One thing could damage both the league and the Pats: evidence that both Goodell and Kraft knew about the Rice video. Would look awful for everyone.
#DFG: Canceling the Noise
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
If Brady does win his appeal and is exonerated and it is proven that McNally and JJ did no wrong, then what grounds are there for the team penalties? That they didn't cooperate with the NFL? I know we aren't getting the draft picks back, but would that seriously be the "crime" committed?
The presence of new, damning evidence doesn't hold up. First, the entire non-Pats world thing they did it anyway, so proof of it makes little difference. Second, there's been a lot of attention on this for some time and we're dealing with a leak filled group of people on all sides. This stuff is held close to the vest?
Lastly though, all you have to do is consider who Kraft is and what his options are... he can burn the house down, damage the (office of) commissioner, enrage his fellow owners, etc. Or he can eat a draft pick -- the team will still be good, is young and well positioned for the near future, etc -- and move on. Having Brady on the field, which will still be pursued through other avenues, is still desireable. If Kraft could have negotiated that or fought that front, then I doubt he backs down. For $ and picks... he will back down and did.
RG will cut 0-2 games. At that point it will be interesting to see how far it gets taken. I think the Union and Brady will move forward with further litigation.
The thing is, while Kraft may not want to get smacked by RG, it is important for him that RG can do the smacking. He may want to tweak and refine that, but power over the league and players is probably seen as important and valuable. He does not want to rip it down.
Lastly though, all you have to do is consider who Kraft is and what his options are... he can burn the house down, damage the (office of) commissioner, enrage his fellow owners, etc. Or he can eat a draft pick -- the team will still be good, is young and well positioned for the near future, etc -- and move on. Having Brady on the field, which will still be pursued through other avenues, is still desireable. If Kraft could have negotiated that or fought that front, then I doubt he backs down. For $ and picks... he will back down and did.
RG will cut 0-2 games. At that point it will be interesting to see how far it gets taken. I think the Union and Brady will move forward with further litigation.
The thing is, while Kraft may not want to get smacked by RG, it is important for him that RG can do the smacking. He may want to tweak and refine that, but power over the league and players is probably seen as important and valuable. He does not want to rip it down.
My guess is that previous responses from Kraft and the Patriots were subject to further punishment from the league. The league basically said 'drop it, or we will punish you further.' Kraft knew he couldn't fight and he knew he couldn't credibly get to court. So, he swallowed his pride. There is no further deal between the league and Kraft. There is no promise in regards to Brady.
I am hoping that Goodell does not completely wipe out Brady's suspension and this gives Brady the opportunity to fight the NFL in court and that he does and that he destroys them, because the whole thing is bull shit.
As for where I go as a fan from here. I expect that I will continue to watch Patriots games, but that I will not watch any other NFL games for other teams. I will not go to the NFLN website or television channel. I will not go to the ESPN website. I will not watch any of the various ESPN television channels. I also think I am done with fantasy football. I have no intention of rooting in any way for any player that is employed by one of those other owners. Fuck all of them with rusty forks.
I am hoping that Goodell does not completely wipe out Brady's suspension and this gives Brady the opportunity to fight the NFL in court and that he does and that he destroys them, because the whole thing is bull shit.
As for where I go as a fan from here. I expect that I will continue to watch Patriots games, but that I will not watch any other NFL games for other teams. I will not go to the NFLN website or television channel. I will not go to the ESPN website. I will not watch any of the various ESPN television channels. I also think I am done with fantasy football. I have no intention of rooting in any way for any player that is employed by one of those other owners. Fuck all of them with rusty forks.
uncannymanny said:
I think it's just as likely that Goodell has explained to Kraft what shit might come out in a Brady court case that makes the NFL look bad, and that Kraft stopping his crusade is fine, but it's meaningless if Brady's case goes to court because something is going to come out that might be a huge headache for the league.
What that might be? Who the fuck knows. Maybe the league knows a lot more about domestic abuse or drunk driving than it lets on, and those communications will be discoverable in the context of examining past disciplinary decisions. Maybe they know that Aaron Rodgers is a chronic alcoholic and had to bail him out of La Crosse jail a few times on the QT. Maybe Peyton Manning has 3 molested a cheerleader but the Broncos kept mum.
