- Joined
- Oct 10, 2006
- Messages
- 76,883
- Reaction score
- 66,866
This report is from twitter. I believe NOTHING!
That's the smart play on this one...
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.This report is from twitter. I believe NOTHING!
Really, DI? You think this is a win for the Patriots. Only in the narrow short term. If Brady pays a fine, even if he officially doesn't admit guilt, that is NOT how it will play among the haters.
In the end Goodell will have to eat a little crow, but he can blame it all on the Federal Court system, where the NFL has never faired well. He can still proclaim his belief that Brady was guilty to the world and got away on a technicality forced upon him. He can say it was the best deal he could get because of the Federal court, but the Pats were severely punished and that will satisfy the owners knowing that the Pats lost 2 key draft picks over NOTHING.
Most importantly, if this deal is actually coming to pass; the NFL will NEVER have to explain their actions on the Mort report. They will never have to explain their actions on their misinformation campaign. They will never have to explain the strategic leaks. They will never have to explain the actions of Kensil, Giardi, and Pash. They will never have to explain the farce of the Welles report.
So when you think about it. While some might consider this a win for Brady, in the long run Goodell comes out the big winner. He will get the owners support because he gave the Pats a black eye and hurt them competitively. He will have proven that he needs no real evidence to prosecute any player, team or owner and essentially get away with it. He won't come out of this without some perceived damage, but overall he wins, and consolidates his power over the PA, players and Teams he want to prosecute....or not.
So in the end Goodell wins, because even after all this, would you want to be the guy to cross him if you actually DID something.
Hell! If that's the case, I'LL pay the $50k....
Brady CAN'T admit any guilt for anything. Any settlement for Brady is a victory for the NFL, even this one. I hope to god this isn't true. He essentially admitted to murder, even thought the so called victim is alive and well. He not only permanently taints his legacy, he allows the NFL league offices to get away with a conspiracy of near epic proportions (relatively ).
I will hate it if this is the end result and my fandom will definitely be affected. I will believe that in the end that Kraft set this in motion and Brady confirmed my worst fears.
What exactly is it that you're hoping for? Full exoneration where Goodell admits to framing Brady moments before the firing squad takes him down?
I agree that Brady accepting a $50K fine and nothing else isn't ideal, in that I can at least imagine a better outcome. But it's an outcome I would be happy with. and I think at least in time the public narrative would come to recognize it as a general win for Brady that suggests the NFL league office was the real villain here.
So is Brady going to practice or is he attending court?
DON'T DO IT! !! Why should he be the 1st one to EVER get suspended for this? ?Scrolling now on FESPN:
Brady open to possibility of some form of suspension, but for not fully co-operating, not for wrong-doing.
Don't do it.
DON'T DO IT! !! Why should he be the 1st one to EVER get suspended for this? ?
I'm sceptical that there was anything more than a hypothetical discussion over what the NFL would concede if Tom gave them a game. Then that hypothetical discussion turned into a leak that Tom will take a one game suspension. That's how lying liars lie.Scrolling now on FESPN:
Brady open to possibility of some form of suspension, but for not fully co-operating, not for wrong-doing.
Don't do it.
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.