At Least He Isn't Accused of Using Underinflated Footballs

[Rick N. Backer]

Because then it would be a big deal. Can you imagine if he traded in his cell phone too? It gives me shivers just thinking about it.

 

http://deadspin.com/private-eyes-spook-parents-of-manning-hgh-accuser-in-91-1757224765

[Ancient Ways]

I prefer this article

http://deadspin.com/a-broncos-pass-rusher-tried-to-rub-his-dong-and-balls-i-1755221723?utm_source=taboola

[laughedatbytime]

http://deadspin.com/rob-gronkowski-grinds-on-fox-sports-anchor-1757159650?utm_source=taboola

[laughedatbytime]

Because then it would be a big deal. Can you imagine if he traded in his cell phone too? It gives me shivers just thinking about it.

 

http://deadspin.com/private-eyes-spook-parents-of-manning-hgh-accuser-in-91-1757224765

This makes Brady not guilty how?

[Rick N. Backer]

Because then it would be a big deal. Can you imagine if he traded in his cell phone too? It gives me shivers just thinking about it.

 

http://deadspin.com/...n-91-1757224765

This makes Brady not guilty how?

 

Because when a petitioner (Brady) overturns an arbitration award in court, in a proceeding in which the respondent (the NFL) is entitled to win EVEN IF the arbitrator (Goodell) makes LEGAL or FACTUAL errors, due to the court's finding that arbitrator (Goodell) engaged in misconduct, fair minded people would not suggest the underlying arbitration award is valid. When the arbitrator (Goodell) is also the person who's decision (that Brady cheated and should be suspended a quarter of the season) was also the subject of arbitration itself, fair minded people would not suggest the original decision is worthy of deference.

 

But the point is that Manning may have used HGH after recovering from a neck injury, and later, and then apparently sent goons to the home of his accuser's parents to shut his accuser up. One goon apparently told the parents, falsely, he was a cop. And not a peep out of the likes of you.

 

Tell me how you don't love Trump.

[Maverick]

It's too bad Saggy Balls couldn't beat Noodle Arm a couple of weeks ago. Well, too bad for you.

[Maverick]

Tom Brady sure loves losing big games to guys named Manning.

[Amps211]

I wonder what the Deflator is up to these days?

[Rick N. Backer]

It's too bad Saggy Balls couldn't beat Noodle Arm a couple of weeks ago. Well, too bad for you.

 

Yeah. Very disappointing.

 

Boy that RG3 sure is exciting, huh?

[Rick N. Backer]

I wonder what the Deflator is up to these days?

 

Shame about the Colts this year.

[Maverick]

It's too bad Saggy Balls couldn't beat Noodle Arm a couple of weeks ago. Well, too bad for you.

 

Yeah. Very disappointing.

 

Boy that RG3 sure is exciting, huh?

 

You think that's a zing? I've been over him for two years.

 

To quote Jay Gruden, "It's Kirk's team."

 

YOU LIKE THAT!

[Rick N. Backer]

It's too bad Saggy Balls couldn't beat Noodle Arm a couple of weeks ago. Well, too bad for you.

 

Yeah. Very disappointing.

 

Boy that RG3 sure is exciting, huh?

 

You think that's a zing? I've been over him for two years.

 

To quote Jay Gruden, "It's Kirk's team."

 

YOU LIKE THAT!

 

No. I just think it's funny how much energy was invested in a guy so recently who is basically all done. By a team that's been at best mediocre for a really long time.

[laughedatbytime]

It's too bad Saggy Balls couldn't beat Noodle Arm a couple of weeks ago. Well, too bad for you.

 

Yeah. Very disappointing.

 

Boy that RG3 sure is exciting, huh?

 

You think that's a zing? I've been over him for two years.

 

To quote Jay Gruden, "It's Kirk's team."

 

YOU LIKE THAT!

 

No. I just think it's funny how much energy was invested in a guy so recently who is basically all done. By a team that's been at best mediocre for a really long time.

RG III just didn't have the "support" from management that certain people have had. You know, putting him in an advantageous environment.

 

By the way, when you say investment I assume you mean first round picks. So you're probably right...first round picks are a small price to pay for putting the conditions in place for your opponent to hand you a Super Bowl with the worst called play of all time. (Well, maybe with the exception of having a snapper and taker of the snap line up on 4th down. And maybe Jim Zorn would disagree. So I should probably say, "worst play call in a post season game.")

[laughedatbytime]

Because then it would be a big deal. Can you imagine if he traded in his cell phone too? It gives me shivers just thinking about it.

 

http://deadspin.com/...n-91-1757224765

This makes Brady not guilty how?

 

Because when a petitioner (Brady) overturns an arbitration award in court, in a proceeding in which the respondent (the NFL) is entitled to win EVEN IF the arbitrator (Goodell) makes LEGAL or FACTUAL errors, due to the court's finding that arbitrator (Goodell) engaged in misconduct, fair minded people would not suggest the underlying arbitration award is valid. When the arbitrator (Goodell) is also the person who's decision (that Brady cheated and should be suspended a quarter of the season) was also the subject of arbitration itself, fair minded people would not suggest the original decision is worthy of deference.

