Listening to the radio on the way in, the mood was surprisingly tempered. The crew on WEEI was talking about the Revenant. 

I'm not a fan of the Panthers or Cam Newton , but they utterly dismantled the Cardinals .
I think the Broncos are in trouble .......

don.rob11 wrote:

I'm not a fan of the Panthers or Cam Newton , but they utterly dismantled the Cardinals .
I think the Broncos are in trouble .......

I agree

artie_fufkin wrote:

tkihshbt wrote:

Artie, this is more of a journalist question more than football, but what are your thoughts on Peter Gammons?

 
In his prime, Gammons was the best beat writer in baseball, in terms of both content and style. But along the way he became a celebrity. Television was a terrible fit for him, and he kind of devolved in this Walter Winchell character.
He'll most likely be remembered as the best baseball writer ever, and he deserves all the accolades he gets for helping to advance the profession from the violet prose era of Grantland Rice, et al, but he never should have left the Globe.

I thank you for providing the answer I was looking for to a question that was a little too broad because I was typing it on my phone on a Sunday morning. I've only known Gammons as an ESPN guy and now a guy I follow on Twitter and I've always been a fan of his work, but I was curious about his reputation prior to being a media personality. What spurred the question was his criticism of a New England TV reporter that said "Go Patriots" before signing off the other day. Gammons found this totally unprofessional and said as much on Twitter, something I really appreciated.
 

"What spurred the question was his criticism of a New England TV reporter that said "Go Patriots" before signing off the other day. Gammons found this totally unprofessional and said as much on Twitter, something I really appreciated."

He should have called them out. I'm guessing he was referring to someone from the local CBS affiliate, which is waaaaay too close to the Patriots. In addition to broadcasting most of the regular season games with the national TV contract, the local affiliate also broadcasts the pre-season games, and for those one of the on-the-field reporters is also the sports anchor, who wears a shirt with the Flying Elvis logo while he's covering the games. No conflict of interest there. 
The same station has also produced a few embarrassing promos with its regular news people, including most recently one with the two anchors of the 6 p.m. news dressed in Patriots gear and wearing eyeblack and dancing. 
The biggest restaurant at Kraft's enormous "Patriot Place" shopping center next to the stadium is called "CBS Scene," and when the whole Ray Rice thing started to go badly for Goodell, it was CBS that Kraft went running to for an interview to say Goodell was doing an "excellent" job handling the situation.
At the same time, Gammons' affection for the Red Sox is hardly a secret. Granted, he's lived his entire life in Massachusetts and covered the Red Sox for the Globe, but it's a little hypocritical from him to call out someone else for rooting from the press box, even in the conspicuous way the Boston media grovels to the Patriots these days.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM9cdI43sfc

The Pro Bowl is a joke. I get it. And there's a part of me that maybe might respect the Patriots' players flipping the bird to Goddell, if they've convinced themselves that he really does have a vendetta against their team. And some of them may be legitimately banged up. But the kicker?? Key-rist. Take the free trip to Honolulu. Otherwise, this boycott or whatever it is smacks of a we're-too-good-for-meaningless-games mentality that makes them even more obnoxious.

Last edited by artie_fufkin (1/28/2016 2:28 pm)

As thrilled as I am to see Brady potentially miss a quarter of his age 38 season, I'm a little uncomfortable that the courts are working with the NFL.

Whoops, Brady will be 39 in August. 

forsberg_us wrote:

This was actually an easy case for the appellate court. It was more surprising that a district judge decided to turn into a fanboy and reverse the suspension in the first place.

There's about 60-70 years of Supreme Court precedent holding that when 2 parties collectively bargain for a dispute resolution process, the courts are supposed to butt out.

I read parts of the appellate court's decision. It could be summarized as "the CBA gave Goodell the authority to make this decision. Whether we agree is inconsequential."

 
If Brady wants to blame someone, he ought to point his finger at the folks in the players union who agreed to let the commissioner impose the discipline as part of the last collective bargaining agreement. It's really unimportant whether Brady knew the equipment guys let air out of the footballs, put helium in them or slathered them with mustard.
The appellate court's decision - as Judge Berman's should have been - was based on whether Goodell exceeded his authority.

forsberg_us wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

This was actually an easy case for the appellate court. It was more surprising that a district judge decided to turn into a fanboy and reverse the suspension in the first place.

There's about 60-70 years of Supreme Court precedent holding that when 2 parties collectively bargain for a dispute resolution process, the courts are supposed to butt out.

I read parts of the appellate court's decision. It could be summarized as "the CBA gave Goodell the authority to make this decision. Whether we agree is inconsequential."

 
If Brady wants to blame someone, he ought to point his finger at the folks in the players union who agreed to let the commissioner impose the discipline as part of the last collective bargaining agreement. It's really unimportant whether Brady knew the equipment guys let air out of the footballs, put helium in them or slathered them with mustard.
The appellate court's decision - as Judge Berman's should have been - was based on whether Goodell exceeded his authority.

Bingo.

I've personally arbitrated about 3 dozen cases, and I've probably been involved in some capacity in 50 others. Fortunately, we've won more than we've lost, but in all those cases--win or lose--only one of them was ever appealed to a federal court. Way, way more often than not it's a waste of time and money.

 
Brady's Boyfriends here are convinced he'll appeal, even if he has to go to the Supreme Court. They think if he accepts the suspension or even a deal, he's admitting guilt, and the ballwashers can't comprehend the thought of their boy's legacy being tarnished. Of course, it's too late. The third paragraph of his obituary will reference deflated footballs.
I don't understand the logic behind the notion Goodell will reduce the suspension, which was a popular assumption today. Goodell has no incentive to budge. Brady was at least uncooperative, if not obstructive, with the investigation, and the team's owner hasn't done him any favors.

"Neither an en banc 2nd Circuit"

"En banc" is my new favorite term.
The BBs are clinging to the notion they have a shot with the entire court since the chief judge wrote the dissenting opinion. WEEI had a legal expert from Texas on this morning who said there's a 1 percent chance of the Second Circuit hearing the appeal, and less than a 1 percent chance of it ending up with SCOTUS. The legal expert was then summarily dismissed as an ambulance chaser.
The best theory I've heard is the one espoused on the radio this morning by a caller from Western Massachusetts - our version of Arkansas - who said Goodell and Kraft are Illuminati who are using Brady as a blood sacrifice. Hogwash, I say. Everyone knows the Illuminati won't reveal themselves until their supreme ruler - Richard Simmons - goes tits up.

"this isn't a matter of exceptional importance"

HEY AHHS-HOLE, WHUT COOD BE MOW-AH IMPAUTENT THEN TAUMMY MISSIN' THE FIRST FO-WUH GAMES UH THE REGULAH SEASIN??? AND THEHS TWO DIVISHIN GAMES IN THEH-UH, SHIT FUH BRAINS!!