Kelly the Dog Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 According to Wells yes. Others viewing the case may not conclude the same. See http://wellsreportcontext.com/for some context. You're kidding, right? This was the original "Deflator" is about losing weight doc. You just lost all credibility you didn't have.
dave mcbride Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/07/27/tom-brady-nflpa-deflategate-suspension-federal-court
quinnearlysghost88 Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 http://wellsreportcontext.com/ These points, and others, are addressed in greater detail in the following Annotations to the Executive Summary of the Wells Report by Daniel L. Goldberg, a senior partner in the Boston office of Morgan Lewis and who represented the Patriots I'm done reading
dave mcbride Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/07/27/tom-brady-nflpa-deflategate-suspension-federal-court I want to plug this piece because I think it's thorough and evenhanded.
MattM Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 (edited) Wow--if true (and I agree with most here that, considering the source, it's a very big "if"), the destroying the phone thing is a game changer, especially in the court of public opinion. While I agree that in reality it gets you little, I've seen insider trading cases where well-educated Wall Street professionals have tried to cover their tracks by destroying their phones, so that move isn't just for total dumbarses. Here's hoping it works for Brady as well as it worked for those schmucks! Edited July 28, 2015 by MattM
dave mcbride Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Wow--if true (and I agree with most here that, considering the source, it's a very big "if"), the destroying the phone thing is a game changer, especially in the court of public opinion. While I agree that in reality it gets you little, I've seen insider trading cases where we'll-educated Wall Street professionals have tried to cover their tracks by destroying their phones, so that move isn't just for total dumbarses. Here's hoping it works for Brady as well as it worked for those schmucks! Again, Stephen A. Smith.
Lurker Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/07/27/tom-brady-nflpa-deflategate-suspension-federal-court I think that strategy would be a risk in terms of the public perception that he's guilty but got off on a technicality. He'd get to play but would be tainted in the long run. He needs to get an exoneration, not a "process" win...
MattM Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Again, Stephen A. Smith. Noted in my original post, but "if" he's right, to quote "Aliens" "Game over, man!"
dave mcbride Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 I think that strategy would be a risk in terms of the public perception that he's guilty but got off on a technicality. He'd get to play but would be tainted in the long run. He needs to get an exoneration, not a "process" win... At some point, he'll need to take whatever victory he can get. An exoneration may not be possible, but if he got this, he'd probably be viewed as exonerated in New England.
thebandit27 Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 http://wellsreportcontext.com/ Great...so the explanation is "delfator is a weight-loss reference", "it's the officials' fault that McNally disappeared with the game balls and his explanation for why was very clearly a lie", and "if the Refs swapped gauges a few times, then the discrepancy between the sets of footballs might be explainable, and if that doesn't explain it, let's assume there's a whole bunch of other factors that could explain it".
dave mcbride Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Some "clarification" from Stephen A. Smith: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/28/stephen-a-smith-hears-doesnt-know-tom-brady-destroyed-his-phone/ . Jeez.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/07/27/tom-brady-nflpa-deflategate-suspension-federal-court That's a very good, fair, detailed summation of most of this trial stuff. Nothing really new, just most all of the arguments and presenting both sides. Thx.
GG Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 At some point, he'll need to take whatever victory he can get. An exoneration may not be possible, but if he got this, he'd probably be viewed as exonerated in New England. There's no need to be exonerated in New England since the region is in a general denial. His reputation is already tainted. Getting cleared on a technicality will change the taint into a full black paint job. Nobody outside New England will give him full credit and his first ballot HoF will be in doubt. He also won't get the benefit of the doubt in close calls by the referees anymore. I'm looking forward to this. Some "clarification" from Stephen A. Smith: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/28/stephen-a-smith-hears-doesnt-know-tom-brady-destroyed-his-phone/ . Jeez. You don't find it ironic that a writer at PFT is knocking another talking head for spreading a rumor?
Kelly the Dog Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Nobody outside New England will give him full credit and his first ballot HoF will be in doubt. He also won't get the benefit of the doubt in close calls by the referees anymore. That second one is a really, really good point that I hadn't heard or considered. Good point, good sir. The officials would really hate him for embarrassing them and then spitting on them. They know he cheated. Now I almost want him to get off, and have the M!@#$s and Brady deal with the reverse of the advantages they have been getting for the last decade plus.
Wayne Cubed Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Some "clarification" from Stephen A. Smith: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/28/stephen-a-smith-hears-doesnt-know-tom-brady-destroyed-his-phone/ . Jeez. So we are calling something from Florio, who by the way was wrong about the owners yesterday, clarification?
eball Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 (edited) http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/07/27/tom-brady-nflpa-deflategate-suspension-federal-court I want to plug this piece because I think it's thorough and evenhanded. Agreed. I think the NFL's arguments are stronger -- particularly the differentiation between the Rice and Peterson cases, which many in this thread have offered up as reasons why the NFL would lose in court. As I've stated ad nauseum, Brady has to prove a serious or "obvious" error made by Goodell in arriving at his suspension decision -- simply implying he is biased or "against" Brady isn't (or shouldn't) be enough to sway a federal judge. Edit: And, he cheated. There's that. Edited July 28, 2015 by eball
quinnearlysghost88 Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 I try not to read the ESPN comment sections, especially for matters regarding the Patriots** but I just couldn't help myself. They all want/believe that Goodell should resign after this. For doing this to their Tommy. But for some reason they have amnesia about Goodell probably saving their entire franchise's history by destroying SpyGate tapes/notes on-site. "In a Jan. 31 letter to Specter, which the senator releasedFriday, Goodell said the tapes and notes on the investigation weredestroyed to ensure that the Patriots 'would not secure anypossible competitive advantage as a result of the misconduct.'"
GG Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 That second one is a really, really good point that I hadn't heard or considered. Good point, good sir. The officials would really hate him for embarrassing them and then spitting on them. They know he cheated. Now I almost want him to get off, and have the M!@#$s and Brady deal with the reverse of the advantages they have been getting for the last decade plus. Yup, that's why I don't really understand Brady's insistence on pushing this to the bitter end. This would be a classic pyrrhic victory for him. He may win on the merits of the case, but in the process he will embarrass the league, and most importantly the officials. I could see him pursuing the appeals to the end if he was retiring. But he will step on the field again and he won't get a roughing call anymore when Hughes walks by him.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Yup, that's why I don't really understand Brady's insistence on pushing this to the bitter end. This would be a classic pyrrhic victory for him. He may win on the merits of the case, but in the process he will embarrass the league, and most importantly the officials. I could see him pursuing the appeals to the end if he was retiring. But he will step on the field again and he won't get a roughing call anymore when Hughes walks by him. I have always thought that Brady and his lawyers and the NFLPA were doing the exact same thing as Kraft did. He can't contest the actual investigation. I don't know enough about the intricacies of the law and the process case although it seems like the NFL should just stand their ground. There is a decent chance that Brady blusters to the very end and then just caves like Kraft and accepts it and lies again to say it was for the good of the league. That is actually the smart play here.
Mr. WEO Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Do you really not know the answer to this? I feel that I have conversed with you enough to say with certainty that you're 100% capable of discerning that without asking. No I don't. There would be no point in destroying it. Help me out here---what's your explanation.?
Recommended Posts