dave mcbride Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Jenkins has been writing crazy stories about Deflategate for awhile now. The issue is more about Needledee and Needledumb being put on the stand with threat of jail. They never had to really answer questions to Wells. McNally was never asked why he was called the Deflator. Or why he texted Jastremski at halftime of the Packer game. They were fired and they were made to sign NDA agreements without question. All that goes away in a courtroom. It's a whole different ballgame in a real court with real perjury possibilities. I really think there is zero chance. I think you're wrong - I doubt they'll have much to say because they honestly aren't checking the gauges and it is the case that some of the balls mentioned in previous games were overinflated. This'll go to court if there's an adverse ruling -- bank on it. Another key factor: the NFL just about always loses these cases in court. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/06/30/troy-vincent-criticizes-union-spending-on-legal-fees/
Kelly the Dog Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 I think you're wrong - I doubt they'll have much to say because they honestly aren't checking the gauges and it is the case that some of the balls mentioned in previous games were overinflated. This'll go to court if there's an adverse ruling -- bank on it. Another key factor: the NFL just about always loses these cases in court. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/06/30/troy-vincent-criticizes-union-spending-on-legal-fees/ That has nothing to do with it. Brady said he had no knowledge of it and had nothing to do with it. Jastremski and McNally are going to say he told us this is what he wanted, we said we could do this and that, and here is what we did. McNally is going to say they call me the Deflator because I deflate the footballs.
dave mcbride Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 That has nothing to do with it. Brady said he had no knowledge of it and had nothing to do with it. Jastremski and McNally are going to say he told us this is what he wanted, we said we could do this and that, and here is what we did. McNally is going to say they call me the Deflator because I deflate the footballs. We shall see. I think you're wrong even though you're so assured about this.
Kelly the Dog Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 We shall see. I think you're wrong even though you're so assured about this. You even think he did it. Take a step back and imagine how is it even possible if they didn't do it with his knowledge. That link didn't work for me on my iPad btw.
IDBillzFan Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 I have already accepted the reality that Brady will have zero suspension..... If Brady's suspension is lifted, I would genuinely have to reconsider the amount of time and money I spend on this sport. The lack of my contribution doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, I know, but still, if I'm going to pay money to be treated like an fool, there are better options.
Mr. WEO Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Jenkins has been writing crazy stories about Deflategate for awhile now. The issue is more about Needledee and Needledumb being put on the stand with threat of jail. They never had to really answer questions to Wells. McNally was never asked why he was called the Deflator. Or why he texted Jastremski at halftime of the Packer game. They were fired and they were made to sign NDA agreements without question. All that goes away in a courtroom. It's a whole different ballgame in a real court with real perjury possibilities. I really think there is zero chance. That's becasue the Wells crew never asked him when they had him for his interview.
dave mcbride Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 You even think he did it. Take a step back and imagine how is it even possible if they didn't do it with his knowledge. That link didn't work for me on my iPad btw. I don't know if he did it. Of course, I think there's a decent possibility, but I'm hardly certain. The Wells report is too filled with holes and suppositions to think otherwise, in my opinion. We'll all find out within a month or so. Anyone who thinks he knows if Brady will or won't sue is blowing smoke if they're basing their opinion on that "report" (more a legal brief than a report, actually), which is flawed in a number of important ways. Bear in mind that Brady knows more than all of us, and we don't know what he knows. I have my suspicions about what might happen, but I'm essentially up in the air at this point.
K-9 Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Have at it, foes of Brady: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/roger-goodell-has-one-credible-option-pardon-brady-blame-lax-protocols/2015/06/29/b2c12e28-1e76-11e5-bf41-c23f5d3face1_story.html I didn't read past her remark about highly flawed evidence. Like most Brady apologists, she totally ignores the large body of damning circumstantial evidence. Goodell has enough of that to support the suspension on its own. Still hoping it goes to court. GO BILLS!!!
Kelly the Dog Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 That's becasue the Wells crew never asked him when they had him for his interview.True. But that doesn't enter into this equation. And we don't know the reason that it was undiscovered at the time. It could have been a blunder by Wells. It's possible there was a legitimate reason that it was overlooked. I assume they should have gone through it. It doesn't matter though. The Patriots should have made him available to talk to Wells the second time. Wells said it could be anywhere and anytime and the Pats said no. They didn't even tell McNally that Wells wanted to speak to him. I don't know if he did it. Of course, I think there's a decent possibility, but I'm hardly certain. The Wells report is too filled with holes and suppositions to think otherwise, in my opinion. We'll all find out within a month or so. Anyone who thinks he knows if Brady will or won't sue is blowing smoke if they're basing their opinion on that "report" (more a legal brief than a report, actually), which is flawed in a number of important ways. Bear in mind that Brady knows more than all of us, and we don't know what he knows. I have my suspicions about what might happen, but I'm essentially up in the air at this point. Simply the idea that McNally gave three different answers to three different NFL security people about why he took the balls to the bathroom is enough to know there was something afoot and not total innocence. It doesn't prove anything of course. But if there was nothing wrong there is no reasonable explanation. And again, I'm sure you have read when I said this but if you believe going in he is innocent, none of it makes sense. The colts accusations, McNally, the texts, the stealing of the balls and bathroom, the readings of the halftime, the answers given in the investigation. None of it. That would have to be all coincidence. It's impossible to believe.
Matt in KC Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 That's becasue the Wells crew never asked him when they had him for his interview. LISTEN TO TED WELLS EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENED WITH JIM MCNALLY AND THE PATRIOTS COOPERATION (OR LACK THEREOF) “I wanted to do a second interview with Jim McNally,” Wells said Tuesday. “He was the second person I interviewed…and I discovered after the first interview one of the important text messages where Jim McNally not only calls himself ‘the deflator,’ but he says, ‘I have not gone to ESPN.'” “I asked to interview him a second time, I said I’d go to New Hampshire, I’d interview him in the morning, noon, night. Not only did they say I couldn’t interview him, they said they wouldn’t even tell him about my request for an interview.”
dave mcbride Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 True. But that doesn't enter into this equation. And we don't know the reason that it was undiscovered at the time. It could have been a blunder by Wells. It's possible there was a legitimate reason that it was overlooked. I assume they should have gone through it. It doesn't matter though. The Patriots should have made him available to talk to Wells the second time. Wells said it could be anywhere and anytime and the Pats said no. They didn't even tell McNally that Wells wanted to speak to him. Simply the idea that McNally gave three different answers to three different NFL security people about why he took the balls to the bathroom is enough to know there was something afoot and not total innocence. It doesn't prove anything of course. But if there was nothing wrong there is no reasonable explanation. And again, I'm sure you have read when I said this but if you believe going in he is innocent, none of it makes sense. The colts accusations, McNally, the texts, the stealing of the balls and bathroom, the readings of the halftime, the answers given in the investigation. None of it. That would have to be all coincidence. It's impossible to believe. It's impossible for YOU to believe - but you have an obvious animus (trust me, you wouldn't make it through voir dire if the Brady case went to trial!). I don't trust the Colts either. I'm surrounded by a couple of very smart (and basically rational) Pats fans at work who argue the opposite of what you're saying, and while I challenge them, their arguments aren't poor ones. They assume it's a given that Brady would go to trial given an adverse ruling, and think that he'd win based on Goodell's ill-considered assumption of the decision-making role alone. They might be right.
Kelly the Dog Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 It's impossible for YOU to believe - but you have an obvious animus (trust me, you wouldn't make it through voir dire if the Brady case went to trial!). I don't trust the Colts either. I'm surrounded by a couple of very smart (and basically rational) Pats fans at work who argue the opposite of what you're saying, and while I challenge them, their arguments aren't poor ones. They assume it's a given that Brady would go to trial given an adverse ruling, and think that he'd win based on Goodell's ill-considered assumption of the decision-making role alone. They might be right. That's completely ignoring the real problem, Jastremski and McNally. That is not at all a reasonable assumption. That's ignoring the main element.
