#DFG: Canceling the Noise

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


  • Total voters
    208

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
46,165
drbretto said:
 
This entire post is exactly what he means by "getting the lawyers out of the room". You missed the spirit of that entire paragraph and you're parsing everything literally. The quote was purely philosophical and is not worth anyone's time to try to dig any deeper. He's not saying they literally shouldn't have lawyers. He's saying he can't have a conversation with Goodell and get this shit resolved because he's got lawyers whispering in his ears.  
 
He's not missing the meaning, he's disagreeing with it.
 
With no lawyers in the room, Goodell's word reins supreme. The Patriots got fucked because lawyers aren't allowed in the room, not in a practical or functional sense anyway. That's the grand irony of Kraft's statement.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
46,165
AB in DC said:
Kraft's comment is just a less-eloquent version of James Madison's quote: " If men were angels, no government would be necessary."  In other words, the only reason we need law (and by extension lawyers) is that people don't always do the right thing on their own.  
 
Where Kraft went wrong was assuming that his buddy Roger would handle it appropriately from the get-go.
 
Is it worth noting that angels have government?
 
Which is to say--and this connect to Myt1's point--even where it is not necessary, it may yet still be wise.
 

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
34,185
South Boston
drbretto said:
 
This entire post is exactly what he means by "getting the lawyers out of the room". You missed the spirit of that entire paragraph and you're parsing everything literally. The quote was purely philosophical and is not worth anyone's time to try to dig any deeper. He's not saying they literally shouldn't have lawyers. He's saying he can't have a conversation with Goodell and get this shit resolved because he's got lawyers whispering in his ears.  
He's comically wrong and should know better (and likely, fuck it, I won't undersell it, very obviously does), your fantasy of lawyers as Wormtongue notwithstanding.

Your ignorance about how lawyers actually work would be silly if it weren't leading you to be so testy about asserting that you know what you're talking about in these threads.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
46,165
lithos2003 said:
We keep going around in circles on these points...  I know it's a long thread and it's hard to keep up but I think this was answered at least twice before.  The texts referred to were from after the phone was returned to Jastremski.  They didn't bother to ask to see the phone again.
 
Yes.
 
 

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
34,185
South Boston
There is no Rev said:
 
He's not missing the meaning, he's disagreeing with it.
 
With no lawyers in the room, Goodell's word reins supreme. The Patriots got fucked because lawyers aren't allowed in the room, not in a practical or functional sense anyway. That's the grand irony of Kraft's statement.
I think he thinks the ABA sent a maester in to induce Goodell to drum up these false charges to destroy the last dragon QB and to ensure legal fees for all the land.
 

drbretto

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 10, 2009
11,017
Concord, NH
It has nothing to do with how lawyers work. I think you and now Rev as well are missing the mark on the comment. I'm not trying to be testy about this at all. This is Kraft being upset that he couldn't have a productive conversation with Goodell, not him actually saying that lawyers are responsible or that there shouldn't be lawyers involved. It's not a line meant to be taken any more seriously than that. I think AB and T&A see what I'm seeing there, too. To think Kraft is actually dumb enough to think what you're accusing him to think is because you're taking it too literally.
 
Edit: and any snarkiness from my end just comes from me typing how I would talk. It's not by the book and sometimes I unintentionally rub people the wrong way, but if you give the benefit of the doubt, no snark is intended. 
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
46,165
drbretto said:
It has nothing to do with how lawyers work. I think you and now Rev as well are missing the mark on the comment. I'm not trying to be testy about this at all. This is Kraft being upset that he couldn't have a productive conversation with Goodell, not him actually saying that lawyers are responsible or that there shouldn't be lawyers involved. It's not a line meant to be taken any more seriously than that. I think AB and T&A see what I'm seeing there, too. To think Kraft is actually dumb enough to think what you're accusing him to think is because you're taking it too literally.
 
