Makes perfect sense, if you think about it ...

"Lawyers for the New England Patriots have issued a long letter defending the team against the Wells report. In the letter, the lawyers defend locker-room attendant Jim McNally and equipment assistant John Jastremski, who sent series of damning texts seemingly discussing their plan to deflate the footballs.In one text from May 2014, McNally called himself "the deflator."According to Patriots lawyers, McNally and Jastremski weren't talking about footballs. In the letter, the lawyers say "deflator" referred to McNally's losing weight.The letter calls Jastremski a "slender guy" whose goal was to lift and gain weight. Meanwhile, McNally is called a "big fellow" whose goal was to lose weight. The explanation from the letter:They never asked Mr. Jastremski about it in his interview. Had they done so, they would have learned from either gentleman one of the ways they used the deflation/deflator term. Mr. Jastremski would sometimes work out and bulk up — he is a slender guy and his goal was to get to 200 pounds. Mr. McNally is a big fellow and had the opposite goal: to lose weight. "Deflate" was a term they used to refer to losing weight. One can specifically see this use of the term in a Nov. 30, 2014 text from Mr. McNally to Mr. Jastremski: "deflate and give somebody that jacket." (p. 87). This banter, and Mr. McNally's goal of losing weight, meant Mr. McNally was the "deflator." There was nothing complicated or sinister about it."

I think a lot of it is ego. That's the only explanation I can think of.

forsberg_us wrote:

alz wrote:

Your opinion isn't what makes you a terrible person Chris. Not at all. The attorney in you comes out every so often, and you're a dick when that happens, but I don't mind the opinion.

And I don't hope football players get hurt. It's part of football, so it happens. I also feel that sometimes police officers shoot their weapons, which is very unsafe, and frequently results in people dying, or injured permanently. It's part of being a cop however, and you just hope it's not necessary. Or in your case, I guess we could give them water pistols, and every criminal needs to make an honor bound oath that being hit with water means their crime spree is over, and they were caught. 

The bolded part is exactly what you said you were hoping for.  LT breaking Thiesmann's leg was good for ratings. It's a gladiator sport played by the the biggest, strongest and fastest men. Who care if they get hurt, they know the risks and get paid handsomely to assume those risks. And you've been very clear that you expect them to continue to do so for your pleasure and enjoyment.

I don't mind a good, clean, physical football game either.  But I also don't mind, and completely understand why the league has made helmet-to-helmet contact illegal. It can be frustrating when a referee calls a penalty for hitting a defenseless receiver, but if the alternative is creating another Darryl Stingley, I'm OK with changing the rules. I don't need to see people suffering permanent injury to enjoy the game.

 
So you think all of the rule changes in the NFL in the last 10 seasons (keep in mind it's 2015) are to prevent something which occured in 1978? Isn't that the same year they finally arrested John Wayne Gacy??? Jesus fors...

Hitting a defenseless receiver is not really helmet to helmet exclusive there stud. Far more often, it's tackling usually on the hips, or back, and properly should be initiated with your shoulder. A lot of times it's a result of throwing a high pass over the middle, which used to be a death sentence in the NFL. Now it's optimal offense, since the fucking receiver can't be touched until he's landed, turned, shook hands with the defenders, asked about their families, counted down from 5, then taken his 3rd step.... Leading with contact to the helmet sounds horrible and needs to be outlawed! That sounds good in theory until you get a 4'11" running back who's about 7 inches off the ground, with no way to tackle him from the front without coming down through his head....

While you make a defense for "the worst possible scenario" I notice you leave out the "Shielding" penalty which can earn a defender a pass interference call without actually touching a receiver. Or the "any contact to the quarterback helmet" which I've seen called because a DL trying to block a pass grazed (not grabbed) the facemask as his arm was coming down. That is not a man's game there. That's bullshit, ticky-tack garbage.

Ratings mean people watching television. People tuning in. The Challenger disaster was exceptional for ratings, whether you like it or not. Theisman getting his leg snapped has been watched by millions, and was even the featured introduction in the movie "The Blind Side". I'd venture to say it was good for ratings. 

