Mr. WEO Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 A plea deal by definition, unless it is only over the cooperation issue, does assume perjury. I agree with that view. I doubt that he would be charged with perjury under any circumstance but that doesn't mean there isn't some degree of "exposure" (miniscule). Really, zero exposure, so why even mention it as possible in this scenario? That's all I'm saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 If you take a plea deal? That is what I was saying. The answer is no. If he doesn't take a deal and someone can later prove he was lying, yes. But in the scenario I mentioned, no. The only reason perjury was brought up was in reference to him accepting guilt. I see what you are saying. I don't think that a settlement like that is the equivalent of a "plea deal." But I totally agree there is not a chance in hell that he would be taken to task about perjury if he agreed to a settlement. Lawyers arguing the case in the press one way or another will often say crap like that, however. You are right that it wouldn't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 I see what you are saying. I don't think that a settlement like that is the equivalent of a "plea deal." But I totally agree there is not a chance in hell that he would be taken to task about perjury if he agreed to a settlement. Lawyers arguing the case in the press one way or another will often say crap like that, however. You are right that it wouldn't happen. This whole case is bizarre. He could have gotten a fine and no games if he played it differently up front. Just say you like the balls "soft" (deflated), but that you don't know they are below legal, or something. He doesn't sound like a quick thinker off the field. Or he got really bad legal advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 What the heck are you talking about. He dealt with the equipment person who handled the balls. Who else is he going to deal with regarding the balls? Who do you think Aaron Rogers deals with regarding how he wants the balls? Who do you think Peyton Manning deals with regarding how he wants the balls? Who do you think Rivers deals with regarding how he wants the balls? Who do you think Drew Brees deals with regarding how he wants the balls? Who do you think Dalton deals with regarding the balls? They all deal with the equipment staff who are responsible for the condition of the balls. Who else would they go to on that issue? Not the PR guy. Not the video guy. Not the water boy. Let's use some common sense here. I asked a simple question. Not sure why you were compelled to respond in this fashion. I'm not confused by who Brady dealt with and what McNally's job was. Not in the least. The questions remain. But I get it, you feel that what Brady and Jastremski/McNally engaged in was no big deal at all, so maybe it's not worth answering from you point of view. Your view seems to be that it's perfectly acceptable for a player to bribe a team employee to "undermine efforts by game officials to ensure compliance with league rules." Maybe if Brady and the Pats* would have been more forthcoming immediately in the aftermath, the league wouldn't have been compelled to follow the evidence where it led them, and this horse and pony show would have been avoided. Instead, all they did was fire two long-time employees. And for little reason, since it was no big deal according to you. But it was a huge reason for the Pats* and their attorney knew it. By firing them, they couldn't be compelled to answer question by the league. Such an extreme length to go to for nothing at all. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 This whole case is bizarre. He could have gotten a fine and no games if he played it differently up front. Just say you like the balls "soft" (deflated), but that you don't know they are below legal, or something. He doesn't sound like a quick thinker off the field. Or he got really bad legal advice. No question in my mind that is true. He could have just said I like them a little soft and I made a mistake and I'm sorry and there would have been no investigation whatsoever. That is wholly his fault and it adds to my opinion that he needs to be held responsible for it. He caused all of it. There would never have been a witch hunt because there would have been no witch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 No question in my mind that is true. He could have just said I like them a little soft and I made a mistake and I'm sorry and there would have been no investigation whatsoever. That is wholly his fault and it adds to my opinion that he needs to be held responsible for it. He caused all of it. There would never have been a witch hunt because there would have been no witch. I agree with all of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 No question in my mind that is true. He could have just said I like them a little soft and I made a mistake and I'm sorry and there would have been no investigation whatsoever. That is wholly his fault and it adds to my opinion that he needs to be held responsible for it. He caused all of it. There would never have been a witch hunt because there would have been no witch. It's never been a witch hunt, regardless. As you pointed out, all of this would have been avoided up front if Brady simply said what you suggested. Instead, they stonewalled and actually invited the subsequent investigation. The evidence led them to reasonable conclusions and, again, they were met with non-cooperation in regard to the questions this evidence posed. Some would have me believe the league should just have ignored all of that and dropped the matter. Not that simple when it comes to the behavior of a previously convicted organization with a history of breaking the rules. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 Deadspin, as usual, taking shots at those that take things incredibly serious. http://deadspin.com/shut-up-about-tom-bradys-legacy-1727982258 i do enjoy this line: I was the greatest player of my generation and I have an idyllic existence, but Rocco in Utica says my Super Bowls are invalidated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 (edited) It's never been a witch hunt, regardless. As you pointed out, all of this would have been avoided up front if Brady simply said what you suggested. Instead, they stonewalled and actually invited the subsequent investigation. The evidence led them to reasonable conclusions and, again, they were met with non-cooperation in regard to the questions this evidence posed. Some would have me believe the league should just have ignored all of that and dropped the matter. Not that simple when it comes to the behavior of a previously convicted organization with a history of breaking the rules. GO BILLS!!! Yep. I agree that there was never a witch hunt. I was saying that for anyone that has thought of it as one (not WEO who I don't think believes that). Even if you thought there was a witch hunt it never would have happened if Brady just wasn't an arrogant ass. Edited September 1, 2015 by Kelly the Dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 No question in my mind that is true. He could have just said I like them a little soft and I made a mistake and I'm sorry and there would have been no investigation whatsoever. That is wholly his fault and it adds to my opinion that he needs to be held responsible for it. He caused all of it. There would never have been a witch hunt because there would have been no witch. I agree. The vociferous denials created this story. As always, the cover up was worse than the crime. I'd be happy if they agreed on a two game suspension before the ruling. The NFL doesn't need the continued headache, but they certainly can't back down at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tuco Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 (edited) MattM/KTD, Brady swore that he never instructed anyone to lower the balls below the limit. I believe him. When Wells was asked if he had direct evidence that Brady was involved in a conspiracy regarding the balls he answered no. In addition, I have held the position from the start that the condition of the balls issue in general is a trivial and insignificant issue that didn't merit the level of response that it received. It had no effect on player performance and had no effect on the game. If the type of response regarding equipment in this case was handled in the same manner as other similar equipment issues this extended fiasco would never have occurred. Jaywalking is not manslaughter! Common sense and reasonable judgment were lacking out of the commissioner's office. I have to disagree too. He didn't swear he never instructed anybody to deflate them below the legal limit. He swore he never instructed anyone to lower the pressure at all - and that's still a violation if he did. And unless you believe McNally did it on his own, Brady is lying. From the district court transcript- Q. Okay. Now, have you ever specifically, so again, very specific question, have you ever told anyone on the Patriots after you’ve given to them that they should change the inflation level of the footballs after you approved them or do anything about the inflation level after you approved them? A. No. Q. Now, what would be your reaction if Mr. Jastremski or anyone else in the Patriots was doing something to the footballs after you’ve approved it? How would you feel about that? A. I would disapprove of that. Q. Why? Why would it matter to you? A. Because I go through, like I said, this extensive process to pick out the balls for the game, and that’s the ball ultimately that I want on the field that I play with. So once I pick the ball out, then I don’t want anything other than that ball to be the one that I am on the field playing with. After another length of questioning where Brady claimed he only learned of the 12.5 psi rule after the Jets game and he requested equipment manager Dave Schoenfeld to inform the refs of the rule so they would never be as hard as they were again, the questions followed- Q. Other than that comment, have you ever, after that time, told Mr. Jastremski or anybody else in the Patriots anything else about the pressure of footballs? Was there any comments at all that you make to them — A. No. Q. — until this happened? A. No. If you believe Brady never told McNally to deflate the balls I guess there's not much we can do to change your mind. But whether McNally's deflation resulted in actually going below the legal limit