#DFG: Canceling the Noise
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
Ordway said on WEEi this morning that an announcement for the Brady appeal could come as soon as today or tomorrow. Given that he was right about the timing of the Wells Report release, this should be taken with more than a grain of salt. We'll see.
Before the Hardy decision, I was pretty convinced that Goodell would not reduce the Brady suspension.
Now that Hardy has been reduced from 10 to 4, leaving Brady at 4 would look insane. Goodell would have to message it with the notion that Hardy had already missed games so his suspension is really longer than 4 games.
Still, the Hardy reduction has put Goodell in a tougher spot, especially if he doesn't want to reduce the 4 games without knowing that Brady will acquiesce (which I don't believe Brady will).
My gut is still that there will be no change in Brady's suspension but I am much less sure. Interesting times.
Now that Hardy has been reduced from 10 to 4, leaving Brady at 4 would look insane. Goodell would have to message it with the notion that Hardy had already missed games so his suspension is really longer than 4 games.
Still, the Hardy reduction has put Goodell in a tougher spot, especially if he doesn't want to reduce the 4 games without knowing that Brady will acquiesce (which I don't believe Brady will).
My gut is still that there will be no change in Brady's suspension but I am much less sure. Interesting times.
I'm starting to think it will be reduced - but by one or two games at the most. No reduction would not shock me either. I see no way that it's lifted in its entirety or turned into a fine with no suspension.
TheoShmeo said:
I am hoping for no change at all. I think from a court perspective that would help Brady the most, and also ensure this is going to court. That said, I highly doubt Goodell will leave it at 4 games for exactly this reason.
dcmissle said:
What's the relevance of the ASG? We're not talking about an event that gets the attention of the super bowl...or a middle east accord.
Maybe I'm just touchy because for 16 weeks, every Friday would provide a new justification for why the NFL would want to drop the Wells report.
It should be of no relevance, but lots of times these guys have the mindset of teenage punks.
Drop the decision at 4:00 to 4:30 -- and displace the only ASG in pro sports that's worth anything by forcing the networks to scramble to cover it. Even Fox would mention it.
We matter -- you don't. We sneeze; you got to the hospital with pneumonia.
I'm not counting on it, but it would not surprise me a bit. Again, the NFL will be proud of this news; that's how out of touch we are on this.
Drop the decision at 4:00 to 4:30 -- and displace the only ASG in pro sports that's worth anything by forcing the networks to scramble to cover it. Even Fox would mention it.
We matter -- you don't. We sneeze; you got to the hospital with pneumonia.
I'm not counting on it, but it would not surprise me a bit. Again, the NFL will be proud of this news; that's how out of touch we are on this.
I've been in the camp that he doesn't reduce it and let's it play out in court. With the Hardy ruling, I can see a scenario where he drops it to two games but adds a $1 Million fine. That way he saves some face on the woman beater to deflater comparisons but still looks like the sheriff to the rest of the league.
Go ahead. Leave it at 4 with Hardy out there, and a still employed coach accused of punching a kid in the eye and threatening his family with death if reported. Not even administrative paid leave for this fellow yet. So make my day.
Sportsbstn said:
I agree with your reasoning but doesn't reducing it 1 or 2 also help Brady's case? He held his appeal hearing but as far as I know there was no new evidence that came out of that. There's really no basis for him reducing it because nothing (besides "I looked him in the eye" crap) has changed since the orignal ruling. Him reducing it would show that he's making it up as he goes. I mean we all know he is but it would probably look worse to a neutral party than him just sticking to his guns.
If decision about player appeals are being made with an eye towards protecting the NFL in court, the only logical decision is to vacate the suspension.
I don't expect that to be the case since the NFL is clearly making it up as they go along. But it's possible.
I don't expect that to be the case since the NFL is clearly making it up as they go along. But it's possible.
Optimal outcome - 4 games held up; depositions start getting put on calendar
Worst-case outcome - cut to 1 game and Brady lays down his arms
When this all started, 1 game would have been deemed unfathomable as an outcome. If it is cut to 1, and Brady agrees to let it go, Goodell wins by getting a penalty that "appears" reasonable when it would have been viewed absurd 6 months ago.
Worst-case outcome - cut to 1 game and Brady lays down his arms
When this all started, 1 game would have been deemed unfathomable as an outcome. If it is cut to 1, and Brady agrees to let it go, Goodell wins by getting a penalty that "appears" reasonable when it would have been viewed absurd 6 months ago.
I disagree.Average Reds said:
Having an eye on the Court process could lead the NFL to do the exact opposite. Uphold it entirely and go into Court with the strident position that they were right all along.
Also, an eye on the Court process is just that, an eye. There are other considerations even when thinking partially about court -- PR and relations with the other teams who are applauding the Brady penalty, among them.
One unrelated point: That 1st and 4th and fine would look ridiculous if Goodell vacated the suspension. Goodell would be hard pressed to modify that too, and that may factor into only making a modest adjustment, if any, to Brady's suspension.
