- Joined
- Oct 10, 2006
- Messages
- 76,883
- Reaction score
- 66,866
...I also think that Kraft would be the last person to try to justify what he did....
???
Attempting to justify what he did is exactly the approach he took.
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments....I also think that Kraft would be the last person to try to justify what he did....
Kraft can't "join the legal action" since he is one of the 32 Owners that comprise the NFL.
I think the brief means that he knows he blew it in San Francisco by trusting the League (as he has said before) and that he knows he has alienated many fans whose loyalties are now primarily to Brady and Belichick rather than to his Franchise.
FWIW, it's my personal opinion, without any basis in fact, that Kraft is sincerely regretful for what he did and for how this has turned out.
I also think that Kraft would be the last person to try to justify what he did. He knows he made a mistake and he knows he can't fix it.
The point was he jumped into the fray which he did. Whether it carries any meaning or weight is a different topic.He kind of did, if this filing had any legal weight, which i don't think it does.
These are things that I think Kraft considers mistakes.Agree, except to the point of what his "mistake" was. Was it being one of the owners who voted for Goodell, or not going through a pointless "appeal" process with the same commissioner who just gave him the punishment, then talked to him at the team meeting, or finding some basis to sue with no grounds and an agreement with the league that he wouldn't sue?
I'm just guessing here and did say "hopefully" they'd read them but that I wouldn't "bet" on it.
I think that the people who might read this material will be inclined to look at Kraft's motivations for putting it out and choose to ignore or heavily discount it if they read it. And, they all, from the Judges themselves to their ambitious, Ivy League-credentialed clerks, will think that they're a lot smarter than Stradley or media twitterers (emphasis on "think" in the case of Stradley).
The only things weighing heavily in Brady's favor here are Katzmann's strongly expressed views in his Dissent and the presence of Olson, who is an elephant in the room that they can't ignore. If the case still had anything to do with "what actually happened," the Amicus Brief by the group of Physicists would be helpful.
Had Kraft appealed and your guess of how it would have gone been correct there would be further evidence of goodells ignorance of the facts.Agree, except to the point of what his "mistake" was. Was it being one of the owners who voted for Goodell, or not going through a pointless "appeal" process with the same commissioner who just gave him the punishment, then talked to him at the team meeting, or finding some basis to sue with no grounds and an agreement with the league that he wouldn't sue?
It's all over the place. I'm sure you can google it. It was heavily discussed in this board. Brady asked Kraft to testify. He said no because he was in Israel with former players returning the day of the appeal. They then asked him to testify by phone and he again refused and wrote a letter to goodell.This comes as news to me. Can you point me to evidence for it, please?
It's all over the place. I'm sure you can google it. It was heavily discussed in this board. Brady asked Kraft to testify. He said no because he was in Israel with former players returning the day of the appeal. They then asked him to testify by phone and he again refused and wrote a letter to goodell.
So you are interpreting the fact that Mr Kraft was in Israel at the time of the appeal as a refusal on his part to testify on behalf of Tom Brady, his sending a letter of support notwithstanding?
Thanks. Would it be far fetched to think that Katzmann could read the amicus briefs produced by both the Patriots and the Physicists, check the facts (e.g, such as the NFL's misleading appeal statements) and bring it to the attention of the other judges?
He was asked to testify and declined.So you are interpreting the fact that Mr Kraft was in Israel at the time of the appeal as a refusal on his part to testify on behalf of Tom Brady, his sending a letter of support notwithstanding?
Has it ever happened that someone from the plantiff's side filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant?
Nothing stops people from weighing in on issues before decisions are made, the chicken littles tend to wait until after the result is in and then cast blame.
For all the Kraft apologists patting him on the back for sweeping in and saving the day ask yourself
Why didn't he testify in Brady's behalf in the appeal when Brady asked him to. Why did he also refuse to testify by phone.
Why did he say he thinks all players that deserve to play should when asked if Brady would play week 1
Where was his amicus during the initial trial
Where was his amicus during the appeal
Do you not find it ironic that he finally acts at a point where an appeal for an en bank hearing is pending when such an appeal historically has a .03% chance of being heard
Seems to me to be a PR move at what appears to be his last chance to make one.
Are you seriously saying that sending a letter of support after declining to testify is something he should be commended for?IIRC he did send a letter of support during Brady's appeal with the NFL.
the .03% chance is based on all cases no matter what/how they were appealed. IIRC Wallach thinks it's more in the 20% range because of the specifics regarding this case.
Personally I believe that Olson sold Kraft on this but Kraft would have wanted to support Brady to file the Amicus. Despite all the positives, such as good PR among Patriot fans, he had to want to support Brady.
Further I suspect or at least hope that Olson is utilizing the media and his connections to play a behind the scenes game.
I am not defending Kraft for his past actions but do think this brief is more than just a PR stunt.
Thanks. Would it be far fetched to think that Katzmann could read the amicus briefs produced by both the Patriots and the Physicists, check the facts (e.g, such as the NFL's misleading appeal statements) and bring it to the attention of the other judges?
Wait a minute. If I'm reading you correctly, you'd rather we cast blame before somebody decides to do something.
Sure, we're on solid ground there with Rex Ryan, Woody Johnson, Roger Goodell, Judge Chin, the Harbaugh brothers, Kim Jong-Un, Johnny Manziel, Charlie Sheen, Mel Kiper, OJ Simpson, and Brazil. But, criticizing Bill Belichick before he makes a decision is risky business.
If Kevin Faulk had fallen forward just 18 more inches, we wouldn't even have 4th-And-Two.