#DFG: Canceling the Noise

Is there any level of suspension that you would advise Tom to accept?


  • Total voters
    208

( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)

T&A
SoSH Member
Feb 9, 2010
5,295
Providence, RI
Sportsbstn said:
This is exactly what I was hoping Brady would do yesterday when I suggested he needs to break his silence. Not sure why anyone would think he couldn't do this.

It is a strongly worded statement categorically denying any wrongdoing of any kind, and that's the most you can expect him to say at this point.
 
You specifically said that Brady should speak.  Speaking right now would be incredibly dumb.  Releasing a statement was expected.  
People reacted to you yesterday because you said speak.  If you had said that he should release a statement, then most people would have answered with Duhhhh.  
Word choice matters. 
 

RIFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
2,641
Rhode Island
Jed Zeppelin said:
I'll never understand why an organization that basically prints money is so eager to foster such a spiteful relationship with its employees that will inevitably make said money-printing infinitely more complicated when the time comes to negotiate.

I'll be so worn out by this shit come 2020 that I very well may be rooting for a significant work stoppage to take the league down several pegs.
It is amazing that they view the very essence of their product (the players) with contempt.  This is all about continuing to shift power and advantage more and more to the owners and the league.  The reality is they don't view a work stoppage as a meaningful ploy by the union.  The union will cave at some point and even if they lost a few games, the hundreds of millions lost during a stoppage will be outweighed by the billions they'll extort at the negotiation table. 
 
Matt Chatham is all over twitter on this basically calling out the other players to pay attention.  They do need to wake up and not just let the union leadership do the talking.  The actual players need to get off their collective asses and start speaking up on players rights.  They may hate Brady and the Pats and believe that something nefarious went on, but they need to let the league know that their rights won't be taken.  If this was a "real" union there would be actions outside of the courtroom underway.  They could all learn a few things about employee solidarity and the ability to make things happen just by talking to a few Market Basket employees (who organized employee actions collectively without even being a union).  Ultimately, Goodell knows the players will act selfishly in the end and he'll be able to pick them apart over time, stretch precedents, and go into the 2020 negotiation from a much stronger position. 
 

Bongorific

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
7,107
Balboa Towers
Jed Zeppelin said:
I'll never understand why an organization that basically prints money is so eager to foster such a spiteful relationship with its employees that will inevitably make said money-printing infinitely more complicated when the time comes to negotiate.

I'll be so worn out by this shit come 2020 that I very well may be rooting for a significant work stoppage to take the league down several pegs.
My thoughts as well and why I called the relationship very, very toxic. The sides should be working together on player health and continuing to grow the sport to make another bagillion gazillion dollars.
 

riboflav

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2006
8,214
NOVA
Correct me if I'm wrong but Brady is saying he made his previous phone available only after learning how much not providing it had resulted in punishment. Which is why he couldn't provide his most recent phone (the one used in January) because it had, in the interim, broken and been thrown out. 
 
1. Why was the one used prior to November 14 not destroyed if it was his normal practice? He had it just lying around?
2. Why insist that no player has to or should turn over his phone, but then it seems he did just that with his old phone (the one he used prior to Nov. 14)?
 
I must have my facts wrong because his arguments do not make sense.
 

mwonow

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 4, 2005
6,145
riboflav said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but Brady is saying he made his previous phone available only after learning how much not providing it had resulted in punishment. Which is why he couldn't provide his most recent phone (the one used in January) because it had, in the interim, broken and been thrown out. 
 
1. Why was the one used prior to November 14 not destroyed if it was his normal practice? He had it just lying around?
2. Why insist that no player has to or should turn over his phone, but then it seems he did just that with his old phone (the one he used prior to Nov. 14)?
 
I must have my facts wrong because his arguments do not make sense.
 
I'm kind of in this ballpark as well, though it's worth pointing out that part of this story comes from the NFL (quoting Brady, but hey, these things often benefit from context) and part of it comes directly from Brady.
 