Matt in KC Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 It's impossible for YOU to believe - but you have an obvious animus (trust me, you wouldn't make it through voir dire if the Brady case went to trial!). I don't trust the Colts either. I'm surrounded by a couple of very smart (and basically rational) Pats fans at work who argue the opposite of what you're saying, and while I challenge them, their arguments aren't poor ones. They assume it's a given that Brady would go to trial given an adverse ruling, and think that he'd win based on Goodell's ill-considered assumption of the decision-making role alone. They might be right. It sounds like you are caught in the middle. Talk them into posting on here directly! That would warrant a new thread. I think most of us could be civil if they came for real discussion, even if they are lousy stinkin' Pats*** fans!
LeGOATski Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 It's impossible for YOU to believe - but you have an obvious animus (trust me, you wouldn't make it through voir dire if the Brady case went to trial!). I don't trust the Colts either. I'm surrounded by a couple of very smart (and basically rational) Pats fans at work who argue the opposite of what you're saying, and while I challenge them, their arguments aren't poor ones. They assume it's a given that Brady would go to trial given an adverse ruling, and think that he'd win based on Goodell's ill-considered assumption of the decision-making role alone. They might be right. Not that I'm a huge fan of Goodell, but isn't the Commissioner of a league supposed to be in the decision-making role and wasn't that agreed upon through the CBA by the NFLPA? However questionable it may be, I don't see how that wins a case...
dave mcbride Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 (edited) Not that I'm a huge fan of Goodell, but isn't the Commissioner of a league supposed to be in the decision-making role and wasn't that agreed upon through the CBA by the NFLPA? However questionable it may be, I don't see how that wins a case... I don't know the answer to that question. I think that if Brady could raise significant doubts about the report based on the measurement problems alone, and then argue that the guy who commissioned the report shouldn't sit in judgment, he might have a case. Like I said, we'll know more relatively soon. Bear in mind that the league tends to lose these cases ... Edited June 30, 2015 by dave mcbride
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 That's completely ignoring the real problem, Jastremski and McNally. That is not at all a reasonable assumption. That's ignoring the main element. EGGZACTLY the Brady* defenders need to ask themselves ... WHY would Jastremski and McNally deflate the balls? Why text each other about it? Why did they say F Tom* so much in their texts? Why enter a "toilet" (rumored to be non functioning) on the way to the field?
Doc Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 The Patriots admitted those two flunkies deflated footballs to go along with a lot of real evidence. To say that a guy who touches the football on every snap, and who has been playing football since he was a kid, couldn't tell the balls were deflated is a laugher at best. He's got no case and won't sue.
Mr. WEO Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 True. But that doesn't enter into this equation. And we don't know the reason that it was undiscovered at the time. It could have been a blunder by Wells. It's possible there was a legitimate reason that it was overlooked. I assume they should have gone through it. They were rushing to flesh out their conclusion. But if they had done a more thorough inspection of what they already had in hand, they could have asked him when he was sitting in front of them and then NE wouldn't have been penalized for not allowing him a second interview. Turns out they were right--Wells shouldn't have needed one and Kraft wasn't going to help Wells with the report. I bet NE's lawyers knew that Wells screwed up the first interview and said "no way" when Wells wanted a do over. LISTEN TO TED WELLS EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENED WITH JIM MCNALLY AND THE PATRIOTS COOPERATION (OR LACK THEREOF) Wells is either lying or somehow didn't know his team already had in their possession texts where McNally labels himself Deflator before the first interview.
boyst Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 I mean it is a good debate that Brady would go to trial but he can't afford to because what would be on the table. It opens up too much risk and exposure to all things from spy gate to the flutie accusation of live speakers in the helmets. Brady can't afford going to trial unless he is planning on leaving football and is ready to go all in. Brady is a cheater
LeGOATski Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 I don't know the answer to that question. I think that if Brady could raise significant doubts about the report based on the measurement problems alone, and then argue that the guy who commissioned the report shouldn't sit in judgment, he might have a case. Like I said, we'll know more relatively soon. Bear in mind that the league tends to lose these cases ... I believe the answer is yes. That's an incredibly weak case, but it qualifies as a case.
Recommended Posts