I'm looking forward to a new thread title soon. In the mean time I think of it as 'The Sword of damn Goodelloclese'
Court is not an optimal outcome. It never is.
But it seems here it's the only path. I can't imagine anything but a well-written opinion by Covington signed by Goodell justifying the suspension, making credibility findings, and trying to fix the problems identified so far. A court challenge won't be easy.
The only reason I could see Goodell reducing the suspension is if his lawyers are worried about a challenge to his power to sit on appeals. They probably aren't, but if they were I could see them reducing in order to give the appearance that he can sit as a neutral.
But it seems here it's the only path. I can't imagine anything but a well-written opinion by Covington signed by Goodell justifying the suspension, making credibility findings, and trying to fix the problems identified so far. A court challenge won't be easy.
The only reason I could see Goodell reducing the suspension is if his lawyers are worried about a challenge to his power to sit on appeals. They probably aren't, but if they were I could see them reducing in order to give the appearance that he can sit as a neutral.
I think the thing to keep in mind is that a reduction of the suspension to 1 or 2 games doesn't really cost Goodell anything. Yes, he looks idiotic in front of Pats fans. Yes, whatever reasoning he comes up with would not pass a logic exam. But neither of those points are at all relevant to the NFL or to Goodell.
He'll come up with some twisted explanation as to the reduction; some in the media will complain that he was too easy on Brady. Others will rightfully point out that there's still zero evidence of anything even happening to the footballs. But the NFL's sponsors will continue to the open the wallets, the fans will still come to the games and watch on TV, and the owners will continue to cash their checks. Life will go on. Meanwhile, Goodell will be able to still claim that he's able to independently arbitrate appeals that come his way all the while upholding his blessed integrity of the game nonsense, and he may just succeed in blunting one of Brady's potential court arguments about the punishment being excessive. Goodell has no incentive to avoid a court battle, but he does have incentive to win the court battle.
Bottom line is that there is potentially more benefit and less cost to Goodell's reducing the suspension than we would like to admit. Having said all that, I'm still thinking the likely result is that the suspension is upheld at 4 games.
He'll come up with some twisted explanation as to the reduction; some in the media will complain that he was too easy on Brady. Others will rightfully point out that there's still zero evidence of anything even happening to the footballs. But the NFL's sponsors will continue to the open the wallets, the fans will still come to the games and watch on TV, and the owners will continue to cash their checks. Life will go on. Meanwhile, Goodell will be able to still claim that he's able to independently arbitrate appeals that come his way all the while upholding his blessed integrity of the game nonsense, and he may just succeed in blunting one of Brady's potential court arguments about the punishment being excessive. Goodell has no incentive to avoid a court battle, but he does have incentive to win the court battle.
Bottom line is that there is potentially more benefit and less cost to Goodell's reducing the suspension than we would like to admit. Having said all that, I'm still thinking the likely result is that the suspension is upheld at 4 games.
lexrageorge said:
Lex, I would certainly disagree strongly that Goodell has no incentive to avoid a court battle. If he can win the battle, it would be great for him, but if he gets slammed again in court for over-stepping, there is no world in which that is a good thing for Goodell. The NFLPA is just itching as well to erode some of his power, and by making terrible decisions over and over again, Goodell is opening up the possibility. By not going to court, the NFLPA has no more recourse in this case.
allstonite said:
Yeah, as you said, Goodell will simply trump up that Brady "looked him in the eye" or some garbage like that. As has been mentioned before, a 2 game suspension has no precedent either, but the more games the more Goodell is simply making penalties up and there is no basis. I fear Goodell might get away with 1 game suspension in court, but I can't imagine any chance of the 4 games ever passing the court system. There are prior cases to point to, and with zero proof of any kind that Brady did anything wrong, Roger is holding on the "lack of total cooperation"for the 4 games, which will be shredded.
If Goodell was an effective leader by most definitions of the term, then I would agree with you.Sportsbstn said:
However, Goodell's actions to date on both DeflateGate and other matters make it clear that Goodell really could care less about staying out of court. He just wants to win in his own way for reasons those of us on the outside will never understand.
I don't think that would be considered adding a penalty. A suspension is effectively a fine of X game checks plus not being able to play in the game. $1,000,000 is less than a game check for Brady.Sportsbstn said:
Also, someone previously posted the the CBA specifically prohibits increasing the penalty on appeal. However, IIRC, that provision actually applies only to penalties for unnecessary roughness, helmet to helmet, etc -- not conduct detrimental.
I thought a game check was worth about $450,000 to Brady, hence the 4 game suspension added up to effectively a $1.8 million fine.
Harry Hooper said:
I think that is correct. Thanks Marc, I had not seen that the language does not apply to this type of penalty.
