KeaneyBlue - The URI Basketball Forum

TP, do you honestly think that a deal has been made to drop Brady's suspension?

He was the root of the whole thing. Yes the team has been punished severely, but the guy responsible doesn't get any punishment?

Anyway, if a deal was made, wouldn't it have been announced along with Kraft's statement?

Brady's constant denials should get him the suspension. Fess up, and maybe he gets it reduced.

Of course, that would ruin his reputation and also make Kraft look like an idiot, so that's not happening.

rambone 78 wrote:TP, do you honestly think that a deal has been made to drop Brady's suspension?

He was the root of the whole thing. Yes the team has been punished severely, but the guy responsible doesn't get any punishment?

Anyway, if a deal was made, wouldn't it have been announced along with Kraft's statement?

Brady's constant denials should get him the suspension. Fess up, and maybe he gets it reduced.

Of course, that would ruin his reputation and also make Kraft look like an idiot, so that's not happening.

LOLWUT? No, I don't think. The whole point was that it was "back channeled." If there was not an understanding reached, then why would Kraft give this to the league? The only thing that makes sense is that it was done with the understanding that Brady's suspension would be reduced. Otherwise, what is he getting in return for falling on his sword?

The question is whether Brady would take anything other than zero games. If he goes to court, he will win.

That's where you and I disagree. Win in court? You a lawyer? Doubt it.

Maybe he'll get it reduced to 2 games. He's getting something.

Anyway, it won't matter. The team will be fine. Well, maybe not in the defensive backfield.

I am a lawyer. Not a labor lawyer, but yes I do believe he would win in court. A trial would not determine whether an NFL rule was broken - that is the NFL's domain. A trial would determine whether the NFL violated the CBA in investigating the rule violation and enforcing discipline, which they clearly did.

TP, I didn't doubt you were a lawyer, I just doubt Brady would win in court.

Phrased it wrong.

Anyway, Brady's appeal, if heard by Goodell, won't go very far. Beyond that, is it really worth it?

rambone 78 wrote:Brady's appeal, if heard by Goodell, won't go very far. Beyond that, is it really worth it?

I think it would be more worth it for Brady to fight his than it would have been for the Patriots / Kraft to fight their fine and draft picks penalty. Especially if it's heard by Goodell. He (Brady) will have much more of a leg to stand on when he says he wants real, actual neutral party to hear his grievance. Plus, thanks to the NFLPA, players are afforded way more rights than teams to fight punishments. He has options.

If Brady is truly innocent, he should fight this as long as he can, no matter how it turns out
It's his good name and reputation that's the issue now. All his money can't replace that.

The sad thing is that people around the country have already made up their minds, one way or another, about him.

That's true. He's already been convicted in the court of public opinion, in the minds of almost everybody that's not a Pats fan.

The NFL cannot prove he knew. The problem is, Brady can't prove he didn't know either.

There is a preponderance of circumstantial evidence. That is usually enough to convict in a court of law.

That's what he's up against. I can't see him winning this.

rambone 78 wrote:That's true. He's already been convicted in the court of public opinion, in the minds of almost everybody that's not a Pats fan.

The NFL cannot prove he knew. The problem is, Brady can't prove he didn't know either.

There is a preponderance of circumstantial evidence. That is usually enough to convict in a court of law.

That's what he's up against. I can't see him winning this.

OK, but none of that goes to the heart of what the issue would be in mediation or litigation. I would make the following points in response to yours

1. Public opinion does not matter. Or at least it should not matter, but one issue in the deflategate thing is that the league cowed to a bloodthirsty public and abandoned any sense of fairness or proportionality with respect to the punishment.

2. The onus is on the accuser, not the accused, to prove their case to whatever standard is required for conviction. It is a foundational principal of Western Civilization that an accused does not have to prove his innocence.

3. While any appeal or subsequent action by Brady in response to his suspension will primarily focus on the procedural aspects of the investigation and discipline rather than on the facts and whether they tend to show his guilt or innocence, one place where those two things could overlap is if they challenge whether there is sufficient factual basis within the Wells Report to support its ultimate finding, or whether that finding was merely conclusory.

4. He actually isn't up against what you're portraying it as. He is up against a League office which is being accused of running amok over and utterly disregarding the agreement which governs all interactions between the League and its players - grounds on which the League has had its ass handed to it over and over again over the last several years. And Brady is being represented by counsel that has led most if not all of those successful challenges.

So for those reasons, as much as some football fans want and hope that Brady is completely cornered here, I actually think the least likely scenario of all is that Brady ends up sitting out four games. I'm not even arguing Brady's innocence here - I've always said that I think he probably did what he is accused of doing - I just think the League grossly overstepped in its discipline and that no neutral party that hears a challenge to that discipline would rule in the League's favor.

