Brady: Four-game suspension reinstated

[hawkfan68]

My only thought on this whole thing is that it's disappointing that Arizona gets to face a Brady-less Pats team.

There is a chance that the Pats could still win without Brady. Brady was out for most of 2008 and the Pats still went 11-5.

 

[ZagHawk]

As much as I love to see Tom and the Patriots season struggle, division comes first and it sucks that Arizona will be benefiting from this the most.

 

[chris98251]

Well the Arizona windfall continues as they catch another break.

 

[Hasselbeck]

As much as I love to see Tom and the Patriots season struggle, division comes first and it sucks that Arizona will be benefiting from this the most.

Jimmy Garoppolo isn't Brady but he's more than capable of playing well against the Cardinals.

 

[drdiags]

This could be like when Big Ben was suspended for 4 games. The Steelers did better than many thought they would and they weathered the storm so I wouldn't be so sure that the Pats are in trouble with Brady more than likely to miss 4 games (though you have to wonder if maybe the NFL, NFLPA and Brady compromise to a shorter suspension).

Brady and the Pats took their shot, so did the NFLPA but I am sure the league wouldn't mind ending any further appeals and both sides could be more agreeable for a compromise. We will see.

 

[Sports Hernia]

I love this. I hope Shady Brady appeals and drags this out forever. I am a Hawks fan, but hate Shady Brady, Rog, the NFL, the Cheatriots, and that moronic fanbase. They all look like crap in this, which is a win-win in my book! :th2thumbs: 8)

 

[Cyrus12]

first four games vs Arizona, Miami, Houston, Buffalo....still see them going 3-1 with the only loss to Arizona. Then he comes back and they go on an incredible run! After all Brady has to win at least one more.

 

[rideaducati]

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/threads/brady-suspension-reinstated-by-us-appeals-court.1129209/

:snack:

Those idiots sure have a hard time comprehending the differences between a criminal charge and an employer suspension. The NFL, or any employer for that matter, DOESN'T have to PROVE wrongdoing beyond a reasonable doubt. They'll never get it.

 

[rideaducati]

Well the Arizona windfall continues as they catch another break.

Card fans will then wonder why no one gives them respect for beating the Pats...if they do beat them.

 

[Clayfighter]

Screw little Tommy Brady. Screw Hoody Grinch. Screw the Cheatriots. It probably only amounts to one loss...

 

[uncle fester]

It sucks that Brady would miss week 1 against AZ. But he might not, if he decides to attempt another appeal (difficult) or try to delay the suspension.

Brady can't NOT appeal. Not because he should, but because he's already five miles down this sanctimonious "golly gee I didn't do anything wrong I don't know why everyone's out to get me BS road he's paved for himself."

Whilst I completely agree with the above, I'm still torn;

I do think if Brady's got half a brain (questionable at this point) missing the AZ game might make his season easier. He got pummelled at the end of last year and the Oline is the last part of the team to gain cohesion. A tactical month off for a 39 yr old might benefit any NE playoff momentum plan.

Anyways, insert comedy sad trombone music for irate Pats fans everywhere.

 

[volsunghawk]

As much as I love to see Tom and the Patriots season struggle, division comes first and it sucks that Arizona will be benefiting from this the most.

Jimmy Garoppolo isn't Brady but he's more than capable of playing well against the Cardinals.

Capable? Sure. But the track record of untested QBs against good defenses isn't a promising one.

 

[bigskydoc]

Brady can't NOT appeal. Not because he should, but because he's already five miles down this sanctimonious "golly gee I didn't do anything wrong I don't know why everyone's out to get me BS road he's paved for himself."

Disagree. He will come out and say something along the lines of

While I have done nothing wrong, dragging this out any further serves little purpose. Rather than going into the season with the distraction of uncertainty hanging over our heads, for the good of the team and organization, I will serve the suspension under protest.

- bsd

 

[RichNhansom]

It sucks that Brady would miss week 1 against AZ. But he might not, if he decides to attempt another appeal (difficult) or try to delay the suspension.

Brady can't NOT appeal. Not because he should, but because he's already five miles down this sanctimonious "golly gee I didn't do anything wrong I don't know why everyone's out to get me BS road he's paved for himself."

Frankly I don't even care anymore, I'm just tired of this whole thing. Suspend him, don't suspend him, JUST GET THE HELL OFF MY TV ALREADY.

