Jastremski and McNally will testify at Brady appeal

AndyJohnson said:

That is where you make it personal. How about you just state your views and I state mine and drop the personal analysis, as you know that always leads to you taking it too far in that direction.
I care about your opinion about the issue, but do not care about your opinion of me.
If you want to continue on that level, just say, and I'll stop responding. Fair enough?


Totally disagree. It's not his responsibility that Wells acted competently or that he took 4 months. It IS his responsibility to see both sides and be the judge. You seem to think it would be better for him to accept the conclusion that so obviously is wrong, which makes no sense to me.
Have you considered the fallout of going to court and having the entire Personal conduct policy ruled illegal? Having the structure of the penalty system ruled illegal? Losing a large amount of his power? Having the CBA brought into question? Having the anti-trust exemption challenged?

If Kessler gets Goodell in court, this will be about more than Tom Brady's suspension.

Click to expand...

It isn't personal to say someone is being naive about the situation.

Goodell signed off on the punishment. He issued a public statement defending Wells and his report. He calls it crap now and overturns it and he is done. He can survive an independent arbitrator calling the report crap than he saying it himself at this point. Goodell's chance to do that has long past. He overturns himself now, he will only look incompetent... Even more so than he is now.

Rob0729 said:

I didn't make it person. I think you are being naive.

I think losing in court would be far better than admitting the Wells report is flawed. Can you see how he would be killed for wasting four months, millions of dollars, allowing both Brady and the Pats to be punished and shamed in the media, and then say "After carefully reviewing the evidence and Mr. Brady's response, I find the Wells report flawed and biased"? It would end his reign as Commissioner. No way he could survive that.

Click to expand...

Losing in court will be far worse for Goodell than ending it now, cutting his losses by totally exonerating the Pats and TB. Going to court means millions more in lawyers, potential damages which would include payment of all legal fees and possible treble damages. The other owners will not be happy when they see the bill for his personal witch hunt.

Rob0729 said:

It isn't personal to say someone is being naive about the situation.

Click to expand...

Yes it is. Stick to the facts, assessing my mentality is not a fact. Again, if you want to play these games, knowing where they lead you, just tell me and I won't have any more discussions with you. This is already become silly, and no one on the board wants to read it.

Goodell signed off on the punishment. He issued a public statement defending Wells and his report. He calls it crap now and overturns it and he is done.

Click to expand...

I disagree. He trusted the Wells report. He had no reason to not. Information has come to light that shows it was poorly done, that many facts were left out and the conclusion was misleading. That is actually 100% true.
You seem to think ignoring the facts that refute the report gives him honor since he agreed with it before he had the whole story, thinking it was the whole story. I don't agree.

He can survive an independent arbitrator calling the report crap than he saying it himself at this point.

Click to expand...

Again, I disagree because he now has the facts in front of him.
Now he would be judging Wells right AND Goldberg wrong. That is a big step.

Goodell's chance to do that has long past. He overturns himself now, he will only look incompetent... Even more so than he is now.

Click to expand...

He did not have the Patriots rebuttal when he made the decision.
This is what an appeal is.
You are arguing that no appeal should ever result in a change of opinion. That is incorrect.

AndyJohnson said:

Yes it is. Stick to the facts, assessing my mentality is not a fact. Again, if you want to play these games, knowing where they lead you, just tell me and I won't have any more discussions with you. This is already become silly, and no one on the board wants to read it.


I disagree. He trusted the Wells report. He had no reason to not. Information has come to light that shows it was poorly done, that many facts were left out and the conclusion was misleading. That is actually 100% true.
You seem to think ignoring the facts that refute the report gives him honor since he agreed with it before he had the whole story, thinking it was the whole story. I don't agree.


Again, I disagree because he now has the facts in front of him.
Now he would be judging Wells right AND Goldberg wrong. That is a big step.



He did not have the Patriots rebuttal when he made the decision.
This is what an appeal is.
You are arguing that no appeal should ever result in a change of opinion. That is incorrect.

Click to expand...

Goodell had his chance to review the Wells report. He signed off on the punishment. The only people who think he would look good by overturning the punishments based on him deciding the Wells report is crap are Pats fans. The rest of the world would question his competence to be commissioner. Even people who feel the punishment was too hard.

You don't commend Wells on his report publicly and sign off on the punishments based on that report and then after Brady's appeal say the report is crap without telling the world you are unfit to run a billion dollar operation.

If I was in a position of responsibility and an employee of mine submitted a report like this to upper management, and I had not vetted and later had to retract it based on "additional information" that was known or should have been know prior to submittal, it would not go well for me. I believe Goodell will be under similar judgement

AndyJohnson said:

Oh no doubt his motives are selfish, but I believe he recognizes how bad it will be for him if this goes to court. The best means of self-preservation is to end it now, and the only way to end it now is to denounce the Wells report and exonerate the Patriots.

There is a very valid position to be taken that he trusted Wells and relied upon the assumptions and conclusions in his report, rather than drawing his own (clearly he charged Wells with determining guilt) but when held up to scrutiny the Wells report is tragically flawed.

Click to expand...

Oh how I hope you are right.

Sfpat said:

If I was in a position of responsibility and an employee of mine submitted a report like this to upper management, and I had not vetted and later had to retract it based on "additional information" that was known or should have been know prior to submittal, it would not go well for me. I believe Goodell will be under similar judgement

Click to expand...

I give about a 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001% chance that after hearing Brady's appeal (which he will never of hear anyway) and come back and say now that he has more information he thinks the Wells report is wrong. And I am being generous.

And if Goodell hadn't vetted this report before the League issued punishment, that only shows his incompetence. It would destroy his career.

The NFLPA are not fighting to get him removed from being the arbitrator because they think there is a chance he hears Brady appeal and think the Wells report is crap. They know Goodell has made up his mind and nothing will change that.

Rob0729 said:

It isn't personal to say someone is being naive about the situation.

Click to expand...

It is, but it isn't that personal.

Too personal: You are an idiot for saying X
Personal: You are being naive when you say X.
Not Personal: I believe that X is false, for reasons Y and Z.
Too impersonal: There exists a truth value for the claim X.

Rob0729 said:

I give about a 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001% chance that after hearing Brady's appeal (which he will never of hear anyway) and come back and say now that he has more information he thinks the Wells report is wrong. And I am being generous.

Click to expand...

I largely agree. I might give it 0.00000001% though, so I am not as jaded as you.

That said, I will also be surprised if he doesn't reduce the penalty some, given how weak the evidence is.

Have a question.
Why they dont show video of RAvens game and if Mcnally took the balls in the bathroom?
For me this is cruical evidence. If they are so high on text from preseason, why didnt they ask for Ravens video?

neuronet said:

I largely agree. I might give it 0.00000001% though, so I am not as jaded as you.

That said, I will also be surprised if he doesn't reduce the penalty some, given how weak the evidence is.

Click to expand...

Reducing the penalty won't do Goodell any good as Brady will still take him to court. Only full exoneration will help, then Goodell can throw himself to the mercy of the owners and beg for forgiveness

TommyBrady12 said:

i'm not optimistic. they've already proven they are boneheads.

Click to expand...

Boneheads? They are just a couple of guys goofing around at work. I haven't heard anything from them at all which means they have kept quiet through this whole process and allowed the Patriots to work through this thing. Give them some credit.

mihap said:

Have a question.
Why they dont show video of RAvens game and if Mcnally took the balls in the bathroom?
For me this is cruical evidence. If they are so high on text from preseason, why didnt they ask for Ravens video?

Click to expand...

Wow, wow, wow. That actually makes me wonder if they looked through all the Pats games last year and only came up with McNally going to the bathroom during the Colts game. They had to have looked for that. If they did and only came up with him going to the bathroom during the Colts game then that is even further proof that this a total bunch of crap.

Great observation

neuronet said:

I largely agree. I might give it 0.00000001% though, so I am not as jaded as you.

That said, I will also be surprised if he doesn't reduce the penalty some, given how weak the evidence is.

Click to expand...

Reducing the penalty is nothing though. That is standard practice for the NFL. You want to suspend someone for two games, you suspend them for four and it is reduced to two on appeal.

reneluar said:

Millions of fans want to know the context of "dorito dink", Goodell will give you the answers

Click to expand...

I thought Goodell *was* the answer? That's my new name for him, anyway....

Rob0729 said:

Goodell had his chance to review the Wells report. He signed off on the punishment. The only people who think he would look good by overturning the punishments based on him deciding the Wells report is crap are Pats fans.

Click to expand...

What about people who want the truth? Michael Smith for one said that he believed the Wells report until he read the Goldberg response and now he doubts a lot of it.

The rest of the world would question his competence to be commissioner. Even people who feel the punishment was too hard.

Click to expand...

I think you are looking at this from a consequence standpoint rather than from an evidence or decision making standpoint.
You are saying he will look bad changing the punishment but actually he will be changing it because vital information was withheld from him. What would really look bad is ignoring that vital information.

You don't commend Wells on his report publicly and sign off on the punishments based on that report and then after Brady's appeal say the report is crap without telling the world you are unfit to run a billion dollar operation.

Click to expand...

He isn't reading it a second time and changing his mind. He is reconsidering it based upon new information that calls much of it into question. Are you saying that he was supposed to know the facts that Wells left out, or dismiss his conclusion with nothing to refute it and therefore must ignore the new information?
The analogy is that the prosecution presents a case to indict someone, they are indicted and then after the defense presents their case, you are incompetent to now think they are innocent.

This isn't only after Goldberg's response but also after a hearing. I think it is unreasonable to say that someone hearing an appeal looks incompetent by having that appeal change their opinion, especially when the accused never had a chance to state their case before the initial ruling.

neuronet said:

It is, but it isn't that personal.

Too personal: You are an idiot for saying X
Personal: You are being naive when you say X.
Not Personal: I believe that X is false, for reasons Y and Z.
Too impersonal: There exists a truth value for the claim X.

Click to expand...

For my purpose the distinction is when posters take it to the level of personal (to any degree) it often evolves into a pssing match, which the site is trying to eliminate.

Tony2046 said:

Wow, wow, wow. That actually makes me wonder if they looked through all the Pats games last year and only came up with McNally going to the bathroom during the Colts game. They had to have looked for that. If they did and only came up with him going to the bathroom during the Colts game then that is even further proof that this a total bunch of crap.

Great observation

Click to expand...

The tape is on a 10 day loop, so no other tapes from game days exist.

AndyJohnson said:

What about people who want the truth? Michael Smith for one said that he believed the Wells report until he read the Goldberg response and now he doubts a lot of it.


I think you are looking at this from a consequence standpoint rather than from an evidence or decision making standpoint.
You are saying he will look bad changing the punishment but actually he will be changing it because vital information was withheld from him. What would really look bad is ignoring that vital information.


He isn't reading it a second time and changing his mind. He is reconsidering it based upon new information that calls much of it into question. Are you saying that he was supposed to know the facts that Wells left out, or dismiss his conclusion with nothing to refute it and therefore must ignore the new information?
The analogy is that the prosecution presents a case to indict someone, they are indicted and then after the defense presents their case, you are incompetent to now think they are innocent.

This isn't only after Goldberg's response but also after a hearing. I think it is unreasonable to say that someone hearing an appeal looks incompetent by having that appeal change their opinion, especially when the accused never had a chance to state their case before the initial ruling.

Click to expand...

Goodell's first comment to Wells regarding the report should have been "what is the Patriots and Bradys side of the story?" Saying there is now new information doesn't hold water

Sfpat said:

Goodell's first comment to Wells regarding the report should have been "what is the Patriots and Bradys side of the story?" Saying there is now new information doesn't hold water

Click to expand...

It is sad that he would even need to ask that, as both sides would have already been in any impartial analysis. Truly a ridiculous 1984-type situation.