is the only trivial part. Conspiring to break the rules is still punishable. I can't believe McNally did it on his own. Therefore I have to believe Brady conspired with McNally in order to change the levels of the balls after they were officially inspected. Remember, McNally isn't even an equipment man. His only job is the officials locker room game day attendant. Yet he's getting all sort of kicks from a guy who claimed he didn't even know him, but who's text messages prove Brady was talking about him. And he's disappearing with the footballs before the game. And as far as Brady is concerned the condition of the balls is very important. Now I will agree with you this could have been minimized like other equipment violations, but only if it was admitted to like other equipment violations. If Brady and everybody fessed up it would have been over quickly. But they way it went down the league had to see it through. First they determined Brady lied. Then when they found evidence not only of lying but of the same violation occurring more often than just the one game. Then the two guys got fired so the Pats* couldn't be pressured into having them interviewed again, and everything was stonewalled from that point on. The league has good reason to believe Brady guilty. And they have good reason to add punishment for not cooperating. And they have good reason to see it through to its highest level. I think Brady and the Pats* are as much at fault for making a big deal out of this as anybody. My $.02 Edited September 1, 2015 by Tuco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 I have to disagree too. He didn't swear he never instructed anybody to deflate them below the legal limit. He swore he never instructed anyone to lower the pressure at all - and that's still a violation if he did. And unless you believe McNally did it on his own, Brady is lying. From the district court transcript- After another length of questioning where Brady claimed he only learned of the 12.5 psi rule after the Jets game and he requested equipment manager Dave Schoenfeld to inform the refs of the rule so they would never be as hard as they were again, the questions followed- Q. Other than that comment, have you ever, after that time, told Mr. Jastremski or anybody else in the Patriots anything else about the pressure of footballs? Was there any comments at all that you make to them — A. No. Q. — until this happened? A. No. Q. Okay. Now, have you ever specifically, so again, very specific question, have you ever told anyone on the Patriots after you’ve given to them that they should change the inflation level of the footballs after you approved them or do anything about the inflation level after you approved them? A. No. Q. Now, what would be your reaction if Mr. Jastremski or anyone else in the Patriots was doing something to the footballs after you’ve approved it? How would you feel about that? A. I would disapprove of that. Q. Why? Why would it matter to you? A. Because I go through, like I said, this extensive process to pick out the balls for the game, and that’s the ball ultimately that I want on the field that I play with. So once I pick the ball out, then I don’t want anything other than that ball to be the one that I am on the field playing with. If you believe Brady never told McNally to deflate the balls I guess there's not much we can do to change your mind. But whether McNally's deflation resulted in actually going below the legal limit is the only trivial part. Conspiring to break the rules is still punishable. I can't believe McNally did it on his own. Therefore I have to believe Brady conspired with McNally in order to change the levels of the balls after they were officially inspected. Remember, McNally isn't even an equipment man. His only job is the officials locker room game day attendant. Yet he's getting all sort of kicks from a guy who claimed he didn't even know him, but who's text messages prove Brady was talking about him. And he's disappearing with the footballs before the game. And as far as Brady is concerned the condition of the balls is very important. Now I will agree with you this could have been minimized like other equipment violations, but only if it was admitted to like other equipment violations. If Brady and everybody fessed up it would have been over quickly. But they way it went down the league had to see it through. First they determined Brady lied. Then when they found evidence not only of lying but of the same violation occurring more often than just the one game. Then the two guys got fired so the Pats* couldn't be pressured into having them interviewed again, and everything was stonewalled from that point on. The league has good reason to believe Brady guilty. And they have good reason to add punishment for not cooperating. And they have good reason to see it through to its highest level. I think Brady and the Pats* are as much at fault for making a big deal out of this as anybody. My $.02 Let's just wait for the ruling that should be coming sometime this week. I have little more to add. I simply disagree with you and the majority of responders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 Berman just said that he will make his decision by the end of the week, which is what he said