Either way, the point(s) above regarding the toxicity of the situation are true, and stunning. 
 
At this point, I'm half expecting the NFL to leak a pic of Brady with one of Arod's macho escorts just before the appeal hearing. They've tried (and succeeded) in driving a wedge between Kraft and the other owners, and between Brady and the other players. Why not try to drag Giselle into the swamp?
 
This whole thing makes me sick. 
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
29,115
306, row 14
I may be wrong, but the phone used up to 11/14 wasn't turned over to the league. Brady's team had their own forensic analyst review it, not the league.
 

RIFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
2,641
Rhode Island
riboflav said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but Brady is saying he made his previous phone available only after learning how much not providing it had resulted in punishment. Which is why he couldn't provide his most recent phone (the one used in January) because it had, in the interim, broken and been thrown out. 
 
1. Why was the one used prior to November 14 not destroyed if it was his normal practice? He had it just lying around?
2. Why insist that no player has to or should turn over his phone, but then it seems he did just that with his old phone (the one he used prior to Nov. 14)?
 
I must have my facts wrong because his arguments do not make sense.
I interpreted to mean he provided records from the old phone, not the actual phone.   Which of course leads to the question, If the primary smoking gun was the "deflator text" and they had Brady's records from that time period, what difference does it make if they had the post AFC championship phone? There was no electronic evidence provided from around the time of the AFCCG other than that Brady called Jastremski a few times.  There were not Mcnally or Jastremski texts about deflation at that time. 
 

Sportsbstn

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 8, 2004
8,794
( . ) ( . ) and (_!_) said:
 
You specifically said that Brady should speak.  Speaking right now would be incredibly dumb.  Releasing a statement was expected.  
People reacted to you yesterday because you said speak.  If you had said that he should release a statement, then most people would have answered with Duhhhh.  
Word choice matters. 
I wasn't suggesting he sit down with Oprah. He needed to refute the hachet job he was getting and he did. It still won't sway opinions of the vast majority, but still needed to be done
 

Bleedred

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 21, 2001
8,317
Boston, MA
Kdelle said:
So if I am reading this correctly, was a precedent set by handing over the earlier phone? Why would the NFLPA allow that? Or was Maryman not hired by the NFL?
No....that was Brady's guy reviewing the old phone
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
8,013
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
Basically they made an inference that, since the "deflator" text was sent in May, the scheme to deflate footballs must've been going on for a longer period of time, but then when it comes to Brady they need completely up to date information for it to be credible? I mean, older messages would also suffice in that case, no?
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
29,115
306, row 14
rodderick said:
Basically they made an inference that, since the "deflator" text was sent in May, the scheme to deflate footballs must've been going on for a longer period of time, but then when it comes to Brady they need completely up to date information for it to be credible? I mean, older messages would also suffice in that case, no?
Seems like they're fishing for some sort of after the fact admission from Brady. Some text to prove a cover up.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
8,013
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
cshea said:
Seems like they're fishing for some sort of after the fact admission from Brady. Some text to prove a cover up.
Wouldn't it make sense that he'd be more liberal in talking about the scheme before he was aware of the investigation, though? If they're looking for a smoking gun admission, they're more likely to find it in texts before January.
 

mikeot

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2006
6,791
ivanvamp said:
 
This is a perfect example of how power works.  
 
On the one hand we have a player with an (up til now) impeccable reputation.  The leading spokesman for the NFL over the past 15 years.  Perhaps the greatest player the game has ever seen, a man who has done nothing but good things for the league and his team.  Never a bad thing said about him or suspected about him.  Ever.  He has the science in his corner.  There is no actual evidence of any wrongdoing.  He has credible explanations for everything.
 
But he is a player with very little power.
 
