richNjoisy Posted June 22, 2015 Posted June 22, 2015 That's wild speculation by Florio that has no chance of happening. Based on losing the appeal, taking it to court (which will not happen) and then more appeals. IMO, Mike Florio has been biased - most of his Deflategate articles have been exceedingly Pro TB. I usually can guess before reading the byline, who has written an article (Florio or anyone else). I have been mostly dismissing his views and his articles when it has anything to do with New England.
Kelly the Dog Posted June 22, 2015 Posted June 22, 2015 i heard them tease it before a commercial, but then couldnt listen to it after the commercial. So I didn't know where they got it from. Hope it's bs.Don't worry. It's based on what if Brady* loses the appeal, Brady* takes the NFL to court, Brady* loses that case, Brady* appeals that case, AND somehow convinces the appeals court not to let the NFL suspend him before the entire appeal is done, AND they don't take the case for the entire season. First, Brady* is not going to take the case to court if he loses the appeal unless there is some weird element that he complains happened to him and it has nothing to do with the actual deflating. That is not going to happen. Plus, if he takes it to court, the courts may well not give a crap about the Patriots** wasting their time and may not move on their schedule. Brady* would risk the courts taking the appeal in the middle of the season and if he loses he could miss vital games down the stretch. He's not taking them to court anyway. He is not going to risk having Needledee and Needledumb taking the stand and having to swear under oath what happened.
YoloinOhio Posted June 22, 2015 Author Posted June 22, 2015 @AlbertBreer: Among those that will be at the Brady hearing tomorrow: Ted Wells. Per source, Wells will be prepared to take everyone through the report.
boyst Posted June 22, 2015 Posted June 22, 2015 I love the spins and the bias NE media is showing this whole event. I bet NE media has spent more time and energy covering this then they did the Boston bombing.
WhitewalkerInPhilly Posted June 22, 2015 Posted June 22, 2015 @AlbertBreer: Among those that will be at the Brady hearing tomorrow: Ted Wells. Per source, Wells will be prepared to take everyone through the report. Nothing like a dose of cold hard reality to temper Tommy boy's sense of entitlement.
Kelly the Dog Posted June 22, 2015 Posted June 22, 2015 @AlbertBreer: Among those that will be at the Brady hearing tomorrow: Ted Wells. Per source, Wells will be prepared to take everyone through the report. Love that.
dave mcbride Posted June 22, 2015 Posted June 22, 2015 (edited) I think it might be reduced simply because it's an overly long suspension given the nature of the infraction. If MLB suspends a pitcher for 7-8 games for a foreign substance or a hitter for the same for a corked bat -- both of which strike me as fair penalties -- then suspending a NFL player for a virtually identical infraction for 25 percent of the season is beyond the pale. I always thought it was a low-level, penny ante infraction in any case, and while I think he probably did it, I have about a 65 percent certainty at this point because there are real questions regarding the Wells report. I had a 100 percent certainty that Michael Pineda (7 games) and Sammy Sosa (8 games) were guilty. I think it should be reduced to either 2 games or 1 game. I'm not sure it will though. Goodell is the sort who digs his heels in. Edited June 22, 2015 by dave mcbride
Kelly the Dog Posted June 22, 2015 Posted June 22, 2015 I think it might be reduced simply it's an overly long suspension given the nature of the infraction. If MLB suspends a pitcher for 7-8 games for a foreign substance or a hitter for the same for a corked bat -- both of which strike me as fair penalties -- then suspending a NFL player for a virtually identical infraction for 25 percent of the season is beyond the pale. I always thought it was a low-level, penny ante infraction in any case, and while I think he probably did it, I have about a 65 percent certainty at this point because there are real questions regarding the Wells report. I had a 100 percent certainty that Michael Pineda (7 games) and Sammy Sosa (8 games) were guilty. I think it should be reduced to either 2 games or 1 game. I'm not sure it will though. Goodell is the sort who digs his heels in. I doubt there is a specific game count although there could have been. But the consensus seems to be that Brady was suspended for two games for the infraction, and two games for obstructing the investigation by not providing his emails/texts as well as lying to the investigators about not even knowing McNally and other things. At 2 games per, neither seems all that excessive to me.
