speedracer said:
I'm pretty confident you have the conclusion and the analysis in the wrong order there.
#DFG: Canceling the Noise
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
I'm pretty confident you have the conclusion and the analysis in the wrong order there.
CaptainLaddie said:
I can't believe that you can't believe we're going to keep going with this.
Do people think it's a slam dunk that Tom will appeal if he loses? I know that most have said that both sides will definitely appeal if they lose.
But I would think that Tom's chances of success would be worse on appeal than the NFL's and at some point, he might want to end the distraction and whatever affect having to deal with the court case is having on him.
I ask, in part, because Berman seems more likely to me to focus on the equities of the case and the NFL's conduct than would an appellate court, who I would think would be even more likely to focus on the CBA deference point.
Again, I know the conventional wisdom is that if Tom loses, he seeks an injunction and appeals. After all, at that point he's got nothing to lose and just might get the injunction, which would allow him to play while this thing drags out.
But I would think that Tom's chances of success would be worse on appeal than the NFL's and at some point, he might want to end the distraction and whatever affect having to deal with the court case is having on him.
I ask, in part, because Berman seems more likely to me to focus on the equities of the case and the NFL's conduct than would an appellate court, who I would think would be even more likely to focus on the CBA deference point.
Again, I know the conventional wisdom is that if Tom loses, he seeks an injunction and appeals. After all, at that point he's got nothing to lose and just might get the injunction, which would allow him to play while this thing drags out.
TheoShmeo said:
If by people you mean carpenters in Charlotte that grew up in Topsfield then, yes, that subset feels he will appeal if the decision is at all deleterious to his truth.
If you lose, an appeal is only two briefs and an oral argument. Which Tom would have no role in unless he choose to attend oral argument, which probably would occur after the season.
Losing could be less disruptive than certain forms of winning. A remand on procedural grounds, which could have this again before an arbitrator during the season, for example.
So yes, I think Tom appeals unless the Union becomes persuaded that it does not want this case before the Second Circuit and somehow persuades Tom to drop it.
Losing could be less disruptive than certain forms of winning. A remand on procedural grounds, which could have this again before an arbitrator during the season, for example.
So yes, I think Tom appeals unless the Union becomes persuaded that it does not want this case before the Second Circuit and somehow persuades Tom to drop it.
Imprecision sucks. I meant the NFLPA. Tom will presumably have a big voice in what comes next but yeah, the NFLPA is driving this.
The only reason I could see for Brady asking the NFLPA to consider not appealing is if Berman writes the opinion in a way that seems particularly difficult to overcome on appeal. Assuming he gets a stay, he may wish to avoid the possibility of having an affirmance come down at a time when a four-game suspension might be less desirable -- like December 15, 2016 or something. That said, this is a stretch -- as others have noted there's really no downside to an appeal.
DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
Especially true if playing in the NFL is your line of work. If Brady were to get injured and have to miss multiple games, he could drop the appeal and serve the suspension. But as noted above, it's really not his appeal, is it?
Harry Hooper said:
I get that everyone's a but anxious, and a little silliness to blow off steam is okay. But that shit ain't funny.
WayBackVazquez said:
People that rely on their body to earn money do not think this way.
Edit to say I was disagreeing with Harry's line of reasoning.
DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
He would of course be listed "probable-shoulder" no matter what the injury was, so who would know the difference?
Let's say Berman vacates and sends it back to the NFL for another hearing. Could he also issue an injunction barring the NFL from suspending Brady during this football season? You know that if the NFL gets another crack at this they will target a playoff suspension.
Ted Wells would get to the bottom of it. Dock the Pats another few first rounders.PedroKsBambino said:
I'm half joking, because I really think Goodell would go after the team if they tried it. It would be hilarious to flaunt the system like that, though hopefully it would be a minor injury.
Honestly, I would not be shocked to see the NFL go after the Pats for gaming the injury list, entirely independent of Brady. Wells and Exponent can surely generate some tripe about more probable than not BB was gaming the injuries, it affects the integrity of the game, etc. First round picks in 2017 and 2018, and the Patriots are not allowed to make trades involving draft picks.Ed Hillel said:
"Exponent based its analysis on a series of assumptions provided by Paul Weiss (See fine print of Appendix 278-4).
Assumptions used in the modeling:
1. BB is a lying liar who lies.
2. The Patriots manipulate their injury reporting to gain a competitive advantage.
3. No other NFL team has ever made any false reports or false non-repots concerinng injuries.
4. Prior to the September 10 game against Pittsburgh, BB texted the following message to Nick Caserio, "Nicky. Our fake injuries for this week are going to be: Brady, right shoulder (probable), Collins, left pinky toe (doubtful), Devey craniorectal inversion (probable), Develin, just a flesh wound (questionable)", and Caserio responded, "The eague will never buy the left pinky toe thing - better make him questionable. Oh, and Devey's gone, but "craniorectal inversion" was a nice touch, I might leave that one in but list him as "out". Anyway I need to go deflate some footballs."
Eddie Jurak said:
Nope. This is the Great and Powerful Berman. Go ahead and look behind the Curtain.
@BartHubbuch: Holy crap, Boston TV host says ON THE AIR that Roger Goodell should be murdered. Yes, murdered. http://t.co/IBz7J9Gj6K
Almost positive he's a Steelers guy. I remember him yelling he banged some callers mom or something because the caller went after the Steelers.Byrdbrain said:
I've already seen tweets that "Boston TV host Threatens to Murder Roger Goodell." Let's see where this one goes lol.
Oh, I'm not a WEEI regular, my bad.Byrdbrain said:
In defense of Kirk, that was a goofball statement that's going to look way worse on paper than it did on air. Probably should have known that, though, especially given his prior issues. The indignation over this will be worse than anything he said, though.
Edit - Fuck, I hope he didn't just give Tanguay a job.
That's clearly said in jest. If that's the standard, then someone could be fired from Around The Horn every day. Is Stephen A. Smith ever a fill in on that show? If so, I'm all for this new policy.theapportioner said:
djbayko said:
Way off the rails but, back when I watched ESPN, I don't remember anybody mentioning murder. I know you and I can fuck around like that. I'm just not sure that's video that should be laid down.
....
https://twitter.com/BartHubbuch/status/639234235325415428
https://twitter.com/BartHubbuch/status/639234235325415428
link to tweet
What an ass
https://twitter.com/BartHubbuch/status/639234235325415428
https://twitter.com/BartHubbuch/status/639234235325415428
link to tweet
What an ass
I didn't mean "murder" per se was mentioned on that show each day. I'm just saying that they say something outlandishly dumb. Look, all of these guys on all sports channels are paid to be sensational. If they aren't sensational enough, they are replaced. Sometimes they go a little too far. I don't think he should have said it, but people are acting like he really *meant* Goodell should be murdered. It's not fair to mischaracterize his statement like that, and he shouldn't lose his job over this.ipol said:
Edit: Typos
Was watching it. Clearly a goof, and he actually did say quickly he was only kidding. But he really should know better, and have a feeling his Schtick may have cost him in a big way this way. Deflate gate is a vortex into hell, swallowing all who get close.
djbayko said:
I don't disagree but the right attitude would have been to really own it. Make a ridiculous, over the top, inflammatory comment? Say it like a man to show the joke.
Yeah it seems Bart "accidentally" stopped the clip just before Kirk said "I'm obviously joking"cornwalls@6 said:
Chad Finn @GlobeChadFinn 10m10 minutes ago
Just saw the Minihane clip. Not sure why anyone without an agenda would take it seriously.