Andrew Brandt goes on and on and on

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2015/09/01/nfl-deflategate-decision-roger-goodell-tom-brady-judge-berman

Interesting, if one has the patience. He's a former Packers executive, and the Packers were pretty much the first team hit by Goodell's drastic changes in discipline policies. He adds color to our picture of NFL inner workings -- no big surprises, just small details. He thinks the new COO is likely to fire some folks (but not, of course, his boss Goodell).

Even where he's against us, it's in a smarter way than most. E.g., he ties the "Other teams feel the Pats get away with stuff" to the injury reports, which is one of the few areas where the Pats do have a consistent rules-obeying blemish. And the shot he takes at Brady's integrity about cell phone stuff is one I hadn't heard before. (One of the versions of his story about why he disposed of his phone was that he wanted to switch to an iPhone -- but in fact he just got another Samsung.)

Nice read and informative but I disagree on one point,
>>>>

As to that appeal, Goodell practically begged Brady to give him a reason to lower or even nullify the suspension. Instead, the hearing produced more blanket denials and the story of a destroyed phone that may have held key evidence for the case, and Goodell upheld the suspension.<<<<<<
I don't think Brady stood a snowballs chance of getting the suspension reduced short of standing up, admitting guilt and begging for forgiveness. Why would an innocent man do that and even then it would probably only have gone from 4 to 3 games?.... Goodell wanted to show he was in charge....
I think there is a lot of truth to the cocoon or bubble. Is there a barber, coffee shop where he will hear other opinions? The more I think about it,that supermarket scene in Maine must have come as a shock ( doesn't everybody love me..no Roger)

Patsfanin Philly said:

Nice read and informative but I disagree on one point,
>>>>

As to that appeal, Goodell practically begged Brady to give him a reason to lower or even nullify the suspension. Instead, the hearing produced more blanket denials and the story of a destroyed phone that may have held key evidence for the case, and Goodell upheld the suspension.<<<<<<
I don't think Brady stood a snowballs chance of getting the suspension reduced short of standing up, admitting guilt and begging for forgiveness. Why would an innocent man do that and even then it would probably only have gone from 4 to 3 games?.... Goodell wanted to show he was in charge....
I think there is a lot of truth to the cocoon or bubble. Is there a barber, coffee shop where he will hear other opinions? The more I think about it,that supermarket scene in Maine must have come as a shock ( doesn't everybody love me..no Roger)

Click to expand...

That was one of Steph Stradley's points. E.g. Goodell literally claiming that Brady said the opposite of what he actually did.

Fencer said:

He's a former Packers executive, and the Packers were pretty much the first team hit by Goodell's drastic changes in discipline policies.

Click to expand...

Brandt indeed was VP of the Packers dealing with player contract and salary cap issues. Before that he was a sports agent. Now he's a sports lawyer and educator. How do I know all this? He shows up every Wednesday on the Ross Tucker NFL Podcast which to me is a must-listen edition of the podcast. As you note he's one of the few that can speak to the NFL largely (but not totally) from a position of dispassion and really can use his experience as an insider in a very insightful way. It's even more insightful because GB has no single owner and is publicly traded so they have to issue financial reports no other team has to issue. That gives Andrew a lot of data he can use to make his points. There is very little "palace politics" in GB relative to the other 31 NFL franchises with the more traditional ownership structure. This means Andrew saw how an NFL franchise would be run without the traditional meddling owner in the picture.

The article is worth the read. What I can add to it is the title itself, "A Stunning Smackdown for Goodell and the NFL" is note worthy. Up to this point Andrew emphasized how difficult it would be for NFLPA to get a judgement in their favor. He emphasized that in general judges want to support arbitration because it helps offload the court system. The laws make it very hard for a judge to reverse an arbitration finding. So he clearly did not expect the judge to nullify the arbitration in its entirety.

The language makes that clear:

Judge Berman issued an excoriating opinion that is a stunning rebuke to the NFL and to the power of Commissioner Roger Goodell. The judge ruled that the league did not provide Brady with due process and found aspects of of the decision “fundamentally unfair” to Brady.

Click to expand...

And as you suggest, Andrew is very good at seeing the big picture and explaining what he is seeing. Andrew feels this will impact the power of the Commish. In my view it should, but I think Rodger is just too drunk on power and will continue to over-indulge till it kills him.

From what I'm reading Andrew seems to think Goodell will adjust and survive. I think he's incapable of adjusting and will get the boot sooner or later one way or another.

I'll add that some dislike La Canfora but I found the following to be a good writeup of the kinds of subtle changes we'll be seeing in the NFL front office:

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer...ing-anywhere-but-a-changing-of-guard-underway

ctpatsfan77 said:

That was one of Steph Stradley's points. E.g. Goodell literally claiming that Brady said the opposite of what he actually did.

Click to expand...

