starrymessenger

IK is done with the Jets. Who knows, maybe Geno is too.

Exactly. This wasnt about $600. The situation gave rise to a $600 loss, but who should bear it? Smith was being a good guy in agreeing to show up at the guy's camp. He was just asking to be made whole for his out of pocket expenses. He had a good reason beyond his control for not attending. Nobody was at fault. Each guy felt like he was being disrespected by the other. Throwing a punch is not nice, but not a big deal. People kill when they perceive that they are being disrespected all the time. Countries go to war. But these guys are just kids. Where were the vets in that locker room?

Well a dark cloud certainly seems to hang over him.

Just yesterday NFLN did a one on one segment with Geno who said how the Jets players were all for one and one for all and how he was working on his leadership skills. I guess he meant leading with his chin. I can hardly wait for the follow up tonight.

As far as I know there is no doubt that McNally took two bags of balls out of the locker room, which he was not authorized to do, and went into a bathroom with them. But I defer to those who have been following this episode more closely if there is anything to add.

Giselle: "Did you cheat on me?" Tom: "I don't think so". Not that we will likely ever know, but the extent of the possible cheating can be an ongoing risk to Brady's reputation. In a worse case scenario, which personally I tend to doubt, where Tom knows that balls are being secreted and deflated and where he rewards his then coconspirators with autographed items, IMO he's just about in Charlie Hustle land.

He must have lost a step if the cops chased him down.

Gotcha.

Agreed. And if he told me to kill my first born I'd encourage him to seek professional help.

As a practical matter, I see that JG is now getting the majority of the first team reps in NE. I suspect that this is more Kessler's call than Bill's.

You're right the case is about whether the Commissioner and the League had the right to do the things that they did. Seems to me like there are two different ways to challenge the League's decision. One is, as you say, bias. I would expect that to be hard for Brady to establish. It requires bad faith on the League's part. While you might not like the appointment of Wells, the presence and participation of his colleague at the appeal hearing etc...I doubt that is sufficient to establish bias. Another and perhaps more promising avenue for Brady is to say that the League's action is wholly outside the terms of reference of the CBA (which is after all the governing document), including how it has previously been interpreted and applied. I don't know whether in considering this ground of appeal you can avoid getting into exactly what Brady is being punished for. Clearly the League believes he is being punished for more than a minor and immaterial equipment violation judging from the severity of the punishment. They have come to the conclusion that he knowingly participated in some way in a scheme to deflate game balls. They also believe that his subsequent denials are disengenuous and that he failed to fully cooperate with the investigation. Noncompliance is generally viewed in any judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding as extremely serious misbehavior. So maybe the case boils down to whether there was any reasonable basis on the evidence for the League/Commissioner coming to the conclusion that it did concerning Brady's involvement and behavior. Remember it is not necessary for the judge to agree with the decision for him to affirm it. He might have himself come to a different conclusion on the facts and still dismiss the appeal. Was there enuf evidence to enable the Commissioner to decide as he did (whether you agree him it or not)? I believe there was. But then of course he would have to admit to something and he is congenitally incapable of doing that.

It's Brady's appeal. Hardly surprising that he would be questioned concerning his reasons for saying that the investigator's conclusions should be set aside. That doesn't mean that the person hearing the appeal is introducing new or additional evidence. On the other hand there was nothing stopping Brady and his team from coming forward with new or additional evidence that might exculpate him. Presumably if they had such evidence they would have done so and it's production would have been allowed. The Commissioner evidently thought their decision not to have the employees participate in the appeal hearing gave rise to a negative inference relative to Brady's credibility. Whether or not he was right in doing so, it was not inconsistent with his role in the proceedings. It's possible too that an aggregate of facts and circumstances may have influenced and, in his mind at least, added weight to his judgement in coming to this particular conclusion, for example the destruction of the cell phone, the fact that three communications with Jastremski were not recoverable etc...

