Peter King...The Brady Appeal: What’s Next in Deflategate Drama

[Rock Strongo]

stolen from a very smart poster here:

Tom Brady's suspension appeal is next episode of NFL DeflateGate drama | The MMQB with Peter King

Excerpt

The NFLPA’s strongest argument, in my view, addresses past precedent and “similar alleged conduct” drawing little or no discipline. Kessler and the NFLPA will point to the Vikings-Panthers game with heated footballs—and no discipline—and news accounts of other quarterbacks who liked their footballs a certain way. They will invoke the phrase the “law of the shop”—requiring applying precedent—and accuse theNFL of being arbitrary and capricious.

In responding to this argument, the NFL may discuss whether the Brady discipline is for one game (the Colts game) or for a “pattern of behavior,” something certainly a part of the Patriots discipline. The exact time scope for Brady’s alleged actions was unclear (at least to me) from the Wells Report and should come out in the NFL’s defense of its position.

Speaking of the Wells Report, the appeal will be a referendum on it. The NFLPA claims it is “wrought with unsupported speculation” and a “disregard of contrary evidence.” NFL lawyers will emphasize Wells credentials, the thoroughness of the report (time and cost were not an issue) and Brady’s lack of cooperation despite assured safeguards and no demand for his phone.

My sense is that with Goodell presiding, the best Brady can hope for is a 1-2 game reduction.The key to me is whether Kessler has exculpatory evidence allowing him to more than attack the process (the Wells Report).

 

[Rock Strongo]

discuss...if you can do so rationally.

 

[WizardHawk]

The NFLPA’s strongest argument, in my view, addresses past precedent and “similar alleged conduct” drawing little or no discipline. Kessler and the NFLPA will point to the Vikings-Panthers game with heated footballs—and no discipline—and news accounts of other quarterbacks who liked their footballs a certain way. They will invoke the phrase the “law of the shop”—requiring applying precedent—and accuse theNFL of being arbitrary and capricious.

In order to take that stance Brady has to admit he intentionally had those balls deflated to be the way he wanted them. There can be no argument for unfair treatment without acknowledging the facts. This is a case of wanting your cake and to eat it too. You can't both argue innocence and the Wells report is entirely wrong AND oh wait, why is the punishment for tampering harsher here than in previous cases.

The reason you can't do that is this charge wasn't for tampering with the damned balls! It was for LYING about tampering with the damned balls! It was for not cooperating in the investigation of tampering with the damned balls!

And frankly I'm shocked Peter is writing this up. He's normally a pretty bright guy with these things. How he cannot see the obvious 300lb gorilla in the room is beyond me.

 

[Rock Strongo]

In order to take that stance Brady has to admit he intentionally had those balls deflated to be the way he wanted them. There can be no argument for unfair treatment without acknowledging the facts. This is a case of wanting your cake and to eat it too. You can't both argue innocence and the Wells report is entirely wrong AND oh wait, why is the punishment for tampering harsher here than in previous cases.

The reason you can't do that is this charge wasn't for tampering with the damned balls! It was for LYING about tampering with the damned balls! It was for not cooperating in the investigation of tampering with the damned balls!

And frankly I'm shocked Peter is writing this up. He's normally a pretty bright guy with these things. How he cannot see the obvious 300lb gorilla in the room is beyond me.

so peter is now "not bight" because he wrote something that sides with the patriots?

i know it sounds silly...but that exact sentiment was stated here multiple times by others the last time he wrote a pats article like this on deflategate.

"hes a patriots fan"

so, if brady says he had them deflated...which he did...youre ok with this? i bet brady would be too.

 

[gowazzu02]

Well the staunchest of pat defenders have been wrong the entire way. So ill keep an eye out for what they predict and assume the opposite.

 

[WizardHawk]

so peter is now "not bight" because he wrote something that sides with the patriots?

i know it sounds silly...but that exact sentiment was stated here multiple times by others the last time he wrote a pats article like this on deflategate.

"hes a patriots fan"

so, if brady says he had them deflated...which he did...youre ok with this? i bet brady would be too.

If brady admitted to having them deflated I'd be ok with him not serving any suspended games and paying a 25k fine per ball. I've said that all along.

I'm not accusing Peter of being a homer, I just wonder why he wouldn't have added those same thoughts because he normally dives fairly deep into anything he writes and I can't figure out why he eluded to thinking the NFLPA had a valid fight here over that part of it for the reasons I already stated.

 

[Caliskinsfan]

The article is written by Andrew Brandt not Peter King.

And it doesn't seem to favor anybody IMO. If you read the entire article, it maps out the legal components of the case and the strengths and weakness from both sides.

 

[WizardHawk]

Well that's what I get for simply reading the excerpt Rock posted.

 

[Rock Strongo]

The article is written by Andrew Brandt not Peter King.

And it doesn't seem to favor anybody IMO. If you read the entire article, it maps out the legal components of the case and the strengths and weakness from both sides.

damnit, you are correct

it says "with peter king" under the headline. then i see andrew brandt.

heck of a find btw @Caliskinsfan

 

[Rock Strongo]

Well that's what I get for simply reading the excerpt Rock posted.

i just copied his post on another thread.

