged the season for the Saints before it got started. That was not only unfair to New Orleans but it was unfair to the competitive balance to the rest of the league. The aggressive environment and tough guy talk in their lockerroom was similar to the environment for most teams. They got singled out because a tape of some thug talk was exposed to the public. The reality is that it is part of the fabric of the NFL culture. When the process is unfair it is not surprising that the outcome is more likely to be unfair. The more I observe RD's accumulated record on discipline (Rice, Hardy, Peterson, Vilma even Incognito etc) the more outraged I get. His rulings are for the most part predictable. He very often basis his ruling not on the facts and the established guidelines but he basis many of his rulings on how he will be perceived with his decisions. Ray Rice was an easy target for Goodell when he made the decision to increase his punishment after a storm of criticism for his leniency. When he raised the punishment he claimed that it was due to new information that he got after his first ruling. The arbitrator decisely determined that RG had no new information and that he altered his first punishment decision to make himself look better. There are aspects to his stewardship in which he does a very good job. But when it comes to disciplinary issues I find him at times to be incompetent and unethical. In my view RG used the exaggerated Inflategate issue to ingratiate himself with the faction of owners who resent the success of the Pats and the general way they do business i.e. push the limits.

There is an urgency to fix the disciplinary system sooner rather than later. A trivial matter that could have been resolved more simply, quickly and fairly has now turned into a fiasco and a legal morass. Arrogance and incompetence in disciplinary matters in the hands of someone who has a lot of power is a recipe for disaster.

The bountygate investigation had problems. It resulted in GD's ruling against Vilma being overturned. Whatever one thinks about Incognito and his behavior his criticisms of Wells are valid. RG's handling of the Ray Rice case certainly had problems. His followup ruling was changed. Goodell's ruling on Harding was changed by an arbitrator. There has been a pattern of arbitrary and capricious decisions coming out of the commissioner's office that were successfully challenged when reviewed by a more neutral set of eyes. No one from the Pats' organization were praising Wells and his investigation prior to their work. They had no say in its formation and its work. The NFLA filed an appeal on how Wells conducted its investigation after it was completed. It makes [/b]no sense[/b] to file a complaint about its conduct before it does its work.

The problem isn't the standard. The problem is that the investigating unit is linked to the commissioner's office. It is not only investigating the case but also making the determination as to whether the standard is met. If a policeman made an arrest and then was making a judgment to guilt or innocence what conclusion do you think he/she would make make? The Wells investigation was too closely associated with Goodell and his staff. There was an inherent conflict of interest between the two parties. The solution would have been to hand this case to a more independent investigator not linked to the league office or give the case to a neutral arbitrator not linked to RG.

What the league and the accusers are doing are demanding that Brady prove a negative, i.e. that he didn't do what he was accused of doing. They have no convincing proof that he ordered anyone to lower the balls below the permissible PSI level. In essence their position is that although we can't reasonably prove that you did something wrong you can't conclusively prove that you didn't do it. What the claimants don't understand is that an assumption, intensely held, is not a fact. Repeating it over and over doesn't turn the assumption into a reality. There is nothing wrong or unusual that after an investigation (even well resourced and high profile investigations) the facts of the case can't be determined to the point that a quality determination can be made. But in this case that was never going to happen because the outcome was predetermined before it was even started. http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/08/07/nfl-nflpa-legal-briefs-tom-brady-suspension-deflategate-patriots-roger-goodell

I don't believe that Brady told anyone to adjust the balls below the legal standard. There is no proof of it. Brady is willing to take this issue to court and stand by that claim. The noncompliance issue is now the primary basis for the suspension since there isn't credible evidence about the conditions of the balls because the methodology was problematic. The below link is a response by Dowd who was a former prosecutor and involved in a number of various investagations in pro sports and in legal arenas. The central theme in his article is his expression of disdain for the process in general and the manner in which the investigation was conducted and the appeal decision was determined. He is basically concluding that the charge and process were a sham. I and many people believe that this needless saga was never about Brady as much as it was about a pent up reservoir of resentment of other franchises toward the very successful New England franchise. The deflategate issue was a handy issue used to punish the Patriots who some owners believe have a history of conducting themselves on the edge. (That is a legitimate issue.) The ingratiating commissioner acted out of proportion to the perceived trivial transgression and took an issue that could have been more easily and more appropriately handled. I've said it many times and I will say it again: Brady and the PSI issue is not the important issue here. It is the unethical manner in which the commissioner has conducted himself in administering his disciplinary responsibilities. Just because someone has mostly unchallenged authority it doesn't give him the right to run amok. Having such unbridled authority should make him more respectful and cautious in wieldly that power. http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/07/opinions/dowd-nfl-brady-investigation/index.html http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/08/07/nfl-nflpa-legal-briefs-tom-brady-suspension-deflategate-patriots-roger-goodell

I see him as the qb with the biggest upside of the three competing qbs. Odds are that Cassel will start with TT as the backup. When he gets an opportunity to play he will not relinquish the job. Whether he starts or not this was a good pickup for us.

