http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/06/12/nfl-forces-patriots-to-wear-numbered-jerseys-at-practice/#comment-5093319Mike Reiss of ESPN reports that the NFL instituted a new rule requiring all players to wear jersey numbers while on the field for Organized Team Activities and mandatory minicamps. The rule was put in place to make it easier to monitor compliance with rules regarding player practices, including that injured players should not be practicing.
Belichick liked having his players practice without jerseys early in the offseason program because he thought it enhanced communication between players, forcing them to get to know each other by looking at more than just a jersey number. It’s a tactic Belichick learned from studying Hall of Fame Steelers coach Chuck Noll, who always had his players wear jerseys without numbers in practice.
I'm thinking BB will go with blue numbers on blue jerseys, white numbers on white jerseys, red numbers on the non-contact jerseys, etc. It will work very well until RG nails him with an equipment violation and steals another million and a first.Would love to see the exact wording of the rule. It's gonna be great when he sends them all out wearing the same number.
To me, the interesting aspect of Bleedred's post was that Brady came across as not believable and that McNally came across as not credible.Wouldn't we ALL be nervous and uncomfortable if we were accused of something which we didn't do, but there was incorrect evidence presented to us that made it look worse than it was? Brady was trying to explain / defend himself against made up, incorrect, "evidence".
Again, confirmation bias.It's weird, I was stunned by how many people thought Brady seemed guilty at his PC, guilty people are typically aware enough of their own wrongdoing to prepare themselves to strongly deny it, why would someone who knows he did something wrong appear confused and not be prepared to deny it? No matter how many people we catch lying with these strong denials, why do we still tend to believe that's what innocence looks like?
I wasn't there, but there's nothing really galling about 2 non-scientist lawyers discussing the legal aspects of the case rather than the science of it, likely when they were drinking from a keg at a camp reunion. This was a discussion among friends in some shitty rec hall, not a court ordered and sanctioned cross-examination.If no wrongdoing was committed, it makes no difference how many people there are, or who they are, that think you look like you're "acting guilty," because there's nothing for you to be guilty of.
This is why, "Oh, we didn't talk about science," is so galling. The conversation begins with the presumption that something shady happened and proceeds from there with a search for the guilty - when any competent high school science student, let alone adult, should have all the information and experience they need to know better.
That you're still following Wallach? It's not great news.
It's reasonable to expect some time before mid-June that the Court either will deny the petition outright or order a response from the NFL.
I think there is a good chance we'll hear something before the end of June, and particularly before the July 4 holiday.
Don't forget to re-up for next week. You're gonna nail this one yet!I think it's likely we'll hear something by the end of next week.
I'm not sure what you're asking. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has shit. It issued a ruling, and Brady and the union could have accepted that ruling along with the certainty it provided that Brady would serve the first four games of the season. Then Brady asked the court for more time to ask it if it would consider shitting again. Then Brady asked the Court to return to the pot. Now you want him to demand that it shit again, and fast? This isn't fucking Bush v. Gore, people.At what point does Brady and the NFLPA say "hey, the most important player in the organization might miss a month - shit or get off the pot?" Or is that kind of language frowned upon in a court of law? My experience in court is limited to the time I overslept a jury I was selected to serve on and was not held in contempt of court.
After a while you quit guessing. Those seemed reasonable benchmarks to me.Don't forget to re-up for next week. You're gonna nail this one yet!
I bet I know at least one of those cases. My client was one of the (multiple) appellants, though not my team on that case. And a petition for rehearing was filed. Not by Ted Olson.Edit. One other point on those odds. Couple of weeks back I reviewed two very recent 2nd Cir decisions with powerful dissents. In both cases the majority opinion came across, to put in charitably, result oriented. In both cases, the dissenter made powerful arguments that the majority was blind to or quite clearly misread directly applicable Supreme Court decisions.' These were securities cases, which the Second Circuit regards as its wheelhouse and in which the Court is regarded a national leader.
I don't know whether the losers in those case petitioned for rehearing, or didn't. (Humorously, to me, the loser fired a very prominent NY firm and hired Ted Olson's firm after losing). The point is there are a few legitimate rehearing candidates kicked out by this Court (and all courts) and this Court almost never grants them.
Life is unfair. IMO Judge Droney schooled them and it wasn't close. For cases like this you need a functional Supreme Court and 5 Justices not blinded by agency love.I bet I know at least one of those cases. My client was one of the (multiple) appellants, though not my team on that case. And a petition for rehearing was filed. Not by Ted Olson.