Obnoxious Football Trash Talk Thread

[ComcastWineRookie]

you know, breaking ur cell phone still isint as good as throwing the football from the 1 yard line when u have the best running back in the leage on the field

 

[wobrien]

And his wife is a terrorist!
View attachment ImageUploadedByHome Brew1438196949.012817.jpg
Albeit a terrorist with great cans...

 

[Cape Brewing]

Thanks Tom Brady for ruining sports radio for the next 5 weeks until college football starts. What a bitchy ******* that guy is...most system QBs are that way.

LOL

I ain't THAT fired up that I'm takin' that bait

 

[Mongrel]

A 4-game suspension for involving team employees in a conspiracy to willfully bypass NFL rules and then failing to cooperate with the NFL is equal to being shot and left for dead by the police? I'll give to ya Pats fans, there is no group of people better at playing the victim card.

Don't forget, it's also "...a cross between the Kennedy Assassination and Cambodian genocide."

 

[stratslinger]

It's not a court of law. It's a court of the NFL. They can do what they want.

And that's just not true.

They can do what they want - under the CBA, and supposedly under the rules as they are written. We all know (Dallas fans in particular and most recently) how the NFL can throw out the rulebook at times, so we'll throw out the whole rulebook thing for the moment.

But as soon as the NFL decides to extend its authority beyond what the CBA allows, then they have a problem. And the NFLPA (not Brady) have been making it clear for the past couple months that they believe this is absolutely the case here. Asking for the phone - that's a no-no. Nothing in the CBA gives the NFL the right to player's personal property. Period. Penalizing a player for not turning over such? Clear overreach of the CBA, and that's where Goodell - not Brady, not the Pats, not the NFLPA - has a problem. If he hadn't been so hellbent on making it clear that the penalty is so severe because Brady didn't comply with the investigation by turning over his phone, which he had no responsibility to do and the NFL had no right to expect, then maybe he'd still have a leg to stand on. But that's been one of the main legs of his argument. And with a lame leg like that, the argument just won't stand.

 

[stratslinger]

Stop - hold the bus!!!!

I take back everything I've said about any $25k fine of Brady being appropriate. As it turns out, even that much is a gross overstepping of what's allowed. (Stick with me Darwin, I'll try to use smallish words so you can follow - but repeat after me - No, the NFL cannot do whatever it damn well pleases.)

Check out the following article on details coming to light about the NFLPA's suit against the NFL over this whole hot mess...

The most relevant highlight to our conversation here? The ball pressure isn't even in the player's rulebook! It's in the "Game Operations Manual" that's provided for the benefit of the teams, and not published to the players. So, Brady's being penalized for being generally aware of a rule being broken that isn't even in any materials that are published for him or any of the other 51 guys on the Pats active roster.

But wait. There's more. (And Hoppy, this is gonna make you mad for Beastmode - definitely looks to me like he got shafted.)

The policies that ARE given out to players provide for specific, collectively bargained (see, that term!!!!) fines for equipment violations - the policies cite stickum or slippery compounds, for example. Nothing specific about ball pressure - though I grant that maybe that could fall into their catch-all about modifications that could grant a competitive advantage, assuming somewhere in there they include guidelines as to what pressures don't grant a competitive advantage. But since when do funny colored shoes grant any kind of competitive advantage? Beastmode got shafted. (Unless there's some other bit of the CBA that covers uniform colors and penalties for not adhering to them.)

And the Player Policies - again, under the CBA - specifically limit a first time offender to a fine of $8,268.

So. IF the Player Policies, or some other player-published rules state what the pressure should be in the football (and the NFLPA already established they do not - but we'll ignore that because everyone wants to ignore everything in favor of Brady here), and if we assume guilt, he should've been fined no more than $8,268. Anything more than that is a violation of the CBA.

So now, we're forced to assume that all the rest of his quarter-season suspension is because he failed to cooperate with the investigation by refusing to hand over his phone. Which, again, he absolutely positively does not have to do, and the NFLPA would've gone bonkers on him if he had. And the article goes into plenty of detail as to why this is ridiculous too, which I'll let you all read at your leisure.

None of what the NFL has tried to do here will stand up in court. The CBA alone ties their hands, and the fact that they've clearly violated it here kills any argument they may believe they have.

 

[Cape Brewing]

http://deadspin.com/taste-roger-goodells-wrath-with-our-nfl-punishment-gene-1720846778

I got three games for posting the link

 

[stratslinger]

Three games for goofing up an SSL update at work.

Ouch.

Man, if I had only owed up to what I did to the file server a few months back, I might've missed the season.

 

[Darwin18]

Stop - hold the bus!!!!

I take back everything I've said about any $25k fine of Brady being appropriate. As it turns out, even that much is a gross overstepping of what's allowed. (Stick with me Darwin, I'll try to use smallish words so you can follow - but repeat after me - No, the NFL cannot do whatever it damn well pleases.)

Check out the following article on details coming to light about the NFLPA's suit against the NFL over this whole hot mess...

The most relevant highlight to our conversation here? The ball pressure isn't even in the player's rulebook! It's in the "Game Operations Manual" that's provided for the benefit of the teams, and not published to the players. So, Brady's being penalized for being generally aware of a rule being broken that isn't even in any materials that are published for him or any of the other 51 guys on the Pats active roster.

But wait. There's more. (And Hoppy, this is gonna make you mad for Beastmode - definitely looks to me like he got shafted.)

The policies that ARE given out to players provide for specific, collectively bargained (see, that term!!!!) fines for equipment violations - the policies cite stickum or slippery compounds, for example. Nothing specific about ball pressure - though I grant that maybe that could fall into their catch-all about modifications that could grant a competitive advantage, assuming somewhere in there they include guidelines as to what pressures don't grant a competitive advantage. But since when do funny colored shoes grant any kind of competitive advantage? Beastmode got shafted. (Unless there's some other bit of the CBA that covers uniform colors and penalties for not adhering to them.)

And the Player Policies - again, under the CBA - specifically limit a first time offender to a fine of $8,268.

So. IF the Player Policies, or some other player-published rules state what the pressure should be in the football (and the NFLPA already established they do not - but we'll ignore that because everyone wants to ignore everything in favor of Brady here), and if we assume guilt, he should've been fined no more than $8,268. Anything more than that is a violation of the CBA.

So now, we're forced to assume that all the rest of his quarter-season suspension is because he failed to cooperate with the investigation by refusing to hand over his phone. Which, again, he absolutely positively does not have to do, and the NFLPA would've gone bonkers on him if he had. And the article goes into plenty of detail as to why this is ridiculous too, which I'll let you all read at your leisure.

None of what the NFL has tried to do here will stand up in court. The CBA alone ties their hands, and the fact that they've clearly violated it here kills any argument they may believe they have.

The saddest part about this entire post is that you took the time to write it.

 

[Cape Brewing]

.... and even sadder than that?

Having Geno Smith at your QB.

True story

 

[finsfan]

.... and even sadder than that?

Having Geno Smith at your QB.

True story

Very true and a sad, sad story at that.

 

[Darwin18]

.... and even sadder than that?

Having Geno Smith at your QB.

True story

Shut up. We have Ryan Fitzpatrick. Or maybe Bryce Petty if things get really, really bad. I'm calling Bryce Petty starting in Week 10.

 

[finsfan]

Score 1 for Darwin and his "friends"

 

[h22lude]

That's the only banner Jets fans will ever see...

 

[Roadliner]

Shut up. We have Ryan Fitzpatrick. Or maybe Bryce Petty if things get really, really bad. I'm calling Bryce Petty starting in Week 10.

I wouldn't count having Fitzpatrick as any sort of positive.

 

[finsfan]

That's the only banner Jets fans will ever see...

HAhahaha

 

[Cape Brewing]

That's the only banner Jets fans will ever see...

Well played sir

 

[wobrien]

That's the only banner Jets fans will ever see...

Hahaha

 

[Darwin18]

I wouldn't count having Fitzpatrick as any sort of positive.

I'm pretty sure no one did that. It's titled "obnoxious" for a reason. PKU.

 

[Darwin18]

That's the only banner Jets fans will ever see...

Pfftt....We see plenty of banners every season.

"FireIdzick"

"FireRexy"

"FireWoody"

"FreeFiremanEd"

 

[Roadliner]

I'm too tired to PKU lol. :cross:

 

[fosaisu]

Stop - hold the bus!!!!

I take back everything I've said about any $25k fine of Brady being appropriate. As it turns out, even that much is a gross overstepping of what's allowed. (Stick with me Darwin, I'll try to use smallish words so you can follow - but repeat after me - No, the NFL cannot do whatever it damn well pleases.)

Check out the following article on details coming to light about the NFLPA's suit against the NFL over this whole hot mess...

The most relevant highlight to our conversation here? The ball pressure isn't even in the player's rulebook! It's in the "Game Operations Manual" that's provided for the benefit of the teams, and not published to the players. So, Brady's being penalized for being generally aware of a rule being broken that isn't even in any materials that are published for him or any of the other 51 guys on the Pats active roster.

But wait. There's more. (And Hoppy, this is gonna make you mad for Beastmode - definitely looks to me like he got shafted.)

The policies that ARE given out to players provide for specific, collectively bargained (see, that term!!!!) fines for equipment violations - the policies cite stickum or slippery compounds, for example. Nothing specific about ball pressure - though I grant that maybe that could fall into their catch-all about modifications that could grant a competitive advantage, assuming somewhere in there they include guidelines as to what pressures don't grant a competitive advantage. But since when do funny colored shoes grant any kind of competitive advantage? Beastmode got shafted. (Unless there's some other bit of the CBA that covers uniform colors and penalties for not adhering to them.)

And the Player Policies - again, under the CBA - specifically limit a first time offender to a fine of $8,268.

So. IF the Player Policies, or some other player-published rules state what the pressure should be in the football (and the NFLPA already established they do not - but we'll ignore that because everyone wants to ignore everything in favor of Brady here), and if we assume guilt, he should've been fined no more than $8,268. Anything more than that is a violation of the CBA.

So now, we're forced to assume that all the rest of his quarter-season suspension is because he failed to cooperate with the investigation by refusing to hand over his phone. Which, again, he absolutely positively does not have to do, and the NFLPA would've gone bonkers on him if he had. And the article goes into plenty of detail as to why this is ridiculous too, which I'll let you all read at your leisure.

None of what the NFL has tried to do here will stand up in court. The CBA alone ties their hands, and the fact that they've clearly violated it here kills any argument they may believe they have.

If your stunning legal analysis of the CBA is remotely accurate, Brady should fire his manager, the Patriots should fire their lawyers, and the rabid Pats fans should probably commit suicide because they've all been wasting their time (and credibility) with ridiculous meteorological arguments and paranoid whining about some anti-Patriots vendetta when the solution to all of your problems was right there in the player's handbook.

Whatever you think of Goodell he's not a complete moron and you must realize he'll have a carefully constructed legal argument to support the punishment imposed on Brady, especially in a high-profile case like this. Doesn't mean Brady can't ultimately win a reduction in court (I don't know the CBA and I'm not a labor law expert). But I'd suggest keeping your trousers dry until you see both sides' arguments in writing.

 

[Darwin18]

I'd love to see Stratslinger's legal analysis of the Hernandez trial while we're at it. You should totally quit your full time job and give out some free legal advice to all your favorite Patriot criminals.

 

[fosaisu]

I'd love to see Stratslinger's legal analysis of the Hernandez trial while we're at it. You should totally quit your full time job and give out some free legal advice to all your favorite Patriot criminals.

To be fair, patspulpit.com would be a great place to get sound legal advice (based on years of hard-won experience) on public intoxication, public urination, or drunk and disorderly charges. Remains to be seen if that legal prowess extends to labor law.

 

[Roadliner]

Stop - hold the bus!!!!

I take back everything I've said about any $25k fine of Brady being appropriate. As it turns out, even that much is a gross overstepping of what's allowed. (Stick with me Darwin, I'll try to use smallish words so you can follow - but repeat after me - No, the NFL cannot do whatever it damn well pleases.)

Check out the following article on details coming to light about the NFLPA's suit against the NFL over this whole hot mess...

The most relevant highlight to our conversation here? The ball pressure isn't even in the player's rulebook! It's in the "Game Operations Manual" that's provided for the benefit of the teams, and not published to the players. So, Brady's being penalized for being generally aware of a rule being broken that isn't even in any materials that are published for him or any of the other 51 guys on the Pats active roster.

But wait. There's more. (And Hoppy, this is gonna make you mad for Beastmode - definitely looks to me like he got shafted.)

The policies that ARE given out to players provide for specific, collectively bargained (see, that term!!!!) fines for equipment violations - the policies cite stickum or slippery compounds, for example. Nothing specific about ball pressure - though I grant that maybe that could fall into their catch-all about modifications that could grant a competitive advantage, assuming somewhere in there they include guidelines as to what pressures don't grant a competitive advantage. But since when do funny colored shoes grant any kind of competitive advantage? Beastmode got shafted. (Unless there's some other bit of the CBA that covers uniform colors and penalties for not adhering to them.)

And the Player Policies - again, under the CBA - specifically limit a first time offender to a fine of $8,268.

