noname2200 said:
I wouldn't read that far into it. While it does seem that the judge is leaning against the NFL, the volume of the questions is due in large part to the volume of arguments each side has. Specifically, the NFL is relying on a single, powerful, broad, and by now well-established rule regarding arbitration. Brady has had to be more creative in his arguments as a result. While the NFL does appear to have made a large error in the arbitration process, it's unclear whether that error is fatal: I've seen cases where far worse errors were made, against parties with far less bargaining power to boot, where the decision was nevertheless upheld. I've also been a part of cases where one party was grilled much worse than this, and still won on some or all grounds, including a baffling case recently where our side was crusing during all of oral arguments and still lost on all points. Long story short, don't read too deeply into it. |
Much as I'd love to agree with the sentiment that Brady's assured of getting off, it's way too early to be popping champagne (or typing angry messages on ESPN comment sections, depending who you are). The judge has been arguably more pointed with his questions towards the NFL, but that simply means that he wants more clarification on their arguments. As noname said, you can't read too deeply into it.
With that said, even if the 4 game suspension was upheld, I still don't think the Patriots will be in that bad of a position. Garopollo looked iffy in one preseason game without half of the starting offensive line, Gronkowski, Edelman, or just about any other receiver who plays a significant amount. He'll be fine if he's needed when the regular season rolls around. If the Patriots can go 11-5 with Matt Cassel playing the entire season, something tells me they'll be able to withstand losing Brady for just four games.