 

[Oldschool739]

stolen from a very smart poster here:

Tom Brady's suspension appeal is next episode of NFL DeflateGate drama | The MMQB with Peter King

Excerpt

The NFLPA’s strongest argument, in my view, addresses past precedent and “similar alleged conduct” drawing little or no discipline. Kessler and the NFLPA will point to the Vikings-Panthers game with heated footballs—and no discipline—and news accounts of other quarterbacks who liked their footballs a certain way. They will invoke the phrase the “law of the shop”—requiring applying precedent—and accuse theNFL of being arbitrary and capricious.

In responding to this argument, the NFL may discuss whether the Brady discipline is for one game (the Colts game) or for a “pattern of behavior,” something certainly a part of the Patriots discipline. The exact time scope for Brady’s alleged actions was unclear (at least to me) from the Wells Report and should come out in the NFL’s defense of its position.

Speaking of the Wells Report, the appeal will be a referendum on it. The NFLPA claims it is “wrought with unsupported speculation” and a “disregard of contrary evidence.” NFL lawyers will emphasize Wells credentials, the thoroughness of the report (time and cost were not an issue) and Brady’s lack of cooperation despite assured safeguards and no demand for his phone.

My sense is that with Goodell presiding, the best Brady can hope for is a 1-2 game reduction.The key to me is whether Kessler has exculpatory evidence allowing him to more than attack the process (the Wells Report).

 

[Rock Strongo]

isnt that you guys the last 5 months?

 

[Scooby-Doo]

stolen from a very smart poster here:

Tom Brady's suspension appeal is next episode of NFL DeflateGate drama | The MMQB with Peter King

Excerpt

The NFLPA’s strongest argument, in my view, addresses past precedent and “similar alleged conduct” drawing little or no discipline. Kessler and the NFLPA will point to the Vikings-Panthers game with heated footballs—and no discipline—and news accounts of other quarterbacks who liked their footballs a certain way. They will invoke the phrase the “law of the shop”—requiring applying precedent—and accuse theNFL of being arbitrary and capricious.

In responding to this argument, the NFL may discuss whether the Brady discipline is for one game (the Colts game) or for a “pattern of behavior,” something certainly a part of the Patriots discipline. The exact time scope for Brady’s alleged actions was unclear (at least to me) from the Wells Report and should come out in the NFL’s defense of its position.

Speaking of the Wells Report, the appeal will be a referendum on it. The NFLPA claims it is “wrought with unsupported speculation” and a “disregard of contrary evidence.” NFL lawyers will emphasize Wells credentials, the thoroughness of the report (time and cost were not an issue) and Brady’s lack of cooperation despite assured safeguards and no demand for his phone.

My sense is that with Goodell presiding, the best Brady can hope for is a 1-2 game reduction.The key to me is whether Kessler has exculpatory evidence allowing him to more than attack the process (the Wells Report).

You may want to read the whole article and not pull out the pieces that conveniently support you position.

Fail.

 

[Rock Strongo]

You may want to read the whole article and not pull out the pieces that conveniently support you position.

Fail.

yes, you did.

 

[Rock Strongo]

PS

grown adult men dont say "fail".

kids do.

drop an ohh emmm geeee on me too.

 

[Oldschool739]

isnt that you guys the last 5 months?

No, we've just been trying to prove to you that the horse was dying....

 

[Rock Strongo]

No, we've just been trying to prove to you that the horse was dying....

the horse that just won a 4th SB since 2001?

 

[WizardHawk]

And Rock is not known for only posting small pieces of articles so reading the linked article shed some light on why he only posted a small portion of this particular one.

This document, prepared for the Patriots by the law firm of Morgan Lewis, was surprising in that it largely attacked the process (the Wells Report) rather than shed light on any (credible) exculpatory information. While the scientific analysis from a Nobel Prize winner (reportedly working for a firm for which Robert Kraft has an ownership interest) was a legitimate response to the Wells Report’s analysis, the explanation of the alleged deflation scheme was, to be charitable, lacking.

The Rebuttal asserted that 1) John Jastremski and Jim McNally were simply goofballs joking around in texts (the Rebuttal suggested that we all send texts we really do not mean); 2) the “he” referred to by them when discussing preferred football pressure specifications was not Tom Brady; and 3) McNally’s moniker “the Deflator” was simply a reference to his desire for weight loss. These contentions strain credulity. Making the Rebuttal even less believable was the fact that the Patriots suspended Jastremski and McNally—whom the Rebuttal defended—the day the findings of the Wells Report came out. Although one report indicated the NFL “suggested” those suspensions, the league has denied that.

My question regarding the Rebuttal was whether Kraft was using it as his appeal to the court of public opinion in lieu of an appeal through the league’s arbitration system or court. I believed all along that Kraft would avoid further action to 1) avoid lengthy litigation; and 2) use this humiliation as potential political chip to gain a reciprocal advantage down the road.

So, while Rock wants this article to point out where there is some legal ground for the NFLPA to clear Brady, it really shoots a lot of holes in the entire premise of the teams overall defense of this whole fiasco.

discuss...if you can do so rationally.

 

[Rock Strongo]

And Rock is not known for only posting small pieces of articles so reading the linked article shed some light on why he only posted a small portion of this particular one.



So, while Rock wants this article to point out where there is some legal ground for the NFLPA to clear Brady, it really shoots a lot of holes in the entire premise of the teams overall defense of this whole fiasco.

discuss...if you can do so rationally.

double edged sword.

rational!

 

[WizardHawk]

Some might suggest you fall on your sword, whichever edge you choose.