The game is typical of modern society. A bunch of pussies thinking they are still as rowdy and amazing as we used to be. I'd rather watch Women's MMA than the NFL, it's a fucking joke of a game.

Last edited by alz (5/14/2015 2:17 pm)

So that's where you've fallen? To clip art? From a well educated attorney pushing 50? And you're reduced to pushing clipart around to be witty? 

You got my number, if you want to have a heart to heart conversation we can talk anytime. In person or over the phone. You think watching a bunch of ass-slapping retards play "next to no contact" football is still entertaining, I disagree. I'll be happy to tell you so in person. I'd hate for you to think I was hiding.

Last edited by alz (5/14/2015 2:42 pm)

forsberg_us wrote:

alz wrote:

So that's where you've fallen? To clip art? From a well educated attorney pushing 50? And you're reduced to pushing clipart around to be witty? 

You got my number, if you want to have a heart to heart conversation we can talk anytime. In person or over the phone. You think watching a bunch of ass-slapping retards play "next to no contact" football is still entertaining, I disagree. I'll be happy to tell you so in person. I'd hate for you to think I was hiding.

Then don't watch. Don't attend the games, don't spend any of your money on merchandise, play fantasy football or in any other way support the NFL. I doubt Roger Goodell will lose much sleep over it, and neither will I.

You're the one throwing the tantrum over the fact that the NFL has changed it's rules, not me and certainly not anyone else posting on this message board.  But considering the fact that the NFL's last television deal was for $27 Billion dollars and represented a 60% increase over its last TV deal, I'd say most people have accepted the changes to the rules and moved on.

I don't watch, or spend any of my money on merchandise, or play fantasy football, or in any other way support the NFL. I don't think Roger Goodell has lost a single blink of sleep over it, and I could care less whether you do.

I said that about 12 messages ago, perhaps you were too busy dragging up pictures to read it? 

Artie said he'd found the NFL more and more unbearable to watch as time has passed, I concurred. Siting a clear lack of physicality which made the game great for me. Suddenly you're in the middle of it throwing a hissy-fit because you kid wears pads and I'm not sensetive enough to rich millionaires who get hurt doing something dangerous.

So go ahead and fuck off any time you feel like it, this conversation didn't come to be because I called you out on your views, you injected yourself into a peaceful and happy discussion I was having with Artie. 
 

forsberg_us wrote:

The only person in this thread who has thrown a hissy fit is you, and it started long before I ever posted in the thread. It started when Artie suggested that there were some kids (Michael Oher being his example) who don't have many alternatives outside of football.  You chose to bring other professions into the mix and, then somehow turned it into Artie only being sympathetic to millionaires, not cops or firemen (which he never said). I believe your comment was "it's your BBQ, cook it how you want it."

Whenever anyone disagrees with you, you take it as a personal affront. You did the same thing when the conversation was Pujols leaving. The problem is when you're actually wrong, you get even more pissy about it. The notion that the NFL is a gladiator sport ended several years ago. The final nail in the coffin was delivered when the NFL paid about a billion dollars to past players over the issue of concussions. No one disagrees with you that the game has changed, and quite frankly I think everyone in this thread (myself included) has said that to some extent we prefer the old rules. The difference, however, is that everyone in this thread except you has acknowledged that there are some very legitimate reasons why the rules have changed and why player safety is paramount. Some of it is outright survival--the NFL isn't about to risk a Congressional investigation into player safety and its anti-trust status over the issue. Some of it certainly resulted from the lawsuits that were filed. And some of it undoubtedly resulted from the fact that the league realized what a black eye it was getting when the public saw the horrendus physical condition of some former NFL players and read about former players--relatively young, former players who chose to take their owns lives rather than face a life with a non-functioning brain.

You've made it very clear that you don't care about player safety, in fact the less safe it is the more entertained you are and that's really all that matters. Maybe next time the window washer is outside my window I'll slip him an extra $20 if he'll detach his harness. I'll give you a call and you can come watch to see if he falls.

