Kraft's chosen way of attacking.

patsfan13 said:

Wake me up when he offers to pay the legal fees for Jastremski and McNally defamation suits against the NFL, Otherwise it is empty posturing.

Click to expand...

I don't know if that will happen (it would be the right thing to do), but re-instating both of them would be the first right thing to do.

We knew this was the evil axis of ex Jet execs framing this team, the target was BB, Brady was collateral damage.

Kraft should have realized tha when camera gate first occurred but he turtles, can't wait to hear about this when BB spills the beans in the future. Then we see the frame job in deflategate, the non response to Woody tampering with Revis.

When the F is he going to call out Goody and his Jets associates? If not now, then when.

OhExaulted1 said:

I don't know if that will happen (it would be the right thing to do), but re-instating both of them would be the first right thing to do.

Click to expand...

He should just re instate them, don't ask Vincent or Goodell.

JUST DO IT!

Sorry, Az. I have always been a "wait and see" and "benefit of the doubt" guy with Kraft, but his pattern to date has been capitulation in matters of substance against the Commissioner and offering noise when it had no teeth in an apparent effort to placate the angry fan base that supports the team. I cannot see him employing some loftier approach to the benefit of the team at this point.

It may have been the strangest aspect of this case was the footballs going into the bathroom and the text messages, so that case may have been arguably weaker than Brady's case. I can accept letting Brady's case move first with that in mind. But barring some recourse to recoup the losses directed to the team you now have the team eating substantial losses on its future prospects in the draft based largely on the ill-advised decision to go to the bathroom before walking on the field. If that were deliberate planning by Kraft, then it is akin to a boxer employing the strategy of trying to break his opponent's hands by allowing the opponent to punch him excessively in the head during the match.

And the thing about attacking goons of the Commish, if that is the plan, then what happens when he hires more goons? They are scapegoats, so you can always buy more. He will always have staff.

GaryfromTO said:

Kraft was a naïve fool. He should have gone Al Davis on Goodell right from the start. Now how he just looks like a pathetic fool who caved and cost his team dearly.

No amount of spin can change that.

Click to expand...

Could ve stop with this naive fool.
He knows and knew what to do back then and now and hw probably would done the same thing with time machine.
I dont buy this naive guy thing.

Kraft's chosen way of attacking.

I stopped reading right there.

As a longstanding loyal fan of the NEP I was denied the right to fully celebrate the franchises 4th Super Bowl until yesterday.

I want my #1 and #4 picks back. Thats the attack I want to see.

patsfan13 said:

He should just re instate them, don't ask Vincent or Goodell.

JUST DO IT!

Click to expand...

I concur. Not only was TB exhonerated, but by extension so were the both of them.From what I understand this was a full time job for Jastremski and his father also worked for the club. (If I'm wrong I apologize, I don't know where to reference that info, just remember seeing it somewhere).

NE needs enter the underworld of "unidentified sources" and start shaking the hornets nest. I would start by floating the rumor that owners will vote on Goodell's future at the next owners' meeting. Let the media get all wrapped up in this non football discussion....mediots will devour this topic and players will pile on. Goodell......the Face of the NFL.Fight fire with fire. Two can play the smear game.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Kraft f**ked up massively in his "concession speech". That speech is one of the primary things the haters and even non-hater anti-Goodellites point to when they say "well, something probably happened". Because they say -- not unreasonably -- "why did he lie down like a gutless dog if they were really innocent?"

I'm not saying he should have gone on some damn fool idealistic crusade. All he needed to do was:
1) Invoke whatever appeal process there is (the same one the Chargers used in Towelgate). I concede it would have accomplished nothing, but it needed to be done.
2) Phrase the key part of his concession speech more like this: "The team did nothing wrong. Tom did nothing wrong. As such, I was planning to challenge the team punishment in court. However, our attorneys tell me that any such challenge would be futile and in fact could result in more penalties levied against the team as punishment for the act of challenging. Therefore I am, very reluctantly, choosing not to challenge this grossly unfair punishment at this time."
3) Not a single mention of the Other 31.

Some sound like the parent of a parent claiming their criminal son is just misunderstood. Lots of criminals have redeeming qualities.

No, not equating Kraft to a criminal. The point is that denial is strong when you want to believe. Kraft is what he is. He's a owner who wants to do the right thing and be fair but when it comes time to fight, he doesn't have the spine to stand up and take the punches. Humans have a fight and flight instinct. His flight instinct is much stronger than his fight instinct.

QuantumMechanic said:

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Kraft f**ked up massively in his "concession speech". That speech is one of the primary things the haters and even non-hater anti-Goodellites point to when they say "well, something probably happened". Because they say -- not unreasonably -- "why did he lie down like a gutless dog if they were really innocent?"

