#DeflateGate (Court of Appeals Reinstates Suspension)

[mahonedog88]

This release of info from each camp just keeps going back and forth.  While I still think Brady destroying his phone either on the day or a few days leading up to the interview is INCREDIBLY incriminating, I will say that Florio's new piece on profootballtalk enlightens me and only makes this story even more ridiculous

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/28/brady-offered-to-help-nfl-gather-missing-text-messages/

Basically, Brady admitted that he destroyed the phone and explained it away by saying he destroys and gets a new phone about every 4-5 months.  However, Brady offered to give investigators a spreadsheet of the contacts and phone numbers from the relevant time period and they could track them down that way...but the league refused to go down that road.  Not to mention, they already went through the phones of the two equipment guys and found no direct evidence linking Brady.

He points out that the fact that "Brady destroyed his cellphone" was really all the NFL needed to win in the court of public opinion.  He's basically equating it to the leaked original report of "11 of 12 balls were 2 pounds underweight" which was eventually proven false.  But it didn't matter.  That was the first report the public heard, it's what they clinged to, and anything else that came out after the fact really didn't matter.  Now, all people are going to hear and know is "Brady destroyed his cellphone"...now unlike the Mortenson report, this is actually true, he really did destroy his cellphone.  But even with Brady's reasoning behind it and still offering a spreadsheet of phone numbers, it doesn't matter because the first thing people heard was "Brady destroyed his cellphone".  It's what they heard, it's what they're gonna cling to, and anything that comes out now after the fact doesn't matter.

[D.o.s.]

But that doesn't matter, particularly if the NLFPA wins the suit.

Wade from Brockton is not going to burn his Brady jersey because Taaaaawmmmy destroyed his cell phone. Frank in Carmel is going to want to see the Colts beat the Pats with Brady because "then they'd know they could wrangle with anybody."

etc. No one is going to stop watching football because of this, and that's all the NFL cares about.

[mahonedog88]

But that doesn't matter, particularly if the NLFPA wins the suit.

Wade from Brockton is not going to burn his Brady jersey because Taaaaawmmmy destroyed his cell phone. Frank in Carmel is going to want to see the Colts beat the Pats with Brady because "then they'd know they could wrangle with anybody."

etc. No one is going to stop watching football because of this, and that's all the NFL cares about.

When did I ever say people would stop watching football?  And pre-Ray Rice, yes I'd agree that's all they cared about.  Not anymore.  The Ray Rice fiasco was sort of a line in NFL history...they absolutely care about their public image now given what a cluster this past season has been through now.

[D.o.s.]

We've already had this conversation. A) the NFL cared about it's image well before the Rice scandal, B) no, they don't see this is a massively damaging PR issue it's just a perfect storm of their double-standard in dolling out punishment.

Did you notice any outcry when the Greg Hardy suspension got reduced? Probably not, because they dumped the news on a Friday when no one was going to be paying attention. If the NFL "really cared" about their public image they wouldn't have given Hardy the same punishment they're giving Brady.

The fact that you think this is the moral and ethical hill Goodell wants to die on because of PR is wrong. This is just a situation where Goodell assumed he'd be able to get away with hitting Brady with 1-2 games and the Patriots would take it on the chin (and they would have, we saw that with Kraft's statement about not suing the league). The fact that some owners decided to press for a full four games and the fact that Brady wasn't going to accept anything other than a total revocation of the suspension forced the Ginger Hammer's hand.

[mahonedog88]

We've already had this conversation. A) the NFL cared about it's image well before the Rice scandal, B) no, they don't see this is a massively damaging PR issue it's just a perfect storm of their double-standard in dolling out punishment.

Did you notice any outcry when the Greg Hardy suspension got reduced? Probably not, because they dumped the news on a Friday when no one was going to be paying attention. If the NFL "really cared" about their public image they wouldn't have given Hardy the same punishment they're giving Brady.

The fact that you think this is the moral and ethical hill Goodell wants to die on because of PR is wrong. This is just a situation where Goodell assumed he'd be able to get away with hitting Brady with 1-2 games and the Patriots would take it on the chin (and they would have, we saw that with Kraft's statement about not suing the league). The fact that some owners decided to press for a full four games and the fact that Brady wasn't going to accept anything other than a total revocation of the suspension forced his hand.

First of all, are you allergic to the quote button on this blog?  You never ever use it.  Second of all, we're just gonna continue to agree to disagree on this.  PR matters when it comes to the Patriots.  Goodell knows the other owners are sick of the Patriots and that they think the Pats ultimately skated on spygate and weren't properly punished for it.

