denverpatsfan
PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
2020 Weekly Picks Winner
2023 Weekly Picks Winner
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2004
- Messages
- 7,139
- Reaction score
- 6,137
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.You're kidding yourself if you don't think this will be talked about at his induction. The difference is that it will be talked about ad nauseum if he accepts one game. The media will report it as being a wide admission of guilt and will only gloss over it being about non-cooperation. If he's looking at accepting a penalty for non-cooperation, it needs to be a fine. There is a precedent there.
I am not sure why Brady would accept a 1-game suspension. Unless they think this will end badly?
Say the lawyers think it is a 60/40 chance the suspension gets vacated. Would you rather have a 40% of having to serve 4 games or a 100% chance of having to serve 1 games. That would be why (obviously I made up the percentages).I am not sure why Brady would accept a 1-game suspension. Unless they think this will end badly?
did you fail in logic?
You're looking at it in a vacuum. Some times you are forced to cut your losses, even when you're innocent.yes, accept a 1 game suspension for something you didn't do. makes perfect sense to me.
and you're sounding psychotic.........and once again, you are comparing non-cooperation on something off field versus on field.......I would kill you arguing this point in a court of law.........you have a better argument with no player ever being suspended for an equipment violation
You're looking at it in a vacuum. Some times you are forced to cut your losses, even when you're innocent.
and you're sounding psychotic.........and once again, you are comparing non-cooperation on something off field versus on field.......I would kill you arguing this point in a court of law.........you have a better argument with no player ever being suspended for an equipment violation
It's crazy!!! And what's all over the radio? Basically Brady willing to accept suspension because he knows he can't win (alluding to guilt ) it's so frustrating and I hope it's not true he's willing to accept suspension.yes, accept a 1 game suspension for something you didn't do. makes perfect sense to me.
It's crazy!!! And what's all over the radio? Basically Brady willing to accept suspension because he knows he can't win (alluding to guilt ) it's so frustrating and I hope it's not true he's willing to accept suspension.
once again, you are talkng about a court of law wheras kontra is talkng about the court of public opinion.
But willingly accepting the penalty is the biggest loss of all. You're not cutting anything.You're looking at it in a vacuum. Some times you are forced to cut your losses, even when you're innocent.
All people will remember is that Brady accepted a suspension for deflate gate. And that matters.It frustrates me that everyone here thinks coming to a settlement where he sits 1 game for lack of cooperation is an admission of guilt. There are a lot of moving parts to this case, and the fact that you can't be sure how Berman will rule means you need to look at all possibilities logically. Brady has declared his innocence over and over and that is good enough for me (as long as he doesn't accept the Wells Report or involvement in ball deflation). Thinking that people will think differently about him because he accepted a game (and not for ball deflation) doesn't make sense to me. Not guilty people accept settlements all the time without admitting guilt, and that doesn't mean they are guilty. Ever heard of nolo contendere?
Yes you are cutting your losses regardless of whether you are guilty or innocent. If you think you have a good chance of sitting out 4 games, agreeing to sit out 1 game is the very definition of cutting your losses.But willingly accepting the penalty is the biggest loss of all. You're not cutting anything.
It frustrates me that everyone here thinks coming to a settlement where he sits 1 game for lack of cooperation is an admission of guilt. There are a lot of moving parts to this case, and the fact that you can't be sure how Berman will rule means you need to look at all possibilities logically. Brady has declared his innocence over and over and that is good enough for me (as long as he doesn't accept the Wells Report or involvement in ball deflation). Thinking that people will think differently about him because he accepted a game (and not for ball deflation) doesn't make sense to me. Not guilty people accept settlements all the time without admitting guilt, and that doesn't mean they are guilty. Ever heard of nolo contendere?
Everyone outside of New England thinks he is guilty anyway. Do you think Berman overturning Brady's suspension on procedural grounds will change that? If so, you are sorely mistaken. Also, I would definitely not want you advising any of my clients.All people will remember is that Brady accepted a suspension for deflate gate. And that matters.