It's impossible to know. I think something like that (though probably not as scandalous) is more likely than Goodell saying "I have evidence X that would make the Patriots look REALLY bad!" That seems implausible to me, given how this whole thing played out.
Figured I'd post this here rather than pollute the media board, odd as that sounds.
A bit ago on NPR I could have sworn Frank DeFord (I know, I know) indicated that with regard to "sport," beating wives and children is not as bad as what Brady allegedly did, and is on the same level as violating an age requirement in youth sports. I was surprised to hear that on NPR, even from DeFord. I looked up the text to be sure, and yup:
"To my mind there are, in ascending order, three kinds of transgressions. The first is the most simple: transgressions committed in the heat of the action, instinctively, because of frustration, failure or anger. There are referees to tend to that misconduct.
The second type of violation falls more in the realm of regulation. For example, who is eligible to play? There are age restrictions in youth sport and academic requirements in college. Also, as with any civil enterprise, sport can deny entrance to the Garden to anyone who misbehaves in the public sphere. Thou shalt not batter women or children. Alas, that is famously more honored in the breach.
But then there are violations against the very nature of the game and these invariably pre-meditated. In any sport, once the lines are drawn, what we have on the field are, in toto, athletes and the proper equipment."
... "So even if it was no more than an illegal puff of air that was willfully, with foresight, removed from the Patriot footballs — with Tom Brady's direction or mere acquiescence — Brady is guilty of purposely defiling the very artifacts that make the game fair and square."
... "Games are played by naturally gifted people using authorized equipment. If either is illegally distorted, it's not just a crime against the game but a wound to the whole essence of sport."
Over 100 comments before anyone even mentioned wife beating, and even then it was about Goodell's inappropriate punishments, not DeFord doubling down.
A bit ago on NPR I could have sworn Frank DeFord (I know, I know) indicated that with regard to "sport," beating wives and children is not as bad as what Brady allegedly did, and is on the same level as violating an age requirement in youth sports. I was surprised to hear that on NPR, even from DeFord. I looked up the text to be sure, and yup:
"To my mind there are, in ascending order, three kinds of transgressions. The first is the most simple: transgressions committed in the heat of the action, instinctively, because of frustration, failure or anger. There are referees to tend to that misconduct.
The second type of violation falls more in the realm of regulation. For example, who is eligible to play? There are age restrictions in youth sport and academic requirements in college. Also, as with any civil enterprise, sport can deny entrance to the Garden to anyone who misbehaves in the public sphere. Thou shalt not batter women or children. Alas, that is famously more honored in the breach.
But then there are violations against the very nature of the game and these invariably pre-meditated. In any sport, once the lines are drawn, what we have on the field are, in toto, athletes and the proper equipment."
... "So even if it was no more than an illegal puff of air that was willfully, with foresight, removed from the Patriot footballs — with Tom Brady's direction or mere acquiescence — Brady is guilty of purposely defiling the very artifacts that make the game fair and square."
... "Games are played by naturally gifted people using authorized equipment. If either is illegally distorted, it's not just a crime against the game but a wound to the whole essence of sport."
Over 100 comments before anyone even mentioned wife beating, and even then it was about Goodell's inappropriate punishments, not DeFord doubling down.
Maybe it's not new?yecul said:
yecul said:
And yet that's just what he was doing. Until he met with Goodell. And they hugged it out. Why start the fight in the first place? What made him change his mind?
Now we're imagining things!tims4wins said:
That argument is totally insane because, again, balls are not inflated uniformly. It completely ignores the context of how pro football is actually played in favor of some Ivory Tower bullshit about the "honor of the game" or some such.
Spare me.
Spare me.
We can talk about Kraft, but I can't imagine how mad Belichick is inside. If there's anyone who has dirt on others around the league, in terms of rule breaking, it's Bill Belichick. There's no doubt in my mind he absolutely despises Goodell, and all that he stands for. Same with Irsay and Woody. I'm hoping at some point before he dies, he releases at least some of what he has. During his PSI press conference, you could tell it was sitting inside dormant and ready to explode. The "we were taping in front of 80,000 people" was the first and only time we've really seen him lose face and let it bubble over. He also said that many other teams were doing it. I need that Bill Belichick at some point down the road. Tear down the wall, Bill. Tear. It. Down.
To be fair, that was as much, if not more, about him not being stuck with a white elephant on route 1 than it was to save the Patriots in NE. The white knight thing is a fallacy.lexrageorge said:
My list of what Kraft has done well is long.
Being the owner of a team that has won as many playoff games and Super Bowls heads the list.
Buying the team from Orthwein and not allowing the team to be the St Louis Freaking Patriots or Whatevers.
Being an owner who obviously cares deeply about winning.
Delivering first class facilities and everything that goes with that to his players. We hear that constantly from players, present and former, that they can tell right away that the Pats are a players first, first class organization.
Hiring Belichick (and who cares about the price).
Giving Bill the latitude to do things his way.
Learning from mistakes with Grier and Parcells.
Building a new stadium (even with its crowd noise flaw).
Fostering a culture of excellence.
Becoming an influential owner..,I get that the same has not prevented preposterous and out of whack penalties against the Pats, but I am guessing that we have been the beneficiaries of below the radar items over time.
Not meddling in the Brady over Bledsoe decision, despite how much he cared for Bledsoe.
His defiant speech before the Super Bowl.
His victory speeches.
His snub of Goodell at the podium this year.
Not all items on that list are equal and the first one is of course the most important. Just being at the helm of a freaking dynasty in the salary cap era speaks volumes to me.
And no, the list, and I clearly missed some items, doesn't excuse bad decisions now. I just don't think he made one.
PS: I too could have done without the praising of Goodell and didn't love I thought about that speech. But I think it was calculated and designed to foster the Pats' interests in the end.
Being the owner of a team that has won as many playoff games and Super Bowls heads the list.
Buying the team from Orthwein and not allowing the team to be the St Louis Freaking Patriots or Whatevers.
Being an owner who obviously cares deeply about winning.
Delivering first class facilities and everything that goes with that to his players. We hear that constantly from players, present and former, that they can tell right away that the Pats are a players first, first class organization.
Hiring Belichick (and who cares about the price).
Giving Bill the latitude to do things his way.
Learning from mistakes with Grier and Parcells.
Building a new stadium (even with its crowd noise flaw).
Fostering a culture of excellence.
Becoming an influential owner..,I get that the same has not prevented preposterous and out of whack penalties against the Pats, but I am guessing that we have been the beneficiaries of below the radar items over time.
Not meddling in the Brady over Bledsoe decision, despite how much he cared for Bledsoe.
His defiant speech before the Super Bowl.
His victory speeches.
His snub of Goodell at the podium this year.
Not all items on that list are equal and the first one is of course the most important. Just being at the helm of a freaking dynasty in the salary cap era speaks volumes to me.
And no, the list, and I clearly missed some items, doesn't excuse bad decisions now. I just don't think he made one.
PS: I too could have done without the praising of Goodell and didn't love I thought about that speech. But I think it was calculated and designed to foster the Pats' interests in the end.
Twilight said:
Awesome. So the Chargers putting stickum on the balls is a wound to the essence of sport, and they weren't penalized AT ALL for that (but $20k for not cooperating). The Panthers and Vikings tamper with air pressure in the footballs during a game and they aren't penalized AT ALL for that.
Fine. The Pats should have been (if they actually even did anything) faced the same punishment as these teams. What happened to them was a grave miscarriage of justice and unfair in pretty much every way imaginable.
ivanvamp said:
It was, no doubt. And to follow it through--since DeFord thinks beating your wife is not as bad as wounding the "essence of sport," Rice should have gotten even less punishment than the Panthers and Vikings.
Perhaps the NFL should have given Rice a bonus?
Like only getting docked two first round picks, a fourth and a couple million in fines?
Kraft done enough good without guessing that maybe there were some hidden benefits.
Being influential, if he even is that influential, probably helped the bottom line but there is little to no evidence it has helped the on field product.
Some would argue it's done the opposite.
But yes keeping out of Belichick's way is big and not something many owners could do.
BigJimEd, respectfully, I get it regarding his influence and its limitations. I still believe that Kraft's influence has helped the Pats in other ways, probably some not so apparent, and that a sensible voice such as his helps the league also helps the Pats derivatively.
It has not been perfect and the notion that the Patriots would get ANY fine over running through a freaking stop sign is a joke, I agree.
And that's not high on my list, in either order or order of importance.
It has not been perfect and the notion that the Patriots would get ANY fine over running through a freaking stop sign is a joke, I agree.
And that's not high on my list, in either order or order of importance.
Yes ideal owner in almost every respect imaginable.
Except one. He chose to be the confidant and supporter of Putin. He abided Putin grabbing other people's oil companies and putting them in jail on trumped up charges.
Eventually, it's your turn. The more I think about this, the less sympathy I have for Bob Kraft. He brought it on himself. Obviously I have tons of sympathy for the fans, players and coaches who occupy the same jail cell.
Except one. He chose to be the confidant and supporter of Putin. He abided Putin grabbing other people's oil companies and putting them in jail on trumped up charges.
Eventually, it's your turn. The more I think about this, the less sympathy I have for Bob Kraft. He brought it on himself. Obviously I have tons of sympathy for the fans, players and coaches who occupy the same jail cell.
Not only did he make up the Hardy punishment, he did it after being told by a federal court judge (Doty) that he couldn't do that in virtual the same case (AP). Its not merely that he makes it up. It is that he doesn't seem to care when he is told that is not allowed.Infield Infidel said:
He is a $100,000,000 petulant child who is repeatedly told to stop coloring on the walls, and who does it because he can.
AP and Hardy are not good people to put at the forefront of the push against this type of management behavior. Brady is much better. I'm sure the NFLPA already has the injunction papers drafted. Just waiting on Roger to hand them the appeal so they can fill in the blanks.
Agreed 100%; he's not going anywhere anytime soon. As long as he keeps filling the owners troughs with money, he's staying right where he is.Three10toLeft said:
Anyone who thought the owners would give him the boot over this were sadly mistaken; looks to me like the rest of the owners are behind the findings of the investigation and the punishment handed down.
Their comments speak volumes, so do their lack of comments.
As far as the reactions of Patriots fans over the statement Kraft made yesterday; the majority of fans aren't going to bail on the NFL, not going to happen.
Speaking only for myself, my interest in the league in general is not where it was several years ago. I've been a Patriots fan since the late 1960's and am a former season ticket holder; I used to be glued to the TV on Sundays, watching the 1:00PM, 4:00PM and 8:00PM game, also watched the Monday night game religiously.
Now my interest is lukewarm at best in any games the Patriots are not playing in. The sport is not what it used to be; the owners may be filthy with dough, but the product is not up to par IMO any longer.
Not that the NFL gives two shits about how I feel about their product, but there it is.
Well it's certainly worse to beat your wife, but I do see a difference between committing crimes outside the confines of the sport and cheating within the confines of the sport.Twilight said:
I do wonder what role a league should play in terms of conduct of its players and management outside the confines of the sport. To what degree should a league hold players accountable for non sport violations or crimes? How does it compare to cheating within the game?
That's everyones best guess, but as no one ever documented no one actually knows (which is what makes the episode so tragicomic). In major league baseball researchers were able to find the reason for the pine tar rule, and it had nothing to do with all the moralizing about Brett "cheating" that went on in some of the then MLB press in the days after the incident (there were articles theorizing asbout the competitive advantages that the baseball forefathers were trying to prevent, only it turned out that the real reason was that during WWI baseballs were expensive, and the more pine tar that got on a ball the sooner it had to be replaced, so they tried to minimize the stain factor by keeping the pine tar lower on the barrel).Hoya81 said:
Not for yesterday, but probably need to be more vigilant on internal controls moving forward. It may seem ridiculous, but the last few months indicate otherwise. A team was taken seriously making a cheating claim based on something no one ever cared or knew about. Well's claimed it wasn't a "sting" (maybe in a legal sense?"), but the fact remains the league was measuring footballs at halftime and the wheels were definitely in motion. Then we find out that, despite knowing about it beforehand and Kensil being involved from the beginning, the league/officials did not document pregame measurements, use a single gauge for documentation, document all of the Colts' evidence, understand simple physics, or even keep track of the balls. Bullying of a player is one thing. It may be related to football culture, but it certainly isn't related to the product on the field. Bountygate, with all the CTE and safety issues the league was facing, was a different animal as well. This? This is a football violation. PW and Insight were brought in to investigate in-game football violation. Even if you believe the Patriots are guilty, it is high comedy that PW was brought in entirely because of the league's incompetence in safeguarding, monitoring, and enforcing their own rules. The Patriots know the rulebook, but that is no longer enough.
understood and agreed with your other points. Just felt that part took away from it. I think Kraft has been good for the owners in general with the cba, tv deal etc.. and that has been good for the Patriots on the business side.TheoShmeo said:
I just don't think it's translated to football ops side.