JESSEFEFFER Posted June 22, 2015 Posted June 22, 2015 Part of the punishment is for the "crime" and part is for the lack of cooperation with the investigation. I would believe that the latter is considered worse in the eyes of the NFL (or any other employer.) It would be a bad precedent to let Brady benefit from this tactic when the CBA specifically requires much more on his part. His approach to this in the hearing should matter.
dave mcbride Posted June 22, 2015 Posted June 22, 2015 (edited) I doubt there is a specific game count although there could have been. But the consensus seems to be that Brady was suspended for two games for the infraction, and two games for obstructing the investigation by not providing his emails/texts as well as lying to the investigators about not even knowing McNally and other things. At 2 games per, neither seems all that excessive to me. It was never clear to me that Brady lied about not knowing McNally. He claimed to not recognize the name, which is plausible even if he interacted with him. There are a number of people in my office I've occasionally interacted with over a half dozen years, and I couldn't tell you their names. As for not turning over his phone, he shouldn't have been required to turn it over, and I think he was wise not to do so. I certainly wouldn't have trusted the league with the phone. (Also, you can bet the players support him on that front.) Of course, that's not to say he wasn't penalized for refusing to hand it over. It appears that he was, and I think what you say above regarding how it was divvied up makes sense. I bet it gets reduced to two games. You? Edited June 22, 2015 by dave mcbride
Kelly the Dog Posted June 22, 2015 Posted June 22, 2015 It was never clear to me that Brady lied about not knowing McNally. He claimed to not recognize the name, which is plausible even if he interacted with him. There are a number of people in my office I've occasionally interacted with over a half dozen years, and I couldn't tell you their names. As for not turning over his phone, he shouldn't have been required to turn it over, and I think he was wise not to do so. I certainly wouldn't have trusted the league with the phone. (Also, you can bet the players support him on that front.) Of course, that's not to say he wasn't penalized for refusing to hand it over. It appears that he was, and I think what you say above regarding how it was divvied up makes sense. I bet it gets reduced to two games. You? They asked Jastremski if Brady knew McNally and Jastremski said yes. Brady was never even asked to turn over his phone. He was asked to present the relevant emails and texts, printed out, and nothing else. No personal information or anything other than texts and emails (and maybe call logs) to and from relevant people like Jastremski. He refused. He was not even asked to turn over his phone. I think it stays at four games. But I wouldn't bet on it.
dave mcbride Posted June 22, 2015 Posted June 22, 2015 (edited) They asked Jastremski if Brady knew McNally and Jastremski said yes. Brady was never even asked to turn over his phone. He was asked to present the relevant emails and texts, printed out, and nothing else. No personal information or anything other than texts and emails (and maybe call logs) to and from relevant people like Jastremski. He refused. He was not even asked to turn over his phone. Knowing someone in a rather large office and knowing his or her last name are two different things. I'm speaking from long experience here. With regard to the phone, I was speaking metaphorically - that is, I was referring to the information in the phone. Re phones: http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/05/11/deflategate-why-tom-brady-didnt-give-his-phone-to-ted-wells-investigation-team/. Check out the last item re: the Ravens. Edited June 22, 2015 by dave mcbride
Kelly the Dog Posted June 22, 2015 Posted June 22, 2015 Knowing someone in a rather large office and knowing his or her last name are two different things. I'm speaking from long experience here. With regard to the phone, I was speaking metaphorically - that is, I was referring to the information in the phone. There is no question he knew him. Brady is obsessive over those balls. Jastremski prepares them, but McNally is responsible for them on game day and often delivers them to Brady on the field before the game. He has been with the team 27 years I think and all of Brady's career. There is zero chance he doesn't know him, and know his name. And why should Brady not turn over printed out copies of his texts and emails concerning the investigation as to whether he knew anything about it. Come on.
dave mcbride Posted June 22, 2015 Posted June 22, 2015 (edited) There is no question he knew him. Brady is obsessive over those balls. Jastremski prepares them, but McNally is responsible for them on game day and often delivers them to Brady on the field before the game. He has been with the team 27 years I think and all of Brady's career. There is zero chance he doesn't know him, and know his name. And why should Brady not turn over printed out copies of his texts and emails concerning the investigation as to whether he knew anything about it. Come on. It depends on how broad the request was for emails. His attorney said it was a very broad net, although he didn't share the request with the public. As I said above, knowing an underling who you cross paths with only rarely and knowing that person's last name are different things. IIRC, Brady only said that he didn't recognize the name. I think that's highly plausible, although I accept that you view things differently. See above re the Ravens. That was news to me. The bottom line: I'm not much of a fan of Goodell, and I think the NFL's case is pretty lousy, relatively speaking. If you're only 60-65 percent sure someone did it, that's not good enough. And the league was leaking misinformation from the get go. The Pats aren't trustworthy, but neither is the league (to say the least). The AEI report isn't unproblematic, but some of it's fairly convincing. Edited June 22, 2015 by dave mcbride
Kelly the Dog Posted June 22, 2015 Posted June 22, 2015 It depends on how broad the request was for emails. His attorney said it was a very broad net, although he didn't share the request with the public. As I said above, knowing an underling who you cross paths with only rarely and knowing that person's last name are different things. IIRC, Brady only said that he didn't recognize the name. I think that's highly plausible, although I accept that you view things differently. See above re the Ravens. That was news to me. Wells was furious with Brady. Even if Brady didn't know the guy's last name, that was not why Wells was furious with him. They could have just gone on with the questioning and saying okay, the nameless guy that you have seen 100 times with your precious footballs. Vincent went way out of his way in the explanation of the penalty to blast Brady's cooperation.
