Patriots have filed an amicus brief in support of Brady/NFLPA.

[PatsFanSince74]

???

Attempting to justify what he did is exactly the approach he took.

I'm not a Kraft apologist, but I think he tried to "explain" what he did, which is different than saying that he tried to "justify" it.

An explanation is synonymous with a justification when we're trying to convince someone that what we did was "right;" but, it can also just be an "explanation" of why we did something that we later acknowledge was "wrong."

 

[PatsFanSince74]

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?

Yes, that's why I said I'm "hopeful" and why Katzmann's support is so important. Only he could judge, however, whether the Amicus briefs will be useful as he tries to convince 10 or so highly egotistical judges that they should grand the hearing.

 

[Tony2046]

Are you seriously saying that sending a letter of support after declining to testify is something he should be commended for?

.03% is the fact. Kraft waited until the longest of long shots to get involved.

What you describe is a or stunt that Olsen sold him on.

No and don't misinterpret my post as one in support of Kraft. Kraft will have to live with his multiple capitulations. I'm fine with that. OTOH, I am not in the "Kraft should sell the team" camp either.

Roger is the bad guy and Kraft just doesn't have the backbone to stand up to him.

".03% is the fact" Implies that all cases are the same. Do you believe that? Or is it possible that some cases have certain elements which would improve their odds to be heard?

"What you describe is a or stunt that Olsen sold him on" Sorry, not sure what you meant with this.

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm not a Kraft apologist, but I think he tried to "explain" what he did, which is different than saying that he tried to "justify" it.

Of course he was trying to justify it. That's absolutely what he was doing. You claiming otherwise IS you being an apologist.

 

[signbabybrady]

He had plenty of time to re-assess, and plenty of opportunities to jump into the fray earlier. He continually chose his wallet over his player. He made this clear with the whole "full 32" garbage. Also, this isn't hindsight, since many were saying this from the jump. I don't know when it happened, but "hindsight" has become a horribly misused word around here, almost always used in defense of something where "hindsight" is either inaccurate or irrelevant.



You cannot have true forgiveness without there first being genuine repentance.

Hindsight is defined: as recognition of the realities, possibilities, or requirements of a situation, event, decision etc., after its occurrence.

I am using it just fine.

Again we still don't know all the facts.

But given this new info I think the possibilities certainly change.

Now if we look at the timeline it does make some sense. Prior to the courts getting involved Kraft probably was doing quiet politicking behind the scenes thinking he could help somehow. Up until the courts actually made a decision there was always the potential for a settlement so there was logical reasons not to change his approach at that time. With hindsight it would have been better if he did.

After the courts ruled the first time Brady won so it's logical to think he just stayed quiet not to further piss off his business partners. Again with hindsight had he known it be overturned he might have done something different.

Finally it got overturned and he is now at least doing something public to pitch in. Might it be too little too late? Probably is but at least it's something.

I think it's easy for us to ignore that short of selling the team he does have to continue to do business with these guys. He had a fence to straddle and chose his path up until this very public and harsh statement I wasn't sure he was even playing both sides now I believe he was. You don't want to that's your choice and there is plenty of reasons to feel that way I don't blame you. Short of a public mpology from Kraft I choose this to be statement enough for me.

 

[Deus Irae]

Hindsight is defined: as recognition of the realities, possibilities, or requirements of a situation, event, decision etc., after its occurrence.

Pretty sure I am using it just fine.

You're not. Worse, you're now doubling down on it.

 

[signbabybrady]

You're not. Worse, you're now doubling down on it.

Classic Deus response. And we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Deus Irae]

Classic Deus response. And we will have to agree to disagree.

Really? Well, lets look:

Maybe I didn't make my point clearly. We don't know what kinds of things he's tried behind the scenes. My point though is that he may have thought he would be able to help more making some behind the scenes deal or just trying to politic enough owners to force Goodell to give it up.

So your point here is that Kraft might have done something. Well, he might not have. So your point really isn't one.

Clearly that didn't work so now he found something else more public and pretty harsh for Goodell and owners to do that can help. With hindsight we all wish he did from jump but he didn't know his backdoor stuff would fail so bad.

Now you've done two things. First, you've jumped from 'may have' to 'did', since it clearly didn't work, according to you. Second, you've misused hindsight.

1: As is clear from the posts here, not all wish he did from jump, so your hindsight argument fails if you're trying to use it in order to emphasize inclusivity.
2: Many were calling for a much stronger approach from the beginning so, if you're trying to talk about when people came to the notion of Kraft aggressively defending his team and QB, hindsight doesn't have a damned thing to do with it.

In either case, your hindsight claim is incorrect.

Obviously I am making some assumptions. But this move seems like more than just PR to me. And I choose to accept this as enough for me to forgive him and to believe this isn't the first thing he's tried to do to help TB.

As you admit, you're making assumptions. They're lousy assumptions, too, given the set of facts we already have. They asked for corrections about the PSI to be publicly made, for example. When those corrections weren't made, they did nothing about it, beyond finally making it known when it was far too late to be of any real use.

If you don't I don't blame you as we have no idea up until this what he's done. I prefer to be a forgiving person as life is too short.

"I prefer to be a forgiving person..."?

So you forgive Goodell and the NFL, then?

 

[XLIX]

Classic Deus response. And we will have to agree to disagree.

He can't help himself. He has to disagree. He won't even agree to disagree.

 

[IllegalContact]

the stupid Kraft haters are no different than goodell and the NFL...........they have their stance and they're sticking to it........so don't bother

they're gone when Brady / Belichik are gone....they just want you to know now

 

[signbabybrady]

Really? Well, lets look:



So your point here is that Kraft might have done something. Well, he might not have. So your point really isn't one.



Now you've done two things. First, you've jumped from 'may have' to 'did', since it clearly didn't work, according to you. Second, you've misused hindsight.

1: As is clear from the posts here, not all wish he did from jump, so your hindsight argument fails if you're trying to use it in order to emphasize inclusivity.
2: Many were calling for a much stronger approach from the beginning so, if you're trying to talk about when people came to the notion of Kraft aggressively defending his team and QB, hindsight doesn't have a damned thing to do with it.

In either case, your hindsight claim is incorrect.



As you admit, you're making assumptions. They're lousy assumptions, too, given the set of facts we already have. They asked for corrections about the PSI to be publicly made, for example. When those corrections weren't made, they did nothing about it, beyond finally making it known when it was far too late to be of any real use.



"I prefer to be a forgiving person..."?

So you forgive Goodell and the NFL, then?

Mince words much? So highlight my word "did" then highlight my word "assumption" and use both against me. I think you know my point no need for that.

Nothing lousy about assuming he was doing something behind the scenes.

All I am saying is that whatever mistakes he's made along the way this brief is evidence he wasn't only acting with his business interests in mind and does in fact have Brady's back.

 

[Ivan]

Classic Deus response. And we will have to agree to disagree.

Agree, he's the king of hindsight, that's why he resents it being called out so much.

 

[Ring 6]

No and don't misinterpret my post as one in support of Kraft. Kraft will have to live with his multiple capitulations. I'm fine with that. OTOH, I am not in the "Kraft should sell the team" camp either.

Roger is the bad guy and Kraft just doesn't have the backbone to stand up to him.

".03% is the fact" Implies that all cases are the same. Do you believe that? Or is it possible that some cases have certain elements which would improve their odds to be heard?

"What you describe is a or stunt that Olsen sold him on" Sorry, not sure what you meant with this.

Kraft is what he is. As long as we never need someone to stand up to a bully he is fine. When he has to have balls then it would have been better to have a different owner.


.03% is the typical chance. Obviously the ones that succeeded had 109% and the ones that didn't had 0. I reference .03% to address the long shot point in the process that Kraft got involved. The fact that Brady's chances may be better gas nothing to do with that.

Change or to PR since my phone decided to do the opposite on autocorrect then it should make more sense.

 

[signbabybrady]

"I prefer to be a forgiving person..."?

So you forgive Goodell and the NFL, then?

Would be harder to do but if they do something that makes me consider it then I will determine it then.