While I agree with the premise of your thought I doubt they will fight it. Pretty sure that is why they re-did his contract, so he will lose next to nothing by missing the first 4 games. They knew they weren't going to win.

 

[VivaEfrenHerrera]

It sucks that Brady would miss week 1 against AZ. But he might not, if he decides to attempt another appeal (difficult) or try to delay the suspension.

Brady can't NOT appeal. Not because he should, but because he's already five miles down this sanctimonious "golly gee I didn't do anything wrong I don't know why everyone's out to get me BS road he's paved for himself."

Frankly I don't even care anymore, I'm just tired of this whole thing. Suspend him, don't suspend him, JUST GET THE HELL OFF MY TV ALREADY.

While I agree with the premise of your thought I doubt they will fight it. Pretty sure that is why they re-did his contract, so he will lose next to nothing by missing the first 4 games. They knew they weren't going to win.

Also, the league gave them three straight home games in the first four, almost assuredly related to this suspension. So yeah, no fight.

 

[kearly]

The pats 5th game is against the Browns. Brady could appeal and play against Arizona, then drop the appeal and miss games against Buffalo, Miami, Houston, and Cleveland.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Brady can't NOT appeal. Not because he should, but because he's already five miles down this sanctimonious "golly gee I didn't do anything wrong I don't know why everyone's out to get me BS road he's paved for himself."

Disagree. He will come out and say something along the lines of

While I have done nothing wrong, dragging this out any further serves little purpose. Rather than going into the season with the distraction of uncertainty hanging over our heads, for the good of the team and organization, I will serve the suspension under protest.

- bsd

Then why is he already saying it's not over?

http://nesn.com/2016/04/report-tom-brad ... uspension/

The Patriots and Brady are arguably the most sanctimonious bunch of deniers of wrong doing in the history of sports. So the narrative has no other recourse than for them to continue to deny, deflect and continue this insane circus side show.

 

[Vancanhawksfan]

Not a surprise at all. Love it. Judge Berman went against historical precedent to rule in favor of Brady, and ignored a mountain of circumstantial evidence to do so. The appeals judges weren't so quick to overlook things like the suspect destroying his phone. Technically this wasn't putting Brady on trial, but the details of the case factored when determining if Goodell acted within his authority. Which he did.

It sucks that Brady would miss week 1 against AZ. But he might not, if he decides to attempt another appeal (difficult) or try to delay the suspension.

You know, I don't want to rain on your parade and bring you down from your lofty perch. However, despite the result being what you were praying for your reply clearly demonstrates that you have absolutely zero clue about what the appellate court arguments were or what exactly this ruling was.

Read a little bit about it in the news releases.

 

[Sports Hernia]

Brady can't NOT appeal. Not because he should, but because he's already five miles down this sanctimonious "golly gee I didn't do anything wrong I don't know why everyone's out to get me BS road he's paved for himself."

Disagree. He will come out and say something along the lines of

While I have done nothing wrong, dragging this out any further serves little purpose. Rather than going into the season with the distraction of uncertainty hanging over our heads, for the good of the team and organization, I will serve the suspension under protest.

- bsd

Then why is he already saying it's not over?

http://nesn.com/2016/04/report-tom-brad ... uspension/

The Patriots and Brady are arguably the most sanctimonious bunch of deniers of wrong doing in the history of sports. So the narrative has no other recourse than for them to continue to deny, deflect and continue this insane circus side show.

You should read their forums, message boards, and ESPN comments sections, denial doesn't begin to explain their delusions.

Saint Tawwwwmmyyy can do NO WRONG in their world.

 

[Tupps]

Not a surprise at all. Love it. Judge Berman went against historical precedent to rule in favor of Brady, and ignored a mountain of circumstantial evidence to do so. The appeals judges weren't so quick to overlook things like the suspect destroying his phone. Technically this wasn't putting Brady on trial, but the details of the case factored when determining if Goodell acted within his authority. Which he did.

It sucks that Brady would miss week 1 against AZ. But he might not, if he decides to attempt another appeal (difficult) or try to delay the suspension.

You know, I don't want to rain on your parade and bring you down from your lofty perch. However, despite the result being what you were praying for your reply clearly demonstrates that you have absolutely zero clue about what the appellate court arguments were or what exactly this ruling was.

Read a little bit about it in the news releases.

Better yet, read the opinion: http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/i ... te_opn.pdf

I don't see anything inaccurate in Kearly's post. I believe he is referencing what is included in the opinion from pages 19-22.