26CornerBlitz Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 Where's the irreparable harm? It's a job, and Brady* is being suspended without pay for four weeks. If the unthinkable happens and SCOTUS reverses the suspension, Brady* can be paid for his losses. The games won't matter to Ginsburg. The case wasn't even heard by a full US District Court via en banc. No chance the SCOTUS takes this case. It's over! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 The case wasn't even heard by a full US District Court via en banc. No chance the SCOTUS takes this case. It's over! The possibility of being granted a stay until the court declares they won't hear the case is very high. Ted Olsen is working the phones as we speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 The possibility of being granted a stay until the court declares they won't hear the case is very high. Ted Olsen is working the phones as we speak. I do not see any basis for the court to consider taking the case given what has already happened, but good luck with that Ted. OK well not really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 I do not see any basis for the court to consider taking the case given what has already happened, but good luck with that Ted. OK well not really. Oh, there is no way the court agrees to hear the case. But granting a stay until they make that official is a likely outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 (edited) Oh, there is no way the court agrees to hear the case. But granting a stay until they make that official is a likely outcome. Possible, but how long do you think they'd take to decide not hear his case? Edited July 15, 2016 by 26CornerBlitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave in Avon Lake now Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 Brady is a friend of Trump and Ginsburg hates Trump. ergo no stay! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 Possible, but how long do you think they'd take to decide not to hear his case? Depends how long Ted Olsen works the phones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobillsinytown Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 I think he's going to lose four games, but it may not be this year. I also think I got into the wrong business: Can you imagine being one of his lawyers? He's got plenty of money and doesn't seem to spare any expense. I bet some of the people on his legal team are going to get their normal year's salary on just this one case! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 (edited) In other words, what if the Supreme Court ultimately heard the case and overturned the ruling after Brady was forced to serve his suspension? “Once he loses four games off 2016, it doesn’t matter what happens at the Supreme Court afterwards,” Wallach said. “He could win big, but he’ll never be able to recapture the lost games. And that is his most compelling argument for a stay, and I think it’s one that’s going to be received favorably by Justice Ginsburg.” http://nesn.com/2016/07/sports-law-attorney-tom-brady-likely-will-play-for-patriots-weeks-1-4/ And what of the damage it does to the authority of the NFL and its commissioner? The case is cut and dry. Goodell is within his authority to suspend Brady. All a stay does is subvert that authority. Edited July 14, 2016 by PromoTheRobot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinceFerragamo Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 I find it funny that every year, there's a new reason why the Pats will fall. I've heard it all. They have no defense, no running game, too many injuries, Brady is getting old or has nobody to throw to. This year it's Brady's suspension. Yet, nothing changes, year after year, they win the AFC East. Plain and simple. It's a plug and play system, and yes Brady is one of the best ever, but I'm telling you they will win the division again and keep doing so as long as BB and TB (to a lesser extent) are there. It kills me to say it, but it's the truth. you are getting older. You dont think Brady is too? the down slide started last year, they lost to a team with no offense in AFC champ game. you are right but maybe not entirely...the improbable will happen and theyll be on the cusp of a wildcard birth the last game of the season on their way to a 11-5 or 10-6 record against the Bills winning the division or getting a wildcard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 15, 2016 Share Posted July 15, 2016 Possible, but how long do you think they'd take to decide not to hear his case? Couple of days, maybe. If he's got a really good lawyer, he might get a stay of as long as 150 days - as long as it takes to petition, plus an extension, plus a couple of days for the petition to be laughed out of court. I wouldn't mind that, since that puts the suspension in a mid-January time frame, and he's either 1) out of the playoffs, or 2) suspended for late rounds of the playoffs. Odds are he'll get a stay just long enough for the court to tell him to !@#$ off (in lawyerese, of course), because there's absolutely no compelling public importance to this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincec Posted July 15, 2016 Share Posted July 15, 2016 I think his point, which I find valid, is that if one is going to judge a HC's career - especially one that spans an entire era - one must judge said career based on the entire body of work. Except that comparing the first two seasons of Bill Walsh without Montana as the starter with Belichick's seven seasons without Brady is not valid. Seven seasons is a career in the NFL and he has had 5 losing seasons out of 7 including his first 6 in a row before Brady came on as the starter. Maybe if Walsh had 5 or 6 losing seasons before stumbling upon Montana it would be more applicable but that was not the case. That was the point I was trying to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted July 15, 2016 Share Posted July 15, 2016 No she needs to hang on a little longer. She hates trump and vice versa OOPs just saw your post Dave ! Trump filling Ginsberg's seat would be delicious irony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted July 15, 2016 Author Share Posted July 15, 2016 you are getting older. You dont think Brady is too? the down slide started last year, they lost to a team with no offense in AFC champ game. you are right but maybe not entirely...the improbable will happen and theyll be on the cusp of a wildcard birth the last game of the season on their way to a 11-5 or 10-6 record against the Bills winning the division or getting a wildcard. Cam Newton is getting old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinceFerragamo Posted July 15, 2016 Share Posted July 15, 2016 Cam Newton is getting old. in his case it doesnt matter. I dont care if they make the playoffs this year because they are never getting back to the SB any time soon. This year Atlanta wins the division and Minn. is a better team built like Seattle and Carolina. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted July 15, 2016 Share Posted July 15, 2016 Except that comparing the first two seasons of Bill Walsh without Montana as the starter with Belichick's seven seasons without Brady is not valid. Seven seasons is a career in the NFL and he has had 5 losing seasons out of 7 including his first 6 in a row before Brady came on as the starter. Maybe if Walsh had 5 or 6 losing seasons before stumbling upon Montana it would be more applicable but that was not the case. That was the point I was trying to make. It's a valid point and thank you for clarifying. However, I think it's fair to say that comparing the 49ers and the Browns during those years is apples/oranges. Yes, if BB never became a HC again after those seasons, then his legacy would be a hell of a lot different. That's why I think it's important that we all look at the complete bodies of work when comparing head coaches. For those coaches with long careers, cases are going to be made for the team's talent level, opposing teams' schedules, etc. But in the end, when you look at the overall results, they're impressive. And all of them have years that were stinkers. But if they were stinkers because of them (primarily, anyway), then I believe the overall results would indicate that. Clearly, BB's overall results don't. And clearly, it's got a lot to do with Brady. But - equally as clearly - elite QBs have a lot to do with every head coach in the GOAT discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted July 15, 2016 Share Posted July 15, 2016 Trump filling Ginsberg's seat would be delicious irony.Are you a member of a doomsday cult? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted July 15, 2016 Author Share Posted July 15, 2016 in his case it doesnt matter. I dont care if they make the playoffs this year because they are never getting back to the SB any time soon. This year Atlanta wins the division and Minn. is a better team built like Seattle and Carolina. No, in his case, it shows your logic is as flimsy as ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 15, 2016 Share Posted July 15, 2016 Cam Newton is getting old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted July 15, 2016 Share Posted July 15, 2016 @JasonColeBR Tom Brady announces on Facebook he will no longer fight legal process in Deflategate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts