Jump to content

No settlement between Brady and NFL


Jet Fan RI
 Share

Recommended Posts

The drop-off between Brady and Jimmy G is not likely to translate to much difference in the W/L column for just the first 4 games.  The Patriots aren't getting back their future #1 and #4.  And nobody's mind is going to be changed about Brady (for good or for bad) regardless of what Berman's decision says.   

Wow; 6 months ago Brady was MVP Superbowl winner with 4 rings and a sure first ballot HOF; now there isn't a great drop off between him and Jimmy G.  Are you saying the Jimmy G is HOF bound, or that Brady wasn't that good?  Even if G has the talent, he doesn't have the experience and the NFL likes to eat up QBs without experience.  But sure, Brady ~= Jimmy G

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was trying to get the parties to settle so he was trying to convince the NFL that they potentially had a lot to lose by not settling.  I wouldn't read too much into the comments that he made at the settlement hearing.

Settling? As in there is no way that the NFL punishment as layed out will be adhered to.  Why should a judge be making that kind of comment at all?  If the suspension gets reduced then a precedent seems to have been set in which every players should go to a judge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brady is not going to win this case.  In the unlikely event that Berman rules in his favor, the 2nd Circuit will tip him on appeal.  As Senator Trent would say, you can take that to the bank.      

That said, not sure I'm getting the angst.   The drop-off between Brady and Jimmy G is not likely to translate to much difference in the W/L column for just the first 4 games.  The Patriots aren't getting back their future #1 and #4.  And nobody's mind is going to be changed about Brady (for good or for bad) regardless of what Berman's decision says.   

The actual games he misses means nothing to me at all, nothing.  Paying the price for your indiscretions when your team already has been shown to take some dubious actions is what matters to me.  I feel he broke he rules by directing faceless underlings to tamper with the footballs.  He should pay a heavy price for that.

Both he and the Pats are already getting off very light in my mind and even with the suspension he can still declare innocence.  The fact that he has taken this a step further is very aggravating but I hope it goes another step to where the courts really are going to come into play with real under oath witnesses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hate to break it to you guys but the NFL's case does suck.  Seriously and I hate the Patriots but what do we have?  Text messages from third parties implicating Brady and underinflated balls with no chain of custody and as ridiculous as the fair weather Pats fans "scientific" explanations are I've seen judges buy even crappier arguments.

Goodell is an incompetent Commissioner.  The second Brady destroyed his cell phone he should have charged him with obstructing the investigation and made that the basis for the suspension not the underinflated footballs crap.  Capone didn't get put in jail for killing people or being a gangster he got put in jail for tax evasion.

hate to break it to you but if the judge agreed with you, thought the NFL had no case, please explain why he would tell the parties to settle?  Why would he risk Bradys team settles on any suspension knowing he will rule no suspension? 

Its more involved than the sky is falling and they get everything their way

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow; 6 months ago Brady was MVP Superbowl winner with 4 rings and a sure first ballot HOF; now there isn't a great drop off between him and Jimmy G.  Are you saying the Jimmy G is HOF bound, or that Brady wasn't that good?  Even if G has the talent, he doesn't have the experience and the NFL likes to eat up QBs without experience.  But sure, Brady ~= Jimmy G

What I am saying is that the Patriots do not need Tom Brady to beat a depleted Steelers team, a terrible Jags team, and a Tyrod-Taylor led Bills team.  And the Patriots chances of winning at Dallas in Week 5 are not that good whether Brady plays or not (though obviously they are much better with Brady than with Jimmy G).    

Edited by AFCEastFan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I am saying is that the Patriots do not need Tom Brady to beat a depleted Steelers team, a terrible Jags team, and a Tyrod-Taylor led Bills team.  And the Patriots chances of winning at Dallas in Week 5 are not that good whether Brady plays or not (though obviously they are much better with Brady than with Jimmy G).    

I don't know, man. Blake Bortles had a strong preseason. The idiots down here are yammering. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he really was afraid of getting flipped the easiest thing for him to do would be to affirm the suspension.  Arbitration rulings are usually only reversed in the most unusual circumstances.

the future of binding arbitration hangs in the balance.  If they are going to agree to it, then go to a higher court when they do not like an outcome, then what elements of the contract cannot be further adjudicated?

Edited by jack48
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I am saying is that the Patriots do not need Tom Brady to beat a depleted Steelers team, a terrible Jags team, and a Tyrod-Taylor led Bills team.  And the Patriots chances of winning at Dallas in Week 5 are not that good whether Brady plays or not (though obviously they are much better with Brady than with Jimmy G).    

While I agree that the Steelers looked like crap, I wouldn't look past the Buffalo; Rex, with no offense and no secondary almost beat the Pats (with Brady and Revis) twice last year.  Yeah, it was almost, I wouldn't write Rex off so easily - especially considering how well he prepares against NE and how well he does against QBs with little experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hate to break it to you but if the judge agreed with you, thought the NFL had no case, please explain why he would tell the parties to settle?  Why would he risk Bradys team settles on any suspension knowing he will rule no suspension? 

Its more involved than the sky is falling and they get everything their way

I don't think it has anything to do with who gets suspended for how long.

The lawyers I heard from explained that the case had nothing to do with tampering with balls and guilt.  I had to do with did the NFL follow the CBA terms and did it conform to labor law.  In fact, the lawyers argued that since the judge wants a settlement (no ruling by him, no precedent, no appeal) he will often brow beat the side with the strongest case to get them to think that they will loose and settling is best.  Again, this is what they said.  This isn't King Solomon ruling about what is just/fair; just what is 'legal'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it has anything to do with who gets suspended for how long.

The lawyers I heard from explained that the case had nothing to do with tampering with balls and guilt.  I had to do with did the NFL follow the CBA terms and did it conform to labor law.  In fact, the lawyers argued that since the judge wants a settlement (no ruling by him, no precedent, no appeal) he will often brow beat the side with the strongest case to get them to think that they will loose and settling is best.  Again, this is what they said.  This isn't King Solomon ruling about what is just/fair; just what is 'legal'

and I didn't say it wasn't.  But the judge told the 2 sides to settle.  The paranoid contingent believes the judge and his orders indicate he's going to let Brady off without any games on his suspension.  If that is what the judge is thinking, that the punishment was unwarranted why would he tell them to settle and risk Brady accepting any games for what he believes is an unjust penalty? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I am saying is that the Patriots do not need Tom Brady to beat a depleted Steelers team, a terrible Jags team, and a Tyrod-Taylor led Bills team.  And the Patriots chances of winning at Dallas in Week 5 are not that good whether Brady plays or not (though obviously they are much better with Brady than with Jimmy G).    

The Steelers looked like a bottom 5 team against the Bills.  Hard to believe they can possibly be as godawful as they played but how much better can they be?  Think this won't be as tough as most who just know the Steeler name think

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and I didn't say it wasn't.  But the judge told the 2 sides to settle.  The paranoid contingent believes the judge and his orders indicate he's going to let Brady off without any games on his suspension.  If that is what the judge is thinking, that the punishment was unwarranted why would he tell them to settle and risk Brady accepting any games for what he believes is an unjust penalty? 

He just wants a settlement; I don't think he is worried about Brady service time if he was going to overrule anymore than he is concerned with Goodell caving if he was going to rule on the side of the NFL.  He wanted a settlement; this way it goes away; no appeal, etc. If Brady has to serve an extra game or two to make that happen, fine with the Judge.  If Goodell looks weak for caving and Brady only serves 1 or 2 games fine.  As long as he didn't have to rule.  That is how I read it at any rate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He just wants a settlement; I don't think he is worried about Brady service time if he was going to overrule anymore than he is concerned with Goodell caving if he was going to rule on the side of the NFL.  He wanted a settlement; this way it goes away; no appeal, etc. If Brady has to serve an extra game or two to make that happen, fine with the Judge.  If Goodell looks weak for caving and Brady only serves 1 or 2 games fine.  As long as he didn't have to rule.  That is how I read it at any rate.

he would be a shlt head if he let Brady accept 2 games if he was ready to let him walk.  How would that be fair? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he would be a shlt head if he let Brady accept 2 games if he was ready to let him walk.  How would that be fair? 