 

But the point is that Manning may have used HGH after recovering from a neck injury, and later, and then apparently sent goons to the home of his accuser's parents to shut his accuser up. One goon apparently told the parents, falsely, he was a cop. And not a peep out of the likes of you.

 

Tell me how you don't love Trump.

Let's get the minor points out of the way first.

 

TB12 has enough love for Trump for all of us. They're both winners after all.

 

This thread isn't about Manning, at its core (as none of your threads or references to him are; they're about Gisele's husband) so why would I talk about him here. When someone starts a thread about Manning, I'll address it.

 

As a pedant, I do need to point out that there is a difference between "who's" and "whose". One would expect someone who makes his living with parsing language (and exhibiting obsequious obeisance to judges...I understand, it's part of the job, and your commitment to your craft doesn't appear to end at the courthouse door, which is to be admired, I guess) to know this.

 

As far as deference goes, I don't think you should be the one who is the arbiter of what should be deferred to, since excessive deference is just as harmful as a lack of same. The fact that someone brought up the outcome of the AFC Championship game as if it had any bearing to the subject of whether or not parties acted in a manner outside established rules may not be as harmful to the fabric of our society, as, say, rulings that growing wheat for one's own consumption is interstate commerce, rights are conveniently found (or not, depending on whether one favors them or not) in "emanations" and "penumbras" of the Bill of Rights, or that "separate but equal" is a "thing", but it's something that it would be worthwhile not to worship just because your guy (temporarily, in all likelihood) got away with something.

[Maverick]

Oh you two!

[laughedatbytime]

Oh you two!

Hey, it makes for a nice break from laughing at the Redskins and the rest of the NFC East.

[Maverick]

The only way these two stories are similar is if Brady had his balls deflated for Gisele's personal use.

[Maverick]

Oh you two!

Hey, it makes for a nice break from laughing at the Redskins and the rest of the NFC East.

 

I like how you had to throw in the rest of the NFC East to provide cover for your sorry-ass team.

[Amps211]

I wonder what the Deflator is up to these days?

 

Shame about the Colts this year.

 

the colts are sucking for sure ...I'm a vikings fan ... LACES OUT !!!

[The Analog Cub]

Oh you two!

 

They really ought to be married by now.

[laughedatbytime]

Oh you two!

 

They really ought to be married by now.

Why would anyone marry someone with such a cavalier attitude toward cheating?

[Rick N. Backer]

Because then it would be a big deal. Can you imagine if he traded in his cell phone too? It gives me shivers just thinking about it.

 

http://deadspin.com/...n-91-1757224765

This makes Brady not guilty how?

 

Because when a petitioner (Brady) overturns an arbitration award in court, in a proceeding in which the respondent (the NFL) is entitled to win EVEN IF the arbitrator (Goodell) makes LEGAL or FACTUAL errors, due to the court's finding that arbitrator (Goodell) engaged in misconduct, fair minded people would not suggest the underlying arbitration award is valid. When the arbitrator (Goodell) is also the person who's decision (that Brady cheated and should be suspended a quarter of the season) was also the subject of arbitration itself, fair minded people would not suggest the original decision is worthy of deference.

 

But the point is that Manning may have used HGH after recovering from a neck injury, and later, and then apparently sent goons to the home of his accuser's parents to shut his accuser up. One goon apparently told the parents, falsely, he was a cop. And not a peep out of the likes of you.

 

Tell me how you don't love Trump.

Let's get the minor points out of the way first.

 

TB12 has enough love for Trump for all of us. They're both winners after all.

 

This thread isn't about Manning, at its core (as none of your threads or references to him are; they're about Gisele's husband) so why would I talk about him here. When someone starts a thread about Manning, I'll address it.

 

As a pedant, I do need to point out that there is a difference between "who's" and "whose". One would expect someone who makes his living with parsing language (and exhibiting obsequious obeisance to judges...I understand, it's part of the job, and your commitment to your craft doesn't appear to end at the courthouse door, which is to be admired, I guess) to know this.

 

As far as deference goes, I don't think you should be the one who is the arbiter of what should be deferred to, since excessive deference is just as harmful as a lack of same. The fact that someone brought up the outcome of the AFC Championship game as if it had any bearing to the subject of whether or not parties acted in a manner outside established rules may not be as harmful to the fabric of our society, as, say, rulings that growing wheat for one's own consumption is interstate commerce, rights are conveniently found (or not, depending on whether one favors them or not) in "emanations" and "penumbras" of the Bill of Rights, or that "separate but equal" is a "thing", but it's something that it would be worthwhile not to worship just because your guy (temporarily, in all likelihood) got away with something.

 

This thread isn't about Manning? Did you read the article?

[JohnRogers]

What is good is having wealth if you can't send hired goons to intimidate someone???

[laughedatbytime]

Because then it would be a big deal. Can you imagine if he traded in his cell phone too? It gives me shivers just thinking about it.

