Brady suspension reinstated!

[Mr. WEO]

Oh Tommy had the water works on full that day. Especially after the Florence pick 6.

 

Your reply is a great example of what I'm talking about. We convince ourselves that things we achieve aren't that good and shouldn't count. I expect that will be the case when we make the playoffs. I'm sure there will be excuses to discount it.

 

 

This is a great example of you trashing the fans again. This place will be ecstatic if the Bills make the playoffs. To believe otherwise makes no sense.

 

Most fans don't like hanging their hats on a 3 wins against the Brady pats out of 28 attempts. It's not an achievement.

 

Aim higher...

[plenzmd1]

 

 

This is a great example of you trashing the fans again. This place will be ecstatic if the Bills make the playoffs. To believe otherwise makes no sense.

 

Most fans don't like hanging their hats on a 3 wins against the Brady pats out of 28 attempts. It's not an achievement.

 

Aim higher...

Gun to head time...i agree with all the WEO posts on this PAGE( at thats all)...what has the world come to!

[Mr. WEO]

Gun to head time...i agree with all the WEO posts on this PAGE( at thats all)...what has the world come to!

 

Get your popcorn ready!

[bigdogtim]

What bothers me the most at this point is Brady's*** attitude. I get the competitive spirit. What offends me is the smugness that he seems to display by acting indignant over something he did that is obviously wrong. It has become all about getting caught and not doing something or things to gain an unfair competitive advantage and then seeking to cover it up.

 

His union agreed to work rules in exchange for consideration. Now he doesn't like it so wants to unilaterally change it. For the sake of argument, let's agree that Goodell's ruling IS unfair. That doesn't matter as the process was the one agreed to by Brady*** through his participation in the union.

 

On top of that, football is a TEAM sport, and not a ME sport. Brady has the chance to display character but instead has chosen to display selfishness. That is sad but unfortunately becoming the norm today. Our young, impressionable athletes who need a good role model get this instead. Way to man-up Tommyboy***.

[eball]

Gun to head time...i agree with all the WEO posts on this PAGE( at thats all)...what has the world come to!

 

I know, right? Bizarro thread.

[Mr. WEO]

What bothers me the most at this point is Brady's*** attitude. I get the competitive spirit. What offends me is the smugness that he seems to display by acting indignant over something he did that is obviously wrong. It has become all about getting caught and not doing something or things to gain an unfair competitive advantage and then seeking to cover it up.

 

His union agreed to work rules in exchange for consideration. Now he doesn't like it so wants to unilaterally change it. For the sake of argument, let's agree that Goodell's ruling IS unfair. That doesn't matter as the process was the one agreed to by Brady*** through his participation in the union.

 

On top of that, football is a TEAM sport, and not a ME sport. Brady has the chance to display character but instead has chosen to display selfishness. That is sad but unfortunately becoming the norm today. Our young, impressionable athletes who need a good role model get this instead. Way to man-up Tommyboy***.

 

What player hasn't appealed a multigame suspension? They are almost always reduced anyway.

 

Don't you think that players/NFLPA would rather have a win here against the league?

[JohnC]

Oh Tommy had the water works on full that day. Especially after the Florence pick 6.

 

Your reply is a great example of what I'm talking about. We convince ourselves that things we achieve aren't that good and shouldn't count. I expect that will be the case when we make the playoffs. I'm sure there will be excuses to discount it.

I appreciate your devotion to the team. There isn't a more loyal fan than you who regularly demonstrates that loyalty with your long trips to the Ralph. But you are living in your bubble of your own manufactured delusion in your belief that the fans are the source of the team's systemic mediocrity. With a morsel of objectivity it shouldn't be too difficult burst that illogical and zany bubble you are residing in.

[4merper4mer]

 

What player hasn't appealed a multigame suspension? They are almost always reduced anyway.

 

Don't you think that players/NFLPA would rather have a win here against the league?

 

 

What player other than Brady appealed to the US court system and called the collective bargaining agreement into question? Your assertion and the reality are two completely different things. I get that you are a Pats* fan, but you can't think normal appeal of a suspension and what Brady is doing are the same.

 

Of course the NFLPA would like a win against the league. They probably won't get it and if they want to negotiate set suspension terms for cheating they will have to negotiate that the next time around.

 

The dude cheated. He got caught. He got suspended. He's being a baby. He won't stop though because in his mind he is Curt Flood.

[Mr. WEO]

 

 

What player other than Brady appealed to the US court system and called the collective bargaining agreement into question? Your assertion and the reality are two completely different things. I get that you are a Pats* fan, but you can't think normal appeal of a suspension and what Brady is doing are the same.