Just my opinion though.
Everyone is talking like Goodell is the reason the NFL is making so much money. It's the opposite. The NFL is thriving despite Goodell's bumbling. At present, it is a job where you really cannot fail. But if this keep going on, the NFL will falter.
You can't do this on the same board where you complain about people not having information that Bob and Jonathan Kraft may have handled the current situation differently and about whether a reporter is correct in her statement that Kraft would ask Brady to accept his punishment. It's circular and demands a standard of proof that you don't hold yourself to.TheoShmeo said:
We're to believe that the Patriots have been the beneficiaries of some silent league matters about which there has been nary a peep, despite the utter railroading here? Come on, now.
I just don't understand this in the context you've offered it. Fans should defer to him because the team has won a lot? Were Steinbrenner's decisions above reproach?
All of this seems to circle a common point of discussion for us. Shifting standards and a general argument by authority.
Guy helped cut down all the laws in England. I'm not going to praise him for sucking up to the devil once he turned around on him, regardless of the hidden crackerjack prize I'm supposed to believe he got.dcmissle said:
Staying out of the way cannot be emphasized enough. It's what separates winning from losing. If you lack a competent owner who does not understand or ignores his obvious limitations, you have no chance to be consistently excellent. Then you are screwed as a fan. There is no hope until the owner you have dies or sells the team, and then there's no guarantee the successor will be any better.
three things:
1) the culture of the League is of a billionaire's club, where parity reigns, differences are smoothed over, and rebels are flattened by the other owners. As with much of American capitalism, for all the ball-washing rhetoric praising the free market, truly gargantuan profits and power are garnered, not by lone wolves, but by cartels who pool their influence for collective gains (squashing free-market principles left and right in the process).
2) Kraft is, by nature and temperament, a consensus-builder. Jeff Saturday (a fucking Colt) said that the last CBA would not have been put to bed without Kraft's influence. (Whether the CBA is good or bad is a matter of opinion and depends on what kind of stakeholder you are, but in our position as fans, football > no football). That's Kraft's strength. He's not one to lead a charge; he's the guy that eventually brokers the peace. I think you could tell that by the tone of the Patriots' response, which was, IMO, shrill and over the top, and was the kind of thing that someone not used to fighting, or suited to it, does in the heat of passion; a true cold-blooded fighter could have/would have shivved the Shield much more effectively. Kraft can't be what he's not. The Patriots have benefitted immensely from his management style. They are arguably the model franchise in American sports (the Spurs also have a case). If this particular fight happens not to be in his wheelhouse, them's the breaks. No one guy can do/be everything.
3) as dcm said, legal options were limited, because the League's covenants foresaw this kind of thing, and do a very good job of preventing it. Success may have been possible on some novel legal theory, litigated in scorched-earth style, but would have come at a terrible cost, financially, emotionally, and in terms of the organization's focus.
I understand the desire to fight, I really do. I also think that criticisms of Kraft's specific choices, words, body language, etc. on standing down are fair game.
I still don't see how the Patriots end up in a better place after a long fight.
1) the culture of the League is of a billionaire's club, where parity reigns, differences are smoothed over, and rebels are flattened by the other owners. As with much of American capitalism, for all the ball-washing rhetoric praising the free market, truly gargantuan profits and power are garnered, not by lone wolves, but by cartels who pool their influence for collective gains (squashing free-market principles left and right in the process).
2) Kraft is, by nature and temperament, a consensus-builder. Jeff Saturday (a fucking Colt) said that the last CBA would not have been put to bed without Kraft's influence. (Whether the CBA is good or bad is a matter of opinion and depends on what kind of stakeholder you are, but in our position as fans, football > no football). That's Kraft's strength. He's not one to lead a charge; he's the guy that eventually brokers the peace. I think you could tell that by the tone of the Patriots' response, which was, IMO, shrill and over the top, and was the kind of thing that someone not used to fighting, or suited to it, does in the heat of passion; a true cold-blooded fighter could have/would have shivved the Shield much more effectively. Kraft can't be what he's not. The Patriots have benefitted immensely from his management style. They are arguably the model franchise in American sports (the Spurs also have a case). If this particular fight happens not to be in his wheelhouse, them's the breaks. No one guy can do/be everything.