Stradley also pointed out that if Brady is actually innocent, then making a blanket denial should not put him into the "also to blame" category for the whole thing dragging out. I also wonder how exactly these journalists are allowed to chide Brady on not coming forth and admitting he likes underinflated balls when Brady's press conference involved him doing exactly that - well, not underinflated but just about each QB having a specific preference for how the ball feels. He did admit that and got skewered for it. When he tried to do exactly what many here are saying he didn't do - that is, trying to kind of laugh this off a a preference thing - the press was clearly not on board with laughing it off. Damned if you do; damned it you don't.

It's like of like saying, had he just turned over his cell phone, this wouldn't have happened. Yes, it absolutely would have. Absolutely. There was no way that report was going to vindicate him.

Fencer said:

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2015/09/01/nfl-deflategate-decision-roger-goodell-tom-brady-judge-berman

Interesting, if one has the patience. He's a former Packers executive, and the Packers were pretty much the first team hit by Goodell's drastic changes in discipline policies. He adds color to our picture of NFL inner workings -- no big surprises, just small details. He thinks the new COO is likely to fire some folks (but not, of course, his boss Goodell).

Even where he's against us, it's in a smarter way than most. E.g., he ties the "Other teams feel the Pats get away with stuff" to the injury reports, which is one of the few areas where the Pats do have a consistent rules-obeying blemish. And the shot he takes at Brady's integrity about cell phone stuff is one I hadn't heard before. (One of the versions of his story about why he disposed of his phone was that he wanted to switch to an iPhone -- but in fact he just got another Samsung.)

Click to expand...

Good read, thanks for linking. I agree that if there's one area where the Pats' reputation is probably well-deserved, it's in messing with injury reports and working the IR in a way that goes against the spirit of it. Every team does that to some extent at least, but the Pats are a little more aggressive than most. So if Goodell decides to throw down with another sham investigation designed to handicap the Pats, I expect him to attack there.

Patsfanin Philly said:

As to that appeal, Goodell practically begged Brady to give him a reason to lower or even nullify the suspension. Instead, the hearing produced more blanket denials and the story of a destroyed phone that may have held key evidence for the case, and Goodell upheld the suspension.

Click to expand...

That quoted part is the kind of nonsense that makes me not bother reading the article, even if the rest of it is solid. Brady offered to help the NFL contact every person on his call list, but that was too much work for a guy who would then wait more than a month to hand down his verdict.

Fencer said:

And the shot he takes at Brady's integrity about cell phone stuff is one I hadn't heard before. (One of the versions of his story about why he disposed of his phone was that he wanted to switch to an iPhone -- but in fact he just got another Samsung.)

Click to expand...

Which is still functionally irrelevant, but I'll play along. Let's make the following assumptions:

1) Brady deliberately lied about why he bought a new phone.
2) Brady deliberately destroyed the old phone to keep Wells from reviewing it.
3) The fact that Tom had an older phone is not an anomaly, it is further evidence for #2, as is the timing of the destruction.

Why does this automatically mean what he meant to hide is deflation? The NFL had all his texts to relative personnel and, according to Kessler on ESPN this morning, they had records indicating that no additional communication exists. So who is he texting about air pressure to? Or does he have a vid tutorial of proper technique on it? Seriously, what evidence could possibly have been on it?

Even if we presume he wasn't simply afraid of personal communication getting out, that there was something bigger on his phone, it is far more likely it is an affair or something to that effect. Too bad people have such a hard time seeing past the spin.

BradyFTW! said:

Good read, thanks for linking. I agree that if there's one area where the Pats' reputation is probably well-deserved, it's in messing with injury reports and working the IR in a way that goes against the spirit of it. Every team does that to some extent at least, but the Pats are a little more aggressive than most. So if Goodell decides to throw down with another sham investigation designed to handicap the Pats, I expect him to attack there.

Click to expand...

I can't see how the league could, they are the ones who specify the guidelines on how absense from practice is reported. If you do not attend practice you must be listed on the injury report unless your absense is noted for a non-medical reason. (family/law etc) you miss so much time you are required to be listed as questionable, you miss more time you are required to be listed as doubtful. Any Injury that is reported to the trainer needs to be reported.

The purpose of his exercise is not to give an opponent a glimpse into your teams health, but to lessen the possibility that gamblers attempting to get an edge, corrupt the staff or players to gather injury news.

patman52 said:

I can't see how the league could, they are the ones who specify the guidelines on how absense from practice is reported. If you do not attend practice you must be listed on the injury report unless your absense is noted for a non-medical reason. (family/law etc) you miss so much time you are required to be listed as questionable, you miss more time you are required to be listed as doubtful. Any Injury that is reported to the trainer needs to be reported.

The purpose of his exercise is not to give an opponent a glimpse into your teams health, but to lessen the possibility that gamblers attempting to get an edge, corrupt the staff or players to gather injury news.

Click to expand...

The league also handled the protocol that authorized pregame ball manipulation. And it was league refs who had McNally carrying balls to the field for years before they decided it was worth launching an inquisition over. The league also handled the protocol stating that it was legal to film the opponent's defensive signals.

