Patriots Weirdos

Forum rules
"The opinions expressed on this board are property of the poster and do not reflect the opinion of EagleOutsider, Boston College or Boston College Athletics"

Re: Patriots Weirdos

Postby EagleDave on Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:42 pm

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
EagleDave {l Wrote}:
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
flyingelvii {l Wrote}:So why is the phone piece important? Don't disagree that it's suspect. Just seems like a total red herring.


I think the NFL would say that it supports the failure to cooperate aspect of the punishment. I am not familiar with the CBA, but i have always been under the impression that the failure to cooperate was Goodell's perceived escape pod from the total disaster that is the unsupported and conclusory Wells Report.


What gets me here is that, yes, the "non cooperation" aspect of this counts as merit in Goodell's kangaroo court where public opinion is more important than, you know, facts...but it often doesn't in an actual court room where things like evidence and facts are a thing. So, if you know pretty much to a certainty that this will end up in court, why hang your hat on something like this?


What choice did he have? It's not like he wanted to hang his hat on the Wells Report, and Brady refused to cooperate.


The choice was to bite the bullet, let it go at 1 game and a fine and be done with it. Now things will get REALLY ugly, particularly if an injunction gets handed down (likely).
Is this the 5 o'clock free crack giveaway?
User avatar
EagleDave
Merkert Hall
 
Posts: 3832
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 11:09 am
Location: Bridgewater, MA
Karma: 359

Re: Patriots Weirdos

Postby twballgame9 on Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:50 pm

EagleDave {l Wrote}:
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
EagleDave {l Wrote}:
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
flyingelvii {l Wrote}:So why is the phone piece important? Don't disagree that it's suspect. Just seems like a total red herring.


I think the NFL would say that it supports the failure to cooperate aspect of the punishment. I am not familiar with the CBA, but i have always been under the impression that the failure to cooperate was Goodell's perceived escape pod from the total disaster that is the unsupported and conclusory Wells Report.


What gets me here is that, yes, the "non cooperation" aspect of this counts as merit in Goodell's kangaroo court where public opinion is more important than, you know, facts...but it often doesn't in an actual court room where things like evidence and facts are a thing. So, if you know pretty much to a certainty that this will end up in court, why hang your hat on something like this?


What choice did he have? It's not like he wanted to hang his hat on the Wells Report, and Brady refused to cooperate.


The choice was to bite the bullet, let it go at 1 game and a fine and be done with it. Now things will get REALLY ugly, particularly if an injunction gets handed down (likely).


The majority of the people that pay his salary didn't want that. Goodell lost this war the minute he hired a law firm to investigate it instead of just saying "We don't know because Anderson didn't measure, so slap on the wrist, fine, dont' do it again, new policy regarding balls." If it hadn't been the Patriots, that's exactly what he would have done.
"We remind everyone that Boston College fired a perfectly good coach because he went on a job interview, and deserves all of this." Spencer Hall
User avatar
twballgame9
BC Guy
 
Posts: 34374
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:49 am
Karma: 2489

Re: Patriots Weirdos

Postby eagle9903 on Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:56 pm

twballgame9 {l Wrote}: I am not familiar with the CBA.


CBA, Schmmeeee Bee Ayyyyy
domingoortiz
eepstein0
corporal funishment
innocentbystander
davidgordonswang
maybe hansen
User avatar
eagle9903
Fulton Hall
 
Posts: 14311
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 1:16 pm
Karma: 1728

Re: Patriots Weirdos

Postby DavidGordonsFoot on Tue Jul 28, 2015 3:03 pm

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:
twballgame9 {l Wrote}: I am not familiar with the CBA.