3) as dcm said, legal options were limited, because the League's covenants foresaw this kind of thing, and do a very good job of preventing it. Success may have been possible on some novel legal theory, litigated in scorched-earth style, but would have come at a terrible cost, financially, emotionally, and in terms of the organization's focus.
I understand the desire to fight, I really do. I also think that criticisms of Kraft's specific choices, words, body language, etc. on standing down are fair game.
I still don't see how the Patriots end up in a better place after a long fight.
I guess I'm saying that, despite a phenomenal run of success as a team, there's nothing anyone can point to that tells me we have to draw all reasonable inferences in favor of all of his actions, and draw some unreasonable ones like inventing unknown benefits that he's also brought to us.
Measure the action for the action instead of just embracing it because of the man who took it.
Measure the action for the action instead of just embracing it because of the man who took it.
Myt1, someone asked what I am grateful for re Kraft. Not all of those items result in me saying we should have some deference. But they all are elements of gratitude. And ignore the influence point. It is very low on my list and not central in any way to my sentiment.
And yes, true, I don't have all the facts on all of the items, but I can still be grateful to Kraft for them.
I don't see that saying that he almost certainly has more facts at his disposal than we could possibly know is circular or leads to an inconsistency in my position (though maybe you are not saying exactly that). In short, when evaluating a situation where there are people who are smart and extremely accomplished, and who have been integrally involved in an operation that has brought me great joy over time, and have access to relevant facts that I don't have, I am going to choose to be deferential unless there is a screaming reason not to be. And that is particularly the case when I can understand the decision based on the information I have. Here, one fact that I have -- that the Pats' chances of success are low -- seems like a very good reason, in an of itself, to not pursue the fight and piss into the proverbial fan.
And yes, true, I don't have all the facts on all of the items, but I can still be grateful to Kraft for them.
I don't see that saying that he almost certainly has more facts at his disposal than we could possibly know is circular or leads to an inconsistency in my position (though maybe you are not saying exactly that). In short, when evaluating a situation where there are people who are smart and extremely accomplished, and who have been integrally involved in an operation that has brought me great joy over time, and have access to relevant facts that I don't have, I am going to choose to be deferential unless there is a screaming reason not to be. And that is particularly the case when I can understand the decision based on the information I have. Here, one fact that I have -- that the Pats' chances of success are low -- seems like a very good reason, in an of itself, to not pursue the fight and piss into the proverbial fan.
I understand. I think I summarized my point more succinctly in the short post. I don't want to make this thread into just a back and forth between us where our areas of disagreement are now clearly stated, so I'll let things move on.
uncannymanny said:
I don't buy that at all.
Occam's Razor: Kraft acted as he did not because of some secret bombshell that Goodell shared with him, but because (as many have been saying) he had essentially no options unless he was willing to go nuclear. Once he decided that the risk/potential damage from taking this route was more than he could bear, it was simply a question of how he would stand down.
And I do not believe there was any negotiation about it at all. It was Kraft's decision.
I'm not upset with Kraft. He wasn't going to win this battle so he called for a strategic retreat. Had he gone to court and weakened the commissioners power would that have helped the league after RG is out? Sure the precedent in court would be regarding a specific situation (his lawsuit) but any anti-commissioner precedent is a potential argument for another lawsuit. (Edit: I don't think he would have won). Kraft and the owners probably want a powerful commissioner. They might want to tinker with a few parliamentary procedures involving how punishment is decided but I don't think a weakened commissioner is in their best interests. Limiting the power of the commissioner because this one in particular is over-zealous is short sighted. Bob Kraft is anything but short sighted.
If Kraft is a good and influential owner I want him to continue to be just that. He would lose power and influence if he alienated his peers. Great revolutions don't start overnight. To get rid of RG Kraft has to slowly pull apart his credibility by the seams. Kraft might have to wait for RG's contract to come up and then he has to be careful too. If Kraft leads a push for another commissioner and RG comes back he will lose more than just some stature. And throughout this he wants to strengthen the league too. Going nuclear doesn't accomplish any of Krafts long term goals for his team and to the league which he is a part of. Making amends with RG might not help the Patriots if they get into any trouble but it helps him keep power and influence as an owner. What would be the consequences of further upsetting RG? From what we've seen of his actions he favors strong punishments and is, in my estimate, vindictive. Best to kiss and make up. Since we have a Goddather theme going I'll end my thoughts with this, "Keep your friends close but your enemies closer."
