Mr. WEO

00:13....

“What better way to work on my mental health than to have an experience like that? The greatest gift I can give my teammates, in my opinion, is to be able to show up and to be someone who can model unconditional love to them.” See what I mean? lol.

He will live to dance on Parcells's grave.......

If you had no idea what you are talking about, sure, you could say that.

no one is saying he is a failure. Some of his recent playoffs point to a guy who can’t will his team to the SB. Peyton Manning had many such seasons. 7 times his team went one and done. No chance Packers get there this year…but I doubt Rodgers cares at this point. He got paid. He was fine with Adams left. He’s happy to be that “im a complex and inscrutable character no one will ever truly understand or appreciate” guy

Obviously a player should walk away from a team he knows is tampering. The other poster kept saying the player "may not" cooperate in any contact with a team that is tampering with him, such as Brady in this case. The rule doesn't say he may not, only that he may not initiate contact himself or through his agent. Not sure what ethics clause is signed.

Yeah not sure what you're stuck on in my response, or how it's "arrogant". "May be true but even when the player clearly engages back and have active, meetings, and open discussions in response?" The answer is "no", if the player didn't initiate the discussion. This didn't happen in this case so bringing up the rule where the player can't initiate tampering doesn't apply to this conversation. The player "may" talk the tampering team without penalty--but we can agree that he shouldn't.

It doesn't. You said "even when the player clearly engages back and have active, meetings, and open discussions in response", after being contacted by a team, he should be liable for punishment because "the player may not" do this. That's not the rule. Only if the player initiates the discussion is he at risk. The rule does not say, if contacted, "players may not" talk to teams , etc. In fact players are not obligated to report this illicit contact by a team to the NFL, but a team is required to notify the league of illicit tampering contact by a player (as you noted above). This is explicitly why the League didn't and can't punish Brady in this case.

lol --that's why hers is an idiotic conclusion. The NFL can't possibly predetermine a list of all possible bad acts that would violate the personal conduct policy.

They could have appointed Slippin Jimmy as their arbitrator, wouldn't matter. She is playing a role in this staged drama and she delivered the performance that was scripted for her: take a headline making case all summer and hear the evidence, take an inordinately long time to come up with the laughably low suspension to produce the necessary (and predicted) public outcry for the NFL to step in and bump it up to where they wanted it---all the while promoting this as a "new" and "improved" system of justice for the players and NFLPA, exactly as bargained for in the last CBA.

You can top feeling that way because it doesn't say that at all. If a team reaches out to a player--the team is tampering and faces penalty. That's it. If a player reaches out to a team, the team is supposed to report it to the NFL. No player in the NFL is bound to report tampering to the NFL. It's the same in the NBA. MLB has the same rule. So does the NHL. Why are people acting as if they have just learned about tampering and its rules?

players don’t get suspended for talking to teams when teams aren’t supposed to be talking to them

She absolutely described it as novel—in fact she said “his pattern of conduct is more egregious than ever before reviewed by the NFL”. Clearly she is also acknowledging more than 4 cases.

Her role was to set a ridiculously low suspension (the idiotic reasoning makes her performance a bit less authentic) so that the NFL can come with the righteous thunder of “this will not stand!”… Everyone is playing their part.

Interesting that the NFL drops the hammer on an owner just as they are contemplating an appeal off the Watson suspension. This one isn't hard to figure out. NFL is the entity playing 5D chess.....

The impact is that it will neutralize the NFLPA claim (and dull a potential argument in Federal court) that the NFL doesn't punish the owners the way it does players, thus paving the way for a yearlong suspension for Watson.

Her reasoning is incredibly dumb: “NFL is attempting to impose a more dramatic shift in its culture without the benefit of fair notice to – and consistency of consequence – for those in the NFL subject to the Policy. While it may be entirely appropriate to more severely discipline players for non-violent sexual conduct, I do not believe it is appropriate to do so without notice of the extraordinary change this position portends for the NFL and its players.” How on earth is the NFL supposed to anticipate every way in which its players can potentially and serially abuse others, so that they can't print out a suspension schedule for this or that? She states his abuse was unprecedented in NFL annals,.....yet says he only gets the 6 gamer because, you know, he didn't know he might suspended for more. She accuses the NFL of changing its culture....without fair notice!!! Come on---that team went 2 full seasons with only one victory! These scumbag Haslams will take this W

Barkley is the only QB coach Josh needs whispering in his ear.....

I believe in the past Ross said he wasn't serious about the offer.... Well, the League is a Defendant in the suit so......he won't likely claim the League was harmed.

Exactly. Conceding it was said but that no one else took him seriously when he said it is better than lying about not having said it when their are witnesses who can corroborate he said it. The tanking claim was his best shot. "Fake interviews" are hard to prove and even if they happened, so what? What harm is done? He would have to prove he was harmed/damaged by a fake interview process (as opposed to no interview at all) to succeed in his suit. Good luck....

And it concluded the nature in which FLores claims to have interpreted them isn't valid. Flores would be free to challenge the legitimacy of the independent reviewer. I'm pretty sure the reviewer would be able to anticipate this same thing he probably hears all the time and would easily defend his position. This would likely included his interviews with others present or who knew details of the story which led him to conclude as he did. Or....the Defendants could simply depose Hue Jackson as an example of a coach was "offered a bribe to tank". LOL.

I don't see where he established a relationship with JC in his brief time away, so I think we're done with him.

Josh doesn't do things other than play great football to reemain in the conversation. Rodgers has to resort to this stuff and his usual drama to remain relevant in the public mind. Aaron don't care... Having the #1 scoring Offense in the NFL didn't work out too well either. Jones with 9 rushing and 2 receiving TDs, All Pro Adams with 115 catches and 18 TDs, Tonyan 52/59 and 11 TDs, M V-S 690 yards (21 YPC!) and 6 TDs. You're right, what a waste...

we deserve updates!! should we be praying for him??

Players cannot be charged with tampering. They are tampered with. It just got harder for him to prove. NFL/Fins can just call the independent investigator as a witness to testify about his findings/conclusions.