CBA, Schmmeeee Bee Ayyyyy

If I knew the terms of the CBA, I'd be on a beach somewhere! [laughs]
hello
User avatar
DavidGordonsFoot
Gasson Hall
 
Posts: 15042
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 11:56 pm
Location: Not tobaccoroad
Karma: 2942

Re: Patriots Weirdos

Postby hansen on Tue Jul 28, 2015 3:05 pm

Goodell wanted to reduce the penalty but a majority of the owners refused to let him do so.
HANSENPOST :shrug

Image
User avatar
hansen
Gasson Hall
 
Posts: 19047
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Your Mom’s House
Karma: -2237

Re: Patriots Weirdos

Postby eagle9903 on Tue Jul 28, 2015 3:06 pm

DavidGordonsFoot {l Wrote}:
eagle9903 {l Wrote}:
twballgame9 {l Wrote}: I am not familiar with the CBA.


CBA, Schmmeeee Bee Ayyyyy

If I knew the terms of the CBA, I'd be on a beach somewhere! [laughs]


I can't get my brief submitted on time, I have an appearance in Hingham Juvenile Court this weekend.
domingoortiz
eepstein0
corporal funishment
innocentbystander
davidgordonswang
maybe hansen
User avatar
eagle9903
Fulton Hall
 
Posts: 14311
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 1:16 pm
Karma: 1728

Re: Patriots Weirdos

Postby twballgame9 on Tue Jul 28, 2015 4:01 pm

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:
DavidGordonsFoot {l Wrote}:
eagle9903 {l Wrote}:
twballgame9 {l Wrote}: I am not familiar with the CBA.


CBA, Schmmeeee Bee Ayyyyy

If I knew the terms of the CBA, I'd be on a beach somewhere! [laughs]


I can't get my brief submitted on time, I have an appearance in Hingham Juvenile Court this weekend.


You hit one out of the little league park!
"We remind everyone that Boston College fired a perfectly good coach because he went on a job interview, and deserves all of this." Spencer Hall
User avatar
twballgame9
BC Guy
 
Posts: 34374
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:49 am
Karma: 2489

Re: Patriots Weirdos

Postby twballgame9 on Tue Jul 28, 2015 4:19 pm

Well the NFL won the race to the courthouse. Goodell 2, Brady/NFLPA 0
"We remind everyone that Boston College fired a perfectly good coach because he went on a job interview, and deserves all of this." Spencer Hall
User avatar
twballgame9
BC Guy
 
Posts: 34374
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:49 am
Karma: 2489

Re: Patriots Weirdos

Postby gallopingghost on Tue Jul 28, 2015 5:27 pm

hansen {l Wrote}:Goodell wanted to reduce the penalty but a majority two of the owners refused to let him do so.


Fixed
User avatar
gallopingghost
Cushing Hall
 
Posts: 2221
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:08 pm
Karma: 264

Re: Patriots Weirdos

Postby DomingoOrtiz on Tue Jul 28, 2015 5:45 pm

gallopingghost {l Wrote}:
hansen {l Wrote}:Goodell wanted to reduce the penalty but a majority two of the owners refused to let him do so.


Fixed


Game 4 is against Jerry Jones' Cowboys.
DomingoOrtiz
Lyons Hall
 
Posts: 9993
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:39 am
Location: El Barrio
Karma: 234

Re: Patriots Weirdos

Postby BCEagles25 on Tue Jul 28, 2015 6:38 pm

twballgame9 {l Wrote}: If it hadn't been the Patriots, that's exactly what he would have done.


I did not expect this victim mentality out of you, Sir Theodore.