Edit: and any snarkiness from my end just comes from me typing how I would talk. It's not by the book and sometimes I unintentionally rub people the wrong way, but if you give the benefit of the doubt, no snark is intended. 
 
Are you familiar with the history of that remark about getting lawyers our of the room from Kraft?
 

drbretto

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 10, 2009
11,017
Concord, NH
There is no Rev said:
 
Are you familiar with the history of that remark about getting lawyers our of the room from Kraft?
 
 
The history of it? From his angle or where the phrase comes from? I have heard the phrase before, just not from him. 
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
9,259
Springfield, VA
There is no Rev said:
 
Are you familiar with the history of that remark about getting lawyers our of the room from Kraft?
 
Isn't that kind of the point?  He was critical of the last CBA process being run primarily by lawyers -- which makes perfect sense, since it's really a business transaction, not a legal transaction.
 

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
34,185
South Boston
drbretto said:
It has nothing to do with how lawyers work. I think you and now Rev as well are missing the mark on the comment. I'm not trying to be testy about this at all. This is Kraft being upset that he couldn't have a productive conversation with Goodell, not him actually saying that lawyers are responsible or that there shouldn't be lawyers involved. It's not a line meant to be taken any more seriously than that. I think AB and T&A see what I'm seeing there, too. To think Kraft is actually dumb enough to think what you're accusing him to think is because you're taking it too literally.
 
Edit: and any snarkiness from my end just comes from me typing how I would talk. It's not by the book and sometimes I unintentionally rub people the wrong way, but if you give the benefit of the doubt, no snark is intended. 
Eh, don't worry about it. I'm giving at least as good as you are. ;)

Look, to shoehorn in even more allusions, Kraft's comments are a self-serving bit of self-deception designed to let him convince himself that he wasn't one of the guys chopping down every law in England now that Kraftenstein's monster has turned around on him. It's really as simple as it being easier to accept that some "other" is preventing him from just settling this with a friendly conversation than it is to confront the fact that he's got absolutely no juice whatsoever and that he's partly to blame for creating the monster that's crushing him.

To engage in a real business negotiation, you need power. Kraft's stuck with a shrink-wrapped EULA on this and it's killing him so he's blaming someone else.
 

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

T&A
SoSH Member
Feb 9, 2010
5,299
Providence, RI
Let's not turn this into a lawyers are an over sensitive group of people side discussion. Kraft had an issue with the people or temperament of the people involved. Doesn't mean he was right or wrong or that there was more to the comment then thay
 

Omar's Wacky Neighbor

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
13,618
Leaving in a bit to the studio :)
Marciano490 said:
 
Wouldn't the counterargument be that at the time he destroyed the phone the possibility of bringing a suit was extraordinarily remote because the NFL had not come close to meeting the very high threshold?  There's no spoiliation if litigation isn't reasonably foreseeable.
IOW TB "destroying" his phone was potentially more valuable to the NFL's cause, than anything they might have found on the phone,,,,,,,?
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
32,935
AZ
OilCanShotTupac said:
 and the fact that the statement at issue was made in the context of an arbitration proceeding. 
 
I wonder whether a Noerr-Pennington/petitioning defense applies to arbitration proceedings?  
 
(The constitution bars any law that prohibits the petitioning of the government for grievances.  The Supreme Court has extended the doctrine to certain things you say in a lawsuit -- for example, filing a complaint since it's filed in court constitutes petitioning.  So, you can't be sued for filing a complaint in court, unless it was a sham or you committed fraud, or some other stuff.  I wonder whether this doctrine applies to defamation.  (It might not since defamation pre-supposes a lie, but "reckless disregard" defamation possibly would be covered.)  I wonder whether this doctrine applies in arbitration, since there is no direct petitioning of the government and instead you're petitioning a private arbitrator.  I wonder whether this doctrine would apply where the arbitrator is actually a party sitting pursuant to a collectively bargained agreement.  And I wonder whether the statement could even be regarded as petitioning activity in the first place.  But, I humbly submit this for any of you 1Ls looking for a good note topic arising out of this affair.) 
 