So to you, this is me "taking it personal? Because this was the "disagreement" with Artie.
[quote888] artie_fufkin wrote:Two separate thoughts that should have been in separate paragraphs. I was typing on my son's Kindle and I'm not used to the keyboard yet.
My point was how much a person earns is irrelevant. Players earn what they earn because of the demand for their services. Based on the relative importance of their jobs, there's no way a football player should earn more than the POTUS or a teacher or an EMT, but they do.[/quote888]
Roger that, I can totally get behind that thought.

The gofundme thing... man that just kills me.
 

In conclusion. Don't speak to me again Chris, in any fashion. And we'll coexist on this board. You're a fucking arrogant pile of shit. The perfect mix of a dickhead cop, and a sleezy fucking attorney, and we're done talking, for good. Seriously. You want to keep the peace? Leave me the fuck alone from now on.

Doesn't sound fine to me Chris, it sounds like you're still conversing, still going personal, and failing at linking images. So go away.

alz wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

alz wrote:

In conclusion. Don't speak to me again Chris, in any fashion. And we'll coexist on this board. You're a fucking arrogant pile of shit. The perfect mix of a dickhead cop, and a sleezy fucking attorney, and we're done talking, for good. Seriously. You want to keep the peace? Leave me the fuck alone from now on.

Perfectly fine with me Billy, but in terms of cutting off communication, let's be clear. You were the one reaching out to me when you had your motorcycle accident (what do I tell the insurance company, how much money do you think I can get, did I get a good settlement), and you were the one who absolutely blew up my phone when you needed to find someone to help with your situation with your ex-wife and kid (imagine that, you with an ex-wife). So in terms of not speaking, it seems that so long as you stop initiating contact with me, the rest should take care of itself.

So in closing, I leave you with this little parting gift.

I just wanted to have this quoted and screenshotted myself. Funny thing about Attorney-Client privledge, I'm pretty sure it actually demands you don't bring up details of a call when the person calling is looking to become a client or get a referral. I wonder if the other attorney's at Greensfelder would consider that outside the professional boundaries. Wiki said this.

"An attorney speaking publicly in regard to a client's personal business and private affairs can be reprimanded by the bar and/or disbarred, regardless of the fact that he or she may be no longer representing the client."

I really suggest you never reply to me again Chris. Enjoy your day.

The Rules of Professional Conduct (which are a little more authoritative than Wikipedia) require the existence of an attorney-client relationship before the privilege attaches to any communication. I don't seem to remember ever serving as your attorney. But if you'd like to establish one, please let me know where I can send the bill for my time.

Here's the thing Billy, you've probably made it through life by bullying people and telling them what to do or not do. But you can't bully me and it pisses you off. Have a nice life.

Last edited by forsberg_us (5/15/2015 10:10 am)

You and I had no conversations "in the legal world" Billy. Now, if you took the information I gave you and spoke to Phil, the conversations you had with him might be a different story.

The mere fact you have a conversation with someone who happens to be a lawyer doesn't create an attorney client relationship anymore than walking up to a doctor at a party and telling him about your bad back creates a patient-physician relationship. 

As I said before, enjoy your life.

alz wrote:

Walk away Fors. I'm not interested in your opinion over your misconduct anymore than I'm interested in Tom Brady's declared innocence when it comes to football PSI. Clearly nothing you say can be trusted as truth or fact. You could just as easily be deflecting. 

Enjoy your life too.

You know what, I actually have to give you that one.  And it brought the thread back to its original topic. Nice job

tkihshbt wrote:

This is ridiculous:

http://deadspin.com/report-nfl-and-pats-participating-in-back-channel-con-1705421653

The way the NFL has handled punishment for ne'er-do-wells like Rice, Hardy, McDonald, etc. has been scattershot and screwed up, but I have a feeling we're headed for a team that blatantly cheated being let off the hook -- again. 

As long as they get to keep their trophies, they're getting off easier than they ought to. 
I don't think Brady will sue, because then he'll have to turn in his phone, and that would implicate whomever else was involved in deflating the footballs, namely Belichick, who I have little doubt was at least "generally aware" of what was going on.
Kraft may have the chutzpah to actually file a suit to try to protect his brand, because he was almost certianly not directly involved. As a Raiders' fan for 40-plus years, I can say by experience that suing the NFL is bad for business. Very bad indeed.