Average Reds said:
You have made this argument several times and I think that people understand it. The problem is that you are making a general statement rather than a specific judgment about this case.
I would expect a player at the beginning or middle of their career to want precisely what you have articulated - get this behind them and get on the field. But Brady is at the end of one of the greatest careers in the history of the NFL. I would expect that he cares a hell of lot more about fighting an unjust punishment than just getting back on the field.
I'll agree with you that I don't think he gives a damn what people think of his decisions here. You control what you can control and nothing more.
I don't think it's a matter of "just getting back on the field."
If he settles, I would suspect it's about ending the noise, being able to stop talking to lawyers and focus his non-personal time exclusively on football, removing the uncertainty regarding the outcome and, critically, eliminating the risk that the punishment ends up at 4 games, however you quantify that risk in the real world.
That is a very specific application to this case and not one that is a generic pro-settlement stance. Joe can correct me if he likes but I have a feeling that he was thinking along those lines.
It's true that some fans will view any deal by Tom as a huge letdown and any deal will be portrayed by many as an admission of guilt.
In end, though, if he settles, It might come down to a choice of the practical over the principle.
In my view, whatever he chooses will be easily understandable, as I think there are very good arguments for both paths.
As dcmissile said earlier today, I think Tom will be faced with a tough choice if he gets offered one game. But everything I noted favoring settlement would apply if the deal was at two game, as well.