Alaskan Grizzly

Since I was curious I had to see what for. Apparently it was due to his violating the restraining order from the last most recent arrest. And in case you missed it, this article also mentions that the DA is still considering charges on the earlier sexual assault accusations. http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la...0527-story.html And one last tidbit of information. The last DV arrest was allegedly due to his action towards a child. Truly a legitimate friggin POS!

Dallas will probably sign him at some point.

Screw him! What a friggin POS!!

Answer me this, why even do it? If it doesn't affect the outcome, as you claim, why go through all the cloak and dagger of doing it? And then when asked about it, lie?

At this point this whole issue of this, specifically about Tom Brady, isn't so much about the PSI in the footballs. The report clearly said that the footballs were manipulated and that Brady (probably) had knowledge of it. The question remains; if it doesn't give a clear advantage, why do it? Anyway, my point. Brady had some knowledge of the alterations and when questioned about it lied and did not cooperate with the investigation. Robert Kraft has decided to avoid the embarrassment of the appeal process; how long before Brady follows suit?

TRUE DAT!!!

Saw this article today. Found it interesting. Good perspective that I hadn't considered. Goes to show how arrogant Kraft and crew are.... http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/if-the...jUDr1?ocid=iehp

Maybe not in your article but here it does: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300000049...w-bears-offense I'll admit that neither Cutler or Gase said it but in the article it clearly suggests: "Rather it was a call back to the strict limitations that offense put on the quarterback, taking some of the decision-making out of the process." and further elaborating with: "Since decision-making has been one of Cutler's biggest weaknesses, that could be a good thing." And there are other articles that similarly cite this. And since you and I appear to agree that this should be a good thing for Cutler especially, not sure why you'd care to invalidate that point.

That's the beauty of working within the confines of a business, in this case the NFL. They make the rules for their company. You break their rules, you pay their penalties. Since this isn't a criminal process, you don't have the need/luxury of having a third party look into it. Don't have to. If you're the NFL, you may in fact want it to go to court. I'm surprised Brady and his attorneys are willing to take the risk. If he (Brady) were forced to play by the rules of the court, rather than the NFL, something tells me he'd find himself in a bigger mess than he already is. The most desired for Brady (or smartest) would probably to look into getting a disinterested arbitrator involved, if they can. Not sure how league rules handle that. I know normally in union dealings that's where a lot of settlement decisions head. You're probably right. But not for the same reason. Given the past 1-2 years and all the other bad publicity I'm sure Goodell would just as soon be done and over with all of it. Not because Brady is going to come out on top of it all.

Yes but the parallels are hard to resist. Both QBs have essentially been mediocre at best (Romo more so than Cutler), both have gotten ludicrous amount of money for that relatively poor play and both had complimentary crap defenses as of late. The fact that Romo appeared to do better with less control (passing) on offense, better running game and improved oline play encourages me to think Cutler could follow that same path as Gase and company construct that similar model.

I think what will happen is they will follow the Dallas model from last season. That being take the decision making out or Cutler's hands and put it into designed plays. Was reading recently where Cutler said some of the offensive game planning under Gase is "Martz-ist" meaning he won't have as much control as he once did. Which I think will be a good thing for the team and Cutler.

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.