JohnC

The standard WEO is applying relates to the pro game and not the college game to the pro game. What makes Wilson special is his high level of maturity on the field in the beginning of his career compared to the typical struggles that a young qb, such as Manuel, is undergoing. Wilson and his agent are asking for a top market $$$ contract not because he is the best qb in the game (in my mind Rodgers is the best) but because he is negotiating a deal at a time where the market is and where it is moving to. If I'm not mistaken Rodgers' s currently has the richest contract. But if he was negotiating a deal now his new deal would be higher than his already current deal. That's simply the nature and the norm for deals not only in the NFL but in pro sports in general. That certainly is exemplified by the exploding contracts in the NBA. Timing is the crucial factor. There is an irony to the Wilson contract situation. Wilson and his team have benefited because he is playing under a minuscule first contract for a third round pick that has allowed the Seahawks plenty of cap room to pay for added high quality talent. When he eventually gets a deal done his new rich contract will put a lot of cap pressure on the franchise to jettison a lot of the talent already on the team.

This is your quote regarding me: "People like you are half the trouble with this country." That is an off the wall response that goes beyond the realm of football and the trivial significance of this issue. You make the assumption that you know exactly what happened in this episode. Despite your confidence you don't fully know what happened. How could you? Those involved in the investigation don't know for sure what exactly happened.

What the hell are you talking about? You are allowing what should have been a trivial issue if handled competently by the league to become a ridiculously exaggerated issue that now pushes you into the realm of right wing foolishness. This issue has made some people go crazy and act out of proportion to its importance.

Do you know the meaning of the word conclusive? Even the writers of the report would admit that there is not much conclusive about their finding. If Goodell lowers the punishment would it be because the report replete with flaws is conclusive? I think not. If Brady, after Goodell makes his soon to be ruling, takes the league to court and quickly and decisivelyl wins his case it certainly won't be due to what you believe to be a conclusive finding. What you and many others fail to realize is that the deflategate issue is inconsequential compared to the flawed process in which it was examined by. When the adjudicating process is so tainted then the resulting ruling should be overturned.

Vilma took his case to court and won his case against the league and Goodell. Rice had an outside arbitrator rule in his favor against the Goodell ruling. Brady can also exercise his legal prerogative in this contaminated league disciplinary process.

If you acknowledge (as you apparently do) that Goodell and his office acted in a very capricious and incompetent manner then how is his determination in this case acceptable. In my view the league adjudication process is so lacking credibility that the indiscretion under review is not the central issue.

The Vilma case is the template. The process was so corrupted and the punishment so arbitrary that it was easily overturned when it went to an outside review. Similarly, the Brady investigation was so flawed and the punishment was so arbitrary that it won't be much of a challenge to get the league ruling overturned when a neutral party handles the case. Where you and I fundamentally disagree is that I don't believe that because someone is in a position of authority (Goodell) it means that one is not accountable for the incompetent and capricious manner in which cases are investigated and adjudicated. For me the more substative and critical issue relates to the way this case was handled moreso than the inconsequential transgression under scrutiny.

The Vilma case wasn't a criminal case. He took his case to court over a Goodell league ruling and won his case. The same process certainly can apply to Brady who is using the same attorney to handle his case.

Brady hired an attorney who has a history of taking the league to court and winning. You believe that Brady would not allow his case to be taken to court out of fear of what will come out. I disagree with that view. If this case gets into a courtroom or arbitration setting it will result in a ruling in his favor, as it turned out for Rice, Vilma and other cases. http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/2015/05/13/reports-tom-brady-lawyers-hiring-nfl-nemesis-jeffrey-kessler-for-deflategate-appeal/R8VxFScOekxF86MCvkjU3H/story.html

You agree that Goodell uses his disciplinary office to make decisions based on his PR interests and then treat it as if it is appropriate and to be expected. That is ridiculous; it makes no sense. I don't know if you read the Washington Post link but if you did it reveals a level of incompetence and sloppiness that is unacceptable when judging the behavior of others. Your claim that Brady can not go to court is inaccuarate. If that was the case then how did Vilma win his case? He took it to court and the ruling was made in his favor.