EDIT: It's also Brady's fault. This didn't have to be such a big deal, but some analyst on ESPN said something along the lines of: if he had just said "Yeah, I like my footballs to be a little on the under-inflated side of the spectrum within the rules, and one must have just been too under-inflated, my bad it won't happen again" there would be almost no penalty and it would certainly be over by now. And I agree. But he was sketchy about it and when the league probed a little bit he acted aloof and somewhat defiant about the whole matter.
I like BC basketball.
User avatar
BCEagles25
Higgins Hall
 
Posts: 4566
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2009 12:42 pm
Karma: 121

Re: Patriots Weirdos

Postby flyingelvii on Tue Jul 28, 2015 9:10 pm

I'm still waiting on Mort to retract his 11 of 12 were significantly under inflated tweet. Which basically set off the firestorm. I don't think the Pats theory from above is far off. Why this was significantly different and drastically more severe than the Panthers/Vikings situation, I would love to know.
flyingelvii
Higgins Hall
 
Posts: 5871
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 3:28 pm
Karma: -50

Re: Patriots Weirdos

Postby hansen on Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:28 pm

gallopingghost {l Wrote}:
hansen {l Wrote}:Goodell wanted to reduce the penalty but a majority two of the owners refused to let him do so.


Fixed


CNN/SI reported it was a majority. Whether their source is credible, I don't know but I wouldn't doubt it.
HANSENPOST :shrug

Image
User avatar
hansen
Gasson Hall
 
Posts: 19047
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Your Mom’s House
Karma: -2237

Re: Patriots Weirdos

Postby twballgame9 on Wed Jul 29, 2015 8:47 am

BCEagles25 {l Wrote}:
twballgame9 {l Wrote}: If it hadn't been the Patriots, that's exactly what he would have done.


I did not expect this victim mentality out of you, Sir Theodore.

EDIT: It's also Brady's fault. This didn't have to be such a big deal, but some analyst on ESPN said something along the lines of: if he had just said "Yeah, I like my footballs to be a little on the under-inflated side of the spectrum within the rules, and one must have just been too under-inflated, my bad it won't happen again" there would be almost no penalty and it would certainly be over by now. And I agree. But he was sketchy about it and when the league probed a little bit he acted aloof and somewhat defiant about the whole matter.


It's pretty much fact that if this were Aaron Rodgers and the Green Bay Chokers, there would have been a fine.

That said, I said on this very board months ago that Brady should have owned it and they would have gotten little to nothing.
"We remind everyone that Boston College fired a perfectly good coach because he went on a job interview, and deserves all of this." Spencer Hall
User avatar
twballgame9
BC Guy
 
Posts: 34374
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:49 am
Karma: 2489

Re: Patriots Weirdos

Postby eagle9903 on Wed Jul 29, 2015 8:49 am

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:It's pretty much fact that if this were Aaron Rodgers and the Green Bay Chokers, there would have been a fine.


Right, because the NFL didn't sweep the Packer prior actual cheating and more egregious evidence destruction under the rug only to get smacked upside the head with more shenanigans later on.
domingoortiz
eepstein0
corporal funishment
innocentbystander
davidgordonswang
maybe hansen
User avatar
eagle9903
Fulton Hall
 
Posts: 14311
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 1:16 pm
Karma: 1728

Re: Patriots Weirdos

Postby timmy tim on Wed Jul 29, 2015 8:52 am

Will Brady's statement about the cellphone hold up in court?
timmy tim
n00b
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 2:47 pm
Karma: 0

Re: Patriots Weirdos

Postby twballgame9 on Wed Jul 29, 2015 8:53 am

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:If Brady had admitted in in a sheepish voice and said, "like all QBs I have been doing this my whole career and the NFL is complicit because it wants offense," the 15 minutes for this contrived controversy would have been up at about 6:15 last night.
"We remind everyone that Boston College fired a perfectly good coach because he went on a job interview, and deserves all of this." Spencer Hall
User avatar
twballgame9
BC Guy
 
Posts: 34374
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:49 am
Karma: 2489

Re: Patriots Weirdos

Postby twballgame9 on Wed Jul 29, 2015 8:55 am

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:It's pretty much fact that if this were Aaron Rodgers and the Green Bay Chokers, there would have been a fine.


Right, because the NFL didn't sweep the Packer prior actual cheating and more egregious evidence destruction under the rug only to get smacked upside the head with more shenanigans later on.