I'm not saying he should have gone on some damn fool idealistic crusade. All he needed to do was:
1) Invoke whatever appeal process there is (the same one the Chargers used in Towelgate). I concede it would have accomplished nothing, but it needed to be done.
2) Phrase the key part of his concession speech more like this: "The team did nothing wrong. Tom did nothing wrong. As such, I was planning to challenge the team punishment in court. However, our attorneys tell me that any such challenge would be futile and in fact could result in more penalties levied against the team as punishment for the act of challenging. Therefore I am, very reluctantly, choosing not to challenge this grossly unfair punishment at this time."
3) Not a single mention of the Other 31.

Click to expand...

I'd love to see this forum's Kraft excuse makers respond to these salient points instead of their straw man "But Kraft can't sue the NFL" disingenuous straw person incantation.

Bend-Over bob will forever be known as Bend-Over Bob.

He blew it, BIG TIME!

I see few of you have ever read Machiavelli. He says if you would render harmless an opponent, remove his supporters first. That is Why Karaft is attacking the Lawyers in the NFL FO. Their expensive fees and poor performance is easier to sell to his fellow owners, as their legal fees come directly out of their pockets.

After you neutralize them, then you can attack Goodell for being foolish to employ them, pay their exorbitant fees, accept their poor advice, and hire these fools in the first place.

AzPatsFan said:

I see few of you have ever read Machiavelli. He says if you would render harmless an opponent, remove his supporters first. That is Why Karaft is attacking the Lawyers in the NFL FO. Their expensive fees and poor performance is easier to sell to his fellow owners, as their legal fees come directly out of their pockets.

After you neutralize them, then you can attack Goodell for being foolish to employ them, pay their exorbitant fees, accept their poor advice, and hire these fools in the first place.

Click to expand...

I kinda like where you're going with this....it's really too bad you're aren't our owner lol

AzPatsFan said:

I see few of you have ever read Machiavelli. He says if you would render harmless an opponent, remove his supporters first. That is Why Karaft is attacking the Lawyers in the NFL FO. Their expensive fees and poor performance is easier to sell to his fellow owners, as their legal fees come directly out of their pockets.

After you neutralize them, then you can attack Goodell for being foolish to employ them, pay their exorbitant fees, accept their poor advice, and hire these fools in the first place.

Click to expand...

You're really on a roll today. What time is your next show?

Arthur Blank is looking like an owner with Goodellitis
http://deadspin.com/the-falcons-owner-seems-pretty-fed-up-with-roger-goodel-1728718283

AzPatsFan said:

I see few of you have ever read Machiavelli. He says if you would render harmless an opponent, remove his supporters first. That is Why Karaft is attacking the Lawyers in the NFL FO. Their expensive fees and poor performance is easier to sell to his fellow owners, as their legal fees come directly out of their pockets.

After you neutralize them, then you can attack Goodell for being foolish to employ them, pay their exorbitant fees, accept their poor advice, and hire these fools in the first place.

Click to expand...

I'm very familiar with both Machiavelli and Tzu. If you think that what you're spinning here is what Kraft is actually doing then I have some beautiful ocean front property in Nevada to sell you.

hilarious how petty and trivial and predisposed to appearances many of you are

buncha Mark Brunell's

QuantumMechanic said:

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Kraft f**ked up massively in his "concession speech". That speech is one of the primary things the haters and even non-hater anti-Goodellites point to when they say "well, something probably happened". Because they say -- not unreasonably -- "why did he lie down like a gutless dog if they were really innocent?"

I'm not saying he should have gone on some damn fool idealistic crusade. All he needed to do was:
1) Invoke whatever appeal process there is (the same one the Chargers used in Towelgate). I concede it would have accomplished nothing, but it needed to be done.
2) Phrase the key part of his concession speech more like this: "The team did nothing wrong. Tom did nothing wrong. As such, I was planning to challenge the team punishment in court. However, our attorneys tell me that any such challenge would be futile and in fact could result in more penalties levied against the team as punishment for the act of challenging. Therefore I am, very reluctantly, choosing not to challenge this grossly unfair punishment at this time."
3) Not a single mention of the Other 31.

Click to expand...

Exactly. He didn't have to "go all Al Davis" to take a stand! He had a lot of options short of taking the other owners to Court.

His apologists are now saying that by his caving in May, he thought the League would be induced to drop the matter against Brady or treat it as an equipment violation with an accompanying $5,312 fine.

But, to believe that, we have to believe that Bob Kraft had an almost Pollyanna-ish naivete about Goodell and the League Office. I'm sorry, I just can't believe that of a guy who has built a net worth that's measured with nine zeros after the first comma.

He caved because he didn't want to rock the boat of the Club, whose members' collective opinion of him was more important to him than anything else in the world. I think that he went to the meeting in SF in May, got a cold shoulder from a few guys who usually slapped him on the back and decided he didn't like how it felt and surrendered rather than be blackballed by his "friends."