If Goodell reduces this to 1 or 2 games, immediately public opinion shifts to the fact that Goodell is in Robert Kraft's back pocket, that the Patriots are "above the shield", the Patriots run the league etc.  The last thing Goodell needs is the perception of one team being favored over the others in punishments.  He needs the public to know and believe that the Patriots are on the same level as every other team, which up until this ruling, a lot of owners and fans doubted.  But again, we're gonna agree to disagree.

[D.o.s.]

No reason to use the quote function when replying to a post that's directly above, IMO. I use it to excess in other threads, as some will almost certainly vouch.

Regardless, what you're talking about is just Goodell measuring his special bits -- I agree, he probably feels he "needs" to do it (i.e. go to court) because he's a moron who thinks these things are important, in the "the players must respect the shield" sort of way.

But, again, this is the league that cut Greg Hardy's suspension in half (edit: more than half) when it became clear that it wasn't going to cause a Rice-level uproar. This is the most cynical sports entity on the planet, save maybe FIFA, and they very much only care about fallout insofar as it might effect their bottom line. They pretty clearly don't care about "the integrity of the game" or "some of our players are totally despicable", they mostly care about "respect mah authoritah" and stealing people's money.


Remember, Goodell had offered a 1-2 game suspension reduction to Brady. How does that fit with your narrative in the slightest? Answer: it doesn't.

[mahonedog88]

No reason to use the quote function when replying to a post that's directly above, IMO. I use it to excess in other threads, as some will almost certainly vouch.

Regardless, what you're talking about is just Goodell measuring his special bits -- I agree, he probably feels he "needs" to do it because he's a moron who thinks these things are important, in the "the players must respect the shield" sort of way.

But, again, this is the league that cut Greg Hardy's suspension in half (edit: more than half) when it became clear that it wasn't going to cause a Rice-level uproar. This is the most cynical sports entity on the planet, save maybe FIFA, and they very much only care about fallout insofar as it might effect their bottom line. They pretty clearly don't care about "the integrity of the game" or "some of our players are totally despicable", they mostly care about "respect mah authoritah" and stealing people's money.


Remember, Goodell had offered a 1-2 game suspension reduction to Brady. How does that fit with your narrative in the slightest? Answer: it doesn't.

Well this is where it all depends on which report you believe, because NFLPA spokesperson George Attalah has come out and said any report of a deal involving reducing the suspension as long as Brady admits guilt is completely false.  So does that fit my narrative?  Answer: Yup

[D.o.s.]

So you think Florio's sources were lying about this even though you've cited Pro Football Talk for other aspects of this investigation and are instead relying on the word of a person who stands to lose out professionally should the NFL and Brady settle. Just checking.

Here's a good break down of this situation.
http://larrybrownsports.com/football/tom-brady-nfl-settlement-1-game-suspension/268687

Rather, you're basing it all on a tweet from this guy:
 

“With respect to the report this morning, not sure I can share more on that. I wish I could provide more details,” Atallah said. “I know we’re all anxious for some sort of a decision here as training camps open up next week. As far as the specifics of who offered a settlement, was a settlement offered, I wish I could provide more. The only thing I can say is, we’re looking forward to getting some closure on this sometime soon.”

Atallah said that the kinds of settlement talks that reportedly went on with Brady are “part of the normal course of how we do business” in order to avoid court battles.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/23/george-atallah-on-brady-settlement-talks-i-wish-i-could-provide-more-details/

Of course, it's possible that you could be right, and that Brady was never going to take a one game suspension, but if that's the case all these reporters were relying on one source (possible and unlikely) and not checking it against anything else, while the NFL stayed mum on the matter. It's just not nearly as likely unless you, like Mulder, want to believe.

[mahonedog88]

From CNN:

'NFLPA spokesman George Atallah told CNN's Rachel Nichols that media reports claiming the NFL offered to drop Brady's suspension are "categorically false."'

Just going by what I read

[D.o.s.]

What you read devoid of context about who these people are and what their role in the process is*.

Again, this is the NFLPA (edit: whoops! assistant) executive director. What do you think he's going to say after the league and Brady failed to come to a common agreement and his organization is getting ready to launch a lawsuit on the quarterback's behalf?

[mahonedog88]

So you think Florio's sources were lying about this even though you've cited Pro Football Talk for other aspects of this investigation and are instead relying on the word of a person who stands to lose out professionally should the NFL and Brady settle. Just checking.