Everyone's cheating gets swept under the rug. That's why you don't hear about it. That's the point.
"We remind everyone that Boston College fired a perfectly good coach because he went on a job interview, and deserves all of this." Spencer Hall
User avatar
twballgame9
BC Guy
 
Posts: 34374
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:49 am
Karma: 2489

Re: Patriots Weirdos

Postby twballgame9 on Wed Jul 29, 2015 8:55 am

timmy tim {l Wrote}:Will Brady's statement about the cellphone hold up in court?


In what sense?
"We remind everyone that Boston College fired a perfectly good coach because he went on a job interview, and deserves all of this." Spencer Hall
User avatar
twballgame9
BC Guy
 
Posts: 34374
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:49 am
Karma: 2489

Re: Patriots Weirdos

Postby twballgame9 on Wed Jul 29, 2015 8:58 am

http://www.nj.com/jets/index.ssf/2015/01/needles_on_sidelines_former_jets_qb_jeff_blake_had.html

Eagles and Cinci and the Jets better not make a second mistake, since we aren't sweeping second offenses under the rug.

Oh wait ....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounty_Bowl
"We remind everyone that Boston College fired a perfectly good coach because he went on a job interview, and deserves all of this." Spencer Hall
User avatar
twballgame9
BC Guy
 
Posts: 34374
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:49 am
Karma: 2489

Re: Patriots Weirdos

Postby twballgame9 on Wed Jul 29, 2015 9:08 am

On a side note, this Lester Munson love note to Roger Goodell is a 10/10 on the unintentional comedy scale: http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/13332578/new-england-patriots-quarterback-tom-brady-nflpa-likely-come-short-court-challenge-roger-goodell-decision

Goodell produced a decision on Brady that is brilliantly reasoned, meticulously detailed, and well-written ... Goodell answered each one of them in exquisite and persuasive detail in his 20-page opinion ... Goodell, in a brilliant passage in his masterly opinion


Sounds like the cover of a DVD
"We remind everyone that Boston College fired a perfectly good coach because he went on a job interview, and deserves all of this." Spencer Hall
User avatar
twballgame9
BC Guy
 
Posts: 34374
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:49 am
Karma: 2489

Re: Patriots Weirdos

Postby gallopingghost on Wed Jul 29, 2015 9:42 am

Brady has received more punishment for not providing a private cell phone where he texted a Dorito dink than Hilary has or will get for "losing" two months of State department emails on her private server. Don't expect anything to happen from the justice department. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... plain.html
User avatar
gallopingghost
Cushing Hall
 
Posts: 2221
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:08 pm
Karma: 264

Re: Patriots Weirdos

Postby timmy tim on Wed Jul 29, 2015 10:09 am

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
timmy tim {l Wrote}:Will Brady's statement about the cellphone hold up in court?


In what sense?


Specifically in the destruction of his cellphone. I read in Deadspin (yes a legal authority, i know) that because he destroyed the phone when a lawsuit was likely that Brady put himself into a legal bind.
timmy tim
n00b
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 2:47 pm
Karma: 0

Re: Patriots Weirdos

Postby twballgame9 on Wed Jul 29, 2015 10:47 am

timmy tim {l Wrote}:
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
timmy tim {l Wrote}:Will Brady's statement about the cellphone hold up in court?


In what sense?


Specifically in the destruction of his cellphone. I read in Deadspin (yes a legal authority, i know) that because he destroyed the phone when a lawsuit was likely that Brady put himself into a legal bind.


It's potentially a spoliation of evidence issue. Usually the sanction is a presumption or inference to be drawn against the spoliating party, especially where, as here, the evidence can be obtained from another source - the other side of the emails/texts. It's rarely fatal to a case, especially here to those parts of the challenge of the ruling that are based not on the evidence, but on authority for and severity of the punishment.
"We remind everyone that Boston College fired a perfectly good coach because he went on a job interview, and deserves all of this." Spencer Hall
User avatar
twballgame9
BC Guy
 
Posts: 34374
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:49 am
Karma: 2489

Re: Patriots Weirdos

Postby DuchesneEast on Wed Jul 29, 2015 11:05 am

None of this matters, the court has one thing to decide, was the proceeding conducted in a fair way. It doesnt matter about anything else. That could include the fairness of the punishment.