So. IF the Player Policies, or some other player-published rules state what the pressure should be in the football (and the NFLPA already established they do not - but we'll ignore that because everyone wants to ignore everything in favor of Brady here), and if we assume guilt, he should've been fined no more than $8,268. Anything more than that is a violation of the CBA.

So now, we're forced to assume that all the rest of his quarter-season suspension is because he failed to cooperate with the investigation by refusing to hand over his phone. Which, again, he absolutely positively does not have to do, and the NFLPA would've gone bonkers on him if he had. And the article goes into plenty of detail as to why this is ridiculous too, which I'll let you all read at your leisure.

None of what the NFL has tried to do here will stand up in court. The CBA alone ties their hands, and the fact that they've clearly violated it here kills any argument they may believe they have.

Are you trying to use another argument the Tom Brady doesn't know how a football is supposed to be? Since it wasn't in the players manual, he doesn't know any other rules governing the game of football?

You are right about him not having to provide his phone, legally. Doesn't mean his unwillingness to do so can't be used against him in a decision. Similar to a legal trial where a suspects silence can be used against them in a court of law even though they have the right to remain silent.

 

[day_trippr]

[...]You are right about him not having to provide his phone, legally. Doesn't mean his unwillingness to do so can't be used against him in a decision. Similar to a legal trial where a suspects silence can be used against them in a court of law even though they have the right to remain silent.

Having been empaneled through a manslaughter trial I assure you that your latter statement is not accurate - at least wrt judge instructions. Specifically, you cannot hold silence against the defendant - by established law.

Now, you could still make the claim that juries would ignore all that and hold silence against the defendant, but it's not supposed to be that way.

As for the whole phone thing, again, in an actual court of law, if there is no legal requirement to be met, there's no penalty. Unless the jury ignores the law.

Of course, none of that applies to private kangaroo courts that can make up anything they want on the fly - ala the NFL...

Cheers!

 

[fosaisu]

you cannot hold silence against the defendant - by established law. Now, you could still make the claim that juries would ignore all that and hold silence against the defendant, but it's not supposed to be that way.

Agreed and agreed. But here it's more a "court of public opinion" question -- does the fact that Brady destroyed his phone the morning he met with investigators make it more or less probable that he was trying to hide information relating to ball deflation? We've heard what Patriots fans think, and maybe an ardent Jets fan is biased in the other direction. But it doesn't take a degree in psychology to know what the average person that doesn't care at all about football would think when presented with these facts: it looks pretty suspect.

Of course, none of that applies to private kangaroo courts that can make up anything they want on the fly - ala the NFL...

But the NFL process is not a "kangaroo court" -- it's the process the player's union and NFL management (including Kraft) agreed to in the last round of collective bargaining. I'd bet that NFL players (including Brady) get much better protection from arbitrary management behavior than the average American worker! The court Brady's appealing to will be evaluating whether the NFL violated that agreement in punishing Brady as it did.

 

[HoppyDaze]

hey guys, shut up about it.

 

[Roadliner]

Having been empaneled through a manslaughter trial I assure you that your latter statement is not accurate - at least wrt judge instructions. Specifically, you cannot hold silence against the defendant - by established law.

Now, you could still make the claim that juries would ignore all that and hold silence against the defendant, but it's not supposed to be that way.

As for the whole phone thing, again, in an actual court of law, if there is no legal requirement to be met, there's no penalty. Unless the jury ignores the law.

Of course, none of that applies to private kangaroo courts that can make up anything they want on the fly - ala the NFL...

Cheers!

It's completely accurate and has legal precedent. one case being the 1992 conviction of Genovevo Salinas where his silence and refusal to answer during questioning was indeed used against him in court.

and also of course like you said.. even if ordered not to.. people use things in memory to make decisions. A judge can strike a statement frm the record all they want, but it will weigh in the mind of a jury. And also.. like you said.. it's the NFL commissioner's court as well, so even more bearing can hold on a refusal to cooperate in his mind.,

 

[day_trippr]

[...]But the NFL process is not a "kangaroo court" -- it's the process the player's union and NFL management (including Kraft) agreed to in the last round of collective bargaining. I'd bet that NFL players (including Brady) get much better protection from arbitrary management behavior than the average American worker! The court Brady's appealing to will be evaluating whether the NFL violated that agreement in punishing Brady as it did.

Totally ignore the fact that the penalties levied for the claimed infractions were never subjected to bargaining agreements - and are completely without precedent.

I'd say that's pretty standard kangaroo kourt stuff right there...

Cheers!