JayMags71

Member
SoSH Member
Myt1 said:
Look, to shoehorn in even more allusions, Kraft's comments are a self-serving bit of self-deception designed to let him convince himself that he wasn't one of the guys chopping down every law in England now that Kraftenstein's monster has turned around on him. It's really as simple as it being easier to accept that some "other" is preventing him from just settling this with a friendly conversation than it is to confront the fact that he's got absolutely no juice whatsoever and that he's partly to blame for creating the monster that's crushing him.
We would have also accepted "Kraft is the frog, and Goodell is the scorpion," here, too.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
46,165
AB in DC said:
 
Isn't that kind of the point?  He was critical of the last CBA process being run primarily by lawyers -- which makes perfect sense, since it's really a business transaction, not a legal transaction.
 
Exactly.
 
I have been negotiating agreements on a global basis my entire life. I know there are times when you have to give up important points of principle to achieve a greater good. I acted in good faith and was optimistic that by taking the actions I took the league would have what they wanted. I was willing to accept the harshest penalty in the history of the NFL for an alleged ball violation because I believed it would help exonerate Tom.
I have often said, ‘If you want to get a deal done, sometimes you have to get the lawyers out of the room.’ I had hoped that Tom Brady’s appeal to the league would provide Roger Goodell the necessary explanation to overturn his suspension. Now, the league has taken the matter to court, which is a tactic that only a lawyer would recommend.
 
 
This whole sideline started with a misinterpretation of what Kraft said recently, I think. And then people took the ball and ran with it. He in no way is claiming the lawyers in the room prevented this from happening, but rather is bitching that Goodell lawyered up when Kraft at least claims he thought they were all going to stand-down.
 
If Kraft is telling the truth, then he got whipped. And he got whipped because he was naive, and the lawyering of this situation is a function of a fucked up process agreed to in the CBA which the owners wanted and from which they, in general, benefit. So the whole thing is sorta whiny and not well thought out...
 
...and utterly irrelevant.
 
The only interesting part to me is Kraft failing to realize that in his famous example of getting the lawyers out of the room, he and RG were on the same side, and both stood to benefit from doing so and breaking down a solid business deal. Kraft's expectation that RG would sit down and chill with him on a deal belies a bit of frog in him before deciding to help the scorpion get across the river.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
46,165
JayMags71 said:
We would have also accepted "Kraft is the frog, and Goodell is the scorpion," here, too.
 
Egads.
 
I'm walking away from this forum for a few.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
30,807
Perhaps a good time to re-post some Tagliabue comments on Goodell.
 
Upos Roger's ascension to Commish:
 
My advice is to be yourself, continue to be thoughtful and, as Roger said, keep the focus on the game and the players.
 
 
 
And after Tagliabue rescinded almost all the Bountygate sanctions:
 
Tagliabue sees Goodell’s laser focus on profit and his combative stance toward players as key parts of the problem. "If they see you making decisions only in economic terms, they start to understand that and question what you’re all about," he said. "There’s a huge intangible value in peace. There’s a huge intangible value in having allies." As for his relationship with his protégé, Tagliabue says, "We haven’t talked much since I left. It’s been his decision. Bountygate didn’t help." In our conversation, Tagliabue seemed disappointed, and a bit sad, about the sorry state of the game he ran for seventeen years.
 
 
 
 
 
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
5,928
Harry Hooper said:
Perhaps a good time to re-post some Tagliabue comments on Goodell.
 
Upos Roger's ascension to Commish:
 
 
 
And after Tagliabue rescinded almost all the Bountygate sanctions:
 
"There’s a huge intangible value in peace. There’s a huge intangible value in having allies."
 