The discipline imposed here is equivalent to sentencing someone to 10 years in prison for running a red light. If you get caught, you should pay the penalty, provided the penalty is reasonable. Otherwise, you should fight like hell.

I still don't understand why the science aspect is being completely ignored. The footballs were set to 12.5 by the referee and measuring at halftime with the same gauge the balls were right in the middle of the expected range for balls at the outside temperature. Colts balls looked to be configured at 11psig and were also measured at the end of the halftime and their pressures were also predicted by science.

Seriously, why is everyone ignoring science and jumping to a much more complicated explanation?

The NFL's rule is stupid. All that matters is the pressure of the balls at time of referee calibration before game. Once put into play or brought to the field, atmosphere and usage dictate their measured pressures.

They permit a team to have the referee set the balls at the absolute top or bottom of the legal range pre-game, but they are ignorant to the obvious fact that the in-game and post-game pressures have every scientific reason to leave that permissible range.

Exactly ATP. And I'd love to know why the Wells Report trusts every word of Walt Anderson's testimony EXCEPT for when he said that his best recollection is he used the gauge that would indicate no tampering happened. In that case he comes up with a nonsensical excuse to ignore Anderson's testimony on this one point.

ATPTourFan wrote:I still don't understand why the science aspect is being completely ignored. The footballs were set to 12.5 by the referee and measuring at halftime with the same gauge the balls were right in the middle of the expected range for balls at the outside temperature. Colts balls looked to be configured at 11psig and were also measured at the end of the halftime and their pressures were also predicted by science.

Seriously, why is everyone ignoring science and jumping to a much more complicated explanation?

The NFL's rule is stupid. All that matters is the pressure of the balls at time of referee calibration before game. Once put into play or brought to the field, atmosphere and usage dictate their measured pressures.

They permit a team to have the referee set the balls at the absolute top or bottom of the legal range pre-game, but they are ignorant to the obvious fact that the in-game and post-game pressures have every scientific reason to leave that permissible range.

RhowdyRam02 wrote:Exactly ATP. And I'd love to know why the Wells Report trusts every word of Walt Anderson's testimony EXCEPT for when he said that his best recollection is he used the gauge that would indicate no tampering happened. In that case he comes up with a nonsensical excuse to ignore Anderson's testimony on this one point.

This is why I think the NFLPA will challenge the Wells Report conclusion on the grounds that it was not supported by the facts presented in the report and is therefore conclusory. The appeal will not get into the weeds of trying to explain, highlight or minimize every piece of evidence like the Patriots' wordpress rebuttal did, but I can't imagine that they won't argue the totality of information presented in the report may be enough on which to find reasonable suspicion, but not to meet the standard of proof required to "convict" Brady.

Is it possible that the penalty could be extended and Brady has to sit out longer if this continues? I don't know if this can be done.. Maybe someone else here does.

ramfan85 wrote:Is it possible that the penalty could be extended and Brady has to sit out longer if this continues? I don't know if this can be done.. Maybe someone else here does.

For pretty much all pro sports leagues, you usually have a window to file an appeal, and if you don't do it in that window, you lose your right. Typically, the suspension isn't imposed until either the appeal or the appeal window has been exhausted. This is more of an issue during the season, when teams are traveling and might not be able to schedule a hearing for a few weeks. (I believe Seattle gamed the system a few years ago, with players intentionally filing an appeal so that they could play against a tough team, then dropping it because a weak team was on the schedule and just serving 2 or 4 or 6 games.)

I've never heard of an appeal process adding games on to a suspension in any pro sport. Famously, Stern's disciplinary "hearing" on the year-long suspension for Ron Artest consisted of him making the decision. - http://www.insidehoops.com/conference-transcript.shtml

The only way it would be possible is if Brady presents information in an attempt to clear his name that actually reveals previously unknown violations, which result in additional discipline. It is hard to imagine that kind of miscalculation, but theoretically it is possible I guess.

ramfan85 wrote:Is it possible that the penalty could be extended and Brady has to sit out longer if this continues? I don't know if this can be done.. Maybe someone else here does.

In theory, no. With Sherrif Roger Goodell, who knows. He's done it with Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson and Greg Hardy. It's hard to predict when it comes to the level of incompetence Goodell brings to the table.

People better be careful what they wish for in regards to Brady fighting this "as far as he can go." Wouldn't it suck if he gets in the injunction to play in September, only to see his suspension upheld in November or December, right before or possibly even during the playoffs? Now that would blow, the Pats get a 2-seed and home playoff games, but here comes Jimmy G!!!!

Brady 1 NFL 0

Wonder if Goodell still plans to be here next Thursday for the opening ceremonies? He may have to wear a gorilla suit.

ramfan85 wrote:Wonder if Goodell still plans to be here next Thursday for the opening ceremonies? He may have to wear a gorilla suit.

He should at least look into wearing a helmet.

I'm so excited IDK what to do

TruePoint wrote:

ramfan85 wrote:Wonder if Goodell still plans to be here next Thursday for the opening ceremonies? He may have to wear a gorilla suit.

He should at least look into wearing a helmet.

Yes, a Colts helmet.

The NFL is throwing a concert in San Francisco Thursday night to kick off the 50th Super Bowl celebrations. If Goodell is out in public Thursday night, I'm sure he'll be out there and not in Foxboro.

Confirmed he won't be there

https://twitter.com/MikeGarafolo/status ... 6995771392

Show up, you punk.

TruePoint wrote:Show up, you punk.

I think you mixed-up your "P" words.

It's too bad Goodell won't be here. I wanted to see his face as another banner is unveiled and as his beloved Jets enter season 46 since their last appearance in a SB. I was also hoping he'd bring Mike Kensil with him.

Goodell is a wimp. What if the Pats win it all? Will he say he's not going to present the trophy so the Pats can enjoy the moment? A total embarrassment for the league.

Just don't understand why Goddell didn't bring in Eli Manning to fight against Brady. Tommy boy wouldn't have stood a chance.

Huh?

Back to this season.

Another cakewalk for the Pats in the AFC Least.

Miami is horrible. Lots of talent, no coaching. Will the coaching improve now with Philbin gone?

Buffalo, all bark [Ryan] no bite. Mediocre city.

Jets? They might be OK [Wild card?] but still no top flight QB.

Same old same old, for the most part. Same for the NFC East.

Eagles and Redskins are garbage. Giants have no pass defense and still making stupid play calls.

Cowboys have too many injuries, but they will end up winning the division as long as Romo and Bryant come back early enough.

I'm not sure if I'd want to face Buffalo in the playoffs - I think Ryan gets the most of that team, and he's proven that he can wring the most out of guys with questionable talent. But yeah, Miami looks like a superfund site right now, and the Jets probably aren't going anywhere with Geno Smith or Ryan Fitzpatrick at QB.

My concerns (at this point of the season) are Denver and the Jets. Both have great defenses. Both give the Pats trouble, especially on the road.
Denver isn't winning "pretty," but, they're winning.
The Bills are too undisciplined. They usually find a way to lose.
I think it's important that the Pats have home field for the playoffs if they get Denver. As it looks now, I expect Denver to win the regular season game. Hope I'm wrong.

ramfan85 wrote:My concerns (at this point of the season) are Denver and the Jets. Both have great defenses. Both give the Pats trouble, especially on the road.
Denver isn't winning "pretty," but, they're winning.
The Bills are too undisciplined. They usually find a way to lose.
I think it's important that the Pats have home field for the playoffs if they get Denver. As it looks now, I expect Denver to win the regular season game. Hope I'm wrong.

Eh, Denver, Peyton Manning's arm looks completely gassed. I mean, I realize people have been saying that for years and he's still gotten by on grit and planning, but it looks even worse this year and we're only in October. I can't see him beating the Patriots or other cold weather teams on the road, and it's not like Denver is warm in January either.

Pats have to be favored in every game at this point. Things need to change for other teams to be more formadible.

Anyone catch the ESPN article pointing out that BB stocked up the D line on run stuffers to take on the next 4 games.

Patriots are just playing a different game.

As long as that coaching staff remains there, their system works.

Even if Brady went down for a length of time, does anyone think they would fall apart?

Remember when Cassill took over for a season? They went 11-5 and somehow missed the playoffs.

He has been dreck ever since he left the team.

The Pats bring in journeymen, and make stars out of them, somehow.

Other than the fact they push the limits when it comes to the rules sometimes, you have to respect their success.

Their time will come [when they will suck] but I don't think that will happen anytime soon.

No team has been better than the Pats at bringing in role playing free agents. They haven't been good with the "big name" free agents, though.
They also seem able to make anybody a productive offensive lineman and running back.
That secondary still scares the hell out of me.
They may have the 2 best qb's in the division.

ramfan85 wrote:No team has been better than the Pats at bringing in role playing free agents. They haven't been good with the "big name" free agents, though.

Especially in the NFL, but with all pro sports, "big name" free agency is normally a bad idea - you're almost always paying for the downside of a player's career. While the Pats have had their missteps like every other team, they've managed to minimize them by 1) not going into that pool as much and 2) not getting sentimental when it comes to their own players.