NFL was pretty dicky going to court already in NY.
User avatar
DuchesneEast
Lyons Hall
 
Posts: 9708
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 1:25 pm
Location: I am the Duke of New York
Karma: 1758

Re: Patriots Weirdos

Postby gallopingghost on Wed Jul 29, 2015 11:06 am

timmy tim {l Wrote}:
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
timmy tim {l Wrote}:Will Brady's statement about the cellphone hold up in court?


In what sense?


Specifically in the destruction of his cellphone. I read in Deadspin (yes a legal authority, i know) that because he destroyed the phone when a lawsuit was likely that Brady put himself into a legal bind.


Except that there was no lawsuit when Brady destroyed the phone. The NFL was demanding to view a private phone, that Brady paid for, that is his personal and intellectual property that the NFL had no right to see. Your employer has no right to demand to see your private phone either.
User avatar
gallopingghost
Cushing Hall
 
Posts: 2221
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:08 pm
Karma: 264

Re: Patriots Weirdos

Postby twballgame9 on Wed Jul 29, 2015 11:14 am

gallopingghost {l Wrote}:
timmy tim {l Wrote}:
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
timmy tim {l Wrote}:Will Brady's statement about the cellphone hold up in court?


In what sense?


Specifically in the destruction of his cellphone. I read in Deadspin (yes a legal authority, i know) that because he destroyed the phone when a lawsuit was likely that Brady put himself into a legal bind.


Except that there was no lawsuit when Brady destroyed the phone. The NFL was demanding to view a private phone, that Brady paid for, that is his personal and intellectual property that the NFL had no right to see. Your employer has no right to demand to see your private phone either.


I agree that it won't matter here, because the issue is process and disproportionate punishment, but to the extent that the upcoming lawsuits challenge or seek to affirm the factual findings, then it doesn't matter that there wasn't a lawsuit at the time. The standard is whether you destroyed the evidence when you could have reasonably anticipated the lawsuit.

As far as the filing of the anticipatory lawsuit to affirm the arbitrator's ruling, (a) I think they had to do it within 30 days anyway, and (b) it's a smart move to avoid Doty.
"We remind everyone that Boston College fired a perfectly good coach because he went on a job interview, and deserves all of this." Spencer Hall
User avatar
twballgame9
BC Guy
 
Posts: 34374
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:49 am
Karma: 2489

Re: Patriots Weirdos

Postby timmy tim on Wed Jul 29, 2015 11:39 am

does it ensure that they are avoiding doty?
timmy tim
n00b
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 2:47 pm
Karma: 0

Re: Patriots Weirdos

Postby twballgame9 on Wed Jul 29, 2015 11:46 am

timmy tim {l Wrote}:does it ensure that they are avoiding doty?


Ensure? No. But it is more likely now. Prior pending action. And first filed is not the only factor, but it is a compelling one.
"We remind everyone that Boston College fired a perfectly good coach because he went on a job interview, and deserves all of this." Spencer Hall
User avatar
twballgame9
BC Guy
 
Posts: 34374
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:49 am
Karma: 2489

Re: Patriots Weirdos

Postby DomingoOrtiz on Wed Jul 29, 2015 11:52 am

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

As far as the filing of the anticipatory lawsuit to affirm the arbitrator's ruling, (a) I think they had to do it within 30 days anyway, .


That makes it less dicky.
DomingoOrtiz
Lyons Hall
 
Posts: 9993
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:39 am
Location: El Barrio
Karma: 234

PreviousNext

Return to Alumni Stadium

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 91 guests

Untitled document