 
 
 
 
Three things:
 
(1)  I think Goodell thinks that the only allies he needs are the owners.  And he clearly is being told that punishing those cheating Pats is going to win him favor in a lot of owners' minds.
(2)  I think Goodell believes in peace through intimidation.  He will not show weakness by conceding anything, no matter how foolish the fight.  
(3)  The combination of the points above is why I think there is very little chance that the NFL is going to settle.  Even if the judge tells the NFL that he is going to rule against them, they'll say "Then we're on to the Second Circuit" and refuse to settle.  
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
29,662
Hingham, MA
General thought after reading that article: Rozelle was before my time, but both he and Tagliabue strike me as more "shepherd" type of commissioners. At the end of the day, they seemed to care most about doing what was in the best interest of the league, and staying out of the way and in the background, for the most part. Whereas it seems as if Goodell truly wants to be seen as the "CEO" of the league. It seems important to him to be seen as in charge, in control, having all the power. I totally agree with Tags that there is an intrinsic value to having peace, and that has disappeared with Goodell at the helm. The owners don't care because their pockets are deeper than any time in history. We'll see if they still support him when the CBA is up, I suppose. Gonna be a long wait.
 

dcdrew10

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
1,314
Washington, DC via Worcester
tims4wins said:
General thought after reading that article: Rozelle was before my time, but both he and Tagliabue strike me as more "shepherd" type of commissioners. At the end of the day, they seemed to care most about doing what was in the best interest of the league, and staying out of the way and in the background, for the most part. Whereas it seems as if Goodell truly wants to be seen as the "CEO" of the league. It seems important to him to be seen as in charge, in control, having all the power. I totally agree with Tags that there is an intrinsic value to having peace, and that has disappeared with Goodell at the helm. The owners don't care because their pockets are deeper than any time in history. We'll see if they still support him when the CBA is up, I suppose. Gonna be a long wait.
 
Ignore this if it's been brought up before, but I have been wondering if this is just all part of a long game on the Commissioner's power for the next CBA.
 
It seems like the NFL is trying to solidify as much power for the commissioner as possible by turning grey area into black and white and putting it before the court for a thumbs up and willing to take the lumps if that doesn't work. The NFL keeps at it, no matter how many times it fails and now they have forced the NFLPA to be so focused on player discipline appeals process that the PA is more likely to give something up at the negotiating table (like money) to get it back. Regardless the NFL comes out on top, because they either get court approval for more commissioner power or they have extracted concessions from the NFLPA to get the player discipline back to what most people would consider normal/fair and what ends up happening after the appeals to court and outside arbitrators. Basically the NFL is forcing the PA to pay for the same result it already gets, just without the hassle of going to court and filing appeals.
 
That might be giving too much credit the the NFL, but you know NFL front office is going to try and get some serious concessions from the PA to reduce the Ginger Hammer's power.
 

MarcSullivaFan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 21, 2005
3,412
Hoo-hoo-hoo hoosier land.
tims4wins said:
Loved the Eric Winston quote
 
"You could be the worst bartender at spring break, but youd still be killing it."
I think it's a little more nuanced than that. Goodell has qualities that lend themselves well to heading up the commercial juggernaut that the NFL has become:

1. No shame or sense of decency

2. Willing to bludgeon the union and business partners until he's satisfied that he has extracted every possible concession and every last cent, without any apparent concern for how this could come back to haunt the league in the future

3. Comfortable among rich and powerful people

4. Apparently no concern for his legacy

5. No hesitation to burn bridges when it's expedient

These qualities make him effective NOW, and maybe that's what the owners care about. Maybe they all kinda realize that the longterm viability of professional football as we know it has some question marks, and they want to make every cent they can while the getting's good.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
29,662
Hingham, MA
dcdrew10 said:
 
Ignore this if it's been brought up before, but I have been wondering if this is just all part of a long game on the Commissioner's power for the next CBA.
 