San Diego altered the balls by putting stickum on them. Balls were being heating up in a cold weather game (violation of equipment tampering) between the Vikings and Panthers. Minimal fines were incurred in each incident. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/07/ball-tampering-involving-panthers-vikings-produced-a-far-different-reaction/ http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/07/ball-tampering-involving-panthers-vikings-produced-a-far-different-reaction/

Gotham Bill, There are other rounds also. Don't get fixated on only the first round. I'm not a big Buddy Nix devotee. But the turn around toward normalcy happened when he came on board. Without agreeing to all of Whaley's draft selections and maneuvers I feel that the franchise is run in a very competent manner that allows this formerly bedraggled franchise a reasonable opportunity to succeed. Hey Bill, Gilmore was no excellent selection and is a very good player. By the way he is a CB!

No! His positions correspond to mine. In addition, I rooted for the Pats in the SB against the Seahawks. So does that make my views suspicious or invalid? Am I a traitor to whatever imaginary cause?

What does it matter what team he cheers for when it comes to discussing this subject? His thoughts on this issue are well thought out and well expressed. If you disagree with his position that is your prerogative. His position, and mine also, are clearly a minority view on this topic. But whether he is a Bills fan or Patriot fan or Giants fan it is irrelevant to the discussion. I consider Brady to be one of the top qbs in the history of modern football. It has no bearing on the position (same as Pneumonic's) I have taken on this lighting rod issue. I fervently root for the Bills but my historical loyalties to the team has nothing to do with my take on this issue. The issues that Pneumonic has raised with how the commissioner has conducted himself in this matter are reasonable topics to discuss.

Your comments reflect my view. He has extraordinary authority in disciplinary matters under the terms of the CBA. I don't dispute that view and never have disputed that view. But even with that wide lattitude he has a pattern of behavior that go outside the lines with his rulings, as evidenced by nullifying rulings of a number of arbitrators. I believe on this contrived ball issue that he has turned into a fiasco he made a glaring misstep.

Your position makes no sense to me. There is no doubt that RG has an immense amount of authority regarding disciplinary issues based on the CBA. But having almost unlimited authority does not give one a license to run amok and do whatever you want. There has to be some reasonable level of consistency, staying with the established guidelines and in general a sense of fairness. Roger Goodell is not a law onto his own. He has been overruled a number of times not because he was judicious but because he was injudicious. In a number of cases when an objective eyes (arbitrators) reviewed some of his rulings it was determined that not only were his decisions off base but in the Rice case his was questionable (dishonest). In the Ray Rice case Roger Goodell lied when he said he raised the punishment in his initial ruling because he had new information. The arbitrator said that was not the case. I'll say it again although to many it means little: This case isn't about Brady. The ball infranction and Brady's role is a trivial and inconsequential matter. The most important issue is the tainted process led by the commissioner. That is what should be the focus of attention. The travesty is the disciplinary process, not the PSI levels that the multi-million $$$ flawed investigation couldn't adequately determine.

With respect to impacting Brady in this particular case absolutely not! His case should be judged on its own merits. If you want to justify a tarnished process then that is your prerogative. I'm not going to go along with that perversion of a disciplinary process.

What you are acknowledging is that the issue isn't really about the condition of the balls so much as it is about punishing a franchise for an accumulation of perceived transgressions. That is a perverted and discriminatory approach to take when judging a particular incident. It is that distorted perspective that often gets RG's disciplinary decisions altered by an an arbitrator who is more objective and discerning when reviewing his flawed decisions.

I don't believe that Brady told the staffers to lower the balls below the legal limit. You are making that assumption while I am not. It is well known that he wanted lower limit balls while qbs, such as Rodgers, wanted higher inflated balls. There is nothing unusual about the variation in ball preferences. With respect to RG not interviewing the ball guys why didn't he interview them? What legal issue would preclude interviewing too crucial participants? With so much at stake the level of sloppiness is astounding. Regardless whether anyone believes Brady is guilty of anything or not this case, especially the review, should have gone to an arbitrator. The Wells investigation was communicating with the commissioner's staff and they were also involved in the Wells investigation. There was a clear conflict of interest when Goodell was involved in the appeal. The central issue isn't guilt or innocense (especially in this trivial act); the issue is the integrity of the quasi-judicial process. This process was irredeemably tainted, bordering on corruption. That is the point.