Here's a good break down of this situation.
http://larrybrownsports.com/football/tom-brady-nfl-settlement-1-game-suspension/268687

Rather, you're basing it all on a tweet from this guy:
 

“With respect to the report this morning, not sure I can share more on that. I wish I could provide more details,” Atallah said. “I know we’re all anxious for some sort of a decision here as training camps open up next week. As far as the specifics of who offered a settlement, was a settlement offered, I wish I could provide more. The only thing I can say is, we’re looking forward to getting some closure on this sometime soon.”

Atallah said that the kinds of settlement talks that reportedly went on with Brady are “part of the normal course of how we do business” in order to avoid court battles.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/23/george-atallah-on-brady-settlement-talks-i-wish-i-could-provide-more-details/

Of course, it's possible that you could be right, and that Brady was never going to take a one game suspension, but if that's the case all these reporters were relying on one source (possible and unlikely) and not checking it against anything else, while the NFL stayed mum on the matter.

But this conversation we're having about sources just shows how much of a cluster this whole situation has become.  Heck, the NFL, even though it's been proven to not be true, has STILL not technically refute the original Mortenson report.  It's never been taken down, it's still up for people to read, a 100% totally false report.

[colincb]

No reason to use the quote function when replying to a post that's directly above, IMO. I use it to excess in other threads, as some will almost certainly vouch.

Regardless, what you're talking about is just Goodell measuring his special bits -- I agree, he probably feels he "needs" to do it because he's a moron who thinks these things are important, in the "the players must respect the shield" sort of way.

But, again, this is the league that cut Greg Hardy's suspension in half (edit: more than half) when it became clear that it wasn't going to cause a Rice-level uproar. This is the most cynical sports entity on the planet, save maybe FIFA, and they very much only care about fallout insofar as it might effect their bottom line. They pretty clearly don't care about "the integrity of the game" or "some of our players are totally despicable", they mostly care about "respect mah authoritah" and stealing people's money.


Remember, Goodell had offered a 1-2 game suspension reduction to Brady. How does that fit with your narrative in the slightest? Answer: it doesn't.

Well this is where it all depends on which report you believe, because NFLPA spokesperson George Attalah has come out and said any report of a deal involving reducing the suspension as long as Brady admits guilt is completely false.  So does that fit my narrative?  Answer: Yup

Link? This is what he tweeted today and it's not equivalent:

https://twitter.com/georgeatallah

Any report that suggests two sides were coming close on a settlement in the Brady matter is rubbish. Plain and simple, rubbish.

[D.o.s.]

edit: I'm an idiot and totally misread your post. Sorry!

[D.o.s.]

So you think Florio's sources were lying about this even though you've cited Pro Football Talk for other aspects of this investigation and are instead relying on the word of a person who stands to lose out professionally should the NFL and Brady settle. Just checking.

Here's a good break down of this situation.
http://larrybrownsports.com/football/tom-brady-nfl-settlement-1-game-suspension/268687

Rather, you're basing it all on a tweet from this guy:
 

“With respect to the report this morning, not sure I can share more on that. I wish I could provide more details,” Atallah said. “I know we’re all anxious for some sort of a decision here as training camps open up next week. As far as the specifics of who offered a settlement, was a settlement offered, I wish I could provide more. The only thing I can say is, we’re looking forward to getting some closure on this sometime soon.”

Atallah said that the kinds of settlement talks that reportedly went on with Brady are “part of the normal course of how we do business” in order to avoid court battles.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/23/george-atallah-on-brady-settlement-talks-i-wish-i-could-provide-more-details/

Of course, it's possible that you could be right, and that Brady was never going to take a one game suspension, but if that's the case all these reporters were relying on one source (possible and unlikely) and not checking it against anything else, while the NFL stayed mum on the matter.

But this conversation we're having about sources just shows how much of a cluster this whole situation has become.  Heck, the NFL, even though it's been proven to not be true, has STILL not technically refute the original Mortenson report.  It's never been taken down, it's still up for people to read, a 100% totally false report.

It's just posturing in preparation for another draining lawsuit, IMO. Something the NFL would have surely avoided. I'm not sure that I believe that sealing the records was the only sticking point, but I definitely believe the NFL would have been agitating for a reduced sentence after an admission of guilt and an apology from Brady -- and there is an absence of evidence from the opposing side save that one tweet, which is suspect for reasons already listed.

[D.o.s.]

However, this is a sidetrack (this whole thing is a sidetrack, but whatever). The original point I was trying to make was that the prospective PR fallout of "Brady destroyed his cell phone!" is being over blown in this thread.

Apologies for the digression.