It seems like the NFL is trying to solidify as much power for the commissioner as possible by turning grey area into black and white and putting it before the court for a thumbs up and willing to take the lumps if that doesn't work. The NFL keeps at it, no matter how many times it fails and now they have forced the NFLPA to be so focused on player discipline appeals process that the PA is more likely to give something up at the negotiating table (like money) to get it back. Regardless the NFL comes out on top, because they either get court approval for more commissioner power or they have extracted concessions from the NFLPA to get the player discipline back to what most people would consider normal/fair and what ends up happening after the appeals to court and outside arbitrators. Basically the NFL is forcing the PA to pay for the same result it already gets, just without the hassle of going to court and filing appeals.
 
That might be giving too much credit the the NFL, but you know NFL front office is going to try and get some serious concessions from the PA to reduce the Ginger Hammer's power.
 
Totally agree
 
MarcSullivaFan said:
I think it's a little more nuanced than that. Goodell has qualities that lend themselves well to heading up the commercial juggernaut that the NFL has become:

1. No shame or sense of decency

2. Willing to bludgeon the union and business partners until he's satisfied that he has extracted every possible concession and every last cent, without any apparent concern for how this could come back to haunt the league in the future

3. Comfortable among rich and powerful people

4. Apparently no concern for his legacy

5. No hesitation to burn bridges when it's expedient

These qualities make him effective NOW, and maybe that's what the owners care about. Maybe they all kinda realize that the longterm viability of professional football as we know it has some question marks, and they want to make every cent they can while the getting's good.
 
Totally agree, especially with the bold
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
53,187
New York City
MarcSullivaFan said:
These qualities make him effective NOW, and maybe that's what the owners care about. Maybe they all kinda realize that the longterm viability of professional football as we know it has some question marks, and they want to make every cent they can while the getting's good.
 
I'm not sure about that. The owners are making the most money by the skyrocketing values of their teams. Yeah, the annual revenue isn't bad but these franchises are near a billion dollars or more. If the league is on the downtrend, no matter how much the owners make right now, their pockets won't be fat if the value of their franchise drops significantly.
 
edit - The Patriots are worth 2.6 billion dollars. Worth 172 million in 1994. That is a pretty solid growth rate. And that is where the money is made for the owners. If the NFL gets weaker as the years pass, the owners are going to get shredded.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,559
Mansfield MA
There is no Rev said:
The only interesting part to me is Kraft failing to realize that in his famous example of getting the lawyers out of the room, he and RG were on the same side, and both stood to benefit from doing so and breaking down a solid business deal. Kraft's expectation that RG would sit down and chill with him on a deal belies a bit of frog in him before deciding to help the scorpion get across the river.
So your assumption / theory is that Goodell personally is the instigator / adversary here?
 
Kraft kind of went out of his way in his comments (and really, through the whole process - consider the choice of "Wells Report In Context" versus "Problems With the Wells Report") to avoid criticizing Goodell directly. It's not clear to me whether that's because he thinks it's Pash's fault, not Roger's, or whether he thinks it is Roger's fault but doesn't want to open himself up to further sanctions or animosity by criticizing the Commissioner directly. The idea of Pash, not Goodell, as the driving force here makes sense to me. The new CBA was Pash's responsibility, but it was Kraft who brokered a deal at the last minute and ended the lockout; it's easy to see Pash harboring resentment there, and over Kraft's reputation as having influence with Goodell. And I don't see what Goodell has to gain by screwing Kraft over.
 
As for Kraft's naivete, I'm not sure it really matters. He agreed to be a frog a long time ago; the only thing he can do is hope that the people he needs to work with aren't scorpions and proceed on that basis. If he'd acted through this entire process like the league office is full of enemies, would things be any different? It's difficult for me to see how they would be.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
13,473
New York City
I guess I just didn't have that negative a reaction to Kraft's statements about getting rid of the lawyers.  I viewed it as a kind of sad but kind of wise statement that the NFL never should have gone with a heavy duty investigation/litigation approach on a stupid issue and that somebody should have had the good sense to say that it's a bad idea to tear down a star player for what is at worse an equipment violation and what is at best weather.
 