True. That's why there are so few trades in the NFL. Longevity just isn't there.

ramfan85 wrote:True. That's why there are so few trades in the NFL. Longevity just isn't there.

Yeah. Plus, since most contracts except for quarterbacks are non-guarantee, it tends to deflate a player's trade value. That, and the short shelf life of many players, because of the injury risk.

Also, teams are so scheme specific and the value of a player is directly tied to how he would fit into a given system. It isn't like baseball, where theoretically a guy should basically be the same player no matter which team he plays for (putting aside some factors like ballparks and lineup protection). Just look at DeMarco Murray. There is too much variance in how teams value players to find great fits for trades, especially when you factor in that it also has to be a fit from a salary cap perspective for both teams. There aren't a lot of trades because those two factors line up to the satisfaction of both teams so rarely.

ramfan85 wrote:My concerns (at this point of the season) are Denver and the Jets. Both have great defenses. Both give the Pats trouble, especially on the road.
Denver isn't winning "pretty," but, they're winning.
The Bills are too undisciplined. They usually find a way to lose.
I think it's important that the Pats have home field for the playoffs if they get Denver. As it looks now, I expect Denver to win the regular season game. Hope I'm wrong.

They could do a DirectTV commercial with "regular season Peyton Manning" and "playoff Peyton Manning" or "warm weather/dome Peyton Manning" and "cold weather Peyton Manning." Peyton has not been good so far, but he has at least been good enough. I shutter to think what he will look like playing outside in January at this point after a full season of the grind and getting hit. The Jets are quarterbacked by Ryan Fitzpatrick. I suppose either of those teams could beat the Patriots in the regular season, but give me a healthy Gronk and Brady and it is hard for me to see the Patriots not coming out of the AFC.

This might seem obvious, but how do Pats receivers [especially Gronk] continually get wide open in the 2-3 seconds it takes for Brady to get rid of the ball?

Because no one chucks them at the line anymore? Zone coverage? Cover 2 or whatever that means?

Teams who can play a physical man to man defense, are the only ones who can slow them down.

I thought Buffalo would, but no...the Jets? They probably will, and that's why they give the Pats fits more than anyone else....

I know, I know, you have to have the personnel to do this....you would think the rest of the league would have figured this out by now?

Especially since the Pats really don't have deep threats, and Brady is scared to death to hold the ball too long....

I'm really lovin' this season. God must be a Pats fan. They're undefeated and the Colts and Ravens are having their worst season in years.
Like most Pats fans, I was hoping for a blowout against the Colts. But, the way the game played out may have been even better. Now they're the laughing stock of the league. Still, they'll probably win their division. Maybe they'll be coming to New England in January. A perfect time for that blowout.
Also enjoying the Cowboys. Hardy's been eligible for 2 weeks. In that time, he's insulted Brady's family and started a fight with his coaches and team. Yet, Jones says "publicly" that he loves him. What a circus....

The Giants were robbed. How they could call that pass to Beckham incomplete is a freaking joke. He had BOTH feet down before the ball came loose.

Must be nice to be so good that the refs are in their back pocket too. The Pat's that is.

What a stupid rule. Of course, if the kid had hung on to that would-be interception it wouldn't have mattered.

Oh, and double covering Amendola on that last drive would have been nice, too. He and Gronk were the only guys Brady was throwing to late in that game.

But any more injuries to their receiving corps, and the Pats will be in trouble come playoff time....

rambone 78 wrote:The Giants were robbed. How they could call that pass to Beckham incomplete is a freaking joke. He had BOTH feet down before the ball came loose.

Must be nice to be so good that the refs are in their back pocket too. The Pat's that is.

What a stupid rule. Of course, if the kid had hung on to that would-be interception it wouldn't have mattered.

Oh, and double covering Amendola on that last drive would have been nice, too. He and Gronk were the only guys Brady was throwing to late in that game.

But any more injuries to their receiving corps, and the Pats will be in trouble come playoff time....

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the Beckham catch. I thought there was no way that should be ruled a completion.

rambone 78 wrote:The Giants were robbed. How they could call that pass to Beckham incomplete is a freaking joke. He had BOTH feet down before the ball came loose.

Must be nice to be so good that the refs are in their back pocket too. The Pat's that is.

Are you new to football or do you just not pay that much attention to the rules? That was not a catch, it shouldn't have been a catch, it never would have been a catch under previous rules, and it never will be a catch under future rules. The catch/no-catch rules do need some work, but no change to the rule will make that play a catch. Believe, if there was any conceivable way that play could have been ruled a TD it would have been - the officials did everything they could to take that game from New England, to the point that I was genuinely curious if John Mara had thrown the yellow flag onto the field from his box on the Malcolm Butler PI call.

You mean both teams fans think the refs were against them? No way!!