 

http://deadspin.com/...n-91-1757224765

This makes Brady not guilty how?

 

Because when a petitioner (Brady) overturns an arbitration award in court, in a proceeding in which the respondent (the NFL) is entitled to win EVEN IF the arbitrator (Goodell) makes LEGAL or FACTUAL errors, due to the court's finding that arbitrator (Goodell) engaged in misconduct, fair minded people would not suggest the underlying arbitration award is valid. When the arbitrator (Goodell) is also the person who's decision (that Brady cheated and should be suspended a quarter of the season) was also the subject of arbitration itself, fair minded people would not suggest the original decision is worthy of deference.

 

But the point is that Manning may have used HGH after recovering from a neck injury, and later, and then apparently sent goons to the home of his accuser's parents to shut his accuser up. One goon apparently told the parents, falsely, he was a cop. And not a peep out of the likes of you.

 

Tell me how you don't love Trump.

Let's get the minor points out of the way first.

 

TB12 has enough love for Trump for all of us. They're both winners after all.

 

This thread isn't about Manning, at its core (as none of your threads or references to him are; they're about Gisele's husband) so why would I talk about him here. When someone starts a thread about Manning, I'll address it.

 

As a pedant, I do need to point out that there is a difference between "who's" and "whose". One would expect someone who makes his living with parsing language (and exhibiting obsequious obeisance to judges...I understand, it's part of the job, and your commitment to your craft doesn't appear to end at the courthouse door, which is to be admired, I guess) to know this.

 

As far as deference goes, I don't think you should be the one who is the arbiter of what should be deferred to, since excessive deference is just as harmful as a lack of same. The fact that someone brought up the outcome of the AFC Championship game as if it had any bearing to the subject of whether or not parties acted in a manner outside established rules may not be as harmful to the fabric of our society, as, say, rulings that growing wheat for one's own consumption is interstate commerce, rights are conveniently found (or not, depending on whether one favors them or not) in "emanations" and "penumbras" of the Bill of Rights, or that "separate but equal" is a "thing", but it's something that it would be worthwhile not to worship just because your guy (temporarily, in all likelihood) got away with something.

 

This thread isn't about Manning? Did you read the article?

The thread title made it perfectly clear what it was about. Didn't matter if it was about Manning, Tannehill, or Bobby Hoying. Just as long as it wasn't about your hero.

[Rick N. Backer]

Because then it would be a big deal. Can you imagine if he traded in his cell phone too? It gives me shivers just thinking about it.

 

http://deadspin.com/...n-91-1757224765

This makes Brady not guilty how?

 

Because when a petitioner (Brady) overturns an arbitration award in court, in a proceeding in which the respondent (the NFL) is entitled to win EVEN IF the arbitrator (Goodell) makes LEGAL or FACTUAL errors, due to the court's finding that arbitrator (Goodell) engaged in misconduct, fair minded people would not suggest the underlying arbitration award is valid. When the arbitrator (Goodell) is also the person who's decision (that Brady cheated and should be suspended a quarter of the season) was also the subject of arbitration itself, fair minded people would not suggest the original decision is worthy of deference.

 

But the point is that Manning may have used HGH after recovering from a neck injury, and later, and then apparently sent goons to the home of his accuser's parents to shut his accuser up. One goon apparently told the parents, falsely, he was a cop. And not a peep out of the likes of you.

 

Tell me how you don't love Trump.

Let's get the minor points out of the way first.

 

TB12 has enough love for Trump for all of us. They're both winners after all.

 

This thread isn't about Manning, at its core (as none of your threads or references to him are; they're about Gisele's husband) so why would I talk about him here. When someone starts a thread about Manning, I'll address it.

 

As a pedant, I do need to point out that there is a difference between "who's" and "whose". One would expect someone who makes his living with parsing language (and exhibiting obsequious obeisance to judges...I understand, it's part of the job, and your commitment to your craft doesn't appear to end at the courthouse door, which is to be admired, I guess) to know this.

 

As far as deference goes, I don't think you should be the one who is the arbiter of what should be deferred to, since excessive deference is just as harmful as a lack of same. The fact that someone brought up the outcome of the AFC Championship game as if it had any bearing to the subject of whether or not parties acted in a manner outside established rules may not be as harmful to the fabric of our society, as, say, rulings that growing wheat for one's own consumption is interstate commerce, rights are conveniently found (or not, depending on whether one favors them or not) in "emanations" and "penumbras" of the Bill of Rights, or that "separate but equal" is a "thing", but it's something that it would be worthwhile not to worship just because your guy (temporarily, in all likelihood) got away with something.

 

This thread isn't about Manning? Did you read the article?

The thread title made it perfectly clear what it was about. Didn't matter if it was about Manning, Tannehill, or Bobby Hoying. Just as long as it wasn't about your hero.

 

So, yes or no. Did you read the article? Because the thread title and my OP didn't mention Brady.

 

Why would I start a thread about Tannehill? He stinks. His team does too. His team has, in fact, stunk for the better part of 20 years.