MarcSullivaFan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 21, 2005
3,412
Hoo-hoo-hoo hoosier land.
Myt1 said:
Kraft's point is incoherent. Once the arbitration railroading started, it was bound to end up in court and the reason the procedure was so butchered in the first place was because of the process he and his fellow owners pushed so their proxy could maintain absolute power.

This is the mess it is because of the lack of legal procedural safeguards, not because of them. And it's exactly the system Kraft wanted.
I'm not sure Kraft had anything to do with it. My understanding is the relevant provisions of (current) Article 46 have been in place for some time. I can't link right now, but I know at least the CBA preceding this one had the same language (different article number, I think).
 

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
34,185
South Boston
That's is true. But at the same time, there have been comments about the latest CBA negotiations and that the NFL drew a hard line at giving up disciplenary power. And Kraft endorsed that power and Goodell's actions explicitly in the Rice case, which was a complete debacle from a procedural perspective.
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
MarcSullivaFan said:
I'm not sure Kraft had anything to do with it. My understanding is the relevant provisions of (current) Article 46 have been in place for some time. I can't link right now, but I know at least the CBA preceding this one had the same language (different article number, I think).
This part of the CBA hasn't changed dramatically in several iterations of the CBA.
 
What has changed since 2011 is that Roger has gone off the reservation with how he is using it. He's becoming much more active and inconsistent with how he has used it.
 
NFLPA didn't anticipate Roger going this crazy with it.
 

MarcSullivaFan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 21, 2005
3,412
Hoo-hoo-hoo hoosier land.
Myt1 said:
That's is true. But at the same time, there have been comments about the latest CBA negotiations and that the NFL drew a hard line at giving up disciplenary power. And Kraft endorsed that power and Goodell's actions explicitly in the Rice case, which was a complete debacle from a procedural perspective.
Can't argue with this. I don't have a lot of sympathy for Kraft. And I would have even less if I were Jerry Jones, Daniel Snyder or Tom Benson.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
51,125
deep inside Guido territory
Talked to my friend today who is a scout for the Colts and is close to Ryan Grigson.  He swears that all they wanted to do was make sure the referees checked the balls before the game and that's it.  Said it wasn't their intention to start this whole thing.
 

jsinger121

@jsinger121
SoSH Member
RedOctober3829 said:
Talked to my friend today who is a scout for the Colts and is close to Ryan Grigson.  He swears that all they wanted to do was make sure the referees checked the balls before the game and that's it.  Said it wasn't their intention to start this whole thing.
 
And there is where the NFL dropped the ball because they didn't check anything. Walt Anderson and his crew dropped the ball and now the NFL is covering up for him.
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
RedOctober3829 said:
Talked to my friend today who is a scout for the Colts and is close to Ryan Grigson.  He swears that all they wanted to do was make sure the referees checked the balls before the game and that's it.  Said it wasn't their intention to start this whole thing.
Which, of course, explains why they went to Kensil in the first half with the intercepted ball.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
51,125
deep inside Guido territory
ivanvamp said:
Which, of course, explains why they went to Kensil in the first half with the intercepted ball.
Funny you should mention Kensil.  He brought Kensil up unprompted and actually said that he has major issues with the Patriots and with Belichick and took this in his own direction.
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
It's not just Kensil. At every step when the NFL could have ended this, they have not only chosen to pursue it further. They've chosen to pursue it in the most bitterly opposed method calling into question Patriots' and Brady's integrity.
 
We all know there is something more driving this case than actual drop in PSI.
 
Where I'm getting lost is trying to figure out what are the driving factors behind why the NFL has chosen it's path whenever given the choice.
 