Never look for consistency from the league office: if they want to create a scandal, they will, even if it goes against a century of precedent. And they'll do it by finding some minor technicality on which they can at least fabricate a case that you were out of compliance in some tiny, insignificant way. They say it's a big deal, jealous people everywhere pile on, and next thing you know the Pats are down a first round pick and publicly smeared for the next decade.

Oswlek said:

Why does this automatically mean what he meant to hide is deflation?

Click to expand...

I agree. In particular, I wouldn't assume that what he wanted to hide was actual wrongdoing at all.

That said, since the league at some point offered to let Brady select the information to turn over, we can assume that whatever he was hiding was some communication about football.

Oswlek said:

Which is still functionally irrelevant, but I'll play along. Let's make the following assumptions:

1) Brady deliberately lied about why he bought a new phone.
2) Brady deliberately destroyed the old phone to keep Wells from reviewing it.
3) The fact that Tom had an older phone is not an anomaly, it is further evidence for #2, as is the timing of the destruction.

Why does this automatically mean what he meant to hide is deflation? The NFL had all his texts to relative personnel and, according to Kessler on ESPN this morning, they had records indicating that no additional communication exists. So who is he texting about air pressure to? Or does he have a vid tutorial of proper technique on it? Seriously, what evidence could possibly have been on it?

Even if we presume he wasn't simply afraid of personal communication getting out, that there was something bigger on his phone, it is far more likely it is an affair or something to that effect. Too bad people have such a hard time seeing past the spin.

Click to expand...

yes! Having the actual phone is a complete red herring. You don't need the phone to see the texts and anybody who says this or thinks this has never texted.

Bill Lee said:

Brandt indeed was VP of the Packers dealing with player contract and salary cap issues. Before that he was a sports agent. Now he's a sports lawyer and educator. How do I know all this? He shows up every Wednesday on the Ross Tucker NFL Podcast which to me is a must-listen edition of the podcast. As you note he's one of the few that can speak to the NFL largely (but not totally) from a position of dispassion and really can use his experience as an insider in a very insightful way. It's even more insightful because GB has no single owner and is publicly traded so they have to issue financial reports no other team has to issue. That gives Andrew a lot of data he can use to make his points. There is very little "palace politics" in GB relative to the other 31 NFL franchises with the more traditional ownership structure. This means Andrew saw how an NFL franchise would be run without the traditional meddling owner in the picture.

The article is worth the read. What I can add to it is the title itself, "A Stunning Smackdown for Goodell and the NFL" is note worthy. Up to this point Andrew emphasized how difficult it would be for NFLPA to get a judgement in their favor. He emphasized that in general judges want to support arbitration because it helps offload the court system. The laws make it very hard for a judge to reverse an arbitration finding. So he clearly did not expect the judge to nullify the arbitration in its entirety.

The language makes that clear:

And as you suggest, Andrew is very good at seeing the big picture and explaining what he is seeing. Andrew feels this will impact the power of the Commish. In my view it should, but I think Rodger is just too drunk on power and will continue to over-indulge till it kills him.

From what I'm reading Andrew seems to think Goodell will adjust and survive. I think he's incapable of adjusting and will get the boot sooner or later one way or another.

Click to expand...

that's actually when I quit listening to that podcast -- used to like ross.
he had brandt on there, and while he didn't come out + explicitly accuse brady of anything, he made it pretty clear he was kind of assuming guilt on this, and ross didn't say a word to challenge him.
at the time ross was kind of up his ass pitching him a regular guest spot, so I don't suppose he wanted to confront the guy.

former pats like chatham + bruschi have no problem speaking their mind, but I guess ross would rather launch his pod career, or w/e.

Even when Ross Tucker says positive things about the Pats he goes passive aggressive.

Brandt's a smart enough guy but his article still tries to lend some credibility to Scheisskopf and the NFL in this travesty. The league picked a stupid fight over something insignificant, dug their heels in and got their sorry asses soundly kicked in broad daylight with lots of players and fans applauding the outcome.

Here's one particularly foul smelling steaming pile of horseshit -

That's patently ridiculous. Give me a break.

Then's there's this -

Wow - it's a wonder they haven't been tossed from the league. Injury reports? Formations? (no doubt a post-Raven playoff game addition to pad the list of Patriot atrocities). This pretty much rebuts the "Patriots are serial cheaters" argument all by itself. Excuses are for losers, and these losers are a bunch of whinig crybabies. Jesus - grow up.

Finally, can we give the cell phone destruction fable a rest? The NFL has manipulated public opinion to manufacture out of thin air a fictional obligation on Brady's part to turn over his private cell phone, which of course is complete and is utter nonsense. Also, Brandt suggests that Brady was punished for (possibly) being generally aware of something (that might have happened) AND for noncooperation, the latter of which only became significant in the goal post moving exercise after the appeal. Just more prevarication on the part of Scheisskopf and his Goon Squad.

In the end, I think this is a good example of how the owners and management types around the league talk themselves into the Goodell reign of terror/error being really okay if you just think about things the right way.

Nice try, Andrew, but I'm calling ******** on this. Too bad, because you are clearly a smart enough guy to know better.