dave mcbride Posted June 22, 2015 Posted June 22, 2015 (edited) Wells was furious with Brady. Even if Brady didn't know the guy's last name, that was not why Wells was furious with him. They could have just gone on with the questioning and saying okay, the nameless guy that you have seen 100 times with your precious footballs. Vincent went way out of his way in the explanation of the penalty to blast Brady's cooperation. I get that, but I think there's a case to be made for not handing over cell phone info, especially if the query was broad in scope. Not that I have much sympathy for millionaire players, but players in every other major league have far better deals than NFL players. Baseball, for instance. Unless I missed something, when has the NBA, MLB, or NHL succeeded in getting a player to hand over private cell phone records in a disciplinary case? I do get that the NFLPA did sign an agreement that allows for this ... Wells was furious with Brady. Even if Brady didn't know the guy's last name, that was not why Wells was furious with him. They could have just gone on with the questioning and saying okay, the nameless guy that you have seen 100 times with your precious footballs. Vincent went way out of his way in the explanation of the penalty to blast Brady's cooperation. To continue my point about the ridiculous length of the suspension: check out the NHL. Oversize pads by a goalie: 2-game suspension. Stick that has a curve bigger than allowed for: "During regulation time or overtime (but not shootouts), a player caught with an illegal stick will get the traditional minor penalty and a $200 fine for the first offence. A second offence in the same season would be accompanied by a minor penalty, plus a fine of $1,000. A third offence in the same season would draw a game misconduct penalty and an automatic one-game suspension. The suspension would double in length for any subsequent violation in the same season." Edited June 22, 2015 by dave mcbride
Canadian Bills Fan Posted June 22, 2015 Posted June 22, 2015 Who decides if the suspension gets reduced? Goodell? CBF
Kelly the Dog Posted June 22, 2015 Posted June 22, 2015 I get that, but I think there's a case to be made for not handing over cell phone info, especially if the query was broad in scope. Not that I have much sympathy for millionaire players, but players in every other major league have far better deals than NFL players. Baseball, for instance. Unless I missed something, when has the NBA, MLB, or NHL succeeded in getting a player to hand over private cell phone records in a disciplinary case? I do get that the NFLPA did sign an agreement that allows for this ...You have to look at the totality of everything that happened. McNally was asked at three different times by three different NFL investigators why he took the balls to the bathroom and he gave three different answers. He stole the balls from the officials. Brady started calling Jastremski over and over at 7 in the morning right after it happened. McNally texted Jastremski at halftime in the middle of a game they were losing and told him to "Deflate." All of the balls were under inflated. Wells used two separate independent experts to examine what happened. They both came to the same conclusion. EVERY SINGLE THING, dozens of them, make sense in the he knew about it scenario. Everything. Nothing makes sense in this was total coincidence scenario. Nothing. Holes can be poked in some of the science and things like Brady not turning over his phone. But those are all based on "I suppose it's possible that this was a coincidence or non factor." But as I have said before, in order for Brady's story to be believed, a dozen 100-1 shots have to come in in a row. Who decides if the suspension gets reduced? Goodell? CBF Yes.
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted June 22, 2015 Posted June 22, 2015 someone have a petition out there that IF Roger exonerates Brady*** that fans will protest games and NFL memberships? I'll sign one
dave mcbride Posted June 22, 2015 Posted June 22, 2015 You have to look at the totality of everything that happened. McNally was asked at three different times by three different NFL investigators why he took the balls to the bathroom and he gave three different answers. He stole the balls from the officials. Brady started calling Jastremski over and over at 7 in the morning right after it happened. McNally texted Jastremski at halftime in the middle of a game they were losing and told him to "Deflate." All of the balls were under inflated. Wells used two separate independent experts to examine what happened. They both came to the same conclusion. EVERY SINGLE THING, dozens of them, make sense in the he knew about it scenario. Everything. Nothing makes sense in this was total coincidence scenario. Nothing. Holes can be poked in some of the science and things like Brady not turning over his phone. But those are all based on "I suppose it's possible that this was a coincidence or non factor." But as I have said before, in order for Brady's story to be believed, a dozen 100-1 shots have to come in in a row. Yes. There really is no smoking gun though - it's not like a corked bat or the Pats' cache of spygate videotapes. Anyway, I think the whole case is a bit shakier than you do, especially with regard to the science (which is really all that matters in the end - the other stuff is just noise).
Recommended Posts