Updated: Judge Tells Brady No Need To Attend 8/19 Settlement Hearing

Patsbacker said:

It may be partially that...however, I think Goodell wants it to be on record that he didn't waste millions of dollars on an investigation which is eventually universally discredited. I also believe it makes it easier for owners to keep him if he gets Brady to accept the results. Goodell is essentially seeking vindication of his "investigation."

Click to expand...

Makes no sense. If he loses, it will be on the record that he wasted the Wells money and tarnished the shield. Hope that happens and hope that Berman also tosses in a few good words for effect.

primetime said:

I sort of get what you're going for, but I think you fell asleep in Philosophy 101.

Click to expand...

It has been >30 years (and it wasn't Philosophy 101), but this is the essence of what I remember as one of my favorite passages of Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan. The idea that without agreed upon premises/assumptions/definitions and the application of reason, all you get is nonsense, which he names "opinion".

I probably missed the nuance, but I think the following still stands: Reasoning from scientific facts or accepted dogma is irrefutable. Having no solid foundation or failing to use reason gets you nothing better than opinion, which is neither faith nor fact.

Happy to learn where my misunderstanding lies though.

Elijah said:

This makes me a little worried that the judge might stick to that as something Brady "would be okay with."

Also, if true, this is the "admission of guilt" the world was waiting for.

Click to expand...

I don't believe the judge can impose a compromise the parties don't agree on.

Do you guys think that Zolak's source is Brady himself? It could possibly be his source and he just says from Brady's camp. As for Shefter, I am sorry, but after this whole deflategate/framegate bs, you can't trust BSPN or NFL Network on this issue. I am sticking with Curran, Zolak, Howe for all of this.

Maybe I'm biased (yes, I am), but how many people who have read all of the reports, contexts, testimony and the legal filings still think Brady is guilty as sin? I've read the comments on PFT and some of the commentators -- but it's very clear they haven't read everything. They just believe it is true.

Judge Berman, we know, has read everything. And, he (or Judge Francis, but that would be with the approval of Judge Berman) told Brady to not bother coming in tomorrow. That's not something a judge would do who was trying to squeeze him into settling. I sense he's already decided he's throwing this thing out -- and telling the NFL if they want to reinstate they need an independent aribtrator.

Do I believe Scott Zolak? Do I believe Adam Schefter? I'm thinking they are both a little right. Brady probably is pissed, and maybe because his team offered up a one game. Although, that makes no sense...if we've gone this far with no admissions of guilt or accepting any suspension, why offer it up now?

I don't know. I tend to believe Schefter. But I just don't see the NFLPA all the sudden saying "Yes, you can suspend players for not turning over their personal cell phones." Its the exact opposite of what we've heard since May.

It is interesting that he told Tom to go to practice.

I would agree that if he thought Tom was in deep doo-doo, he would have told him to come back and fight for his life....I think?

I really want to know what he told Goody. If he told him to be present, what does that mean? Work out the messaging? Don't appeal?

http://www.csnne.com/new-england-patriots/mccann-was-no-point-brady-being-hearing-wednesday
McCann gives a very legitimate point, that Berman may want Brady to stay away so there are fewer distractions. I'm sure there will still be plenty, though.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...budging-from-threshold-demands-in-brady-case/
Florio says the NFL is still insisting that Brady accepts the Wells Report. It's a shame we're not getting live tweets from that one guy like we did last time, because it sounds like there's reason for Berman to bash the NFL any way he can tomorrow.

McCann weighs in.
"...Brady and Goodell wouldn't have any role to play at this hearing, so their presence there is almost inconsequential."
http://www.csnne.com/new-england-patriots/mccann-was-no-point-brady-being-hearing-wednesday

robertweathers said:

It is interesting that he told Tom to go to practice.

I would agree that if he thought Tom was in deep doo-doo, he would have told him to come back and fight for his life....I think?

I really want to know what he told Goody. If he told him to be present, what does that mean? Work out the messaging? Don't appeal?

Click to expand...

I bet the judge basically told Goodell that he has nothing. No case what so ever against Brady and suggested to forgo the punishments and drop this whole thing so he and the NFL can save face.

JJC said:

It has been >30 years (and it wasn't Philosophy 101), but this is the essence of what I remember as one of my favorite passages of Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan. The idea that without agreed upon premises/assumptions/definitions and the application of reason, all you get is nonsense, which he names "opinion".

I probably missed the nuance, but I think the following still stands: Reasoning from scientific facts or accepted dogma is irrefutable. Having no solid foundation or failing to use reason gets you nothing better than opinion, which is neither faith nor fact.

Happy to learn where my misunderstanding lies though.

Click to expand...

"Agreed upon premises/assumptions/definitions" differ from opinion how, then?

You might want to look up Gödel.
.

robertweathers said:

I think Schefter was fed info by someone who wasn't lying at the time but perhaps over time will be proven to have been lied to.

Click to expand...

Plenty of those around, eh? I guess if you work at ESPN, you get a choice like this.

The Brandon Five said:

"Agreed upon premises/assumptions/definitions" differ from opinion how, then?

You might want to look up Gödel.
.

Click to expand...

In science, the agreed on premises have been validated by experimentation, observation, publication and subsequent peer review. For example, behavior described by the Ideal Gas Law is a premise that is agreed to by the scientific community.

JMC00 said:

Not sure why people are buying Schefter about the 1 game thing. Don't think Zolak would have called the 2-6 douche show if he had an unreliable source.

Click to expand...

You have to give Zolak's sources some validity based on proximity alone.

SVN said:

Schefter is what causes me to pause. He is usually spot on with his news.

Click to expand...

Doesn't mean his source isn't the NFL, they would have zero problem lying to him, then he repeats the lie he has been told.

patsfan13 said:

Doesn't mean his source isn't the NFL, they would have zero problem lying to him, then he repeats the lie he has been told.

Click to expand...

One would think he would be sensitive to that at this point.

If Brady is trying to settle for a 1 game suspension I'll lose a lot of respect for him. Id rather see him lose all 4 games and not admit or agree to any sort of guilt.

raduray said:

McCann weighs in.
"...Brady and Goodell wouldn't have any role to play at this hearing, so their presence there is almost inconsequential."
http://www.csnne.com/new-england-patriots/mccann-was-no-point-brady-being-hearing-wednesday

Click to expand...

and while there will probably be some media, they'll be far fewer people standing around trying to catch a glimpse at the handsome QB.

It's possible we won't get a decision tomorrow right? They agree the Judge would make a decision before Sept 4 so technically he has until then to decide. But it would be nice to have this O.V.E.R.

Is it possible that the NFLPA said something along the lines of "Brady has not authorized us to offer the following, but we are interested in your willingness to accept it. If you would be amenable, we can try to get him to accept it as well. The offer would be <4 games for lack of cooperation, but no admission of guilt or acceptance of the findings of the Wells Report."

Kind of a non-offer, offer?

That allows the NFLPA to tell the judge, "We made efforts, but the NFL was immovable on their demand that Brady accept a fundamentally flawed report as truth, when we all know that is impossible. We cannot ask our client to accept conclusions that are provably wrong. All we can ask him to do is make some financial/game concessions to reach a settlement on less than enthusiastic cooperation so we can move on to Pittsburgh."