I arrived in Sao Paolo, Brazil this morning. After checking into my hotel, the bellman escorted me to my room. On the elevator, he asked where I was from and I said Washington, DC (where I now live). He said, "Oh, are you a Redskins' fan?" He had surprisingly good English. I said, "No, Patriots." He said, "Ooooh, I used to like the Patriots, but since they deflated the footballs, I don't like them any more." I said, "They didn't." That was enough for him. He now likes the Patriots again. I gave him a bit more explanation than that, but effectively it just took him to hear there was another side to it.
JeffLedbetter said:
Escorting you to your room but not yet there, you cared about it enough to disagree with him. I don't think bellhops are prone to arguing with guests about things that they don't really care about. Especially so if they are hoping for a tip.
I guess my point was more that a bellman in Sao Paolo knew about this at all.BlackJack said:
suppose it's reduced to a game. could brady then take it to court and decide to drop his case before an "easier" game on the schedule, like the jags (or last game of the season if it doesn't matter) and just serve it then?
Breer a couple of days ago said RG would wait to get closer to training camp -- when Tom dons the pads and smells the grass, he won't be as inclined to fight. (Yes Breer said this -- as if Tom were a horse).
Grain of salt indeed.
From a legal perspective, the longer RG waits, the more likely it is that a district judge will enter a TRO, then a preliminary injunction, to prevent any suspension from taking effect until the case is resolved. If there is a time crunch, it almost certainly will be held against the NFL.
Grain of salt indeed.
From a legal perspective, the longer RG waits, the more likely it is that a district judge will enter a TRO, then a preliminary injunction, to prevent any suspension from taking effect until the case is resolved. If there is a time crunch, it almost certainly will be held against the NFL.
I don't think Goodell could ever get a "drop the penalty to one game of you agree not to sue" agreement. So it would all be gentleman's agreement.PseuFighter said:
So say Brady "agrees". Goodell drops the suspension formally and publicly. Then Brady sues anyway, because now the downside of losing is just one game (as opposed to not agreeing and now Brady is stuck with a possible four game suspension). Nothing keeping him from that is there? And let's not talk about "honor" or integrity here. Goodell has shown absolutely NONE of that. He deserves none in return.
Read his question again. You answered something different.ivanvamp said:
My answer is, sure he probably could, but I don't think that's important to the Patriots. Every game counts and why give a team extra fire? If Brady sues, it's because he wants to fight.
The only real downside is possibly sitting out a game later in the season. It's not like if he loses the penalty increases. People may percieve later games as more jmportant though. People including Brady, but I don't know.ivanvamp said:
I wonder of a judge would rule that it needs to be served at the beginning of a season though (the perception being that suspension later in the season is more damaging, and the judge won't 'increase' the penalty, so he defers it to 2016).
Maybe if the judge is Jimy Williams or someone else who rules by intuition. That'd be a hard argument to make to an independent judge, since mathematically 1/16 = 1/16.simplyeric said:
I'm at the point where I've convinced myself that Goodell is going to interrupt the ESPYs tomorrow night and announce that Brady has been suspended for the entire season to a roaring ovation.
As a bit of an aside, does anyone know who is going to be there? Brady is nominated for best NFL player...I don't suppose there's much chance he shows? WIll Belichick be there? Brady was not nominated for "Best Championship Performance," by the way.
As a bit of an aside, does anyone know who is going to be there? Brady is nominated for best NFL player...I don't suppose there's much chance he shows? WIll Belichick be there? Brady was not nominated for "Best Championship Performance," by the way.
Sharks of Vegas @SharksOfVegas 57s58 seconds ago
Brady ruling is coming tomorrow guys.....
Brady ruling is coming tomorrow guys.....
Richard Alexander @LiveStrongRich 1m1 minute ago
@SharksOfVegas we gonna be happy??
Sharks of Vegas @SharksOfVegas 19s19 seconds ago
@LiveStrongRich no. I think it will end up in a courtroom though
It really is amazing. If Peyton had Tom's 4th qtr SB performance, ESPN would have made him King by now. What a fraud network.Ed Hillel said:
Jerry Thornton @jerrythornton1 now
We in Duckboat City are hearing the same thing @SharksOfVegas: Brady ruling is coming tomorrow guys.....
We in Duckboat City are hearing the same thing @SharksOfVegas: Brady ruling is coming tomorrow guys.....
Sharks of Vegas, yeah they've been spot on during this whole ordeal. Those Colts really got it good.
You are right -- Sharks is worthy of no credence. They blew the bottom line so badly that nothing else they ever have said that amounted to something is worth a good goddamn.
That said, it's about time for a ruling. Oh, and the Bills did clean up their matter a little bit today by putting the alleged child abuser and death threatener on paid administrative leave. My guess is he is done in the NFL.
That said, it's about time for a ruling. Oh, and the Bills did clean up their matter a little bit today by putting the alleged child abuser and death threatener on paid administrative leave. My guess is he is done in the NFL.
That would be absolutely stupid. The league has already proven itself to be petty and underhanded in this whole ordeal. They would be absolutely pissed if Brady did what you're suggesting and most likely would setup another sting against him and the Patriots.ivanvamp said:
Have we learned nothing from this saga?