 

Of course the NFLPA would like a win against the league. They probably won't get it and if they want to negotiate set suspension terms for cheating they will have to negotiate that the next time around.

 

The dude cheated. He got caught. He got suspended. He's being a baby. He won't stop though because in his mind he is Curt Flood.

 

 

This is all true--but the NFLPA likely sees him as Curt Flood--and why shouldn't they? It's an opportunity for a major victory and precedent for them. You can't see that?

Edited May 21, 2016 by Beerball

[4merper4mer]

 

 

 

This is all true--but the NFLPA likely sees him as Curt Flood--and why shouldn't they? It's an opportunity for a major victory and precedent for them. You can't see that?

 

 

Curt Flood's victory was basically one of freedom for players to decide their own future. That is oversimplified but close. Brady's situation is no such thing even with your Patriots colored glasses on. If the NFLPA wants to take away Goodell's power or part of it, the time for that is during collective bargaining. They already gave him the power he is using.

 

You are going to have to explain how Brady is realistically like Curt Flood in any way. Flood wanted freedom to market his own skills in an open market. Brady is trying to get away with cheating. Flood was questioning the underpinnings of the CBA. Brady is questioning one detail of one component of the CBA. Of than delusions of grandeur, Brady is absolutely nothing like Flood. If you think he is, you should explain.

Edited May 18, 2016 by 4merper4mer

[3rdand12]

stupid brady

[Mr. WEO]

Typical WEO.

 

There is nothing for me to walk back. My entire point is that Olson was hired as a lobbying arm. If you think the SCOTUS isn't lobbied like any other government entity, you are more naive than I thought.

 

Perhaps I should have used a different phrase than "calling in some markers" as that context isn't the best. If that confused you or suggested I meant something else, my bad.

 

Bottom line is that this case has no business going to the SCOTUS but Brady and the NFLPA are desperate and Olson is their Hail Mary. There is nothing more for me to argue on that point.

 

You will have to waste somebody else's time.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

 

There it is. So, no markers. No ":good old boy network". Just another lobbyist in DC.

 

But anyway, yeah, I don't think this case ever gets to the SC, because it really doesn't fit the criteria of cases to review.

 

That's why your claim that Ted Olson can sway the cert pool and then 4 of the justices just because his name appears on the petition for the NFLPA/Brady is even more silly than it sounds. They can't take a case that doesn't belong before them, no matter who the lawyer is.

 

But seriously, do you think that the Justices make themselves available to bend the rules to allow Ted Olson to influence their docket? Do you say this just because you "could see this happening"? And "it makes sense"?

 

 

Curt Flood's victory was basically one of freedom for players to decide their own future. That is oversimplified but close. Brady's situation is no such thing even with your Patriots colored glasses on. If the NFLPA wants to take away Goodell's power or part of it, the time for that is during collective bargaining. They already gave him the power he is using.

 

You are going to have to explain how Brady is realistically like Curt Flood in any way. Flood wanted freedom to market his own skills in an open market. Brady is trying to get away with cheating. Flood was questioning the underpinnings of the CBA. Brady is questioning one detail of one component of the CBA. Of than delusions of grandeur, Brady is absolutely nothing like Flood. If you think he is, you should explain.

 

 

Even you can understand that they see that as impossible. Now the Brady case has dropped into their laps the opportunity for the court to force the owners' hands on conceding what is not in the CBA. This is pretty easy to conceive, I think. Both Flood and this case are challenges for establishing precedent against the league.

 

You keep misdirecting the point of this case and what was argued and decided by the second circuit. The facts of the cheating were not. The method of punishment and the handling of the appeal were the issue being decided upon. I know you know that ,but you are stuck on this Brady fan thing. It really dumbs down your posts.

[K-9]

 

 

There it is. So, no markers. No ":good old boy network". Just another lobbyist in DC.

 

But anyway, yeah, I don't think this case ever gets to the SC, because it really doesn't fit the criteria of cases to review.

 

That's why your claim that Ted Olson can sway the cert pool and then 4 of the justices just because his name appears on the petition for the NFLPA/Brady is even more silly than it sounds. They can't take a case that doesn't belong before them, no matter who the lawyer is.

 

But seriously, do you think that the Justices make themselves available to bend the rules to allow Ted Olson to influence their docket? Do you say this just because you "could see this happening"? And "it makes sense"?

Oh, there is very much a good old boy network at play, especially when it comes to lawyers and judges. I don't walk that back at all.

 

Olson is anything but "just another DC lobbyist." And it's not his name on the petition, it's the phone numbers on his speed dial and the relationships he has cultivated over the decades. And it's not that they make themselves available to "bend the rules", it's that they are available to him socially. Thanks for the civics lesson, though.

