Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Brady's Suspension?

Hawk

By Hawk,
in Carolina Panthers

Tom Brady's Suspension Is?  

156 members have voted

  1. 1. 4 games for Brady in deflate gate....

    • 4 games...caught with a joint and you get 4 games...4 isn't enough
      41
    • Are you kidding me, there's no proof, 4 is way too many
      16
    • 4 is about right
      54
    • Fug the Patriots, I'm sick of hearing about Brady's balls
      45

Recommended Posts

Bartin Collaborator

Bartin

Posted
Posted

I think 4 is perfectly fine. I thought taking away a 1st rounder when Belichick and the organization were found to not be involved in any way to be excessive, but I'm not going to complain. If they don't deserve it for this I'm sure there is something they do deserve it for that we just don't know about. Plus all of our picks next year will be one slot higher which is nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Growl Grand Master

Growl

Posted
Posted

If Brady and the organization he is employed with wasn't so (typically of them) arrogant as to try and institute a cover up and bad-mouth the league while banging the "woe is us" drum then it wouldn't have been nearly as bad. They're lucky it wasn't worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LinvilleGorge Grand Master

LinvilleGorge

Posted
Posted

Honestly, if the Pats and their fans have a legitimate beef, it's that the organization got hit too hard.  All indications were that Brady and a couple of low level equipment guys were the extent of the involvement in this whole deal.  It really feels like the Pats got hit because of their history, which IMO is still legit reasoning.  However, if you're going to argue that the Pats got hit too hard as an organization, then Brady got off too light.  If you're going to let the organization as a whole off the hook, then Brady should've gotten hit with a half a season suspension.  Honestly, hitting Brady with 8 games and taking mid-round pick from the Pats would've seemed like a more fair solution given the information available IMO.  But, given the fact that Brady is in his late 30s and the Pats have to strike while the iron is hot, I'm sure having Brady for 12 games is worth losing that 1st rounder in their minds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
Posted

Honestly, if the Pats and their fans have a legitimate beef, it's that the organization got hit too hard.  All indications were that Brady and a couple of low level equipment guys were the extent of the involvement in this whole deal.  It really feels like the Pats got hit because of their history, which IMO is still legit reasoning.  However, if you're going to argue that the Pats got hit too hard as an organization, then Brady got off too light.  If you're going to let the organization as a whole off the hook, then Brady should've gotten hit with a half a season suspension.  Honestly, hitting Brady with 8 games and taking mid-round pick from the Pats would've seemed like a more fair solution given the information available IMO.  But, given the fact that Brady is in his late 30s and the Pats have to strike while the iron is hot, I'm sure having Brady for 12 games is worth losing that 1st rounder in their minds.

 

Florio actually had a good point on this, though.

 

Remember when "ignorance was no excuse" with the Saints and Sean Payton?

 

If that's the standard, how does Belichick come out of this unscathed?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Growl Grand Master

Growl

Posted
Posted

Honestly, if the Pats and their fans have a legitimate beef, it's that the organization got hit too hard. All indications were that Brady and a couple of low level equipment guys were the extent of the involvement in this whole deal. It really feels like the Pats got hit because of their history, which IMO is still legit reasoning. However, if you're going to argue that the Pats got hit too hard as an organization, then Brady got off too light. If you're going to let the organization as a whole off the hook, then Brady should've gotten hit with a half a season suspension. Honestly, hitting Brady with 8 games and taking mid-round pick from the Pats would've seemed like a more fair solution given the information available IMO.

When multiple members of your organization cheat, then the organization is cheating. Anyone who has ever played sports or been in the military or a part of literally any team based endeavor in their entire life is familiar with this concept. The organization then proceeded to make it worse by not just playing dumb, but going on the offensive and demanding apologies and trying to insult the league.

They ARE being punished even more severely because they are repeat offenders. That was within the statement released from the league. It isn't just "a feeling" it's fact.

So you have cheating, you have a cover-up, you have trashing the league in an attempt to build yourself up, and then there is matter that they clearly didn't learn their lesson the first time. As I said before, they are really, really fortunate that both Brady and the organization as a whole did not get worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Mistuh Jones
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By Mistuh Jones · Posted

      This is gonna be longest six weeks ever 
    • PNW_PantherMan
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By PNW_PantherMan · Posted

      This 1000%.  Hey who wants to sign with the guy that couldn't even get his client the guaranteed contract of a 3rd round pick?  Lmao
    • tukafan21
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      I don't think it's any weird or unique clause, it's the offset language, same thing so many contract disputes are over. It just means that including it, if a player is cut and then signed by another team, the original team would be able to subtract how much they're getting paid by the new team from what they still owe him on their guaranteed money. For example, it's why Russell Wilson signed for the minimum last year with the Steelers as that was included in his Denver contract.  So if he signed with the Steelers for $1 million, he'd get $1 million less from the Broncos, if it was $2 million, he'd get $2 million less, basically he couldn't make any more money than he was already going to make, so you sign for the minimum to not take unnecessary cap room from your new team while giving extra cap room to your old one. The problem with trying to include it in rookie deals is that a team trying to include it, it says they think they don't really believe the player will make it 4 years with the team before they cut them.  And this usually comes up with one or two rookies in most seasons, the difference is it's usually handled much more quietly and not as public and ugly as this one. The other difference is that it's happening with the Bengals, which I believe I saw are one of the few (or only?) team that doesn't have protections for rookies in rookie and mini camps to be able to participate even if they haven't signed their contract yet.  The other teams have injury protections that allow them to still play, but the Bengals do not, which is also why this one is so public and ugly, as most the time this happens, the rookie is still participating in the rookie and subsequent mini camps, giving them more time to get the contract done before training camp when they'd then hold out.
×
×
  • Create New...