On the other hand we have a commissioner who is a buffoon, whose integrity HAS been questioned on many occasions.  Who has mishandled so many issues it's hard to keep count.  Who has been tarred and feathered by a previous commissioner for his handling of the Saints' bounty gate scandal.  Who was eviscerated by everyone involved over the Ray Rice issue.  Who has been chastised for inconsistency, for doublespeak, for going outside the rulebook and historical precedent on other occasions.  
 
But he has all the power as commissioner.
 
And right now, as of this moment, the buffoon with no integrity but all the power is winning over the man who has integrity but no power.  
 
That's how power works.
 
I hope the court understands this and does the right thing.
This.
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
5,708
Another question, is the Brady penalty specifically related to the events of the Colts Playoff game? 
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
29,115
306, row 14
rodderick said:
Wouldn't it make sense that he'd be more liberal in talking about the scheme before he was aware of the investigation, though? If they're looking for a smoking gun admission, they're more likely to find them in texts before January.
I hear you, but they have the Dorito Dink's phones and there was zero electronic communication between Brady and Jastremski all season until the day after the AFCCG. There's nothing between the alleged leader and his conspirators. Maybe they think they'll find a text between Brady and another player/friend/family member that admits guilt. I don't think there is a smoking gun there.

The Wells report seemed to use the communication spike between Brady and Jastremski on the day after against Brady. Seems like they're fishing at something that went down after the fact.
 

Bleedred

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 21, 2001
8,317
Boston, MA
A non-troll friend of mine asks the following Questions:
 
 
1. Why did Brady destroy his telephone?
2. Why did Brady's legal team provide neither McNally nor Jastremski to testify during the appeal when requested?
3. Why did McNally call himself "the Deflator" on his email way back in 2014 if, as you argued earlier, Brady actually preferred fully inflated balls?
4. Why did McNally tell Jastremski back in 2014 that he had a "big needle" for him (as opposed to a pump), and then make reference to payback or else it would be a "Rugby sunday," which he himself acknowledged for the investigators meant that the rugby reference referred to an over-inflated ball, like a rugby ball?
 
How I'd respond
1.  He didn't.  He switched out phones and offered to give access to all folks with whom he texted from that phone.  He would never give up the phone given his union and celebrity status.
2.  Not his position to offer them up.  How could he even compel them to appear.   They don't get 2/5 bites of the apple.
3.  There's nothing in the Deflator text that incriminates Brady.  Zero.
4.  See #3
 
Other thoughts?
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
8,013
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
cshea said:
I hear you, but they have the Dorito Dink's phones and there was zero electronic communication between Brady and Jastremski all season until the day after the AFCCG. There's nothing between the alleged leader and his conspirators. Maybe they think they'll find a text between Brady and another player/friend/family member that admits guilt. I don't think there is a smoking gun there.

The Wells report seemed to use the communication spike between Brady and Jastremski on the day after against Brady. Seems like they're fishing at something that went down after the fact.
What I find amazing about this fact being used against Brady is that if he were in constant contact with Jastremski, but then the level of communication between them went down after the investigation started, that too would have been interpreted by Goodell as a sign of guilt. Which means the only way this wouldn't be used against Brady is if he had mantained the exact same number of interactions with Jastremski before and after the fact, which would be illogical given the circumstances.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
27,904
Here
cshea said:
I may be wrong, but the phone used up to 11/14 wasn't turned over to the league. Brady's team had their own forensic analyst review it, not the league.
While true, he could have done the same thing with the Samsung originally.

Weighing against all this phone stuff, though, is the fact that the science still suggests the footballs were not deflated by humans and Punchado's general point.

It's also clear that the NFL is going out of its way to paint a certain narrative rather than present the facts transparently. God tha lt privilege bullshit with Wells and his "independent" investigation is such poppycock mularky.

"Hey Tom, our totoally independent investigator says your GUILTY! Any questions? Sorry, they won't be answered.
 
Sep 28, 2011
126
Every step in this process has been a nut punch.  It's incredible how every significant moment of this "scandal" has been worse that what we were generally expecting.  Every time.
 