If Kraft is a good and influential owner I want him to continue to be just that. He would lose power and influence if he alienated his peers. Great revolutions don't start overnight. To get rid of RG Kraft has to slowly pull apart his credibility by the seams. Kraft might have to wait for RG's contract to come up and then he has to be careful too. If Kraft leads a push for another commissioner and RG comes back he will lose more than just some stature. And throughout this he wants to strengthen the league too. Going nuclear doesn't accomplish any of Krafts long term goals for his team and to the league which he is a part of. Making amends with RG might not help the Patriots if they get into any trouble but it helps him keep power and influence as an owner. What would be the consequences of further upsetting RG? From what we've seen of his actions he favors strong punishments and is, in my estimate, vindictive. Best to kiss and make up. Since we have a Goddather theme going I'll end my thoughts with this, "Keep your friends close but your enemies closer."
I think that is the real smoking gun in all this. A discovery effort that gets into the league office emails might show just how much the league office lied in various other efforts. Goodell on perjery charges would not be pretty - and who among us thinks he more probably than not had the 2nd Rice tape? Or once it's shown the league is lying is it that hard to unravel a few more threads towards the concussuon stuff? One has to believe that the inner office cc'ed Pash or others to protect priviledge - but given the keystone cops routine over measuring footballs I would bet there is stuff out there on HQ mail servers that is downright ugly.Myt1 said:
Let's face it -- the reason why the Patriots lost the latest battle is because the NFL had a better lawyer than the Patriots.
Clearly the Patriots were caught completely off-guard, because they expected Wells to conduct a fair, netural investigation and that the facts would speak for themselves. Clearly, that did not happen. In retrospect, all the signs were there. Ted Wells is a multi-millionaire, superstar attorney. Did the NFL hire him because he'd be better at grasping the facts of the situation? Of course not. Is Ted Wells a great lawyer because he's good at investigations? No way. He's criminal defense attorney -- it's his job to represent his clients interest's regardless of what the truth is. And what Ted Wells is really good at is persuading decision makers to act in favor of his client.
So of course the Wells report was going to be very persuasive -- and it was, to most everyone in the sports world -- and it was going to distort the truth in favor whatever he thinks the clients' best interests are. Why should this be a surprise?
As the Patriots lead attorney, Dan Goldberg should have recognized where the Patrtiots' greatest weaknesses are and come up with the best strategy to deal with the situation at hand. But Wells ran circles around him. This should have been an easy case to win, and he blew it, because he didn't recognize who the ultimate decider was. Roger Goodell was clearly in a situation where he needed to show he was tough on wrongdoing, because he had just been so lenient on Ray Rice, and he was clearly going to follow the prevailing winds of public opinion. And even though the facts were on the Patriots' side, the prevailing winds were not. And as far as I can tell, Goldberg did absolutely nothing to play to public opinion.
Worse, he clearly picked a fight over with Wells over a second interview with McNally, even though he had absolutely zero chance of persuading either the "judge" (basically Goodell) or the "jury" (public opinion) that this was the right thing to do. And I'm sorry, but unless you've got a judge on your side when you accuse the other lawyers of wrongdoing, you don't fall on your sword over it. You get held in contempt -- which is basically what Goodell did -- and you poison the relationship with the people (Goodell et al) who are going to make the final decisions here.
Unfortunately, if we as fans want to see our team "win", then having a good lawyer is just as important as having a good defensive coordinator. There can be absolutely no doubt about this any more. You can't just focus on winning games on the field -- you have to win games off the field, too. And make no mistake, the better team lost this month. And our reaction as fans has to be the same as it would be if the Patriots lost to a 2-14 team. If the Patriots lost to a bad team because their offensive coordinator found the one weakness in our defense to exploit, and our defensive coordinator didn't make the necessary adjustments to stop them, then we'd be all over the message board about how he lost the game for us. So that's why I'm doing here.