yesterday. In addition to maybe by today or tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 Texans owner Bob McNair... "What escalated the whole thing is that Brady and the Patriots were going to cooperate fully, and then when it came down to it, they didn't," McNair said. "If it was J.J. Watt, I think he would have been cooperative, and it wouldn't be a question. ... I don't think J.J. would destroy his cell phone." "Is there anything conclusive there? No, you don't have any conclusive evidence," McNair said. "But the whole idea is we want to make sure we have a competitive playing field that's level for everybody ... don't want people breaking the rules." McNair added: "In the minds of somebody in that organization, they thought it was important. They thought it would give them a competitive advantage, and that's why they did it ... You just want to eliminate that kind of situation if you can." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLFan Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 Texans owner Bob McNair... "What escalated the whole thing is that Brady and the Patriots were going to cooperate fully, and then when it came down to it, they didn't," McNair said. "If it was J.J. Watt, I think he would have been cooperative, and it wouldn't be a question. ... I don't think J.J. would destroy his cell phone." "Is there anything conclusive there? No, you don't have any conclusive evidence," McNair said. "But the whole idea is we want to make sure we have a competitive playing field that's level for everybody ... don't want people breaking the rules." McNair added: "In the minds of somebody in that organization, they thought it was important. They thought it would give them a competitive advantage, and that's why they did it ... You just want to eliminate that kind of situation if you can." Good for him. It's about time somebody from the inner circle in the NFL called out the Patriots on this mess. The actions of the team, the owner, and the primadona QB have made the situation worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 (edited) Texans owner Bob McNair... "What escalated the whole thing is that Brady and the Patriots were going to cooperate fully, and then when it came down to it, they didn't," McNair said. "If it was J.J. Watt, I think he would have been cooperative, and it wouldn't be a question. ... I don't think J.J. would destroy his cell phone." "Is there anything conclusive there? No, you don't have any conclusive evidence," McNair said. "But the whole idea is we want to make sure we have a competitive playing field that's level for everybody ... don't want people breaking the rules." McNair added: "In the minds of somebody in that organization, they thought it was important. They thought it would give them a competitive advantage, and that's why they did it ... You just want to eliminate that kind of situation if you can." Basically.......this played out like Iraq. Went far too light with initial assault. Then had to go overboard over nothing much later to correct it. Hopefully the Pats will end up with squeaky clean Marv Levy and Dick Jauron as GM/HC pairing......which would be the football equivalent of current day Iraq. On a more important note.......has anyone addressed how any self respecting NE polak could incorrectly anglicize Yastrzemski? I mean, what was his nickname in HS.....Jazz? Sorry if I missed the answer to this but I generally avoid these topics because the answers are pretty clear and McNair is just telling it like it is. Bad track record + no cooperation = no mercy Edited September 1, 2015 by #BADOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Best Player Available Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 Berman just said that he will make his decision by the end of the week, which is what he said yesterday. In addition to maybe by today or tomorrow. Well if Berman gets to make the decision I know I will be okay with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 Well if Berman gets to make the decision I know I will be okay with it. Yeah if Chris Berman rather than Richard Berman was in charge of this it would have been over a month ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Best Player Available Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 Yeah if Chris Berman rather than Richard Berman was in charge of this it would have been over a month ago. Shows you how much I'm paying attention! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 Basically.......this played out like Iraq. Went far too light with initial assault. Then had to go overboard over nothing much later to correct it. Hopefully the Pats will end up with squeaky clean Marv Levy and Dick Jauron as GM/HC pairing......which would be the football equivalent of current day Iraq. On a more important note.......has anyone addressed how any self respecting NE polak could incorrectly anglicize Yastrzemski? I mean, what was his nickname in HS.....Jazz? Sorry if I missed the answer to this but I generally avoid these topics because the answers are pretty clear and McNair is just telling it like it is. Bad track record + no cooperation = no mercy jastremski is a real Polish name and not an anglicization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts