Berman's questions yesterday were aimed to make the NFL feel two feet tall. He brought up issues like Brady's better performance in the second half, although we know that doesn't really have much to do with the law or process.
The NFL's "bad faith", absurd offer that Brady must admit guilt and accept the Wells Report makes me believe they think they are going to win the case. In other words, they think that Berman is trying to soften them up because they (this is what they believe) have the stronger case and would need more public scrutiny in order to come up with better settlement terms. It seemed clear by their answers yesterday that the NFL didn't think they needed to do a whole lot of arguing and that this is an open-and-shut case, and that Berman also knows it but is trying to get them to settle since the law is in the favor even if justice is not.
Again, that is the perspective I think the NFL adopts based on their clear unwillingness to budge on a settlement.
Now, what to make of this...I do think the NFL could be right. Someone pointed out that only about 2 out of 66 arbitration awards have been overturned in that district. It could very well be that Berman thinks the NFL is unjust and abusing their power but within their legal rights, so he is in fact trying to soften them up and cast doubts on their case in the hopes that they will lose confidence or at least acknowledge their many flaws and compromise on the punishment. Of course, the NFL won't do that, which they have proven time and again during this witch hunt, and they are betting on Berman playing a game of chicken with them before ruling in their favor.
However, Mike Florio's take on it is something different, which is that Berman truly has not made up his mind and may in fact use the lack of evidence against Brady to formulate an argument against the NFL. Florio basically believes the judge could do what the NFL did, which is come to a conclusion first and then let all of the facts (in this case, legal precedents) support the argument. Maybe, maybe not, this is something that is by the letter of the law, but at some point, the law is subjective and a judge's opinion. There is precedent, however rare, for a judge to overturn something like this. Then, of course, the legal arguments by Kessler were also very persuasive, so there is the possibility of the arbitration award being overturned on the process itself without consideration of Brady's guilt or innocence.
I hope the NFL continues to display arrogance in refusing to even discuss the merits of Brady's suspension and deferring instead to "what the Commissioner thinks" as the catch-all argument as to why they are justified in anything they've done, citing Article 46. I think if they adopt this approach we could get a judge who is willing to see the NFL's arrogance and twisted sense of justice first-hand and let that become the basis of his opinion.