Welcome to Roger Goodell's NFL. It's a brand new ballgame.
Clearly the Patriots were caught completely off-guard, because they expected Wells to conduct a fair, netural investigation and that the facts would speak for themselves. Clearly, that did not happen. In retrospect, all the signs were there. Ted Wells is a multi-millionaire, superstar attorney. Did the NFL hire him because he'd be better at grasping the facts of the situation? Of course not. Is Ted Wells a great lawyer because he's good at investigations? No way. He's criminal defense attorney -- it's his job to represent his clients interest's regardless of what the truth is. And what Ted Wells is really good at is persuading decision makers to act in favor of his client.
So of course the Wells report was going to be very persuasive -- and it was, to most everyone in the sports world -- and it was going to distort the truth in favor whatever he thinks the clients' best interests are. Why should this be a surprise?
As the Patriots lead attorney, Dan Goldberg should have recognized where the Patrtiots' greatest weaknesses are and come up with the best strategy to deal with the situation at hand. But Wells ran circles around him. This should have been an easy case to win, and he blew it, because he didn't recognize who the ultimate decider was. Roger Goodell was clearly in a situation where he needed to show he was tough on wrongdoing, because he had just been so lenient on Ray Rice, and he was clearly going to follow the prevailing winds of public opinion. And even though the facts were on the Patriots' side, the prevailing winds were not. And as far as I can tell, Goldberg did absolutely nothing to play to public opinion.
Worse, he clearly picked a fight over with Wells over a second interview with McNally, even though he had absolutely zero chance of persuading either the "judge" (basically Goodell) or the "jury" (public opinion) that this was the right thing to do. And I'm sorry, but unless you've got a judge on your side when you accuse the other lawyers of wrongdoing, you don't fall on your sword over it. You get held in contempt -- which is basically what Goodell did -- and you poison the relationship with the people (Goodell et al) who are going to make the final decisions here.
Unfortunately, if we as fans want to see our team "win", then having a good lawyer is just as important as having a good defensive coordinator. There can be absolutely no doubt about this any more. You can't just focus on winning games on the field -- you have to win games off the field, too. And make no mistake, the better team lost this month. And our reaction as fans has to be the same as it would be if the Patriots lost to a 2-14 team. If the Patriots lost to a bad team because their offensive coordinator found the one weakness in our defense to exploit, and our defensive coordinator didn't make the necessary adjustments to stop them, then we'd be all over the message board about how he lost the game for us. So that's why I'm doing here.
Welcome to Roger Goodell's NFL. It's a brand new ballgame.
Kraft could have appealed and not sued if the result was negative. I realize that would be an appeal to Goddell, himself, but he could have demanded an avenue, within the league rules, to argue that he was being railroaded. That the charges were not only unproven, but untrue. That proportionality was completely lost. That bringing up Spygate -- which he chose not to argue over -- was a version of double jeopardy. That other teams have been caught on tape monkeying with the ball, and received not significant penalties. That the NFL tried to set up the Pats. That the league is rife with leaks that made it impossible for the Pats to get a fair chance. To argue for SCIENCE.RedOctober3829 said:
There was an option before going to court, to (hopefully) question Wells, maybe Vincent. Perhaps Anderson. Grigson. Instead, they released the "context" thing and folded.
To in addition say the evidence is circumstantial, and to not say the allegations are untrue, says a whole lot, to me. They monkeyed with the footballs. Maybe it gave no advantage whatsoever, maybe it was meaningful in some game prior to the AFC Championship.
Or that tweedledee and tweedledumb are going to go public, confess and incriminate others, for some dosh.
Edit: OTOH here's a guy that supposedly threatened to go to ESPN if he didn't get some sneakers, so I imagine he would have sung to someone by now for $800 and change.
Edit: OTOH here's a guy that supposedly threatened to go to ESPN if he didn't get some sneakers, so I imagine he would have sung to someone by now for $800 and change.
The display of ignorance in this post is simply stunning.
You're basically complaining about a lawyer not being able to overcome a crooked judge when the rules don't allow for an appeal.
There could be plenty of things Goldberg should have done differently. None of them would have changed this outcome.
You're basically complaining about a lawyer not being able to overcome a crooked judge when the rules don't allow for an appeal.
There could be plenty of things Goldberg should have done differently. None of them would have changed this outcome.