This is the issue the whole 'settle' thing it means someone is going to have to give something up.  Since Brady will not be giving up anything more the NFL has to 'settle' and give in to the number of games he is suspended.  Settling usually means two sides have something to gain and lose thus a desire to close the gap and settle.  If Brady had a chance to miss 6 games then we might see a settlement but he has zero to lose the way this thing has played out.  Settle means a reduced suspension.

Edited by Beerfish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the issue the whole 'settle' thing it means someone is going to have to give something up.  Since Brady will not be giving up anything more the NFL has to 'settle' and give in to the number of games he is suspended.  Settling usually means two sides have something to gain and lose thus a desire to close the gap and settle.  If Brady had a chance to miss 6 games then we might see a settlement but he has zero to lose the way this thing has played out.  Settle means a reduced suspension.

I was responding to the incredibly paranoid who jumped right in and posted how they just know this means he wont serve a single game suspension.  Which is why I was saying I don't think the judge is thinking 0 games.  Otherwise settle makes little sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he would be a shlt head if he let Brady accept 2 games if he was ready to let him walk.  How would that be fair? 

My point all along is that this has nothing to do with fair.  The question isn't whether Brady deserves a suspension, but did the NFL follow the proper procedure.

And, if you are right and he was going to let Brady walk, why push for a settlement?  But, if he was going to uphold the decision why push for settlement (because Brady's suspension would be reduced).

The judge doesn't get to decide if Brady is guilty or not; and fair or unfair he doesn't get to take that into consideration.  As a Judge he has to rule on the case not who is right and what is fair?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point all along is that this has nothing to do with fair.  The question isn't whether Brady deserves a suspension, but did the NFL follow the proper procedure.

And, if you are right and he was going to let Brady walk, why push for a settlement?  But, if he was going to uphold the decision why push for settlement (because Brady's suspension would be reduced).

The judge doesn't get to decide if Brady is guilty or not; and fair or unfair he doesn't get to take that into consideration.  As a Judge he has to rule on the case not who is right and what is fair?

you just refuse to read. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you just refuse to read. 

Sorry, we have to disagree about that as well.  I read what you wrote: he would be a ... head if he let Brady accept 2 games if he was ready to let him walk.  How would that be fair? 

 

My point is simple: if he was going to vacate the suspension he would still push for a settlement.  if he was going to uphold the suspension, he would still push for a settlement.

It doesn't make him a ... head; it makes him a Judge.  He said all along, he wanted a settlement, didn't want to have to rule.  Either way, he will be appealed.  Either way a precedent is set; If he was going to vacate (to be fair) he would not want to be overruled (since it isn't about fair to Brady).  It is a crap hole and he wanted to avoid it.

I understand what you wrote; I just disagree with it. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, we have to disagree about that as well.  I read what you wrote: he would be a ... head if he let Brady accept 2 games if he was ready to let him walk.  How would that be fair? 

 

My point is simple: if he was going to vacate the suspension he would still push for a settlement.  if he was going to uphold the suspension, he would still push for a settlement.

It doesn't make him a ... head; it makes him a Judge.  He said all along, he wanted a settlement, didn't want to have to rule.  Either way, he will be appealed.  Either way a precedent is set; If he was going to vacate (to be fair) he would not want to be overruled (since it isn't about fair to Brady).  It is a crap hole and he wanted to avoid it.

I understand what you wrote; I just disagree with it. 

so your opinion is if he felt either way, one side is right and would either uphold or vacate it would be right, he would be a judge by telling them to settle?  Ok, then I just don't agree that's what a judge should do, thought he should dispense justice and this would be justice.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so your opinion is if he felt either way, one side is right and would either uphold or vacate it would be right, he would be a judge by telling them to settle?  Ok, then I just don't agree that's what a judge should do, thought he should dispense justice and this would be justice.  

I 100% agree with you on that.  I said earlier on, law doesn't seem to be about justice or common sense.  But, either way it isn't justice.

That is the rub here; no matter what the Judge ruled it wouldn't be a guilter/not guilty verdict.  It is just a question of was the NFL right in their interpretation of the CBA. And unfortunately that is why neither side will give an inch.

Goodell won't budge because he doesn't want to loose the power to appeal and appear weak

If you think Brady is guilty this case doesn't mean anything (other than he didn't get away with it); if you think he is innocent he doesn't get vindication.  It sucks all the way around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I am saying is that the Patriots do not need Tom Brady to beat a depleted Steelers team, a terrible Jags team, and a Tyrod-Taylor led Bills team.  And the Patriots chances of winning at Dallas in Week 5 are not that good whether Brady plays or not (though obviously they are much better with Brady than with Jimmy G).    