However, it's also true that after each of these moments, things come into focus and it becomes clear there's nothing there.  I think this is another one of those times, though some of the pessimistic comments by the lawyers here are concerning. 
 

Jimbodandy

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
5,760
around the way
Omar's Wacky Neighbor said:
(Preemptive defense:  all my pre-sets had gone to commercial as I was pulling into my parking space, so I was spinning the dial so I didnt have to hear Kars For Kids yet again)
 
I thought that I was the only one who immediately reached for the dial when that satanic jingle came over the airwaves.  I can usually get to a new station by the third hit on the hi hat.
 

( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)

T&A
SoSH Member
Feb 9, 2010
5,295
Providence, RI
cshea said:
Seems like they're fishing for some sort of after the fact admission from Brady. Some text to prove a cover up.
 
And this is Brady's problem.  Text messages do not convey context.  There would have been a completely innocent text to someone that said something like, "yea, I told those guys to make sure the balls were at 12.5"  Brady's meaning could have been that he wanted the guys to make sure the Refs left the balls at 12.5, nothing more nothing less.  But what do you think the NFL would have done with that text?  What spin do you think they would have added or inferences made?  That text would have been leaked immediately to the media without any context from Brady and it would not have looked good for Tom, no matter how innocent the actual message was.
 
The NFL really backed him into a corner with the phone.  he was damned if he turned it over and damned if he didn't.
 
Feb 19, 2015
3,865
rodderick said:
Basically they made an inference that, since the "deflator" text was sent in May, the scheme to deflate footballs must've been going on for a longer period of time, but then when it comes to Brady they need completely up to date information for it to be credible? I mean, older messages would also suffice in that case, no?
 
No. Brady et al were smart enough to avoid sending any text messages about their devious deeds in the timeline preceding the AFCG. It was only after the NFL was, "on to them," that they suddenly started texting all willy nilly about it.
 

naclone

lurker
Jul 15, 2005
130
NYC
Bleedred said:
A non-troll friend of mine asks the following Questions:
 
 
1. Why did Brady destroy his telephone?
2. Why did Brady's legal team provide neither McNally nor Jastremski to testify during the appeal when requested?
3. Why did McNally call himself "the Deflator" on his email way back in 2014 if, as you argued earlier, Brady actually preferred fully inflated balls?
4. Why did McNally tell Jastremski back in 2014 that he had a "big needle" for him (as opposed to a pump), and then make reference to payback or else it would be a "Rugby sunday," which he himself acknowledged for the investigators meant that the rugby reference referred to an over-inflated ball, like a rugby ball?
 
How I'd respond
1.  He didn't.  He switched out phones and offered to give access to all folks with whom he texted from that phone.  He would never give up the phone given his union and celebrity status.
2.  Not his position to offer them up.  How could he even compel them to appear.   They don't get 2/5 bites of the apple.
3.  There's nothing in the Deflator text that incriminates Brady.  Zero.
4.  See #3
 
Other thoughts?
I think the thing that is most frustratingly overlooked in the "I'm the Deflator" saga is that the nature of McNally and Jastremski's jobs included inflating and deflating footballs on a daily basis. That McNally routinely deflated Patriot footballs should surprise nobody. And in no way implicates him in anything. The issue is whether he ever deflated them after the officials judged them legal for play. Not only do the "Deflator" and "needle" texts not explicitly implicate wrongdoing, it's very easily explained away as reference to core functions of their job description - which in large part is putting air in and out of footballs.

So if I call the guy who does my taxes the "return man" in a text does that mean he cheats on my taxes to get me an illegal return or just that I employ him because he does a good job of getting me back as much as I am legally allowed?
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
TB put a marvelous statement on his FB page, far better than anything else put up yesterday on his behalf.
 