If Jastremski and NcNally's conversations with Brady were so crucial then why didn't Goodell interview them when he was hearing the appeal?

Goodell has a history of mischaracterizing the testimoney of others and then basing his judgment on the distortion. His decision to uphold the suspension was more based on his perception of Brady's communication than it was on the flimsy and confusing facts associated with the balls. A simple solution (as you noted) was to have an impartial arbitrator handle this case. But RG wasn't going to do that because if he did an arbitrator who wasn't invested in a particular outcome could possibly come up with a different conclusion. Roger was not going to allow that to happen. There is a more over-arching storyline than the deflategate issue. It is the unhealthy aspect of the combination of an excessive amount of arrogance and power held by one self-inflated man. That's what has caused this league's self-immolation over something that was trivial and could have been easily handled with a little common sense. The below link from the Washington Post comes from a column by Dan Steinberg. He makes the point that Goodell has mischaracterized Brady's testimoney to advance his position. Steinberg no longer trusts Goodell in his manufactured fiasco. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc-sports-bog/wp/2015/08/05/roger-goodell-misled-me-brady-appeal-transcript-shows/

An arbitrator in the Ray Rice case made the determination that when Goodell raised the penalty on Ray Rice based on the fact hat he had new informatiion that it was a falsehood. Goodell has a habit of making disciplinary decisions not primarily based on the facts and on the guidelines but on how he will be perceived. I have said it many times (ad nauseum) that I don't give a dam about Brady and I don't give a dam about New England. With respect to this suspension issue my focus is on the process. It is a blatantly corrupt process led by an arrogant man who needs to be held accountable for his perverted disciplinary process. If I had to guess I would say that if this gets to a court ruling that the judge will rule that the commissioner has the authority to rule on this matter based on the terms of the labor agreement. Although that doesn't change my contempt for Goodell and the process odds are not with the player. I hope that I am wrong!

I previously commented that I would not comment on this topic unless there was something new shedding light on this interminable topic. So I am adding this link that indicates to me that there are substative grounds for getting an injunction based on a conflict of interest between Wells and his investigation and Goodell's hearing of the Brady appeal. I don't want to get on the never ending back and forth talking past one another here. I just want those in the Brady is the "devil" camp to consider how the disciplinary process is a very tainted process (blatant conflict of interest issues) that needs to be held accountable for its actions. It's not surprising to me that when Goodell's cases are brought to an aribitrator his decisions are frequently overturned or altered. There are many people who confidently claim that Brady lied in his testimony to Wells and to Goodell. Well he is challenging that assumption by giving his testimony under oath. It might not indicate much to people who are inclined not to believe him but it says a lot to me. http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/08/04/tom-brady-appeal-roger-goodell-ted-wells-transcript

The way to look at this deal is not what it does for Philly but what it does for our own team. Our roster was heavily skewed toward our superlative defense compared to a talent deficit on offense. Over the offseason personnel moves have been made to upgrade both guard positionsin order to bolster the O-line. Spiller didn't fit the role as a prime back while McCoy does. Even if McCoy has already reached his peak he is still a major upgrade. Even without Kiko, who was hurt last year, our defense was one of the best in football. It is acknowledged that our qbing candidates are mediocre at best but in general with the addition of McCoy and some additions on the line the balance on offense is tilting upward. I wish Kiko nothing the best. He should thrive playing for his college coach. On balance this deal was a positive transaction that helped to balance out a side of the ball that was very deficient. It was a smart thing to do.

If McCoy would have been cut there is a strong probability that he wouldn't have signed with the Bills. You are putting too much emphasis on the detail of how he was acquired instead of assessing what his addition does for the team. It was obvious that Spiller was not the type of back the organization wanted as their marquee back for an offense that would lean on the running game. They acquired a prime back (upper tier) to fit that role. For what this new regime wants to do on offense it was a good match. As someone else stated (Doc) our defense played well in Kiko's absence. Is he a good player and an up and coming player? Yes. But in the mix and match world of filling out a roster you usually have to give up something to get something. My concern is not if Philly got the better of the deal, it is whether the Bills got better with the addition. In my opinion they did.

Marv is a genuinely nice man and good human being. His forte wasn't strategy; it was his deftness in handling disparate characters and outsized egos. He was the right person at the right time for this franchise.