Finally got a chance to watch Garapolo the other night.  Two of his first three passes were pick sixes that were dropped by the CBs.  I wouldn't assume that anything is going to be easy for them.  And don't forget how much pressure that Brady has taken off of the defense the past few years by keeping all of those drives going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was responding to the incredibly paranoid who jumped right in and posted how they just know this means he wont serve a single game suspension.  Which is why I was saying I don't think the judge is thinking 0 games.  Otherwise settle makes little sense. 

This Judge can't enter a compromise decision.  Either he upholds it or vacates it.  Only a settlement could be for one, two or three games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally got a chance to watch Garapolo the other night.  Two of his first three passes were pick sixes that were dropped by the CBs.  I wouldn't assume that anything is going to be easy for them.  And don't forget how much pressure that Brady has taken off of the defense the past few years by keeping all of those drives going.

I'm certainly not suggesting that the Patriots would be fine with Jimmy G over a 16-game season.  But the first 4 games?  Against the 4 teams on the Patriots' schedule?  I am honestly not worried at all.  

Brady has looked like hot garbage all pre-season.  But when Brady throws passes up for grabs that make him look like Vinny Testaverde circa 1988 and goes through a comical streak of incompetence (I think it was something like 12 straight 3-and-outs on Brady-led drives at one point this pre-season), it is of course the fault of his receivers, his patchwork offensive line, etc.  On the other hand, when Jimmy G plays anywhere from adequately to great for 80% of his plays with the same group of future bank tellers and check-out line cashiers, the local announcers here harp on the 20% as a sign that he is not ready.   

The Patriots will be absolutely fine with Jimmy G, as long as it is just for the first 4 games.  He will look even better when he is throwing to Edelman and Gronk instead of the likes of the since-released Josh Boyce, Jonathan Krause and Jimmay Mundine.  Brady often starts slow, anyway -- perhaps because the flat balls don't start to work to his advantage until later in the season when the weather gets colder.  

Edited by AFCEastFan
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm certainly not suggesting that the Patriots would be fine with Jimmy G over a 16-game season.  But the first 4 games?  Against the 4 teams on the Patriots' schedule?  I am honestly not worried at all.  

Brady has looked like hot garbage all pre-season.  But when Brady throws passes up for grabs that make him look like Vinny Testaverde circa 1988 and goes through a comical streak of incompetence (I think it was something like 12 straight 3-and-outs on Brady-led drives at one point this pre-season), it is of course the fault of his receivers, his patchwork offensive line, etc.  On the other hand, when Jimmy G plays anywhere from adequately to great for 80% of his plays with the same group of future bank tellers and check-out line cashiers, the local announcers here harp on the 20% as a sign that he is not ready.   

The Patriots will be absolutely fine with Jimmy G, as long as it is just for the first 4 games.  He will look even better when he is throwing to Edelman and Gronk instead of the since-released Josh Boyce, Jonathan Krause and Jimmay Mundine.  Brady often starts slow, anyway -- perhaps because the flat balls don't start to work to his advantage until later in the season when the weather gets colder.  

Gave you rep, but just for the last sentence.  I think 4 Bradyless games would turn out to be a pretty big deal to the Pats and, in turn, the rest of the AFC east.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gave you rep, but just for the last sentence.  I think 4 Bradyless games would turn out to be a pretty big deal to the Pats and, in turn, the rest of the AFC east.

Fair enough.  If the Berman ruling turns out how I think it will, we will find out soon enough how Jimmy G performs under the bright lights.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

from what I have read, the judge isn't deciding on the merits of the science and all of that because the appeal was more based on policy, procedure and precedent.  So I guess that means he is really deciding on how well the NFL followed its own policy and the CBA.

So in that case, I would say the NFL ****ed it up pretty good, congrats brady

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This Judge can't enter a compromise decision.  Either he upholds it or vacates it.  Only a settlement could be for one, two or three games.

On Felger and Mazz, they said there is a third option where the judge can accept the verdict but stays enforcement of the punishment.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...