Alaskan Grizzly

Ouch.... That's harsh, especially for you Mad.

Heard on NFL Network this morning a reiteration of a report I had heard previous. Apparently sometime after the report was released Kraft at some point commented that the team would accept whatever punishment the NFL decided upon. But after the judgment was released, Kraft blew his lid (my words, not theirs) and said it was ludicrous. So my question is; you sorta admit guilt and accept your punishment as long as it meets your limit but since it doesn't, then you're no ok with it and will fight it? Huh??? http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/5/11/8588...rady-suspension

On Mike and Mike yesterday there was a suggestion that Brady (and perhaps NE too) won't appeal. Reason being is they'd need to provide depositions and other validated testimony. Where if he (Brady) were to maintain his story it would be borne out that he in fact was lying and it could only make it worse for him. The NFL also would be compelled to have Brady provide evidence to support his 'innocence'. Most notably in this instance it would be his phone etc that he didn't want to provide during the investigation. Interesting to see how they play it.

Well played sir. And the reduction of salary cap does make better sense. Unfortunately they'll probably reduce the suspension (Goodell has to appear he's being tough right?) so most of this will appear as a footnote when it's all done. But at least the Pats (and other teams) will have been put on notice.

Well of course all the fans are upset. I would be too if how I have to win games is cheat and was caught doing it. Even the Raiders haven't stooped this low in a long time and they invented the game of questionable play.. Yes I think the notion that if "our" team was the one instead in the spotlight i (or anyone) would excuse it is sad to suggest. As if I was going to say 'yeah the Bears cheated, so what?' I'd be embarrassed as a fan, not offering up excuses or distractions.

If the Bears were to have been proven, or even alleged, to have cheated in a few instances then yes I for one would be ok with a similar penalty. IF Cutler was asked about his implication in the matter and first denied any wrongdoing then, through the course of the investigation, shown to have not been cooperative in the investigation I would also be ok with a similar penalty for him individually. The fact that it's New England has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether they are being judged differently than another team would or should. And quite frankly to raise that as a topic for that contention is pathetic.

So great minds do think alike? Yeah he continued to play... And draw fines.

I'd rather see someone like Kyle Arrington who was just released from NE. Could push Jennings or Ball for the NB spot. He's 28 so has some time left to do well.

Brandon Meriweather comes to mind. Been there, done that.

Really? You're going to take issue with our difference in the definition (understanding) of a word? Point being, I consider myself a traditionalist in the sense that there are too many rules in the game. So much so that one like this, as simple as it is, is broken to give a team that appears to do well with habit. But seems to find itself at the center of yet another controversy despite the simpleness of it all. All I want to do is watch football and know that most of the players are playing the game to its purest form. And when a leader of a team is faced with a controversy, rather than take the cowardly route of deny and deflect. Own it.

This example you give about Atlanta was actually talked about during Bill Polian's bit I mentioned earlier. What he said, and I agree with, was that in the instance of both Atlanta AND Cleveland (texting) they admitted to what they did wrong when confronted. The difference with NE is not only did 'they' (Brady) deny it, they lied about it. And if it wasn't important enough to make an infraction until 2008, why do it at all?

There's a lot more to the story than your HS football experience portrays. As someone else pointed out this puts a stain on the sport of football overall, not just whether they played with underinflated footballs. Football nowadays at the professional level is measured by seconds and sometimes millimeters. Not like it used to be. And if someone can get that advantage to better their career, and break the rules in doing it, then what's to say the next person won't try and 'one-up' them? Those of us with a traditionalist view on this are sorta pissed.

It's unfortunate that you've totally overlooked the intelligent conversation going on about this in this thread.