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/29/tom-brady-im-very-disappointed-i-did-nothing-wrong/
 
Now everyone on his side just needs to STFU outside of court.  It's great that BB can say today, "Mr. Kraft has put a statement out on behalf of the team, and this matter is now in the legal system.  I am here to talk about football."
 
You want to leak stuff to King, Florio and other favorably disposed people, fine I guess, cause the other side will be doing it too.  But for the most part, STFU - and find something too keep Yee away from this if need be.
 

Mooch

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,326
If the courts decide in favor of the NFL, what precedent does it set going forward for employee rights when an employer asks for private communications in a workplace dispute?
 
Are there reverberations from this case that go beyond just Brady/NFLPA vs. NFL?
 

RhaegarTharen

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2005
2,700
Wilmington, MA
Am I crazy for hoping that Brady's Samsung phone was actually broken - legit broken, and therefore that was why he chose to "destroy" it, and Goddell/NFL really fucked up by implying that is "normal" procedure is to destroy old phones IMMEDIATELY, as opposed to destroying them before he throws them away, whenever that occurs?  
 
I could easily see a scenario where Brady has one (or more) of his old phones still around as a backup.  Since the Samsung was broken, there was no need to keep it.  And for security reasons he destroyed it, in accordance with his "normal procedures" before disposing of new phones.  
 
 
I find it hard to believe the NFL would stretch itself over such thin ice over this if the above was true, but as I said before - everyone is underestimating them at every turn.  Both how stupid and stubborn and vindictive they can be, as well as how cagey. 
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
49,823
deep inside Guido territory
ifmanis5 said:
BB will have a press conference soon. I'm guessing he will make a brief statement and then move on.
1 of 2 ways he goes
1) "I'm not here to talk about the 2014 season.  I will talk about anything you have about our current team and the 2015 season. Please refer any league issues to the league office."
2) He will duplicate the Aaron Hernandez PC and take any and all questions then nothing going forward.
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
5,708
Bleedred said:
A non-troll friend of mine asks the following Questions:
 
 
1. Why did Brady destroy his telephone?
2. Why did Brady's legal team provide neither McNally nor Jastremski to testify during the appeal when requested?
3. Why did McNally call himself "the Deflator" on his email way back in 2014 if, as you argued earlier, Brady actually preferred fully inflated balls?
4. Why did McNally tell Jastremski back in 2014 that he had a "big needle" for him (as opposed to a pump), and then make reference to payback or else it would be a "Rugby sunday," which he himself acknowledged for the investigators meant that the rugby reference referred to an over-inflated ball, like a rugby ball?
 
How I'd respond
1.  He didn't.  He switched out phones and offered to give access to all folks with whom he texted from that phone.  He would never give up the phone given his union and celebrity status.
2.  Not his position to offer them up.  How could he even compel them to appear.   They don't get 2/5 bites of the apple.
3.  There's nothing in the Deflator text that incriminates Brady.  Zero.
4.  See #3
 
Other thoughts?
 
Didn't Brady imply that his phone broke and that he contacted the company to see if the texts could be restored but they couldn't? 
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
Just re-read Brady's Facebook post.  Really, other players ought to be championing this guy, since this fight is no longer about deflated footballs, but rather the power of the commissioner vs. the rights of the players.
 
They should be banding together in solidarity support of Brady.
 

Bleedred

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 21, 2001
8,317
Boston, MA
ivanvamp said:
Just re-read Brady's Facebook post.  Really, other players ought to be championing this guy, since this fight is no longer about deflated footballs, but rather the power of the commissioner vs. the rights of the players.
 
They should be banding together in solidarity support of Brady.
They mostly don't care or understand labor issues.   It's a sad fact, but the NFL will eat their lunch in every negotiation, because in the end, the players want to get on the field and play long before the owners would cave on significant issues.  It's a lot easier to keep solidarity among 32 owners (even if they are bloviating billionaires) than 1500 plus players who have careers of 3-5 years on average and who need the money.