 

Olson wasn't hired for anything else other than his SCOTUS experience and knowledge. If you think his experience and knowledge is limited to his arguments "in front" of the bench, fine. But you are leaning away from naivete and closer to willfully ignorant.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[4merper4mer]

 

 

 

Even you can understand that they see that as impossible. Now the Brady case has dropped into their laps the opportunity for the court to force the owners' hands on conceding what is not in the CBA. This is pretty easy to conceive, I think. Both Flood and this case are challenges for establishing precedent against the league.

 

You keep misdirecting the point of this case and what was argued and decided by the second circuit. The facts of the cheating were not. The method of punishment and the handling of the appeal were the issue being decided upon. I know you know that ,but you are stuck on this Brady fan thing. It really dumbs down your posts.

 

 

The first judge got deep into the punishment not fitting the crime and on appeal was slapped down because that didn't matter. The appeal acknowledged that the commish does in fact have that power. It was the first judge who went astray. In your haste to defend Brady you are misdirecting that point.

 

It is a reach beyond Aaron Maybinot to compare Flood and Brady. Brady is trying to strip the commish of authority to discipline. Flood affirmed rights of the individual. They really could not be any more different.

[Mr. WEO]

Oh, there is very much a good old boy network at play, especially when it comes to lawyers and judges. I don't walk that back at all.

 

Olson is anything but "just another DC lobbyist." And it's not his name on the petition, it's the phone numbers on his speed dial and the relationships he has cultivated over the decades. And it's not that they make themselves available to "bend the rules", it's that they are available to him socially. Thanks for the civics lesson, though.

 

Olson wasn't hired for anything else other than his SCOTUS experience and knowledge. If you think his experience and knowledge is limited to his arguments "in front" of the bench, fine. But you are leaning away from naivete and closer to willfully ignorant.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

 

The hole gets deeper.

 

 

Your clumsy cocktail party elbow bending with Ruth Ginsburg is fun for the unintentional hilarity (SCOTUS "on speed dial"!!), but that's pretty much it.

 

Even a guy like you has recognized that this isn't an appropriate case for the Court--so why would they hear the case? What criteria does it meet?

 

The way lawyers lobby the supreme court is through filing the writ, on the other side, filing an opposition to cert. Here's a quote form a guy who specializes in killing petitions by big corporations:

 

"Issacharoff, who was on jury duty in New York State Supreme Court Monday when he found out about the BP cert denial, said that the key to opposition briefs to convince the Supreme Court that a case isn’t worth their attention. That often means showing the justices that “no great injustice was done below,” Issacharoff said.

He said that he believes the U.S. justices and their clerks do read with more attention when they recognize the names on briefs for and against certiorari. But he also said that there’s a point of diminishing returns when the same lawyers and law firms make the same arguments on behalf of the usual pro-business suspects in corporate cases.

“In BP, some of the briefs seemed recycled from the washer litigation,” he said. “They’re like a Greek chorus."

 

 

Who was BP's lawyer in their appeal? Why, Ted Olson. And you are now saying that Olson couldn't use his "markers" and "social connections" to get the Court to even hear a case about about a 20 billion dollar settlement, yet it's certainly possible they will hear a case about a CBA beef the NFLPA has with the NFL--a case even you don't think they should hear....because it's a Ted Olson case?

 

Keep it coming man! I feel my "naivete" evaporating like the morning dew in the hot summer sun.

 

 

The first judge got deep into the punishment not fitting the crime and on appeal was slapped down because that didn't matter. The appeal acknowledged that the commish does in fact have that power. It was the first judge who went astray. In your haste to defend Brady you are misdirecting that point.

 

It is a reach beyond Aaron Maybinot to compare Flood and Brady. Brady is trying to strip the commish of authority to discipline. Flood affirmed rights of the individual. They really could not be any more different.

 

 

Actually, I haven't defended Brady on this--in fact, I just agreed with your bolded conclusion. But why let that derail your narrative, right?

 

The magnitude of what Flood and the NFLPA (this is about the CBA, stop pretending you don't know that) were/are trying achieve (getting the courts do what they were not able to do themselves) is obviously different. But, as I have said several times now, their intent is the same: a big win in federal court, where precedent would be set.

 

Brady doesn't want to be seen as a cheater, as silly as that may sound, so he will go down with this ship; he figures he has nothing to lose. But he's the Curt Flood of the longstanding problem the NFLPA has had with the NFL's punishment powers. You can only be so disingenuous on this topic...