There are some facts that need to be considered. If this were a criminal case, which its not even close to but in some regards compared, these would be admissible. 1)One of the two ball-boys (technicians) McNally I believe, stated that in the 20 (or so) years he had been doing this he had never, not once, been invited/offered some sort of 'compensation' from Brady for the work that he did. As you may recall there were texts between the two ball boys (technicians) about that very thing. About how Brady was going to get one of the two some jerseys or other memorabilia. 2)Brady did not cooperate with the investigation. This is probably the most damming to him. The fact that he was asked and denied to provide his telephone and other electronic devices for investigation is very telling. And at the very least an aggravating factor. 3)Tim Hasselbeck was on Mike and Mike yesterday speaking to the credibility of one of the two technicians (Jsstremski). He said he has known him for as long as he can remember and he would never do such a thing unless he was specifically asked. Hasselbeck further said that neither he nor his brother (Matt) know of any technician anywhere that would do something like this without being told. (This point is not so much factual evidence but would be what is considered as a character reference). And since we're back on topic and a little insight from the comments yesterday from Bill Polian. Something that has bugged me about this is how Brady's agent instantly came out when the report was released and lambasted its findings calling it a sham and embarrassment. He went as far as to accuse the Colts of "setting up a sting" to catch the Patriots during the game. Polian's take on this was that back in 2008 when rule changes and terminology were enhanced to the NFL rules Commissioner Goodell required all NFL executives and coaches to sign an affidavit stating that to the best of their knowledge the game was played as fair as possible and no rules were broken throughout the season (or something to that effect). Further, it was required by each coach or executive to report any infractions they discover immediately to league officials. It is up to the NFL at that point to investigate the accusations. Do you think that if Goodell were as much a 'lap dog' to Kraft as some claim he would willingly encourage an investigation for something like this when I'm sure similar complaints are rolling in daily from various sources? I'm not defending the guy, just noting the circumstance. Lastly, I was also bothered by the verbiage the Wells report used in the statement: "...more probable than not..." that Brady was aware of what was going on. Seemed a little flimsy to me. Polian explained that again in 2008 the Commissioner thought that it better to come up with a pat statement when finding guilt or no guilt as a result of an internal league investigation. He wanted to differentiate the language used in criminal vs civil proceedings which refer to phrases such as "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "preponderance of evidence" and said that the phrase "more probable than not" should be introduced in report findings. At the end of the day the question that is being asked all over, 'will this affect the "legacy" of Tom Brady'? Probably not. Will it make him take notice and tarnish his luster a bit? Remains to be seen.

Thanks. I might note I was able to watch a segment on ESPN about half an hour ago and the revered Bill Polian had some compelling commentary about this very thing. I'd quote it all but the segment was about 20 mins long. Parker Bear: One point that was brought out in this segment was that many newer rules and policies were put into play during the 2008 season but don't seem to be fairly and equitably dealt with from the Commissioner's office. That is on Goodell and I'll be the first to tell you that the guy is ineffective. Regardless, this incident is still a bad thing and highlights the problem with teams (specifically NE) getting away with 'bending the rules' over and over.

Or the message; 'as long as you don't go to jall, you can play'. Yeah, good job Dallas.

Had this been an isolated event, perhaps. But as LL pointed out, this is not the first time that the Patriots (as a whole or members within) have been linked to some unfair advantage. If Brady went rogue and chose to influence the equipment managers to customize the footballs to his liking that could even be considered separately. But taken as a whole; with the managers obviously knowing they did it, with Brady being Ok with it, at least as the investigation portrays it, and the arrogance that Kraft exhibits by trying to demand an apology then and now is simply inexcusable. Throw in the fact that as part of the investigation Brady, through his agent, refused to turn over his cell phone (texts) to the investigator. Then after the investigation is over calls the investigation sloppy shows his arrogance has no limit. As harsh as LL's recommendations may seem, I'd have to agree that they at least entertain most of his suggestions.

But the fact remains he's still not cleared of wrongdoing. Money or no. THAT is irrelevant.

Kinda sad in the context of how you phrased this. It's "too bad" that a guy was inconveniced by a double murder and had to be questioned about it. Not sure what relevance the paternity test has and that he took a polygraph by an independent investigator? How is it you phrase it again? meh?

Well played AZ. As frustrating as it is, I had no doubt in my mind that Brady knew this was going on when he was first confronted then emphatically replied that he knew nothing of it. His lie was almost too transparent . Be that as it may, nothing more than a slap on a wrist will be felt by Brady whereas I fear the employment termination of a few equipment guys is looming. Sad.

Gotta love the Cracker Dog way to an answer.... (bolded). Have to say that with words like "...Brady PROBABLY was aware..." I'm convinced not much more will come of it. Oh well, wash our hands and move along.

Soooo....thought I'd repin, repost or whatever it is you do to bring up an old topic. With the news of the 'investigation' being completed I'm curious now what thoughts are. And more importantly what should be done? Does Brady suffer some sort of setback for his wiliness to evade the truth? Or is it all on the team?

I was just curious about what made Stein tick so I found this article. It's circa 2013 (don't hurt yourself thinking about a dark time not all that long ago) but his characteristics seem to hold true to this day. Being with the organization since 2007 (one of the longest tenured staff?) and a former agent shows he definitely has the 'know-how' for the job. http://chicagosidesports.com/cap-guru-clif...rs-competitive/

Did I miss something? Didn't Collins decide to leave the draft so he could be present for the interview on Monday? And in the meantime threatened that if he wasn't drafted in the first three rounds he would pull himself out so he could try again next year? Now he's possibly going to sue the NFL "if he's cleared"? What does that mean "if he's cleared"? Last I heard he was only a person of interest. Presumably he's either very sure he's got nothing to worry about or it's false bravado. Something doesn't smell right. I'm sensing shades of Aaron Hernandez.

No you're right, Pace did good. Nothing too risky or flashy. Outside of White he kept it between the lines and found some good fill for the holes that were open. When you pick your first rounder in the top 10 you have to get a year one starter. Pace did that.