Is it just Kensil & other vendetta, knock down the NFLPA, desire to get Bill, desire to get Kraft, revenge on Brady (rulebook quote), et al.
 
But whenever I examine any of those rationals none of them really rise to explain the NFL's scorched earth pursuit of this.
 
Particularly Brady. One of the faces of the league. Has never had an inkling of suspect cheating/dirty player, etc.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,956
We know that, but the original statement from RedOctober was that the Colts people never intended what came after. Which is almost certainly true, they were undoubtedly just trying to engage in a little gamesmanship and interfere with Brady's comfort. This whole thing spun out of control because of Jimmy Irsay's drunken texting and Kensil's seeing an opening for revenge and spreading disinformation that blew the story out of control.
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
edmunddantes said:
It's not just Kensil. At every step when the NFL could have ended this, they have not only chosen to pursue it further. They've chosen to pursue it in the most bitterly opposed method calling into question Patriots' and Brady's integrity.
 
We all know there is something more driving this case than actual drop in PSI.
 
Where I'm getting lost is trying to figure out what are the driving factors behind why the NFL has chosen it's path whenever given the choice.
 
Is it just Kensil & other vendetta, knock down the NFLPA, desire to get Bill, desire to get Kraft, revenge on Brady (rulebook quote), et al.
 
But whenever I examine any of those rationals none of them really rise to explain the NFL's scorched earth pursuit of this.
 
Particularly Brady. One of the faces of the league. Has never had an inkling of suspect cheating/dirty player, etc.
It is amazing that nationwide, even though Goodell is a proven liar who has, on several occasions, totally abused his power and has had courts rule against him, and even though Brady never ever had a whiff of scandal or impropriety before in his professional life, and even though there actually is NO evidence that he did anything illegal, that people choose to believe Goodell instead of Brady.

But they do. Still.
 

dcdrew10

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
1,314
Washington, DC via Worcester
edmunddantes said:
It's not just Kensil. At every step when the NFL could have ended this, they have not only chosen to pursue it further. They've chosen to pursue it in the most bitterly opposed method calling into question Patriots' and Brady's integrity.
 
We all know there is something more driving this case than actual drop in PSI.
 
Where I'm getting lost is trying to figure out what are the driving factors behind why the NFL has chosen it's path whenever given the choice.
 
Is it just Kensil & other vendetta, knock down the NFLPA, desire to get Bill, desire to get Kraft, revenge on Brady (rulebook quote), et al.
 
But whenever I examine any of those rationals none of them really rise to explain the NFL's scorched earth pursuit of this.
 
Particularly Brady. One of the faces of the league. Has never had an inkling of suspect cheating/dirty player, etc.
It's not just one thing. It's a confluence. You have sore loser teams in the face of a dozen plus years of excellence, butt hurt media who cover those loser teams and mediots who BB shits on every chance he gets, power hungry asshats in NFL leadership, particularly a former NFLPA turncoat, an asshole with an ax to grind against the Pats, and a union busting lawyer, all led by an egomaniac of legendary proportions, who likely wanted to knock Kraft down a peg after the whole assistant commissioner thing, and the perfect test case for expanding commissioner powers without negotiating the CBA. If the NFL can do it to their second most marketable star, who is going to stand up to them? And if they lose, who cares, because, like I said a couple hours ago, this is just going to make the NFLPA focus more on player discipline and be willing to give other things up the next negotiation.

In the end this is in 100% win-win situation for the NFL. And it really sucks
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
13,473
New York City
edmunddantes said:
It's not just Kensil. At every step when the NFL could have ended this, they have not only chosen to pursue it further. They've chosen to pursue it in the most bitterly opposed method calling into question Patriots' and Brady's integrity.
 
We all know there is something more driving this case than actual drop in PSI.
 
Where I'm getting lost is trying to figure out what are the driving factors behind why the NFL has chosen it's path whenever given the choice.
 