 

[Ivan]

Hindsight is defined: as recognition of the realities, possibilities, or requirements of a situation, event, decision etc., after its occurrence.

I am using it just fine.

Again we still don't know all the facts.

But given this new info I think the possibilities certainly change.

Now if we look at the timeline it does make some sense. Prior to the courts getting involved Kraft probably was doing quiet politicking behind the scenes thinking he could help somehow. Up until the courts actually made a decision there was always the potential for a settlement so there was logical reasons not to change his approach at that time. With hindsight it would have been better if he did.

After the courts ruled the first time Brady won so it's logical to think he just stayed quiet not to further piss off his business partners. Again with hindsight had he known it be overturned he might have done something different.

Finally it got overturned and he is now at least doing something public to pitch in. Might it be too little too late? Probably is but at least it's something.

I think it's easy for us to ignore that short of selling the team he does have to continue to do business with these guys. He had a fence to straddle and chose his path up until this very public and harsh statement I wasn't sure he was even playing both sides now I believe he was. You don't want to that's your choice and there is plenty of reasons to feel that way I don't blame you. Short of a public mpology from Kraft I choose this to be statement enough for me.

I think this is a pretty accurate depiction of what went on. Was Kraft right, no, did he think he was doing the right thing, in his head yes but for most of us no.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Of course he was trying to justify it. That's absolutely what he was doing. You claiming otherwise IS you being an apologist.

It's semantics, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Not trying to excuse what he did in San Francisco and afterwards. He rightly deserves all the criticism he's gotten and continues to get for that.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

I was a harsh Kraft critic, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt now and declare myself to have been wrong about him.

None of us has enough evidence to determine his sincerity in this late conversion, so the mud-slinging about being a Kraft apologists or a negative Nancy is a waste of time.

As for me, I judge the scorched Earth tone he took in the brief, even calling Goodell out on his flat-out lies with great specificity, as going far beyond the minimum that he would have had to do to show support for TB12. Kraft has spit in Roger's face, make no mistake, and that was a river that he didn't have to cross and that he can't really cross back again in the future. At least I will be shocked if RK plants more kisses on the cheek of RG.

 

[bbobbo]

i'm at a loss to understand how kraft testifying at brady's appeal would have been helpful to brady. he's not involved in the preparation of footballs or game day operations, so what could he have testified to that would have helped brady?

with hindsight, it's even more obvious that kraft's testimony would have been useless, since i think we all can agree that goodell was determined to rule against brady no matter what happened at the appeal.

so kraft testifying at brady's appeal would have basically just been for PR purposes ("hey, look, i'm supporting my quarterback!"). which seems to be the same reason some people are panning the amicus curiae for.

 

[Mike the Brit]

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.

He was asked to testify and declined.
He could have come home early for something this important.
Even if you think his vacation is more important than Brady's fate he was also asked to testify by phone and refused to do that.

Considering this is the man who is in record saying what is best for the 32 is more important than what is best for his team I'm not sure why people insist on making excuses to pretend he wanted to do this but it was just too hard to make a phone call.

OK, I get it.

You don't have any evidence that Brady asked him to testify but that he refused.

Mr Kraft didn't cancel his previously arranged trip to Israel, it's true, but you don't give any evidence that this was despite a request from Brady to have him appear at his appeal (which, as I recall, was scheduled at quite short notice). Instead, you point me in the direction of Google. It isn't up to me to document your claims when you can't.

You say that Mr Kraft "refused" to testify by phone. It's true that he didn't and sent an affidavit instead. Whether that's because he refused to or logistically couldn't isn't established. But you have no doubt about the reason -- again without backing it up with any evidence.

You attribute to me the position that I think that Mr Kraft's vacation is more important than Brady's fate. Nice!

And, actually, as I understand it, Mr Kraft's trip to Israel was to host a party of businessmen -- hardly a vacation.

Sorry to have troubled you.

 

[jah]

the stupid Kraft haters are no different than goodell and the NFL...........they have their stance and they're sticking to it........so don't bother

they're gone when Brady / Belichik are gone....they just want you to know now

Is the irony really lost on you?