Agree. Doormats no more. The franchise has turned a big corner and is headed in the right direction, maybe even the Promised Land. The chains are off. All hail the Pegulster.

Right. Someone sitting in appeal would not initiate the production of evidence. That was Well's job.

That's right. Wells and Goodell are not supposed to think Tom did anything wrong. Jastremski specifically told Tom in his text message that it was "unrealistic" to believe that Tom actually did it himself.

You're right. It's sure not like wearing the wrong colour socks. Maybe the judge will have to opine on the meaning of "equipment violation".

Thanks. These CBA based grounds look to me to be more promising (for TB) than any argument based on bias. I would not be surprised if that's why counsel has asserted them. I have no idea whether or how they impact the Commissioners supervisory jurisdiction and responsibility to protect (as he sees it) the integrity of the game, which I would imagine pretty much to be job one for him. Arguing successfully that the penalty was the wrong one and not sanctioned by the CBA (which therefore limited the Commissioner's decision making powers) might have the practical effect of reversing the suspension but it would not rehabilitate Brady's image given that he has denied knowledge/responsibility categorically. I suppose that he could agree to pay the fine while saying that it should never have been levied in the first place.

That's interesting. In effect they would be asserting that the CBA actually prohibited the specific penalty imposed on the player. Intuitively I would expect this to be a legitimate ground for the appeal, if established to be the case. On the other hand I don't see how that would have anything to do with the issue of bias, which has been widely reported to be the sole matter to be considered in the appeal. JMO but I would expect that the League's general supervisory authority would be such as to negate Brady's arguments regarding adequate notice/precedent but i don't know.

Possible I guess but I'm not so sure. I would expect that encouraging the parties to come to a negotiated settlement is procedurally part of any labour dispute that comes before the court. So I don't know how much importance can be given to a pre-trial conference of the type that will occur on Aug 12. Not to mention that there is no evident middle ground here given the positions that have been taken by the participants and the importance of the issues that are at stake from a league governance perspective. I agree the judge would probably want Brady and the league to settle this, unless he's the kind of guy who enjoys the profile.

The only substantive issue before the judge, as I understand it, is whether due process was observed. In order to succeed Brady must establish bias on the part of the Commissioner. That can happen even when the properly appointed arbitrator is an interested party, in other words it can happen whether the decision maker is an interested or a third party. That makes sense since any arbitrator, whether "interested" or not, can hypothetically be biased.

Odd then that Brady's advisors should have tried to institute the action in Minnesota when they would have been so better served in New York, and surprising too that the league's advisors should have sought New York rather than Minnesota. I guess the author is the only lawyer in the world who knows what he's doing. And far be it from me to suggest that Brady's attempt to have the case heard in Minnesota where a Minnesota judge said the matter had absolutely no legal, factual or logical connection, was a brazen example of jurisdiction shopping.

Ha. I don't know if I'm any wiser after reading your post but I am certainly better informed. Had no idea who their # 3 was or if they even had one. Maybe we should trade for him.

From those you mention, Glennon strikes me as the best option. Over 19 games his performance in just about every statistical category is quite impressive for a young QB playing behind a bad line and without a strong backfield. He has a big arm that Ds have to respect. He distributes the ball effectively to his skill position players and he is good at not blowing himself up with mistakes, again something you have to like in a young QB. Don't know how high his ceiling is but looks to be a quality guy. And that's why the Bucs will probably not move him. Can you imagine going into the season with a raw first round rookie without a suitable backup. Who does that?

Always thought Chip was angling for Mariota with Bradford as possible trade bait. Don't think Bradford is a bad choice to run his offence though. Bradford has a quick release, gets the ball out fast and makes decisions quickly. Whether he can stay healthy is anyone's guess however. Chip reminds me a lot of his friend Belichek. His way or the highway. I'll be watching him and his team with interest.

On the other hand Daniel Jeremiah and Jamie Dukes said yesterday that EJ would start but that both TT and MC would see plenty of playing time come September. Sounded to me like the least encouraging of possible scenarios.