Is it just Kensil & other vendetta, knock down the NFLPA, desire to get Bill, desire to get Kraft, revenge on Brady (rulebook quote), et al.
 
But whenever I examine any of those rationals none of them really rise to explain the NFL's scorched earth pursuit of this.
 
Particularly Brady. One of the faces of the league. Has never had an inkling of suspect cheating/dirty player, etc.
 
I think it's much more straightforward.  This was all an effort to protect Goodell and Pash: the league office couldn't take another scandal and if the initial deflategate brouhaha all turned out to be an accident because Troy Vincent and Kensil don't understand physics, that's another big credibility hit. 
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
30,301
Here
ivanvamp said:
There was no need to go to Kensil at all if all they wanted was to have the balls tested pregame.
Or, you know, measure footballs on the sidelines.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
30,807
RedOctober3829 said:
Funny you should mention Kensil.  He brought Kensil up unprompted and actually said that he has major issues with the Patriots and with Belichick and took this in his own direction.
 
Sorry, it may be what he was told, but I don't believe what your guy is saying. Grigson in the second quarter, in the middle of being steamrolled by the Pats again and highlighting to all the world the GM's impotence in assembling a decent run defense, checks in with his "small ball" report.
 

crystalline

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 12, 2009
5,725
JP
Shelterdog said:
omebody should have had the good sense to say that it's a bad idea to tear down a star player for what is at worst an equipment violation and at best weather.

Best summary there is.

Can we retitle the forum
"At worst an equipment violation, at best weather: the New England Patriots forum"
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
3,417
MarcSullivaFan said:
Can't argue with this. I don't have a lot of sympathy for Kraft. And I would have even less if I were Jerry Jones, Daniel Snyder or Tom Benson.
yes. That's why you can't really blame Jones for taking a shot at Kraft.
 

OCST

Sunny von Bulow
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2004
21,305
The 718
dcdrew10 said:
It's not just one thing. It's a confluence. You have sore loser teams in the face of a dozen plus years of excellence, butt hurt media who cover those loser teams and mediots who BB shits on every chance he gets, power hungry asshats in NFL leadership, particularly a former NFLPA turncoat, an asshole with an ax to grind against the Pats, and a union busting lawyer, all led by an egomaniac of legendary proportions, who likely wanted to knock Kraft down a peg after the whole assistant commissioner thing, and the perfect test case for expanding commissioner powers without negotiating the CBA. If the NFL can do it to their second most marketable star, who is going to stand up to them? And if they lose, who cares, because, like I said a couple hours ago, this is just going to make the NFLPA focus more on player discipline and be willing to give other things up the next negotiation.

In the end this is in 100% win-win situation for the NFL. And it really sucks
 
This post needs more insults.
 

dcdrew10

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
1,314
Washington, DC via Worcester
OilCanShotTupac said:
 
This post needs more insults.
Something, something, rent-boy lawyers masquerading as an independent investigators cheered on by intellectual midget fans of loser franchises and advertised by yes-men four letter word networks, something

...good enough? Is my contempt for everyone involved in the situation clear enough?
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
9,259
Springfield, VA
ipol said:
 
Glad you've joined us. The science was straight up bull shit right from the git. More evidence, though - as much as we Dinthappeners welcome it - is but a sad exercise in futility.
The thing is, the actual science in the Exponent report isn't bad at all.  The main finding -- that the Ideal Gas Law would explain deflation of 1 PSI but not 2 PSI -- basically echoes what the board's scientists said six months ago in the mega-thread.
 
The real (and fatal) flaw is the decidedly un-scientific conclusion that any deflation not explained by the Ideal Gas Law -- as measured in a controlled laboratory environment -- must therefore be attributable to human intervention.  That's a patently absurd statement, and I can't imagine any real scientists in Exponent, or anywhere else, endorsing that viewpoint.  
 
If the report were subject to any kind of peer review whatsoever, those conclusions would have been torn to shreds.