Edited May 18, 2016 by Mr. WEO

[4merper4mer]

 

 

 

Actually, I haven't defended Brady on this--in fact, I just agreed with your bolded conclusion. But why let that derail your narrative, right?

 

The magnitude of what Flood and the NFLPA (this is about the CBA, stop pretending you don't know that) were/are trying achieve (getting the courts do what they were not able to do themselves) is obviously different. But, as I have said several times now, their intent is the same: a big win in federal court, where precedent would be set.

 

Brady doesn't want to be seen as a cheater, as silly as that may sound, so he will go down with this ship; he figures he has nothing to lose. But he's the Curt Flood of the longstanding problem the NFLPA has had with the NFL's punishment powers. You can only be so disingenuous on this topic...

 

 

Another difference is that Flood's argument made sense where Brady's does not.

 

If the commissioner of the league cannot hand out discipline, then who should do it? Before you even get to this question you'd have to make an incorrect assumption that the players din't already agree to it.

[Mr. WEO]

 

 

Another difference is that Flood's argument made sense where Brady's does not.

 

If the commissioner of the league cannot hand out discipline, then who should do it? Before you even get to this question you'd have to make an incorrect assumption that the players din't already agree to it.

 

 

There's no question as to what the players agreed to. The entire case turns on whether the NFL actually adhered to what was agreed to.

 

I was giving you too much credit earlier. It's clear you aren't familiar with what was and what is being argued in the original appeal and the Federal appeal. Come back to this after you get up to speed.

 

Or maybe you should just say "well, uh, you're a pats fan..." and close the door on your way out. It's a safer choice for you.

Edited May 18, 2016 by Mr. WEO

[K-9]

 

 

The hole gets deeper.

 

 

Your clumsy cocktail party elbow bending with Ruth Ginsburg is fun for the unintentional hilarity (SCOTUS "on speed dial"!!), but that's pretty much it.

 

Even a guy like you has recognized that this isn't an appropriate case for the Court--so why would they hear the case? What criteria does it meet?

 

The way lawyers lobby the supreme court is through filing the writ, on the other side, filing an opposition to cert. Here's a quote form a guy who specializes in killing petitions by big corporations:

 

"Issacharoff, who was on jury duty in New York State Supreme Court Monday when he found out about the BP cert denial, said that the key to opposition briefs to convince the Supreme Court that a case isn’t worth their attention. That often means showing the justices that “no great injustice was done below,” Issacharoff said.

He said that he believes the U.S. justices and their clerks do read with more attention when they recognize the names on briefs for and against certiorari. But he also said that there’s a point of diminishing returns when the same lawyers and law firms make the same arguments on behalf of the usual pro-business suspects in corporate cases.

“In BP, some of the briefs seemed recycled from the washer litigation,” he said. “They’re like a Greek chorus."

 

 

Who was BP's lawyer in their appeal? Why, Ted Olson. And you are now saying that Olson couldn't use his "markers" and "social connections" to get the Court to even hear a case about about a 20 billion dollar settlement, yet it's certainly possible they will hear a case about a CBA beef the NFLPA has with the NFL--a case even you don't think they should hear....because it's a Ted Olson case?

 

Keep it coming man! I feel my "naivete" evaporating like the morning dew in the hot summer sun.

 

 

Actually, I haven't defended Brady on this--in fact, I just agreed with your bolded conclusion. But why let that derail your narrative, right?

 

The magnitude of what Flood and the NFLPA (this is about the CBA, stop pretending you don't know that) were/are trying achieve (getting the courts do what they were not able to do themselves) is obviously different. But, as I have said several times now, their intent is the same: a big win in federal court, where precedent would be set.

 

Brady doesn't want to be seen as a cheater, as silly as that may sound, so he will go down with this ship; he figures he has nothing to lose. But he's the Curt Flood of the longstanding problem the NFLPA has had with the NFL's punishment powers. You can only be so disingenuous on this topic...

Never has anyone typed so much for so little.

 

The hole gets deeper because you are the only one digging.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Mr. WEO]

Never has anyone typed so much for so little.

 

The hole gets deeper because you are the only one digging.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

There it is. Was waiting...

[4merper4mer]

 

 

There's no question as to what the players agreed to. The entire case turns on whether the NFL actually adhered to what was agreed to.

 

I was giving you too much credit earlier. It's clear you aren't familiar with what was and what is being argued in the original appeal and the Federal appeal. Come back to this after you get up to speed.

 

Or maybe you should just say "well, uh, you're a pats fan..." and close the door on your way out. It's a safer choice for you.

 

 

Maybe that you are not familiar with the concept that the court has ruled that the NFL did adhere to the agreement.