Roger Goodell has demonstrated an inability to be fair and reasonable in the manner he carries out his authority in handling discipline cases. He has been erratic and injudicious in not only making his determinations but in the manner in which he investigated these cases. His handling of the Ray Rice case was more based on how he looked rather than on the facts of the case. When this case went to an arbitrator his more severe second ruling was quickly overturned. It was very apparent that Goodell lied when he made the claim that he had new information that he didn't have when making his first ruling. The deflategate fiasco is not really about Brady as many make it out to be. It is about how a deciding authority with a lot at stake for the league and the parties involved ineptly handled a disciplinary responsibility that he ferociously controlled. Jonathan Vilma defeated Goodell over the manufactured Saints' episode by taking the matter to court and having a neutral party review the case. It very quickly and decisvely overturn Roger's ruling against him. That is what Brady should do. He should get an injunction against Goodell's ruling and then have his day in court. He will easily win with his very talented and tough legal representation. The following attachment is a Washington Post column by Sally Jenkins that demonstrates how absurd it was for such a trivial matter to become a ridiculous fiasco because the commisioner mishandled the situation right from the start. https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/in-trying-to-restore-his-authority-goodell-undermined-his-credibility/2015/05/21/142c8d2c-ffd4-11e4-805c-c3f407e5a9e9_story.html

NYC Bill devotedly follows Bama football. (As a tribute to the Crimson Tide he wears a Bear Bryant hound dog hat when he goes out.) He came out after the draft and stated that he was not enamored with the pick. Joe Delamilleure (sic) stated on WGR that he would never have drafted Kujo because he felt he was simply too slow for the fast paced d-linemen he would face. Is Kujo salvageable? Maybe. With respect to the qb issue (I agree with your position) Whaley was smart in not reaching for a qb when he was not in a position to select the caliber of qb he wanted. I was hoping that we would have selected Hundley with a fourth round pick but we didn't have it because of a trade made last year. Even with Hundley or Petty it must be acknowledged that both are developmental qbs who wouldn't be ready to compete or contribute this season. I don't know if Nix or Whaley was most instrumental in the drafting of EJ in the first round. In my opinion it was simply a mistake. The shame of our qb situation has to do with the post-Kelly era. The HOF has been gone for a full generation. The organization still hasn't been able to come up with a suitable replacement. I'm very confident that if Polian was the GM after the Kelly era he would have found a capable replacement in a reasonable amount of time because he would have made it a priority. The long-term lingering qb deficit would not have happened on his watch.

The Donte Whitner picked left me speechless. My first response wasn't anger so much as it left me befuddled. I was searching for some rational for it but couldn't come up with anything that made sense. That particular odd pick was a good representation of the Levy/Jauron era. No franchise in the league other than Buffalo would have considered Levy as someone to lead their football operation. No franchise in the league other than Buffalo would have considered a marketing person such as Russ Brandon to lead their football operation. No franchise in the league other than Buffalo would have considered Buddy Nix to lead their football operation. The Bills during this peculiar period became the Davis Raiders of the east. At least now under Whaley whether you agree or disagree with the football decisions there is a rational to what is being done. Instead of being an outlier franchise we have become a normal/conventional franchise. That is progress. The shame of the Donte Whitner pick was that he was unfairly vilified because of the spot where he was drafted, something he had nothing to do with. He was a solid player who played hard and was loyal to whichever team he played. He has carved out a long and prosperous career. I'm happy for him.

We'll see. I expect an early league office ruling regarding punishment. I'm sticking with my 1-2 game prediction. Then next I'm predicting the Pats to win the SB with an insanely motivated qb determined to raise the SB trophy over his head as a sympbolic FU gesture to the doubters and haters.

I think he will be suspended between 1-2 games. Goodell established some severe punishment baselines with Cleveland and Atlanta regarding competitive issues, which this deflate issue falls under. In those cases the issue wasn't how the transgressions impacted the game, because they didn't. The issue came down to breaking rules and the spirit of the rules that deal with the game on the field.

This case was not conducted or written up as if it was a civil case. If this was a civil case (formal legal proceeding) phone and text records would have been subpoenaed. My understanding is that Brady did not give up his records. Texts were reviewed but not a full accounting of the pertinent records. As I said in a prior post this report was written similar to an Inspector General report. This report made a lot of judgments (mostly reasonable) that would not have been made in a criminal or civil case (to such an extent) unless there was more harder evidence. The report was made for the Commissioner's office so that he would know what happened so he can make a disciplinary decision. If you believe that this matter is going to turn into a formal legal battle then that is your opinion. I don't believe that it will.

If this was a civil case who would be making the claim against Brady? The league? I don't think so. The report was written like an Inspector General report in which it would go to an agency that reviews it and then hopefully takes corrective action. There is a lot of commentary regarding hypothetically if this was a criminal or civil such and such what would happen? The reality is that this matter and report do not fall in the legal arena (courtroom sense).

Yes you are right. But what would be the charge against him that would allow a subpoena of his phone records?

You make excellent points. I was referring more to the criminal side of the system. I still believe even in a civil forum that there are too many qualifying descriptions to the evidence that can be reasonably challenged or undercut. We don't know what Brady's side of the story is. You may not give it much credibility but others may after hearing his explanation. Without a doubt the texts were very damning (as I see it). But it has to be acknowledged that much of the language of the report is very qualifying and cautious.

In general I agree with the tone of your responses. It has been fair, reasonable and proportional. You and I have placed this situation in the same context. Very many responders are very rabid over this matter. I'm much more subdued about it. I see Brady getting suspended for one to two games. That would be a resonable league response. I then see Brady incensed and insanely motivated over the way he is portrayed. The driven qb will then end up with him holding up the SB trophy and symbolicly giving the finger to those he believed unfairly besmirched his reputation.

From a legal standpoint the evidence doesn't meet the standard. It's not solid enough. If this case was examined by a supervising prosocutor who made the determination to formally procede with this case based on the evidence (very much of which is qualified) I'm very confident that it would not go any farther. The standard of beyond a reasonable doubt is more rigorous than what a reasonable person could conclude.

They (Clemens and Bonds) won in a legal setting. This investigation was not a legal investigation. It was an investigation to determine what happened from a reporting standard and not a more rigorous legal standard. The cautious and qualifying language and the less than conclusive determination made by the report is an obvious demonstration that it was not a meant to be used as a legal determining document. If this report was used to make a legal case it would be quickly dismissed. But that is not the setting here. The setting and purpose for this report is to determine what happened with respect to the balls and who was involved and to what extent. Without making an absolute claim as to what happened it does make a persuasive case as to what probably happened. What it boils down to is using common sense as a standard (non-legal standard) It is apparent that the balls were tampered with and it describes the circle of people involved. Anyone who has any common sense can make a reasonable and fair judgment simply based on the texts from Brady and the locker room attendants. From a courtroom standard this is a non-case. From a stardard that would allow Goodell to make a determnation on discipline there is more than enough evidence/material to make a fair judment. I have stated from the start that this particular transgression was an inconsequential transgressiion that had no impact on the outcome of any games. But that doesn't mean that people didn't violate some rules or the spirit of the rules. When Cleveland's GM was using the phone to communicate with the coaches on the field it had no material impact on the game. The GM was still punished for violating a rule and most definitely the spirit of the rules.

What elevates the performance of a mediocre line more than anything is having good qb play. A qb who can make quick reads and accurately throw the ball is an antidote for poor line play, up to a point. Yes, Marrone got very much involved with the OL. He would have been derelict in his duty by not spending extra time and effort in his futile attempt to shore up his woebegone line. If our OL plays much better this year it will be due to different players on the line more than it will be due to an upgrade of coaching. Last year our OL was the worst in the league. Last year our qbing was if not the worst near the worst in the league. On offense there was such a dirth of talent on the OL and at qb that the no level of coaching could have masked the ridiculous level of incapable players staffing those positions. As the saying goes: Garbage in/Garbage out! When you can't find a reasonable franchise qb for over a generation then your margin of error is miniscule. The one player I am rooting for to have a good season is Spiller. Much to the irritation of NYC Bill I have been a staunch defender of this very uniquely talented player. It is a shame that he got drafted by an organization that doesn't know how to exploit his manifold talents. Do you know what you call a team that uses a quick speed back as a bulldozing fullback? Dumb!

With this befuddled organization the problem wasn't the departure of a particular player so much as the players brought in to replace the departures. In fairness to the Bills with Levitre there was a reasonable issue of the balance between the talent level relative to the sizeable contract. I can't fault the franchise for letting Levitre go. However, you can fault the organization for the scouting ability for OL talent. Richardson and Kujo, a second round pick, were not close to be ready. I will give you credit for very early on calling into question the selection of the Alabama tackle in the second round. When you criticize an Alabama player you are painfully and reluctantly going against your heart!

The HC asks for his type of players. The GM brings in the players. Glenn had a poor year maybe attributable to his offseason undisclosed illness. Richardson was overwhelmed. Woods had a subpar year certainly affected by the players he was playing alongsdie. Pears was not mobile and was a below average player to begin with and clearly was declining. Henderson is a physical talent who wasn't ready to start. Kujo was a second round pick who was so overwhelmed that if he was a lower round pick he would have been an early cut. Don't buy into that easy excuse argument which (I find to be lame) that the problems associated with the OL and qbing were mostly attributable to the dour HC. In the end the talent level determines success. When there is a lack of talent don't be surprised that there is a surplus of failure.